Truth Magazine

By Bobby Holmes

I’m sure this title sounds strange to some but, please hear me out. I sometimes exhort those in the assemblies, “Don’t stop listening until I have stopped preaching.” In this case I would exhort, “Please don’t stop reading until I have stopped writing.”

I truly believe there is a difference between “Bible baptism” and “Bible baptism for the remission of sins.” If not, the Mormons, some Baptists, some of the “holiness,” some in the Christian Church, etc., are Christians by virtue of being baptized ‘for the remission of sins.” I don’t believe that for a moment!

So that you will know that this is not something from my imagination, the president of Magnolia Bible College, Cecil Mays (Mississippi) stated in his paper Preacher Talk (December 1992, p. 2) the following:

“Over the forty years I have been preaching, I have moved from ‘liberal’ to ‘conservative’ on the rebaptism issue, without changing anything 1 believe or practice. I have always believed that some in some denominations, on the basis of their own Bible study, were baptized like the Bible teaches. I have studied with Methodists who were immersed for the remission of sins, and with Baptists who understood when they were baptized that baptism was essential to salvation. I urged them to leave sectarianism and repent of unscriptural practices, but I did not believe they needed to be immersed again. This made me ?there,’ in some people’s eyes. I still believe one must understand that baptism precedes salvation in order to be scripturally baptized. That puts me on the ‘conservative’ side of the rebaptism issue as currently discussed. . . .

From Gobel Music’s book “Behold the Pattern,” he quotes from material by Rubel Shelly on pages 273-274.

“Somehow those of us who make the plea for people to be Christians only have let that plea come out to the world something after this fashion: ‘Come over to us, and be Christians only because after all we are the only Christians.’ That is arrogant, that is wrong, that is self-righteous, that is sectarian . . . heal the breaches that we have created within our own fellowship. . . . Surely there are individuals in practically all the denominations known today who’ve learned of Jesus, looked to him in sincere faith, turned away from their conscious rebellion against his will and embraced him as Savior through immersion in his name. And their unfortunate entanglement in some denominational error or some other in no way alters the fact that they are Christians. .

They’re God’s children. This is not something new that is ‘cropping up.

Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett taught the same thing when I was a young preacher and I’m sure it existed long before that but, one thing I know. It does not go back to “Pentecost of Acts 2” or any other place in Scripture.

Some have “jumped the track” on this subject when they affirm that as long as one is baptized for the remission of sins that makes him a Christian. Not only must one be baptized for the remission of sins but, there are some things he must realize when this is done. He must realize that he is becoming a member of the Lord’s one kingdom or church. Not only must he be taught the necessity of baptism but, “some things concerning the Lord’s kingdom.” Peter did this very thing as is recorded in Acts 2:29-36. There is no mistake about this! Bible baptism includes teaching about baptism and also things “concerning the kingdom of God” (that’s the one church). Please note carefully the following: “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them” (Acts 8:5, KJV). Note. He preached Christ to them. What all did that include? Verse 12 tells us: “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12, KJV).

There you have it. To preach Christ one must include “the things concerning the kingdom of Christ and the name (authority) of Jesus Christ.” When he “preached Jesus” to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:35) he preached about baptism (Acts 8:36). To preach “Jesus” or “Christ unto them” is to preach what one must do to be saved and some “things concerning the kingdom and the name (authority) of Jesus Christ.” Those things concerning the kingdom must of necessity include teaching about the church which is the one relationship that man has with God.

There are those who would have us believe that a Baptist preacher would be preaching the gospel if he preached baptism “for the remission of sins.” I deny that! There is much more to gospel preaching than preaching baptism `for the remission of sins.” No denominational preacher can be a gospel preacher. If he were a gospel preacher he wouldn’t be in denominationalism for the Bible condemns such.

We must recognize that a problem exists today that did not confront these first century preachers of the gospel. To-day, there are a number of churches that preach baptism `for the remission of sins.” Some Baptists, some “Holiness” groups, the Mormons, the First Christian Church and many more I am sure. Some of these may even believe there is only one church and may even go so far as to condemn religious division and “call people back to the one church” but, one thing I’ll guarantee you. They teach that the one true church is the church of which they are members and that’s a Devil’s lie!

