Truth Magazine

By H. E. Phillips

Law is: “A general rule of action or conduct established or enforced by a sovereign authority; as, a law of Caesar; a law of God” (Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged). Webster says of legalism: “Close conformity to law.” Law and legalism are not the same. “Law” (nomos) means “. . . anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, usage, law.” The New Testament uses the word as “a command, law; . . . of any law whatever”. . .”a law or rule producing a state approved of God” (taken from Henry Thayer’s Lexicon). It is a rule or principle established by authority.

The law of Christ is his word: the truth by which men are made free (John 8:32). It is that perfect law of liberty which will convert the soul (James 1:25; Psa. 19:7). It is the inspired scriptures that is sufficient to perfect a man unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17). The only way this law will make one perfect unto all good works is to obey it. How else could it be done?

Legalism

“Legalism” has several, different definitions, opinions and views. The word is more often used by those of ultra-liberal attitudes toward the authority of Christ, and obeying all the commandments of God for the remission of sins, worship, etc. Some will deny this conclusion, but hundreds of quotations from books and magazines are available to prove it. Their writings and preaching bewail the idea of “keeping the letter of the law” and conforming to a rigid code of rules to be perfectly obeyed in order to obtain the blessings of salvation promised by God upon obeying him. The nature of law, the purpose of law, and the author of law make little difference to those who shrink from the very idea of obeying divine law. Law keeping, they say, smacks of Phariseeism.

I want to give the definition of “legalism” from one who stands opposed to obeying “a code of rules” for the remission of sins. Harold Key wrote an article in Mission Messenger of February, 1963, under the heading, “The Threat Of Legalism.”

What, then, is legalism? Legalism is the attempt to reduce the will of God to a code  to a list of commandments  with the subsequent concentration upon the commandments rather than the God whose will the commandments attempt to express. Legalism is obviously an attempt to be related to God upon the basis of law. It is a legal rather than a personal relationship. It holds the position that justification and eternal life are rewards of fully and correctly doing all that the law requires” (Volume 25, Number 2, page 17). He says further, “Legalism tears the very heart and soul out of the New Covenant” (ibid., page 20).

What if there is no attempt to reduce the will of God to a “codeto a list of commandments”? Take it just as it is! What if there is no attempt to concentrate upon the commandments rather than the will of God? (How could one do that, anyway?) What if one simply obeyed the commandments from the heart, as he must do to obey the will of God? “… but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17,18). Would that make him a legalist? If yes, what is wrong with that? That is what I am: call me a “legalist.” The person who does not obey the law of Christ is under condemnation from the word of God (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

This definition pretends to judge the heart and motive of the one obeying the law of Christ. There is no way to be related to God but by his word his law. One must be born again to be related to God, and that requires obedience in baptism by faith (John 3:3,5; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Robert Meyers edited a book entitled Voices Of Concern, published by Mission Messenger, Saint Louis, Missouri, in 1966. In his Introduction he gave his motive for publishing several articles from men and women who left the church of the Lord. In part he said: “Thousands are restless and dissatisfied with the aridity of exclusivism and authoritarianism. Bright young minds are refusing to be put off with answers that have no more to commend them than the hoary beard of antiquity” (page 3). His goal is: “The book obviously means to urge no one way of religious expression, but to plead from such evidence as is here the need for unity in diversity” (page 5).

The boredom and dissatisfaction of bright young minds to the aridity of the straight and narrow way of Christ (Matt. 7:13,14) does not commend them to the “hoary beard of antiquity” and therefore they turn to freedom of any religious expression that pleases them, and the “unity in diversity” concept of Christianity. That is the reason the author gave for his book. That is rejection of the will of God any way you look at it. These minds do not know God and understand nothing of the “love of God” as revealed in the Bible. If that is the alternative to legalism, I am what they call a “legalist.”

One of the writers in Voices Of Concern, was J. P. Sanders. On pages 40 and 41 he says this of legalism:

We have seen that the priest seeks an exact system of faith which can be the basis for the sect, and he seeks it through the authority of the church or the authority of literal Biblical interpretations. This system is a code of requirements, or what is often called “the plan of salvation.”

Legalism sees sin as a violation of the written code. The code may or may not have relevance to man’s need; it may be simply arbitrary requirements revealed by God. Man’s disobedience to these rules becomes an affront to God.

