Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

There are a number of things Jesus did not have, yet there are some things he had that we are looking at in this study.

Jesus Had Pre-Existence

Some believe and teach that Jesus was a created being. Not so! Jesus has always been. He existed before he came to earth. He was present at the creation. God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). Paul wrote the Colossians, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Col. 1:16). Jesus is eternal. Jesus told the Jews of his day, “Before Abraham was, I am” (Jn. 8:58). Don’t let anybody tell you that Jesus had no pre-existence!

Jesus Had An Unusual Conception

Jesus was born of a virgin! Isaiah foresaw the conception of Jesus as a miracle. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). New Testament writers like Matthew picked up this out-of-the-ordinary story. “Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1: 18). Again Matthew said, “. . . for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:20). The actual birth of Jesus was ordinary. It was the conception that was different.

Jesus Had Dual Being

Jesus had a dual nature. Jesus was God-man. He was both human and divine. He was “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). John said, “And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:14). Paul wrote the Philippians, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5-8). Even though Jesus took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, he still had his divinity. He was both human and divine. Something took on the likeness of men. Just what was that? It was divinity that took on the likeness of men.

Jesus Had Compassion

Our society today is lacking in compassion. While Jesus was here, he had compassion on men. The Bible says that Jesus was moved with compassion. “But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). There is a great demand among the Lord’s people to show compassion toward others. Perhaps one reason we are losing people faster than we are converting them, in lots of places, is because we show so little care, concern and compassion! Peter said, “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous” (1 Pet. 3:8). I don’t care how much you have and how much you give on Sunday into the collection plate, if you do not have compassion for others, you are in a bad way. John said, “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” (1 Jn. 3:17)

Jesus Had Work to Do

Jesus was busy. He had work to do. He said, “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh when no man can work” (Jn. 9:4). At the tender age of twelve, Jesus told Mary and Joseph, “I must be about my Father’s business” (Lk. 2:49). Jesus said to the Jews of his day, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (Jn. 5:17). When John asked, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?” (Matt. 11:3), the works Jesus did were pointed to as evidence that he was who he said he was. The works were “the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matt. 11:5). Near the close of his earth life, he said, “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (Jn. 17:4).

Every Christian needs to be working. The Holy Spirit told the Corinthians, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Jesus Had All Authority

A failure to recognize that Jesus had all power or authority has been the source of many problems among the Lord’s people. Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). The mother of Jesus realized that he had all authority when she said, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (Jn. 2:5). While Jesus was here on earth, folks were astonished at his doctrine. “For he taught them as one having authority” (Matt. 7:29). A failure for the church to know that Jesus is “the head of the body” (Col. 1:18) has kept many churches of Christ from being in subjection to him. As a result of this concept, lots of churches have engaged in unauthorized works such as providing entertainment and recreation out of the church treasury to contributing to human organizations in doing the work of the church. Recently more than 4,000 churches of Christ have contributed to the “One Nation Under God” project of a Tennessee church to the tune of about $10,000,000 dollars in an evangelistic campaign. The authority of Christ does not allow such an arrangement!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 304-305
May 21, 1992

By Roger Jackson

The Proposition: “The Bible teaches that a church of the Lord’s people may make a contribution, from its treasury, to an institutional home for orphans.”

I am pleased to have this opportunity to affirm this proposition and to have as my opponent brother Weldon Warnock. I also appreciate brother Willis’ willingness to publish the discussion in the pages of the Guardian of Truth.

It is the responsibility of the affirmative to define the terms of the proposition. By “the Bible,” I mean the inspired Word of God, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. By “teaches,” I mean imparts knowledge and authorizes a practice by either direct statement, approved example or implication. By “a church of the Lord’s people,” I mean a local congregation of the church of Christ (1 Cor. 1:2). By “may,” I mean it has a right to, is at liberty to, but is not required to. I am not affirming that this is the only way to do the work. By “make a contribution,” I mean render benevolent assistance to. By “from its treasury,” I mean out of the funds collected on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2) or goods purchased by those funds. By “institutional home,” I mean one legally structured under articles of incorporation maintaining a board of directors. By “for orphans,” I mean the fatherless (Jas. 1:27).