True, there is only one church and that is the church you can read about in the Bible that honors his name, is organized according to his dictates, works and worships according to the pattern he has given. No church but the church of Christ can truthfully make that claim. Those who are baptized “for the remission of sins” in the denominations believe and accept the fact that they are becoming members of that denomination. This old trash about them only needing to repent of having been in “religious error” or “doctrinal error” is truly “hogwash.” Brethren, that old dog just won’t hunt!

Some must think there is something magical about the term “for the remission of sins” that necessarily makes one a Christian. I have used the following illustration for many years on this subject. I believe it to be to the point on the subject. Suppose the “Rotary Club” of your city had the following qualifications for membership to their club. (1) Faith in Jesus Christ as God’s Son. (2) Willingness to correct any errors in your life. (3) Must have been a citizen of the local city for at least one year. (4) No criminal record. (5) Must be baptized for the remission of sins. Now if these conditions are complied with, would it make the person a member of that Rotary club or would it make him a Christian? I believe all would agree (maybe I should say most all) that it would simply make one a member of that Club. In the same manner, when people are baptized believing they are becoming members of a religious body unknown by God, they do not become Christians by virtue of the fact that their baptism was “for the remission of sins.” Brethren, though it be a chided term by some it is still true. You can’t be taught wrong and baptized right! Some argue that if one “really believes he is baptized “for the remission of sins” even though it was in a denominational church he should be accepted into fellowship after repenting of error.” Have we forgotten the following: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12, KJ V ).

Another argument that is made is this: “Those who are baptized by apostate groups such as those who teach premillennialism, those use instrumental music in worship, those who have gone into liberalism, etc., are not required to be baptized again but, must only repent on error.” The thing missed in this is that these people are part of the one body of Christ though they have become apostate. (Separation will take place in Judgment [Matt. 13:36-43].) These others (denominations) were never part of the body of Christ, the one church. They are not in the kingdom. Never have been  never will be  until they renounce self and bow to the Lordship of Jesus our Savior in deep faith, re-pent of their sins, confess Jesus as Lord and master and are baptized into the one relationship with deity. “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19, ASV). When I became a Christian I gave up denominationalism. Again let me say, you can’t be taught wrong and baptized right!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 11, p. 10-11
June 3, 1993

By Donnie V. Rader

The Bible says more about this case of conversion than any of the others. The story is not told in just one text, but it is found in Acts 9:1-22, Acts 22:1-16 and Acts 26:4-18. Let’s consider Saul’s former way of life, the appearance on the road, the messenger and the message that was sent to Saul.

Saul’s Former Way of Life

All three texts tell something about how Saul lived before his conversion. 

1. He was a Hebrew  a Pharisee (Acts 22:3; 26:5; Phil. 3:5). Before Agrippa he testified, “according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5). He later referred to himself as a Hebrew of Hebrews.

 

Saul was a very religious man. But, he was wrong in his religion. Even though he was living a strict religious life and was a descendant of Abraham he was not a child of God.

 

2. He was educated (Acts 22:3). Saul was highly educated. He had been trained at the feet of Gamaliel. He was taught “according to the strictness of our father’s law.” 

Though educated, he was still in sin. Sin is not a problem just to the ignorant and unlearned. Those with college educations and PhDs are also guilty of sin (Rom. 3:23). Someone once said that an uneducated man may steal a car. If you send him to college he may steal the factory. Whether educated or not, all men face the same problem of sin.

 

3. He was zealous (Phil. 3:6). His zeal and enthusiasm lead him to be active in what he thought to be right. He had a zeal without knowledge (Rom. 10:3). This trait would be useful in the kingdom of God if he would only couple some understanding with his excitement. 

4. He was conscientious (Acts 23:1; 26:9). Even though he was fighting against the Lord’s work, he was doing what he thought was right. He lived in all good conscience. This reminds us that one’s conscience can be wrong. Sincerity is not enough. Saul was sincere, but wrong.