Arrogance is at its best when man claims to decide which of the commands of God he will obey and which he will not obey; which are relevant and which are not. All scriptures of God are relevant to man’s needs to make him perfect to all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17). If the “rules” are from heaven, and they are, disobedience to them is an affront to God. Who will decide which rules of God man can ignore and still please God?

For example, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). Is this relevant to man now? What if the dissatisfaction of bright young minds to the aridity of the rigid rules of God does not commend them to faith in God, may they freely dispense with this rule and seek “unity in diversity”? Shades of infidelity!

Some, for example, put great emphasis on baptism as “essential to salvation.” They do not usually put the same emphasis on forgiving enemies as “essential to salvation”  though Jesus said more about this than about baptism.

This implies that legalism makes baptism “essential to salvation” whereas Jesus gave more emphasis to forgiving one’s enemies than to baptism. Baptism is essential to salvation regardless of how much is said about other matters. Of course, the necessary conclusion is that the rigid rule of baptism for the remission of sins must go in order that the bright young minds that seek the freedom of personal choice for their salvation may not be bound by this unnecessary rule. Baptism is a command in the name of Christ (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 10:48). One cannot be saved without obeying in baptism from the heart (Rom. 6:17).

Since legalism holds sin to be a legal violation, it holds salvation to be a legal payment. Man as a sinner must do certain things required of him for forgiveness.. .

This seems to be sarcasm. It is not “legalism” that holds sin to be legal violation, it is God (1 John 3:4). Sin is the transgression of the law. Salvation is not a legal payment. I know of no one who believes or teaches that doctrine. Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). Faith that saves is faith that works in obedience to the commands of God (James 2:20-26). A sinner must do certain things “required of him for forgiveness” or God’s word has no power to save. But it does have such power (Rom. 1:16).

These statements bespeak one thing: Obedience to law is unnecessary to obtain the grace of God for remission of sins. It is evil and the cause of division in the body of Christ, and a barrier against the grace of God. On the other hand, they claim, love will answer the prayer of Christ for unity and make us acceptable to God without obedience to law. You read the works of the apostles of this rebellion against the law of Christ and see if this is not true. That is the crux of what I have read from advocates of liberalism.

Let us understand the meaning of the words “legal” and “legalist” and “legalism.” “Legal” means that which is authorized or permitted by law. “Legalism” is that system which holds strict, literal adherence to law. “Legalist” is one who accepts the strict and literal obedience to law. If “legalism” is wrong and evil, all law ought to be rejected, and iniquity is a virtue. Whoever requires obedience to the law of Christ promotes division and fosters callous hearts. That is the consequences of this plea for abandonment of the New Testament law as the revelation from God to save the obedient believer in Jesus Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 10-11
January 6, 1994

By Tim Mize

Most of us have heard all our lives about the cross of Christ. A week does not pass without our eating this bread and drinking this cup in its memory. It may surprise us, then, to learn how shocking it was to those who heard about it first. For those first audiences of the gospel, the idea of a crucified Christ was surprising. For many, it was more than they could swallow.

Remember, these people were already hoping for the Christ, their savior:, to come. And they had already seen men come and go, who had raised their hopes only to disappoint them. And now this Jesus of Nazareth had come and also raised their hopes. He, too, however, was stopped. The Romans crucified him, crushing him like any other rebel. If he were truly the Christ, so they reasoned, then he would not have been crucified, or he would have come down from the cross (Matt. 27:39-43).

Furthermore, the scriptures teach that any man who is hanged is accursed (Deut. 21:23). The cross made this Jesus accursed. How, then, could he be the Christ? So the reasoning went among many who first heard the gospel.

Such reasonings were surely in mind when Paul spoke of “the stumbling block” (or, “the offence”) of the cross. “We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor.1:22-23; Gal. 5:11). The “offence” of the cross refers to the way that people resist the gospel at that very point where it proclaims that Christ died on a cross. The very idea of a crucified Christ does not repulse people like it once did. It is too “old hat,” I suppose, to do that. But humanity has not been relieved of the offence of the cross. The cross is still as resisted as ever. The fact that “Christ died” might have grown acceptable, but the implications of that fact still offend. The cross may not offend human reason so much anymore, but it continues to offend human pride.

The cross will always offend because of the love that is in it. The cross is an expression of love from God, and of love that makes the greatest sacrifice (Jn. 15:13). We resist such a love. It makes us feel uncomfortably obligated. It disturbs our illusions of self-reliance. Our tendency is to say, “I don’t want anyone to die for me.” The word of the cross offends us and says, “Christ died for our sins.”

