Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Since I have already used this speech to act as historian, preacher, and reporter, I will go ahead and try my hand at prognostication! About a decade ago, a preacher from the institutional persuasion asked me two questions at the conclusion of a gentlemanly discussion of our differences: (1) Was this division preventable or inevitable, and what might have been done to preclude the division of churches? (2) Is it reversible – is there any possibility of the restoring of fellowship and a feeling of brotherhood and good will to any level even approaching that of a generation ago? I would like to answer the second question first.

My answer is, “No” – although I hasten to add that I would be happy to be proven wrong and to be relieved of my cynicism. A wiser historian than I has stated the case fairly starkly, however, in terms with which I must concur. Remarking on the aftermath of the Arlington Meeting, Ed Harrell asked, “Does anyone seriously believe that … the thousands of unscriptural promotions dreamed up will . . . suddenly, or slowly, begin to disappear? Of course not. No man could bring it off; not 20 or 50 or 200 men could bring it off. And not only could they not, they will not bring it about.”(1)

In essence, what those of us you call “anti” are asking of our brethren is what you have been asking of the Christian Church people with whom the Joplin-type “Restoration Forums” have been conducted over-the last several years – or what H. Leo Boles asked of them at the “National Unity Meeting” in Indianapolis in 1939,(2) almost a half-century ago: that you give up the practices which divide us. Sadly, we recognize that you are not likely to react positively to such a suggestion. Indeed, it was the recognition of the fact that this was not going to happen which caused thousands of conservative brethren to renounce the many loyalties in this world – to alma mater, congregations where they once worshiped, past friendships, even family – and go their own way.

Such a movement to turn the clock back would require that institutional brethren in thousands of places make a conscious decision to place fellowship with their noninstitutional brethren on a higher plane than the support of human institutions – and I think everyone here knows that simply isn’t going to happen. Again, I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but everything except my wishful thinking tells me otherwise.

Furthermore, the situation seems to be moving in the wrong direction for anything like this to happen. Just as some of you have discovered that your differences with even the “independent” Christian Churches (to say nothing of the “Christian Church/Disciples of Christ”) involve far more than just instrumental music, so most of us who have tried to follow what is developing among institutional brethren perceive a steady shift away from the church described in the New Testament. As one of the respondents to my survey put it, “It isn’t just supporting an orphanage anymore. The liberal church in town here split this congregation almost eighteen year ‘ s ago over the orphanage issue – but ironically doesn’t support one to this day! What they have done is to accept people we have withdrawn from, no questions asked; or accept in full fellowship people who have left here after hearing, preaching- they didn’t like on divorce and remarriage, the role of the Holy Spirit, examination of premillennial claims or of the Masonic Lodge -all of them ‘shaken in’ with the clear understanding that they will not hear any preaching on those or any other controversial issues. Don’t let someone tell you it’s just ‘sending a few dollars a month to an orphanage’ – it’s how we look at the Bible, the church, living the Christian life, and much more. The longer it goes on, the more incompatible we will become.”

That this is not just the isolated carping of a disgruntled “anti” is seen, I think, in the 1986 “Expression of Concern” signed by hundreds of preachers of the institutional persuasion.(3) While their concerns are specifically directed toward the theistic evolution problem and other situations at ACU, they also state more general concerns:

I. We are deeply disturbed over the liberalism that is so evident in the brotherhood today. By “liberalism” we mean especially the following items, though not excluding other specifics that could be mentioned:

A. There is a drifting from the Bible-centered, definitive, distinctive doctrine that once characterized our preaching. Presently, uncertain sounds and weak messages emanate from many pulpits among us. Brethren are becoming accustomed to diluted and polluted preaching. We are rapidly approaching the point where many of our people, including preachers and elders, no longer know the difference between true Christianity and the corrupted forms of it so prevalent about us.

B. There is a concerted effort on the part of some of our brethren to restructure the organization, worship and work of the church along sectarian lines, thus tending to denominationalize the New Testament body of Christ.