Much that will be said in the course of this debate will hinge on the hermeneutic employed by each of the disputants. These few lines will lay down a principle along that line. One way that the church acts is by its members. This is not to say that everything all the members do the church does, but when the church has an obligation that obligation may be commanded of the individual and carried out collectively. For instance, in Galatians 2:10 Paul was told to remember the poor, which he said he did. The command was totally individual, “Only they would that we should remember the poor, the same which I was forward to do.” How did he carry out that obligation? He took up a collection out of the first day of the week contribution (1 Cor. 16:1,2; Rom. 15:26). Now brother Warnock believes an orphan can be a scriptural object of the church’s benevolence as we shall notice from his own writings a bit later. Could an individual Christian fulfill his obligation (Jas. 1:27) to such a poor person the same way Paul did?

Could he and a number of others pool their resources into the church treasury and support a poor person (orphan)? Paul’s actions are an optional example. We may do it that way. We may do it another way, but this is one way it can be done.

I shall use implicit authority to prove the proposition following the principle that to prove every part of a proposition is to prove the whole proposition. The argument is this:

If it is the case that:

A. A church of the Lord’s people has an obligation in the care of orphans, and,

B. The needs of an orphan child cannot be adequately met without his having or being a part of a home, and,

C. The church, without any further organization, cannot function as a home,

D. The church may discharge some of its obligations by providing funds, and

E. The church may send funds to a home,

Then it is the case that; (by conjunction, A,B,C,D,E, F)

F. The Bible teaches that a church of the Lord’s people may make a contribution, from its treasury, to an institutional home for orphans.

The syllogism is a modus ponens syllogism with a compound antecedent. I am affirming the antecedent. If the syllogism is valid (and it is), and the premises are true (which I shall prove), then the conclusion is demanded and we have a sound argument. A sound argument has no answer. I shall now proceed to prove the premises are true.

Church Responsibility

A church of the Lord’s people has a responsibility in the care of orphan children as the need arises and the opportunity presents itself. I have never debated a man of brother Warncock’s position who believed this. They believe that a church may support a Christian who is an orphan, but not because he is an orphan, but because he is a Christian. However, brother Warnock wrote in this paper (Vol. XXIV, No. 14, p. 14): “To my knowledge there is nobody who opposes helping widows and orphans from the church treasury, provided they come within the scope of the church’s responsibility. The church is not obligated to help, financially, all widows and orphans, but just certain ones.” Now, brother Warnock give us the passage that teaches the church may assist an orphan out of the church treasury. You said it could, now tell us where that passage is. I maintain that you teach a church of the Lord has no responsibility at all to an orphan child simply on the basis of his being an orphan whether he is in an institutional home or any other kind. What say ye?

Here is the argument to prove a church of the Lord’s people has a responsibility in the care of orphan children: James 1:27 states, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (emphasis mine, R.J.) A. The word episkeptomai (to visit) relates equally to the fatherless and to the widows. B. If it is exclusively individual for the fatherless, then it is exclusively individual for the widows. C. But it is not exclusively for the widows (Acts 6:1; 1 Tim. 5:16). C. Therefore, it is not exclusively individual for the fatherless. Since it is not exclusively individual for the fatherless the church may care for the fatherless on the strength of James 1:27. Acts 6:1 states the church helped widows and 1 Timothy 5:16 states the same thing, The church may visit the fatherless because of the equal relationship.

In spite of Wayne Greeson’s false report about my debate with Thomas Thrasher last year, which appeared in the Guardian, Thrasher would not even mention this argument. All he could say was James 1:27 is individual. This does not answer the argument. To show the inconsistency, brother Warnock, would you please give us a passage that authorizes the church to obey the laws of the land and to sing?

Must Have A Home

The needs of an orphan child cannot be adequately met without his having, or being a part of a home. By “home” I mean a family situation, custody or guardianship in the cause of the fatherless and inclusive of a dwelling. When we are told to assemble (Heb. 10:25) we understand that a place is essential. When we are told to care for the fatherless and widows a place is just as essential as well as custody and guardianship in the case of the fatherless. In providing facilities, custody and guardianship it is often necessary to incorporate. This produces a board of trustees and a charter. All of this is in compliance with the law (1 Pet. 2:13,14).

Church Cannot Function As A Home

In the case of orphan children the church must utilize the services of another institution. It is God’s arrangement for an eldership to serve over a local church (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17). The home is overseen by guardians who may be the natural parents (Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20).

According to brother Warnock’s statement, already quoted, the church may support some widows. Are these widows in homes? Is a home another organization separate from the church? When the church supports these widows in these homes is their home an organization separate and apart from the church doing the work of the church? Is this home a human institution? In contributing to the upkeep of her home would the church be subsidizing a human institution? All of your answers apply to orphans by virtue of the fact that they are equated in the work of visiting in James 1:27.

