Truth Magazine

By Ernest A. Finley

Where are we headed as a nation? I speak of America.

Of course, only God knows the answer. But a look at history might help us to see what probably lies ahead.

Take a look at Israel. When Israel faithfully served God, it prospered. But when it became like its sinful neighbors, it fell under divine judgment. The Babylonian captivity of Judah illustrates the fate of a nation that spurns God’s will.

Is there reason to believe that God deals differently with ungodly nations today than in centuries past? I am of the persuasion that he does not, though his judgments may be manifest in diverse ways. And, while there is no nation in the world that could rightfully claim to be a righteous nation, yet, would it not be reasonable to think that a nation with a greater manifestation of righteousness would be more apt to enjoy his favor than one that is almost totally given over to works of iniquity? Solomon tells us, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; But sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

Now, let us take a look at America.

Consider the large percentage of children in our land who have no spiritual influence whatsoever exerted in their lives. Many times, the only occasion in which they hear God’s name mentioned is when his name is taken in vain. Many children receive no help in avoiding the corrupting influences in society. God intends for fathers to “nurture” their children “in the chastening and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4), but how many fathers in America are doing it? Is there any wonder that as a nation we are drifting farther and farther away from God?

Marriage and the Home

It does not bode well for America when we consider the attitude of so many toward marriage and the home. A few years ago this writer was assisting in a wedding ceremony. While I was impressing the idea of the sanctity of marriage, impressing the fact that it is a divinely ordained relationship, a young couple in the audience was heard to say, “We prefer ‘shackin’ up.” Today, millions of couples in America are living together without the benefit of marriage. This, in spite of the fact that the gospel says, “Let marriage be had, in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Half the marriages in America end in divorce, not to mention the number of husbands and wives that are separated but not divorced. America seems to have forgotten that God said, “I hate putting away” (Mal. 2:16). Further, an alarming percentage of husbands and wives are unfaithful to their companions. Do we not have reason to fear for the future of a nation that deals in such treachery and such debauchery? I feel that I would be dilatory in my duty if I did not warn that America is in trouble.

Sodomy

Sodomy is not new to the world. This is one of the evils that led to the destruction of the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In fact, the evil is named after Sodom. But, sadly, such sin has become more prevalent in America in recent years, or, if not more prevalent, at least more brazen and bold. When I was a youth, the “pervert” stayed hidden in the closet or the back alley. But today he is parading his or her perversion and demanding acceptance for his “alternate lifestyle.” Certain religions (?) in our society are accepting these ungodly wretches into their fellowship and ordaining preachers to “minister” to them in their continuing licentiousness. But such immorality is strongly condemned in the gospel of our Lord. Paul warns that those who engage in such are going to miss heaven (see 1 Cor. 6:9,10). Remembering what happened to Sodom, we ask, “What lies ahead for a nation that approves or tolerates such evil?”

Abortion

One of the most alarming considerations of our day is the evil of abortion. When Hitler murdered approximately six million Jews, many nations of the world were outraged. But since the Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States, over three times that many unborn infants have been murdered legally, and that in our nation alone. That is over nineteen million! Can a nation that is murdering millions upon millions of innocent and defenseless unborn infants go unpunished? It strikes fear in my heart to even ask the question. America must repent if we are to avert divine retribution.

Drugs and Alcohol

The drug and alcohol problem has reached catastrophic proportions (alcohol is a drug too). Drug addiction and alcoholism are widely prevalent in our society. Our Lord tells us through the apostle Paul, “They who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:21). If this evil gets much worse, God will not need to destroy us as a nation. We will destroy ourselves. Is it too late? I think not. But only God knows the answer.

Perilous Times

Paul warned Timothy that “perilous” or “grievous” times lay ahead (see 2 Tim. 3:14). Among other considerations, Paul made it clear that those days could be identified by the fact that men would become “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” He mentioned also that they would become “lovers of money.” Do I miss the mark when I charge that many in our day are “lovers of money” and “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God”? Indeed, are not many in America “pleasure-mad”? Are not many materialistic, thinking far more of wealth than of spiritual values, than even heaven itself?