C. A spirit of doctrinal compromise and fellowshipping of those in blatant religious error has permeated our ranks.

D. The world has made alarming inroads into the church. Instead of the church influencing the world for righteousness, as it should, the world has adversely affected many brethren in matters of morality and conduct of life.

E. The typical emphasis of the denominational world on recreation, entertainment, and solving the social ills of society has been incorporated into the thinking and programs of many congregations, supplanting the God-given work of meeting the desperate spiritual needs of those both within and without the body of Christ.

No “anti” could have stated the case better. Indeed, from attending lectureships in the last five years at Pepperdine, ACU, Lipscomb, Freed-Hardeman and several “evangelism workshops,” my observation is that these brethren are exactly right in their analysis – particularly with regard to the “social gospel” aspects of institutional churches. Just within the past year or two, I have seen articles in the Gospel Advocate encouraging, without rebuttal or rebuke from the editor or anyone else, the use of church buildings not just for fellowship dinners justified as “love feasts” but for “Scouts, quilting groups, exercise meetings, senior citizens, family reunions, receptions, and youth basketball and volleyball teams” in addition to “seminars on aging, divorce recovery, self-esteem, personal finances, stress and biblical exposition of books” – as if all were equally justifiable.(4)

Others, enough to lead me to believe these are not isolated incidents, have advertised secular adult education classes, English as a second language, and GED classes offered by the church; counseling centers, medical-dental clinics, daycare centers, and “counseling services” which provide, among other things, job placement services. Brethren who might have been scandalized even a decade ago by the use of the church building for a “Chris Christian Concert” or a “Day at the Movies” (both with an admission fee) or a youth rally featuring the “World’s Largest Hot Dog” all in the name of the crucified Christ – “ain’t seen nothing'” yet .(5)

Nor is it simply that many institutional churches seem to be hip-deep in the social gospel. Some who seem unwilling to accept or even to wrestle with the implications of following “commands and examples” seem bent on short-circuiting the process by challenging the validity of such an approach altogether. An approach which gratuitously sweeps aside any attempt to discover the details of God’s plan is ultimately as offensive to “conservatives” as some of our reactions may be to those who are set to “re-examine traditional Restoration hermeneutics. ” Indeed, upon reading one such effort produced by an institutional brother on “establishing authority,” one non-institutional preacher remarked, “I could come nearer enjoying unity and fellowship with a conservative Southern Baptist.”

Furthermore, to the historian, the current trend toward abandoning attempts to ascertain what is authorized by utilizing commands, examples, and conclusions drawn therefrom (giving them the back of the hand only to replace them with humanly-perceived “principles”) is old news.

These hoary ideas, laden with nineteenth and twentieth century cultural values, are the very arguments promulgated a century ago by those who were moving to become what we know as the Christian Church (particularly the Disciples of Christ). Once any attempt at a literal understanding of the Bible was abandoned, these concepts were advanced to “defend” everything from instrumental music to women preachers to the “higher criticism” of the Bible. Just as an example, notice this excerpt from an 1893 Christian Standard article entitled “No Man Wishes Women to Keep Silence in the Churches,” in which one writer argued, “A principle may set aside an apostolic precept. It may brush aside an apostolic decree. We do that constantly. We follow the apostolic example whenever we like it; when we do not, we depart from it.”(6)

Given this historical perspective, it is difficult to understand how someone who argues that there is “no pattern” expressed in Scripture regarding the work of the church, and that we are therefore at liberty to do whatever seems best to us, can gainsay the identical argument, which is now being advanced by defenders of instrumental music in the worship.(7)