The cross offends us, too, with the way of life to which it calls. It summons to the way of emptying and forgetting self, of losing oneself in what is good. It is the way of trustful obedience to God and of loving service to others. Our lusts and pride resist this way of the cross.

May there be no offence for us. Let us be open, yielding, and obedient to the word of the cross.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 9
January 6, 1994

By Mike Willis

When I was a lad, my parents ran a country store that sold gas, feed, groceries, and also housed the local post office. From the time I was old enough to be responsible, I worked in the store. I usually opened or help open the store about 6:00-6:30 a.m. in order that we could pick up the business of men on their way to work.

When logging was in our area, so that the workers passed by the store for gas and supplies, an older Black gentleman known to me only as “Cat Whiskers” frequently stopped in. His body was racked with arthritis. He would hobble in with a noticeable limp, buy a 6 ounce Coca-Cola and pour one or two packets of Stand-Back powder into the Coke to kill the pain from his arthritis. When he finished his Coke, he would leave for work. I have no way of knowing how effective his medical treatment was, but I am able to judge his work ethic.

Work was honorable in those days. I heard many of my elders comment about how they endured the hardships of the depression. They would relate their sufferings but would emphatically assert,

“But we never did take a government hand-out.” But things were changing, even in the isolated section of East Texas in which I was reared.

A welfare state was being created. Men learned that they could make nearly as much money through unemployment, food stamps, aid for dependent children, and other federal programs as they could working. The reasoning prevailed, “Why should I work when I can make just as much without working?” Once a generation was raised on these roles of dependency, the attitude became that of “the government owes me,” “I am entitled (government entitlement programs) to it.” Now we are several generations into a welfare state and the work ethic in our country is suffering. It has produced poor work habits and loss of self-esteem among those who have accepted government handouts rather than working for their living.

The Sinful Sloth

The book of Proverbs condemns laziness. Laziness not only makes one obnoxious (“As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him”  Prov 10:26), it is sinful. Consider these passages:

Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. How long wilt thou sleep, 0 sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: so shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man (Prov. 6:6-11).

There are several consequences from laziness mentioned in the Proverbs:

1. Laziness brings poverty (Prov. 6:1 1; 24:33-34). “He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich. He that gathereth in summer is a wise son: but he that sleepeth in harvest

2. It is a son that causeth shame” (Prov. 10:4-5). The natural result of a good work ethic is prosperity. He that is faithful in little will be made ruler over much. As a good worker is promoted, he increases his income and prospers.

3. Laziness brings one under tribute. The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute” (Prov 12:24). Lazy people are always in debt and working to pay high interest on credit cards, always trying to catch up but falling further behind.

4. Laziness leads to unfulfilled desires. “The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour. He coveteth greedily all the day long: but the righteous giveth and spareth not” (Prov. 21:25-26). In contrast, a man who is zealous in his work is motivated by his desires. He sees things that he wants and he works to obtain them. “He that laboureth for himself; for his mouth craveth it of him” (Prov. 16:26).

5. Laziness leads to shame. “He that gathereth in summer is a wise son: but he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame” (Prov. 10:5). A lazy son is an embarrassment to the family. A person increases his self-esteem, his feelings of self-worth, by being a productive member of society.

6. Laziness leads to not taking care of what you have. The wise man described the field of a lazy man: “I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; and, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down” (Prov. 24:30-31).

The New Testament Work Ethic

The New Testament continues in the same vein in its instructions about good work ethics. Consider these verses:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free (Eph. 6:5-8).

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men (Col. 3:22-23).

These and several other passages emphasize the true value of work. Work is a blessing given to us by a beneficent Creator. Remember that man worked before the fall into sin (see Gen. 2:14  Adam and Eve were put in the Garden of Eden to dress and keep the Garden).

Social scientists have long recognized the association between the so-called “Protestant work ethic” and the success of capitalism (see Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism 1958). We are the heirs of a society of abundant material prosperity primarily because our ancestors had a good work ethic. The standard of living has increased continuously for several decades. What will today’s generation pass down to its children?

Conclusion

When we create a circumstance in which a sizable segment of society can live from unearned income for a lifetime, we create a dependency that is passed down from generation to generation, a group without positive role models, a group without initiative, and a people believing that society owes them what they need for survival (food stamps, medicare/medicaid, housing, etc.). When the number of the unproductive leaches in society reaches higher limits than productive workers can support, the society collapses. We are dangerously close to that happening.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 2
January 6, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

The chart on the next page introduces our theme. Our purpose in this article is expressed in these words, “But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion” (2 Cor. 11:12). Shadowy shoals of shame will shipwreck faith; unrevealed reefs will wreck redemption’s ark of safety. It is imperative, therefore, that we understand the nature, method and character of the evil “which doth so easily beset us.” We must “cut off ” opportunities to them who seek “occasion” against the truth.