A Divine Warning

David, a man inspired of the Spirit, warned, “The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol, even all the nations that forget God” (Psa. 9:17). While David’s warning relates to the eternal destiny of the wicked citizens of a wicked nation, God can judge a nation even before eternity dawns ‘ and often has. After Babylon had served as an instrument of divine judgment against sinful Judah, it became the object of divine wrath and judgment itself. As assuredly as God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, he can destroy sinful nations today. Just ten righteous souls in the sinful city of Sodom would have saved it from destruction (Gen. 18:20-33) but they were not to be found (Gen. 19:13,24,25). There is no way of knowing what God’s attitude toward America is today as it relates to our future or destiny as a nation. But has not God already shown a lot of longsuffering? Just how long can his patience endure? Is there yet enough righteousness in our nation that God will withhold divine judgment or wrath?

Lest it should appear that I am giving America no credit whatsoever for the good that there is in it, I am fully aware of the fact that there are righteous souls in our land. Among the young and the elderly alike there are those who have faith in God and our Savior and who are striving to live to their glory. There are those who respect the divine principles of morality, who honor marriage and the home, to whom Sodomy is wholly repugnant, who would not for a moment entertain the idea of getting an abortion, who from the earliest years of their lives “learned to say ‘no… to drugs and alcohol, who have a lot more concern with spiritual matters than material things and who are sincerely intent on spending eternity with God. But let us remember that when Judah was taken away into Babylonian captivity there were righteous citizens in the nation of Judah. Daniel was a resident of Judah and so were his friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Daniel had enough faith to go through the lion’s den. His friends had enough faith to come safely through the fiery furnace. No doubt, there were others in Judah who were righteous. Still, Judah’s wickedness was so great that God brought his judgment upon her.

Where are we headed as a nation? To better things if we do better. To divine wrath if we continue in a downward course.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 291-292
May 18, 1989

By Robert W. Goodman

Every group that stands for anything has a problem of what to do when. those identified with it violate its established standards. In the church, we have come to use two phrases to describe this: “church discipline” and “withdrawing fellowship.” It is interesting to note that these expressions are not found in the Bible. It is not surprising then that we have problems since these expressions may mean different things to different people.

There are some basic ideas we need to observe:

1. Those who become members of the church do so by their own free will. The local church is composed of those professing to be in Divine fellowship who have voluntarily agreed to fellowship one another.

2. When those who have voluntarily joined in fellowship with others no longer live according to the Lord’s rule which they have agreed to accept, the church has a right and an obligation to the one that is out of step with the Lord. There is no one formal name given for this action. Several terms are used and in the context of these passages we see how to proceed.,Matthew 18:15-17 – “. . . But if he refuses , to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Romans 16:17 – “note (mark) . . . and avoid them.” 1 Corinthians 5:5 – “deliver such a one to Satan,” v. 7 -“purge out the old leaven,” v. 11 “not to keep company,” v. 13 – “put away from yourselves that wicked person.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6 “withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly,” v. 14 – “note that person and do not keep company with him.”

3. These passages, with a possible exception of Romans 16:17, have to do with those professing to be members in fellowship yet living contrary fives. Obviously the church has a right to teach, correct or discipline them with the idea of correcting them. It is like a family seeking to correct a wayward member.

4. What these passages do not address, except maybe Romans 16:17, is what to do with one who publicly makes known to the church the idea he no longer wants to be considered a part of the congregation – he withdraws his membership or fellowship and wants it publicly known. Here is an area that brethren often overlook. They proceed with such a one in the same way they would against one claiming to be a member yet living in sin. This is usually the area where hard feelings are caused and lawsuits are filed – some may have been successful against local churches in this areal

5. If people can publicly and voluntarily agree to become a member, they can also decide not to be a member (the Lord may decide such things long before man). Suppose some one withdraws from us and wants it publicly stated he is no longer a part of the congregation. What are we to do? Can we correct as a family member one who does not want to be a part of the family? If he is unwilling to meet with faithful brethren to discuss his wayward ways, why further irritate him by forced visits or registered letters? The Lord does not obligate us to cast our pearls before swine. He urged the disciples to shake off the dust of their feet against some. We are not to judge those “outside” (1 Cor. 5:12).

