Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

Only the “straw man” argues all questions make a creed. The issue is: despite undoubted good intentions by the writer, does “the 28,” with accompanying letter, have the elements of a creed.

I did not “request” this exchange, as reported in Ron’s letter to Gospel Truths, April issue. His offer to make correction in that paper is appreciated, but I should speak for myself. In October ’93 I sent the G.O.T. editor an objective article on creeds (no reference to church, person or “the 28”), but saying the Bible was an adequate test for othodoxy. He would only publish it side-by-side with an article (not Ron’s) that was filled with innuendo, questioning of motives, “playing the martyr,” “problem of ego,” “something to hide.” We needed teaching, not character bashing. Then Mike suggested brother Halbrook as the other writer. In a conference call (with Mike and Ron) I pled for objective articles, written at the same time rather than as rebuttal, but they would not accept that. So, I said do it your own way: two articles each, five pages, double spaced.

Brother Halbrook did a great job of proving elders should beware of false teachers (Acts 20:28-32), feed the flock (1 Pet. 5:1-4), try the spirits (with words of inspired men, I might add; 1 In. 4:1-6), and the like; but those things are not the issue. We are discussing creedalistic tendencies, and before one can label or deny anything to be “creedalistic,” the meaning of “creed” or “creedal” must be established. Reread sources quoted in my first article.

Brother Halbrook says there is Bible authority for asking questions. I know of none who doubt it. There is also Bible authority for writing what one believes  Paul’s letters, for example. But these are straw men. Stating what one believes, or the mere fact that “the 28” are questions does not make them creedal. But add: (1) these questions duplicated as a unit, (2) sent to 19 or more men, including men believed to be sound, (3) used to prove recipients “walk in the old paths of divine revelation,” and then (4) adopt the attitude that “men who are drifting would resent and would refuse . . .” and we have a case. I am aware that Ron explains this as having to do only “on the subjects specified.” He fails to see that this specifying of a few subjects for such a job is the essence of creedalism. Passages cited as “authority” for the “28” (Acts 20;28-32; 1 Pet. 3:15; 5:1-4; 1 In. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9-11) do not justify whatwas done. Each calls for testing by the total inspired message (art. 1, par. 11).

Important distinctions must be made between what is recorded in the N.T., and what Ron defends today. Paul said “the Spirit speaketh . . .” regarding forbidding to marry, etc. (1 Tim. 4:1-3). These inspired statements were a part of the whole truth being gradually revealed at that time. He was not authorizing a selection of a few special interest items to be used to test for soundness. Regarding 1 Corinthians, surely Ron does not think Paul sent a list of questions, such as: (1) Do you have too much confidence in preachers? (2) Do you live in adultery? etc., in order to test Corinthian orthodoxy. Instead, he gave inspired teaching on these subjects to add to the whole truth. We are to use the total truth, not a creed derived from it, to test others. Neither denominational beliefs, nor yours, nor mine, make an adequate standard for testing preachers.

Debate questions, duplicated and sent as standards to test the orthodoxy of preachers you support, would be equally inadequate.

Brother Halbrook did the writing of the “28”  and “they reflect” his special interests. Now so far as I can determine, I agree with Ron’s conclusions about marraige and divorce, but passing that and the other test questions would not guarantee my soundness. Ron’s views cannot test my soundness  it is subject only to God’s inspired word as a whole. But he says creeds “claim to be” creeds, and his questions do not so “claim.” If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… Ron has yet to recognize the essence of creedalism.

He says the “28” is a “judgment call,” because some have voiced unsound views recently. Before the “28”  how did they know these men were unsound? What guarantee have we that signers of the “28” will remain sound? Ron puts the “28” in the realm of Romans 14. Do all human “tests” (per se) fit in Romans 14? Although most have errors (nor are the “28” inspired) we have already shown the list may be true and still be a creed (definitions, in my first article).

My advice regarding selecting preachers? Treat each man individually, seek references from others you trust, watch for good character traits, ask questions growing out of investigation, remember God’s rule applies to all alike (2 Cor. 10:13). Knowing your own “beliefs” are subject to error, seek a man who, like yourself, is willing to measure and remeasure his beliefs by the total truth. You cannot know his heart, nor even all his concepts; but look for evidence of a soul hungry man who puts God service above himself.