 

 

5. He persecuted the church (Acts 7:58; 8:1; 9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:9-I1). He held the coats for those who stoned Stephen. He made havoc of the church dragging men and women off to prison. He breathed out threats and murder against God’s people. He had cast his vote that some should be put to death.

 

After his conversion we see a different man with a different attitude. This is a powerful message about how people can change. It is a message about how the “chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15) can turn to God and be forgiven.

The Appearance On The Road

1. What he saw and heard (Acts 9:1-9; 22:6-11; 26:12-18). As Saul journeyed on the road to Damascus he saw a light shining from heaven that was as bright as the noon sun. He heard a voice saying, “Saul, Saul why are you persecuting Me?” Saul answered, “Who are You, Lord?” The Lord replied, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” Saul asked the Lord what he would have him to do. He was then instructed to go into the city and it would be told to him what he should do. 

2. He was called to go to the Gentiles (Acts 26:16-18). Paul explained to Agrippa that the Lord appeared to him to send him to the Gentiles to turn them from darkness to light, from Satan unto God. Having seen the Lord, he is now qualified to be an apostle of the Lord (Acts 1:22). 

3. What happened on the road convinced him of the resurrection of Christ. Seeing and hearing the resurrected Lord was evidence that he was no longer in the tomb. This is the only thing that can explain the complete change in Saul’s life. If he was not convinced, then why does he start pro-claiming his resurrection and even preach it to Agrippa? 

4. Saul was not saved on the road to Damascus. Many think that Saul was saved when he saw the Lord. If he was saved on the road to Damascus, he was the most miserable saved man for he didn’t eat or drink for the next three days (Acts 9:9). If he was saved. Ananias didn’t know it for he told him to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). If he was saved, he was saved without calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). If he was saved, he was saved while still in his sins (Acts 22:16). 

The Messenger And His Message

 

1. Ananias was sent (Acts 9:10-16). God sent a gospel preacher named Ananias to Saul. Ananias was concerned having heard of what Saul had done to God’s people. God assured the preacher that Saul was a chosen vessel and he was on his way. 

2. Ananias restored Saul’s sight (Acts 9:12, 17-18). When Ananias arrived he put his hands on Saul and immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he could see again. 

3. The message of Ananias (Acts 22:16). When this preacher comes, Saul is praying. So he begins by asking, “And now why are you waiting?” You see, to do anything (even something religious) other than what God wants the sinner to do to be saved, is waiting or “tarrying” (KJV). I also learn from this that prayer on the part of the alien sinner (such as at the mourner’s bench) is not part of God’s plan for removing man’s sin. If so, why did he instruct Saul to stop praying and do something else?

    

   His message continued, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” From this I learn: (a) that baptism is essential to wash away our sins, (b) the urgency of baptism  for he was to quit praying and arise and be baptized and (c) obeying the commands of the Lord (such as baptism) is how one calls on the name of the Lord.

   Saul was saved the same way that you and I are saved. Do you believe in the Lord? Have you decided to turn from sin in repentance? Would you be willing to acknowledge your faith in him? Then, I ask you, why are you waiting? Arise, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

   Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 11, p. 14-15
   June 3, 1993

By P.J. Casebolt

This report is labeled ’93” to distinguish it from earlier reports on the Philippine work which I made in 1977 and 1984. Others will be making reports on their journeys to different parts of the islands.

Since three other American preachers were visiting congregations on the northern part of Luzon, I decided to direct my efforts southward. Brother Dannie Jarlego traveled with me from the time I arrived on February 17, to the time of my departure on March 29. On Luzon, we visited congregations in the Metro Manila area, at Infanta/Real, and at Mercedes in Camarines Norte. A possible trip to Iriga was aborted because of the erupting volcano, Mt. Mayon.

On Mindoro, we visited congregations at Villa Celestial, Libertad, and Pulosahi in the southern area of Roxas. From there we traveled northward to Victoria, Alcate, Aurora, Evangelista, Calaguimay (San Isidro), and Calapan.

On the island of Palawan, we visited Brooke’s Point, Sarasa, Samariniana, Locon, and Inogbon. On the way back to the airport town of Puerto Princesa, we visited congregations at Aramayan, Nara, and Plaridel. We spent two days preaching in Puerto Princesa with morning, afternoon, and evening assemblies.