6. Here is where we should “mark” or “note” and “avoid” or “do not keep company.” Why call it “withdrawing fellowship”? Those whose names have connected with a congregation should not have their names privately dropped. If they wish to withdraw, even because of sin, why not let them and state this publicly so they can be noted and avoided?

7. Legal counsel by those familiar with the Scriptures and the law is that, in dealing with factious and contentious people and those claiming to have withdrawn from the church; action against them not be written out and sent to them. This will not likely help them and may provide material for some lawyer to help them sue.

8. Problems in this area should not cause the church to sin by doing nothing. We should act in harmony with the Scriptures, good judgment and legal counsel.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, p. 299
May 18, 1989

By Weldon E. Warnock

The apostle Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Terence McLean, preacher of Grace Bible Church, and proprietor of two religious bookstores in the Dayton area, wrote a tract, entitled “Acts 2:38,” repudiating what Peter said in the verse. Interestingly, McLean never tells us what Acts 2:38 teaches, but he arrays other Scriptures against the verse with all craftiness and subtlety. Let us notice the following perversions in the tract wherein he endeavors to evade the force and simplicity of what Peter commanded those to do on Pentecost.

McLean wrote: Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation because: “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). And so the gospel which saves and water baptism are two different things.

Answer: Paul did not say that Christ sent me not to preach baptism, or that baptism is non-essential, but Christ sent me not to do the baptizing. Read the context. Why were the Corinthians baptized (Acts 18:8) if baptism has no place in the gospel? Did Paul disobey Jesus when he baptized some of those at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-16)? Was Paul under the Great Commission which includes baptism (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16)?

McLean, do you baptize? If you do, why do you do it since “Christ sent you not to baptize”? Do you also throw out repentance with water baptism in Acts 2:38? If Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation, then repentance is not in the plan.

McLean wrote: Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation because: Salvation is to “him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly; his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). So your work of baptism does not justify.

Answer: On the back of his tract Mr. McLean teaches an alien sinner is to pray for salvation. He says, “Get the matter right with the Lord now! Tell him in prayer: ‘Dear God, I am sorry that I was not trusting only in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and that I thought I had to be baptized to be saved from sin. Please forgive me and save me now.” Then McLean says, following his formulated prayer and self-devised plan of salvation, “If you prayed that prayer and meant it: you are saved.”

Obviously, prayer is a work, but the way McLean construes Romans 4:5, prayer could not be a condition of salvation because “faith is counted for righteousness.” If “faith” excludes baptism, then “faith” also excludes prayer. So, “your work of prayer does not justify.”

Certainly, no one is saved by meritorious works, that is, works of perfect law keeping. Man violates the law and becomes a sinner (Rom. 3:23). Hence, we must look to Jesus and his blood for forgiveness, but forgiveness is conditional. Baptism is one of those conditions (Acts 2:38).

McLean has strange reasoning. He teaches that if an alien sinner does what God says to do (be baptized), he is saved by meritorious works, but if an alien sinner does what God has not said to do (pray), he is saved by grace. You figure that one out!

McLean wrote: Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation because: Salvation is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5). And so the washing you need is by the Spirit not by water.

Answer: McLean even quotes the Scripture to suit his own purpose. He did not quote Titus 3:5 correctly. It says “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” The passage does not say we are washed by the Holy Ghost, but rather “renewed” by the Holy Ghost. Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament, on “washing of regeneration,” states that it “distinctly refers to baptism.” So, McLean is wrong again. For some reason McLean is anti-water. He is against water. If he had been back there in the shoes of Elisha, he would have told Naaman to go wallow in the sand at Beersheba; just stay out of the water of Jordan. He would have called Elisha, “Watered-down Elisha,” as he did me, and would have said, “There is power, power, power in the tub. Blub, Blub,” as he said to me.

McLean wrote: Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation because: “For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8) and “grace” is not water baptism. “Not of works lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:9) and baptism is a work you do, not God.