Then, a surprising statement. We are told variations in interpreting a question, lack of agreement on every aspect of a subject, or “preference of another format for stating his stand” do not terminate support. Sounds good, but did not the elders’ letter say “men who are drifting” would resent and refuse to answer the “28”? Written statements of others who approve of this project are far more bitter about all who disapprove, leaving no room for honest doubt about the procedure. This is a typical result of sectarian and creedal attitude, and we urge that it not be encouraged.

Ron selects six doctrines, scattered through 1 and 2 Timothy, acknowledges they are “less than the whole truth,” then says, “It could be said, `Men who are drifting would resent and would refuse to answer these six simple questions. ‘ Of course they were not questions in the first place, each had its own context, and were but part of the process of divine revelation of truth. Can you see Paul sending out six questions to Timothy to test his orthodoxy?

But delving deeper into the history of creeds we will see that creedalism and sectarianism go hand in hand. Rereading the quotes in my first article you will see that the creedal mind selects certain parts of the total revelation, rallies its followers around these parts, thus creating a distinctive “sect.” The dictionary suggests having in common a leader or a distinctive doctrine or way of thinking, i.e., distinct because only a part of total revelation.

The Greek hairesis (translated “heresy, sect”) has an interesting background. Its early meaning was “choose,” and for a time was “kin” to eunoia (favor, good will). But this “choosing” developed in a bad sense to mean “factiousness” (Moulton and Milligan). So, a “sect” of the Jews was a party rallied around their distinctive “I believes” (Pharisees, Herodians, etc.), and early followers of Christ were once thought of as a “sect of the Nazarenes” (cf. Acts 24:5,14). Ron and I both know that truth Christians rally around Christ, meaning the total teaching of Christ. I am satisfied Ron and his elders did not intend to do otherwise.

But the history of creeds shows that when limited doctrines are set forth in some special form, a list of “I believes,” whether stated declaratively or interrogatively, they encourage strife, build party lines, discourage the balance attained by looking to the Scriptures alone as our standard. Can anyone doubt that “the 28” places emphasis upon certain portions of the total doctrine of Christ, tests for “drifting” from these particulars, and has caused exactly the kind of friction, impugning of motives, etc., we have come to expect of creeds. With no personal animosity, fully believing in the writers’ good intentions, it should be clear that “the 28,” while an honest mistake, shows creedal tendencies.

Finally, Ron and I, and all of us, face a common problem. Fellowship is based upon the “doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9-10), and that must mean what we believe is his doctrine. In seeking to teach others we explain the N.T. as we believe it to be . . . what else can we do? But here we face a critical point. We must not build their faith on our beliefs, but strive to “sanctify the Lord God” in their hearts, so that they build their own faith from his teaching. We are asked, “What does the church of Christ teach on divorce?” I reply, “The church is not the source of any teaching. God’s word says . . .” I have no right to set forth my beliefs as the standard for others. What the Holy Spirit wrote is completely adequate for that. My own beliefs must be constantly subject to testing by that rule.

I am well aware that certain “issues” arise, needing special attention. I appreciate and applaud men, including brother Halbrook, who make the necessary study, and preach God’s word on these matters. For several years in the fifties I left home, family and guaranteed support, to try and meet the special need of that day. But I also know that balance is necessary. It was wrong then to conclude a church was “sound in the faith” merely because it did not support sponsoring elders or orphan homes. If any made such claim, liberal brethren were right in saying those “issues” had become their creed. A church, and a preacher, must be measured by much more than what they believe about some special problem, important though it may be.

Ron and the elders should be appreciated for their concern about sound teaching. I pray this study regarding sound methods of concern will help much, and hinder none, of like concerns in the future.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 20-21
June 2, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

Every passage instructing elders to guard the church authorizes them to ask questions by generic authority, just as the elders here did (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Their questions are no more creedalistic than literature nor sectarian than classes. Every passage instructing the church to proclaim the gospel authorizes literature and classes by generic authority (1 Thess. 1:7-8; 1 Tim. 3:14-15). They are lawful and expedient. Questions, literature, and classes can be abused in creedalistic, sectarian ways, but such is not the practice of brethren. The charge is made but proof is lacking. Brother Turner, the elders, and I agree on literature and classes, and are very close on questions. We agree expediencies are authorized but not specified.