Obligations Discharged By Providing Funds

Some of the obligations of the church may be discharged by providing funds. In the New Testament we read about obligations of the church being carried out by providing funds. (1) 1 Timothy 3:15 states that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. We believe and teach that this makes the Great Commission binding on the church (Matt. 28:18-20). One way that the church of the first century carried out this obligation was by sending funds to the preacher (Phil. 4:15,16). (2) In carrying out the command to care for some widows (1 Tim. 5:16 – given after the fact), the church gathered many necessities (treasury) and gave it to widows daily (Acts 4:34,35; 6:1-6). In like manner James 1:27 states the equal responsibility of supporting the fatherless.

Funds For A Home

May the church provide funds for a home? When money is given for the general upkeep of property and maintaining sustenance for those residing in and on that property, funds have been appropriated and given to a home. This is parallel to giving to a church. The term “church” in our language includes the building and the people who meet in it. To contribute to a church is to contribute to the work of the people in a building and may include the maintenance of a building. Brother Willis has assured me that he and his staff believe that a church may contribute to a home. Thus, he insisted on a word “institutional” be included in the proposition. Brother Warnock has left the definite impression in his writings that he believes the church has a responsibility to “some” orphans. Orphans need homes. It is impossible to help the needy without giving or sustaining them in that which they need – a home. However, I never debated a one of them who believed the church could make a contribution to a home of any kind. They wanted to include the institutional home so that they could talk about abuses and hide when the going got tough. So perhaps brother Warnock can clear the matter up for us. Brother Warnock, do you believe the church can make a contribution to a home of any kind? If so, what kind, and where does the Bible teach it? It you will honor us with that information we will know whether or not to pursue the proof of this point or leave it as a point of argument.

Since the syllogism is unquestionably valid and the premises are true, the conclusion follows and is the proposition. We have a sound argument. The proposition is proven to be true.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, p. 331-332
June 4, 1992

By P.J. Casebolt

“For we dare no; make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).

In spite of the strong admonition “dare not,” we sometimes end up doing the very thing we ought not do.

The comparison is sometimes made that brethren who work through unscriptural human arrangements such as missionary societies and sponsoring churches engage in more evangelism than do those who contend for congregational autonomy and the all-sufficiency of the church.

Not only does this argument give aid to the “let us do evil that good may come” position (Rom. 3:8), but it also violates the divine injunction of our text.

The Missionary Society system actually closed the doors of several church buildings because the Society could not furnish evangelists to fill the pulpits. Is this success?

The evangelistic “message” of some of the sponsoring-church radio/TV/media projects has been so weak that sectarian churches and preachers have contributed to them with both their money and prayers. Is this the intent and content of the great commission?

When an eldership in California oversees a human college in the Philippines, and that college in turn sends out and controls the evangelists, is this a practice worthy of comparison?

If we want to provoke brethren to more evangelism, edification, or benevolence, we need to use some method other than comparing ourselves with brethren who resort to iniquity (lawlessness), in an effort to do the Lord’s will. We dare not lend influence or respectability to the old fable that “it is better to do something wrong than to do nothing.”

We can pick out a congregation which meets in an out-of-the-way building across the tracks (depending on which side of the tracks you happen to be), whose members aren’t very friendly and compare it with a congregation whose building is highly visible and its membership friendly and outgoing. But such a comparison may not mean a thing.

Two of the most spiritually minded congregations I know of have buildings in their respective towns which are still difficult for me to find, and I have been to both of them on several occasions. And the parking situation at both locations is tenuous and inconvenient, to say the least.

Yet, they preach and teach publicly and privately, care for one another, and have a reputation for ministering to strangers, especially young people and college students.

On the other hand, I helped establish a congregation whose building was brand-new brick veneer, and only two blocks off the main highway through town. After I left, the congregation was divided by the introduction of the Herald of Truth sponsoring church arrangement into the budget, the remaining members decided to get off the “back street” and out onto the highway for more “visibility” and they have not been sound in the faith since.

In another town of some 4,000 population with 300 members of the church, some of the younger heads thought the congregation wasn’t “doing enough” and wanted to canvas the town. In spite of the fact that members lived on every street in town, knew their neighbors and who moved in and out, and in spite of the fact that all these neighbors knew more about the church of Christ than some of its own members knew, the elders told the zealous census takers to go ahead with the canvas, just to let them work off some steam and learn a lesson.