On the central Visayan islands of Negros and Cebu, we visited congregations at Bacolod (Minoyan), and Cebu City. There is now a congrgation meeting in the home of brother Bob Small at Cebu. Bob is carrying on his work in China from his home in Cebu, while also helping the work in the Philippines as he has opportunity.

On the island of Mindanao, we visited three congregations in Davao City, and at Savoy and Bansilan in Davao del Sur. Because of the bombing at Zamboanga City air-port terminal, and for efficiency’s sake, we aborted our flight to Zamboanga, and took the bus/ferry across Mindanao to Pagadian. From there we traveled to Sampoli in Zamboanga del Sur, and preached four times in the meeting there.

After returning to Manila, we traveled south by bus to Mercedes in Camarines Norte, and preached there March 22-24. I preached my final sermon at Tondo (Manila), on March 28, and left for home on the 29th. I preached at 35 different congregations, visited briefly with brethren at two or three other places, including the leper colony congregation at Tala, near Manila. I was able to preach 53 times, and there were 53 baptisms. But I would hasten to add that the Filipino brethren had already planted the seed, did the groundwork, and did the actual baptizing. With the exception of one man whom I personally baptized in 1984, all of the baptizing has been done by Filipino preachers in meetings where I have preached. I think this practice would be a good explanation/commentary of 1 Corinthians 1:13-17.

Besides the opportunities to preach the gospel, I was able to minister to the physical needs (food/shelter/medical treatment) of several dozen saints at different locations. On one occasion alone, 22 congregations were represented in a meeting where benevolent aid was distributed. Members from at least a half-dozen of these congregations had been driven from their homes and lands by the communist rebel group known as the New People’s Army (NPA). By individual contributions from brethren in the states, I was able to act as messenger and administer this relief to needy saints. The first century apostolic pattern of sending directly to the source of need, whether in benevolence or evangelism, still works best in the 20th century (cf. Acts 11:27-30; Phil. 4:15, 16).

In spite of plans which had to be changed or aborted, my time and financial resources were used efficiently and effectively. I only spent two nights in what could be called a hotel by any stretching of American standards, and even there I shaved in cold water. I had three warm-water showers in six weeks, and from the time I left home on February 16, I shaved in cold water until I got back to the airport in Detroit on March 29. When in the Manila area, I stayed in the home of brother Jarlego, and we stayed in the homes of our Filipino brethren during our travels (with the exception mentioned above, and two nights spent in the home of brother Small in Cebu). And the only reason we stayed in the hotel at Bacolod was because the Filipino preacher did not receive our telegram, and was not at the airport to meet us. And we spent one night on a ferry boat, as you always do between Cotabato and Pagadian Cities.

God knows I am not murmuring or complaining. The Filipino brethren always gave us the best they had (or what they thought was the best), the Lord gave me physical strength and the opportunity to make the trip, and in my limited way I can only thank the American brethren who sent me, the Filipino brethren who received me, and render both thanks and praise to God through Jesus Christ. No earthly being benefited from this effort more than did I, and both time and words fail me to tell the whole story. Only the judgment can complete the account, and for that I gladly wait.

 

American vs. Filipino

I am reluctant to write anything which would erect or emphasize any real or imagined barriers between Filipino and American brethren. The relationship between Americans and Filipinos dates back almost 100 years. As far as the Lord’s church is concerned, I know of no other nation which is supporting the cause of Christ in the Philippines. Whatever spiritual relationship there is, it must of necessity be between Americans and Filipinos. To ignore this relationship would rob both people of valued privileges and opportunities.

After commending some of the seven churches of Asia, the Lord would add, “Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee” (Rv. 2:4). I have “somewhat” against both American and Filipino brethren, and for that matter, I even have somewhat against myself for failures in word and/or deed. Some of these matters need to be addressed on a personal, case-by-case basis, on both sides of the ocean. But I think some of our conflicts in culture and Bible principles can be aired publicly for the benefit and improvement of all concerned. We have nothing to hide from brethren in either country, and those of us who act as messengers/mutual contacts need to continually examine ourselves and make whatever corrections or improvements are possible.