We all agree “there is Bible authority for asking questions” and giving Bible answers in Acts 20:28-32, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 1 Timothy 4:1-3, 1 John 4:1-6, Acts 15:2,7, and 1 Peter 3:15 ” none . . . doubt it.” The elders here acted on that authority. “Try the spirits” (1 Jn. 4:1). Try means “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize” (Thayer). Brother Turner agrees these texts and terms authorize questions but disagrees with our elders only on the method. We cannot be far apart.

Brother Turner grants (1) the “content” of the questions is biblical, (2) he could give Bible “answers” to each, and (3) the format of 28 “questions does not make them creedal.” What are his objections? (1-2) They were “duplicated” and “sent to” all the men we support. “Try the spirits” applies to all who teach, but when and how are expediencies. The cover letter explained,

With all 19 (sic, 21) men responding, it will be obvious that no one is suspect or singled out and no one is excepted or left out. We have known some of you for years and never met others, but we know none of you wants us to leave the impression that we “think of men above that which is written” in any case (1 Cor. 4:6).

Two reasons were given for this even-handed effort. Error is affecting men “whom we have all known and loved”; no one is exempt from this danger. The elders wanted “to educate brethren here about such dangers” and demonstrate their determination to do “everything possible to guard against such dangers.” They expected this process to “confirm” that “every” man we support upholds truth on these dangers.

Brother Turner fears it is creedal to question except when we suspect error, but if the question is a human creed in one case, it is in another. A human creed is an “authoritative doctrinal formula” conceived by man  not a Bible question, no matter who asks or answers the question! Questions asked of both sound and unsound men, even when the querist knows the answer and expects to receive that answer, may demonstrate or confirm a point (Gen. 3:9; Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:11-13; 24:1-3; Matt. 21:24-25; Lk. 7:42-43; 10:36-37; Jn. 21:15; Acts 26:27; 1 Cor. 9:1-14; Gal. 2:1-10; 3:1-5; 4:16). When Paul met other Apostles “in conference,” this interview “added nothing” but con-firmed the unity of the apostolic message as the Apostles prepared to debate false teachers. Questions exchanged in the debate helped to expose error (Gal. 2:1-10; Acts 15:7). Questions can expose error or confirm and demonstrate unity in the truth without creedal tendencies.

Brother Turner objects (3) that the questions are used to help determine whether men “walk in the old paths” “on the subjects specified”  we should test “by the total inspired message.” Human creeds, sects, heresies, and factions are built on “only a part of total revelation … true Christians rally around Christ, meaning the total teaching of Christ.” The 6 issues specified in 1-2 Timothy and the 11 in 1 Corinthians are only “part of the whole truth,” but we should test by “the total truth.” We agree 100% on all this! Our elders asked questions within the context of total truth. To test by the total truth includes testing at any point of departure from truth because any sin or digression endangers the total truth (Jn. 16:13; 1 Jn. 3:4; Jas. 2:1-13, v. 10; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-19). Specific issues and questions must be considered if we are to maintain all truth.

How can elders asking about specific points be interpreted as reducing soundness and truth to those few points in a creedal way when the question sheet itself forcefully repudiates such a tendency?! “Our purpose is not to create a creed . . . the New Testament itself reveals the pattern of sound words, and we can neither add to it nor subtract from it. Neither do we consider this list final or exhaustive.” We recognized and repudiated “the essence of creedalism.”

Brother Turner objects (4) to saying “men who are drifting would resent and would refuse to answer these simple Bible questions, but men who uphold the truth are always glad to `give an answer’ speaking `as the oracles of God’ on any Bible subject (1 Pet. 3:15; 4:11).” When Jesus asked questions, the Jews resented it and refused to answer, being “filled with madness” and communing “one with another what they might do to Jesus” (Matt. 21:23-27; 22:46; Lk. 6:6-11).Edward Fudge, Charles Holt, and others who drifted reacted similarly to Bible questions. Jesus refused to answer when asked to cast pearls before swine, but otherwise answered  as the Apostles did and taught us to do (Matt. 7:6; 26:67-68; Lk. 23:9; Acts 15:2,7; 1 Pet. 3:15). No one is above question no matter what his stature (1 Cor. 4:6).

If one felt he had a reason not to answer, or wanted to state his views in another way, the elders left the door open on the question sheet for explanation and discussion. This permits differences of judgment on format or wording. The elders cancelled no one’s support or meeting (but one cancelled us over our protest just for asking). That not only “sounds good,” it is the truth! Not even a slight creedal tendency is present.