After the door-to-door census, which lost some of its steam and some of its original proponents before the job was completed, only one “prospect” emerged from the entire effort. And when one of the elders and I went to see this sister who had moved into town some few years earlier, I recognized her as a unstable member from a congregation where I had previously preached. She knew enough about the church to know that she preferred the world to the church, and of course some of us already knew that.

When John was instructed to write letters to the seven churches of Asia, the Lord had “somewhat against” five of those congregations (Rev. 2-3). The churches at Jerusalem, Antioch, and Philippi seemed to be in good shape, yet the one at Corinth had enough problems in it to keep several congregations from being “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Today, we may take a lukewarm congregation in one part of town, and compare it with an active membership in some other congregation where they run people through their kitchen and gymnasium, through the baptistery, and back into the “fellowship hall” again, but such a comparison may mean nothing whatever.

What does mean something is when we can identify the Lord’s church, its mission in evangelism/edification/benevolence, its work and worship, and compare ourselves with the divine standard.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, p. 308
May 21, 1992

By Larry Ray Hafley

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). To preach the gospel is to preach the cross, “for it is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). To “preach Christ” is to preach the wisdom and power of God (1 Cor. 1:23,24). About this there can be no doubt to anyone who believes the Bible. God has “manifested his word through preaching” (Tit. 1:3). He has “brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10). Ironically, the death of Christ is the life of the world. What is seen as “weakness” and “foolishness” is the power and wisdom of God unto salvation.

The Displacement of the Cross

In a book entitled, The Cruciform Church, written by an ultra-liberal, C. Leonard Allen, the charge is made over and over that “the preaching of the cross” has been disregarded and displaced by undue emphasis upon, “What must I do to be saved?” It is argued that when we stress man’s part in obeying the gospel that we are neglecting “the centrality of the cross” in our salvation. If that is true, one wonders if Peter was “guilty” of ignoring “the cross’s doctrinal fulness” when “with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). In other words, according to this charge, as we stress the terms of pardon, we are not “preaching the cross.” When we tell men what they must do to be saved, when we emphasize the conditions of pardon, we are leading men to rely and trust on their obedience and not upon the death and blood of the cross. We may lead men to obedience in baptism and to the church of the Lord, but have we truly converted them to the Christ of Calvary? The inference is that we have not. But that you may see the charge for yourself, consider the following excerpt.

. . . There was affirmation of the fact of the atonement but reluctance to delve much into its meaning. Thus preachers could preach sermons entitled, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” and scarcely even mention the crucifixion or atonement of Christ.

One of the most striking examples of the displacement of the cross appears in T.W. Brents’ huge volume, The Gospel Plan of Salvation (1874). It became a standard work and was widely read for decades . . . . The only extended treatment of the atonement is a five-page section devoted to refuting Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement. Although one finds a few references to Christ’s death scattered throughout the book’s 662 pages, nowhere does one find any systematic or extended discussion of human need and how God met that need at the cross. Brents devotes 306 pages to a discussion of baptism. But even there I found only about two pages even connecting baptism to the death of Christ. In a book claiming to set forth the gospel plan of salvation, I find such omission astounding, the sign of something deeply awry in the theology of the movement . . .

“. . . Where the atonement does appear the concepts are fragmentary and anemic. Ironically for a movement devoted to restoration of the New Testament faith, nothing like the richness of the New Testament doctrine of the atonement appears in our preaching” (The Cruciform Church 120,121).

Similar statements and criticisms have recently appeared in print. “The Gospel Plan of Salvation (1874) by T.W. Brents is a well-written refutation of Calvinistic and sectarian errors relative to man’s response in the plan of salvation. While this is important, it’s ironic that a book so titled doesn’t present a full, systematic exposition of the centrality and positive meaning of the cross in the plan of salvation” (W. Frank Walton, Christianity Magazine, February, 1992, p. 12).

T.W. Brents needs no defense from me. His work needs to be read and preached by all who would preach the cross of Christ. His purpose had something to do with the thrust of his argumentation. What is here denied, in these articles, is that preaching man’s response in the plan of salvation is somehow an abandonment of the meaning of the cross.

Brethren, if our preaching is off base, spare us the assessment and philosophy of Abilene Christian University and The Cruciform Church crowd. Two years ago, a very fine lady, a sister in Christ, sent me several pages of The Cruciform Church. In part, my response to her was this:

Finally, as to the enclosure, I shall profit from it. Thank you for caring enough to send it. I try not to pattern my preaching after Campbell, Locke, Bill Love, T.W. Brents, C.L. Loos, the 1950s or any other human assessment. I strive, however much I may fail, to preach as the prophets, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus the Christ and the holy

apostles and prophets of the New Testament. In short, as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11), so I speak. I seek to emulate and imitate the manner and method of divine history (Matt. 5-7; 13; 23; 2 Tim. 2:2,14-18,23-26; 3:13-4:4). As to source, emphasis, manner and doctrine, I seek to obey 1 Timothy 1:3; 4:6-16; 5:20; Titus 1:9-13; 2:1,15.