All who are personally involved in the Philippine work recognize the two terms “Filipino time” and “American time.” And we are not talking about the approximate 12-hour difference in solar time. Americans who go to the Philip-pines are on a strict schedule of arrival and departure, and the time in between must be allocated accordingly.

Filipinos live in a culture where time is not of primary significance, ,and for very good reasons. The transportation systems of our two countries are as different as daylight and dark. Americans rush here and there to maintain schedules, and our highways and airways, along with our personal and public vehicles of transportation permit such a practice. Filipinos depend mostly on public transportation, and most buses, taxis, and ferries are filled beyond description. If a Filipino doesn’t catch one bus or taxi, he waits for another. If it doesn’t come today it will come tomorrow, next week, or next month. And the Filipino has time to wait. He cannot change the system, nor can a few American preachers change the system. But we can adjust to it.

Filipinos have a habit of saying, “Plenty of time,” and I have missed several planes, buses, and ferries because they will not check a schedule in time. I have had vehicles run out of fuel because the drivers (and the brethren who contracted the vehicle), would not fill up the tank with fuel and prepare for such an eventuality. This isn’t just a matter of culture or custom, this is a direct violation of such passages of Matthew 25:1-13 and Romans 12:11. And you wouldn’t have to leave America to find folks who live both their material and spiritual lives by this principle of procrastination.

But while Filipinos cannot change their transportation system, or prevent flat tires, they can try to adjust to such things, or at least when visiting Americans have a schedule to keep. Even when schedules are made, Filipino brethren do not always allow for flat tires, eating, summarizing sermons, baptisms, or impromptu side trips to visit another congregation or some brother needing support or benevolence.

American preaches can help by not trying to crowd too much into one trip, acquainting themselves with the geography of their travels, insisting on a written schedule, and then insisting that the schedule be followed. Two Filipino preachers told me that we Americans need to do more “insisting” and I have done this until I am ashamed of myself, but sometimes we Americans do not understand what we are asking of the Filipino brethren. They cannot change centuries of culture and geographical expressions of creation in a month’s time, and sometimes we are not aware of extra expenses involved in our requests.

Often, the problem of benevolence vs. preaching/edification presents a barrier between Filipinos and Americans. Special benevolent efforts have been conducted on behalf of the Philippines, and sometimes a mission has the twofold purpose of preaching the gospel and relieving needy saints. But sometimes the visiting preacher is so overwhelmed by demands made on his time and financial resources for benevolent purposes that he has no time left to preach. Moses could not satisfy all of the pleas for help among his Israelite brethren (Exod. 18:13-26), and Peter and the apostles could not satisfy all the demands made on their time for purely benevolent reasons (Acts 6:1-4). And while some Filipino preachers have abused the benevolent issue, there is a real and continuing problem in the Philippines with respect to drought, typhoons, volcanoes, hunger, food, shelter, and clothing. And their problem needs to become our opportunity, to the extent of our ability.

Yes, preaching and spiritual things need to take precedence over material things when there is a conflict (Matt. 6:33; 2 Cor. 4:16). But we need to understand the predicament of some Filipino brethren and the preachers being sup-ported in that country. How does a Filipino preacher decide between using his often meager support for bus fare to go preach in the next bario and the immediate medical or food needs of his own family or needy brethren? And if he asks for additional help he is often rebuked for making such a request.

Every culture has its characteristics, some good and some bad. I am as ashamed of some American habits as Filipinos may be of some among their own people. But when we become Christians, we need to subject our native cultures and traditions to the law of Christ, and allow it to make us better people. And if God’s people cannot remove or ad-just to cultural barriers, it is their own fault, and not the fault of the Christ or his gospel which has called them into the family of God (Gal. 3:26-29).

American preachers have been guilty of poor management, immorality, teaching false doctrine, and sowing “discord among brethren,” yet we condone or wink at such things on this side of the ocean while using similar things as an excuse to cut off all support and encouragement to our brethren in the Philippines (and possibly other countries).