Do the questions reflect my “special interests”? No, they reflect a decade of discussions with the elders on better ways to review our work. Others share such concerns as the elders noted: “These are questions which are commonly discussed among brethren from time to time.”

Brother Turner’s advice on “selecting preachers” is the process our elders use. Reflecting on past experiences and recent issues, they simply found a more effective way to “ask questions.” The questions were submitted to eachman because the truths covered apply “to all alike.” The elders thought anyone “willing to measure and remeasure his beliefs by the total truth” would be glad to answer any Bible question within the context of the total truth. If Turner’s advice is taken without written questions, it too will be (1-2) “duplicated” and applied alike to all, (3) used to judge whether men “walk in the old paths,” and (4) resented by “men who are drifting.” Does Turner’s advice walk and quack “like a duck”? Do oaks grow from this acorn?

What will happen when brother Turner’s process casts doubts on someone’s soundness? The suspect will charge that unfavorable reports “from others you trust” are ungodly gossip by men who bite and devour.He will resent the “questions growing out of investigation” as human creeds (citing Schaff, Rice, Apostles’ Creed). When Turner explains the difference between Bible questions and human creeds, he will be met with charges of straw men, walking and quacking like a duck, the essence of creedalism, impugning motives, causing friction, creating sects, and ignoring the totality of truth. As brother Turner would answer his critics, so I answer his criticisms. The passages and principles he would cite are the very ones I cite. As he would try to balance truth and love, so I try. That is how close we are.

Should we omit literature, classes, and written questions to satisfy objectors? The path to peace on expediencies is clear: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth” (Rom. 14:3). “None . . . doubt” we may ask questions; the format is a judgment made by each autonomous church.

Brother Turner and I end with love for each other and truth, ready to resist the rising tide of compromise on divorce, fellowship, and all error (1 Pet. 1:22; Eph. 4:14-15). “We be brethren,” testing the best methods to uphold truth and oppose error (Gen. 13:8; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Objections

1. Questions test of doctrinal conformity.

2. It is a standard more, less, and other than the Bible.

3. It is a creed.

4. Sent to men whose soundness was known.

5. It is divisive.

6. Fellowship hinges on how one answers the questions.

7. It is a standard for ministerial qualifications.

8. 28 questions were duplicated.

9. Sent to 21 men.

10.Questions are used by other churches.

Answer

1. “The questions . . . to clarify what you believe Bible teaches on a number of matters.”

2. “The New Testament itself reveals the pattern of sound words, and we can neither add to it nor subtract from it.”

3. “Our purpose … not to create a creed . . . we recognize that the New Testament . reveals the pattern of sound words . . . we can neither add to it nor subtract from it.”

4. “It will be obvious that no one is singled out . . . no one is left out.” (Where is Bible rule: ask suspects only?)

5. Reason to divide is departure from truth (2 Jn. 9-11). None cancelled for not answering. Offered to pay expenses to discuss objections. We do not cause division by asking what a person teaches (1 Jn. 4:1,6).

6. Fellowship hangs on whether one teaches pattern of sound words. The questions focus on what one says Bible teaches, what doctrine he brings (2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Jn. 9-11).

7. The Bible is the standard for worthiness of man for support. The questions focus on doctrine a man brings (2 Tim. 3:16-4:5).

8. Would oral questions be okay, or uncopied written ones? (What passage gives the rule?)

9. At what number is it a sin? (passages?)

10.If only one church used them, are they a creed? Two? Each church decides when, how to ask (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Jn. 4:1).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 22-23
June 2, 1994

By Steven Deaton

Today it seems like there are a million “causes.” Save the whales, save the earth, “Just Say No,” conservativism, and so on. While none of these in and of itself is wrong, it can endanger our soul’s eternal life.

How? When we put more energy, time, thought, and devotion into them, than into the only true, righteous cause  the cause of Christ!

It is true that we, as Christians, are to teach, preach, defend, yea, even go on the offensive for what is right and true (Jude 3). But when one of the above mentioned becomes our focal point in life, it is sinful.

Some of you may have heard of Rush Limbaugh. He is a conservative radio and TV talk show host. He has many good comments, points and arguments for the “cause” of conservativism, as related to the American political system. I used to listen to him and enjoyed his candid comments. He gives insightful analysis into many important topics. It is sad, though, to see a Christian become more upset, energized, even on fire, at his show being taken off the air, than when confronted with false doctrine, attacked upon a religious point, or just simply urged to wield the sword of truth (Rev. 3:15). How sad, so sad.

