Truth Magazine

By By Pat Donahue

Mr. Cockrell says that I tried to say in my last article that he believes “that a man is not obligated to hear the gospel and repent.” No, Mr. Cockrell, I did not say that you believed that. What I did say is that by your reasoning, both faith and repentance would be ruled out as necessary to salvation! Since you did not respond to this argument (which was one of my two primary responses to all but one of your proof texts), I will repeat the argument following: “Mr. Cockrell’s argument in his first article was basically: (1) salvation is predicated upon faith; (2) faith precedes baptism; (3) there-fore salvation precedes baptism. Now if this argument were true, then by the same reasoning, salvation could be shown to precede faith, and even repentance, therefore ruling out these two conditions as being necessary to salvation. The reader should notice the following parallel argument: (1) salvation is predicated upon repentance (2 Cor. 7:10; Lk. 13:3; Acts 2:38; 11:18; 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9; Lk. 15:7); (2) `repentance always precedes faith’ (according to Milburn Cockrell, paragraph 3); (3) therefore, salvation precedes faith (and is therefore not at the point of faith). Similarly: (1) salvation is predicated upon hearing (Jn. 5:25; Isa. 55:3); (2) hearing precedes faith and repentance (Rom. 10:17); (3) therefore, salvation precedes both faith and repentance, and occurs at the point of hearing the gospel!”

Now will you respond to the argument Mr. Cockrell? The truth of the matter is that just because salvation is predicated upon a condition, doesn’t mean that salvation happens at the point of that condition being met. This principle is true for hearing, faith, repentance, confession, and baptism.

At The Point Of

Mr. Cockrell goes on to say that the “reader knows that I do believe that a man must hear the gospel and repent. But a sinner is not saved at the point of the external hearing of the gospel or repenting. He is saved at the point of faith in Christ.” I think Mr. Cockrell is getting the point! He recognizes that a condition (e.g., hearing and repentance) can be necessary to salvation, but salvation not occur at the point of meeting that condition (e.g., hearing and repentance). The same thing is true about belief. Salvation is predicated upon hearing the gospel (Jn. 5:25), but salvation does not occur at the point of hearing the gospel. Salvation is predicated upon repentance (2 Cor. 7:10; Lk. 13:3), but salvation does not occur at the point of repentance. Likewise, salvation is predicated upon belief (2 Cor. 7:10, Lk. 13:3), but salvation does not occur at the point of belief.

Synecdoches

Mr. Cockrell says that since I admitted that the woman of Luke 7:48,50 was saved without baptism, because she lived under a different covenant than we do (Heb. 9:15-17), that proved that the belief of his proof texts must not be a synecdoche for all the conditions of salvation, since they (the proof texts) were also stated before the death of Christ. First of all, these verses, though stated before Pentecost, were preparatory teachings, that is, teaching that would apply, not necessarily at the moment that they were spoken, but when the new covenant came into effect. Other such preparatory teachings are John 3:3-5, Matthew 18:15-17, and 5:32.

Secondly, until he responds to my argument about the Bible predicating salvation upon repentance, yet salvation not coming at the point of repentance, Mr. Cockrell is in effect admitting that synecdoches are used in the salvation pas-sages. I don’t care if he calls it a syncecdoche; the important thing is that he admits that salvation can be predicated upon a condition, but not come at the point the sinner meets that condition.

Mr. Cockrell does admit the use of a synecdoche when, in answer to my question, “Why does John 5:25 not prove that all an alien sinner must do in order to be saved is `hear’ the gospel?,” he responds by saying that the “person who hears the gospel in the sense that he understands and believes it (John 5:24-25) is saved.” Mr. Cockrell thus admits that “hear” in John 5:25 is used as a synecdoche for understanding and believing.

1 Peter 3:21

Mr. Cockrell then claims that 1 Peter 3:21 teaches that “baptism shows that one is already saved.” Mr. Cockrell tries to prove this assertion by making some statements of his own that are not in the text, but are simply assertions. His statements that the fact that Noah “entered the ark seven days before the flood (Gen. 7:7,10), showing that a believer is safe in Christ prior to baptism,” and that “those in the ark were declared saved by the waters of the flood, disclosing how baptism declares a believer to be already saved by faith in Christ,” are not in (nor implied by) the text, but just come from Mr. Cockrell’s imagination. 1 Peter 3:20-21 simply teaches that the physical salvation of Noah and his family by water are a type (figure) of the our spiritual salvation by water. The Bible says that “baptism doth also now save us.” Instead of just accepting God’s word for it, Mr. Cockrell really believes just the opposite, that “baptism doth also not save us.”