We need to continue investigating and communicating with those who are personally involved in the Philippine work. It is not the work of a few Americans and Filipinos, it is the Lord’s work. Some of us have taxed our physical and mental capacities to the utmost, and taken on extra correspondence and financial obligations, but we do so gladly for the rewards involved. And may God bless every American and Filipino brother or congregation who/which has had a part in that effort. To God be the glory.

As a final thought, let me emphasize the good which has been done in the Philippines by such publications as Searching the Scriptures and Guardian of Truth (formerly Truth Magazine). I know that some have used the addresses of congregations listed in those publications as a means of asking (or begging) for financial support, but I also know of much good that has been done by the teaching contained in these papers. And I trust that even this and similar reports can be used for good on both sides of the ocean.

Bear in mind that subscription rates for foreign countries are much higher than in the continental United States. And if a subscription expires, no Filipino or publication can stand the financial burden of that subscription for long. But I will guarantee you this one thing: any paper sent to the Philip-pines will be read, reread, and passed on for someone else to read. Maybe we could subscribe for someone, and check with the various editors/business offices to see if someone is on the mailing list. I could supply editors with some prospective names/addresses, but I don’t want to become a national clearing house for such an effort. I already have whole file cabinet full of Philippine correspondence, stacks of letters yet to be filed, and the letters from my last trip are just now beginning to arrive. But I will do what I can for the Lord’s work, which knows no national boundaries.

And if in the process I can keep a few more Filipinos and Americans (including myself) out of hell and help them on their way to heaven, I’ll be thankful now and for eternity. And unless the Lord has something better for us to do, we can rehearse it all after we have entered “in through the gates into the city.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 11, p. 19-21
June 3, 1993

By Larry Ray Hafley

Dear

Thanks for sending me the material on hand clapping in worship. I suppose 1 should not say that I “applaud” your efforts in opposing this innovation!

Sober minded reverence and godly fear are taught in the Bible (Titus 2:6, 12; Phil. 4:4-6; Heb. 12:28). Even the world knows the differencea moment of prayerful silence before a ball game in memory of someone, is different from the reactions during the game itself.

The spirit that advocates hand clapping and applause is a dangerous one, as you know. It is not confined to this one topic. It is a package deal. Usually, those who approve applause are the ones who see nothing wrong with “an occasional beer” or glass of wine. They are soft on the marriage question and other moral issues. They support “pep rally” preaching and “pop-psychology sermons” that are full of the contemporary slang and “buzz words” of fundamentalist evangelicals, televangelists and others. This sort likes the lavish praise on Charles Holt and relishes the reading of Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly, Warren Wiersbe and any other vague, trendy, religious generalizer and mesmerizer.

While they subtly take swipes at the work of men like T.W. Brents and Roy Cogdill, considering their preaching to be the cause of all “our current pharisaical legalism,” they sweetly commend those who teach error on divorce and remarriage with the mild disclaimer that they do not “fully agree.” However, any sermon that teaches the truth on marriage is seen as a “personal attack” against “sincere” brethren.

The clapping crowd will applaud a baptism, but they chafe under the old-fashioned gospel preaching that boldly and directly, by name, exposes Protestant baptism error on the subject. This element generally will clap for a gospel sermon (so called), but only if it is laced (or “spiced,” as they would say) with jokes, humor and cute, clever, colorful stories. One that is filled with Scripture, one that analyzes a Bible text and specifically refutes denominational error, they will not applaud. Their clapping reveals their carnal spirit.

Those who clap for motivational sermons on positive living and self-esteem are the same ones who will not applaud a sermon that truly defines and applies the term, “lasciviousness.” No, they will not cheer a sermon on 1 Timothy 2:9 that is specific in its application to godly living. Their spirit is “earthly, sensual, devilish” (as opposed to “heavenly, spiritual, godly”), and their applause is but a sign and symptom of it.

While they rail against “the traditions of the Church of Christ denomination” with words of snide sarcasm, they never seem to find the time or the vocabulary to speak against denominational traditions such as Easter and Christmas. In fact, they are “uncomfortable” with sermons that address those errors. They say we are “driving people away with such preaching.”