I urge you to think about where your heart lies (Col. 3:2; 2 Cor. 13:5). How do you spend your “off ” time (2 Tim. 2:15)? Do you get excited about humanism, multi-culturalism, abortion? Be-fore someone says, “What’s wrong with getting excited about these issues? These are things we should fight against.” I agree! We must stand for what is right (1 Thess. 5:21), but we must not let anyone of these be our purpose in life! We are “charged” to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:1,2), thus saving souls by presenting the word and letting it “prick them in their heart” (Acts 2:37). If we spent as much time studying God’s word (Acts 17:11), refuting error (Gal. 2:11), and spreading the gospel (Rom. 1:16) in all its purity and simplicity, the rest of these problems would be taken care of, yea, maybe even extinguished!

We need to stand up and stop being slothful toward the true cause, stop misdirecting our energy and become a “living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1,2) for Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. This must be done in order to “overcome” (Rev. 21:7,8).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 15
June 2, 1994

By Larry Ray Halley

What does it mean to preach Moses? “For Moses .. . hath … them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day” (Acts 15:21). To read Moses’ writings is to “preach” Moses. The preaching of Moses is not limited to preaching about Moses’ life, his work, his person, his giving of the law. While the preaching of Moses includes those things, it is not restricted to them. Likewise, what does it mean to “preach Christ”? When we read and teach the New Testament, we are preaching Christ. The preaching of Christ is not limited to his life, his work, his person or his death. It includes those items, but it is not restricted to them, for Paul said, “the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). To preach the Old Testament economy is to preach Moses. To preach the New Testament system is to preach Christ, “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17).

Every law and lamb of the Old Testament was ratified and sanctified by “the blood of calves and of goats” (Heb. 9). No matter how obscure the ordinance, it was “given by Moses” and sealed with “the blood of goats and calves” (Heb. 9). To preach it was to preach Moses. All grace and truth of the New Testament was ratified and sanctified by “the blood of Christ.” No matter how obscure the ordinance, it “came by Jesus Christ” and was signed, stamped and sealed with the blood of him who is the true “lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (in. 1:29; Heb. 10:29).

Imagine an ignorant Israelite who would say, “We need more preaching about Moses and the lambs and less about washings and the tabernacle.” Can you see how preposterous such a proposal would be? Were Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel ever told:

You are a great preacher of the truth, but we believe you have a misplaced emphasis. All you do is “rake the brethren over the coals.” You and your legalistic guardians of the party of the prophets are always preaching about corruptions of the organization and worship of the priests. You criticize every little thing that sincere brethren want to do in the temple. You challenge the scripturalness of some of our methods of work and worship. You threaten us with “negative” sermons which predict our overthrow because of our innovations.

Gentlemen, we are tired of hearing your exhortations about doing things “according to the pattern.” We need less preaching about the law and scriptural worship in the temple. We need to hear more positive preaching about the loving, life of our beloved Moses; we need more preaching about the precious blood of our sacrificial lambs. We want more preaching about the life of Moses and less about his law. We want less preaching about the qualifications of priests and the laws about an acceptable animal to be offered (no sick, lame, blind, etc.) and more preaching on the blood of the lamb itself.

If our modem situation is any example, the prophets surely heard such things as described above. If you can absolve the prophets of the imaginary charges above, you should have no problem in answering critics in the church today who make similar, parallel indictments. (See chart on next page.)

(In the last segment of this extended series, we discussed the first three points on the chart above. Hence, we begin here with the fourth section of the chart.)

4. 1 Corinthians 2:2; 4:15; 15:1-4 (Christ Grace); Acts 18:8;1 Corinthians 1:13; 12:13 (ChurchBaptism): Though it is not specifically stated that Paul preached “the grace of God” in Corinth, there can be no doubt that he did so (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1). Paul preached the cross; he preached nothing except “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 1:18; 2:2). While “the blood of Christ” is not attributed directly to the forgiveness of the Corinthians, there can be no doubt that it cleansed them (1 Cor. 15:3, 4; 2 Cor. 5:21; 8:9). Assuredly, all who would “preach Christ crucified” must preach grace through Christ our Lord! The Corinthians were “born again,” begotten by the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Pet. 1:23). Did the preaching that Paul did include or exclude preaching about baptism and the church?