When Does The Blood Of Christ Save?

Mr. Cockrell says that “Mr. Donahue would make the symbol the savior. He would rob Christ of his savior ship and give it to the waters of baptism.” No, Mr. Cockrell, I don’t rob Christ of his savior ship and give it to the waters of baptism any more than you rob Christ of his savior ship and give it to faith. Neither faith nor baptism is the savior; Christ is. But we both agree that the salvation that Christ provided is conditional. The question is, “When are our sins washed away by the blood of Christ?” Acts 22:16 and other passages show that it is at baptism, and not at the point of faith.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13

Mr. Cockrell responds to my argument on 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 by saying that the passage does “not imply baptismal regeneration as he alleges. He should stay out of 1 Corinthians as it shows that baptism and the gospel are not the same thing (1 Cor. 1:17).” First of all, 1 Corinthians 1:17 shows that baptism and preaching are two different things (both are necessary), not that baptism and the gospel are two different things. But just to say that “1 Corinthians 1:12-13 do not imply baptismal regeneration” does not prove a thing. Mr. Cockrell, please respond to my arguments. That is what a debate is for! Would I be responding to your argument on John 3:15, if all I said was that it didn’t teach salvation at the point of faith, without explaining why it didn’t? 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 still teaches that for a person to be “of Christ” (that is, to be a Christian), Christ would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ.

Mr. Cockrell’s Additional Proof Texts Concerning Mr. Cockrell’s arguments 8-14, I make the following two observations:

1. Though all seven of the proof texts show that we are saved by faith, not one teaches that we are saved at the point of faith. As I mentioned in my last article (with no response by Mr. Cockrell), passages like Hebrews 11:30 (“By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days”) show that “saved by faith” and “saved at the point of faith” are two completely different things.

2. None of the seven proof texts given mentions repentance. If they rule out baptism, simply because baptism is not mentioned, then they also would rule out repentance (as being necessary to salvation), because they do not mention repentance either.

Mark 16:16

Mark 16:16 reads, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” This verse teaches that baptism is necessary to salvation as much as the sentence, “He that eateth and digesteth his food shall live,” teaches that one must digest his food in order to live physically. Let Mr. Cockrell tell us if Mark 16:16 is referring to spiritual salvation, and if so, if the salvation comes before or after the baptism mentioned in the passage.

Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 reads, “Repent, and be baptized every on of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Both the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost are conditioned upon repentance and baptism in Acts 2:38. The primary meaning for the Greek word translated “for” in this verse (eis) is “into.” A quick glance at a Greek concordance will show that this word is translated the vast majority of time into words such as “into,” “unto,” and “to,” indicating direction towards something. So this passage teaches that baptism is in the direction toward the remission (forgiveness) of sins. That proves the proposition I am contending for.

Mr. Cockrell’s Answers To My Questions

Mr. Cockrell’s answer to my second question proves that salvation does not come at the point of faith. Evidently his answer to my question  is it “necessary for a sinner to `call upon the name of the Lord’ to be saved, that is, to become a Christian” is YES. Since Romans 10:14 goes on to say that a sinner cannot call on the name of the Lord until after he believes, and since Mr. Cockrell admits a sinner must call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, he admits then that salvation comes after a person believes.

I also gave two other arguments in my last article showing that salvation does not come at the point of faith. Since Mr. Cockrell didn’t respond to them, I repeat them here: “Romans 10:10 teaches that salvation is conditioned upon a `confession’ with the `mouth’ (‘with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’) which, of course, comes after the belief of the context. Again, salvation comes after belief. Notice also that Acts 9:5-6 shows that Saul believed on the road to Damascus (something I don’t think Mr. Cockrell will deny), but Acts 22:16 (‘and be baptized, and wash away thy sins’) clearly shows that Saul was still in his sins at least three days later (Acts 9:9). This again shows that a person’s sins are not washed away the moment he believes. In this case, the forgiveness of sins occurred at least three days after Saul believed in Jesus.” Will you respond to these arguments this time Mr. Cockrell?