The men pleasing applauders speak words that are “smoother than butter,” but “war (is in their) heart.” With pious platitudes, mouthing broad sweeping words of sentimentality, they would feign encourage more preaching about “the doing and dying of Jesus.” They speak in syrupy terms about the need for more lessons on God’s love, mercy and grace. At the same time, they decry sermons that show, by the Bible, how that love, mercy and grace is to be applied and appropriated. Surely, their words are “softer than oil, yet (underneath) are they drawn swords.”

You will notice that this spirit seeks to expand the base of Romans 14. Presently, they want fellowship with error on the basis of that chapter, so long as the error is limited to divorce and remarriage. Selectively and inconsistently, they are not ready (yet) to accept homosexuality, instrumental music, institutionalism or premillennialism on the same basis (the perversion of Romans 14), but (and mark this down) their disciples, the next generation, will be.

You can expect cruel criticism for your stand against this spirit in the church there. You will be accused of being in-tolerant, judgmental, unloving and insensitive. You will feel the sting of these charges, especially when life long friends are swooned and swayed by them. Make no mistake about it, some will be enamored by the wit and charm of these sophisticated elitists. The sweet spirit that appeals for a “softer, gentler approach” to preaching will be contradicted when they turn their verbal venom on you.

Many of the attacks will be personal, not scriptural. They will not address Bible passages on scriptural subjects. Rather, they will assail your manner, your methods, and your motives. You should not be surprised to find that the man who admittedly teaches false doctrine (say, on marriage or the nature of the church) is always considered to be superior to those who teach the truth on those subjects. Those who teach the truth are “too harsh” and are guided by a legalistic party spirit, while those who teach error are pure and sincere and though they are “off the mark a little,” still, they are saying “some things that need to be said.”

Their criticisms will be veiled, indirect. They will speak of “elders and preachers who want to play God,” but they will never cite you by name. So, if you respond, they will say, “Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, and the hit dog yelps every time.” They will speak of “buzzards” who watch a flock, not to lead or feed it, but to pounce and prey on anything that is rotten. Guess who they think the buzzard is? That is right  you!

If you indict Charles Holt’s errors and review them in light of the Bible, you will be accused of ignoring “the good things” that brother Holt says. If you define brother Hailey’s error on the marriage question, you will be accused of attacking a man who has more knowledge and spirituality in his little finger than you have in your whole body. These things will hurt you, but they are part of the price you must pay for standing for the truth. Fortunately, we do not have to suffer as Paul and the Lord did. Naturally, you must guard against the temptation to retaliate against them in an equally carnal attitude. Sadly, through the use of anonymous phone calls and unfair, unjust (and also anonymous) letters, they will seek to provoke you into acting or speaking rashly and maliciously. Beware of all such provocations. Alexander the coppersmith did Paul much evil, going to great lengths to undermine the apostle’s preaching, but Paul left revenge to the Lord (2 Tim. 4:14,15).

Yes, these same loving spirits, who with high school cheers can applaud a baptism and speak with teary eyes of the need for “non-confrontational” cross centered preaching (There is no such thing!), are the same ones who will “belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips” (Psa. 59:7). Truly, their “tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully” (Psa. 52:2). Your soul, brother, is “among lions: and (you) lie even among them that are set on fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword” (Psa. 57:4).

You must continue to speak the things that become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). You must hold “fast the faithful word” and “by sound doctrine . . . exhort and convince the gain-sayers” (Titus 1:9). Rebuke them sharply that you may stop their mouths and that they may be sound in the faith. If this fails, they will, having itching ears that need to be scratched and tickled, surround themselves with teachers that will turn away their ears from the truth, and they shall be turned unto fables and false doctrine of all kinds. They will maintain a form of godliness and profess that they know God, but they are disgusting and disobedient.

Their pious pretensions will deceive the hearts of the simple and tears and heartache will befall you and all who love the truth and stand therein. But when they leave, after all the tears have been shed, after you are left seemingly alone, a slight rustle, a faint sound will be heard. It will be the applause and approval of heaven.

Stand fast, my brother.

Brotherly, Larry

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 11, p. 6-7
June 3, 1993