Answer: McLean says that “grace is not water baptism. ” Well, is it prayer? He also says, “Baptism is a work you do, not God.” I ask: Is prayer a work you do, and not God? If a man can pray to be saved (as McLean says), and not earn it, he can be baptized and not earn it. McLean would have us to believe that a humble, sincere soul who obeys the Lord in baptism is working to earn his salvation. Did Naaman earn his cure of leprosy when he dipped seven times in the Jordan River? Salvation is by grace, but we must accept it by obedience (Rom. 6:17-18; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; 1 Pet. 1:22). To cure our spiritual leprosy (sin) we have to get into the water (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21).

McLean wrote: Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation because: “For by one Spirit (not Pastor; Elder, Deacon, Bishop) are we all baptized (which means immersed or buried) into one body (1 Cor. 12:13) and that’s not a body of water but the body of the Lord Jesus Christ and his body of believers.”

Answer: Who said that a preacher, elder or deacon ever put anybody into the body of Christ? McLean wrote a prayer on the back of his tract for an allen sinner to pray in order to be saved. You suppose McLean could be guilty of trying to put somebody into the body, himself?

E.Y. Mullins, a Baptist scholar, wrote in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p. 401) in reference to 1 Corinthians 12:13: “But here the reference is not to baptism of the Spirit, but rather to ism into the church which is the body of Christ.” “By one Spirit (agency) are we all baptized” (water baptism, the act that puts us into the one body).

If 1 Corinthians 12:13 is Holy Ghost baptism, then only alien sinners receive it because it is what puts one into the body. However, the disciples at Samaria obeyed the gospel, were saved, and did not receive the Holy Ghost until sometime later when the apostles came among them (Acts 8:14-17). They were baptized in water, like the Eunuch (Acts 8:12,13,38). 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism.

McLean wrote: Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation because: “For as many of you as have been baptized (immersed by the Spirit) into Christ (not water) have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27) not self-righteous works. “There is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28) but there is in your baptistry.

Answer: McLean makes Galatians 3:27 Holy Ghost baptism. Hence, an alien sinner, a child of the devil, must be baptized by the Holy Spirit to get into Christ. But the Samaritans were in Christ before they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17), therefore the baptism of Galatians 3:27 could not be Holy Ghost baptism. McLean cannot afford to admit the baptism in Galatians 3:27 is water baptism, because he would have to begin teaching the truth on the matter as the verse teaches we are baptized into Christ.

His cohort, Cornell Howard, in a debate in February 1989, made the baptism of Galatians 3:27, “baptism of suffering.” McLean was there on the second row, backing Howard all the way. Now, boys, which is it: baptism of the Holy Ghost or baptism of suffering? Perhaps Howard and McLean need to debate.

McLean says there is “male and female in the baptistry, ” but on the back of his tract, he has a place for the name and address of one who has prayed for salvation, and he asks, “If you prayed that prayer and meant it: you are saved! Write me and let me know so that I may rejoice with you.” If one who writes you McLean is Nancy and another one is William, don’t you have male and female in your “Sinner’s prayer”?

McLean wrote: Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation because: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell when it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:8), but in your baptistry you can tell who is there. The baptism you need is not water but the baptism of the Holy Spirit – into the Lord Jesus Christ!

Answer: Yes, we can see the human body in the baptistry, but we cannot see the soul. My Bible speaks of the conversion of the soul – not the body. I didn’t know John 3:8 was referring to the Spirit working on the fleshly body. McLean has given us a new revelation!

Wonder if we can see who is in McLean’s prayer fine or at his mourner’s bench, seeking and pleading, yea, working for salvation?

John 3:5-8 says nothing about Holy Ghost baptism. Every time McLean sees “Spirit,” or “Holy Ghost” in the Bible, he jumps to conclusions (in all directions) and hollers, “Holy Ghost baptism.” Read Acts 2 and observe how those on Pentecost were born of water and of the Spirit. It is quite different to McLean’s gospel.

Conclusion

We have thoroughly and completely answered McLean’s little tract on Acts 2:38. 1 believe it would be profitable if Mr. McLean would publicly debate his position on water baptism and what an alien sinner must do in order to be saved.