Answers To Mr. Cockrell’s Questions

1.1 baptize a child of the devil, in rebellion to the devil, in the process of becoming a child of God.

2. There is no such thing as a Christian who was not baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins. Anybody not baptized “for the remission of sins” will be lost. Why would I debate someone on an issue if it wasn’t that important?

3. A Christian is not necessarily lost if he joins himself to a congregation that does not officially call itself a “church of Christ,” as long as that congregation is faithful to the Lord. A Christian will be lost if he continues to have fellowship with a congregation that is not faithful to the Lord (such as a Baptist congregation that teaches that a person is saved before baptism), regardless of what it calls itself.

More Questions For Mr. Cockrell

1. Why do passages that show that salvation is predicated upon faith show that salvation is at the point of faith, while passages that show that salvation is predicated upon repentance do not show that salvation is at the point of repentance?

2. Does Paul teach in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 that to be “of Paul,” Paul would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Paul? Yes No

3. Does the word “for” that begins Galatians 3:27 show that v. 27 introduces the reason that “ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (v.26)? _ Yes _ No

Conclusion

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation does not come at the point of faith, but that instead, it comes when one is baptized. The question becomes, are we willing to accept the plain import of the Bible passages?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 22-23
March 3, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

When the lawless spirit of apostasy begins its work, it knows no stopping place. In the first century, in the shadow of the apostles of Jesus Christ, Paul wrote, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thess. 2:7). The apostles and other faithful men were relentless in proclaiming and defending the truth, and in exposing and opposing error of every kind. While this was a restraining force on apostasy, still the leaven of digression was continuing to work in spite of those efforts. As the first generations of faithful men passed off the scene, other “faithful men” rose up who were “able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In spite of all these efforts, the Holy Spirit expressly said that as time went on more and more brethren would succumb to “seducing spirits” and would “depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1).

Those who took the first steps of sin and error were blinded and did not see where it all would lead, but the Holy Spirit forewarned brethren of how the process of apostasy would work. For instance, Paul urged brethren to strictly adhere to and properly teach “the word of truth” because departures were already occurring even in his lifetime.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:15-18).

Notice that departures from the word of truth “will in-crease unto more ungodliness,” and false doctrine will gradually eat deeper into the vitals of spiritual life “as doth a canker” or a cancerous sore. Again Paul urged adherence to “the holy scriptures” because “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13-17).

First, A “Quarantine” Policy Stops Open Debate

History has repeatedly exemplified and confirmed the validity of the inspired warnings against apostasy. Beginning in the 1950s, the Gospel Advocate was “on the march” promoting such unauthorized innovations as the centralized cooperation of churches through sponsoring church programs and through church donations to human institutions, along with church sponsored social and recreational activities. Faithful brethren warned that these steps of digression would open the floodgates to apostate practices of every kind, but those brethren were stigmatized as “antis” and were quarantined as troublemakers. A statement was published on the editorial page with editorial endorsement which said in part that “the writers for the Gospel Advocate might wisely spearhead a movement to `quarantine’ those preachers who today are sowing the seeds of discord among the brotherhood” (“They Commend the Elder Who Wrote,” Gospel Advocate, 9 December 1954, p. 962).

Cecil B. Douthitt responded in the Gospel Guardian by protesting “The Yellow Tag of Quarantine” and by pleading for gospel papers to keep the door open so that both sides of controversial issues could be published and examined (13 Jan. 1955, pp. 545, 557). Brother Douthitt pled with his brethren in the following words,

Quarantine or suppression or an iron curtain is not the solution to our problems as they exist at this time; nor are all these things combined the solution. The only right course is the one pursued by the brethren as recorded in Acts 15. They engaged in an open and honorable discussion of the issue that troubled them. Speeches were made by men on both sides. There was “much questioning,” and this “much questioning” was not done by one side only. No one was suppressed. . . . Why can’t we meet in honorable and orderly discussion, and settle our differences by the truth of God’s word, as our brethren did in Jerusalem nineteen hundred years ago? The truth never suffers in honorable discussion…. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah.” (Isa. 1:18.)