I care not how this relates to Campbell, the restoration, Martin Luther’s imagery emphasis, the reformation, nor to the form, style or substance of any men in any era. My goals, if I know my heart, are those of the spirit, genus and model of the Bible. Wherein I have failed, I solicit your prayers and entreaties.

So, if “my speech and my preaching” needs some revision, give it to me from “the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Warmed over and worn out philosophies of preaching from liberal professors will not suffice. Wiersbe, Lucado and Shelley are not to be compared to Bible preaching. If preachers today need to be “taken to school” so they can learn to preach, take them to the word of God. Rehashing the judgments and opinions of liberal, ecumenical spirits will not “cut it.” The points made in this series of articles may be totally off base, but they begin and end with Scriptures. If the conclusions we reach are a perversion of the word of God, then kindly and candidly correct us (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Meanwhile, please note that our efforts are centered on “the preaching of the cross” from a biblical perspective and not from the “wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought.”

Grace and the Cross

In Colossians 1:5,6, Paul wrote of “the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you . . . and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). Those who heard “believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8), were characterized as those “which had believed through grace” (Acts 18;27). Those who “knew the grace of God in truth” had learned of “the hope . . . in heaven” through “the word of the truth of the gospel.” Those who have believed and been baptized have been saved “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48; 11:15; 18:8,27).

Thus, the “gospel of the grace of God” consists of more than the mere acknowledgment of God’s unmerited favor. When one preaches faith, repentance and baptism, he is “testifying of the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24; 19:5; Eph. 2:8,9). It is unfair, not to mention unscriptural, for one to say that preaching the conditions of forgiveness is to neglect the grace of God, because, as we have seen, those items, along with the knowledge of the hope in heaven, are an integral part of knowing “the grace of God in truth.” The same is true with regard to “the preaching of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18; Acts 18:8,27).

Peter spoke to those who had a “living hope” and redemption through the death, blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:3-5,18,19; 2:24). These people had been begotten by the word of God and had purified their souls “in obeying the truth” (1 Pet. 1:22-25). “Baptism doth also now save us,” Peter said, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). To preach the necessity of “obeying the truth” and that “baptism doth also now save us” is not to ignore the place of the cross of the Christ in our salvation, for, Peter concluded, “I have written . . . that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand” (1 Pet. 5:12). Do not be deceived by this false dichotomy, this false distinction, between the grace of God and the commands of God. One preaches the grace and cross of Christ when he preaches that “baptism doth also now save us” and that one purifies his soul “in obeying the truth.”

Further, Peter referred to “the grace,” the gospel system, that had come unto them (1 Pet. 1:10-12). In the very next verse, note his “Wherefore.” In view of “the grace,” I ‘the gospel,” certain pure and holy behavior was demanded of them (1 Pet. 1:13-4:19). By living in accord with the truth, by living godly lives, they were standing “in the true grace of God” (1 Pet. 5:12). Hence, preaching that exhorts and encourages righteous living, is preaching the grace of God. One is not displacing the cross when he preaches against immorality and ungodliness. He is preaching the grace of God when he preaches against worldliness and sinful living (1 Pet. 2:1; 4:3,4). Yet, we are being told that such preaching that condemns the sins of the flesh, while needed, is getting us away from the cross of Christ and away from the grace of God. As the epistle of 1 Peter demonstrates, that is not so.

In Titus 2:11-15, we see Paul’s linking of the grace of God with righteous living. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying undgodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that I he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.”

The grace of God (1) brings salvation and (2) teaches us. What does God’s grace teach us? Negatively, the grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. Positively, the grace of God teaches us to live soberly, righteously, godly, in this present world. What teaches us how to live? The grace of God. Is preaching on how to live in this world an abandonment of the grace of God? No! Are we to preach on such matters? Are we to discuss the demands of God for righteous living? “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” In so doing, one is speaking “sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1-10); he is preaching the grace of God. Hence, sermons against immodest dress and social drinking are sermons that preach “the grace of God” and the cross of Christ. Do not swallow the line that says that such preaching is neglecting or displacing the cross.