Lincoln asked his cabinet, “If you call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?” “Five,” they replied. “No,” said the president, “calling a sheep’s tail a leg does not make it a leg. A sheep has four legs.”

Appear Devout

Calling a wolf a sheep does not make him a sheep. “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). Outer clothing does not change the inner being. From among the eldership, from within the church, “shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 28:29,30). “But there were false prophets also among the people (God’s people in the Old Testament), even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1).

Paul knew the problem by personal experience. “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal. 2:4). Secret, sinister subterfuge was employed. These men were not obvious in appearance; their demeanor did not declare them to be what they really were. “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (Ask yourself how an apostle of Christ would appear, how he would present himself.) And no marvel (this should not be amazing to you); for Satan himself is trans-formed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Our Lord was confronted by the same deceit. “And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor” (Lk. 20:20). “This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him” (Jn. 8:6).

We all know the things described above are true. We, too, may have had experience with such wolves in sheep’s clothing. We learned it, though, too late. After the damage was done, we saw their true nature. Success against a wolf can be attained only when we expose him before he deals out death and destruction. This is one of the goals of this series of articles. Examine the teeth of those who bleat out complaints and criticism against the church of the Lord.

Merely “Raising Concerns”

The wolf in sheep’s clothing will profess his love for the truth. He will resent your questioning of his soundness. He will tell you that he is “merely raising some concerns that have troubled me for a long time.” He will assure you that his intentions are pure, that he only has “the best interest of the church at heart.” He will speak of our “misguided emphasis,” saying that our preaching is “out of focus,” and that he seeks to find ways that may “fine tune” our “approach.” He will speak of “our archaic, out-dated methods.” He will praise, subtly, “some of the things” he has seen that “have worked” in “other churches” (by “other churches,” he means liberals and the denominations).

The critic, the sheep, the wolf (they are all one and the same), will cite some examples of some things that have “troubled” him. He will bring up an extreme situation, a radical case. He will wrest it out of context if he has to, in order to make a favorable impression. You are expected to nod and support him, and, of course, you will, for you are certainly not in favor of “driving people away.”

What he says will be portrayed as being “typical of us.” For example: (1) “You know, we have carried our opposition to gymnasiums and kitchens a little too far. Why, I heard of a church that had a member who was a diabetic. The diabetic had to eat at certain times. Since the church had a business meeting immediately following morning services, the brother with diabetes brought a sack lunch which he planned to eat so he could attend the business meeting. Did you know that those brethren wouldn’t even let the poor man eat his lunch because that would be a sin! That’s a little `far out,’ don’t you think?” Well, of course, you think it is “far out.”

Here, though, is what the wolf will never tell you. He will say that he opposes gymnasiums “and such, just like you do,” but what he will not tell you is that he seeks to restrict preaching against such things. He does not want liberalism to be specifically denounced. In a few years, unknown to the wolf himself, he will “see nothing wrong with such things,” but the evolution of his digression has not yet reached that point. “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Presently, though, he is sending out signals, feelers, antennae which he hopes will attract you to his course.

(2) The pseudo-sheep does not want to hear preaching against immodest dress. He is not immoral himself, and his reputation for clean living may be beyond reproach, but his appetites and social position are leading him toward beer, beaches and bikinis. He is “uncomfortable,” he will tell you, “with our strident, judgmental condemnation” of wearing shorts and swim suits. Then he tells you “of this case I heard about. Did you know,” he says, “that there is a preacher who said that if Christians have a private swimming pool on their property that they are guilty of sin?” Again, he has taken an extreme case in order to win your sympathy. You are supposed to think, “You know, maybe our preacher is a little too hard in preaching against such things. Why, it is crazy to think that a Christian cannot own his own swimming pool.” You are hooked. You have enlisted. You “bought in.” You do not realize that it is a “package deal,” that there is more you will have to swallow, but you will be brought along and reeled in slowly. By the time you sense that there is something wrong, you will have swallowed so much and your mouth will be so full that you cannot spit it out. That is the way it works, folks (Eph. 4:14).