We have now lived to see the fruit of this policy forbidding both sides of controversial issues to be heard.

Now, “Anxiety for the Church”

The December 1993 Gospel Advocate was dedicated to the theme of “Anxiety for the Church.” A sad announcement was inserted reporting the death of Guy N. Woods who died in his sleep on 8 December in Nashville, Tennessee at the age of 85, and was buried in his hometown of Holladay on the 11th (2). There is sad irony in this announcement in connection with the theme of “Anxiety for the Church.” Brother Woods was one of the most prolific writers in the Gospel Advocate who defended the innovations of the 1950s. He served as the Advocate’s editor during 1981-85 but was reduced to the position of query editor after he spoke out too plainly against “The Joplin Unity Meeting” between institutional and Christian Church preachers (G.A., 4 October 1984, 579-81). Although brother Woods helped to defend the early innovations, he retained a basically conservative outlook in many ways. His demotion from the editor’s chair was a symptom of the continuing drift of liberalism and a portent of things to come.

Error has continued to wax worse and worse as the larger churches and the most popular programs and institutions have become more and more liberal minded. For several years brethren in the liberal-institutional movement who maintain some traditional principles of Bible authority have been openly acknowledging that men of a much more liberal mindset are multiplying among them. The December 1993 Gospel Advocate sounds an alarm of anxiety in view of the spirit of apostasy waxing worse and worse. Willard Collins, president emeritus of David Lipscomb University, says that the problems of “anti-institutionalism” and “anti-cooperation” are past but that the remaining churches and brethren are dividing along lines which he described as “progressive, main-liners and conservatives.” What he did not say is that the more conservative element is growing smaller while the progressives are encroaching more and more upon the main-liners. Collins sees steps being taken “in the wrong direction” in an effort to attract the so-called “baby boomers” (born 1946-65) who want little doctrinal teaching, a larger role for women in the public services, and “up-beat, rock-and-roll music in worship.” He says a number of congregations “are becoming polarized” over such matters (“My Concern for the Congregations,” 11-12).

Norman Gipson (an instructor at the Sunset School of Preaching, Sunset Church of Christ, Lubbock, Texas) says that “in many congregations today” the view prevails that “if it is not specifically forbidden in Scripture, it is all right.”

We are told that the Scripture does not forbid the use of special groups in the services to do our worshipping for us. Therefore, we may rightly adopt such a practice. Not long since, a sister stood in a local congregation and sang a solo  with a spotlight shining on her. There was an immediate outcry, but that will be only the beginning. When one young man from a well-known choral group was asked why they used boops and bops and oohs and ahs in their songs, he merely said, “That’s vocal.” Yes  but is it worship?

A few hours before I sat down to write these words, a brother called from another state. Just four days ago their preacher arose and said, “Our worship will be conducted a little differently tonight.” A group of ladies then joined him on the platform; he and they together led some songs. Then the preacher sat down, and the ladies conducted the rest of the song service (“Dangers of Repeating Ancient Errors,” 15-16).

It is sad that brother Gipson does not see that the liberal and institutional practices which he espouses and which the Sunset church embraces are not authorized in Scripture. Rather, they are dependent upon the fallacious rule that “if it is not specifically forbidden in Scripture, it is all right.”

“Church Changers”

E. Claude Gardner, president emeritus of Freed-Hardeman University, complains that “`church changers’ are pushing false doctrine to change to women preachers, use of instruments and other doctrinal error,” and are saying in effect to any who object, “It is time for you to go.” Gardner sees an impending division because he insists of the “church changers,” “It is time for them to go.” Gardner continues,

Time was when preachers and others espoused a liberal theology or chose to ogle denominationalism, they had the honesty to leave the church and become affiliated where they would be comfortable. But now the new breed has determined to stay, and they have set on a course of restructuring the church. In a few short years, some of our grandchildren will be attending a religious body foreign to what is found in the New Testament.

The pro-change-anti-traditionalist wing is leading many into false ways. Just look at history and discern the signs of the times, and this will cause you to see that the majority in due time will take the popular and pleasing course.

It takes many years, even decades, before a division is full blown. It took 40 or 50 years for the cleavage with the Christian Church to become fully realized. For some 30 years, I have seen liberal trends develop faster and faster, and today, liberalism has now come with an avalanche.