What occurred when the Corinthians heard nothing except “Jesus Christ, and him crucified”? “And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). If all they heard were the facts of the death of Jesus on the cross, how did they know to be baptized? “Every one” of the Corinthians had been baptized (1 Cor. 1:12, 13; 12:13). How did they learn of this duty to be baptized? Remember that all that Paul preached was the gospel, so how did they know to be baptized when they heard what he preached? They knew to be baptized because the preaching of the gospel includes baptism.

How do we know the gospel includes baptism? “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15, 16). Shall we separate Mark 16:15 from Mark 16:16? The Corinthians were “baptized in the name of ” Christ (1 Cor. 1:13; 6:11). If all the Corinthians had heard was the story of the cross, how did they know to be “washed” or baptized in the name of Jesus Christ? They were taught it, that is how! But taught what? Namely, two things (1) “Neither is there salvation in any other (nameLRH): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). (2) “All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18, 19). The Corinthians, therefore, were taught that there is salvation only in the name of Jesus Christ and that they must be baptized into that name in order to be washed, cleansed, sanctified and justified by the grace of God and the blood of Christ.

Did the Corinthians hear any preaching about the church when they heard the preaching of the cross? Paul said they were “all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). That body is the church (Eph. 1:22, 23). They were baptized “into” the kingdom, the church (Col. 1:13; Jn. 3:3-5).

In Acts 18:27, the Spirit says that the Corinthians “believed through grace.” Those who believe and are baptized into the church of our Lord, are the ones who believe “through grace.” “Evangelical, fundamentalists” claim that they are leading men to Christ “through grace.” They are deceived. Men who “believed through grace” in the New Testament were men who had heard the gospel story of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. They were men who had “all” been “baptized into one body,” or church. The spirit of compromise wants to believe that the good-hearted, sweet-spirited people of denominational-ism are somehow recipients of redemption, though they have never been “washed” and “baptized into one body.” Our sorrow and sympathy for their delusion and damnation must never cause us to diminish the demands of the cross. Rather, it should, if we truly love and trust in God’s grace, cause us to press the terms of gospel obedience even more ardently in order that they, too, may truly believe “through grace.”

5. Acts 20:24 (ChristGrace); Acts 20:21,25,28 (Church Baptism): What did Paul preach in Ephesus? He told the elders of the church in Ephesus that his ministry was “to testify the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). He commended the church “to God, and the word of his grace” (Acts 20:32). Critics of the church today claim that we need more such preaching about “grace” and less about the church and baptism. We must determine the nature and content of “the word of his grace” if we want to know what it means to “preach the grace of God.” Undoubtedly, Paul preached “grace” in Ephesus. Of what did the preaching of grace consist? Undeniably, it chronicled the events concerning the cross of the Christ at Calvary (Eph. 1:7), but did it contain anything else?

First, “the word of his grace” had a “negative” edge to it. “Grace” condemned false religion ”Moreover ye see and hear … at Ephesus . . . this Paul hath persuaded much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands” (Acts 19:26). Some brethren contend that we are not preaching the grace of God when we confute and refute religious error. However, Paul was preaching “the word of his grace” when he said there “be no gods, which are made with hands.” Thus, if a gospel preacher today says that there “be no churches made with hands” (Martin Luther, John Wesley, Joseph Smith), he is preaching “the word of his grace.” The church and gospel preachers have been rebuked for not preaching “the grace of God” when they identify and expose the churches and doctrines of men. Such criticism shows that the critics do not know what it means to thoroughly and completely present the grace of God.

If controversy arises due to the condemnation of a denomination, some will say, “That is just like the Church of Christ; they are always running down other churches and saying they are the only true church.” Paul, in preaching “the word of his grace,” preached that there was only one true God. In preaching “the word of his grace,” one may preach that there is only one, true church. “But what if it offends people? What if it makes people mad? What if they `storm out’ and refuse to listen?” In Ephesus, many “were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude…. And the same time there arose no small stir about that way. . . . And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath and cried out” (Acts 19:9, 23, 28). What was “the uproar” in Ephesus all about (Acts 20:1)? It was all about Paul’s preaching of “the word of his grace.”

Are you hearing such preaching today? If not, you may be worshipping with the wrong church, or you may have the wrong preacher, or both.