Enemies of the Cross of Christ

In the Philippian letter, Paul emphasized that righteousness does not come by the law, but by “the faith of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:9,10). He instructed them to only let their manner of life “be as it becometh the gospel of Christ” (Phil. 1:27). There is, Paul said, a manner of living that befits the gospel, and he exhorted that all should walk by its rule (Phil. 3:15-17). But some do not so walk and live. Their god is their own carnal appetite; they glory in shameful behavior; they act in sensual, fleshly sins (Phil. 3:19). And how does Paul describe such people? What are they? How shall we label those who live in various lusts and passions? Paul says, “that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18). To walk in a lewd, licentious, lascivious lifestyle is to be an enemy of the cross of Christ! There, when one preaches the Bible standard of righteous living, when he teaches against the shameful, sordid sins of the flesh, he is preaching “the cross of Christ.” Those who would make a distinction and say that we are displacing, or at least ignoring the cross when we preach on such matters, are just as wrong as they can be. However well-intentioned they may be, they, too, are “the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:15-19).

What of those, who like Paul, are “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17)? T. W. Brents has been set forth earlier as an example of one who vigorously defended the faith, but who in so doing, displaced and ignored “the atonement.” What of such men? What of such work? Is it truly a case of unwittingly drifting from the grace of God? Let Paul answer. “In my bonds, and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, ye are all partakers of my grace” (Phil. 1:5-7). No, my brethren, those who defend the truth against the evils and errors of Catholic and Protestant denominationalism are not ignoring God’s grace nor Christ’s cross. Rather, they are partakers of grace and friends of the cross.

The Galatians had been “called into the grace of Christ” (Gal. 1:6); that is, “unto the fellowship of . . . Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:9). Jesus Christ had been “set forth” and “crucified” among them (Gal. 3:1). Obviously, Jesus was not literally, physically, crucified among the Galatians, but when they heard “the preaching of the cross,” “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1Cor. 1:18; 2:2), in that way, in that manner, Jesus had been “set forth” and “crucified” among them. So it is with us even today.

Paul equates the reliance of the Galatians on circumcision and the law as an annulment of the faith, the cross and the grace of God (Gal. 2; 5:14). To trust in “another gospel” is to “pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-9). To “obey the truth” (Gal. 3: 1; 5:7) is to uphold and support the cross of Christ. Those who refused circumcision suffered “persecution for the cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:12). Thus, when the faithful saints at Galatia contended against circumcision and showed that it was no longer binding, their arguments were “for the cross of Christ.” They were not displacing the cross when they confronted Judaizing: teachers with their arguments. When they urged men to “obey the truth” and to let their lives be “crucified with Christ” in denial of the flesh, they were glorying “in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14).

In a parallel fashion, when we confront a Seventh Day Adventist today, when we reprove and rebuke his errors on the Sabbath observance, when we show that such things have been “nailed to the cross” (Col. 2:14-16; Gal. 5:1-4), we are “preaching the cross.” An article on Sabbatarian errors that points to the Lord’s way and “the Lord’s day” is not one that ignores the cross. We are not detracting from the essence of the gospel, the cross, when we instruct men “in the way of God more perfectly.” Do not be misled by a superficial spirituality which says that we should not place so much emphasis on “doctrinal correctness” at the expense of “the central theme of the cross.” It is a false dissection as Galatians and Colossians 2 clearly shows.

Baptism and the Cross

Space forbids quotation of Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:11-13, but one’s burial and resurrection in baptism is “in the likeness of his death” and resurrection. In baptism into Jesus Christ and into his death, the old manner of life is “crucified with him” that the former manner of life should be destroyed. Through faith in the working of God, we are raised up with Christ to walk “in newness of life.” When one preaches baptism, even for “306 pages,” as Brents did, he is certainly preaching the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; he is assuredly preaching the cross of Christ. Observe, too, that this obedience from the heart demands a godly manner of life. One may not continue in sin. He may not yield his body as an instrument unto unrighteousness (Rom. 6:12,13,19). Those who preach the truth about baptism into Christ and into his death and who urge godly living as a consequence are the ones who are preaching the cross. They are the ones who are truly putting the cross on 94center stage.” Those like the extreme liberals who gave us The Cruciform Church with all of its snide criticisms of preaching would have you believe otherwise. Likewise, parrots of the liberals’ philosophy of preaching are misguided, and regarding the real nature of faithful New Testament preaching of the cross, they understand “neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 325-327
June 4, 1992