Among us are those who teach instrumental music in worship is not sinful; women should be able to preach and teach over men; faith only; grace only; baptism is not essential; the Lord’s Supper can be eaten on any day; the four gospels are more important than Acts to Revelation; parts of the Bible are not inspired of the Holy Spirit; obedience is legalism; preach Christ not the church; preach the Cross and not doctrine; preach the Living Word instead of the written word; advocate open fellow-ship with denominations; the Holy Spirit leads mysteriously apart from the Scripture; speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts are possible today; everything we do is worship; the service at the worship period should be charged with deep emotionalism as if one expects a so-called “Pentecost blessing” (“Save Our Children and the Church From Destruction,” 17-19).

While Gardner correctly notes that “biblical authority is being undercut” through “speeches, lectures, and writings,” by what he calls the “church changers,” he does not see that biblical authority was first undercut by the unscriptural innovations of the 1950s.

“Tidal Waves” of Apostasy

Leroy Brownlow, who helped to pioneer and promote the innovations of the 1950s, now says, “On the eve of the 21st century some are urging that we should pull up the landmarks and move forward into a modern world with a religion less restrictive and more accommodating.” After reviewing demands for change both in Bible history and in modem church history, Brownlow says, “Today, the cry for change is getting louder and louder, bolder and bolder.

We are being told, even in high places, that we must realize the powerful dynamics of change.” He explains this “revolting and heartbreaking” philosophy of change and how it is being promoted:

Nevertheless, it is being said, “For the church of Christ to grow it must change.” As expected  to condition minds for changes  it is said, “We do not mean a change in the Gospel.” But this is highly suspect, especially when some change criers do not tell us the changes they wish to make. And beyond suspect, the statement actually contradicts some more brash preachers and professors among us who openly advocate these specific changes: no patterns in the Bible to follow; no rigid forms of Christianity; denunciation of doctrine; salvation by grace alone; rejection of baptism for the remission of sins; instrumental music in the worship; women preachers; charismatic characteristics; renouncement of congregational autonomy; cessation of trying to convert people in various denominations and the acceptance of them as fellow Christians; abandonment of the Restoration; acceptance of the notion that we are just another denomination among all the denominations which they think constitute the one church; appointment of denominationalists to lead and mold the thinking of our youth; and a movement to remake the church of Christ into a community church of all faiths (“And They Wanted Change,” 20-22).

Brownlow also says, “Now we are awash in tidal waves of Hymenaeusism and Alexanderism (1 Tim. 1:20). The old Ship of Zion is tossing.”

It is indeed heartbreaking to see error waxing worse and worse in the camp of institutional liberalism. Sound brethren would do well to learn from these continuing developments because if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them! Let us remember that when we take even one step beyond the limits of Bible authority, we endanger and undercut the whole concept of biblical authority. Some of the practices which are now engulfing liberal churches will sooner or later be knocking at the door of sound churches. We too soon forget the lessons of the past even when we have once learned them, and a new generation may rise up which is not well grounded in the truth.

Some of our own brethren will not see the importance of preaching and warning about such matters, because they have graduated from the “negative emphasis” of the past to the more popular “power of positive thinking.” Preaching which contrasts Bible truth with apostate movements is needed both to call erring brethren out of liberalism and to encourage sound brethren to uphold the truth while resisting the encroachments of error. Rather than repeating the mistakes of the past, let us follow the example of Paul who fully preached “the gospel of the grace of God” and of “the kingdom of God:”

Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified (Acts 20:24-32).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 8-10
March 3, 1994

By John Issac Edwards

The Bible is filled with inspired exhortations. An exhortation is “an utterance, or address conveying urgent advice or recommendations” (The Random House College Dictionary). Let’s consider the exhortations that Paul, Silas, and Timotheus delivered to the brethren at Thessalonica. “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men” (1 Thess. 5:14).

Warn Them That Are Unruly

The duties that Paul addresses here are such as appertain to all Christians, and should not be left to be performed by preachers only. As children of God, it is our obligation to warn, or admonish, those whom we know to be living contrary to the requirements of the gospel of Christ. Notice the warning that God gave Ezekiel long ago, if he failed to warn the unruly. “Son of man, I have made thee a watch-man unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 3:17-19). A failure to warn the unruly meant “that the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” Thus, Paul announced to the elders of the church at Ephesus, “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). Can you say that you are “pure from the blood of all men,” or have you been neglecting your duty to “warn the unruly”?