Several months ago he signed propositions to debate water baptism, but then went back on his word and “chickened” out for some reason or other. McLean likes to berate, belittle, misrepresent and malign the church of Christ from a distance, like behind a microphone at a radio station or from his pulpit, or from the printing press. But face to face, “No, no, never, not me, no way.”

Below is the first proposition which Terence McLean’s signed, a signature he did not honor. I am ready to discuss the Scriptures whenever he is.

“Resolved, the Scriptures teach that alien sinners are saved at the point of faith and without water baptism.”

Affirm: Terence McLean

Deny: Weldon Warnock

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 276-277
May 4, 1989

By P.J. Casebolt

In legal jargon, the term non sequitur simply means, “It does not follow.” And, just because there is a church which calls itself the “Bible Baptist” church, it does not follow that such a church is mentioned in the Bible. Neither does it follow that just because one man in the Bible was called John the Baptist, that the Bible speaks of other “Baptists,” or a Baptist Church or churches.

While the principle embodied in our study would apply to other religious names and bodies, the Baptists in general are more adamant in claiming that they exist with Bible authority for their origin, name, and practice. But, it should be noted also that there are several different kinds of Baptists, and that they do not all make identical claims.

Some Baptists contend that John established Christ’s church and that, because John was called “John the Baptist,” his disciples and the Lord’s disciples were called Baptists. Such an assertion is not only without any semblance of logic or Scripture, it is an affront to the teaching of the Bible, and to John himself.

John made no claim to having established a church, or to having made disciples who were to wear or honor his name. On the contrary, he repeatedly urged his disciples to follow and honor Christ, designated Christ as the bridegroom, and concluded, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn. 3:28-30). John had already been beheaded (Matt. 14) when Christ prophesied, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18).

Along with John, Paul not only discourages but condemns the practice of wearing or honoring the names of men (1 Cor. 1:10; 3:4). It is ironical (and contradictory), that Baptists include the term “Paulicians” as a link in their fabricated chain of succession which purportedly links them to the apostles in the first century, and yet it was Paul who condemned the wearing of his, or any other human name.

Other Baptists, instead of making the unfounded claim that Baptist churches existed in the first century, contend that what Baptists teach and practice today can be traced through different religious groups back to the apostles.

Hiscox, in his Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, claims that the Baptists of today can be traced through such sects as Anabaptists, Montanists, Novations, Donatists, Paulicians, Paterines, and Waldenses, along with several others (pp. 157-159).

If souls were not at stake, it would be comical to witness the contortions and gyrations of Baptist preachers as they attempt to fabricate their “chain of succession” through the maze of human names in a desperate attempt to project themselves back into apostolic times. Such an effort is a tacit admission that Baptist claims as to origin and doctrine cannot be found in the Bible.

Again, it is ironical that some Baptists are the ones who contend that the name “Christian” was given to the Lord’s disciples by their enemies, and is not therefore the scriptural name for God’s people. Yet, Hiscox concedes that some of the names which Baptists use to trace their “chain of succession” were given by the enemies of those groups (p. 159).

Had the enemies of the disciples coined and given the name Christian, such would have been done long before Antioch (Acts 11:26). The height of persecution and mockery was reached in Jerusalem, and coincided with Saul’s “threatenings and slaughter” (Acts 8:14; 9:1). The church at Antioch was established by those who had fled the persecution of their enemies, so the giving of the name Christians did not originate with the enemies of the faith, but rather was named by “the mouth of the Lord” (Isa. 62:2).

Not only were Paul and Barnabas present at Antioch when the name Christian was given, but under the influence of Paul’s preaching, Agrippa was encouraged to become a Christian, or as Paul said, “such as I am” (Acts 26:28). The apostle Peter later endorsed the name Christian whereby we glorify God (1 Pet. 4:16).

It should be suspiciously noted that those who claim that the name Christian is not the proper name for God’s people, or claim that “there is nothing in a name,” are the very ones who are wearing and honoring the names of men. Yet, Peter declares that salvation is in the name of Christ, and can be found in “none other name under heaven” (1 Pet. 4:10-12).

“Bible Baptists” may be found in the Baptist Manual or on bulletin boards and church buildings erected by men, but such a term cannot be found in the book called the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, p. 301
May 18, 1989