“Our Traditions”

Critics will speak of “our traditions.” The implication is this. Baptists have their traditions. Methodists and Catholics have theirs, and “the Church of Christ” has theirs. There is a silent linking of the Lord’s church to denominationalism. And just what are some “of our traditions”? Well, there is the “oversimplified five step mentality” concerning “the plan of salvation.” The old “five finger exercise” (hold up your hand, extend your fingers and smirk): “hear, believe, repent, confess and be baptized.” “We have made that,” you will be told, “into a magic formula that is supposed to `guarantee’ salvation. We should really be telling people about `the doing and dying of Jesus’ so they won’t think that we believe that one can earn his salvation by following some precise formula that can be `ticked off’ on our fingers.” (We will have more to say about this in future articles in this series. Meanwhile, see the author’s series, “The Preaching of the Cross” [May & July, 1992], Guardian of Truth).

When you hear someone speak derogatorily of “the plan of salvation” and poke fun at the “famous five finger formula,” you may want to lift the fleece and check for dark hair beneath it. In time, given enough time, if these men pursue their present course, they will abandon their present belief that baptism is essential for salvation. Mark it down. The heavenly highway of holiness is strewn with the bleached bones of those who began by “merely voicing some concerns about some of `our’ trite traditions in the Church of Christ.”

The critic will revile “our traditional invitation song.” He will scoff at “our view that `three songs and a prayer’ somehow constitute worship.” He will refer to singing, prayer, teaching, giving and the Lord’s supper as our “traditional ritual of worship.” He will snidely, sarcastically denigrate it as he does so. He will refer to elders as “chairmen of the bored” and to a gospel preacher as an “attorney general in the Church of Christ.” He will decry the subjugation of “our women” as “second-class citizens” and express the “hope that we surely can find some useful ways to use the many talents of our fine, godly sisters,” and of how “our traditions” have unfairly excluded them from participation in business meetings. Scriptures are not cited, discussed and applied. You are supposed to hear of “these abuses in the Church of Christ “and reflect on ways to “overcome” them.

Meanwhile, “what do you think of our preacher? Do you think he has a proper grasp and insight into these problem areas? Now, don’t get me wrong; I like him, and he can really preach the Bible, but he’s from `the old school’ of `do this’ and `do that’ or else you will go to hell with everyone else. What about our elders? Do you think they know what is going on? Are they aware of the real needs of this church. We can talk some more later.”

Later, you will be invited to his den, to his lair. It will look and smell like a sheepfold. There you will meet others who “feel as we do” about some of the “concerns we talked about the other day.” It will be informal. There will be snacks, maybe even a meal. You will be given some “potentially explosive” reading material that you are to “keep to yourself for the time being.” It contains some things that others, who are less informed, would not under-stand. Perhaps some of it is a little radical, but there are some things that relate to our present concerns about “the direction this church is going.”

Make a note of this. Complainers in the church constantly and contemptuously will criticize “our traditions,” but they will rarely, if ever, speak against the “doctrines and traditions of men” perpetuated by denominationalism and liberalism (in fact, to refer to specific denominations and to “liberalism” is to “slur” people and “drive them away”). You will hear them speak against “our traditions,” but you will not hear them outline, define, discuss, reprove and rebuke “Easter” and “Christmas.” In fact, they openly resent sermons “against Christmas that offend our neighbors.” It is proper to speak against “our traditions” (no matter how steeped in Scripture they may be), but you dare not preach a sermon in the spring of the year that teaches the truth about “the Lenten season” and “Easter.” It is alright to criticize “our three songs and a prayer,” but you do not dare to preach the truth about the traditions of men that render worship void and vain (Matt. 15:8,9)!

Listen carefully, brethren, to the bleating that you are hearing and reading. Do you recognize any of the sounds and signals cited above? “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to (you) for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

1. Appear Devout – 2 Cor. 11:13-15, 26

2. Profess Love of Truth – Titus 1:16

3. Merely “Raising Concerns” – 2 Pet. 2:1

4. Want Only to Correct “Misguided

Emphasis”  Preaching is “Out of Focus”

Want to “Fine Tune” our Approach

5. Speak of “Our” Out-dated Methods

6. Praise for Error’s Approach, Appeal

7. Stresses a “Far Out,” Legitimate Gripe as

Being “Typical” (Ex. Sinful to have Swim Pool)

8. Critical of “Our Traditions,” But Not of

Denominational Error (Ex. “5 Step Salvation,”

Invitation Song, But Nothing Against Easter, Xmas)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 6-8
January 6, 1994