Comfort the Feebleminded

In his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul exhorts Christians to encourage the fainthearted. The feebleminded, or fainthearted, are those who require constraint as the others need restraint. Perhaps an individual was at one time energetic in doing the work of the Lord; but when persecution and opposition came, this person grew discouraged and disheartened. It then is our responsibility to revive these individuals, to encourage them to continue laboring in the vineyard of the Lord. Paul, after assuring the Thessalonians that those who die in Christ have hope, said, “Wherefore comfort one another with these words”(l Thess. 4:18).

Support the Weak

Paul does not have reference to those who are physically weak  sick; but those who are spiritually weak, whose faith is insecure. It is then up to those who are “rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith” (Col. 2:7), to “bear the infirmities of the weak” (Rom. 15:1). If the weak are not supported by the stronger, then they will most likely be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men” (Eph. 4:14). May gospel preachers, elders, and teachers never shun to pro-claim the “first principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12), so that the “babes” may have the milk that is needed to grow and to develop into strong, mature Christians (1 Pet. 2:2).

Be Patient Toward All Men

As God is long-suffering and merciful to all (2 Pet. 3:9), so ought we to be toward all men. Long-suffering is that of restraining oneself in midst of harassment and vexation. Instead of growing angry and retaliating, one is to persevere and have mercy. Notice what Paul said about charity, or love; “charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up” (1 Cor. 13:4). This is the type of love that we need to cultivate for both our fellow-laborers in Christ and those outside the body of Christ.

May we all give attention to these exhortations, incorporate them into our lives, and then teach them to others.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 11
March 3, 1994

By Tim Mize

Let us think for a moment about this truth and its significance, that Christ died for our sins “according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).

This stress on scriptural backing goes back to the earliest gospel preaching. Those early audiences were skeptical. As they saw it, this Jesus was a nobody, a peasant man from a peasant town. He had wandered about as a popular preacher and healer, and had raised the hopes of some, but he had died a failure, executed by the Romans on a cross.

One might wonder how the apostles were able to persuade anyone. And yet they were, and with great success. They were able to show that a humiliated, dying Christ was actually the will of God. This they did by pointing to two things, that God had raised him from the dead, and that the scriptures themselves teach that the Christ must suffer.

Those first hearers accepted the authority of scripture. And they believed already in its promises of a blessed hope for Israel. More surprising would have been this suggestion that according to the scriptures, these hopes are fulfilled through so humbled a Christ as this. The apostles encouraged them to search the scriptures to see that it is so (Acts 17:2f, l Of).

To what scriptures did they point in their support? They pointed to those that depict the righteous in their sufferings (such as Pss. 22 and 69). If such things are true of the righteous, how much more of Christ, the Righteous One? They pointed to those that foretell specific episodes surrounding his life and death (for example, Zech. 11:12-13; 12:10; Ps. 69:21; Isa. 53:9). They held up Isaiah 53, which prophesies clearly of the suffering and dying of the Servant of God. And they cited those that speak of the resurrection of Christ (Ps. 16:10).

Truly, Christ died “according to the scriptures.” Let’s understand not only the fact, but the significance of this. If Christ died according to the scriptures, then God must have a plan that he has been working out through the ages. God does have a plan. It involves a blessed destiny for us, his people. It is a plan that is often hidden in its workings, but that he has always had, has always been working out, and even now pursues. From time to time God has uncovered it and allowed humanity to see it at work. The death and resurrection of Christ, foretold and testified of in scripture, stands as the supreme and climactic exhibition of God’s on-going, redemptive work for us (Acts 2:23; 4:28; Gal. 4:4f).

In a world of whirlwind change and unrelenting trouble, we need to hear this gospel. We need to hear that God has a plan that overarches and overrules all things. And we need to be reassured that this same divine plan that displayed itself in the cross is governing all things toward our happy end.

The death of our Savior was no accident, no mistake, and no afterthought. It was planned and worked out by God to demonstrate his love and work for our redemption. We can only wonder at what further demonstrations lie ahead.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 7
March 3, 1994