Second, Paul preached the conditions of salvation as he preached “grace” in Ephesus. How do we know this? He preached “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21; Eph. 1:13). Paul preached water baptism in Ephesus. “When they (the Ephesians) heard this (“the gospel of the grace of God”), they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). What is baptism “in the name of the Lord Jesus” for? What is its purpose? Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). In preaching “grace,” Paul preached faith, repentance and baptism. How, then, can critics say, “We are not preaching God’s grace when we preach baptism”? The truth is that the critic either does not know what it means to preach the grace of God, or else he loves religious error and is ashamed of the truth. With the information above, the critic is without excuse. Now, he knows. If he remains critical, he exposes and condemns himself On. 3:19-21).

Third, Paul preached “the kingdom of God” in Ephesus (Acts 20:25). To preach the kingdom of God is to preach the name of Jesus Christ, his headship “over all things to the church” (Acts 8:12; Eph. 1:22, 23). The saved are translated “into” the kingdom (Col. 1:13). The Ephesians were reconciled “unto God in one body,” the church. The saints at Ephesus, the church, were sanctified and cleansed “with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). They were called “unto his kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2:12). “Unto him be glory in the church by Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:21). (A) The new birth, “ye must be born again,” (B) entrance “into” the kingdom by water baptism, (C) redemption and reconciliation by the blood in the church  all of these things were a part of Paul’s preaching of “grace” and “the kingdom of God” in Ephesus (Acts 19:5; Eph. 1:7; 2:16; 5:26). One is not “neglecting grace” when he preaches the kingdom of God and the things that “pertain” to the church of our Lord (Acts 8:12; 20:28).

Fourth, Paul preached redemption “through his blood” (Eph. 1:7). This redemption “purchased” the church of God (Acts 20:28). (A) Redemption by the blood was “in Christ” (Eph. 1:7; 2:13). Reconciliation was “in one body by the cross” (Eph. 2:16). Gentiles at Ephesus were “aliens” until they were “accepted in the Beloved,” in Christ, and “reconciled . . . in one body,” the church (Eph. 1:6; 2:12, 16). They were “strangers” (i.e., “aliens”) until they were “of the household (church) of God” (Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15). Therefore, Paul preached that one is not redeemed and reconciled unto God by the blood outside of the church. This is a part of what it means to preach “the gospel of the grace of God” and “the kingdom of God.” Do not be deceived by “despisers” who degrade such preaching. With feigned words they piously proclaim their love for grace while they deny the very words of grace in the New Testament. If one alters his preaching to suit his concept of grace, he will “fail of the grace of God” and do “despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29; 12:15).

6. Galatians 1:6 (ChristGrace); Galatians 3:26, 27 (ChurchBaptism): The churches of Galatia were “called into the grace of God” (Gal. 1:6). As such, they were called “unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:9), “called . . . to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3), “called . . . out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9), and “called . . . unto his kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2:12). Critics of the church of the Lord say that we should emphasize the calling of men “into the grace of God” and give less stress to calling men into the church, the kingdom. They say that we are preaching “ourselves” rather than preaching grace when we call men unto fellowship with us in the kingdom of God.

Those “called . . . out of darkness into his marvelous light” were “built up a spiritual house”; they were “the house of God” (1 Pet. 2:5; 4:17). What is the “spiritual house of God”? “The house of God . . . is the church of God” (1 Tim. 3:15). Thus, those “called” into God’s light and grace are called into his church and kingdom. If one is not calling men into the church, the kingdom, he is not calling them into the grace of Christ!

Jesus Christ had been “set forth” and “crucified among” them as Paul preached the word of the cross unto them (Gal.1:4; 3:1,13). By the faith, by the gospel, the Galatians had been called “into the grace of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-8). They were not justified by works of the law, but by faith in the faith of Jesus Christ (Gal. 2:16). The gospel is the faith (Gal. 1:8, 23). Sinners obey the truth, obey the gospel, obey the faith (1 Pet. 1:22; 2 Thess. 1:8; Acts 6:7). The Galatians had obeyed it (Gal. 5:7). What did that entail and include? “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For (the reason that you are now children of God by faith) as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27).

Paul saw no inconsistency with saying that men who were “called into the grace of Christ” were “baptized into Jesus Christ,” so why should we feel uncomfortable when we say the same thing? Paul gloried in nothing except “the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14). Still, he preached that men are called “into the grace of Christ” when they are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3,4, 17, 18). Any man who makes you feel uncomfortable when you preach the truth on water baptism is not an advocate of the grace of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 10, p. 19-22
May 19, 1994