But the end is not yet: even more fundamental concepts such as the inerrancy of Scripture are being questioned by some. Although the inerrancy of Scripture and other related concepts have been challenged by some on the “fringes” of “Churches of Christ” (in Mission, for instance), it is still startling to read the following assertion by a professor in a “Christian college,” and published in a journal long associated with that institution.(8) “It is consistent to believe that the Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and practice, but may be incorrect in geographical or historical details. Once a person abandons the concept of divine dictation, he must abandon the idea of inerrancy.” I would like to believe that this is a misprint, or that I have somehow misunderstood the author, but it would not be the first instance of doubt being cast upon the veracity of Scripture by those who are freely accepted and granted the “right hand of fellowship” by institutional brethren. No is it an unexpected development among those who believe it is a work of the church to financially support “the ministry of continuing study toward a doctorate.”(9)

I believe these brethren who “Expressed their Concern” have put their finger on an historical undercurrent which was also revealed in the aftermath of the instrumental music/missionary society division. Those who are on the “pro” side of both sets of issues soon discovered that they were not a homogeneous group, and found (or are finding) reasons to separate from each other. As was the case with men such as J.W. McGarvey or Isaac Errett, first generation leaders who serve as a “bridge” for a little liberalism often discover that succeeding generations are not content to stop where their forebears drew arbitrary lines, and are determined to carry to logical extension the incipient practices of the former generation.(10)

Even before I mailed my survey forms, I received an unsolicited letter from a young, but influential, preacher in what I would identify as the Firm Foundation/Spiritual Sword “orbit.” He was insistent to tell me what I already knew: “that a very deep schism exists now in the institutional churches of Christ and when the final division comes (and it will) it will be greater in scope than that which occurred in 1952-1954.” This young preacher’s observations on developments within the “left wing” of institutional churches of Christ simply confirm Ed Harrell’s prediction more than 20 years ago that “the time will come when the editorial era of B.C. Goodpasture will evoke only embarrassed, apologies from sophisticated leaders in the Church of Christ.”(11)

From a diametrically opposite perspective, a young man who left the “conservative” church in which he was raised , sojourned awhile among the institutional churches, and is now involved in a denominational group on the state university campus where he is a professor – comes this analysis: that among institutional brethren there are “two fractions (not counting the MISSION-types, who are mainstream to liberal evangelicals) – one set is as ‘patternistic’ as conservatives without the common set of ‘examples, commands,’ etc. The other is a ‘grace-unity’ type that wants to retain C of C identity/features without having to defend them rigorously. The latter is a Christian Church with a capella. music.”

Given these circumstances, to ask a question about restoring fellowship with the “antis” is to answer it. It would border on the absurd if it were not a logistical impossibility. And, it appears to me that in answering the second question, we have come a long way toward the answer to the first. Was the division so totally doctrinal that it was caused by the sheer force of logic on the one side and stubborn stupidity in the rejection of that logic on the other? In truth, although logic and doctrine played an important role, division came not just because brethren disagreed (which they did) or because some people misbehaved (which also occurred). They divided because they had divergent concepts of God, the Bible, the church, how to live as a Christian, and a host of other things. That is the sort of thing that likely will not be reversed by this meeting or a dozen like it, unless I miss my guess.

What then can meetings like the “Nashville Meeting” produce? Several things come to mind. (1) It might result in some people changing their rands, their lives, and their convictions about some of these issues. (2) More likely, it will simply reinforce convictions already long held. (3) It will provide an insight for learning about each other, which might be useful even if nothing else results. (4) From my perspective, it may help some of us who are younger resolve that it will not happen again in our lifetime, if we can help it at all. Perhaps such divisions are inevitable every two or three generations as new levels of perceived sophistication are attained. But I would like to think that by learning from the past, by teaching “with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2, NASB), and by recognizing the factors and circumstances which breed division, perhaps our children or their children can avoid a quick rush into another division which can never be healed. Maybe the task is futile – some whose judgment I respect have said as much. But I must try.

Endnotes

1. Harrell, “Middle of the Road,” p. 275. Even after heterodox theology among the Herald of Truth staff was publicly exposed by some of its staunchest former supporters, it quickly became cleaf that the critics were not about to abandon their allegiance to the principle of broadcast evangelism under a large, centralizing church; nor could any influential body of preachers muster enough influence to “kill” such a program. See Memphis Meeting With Representatives of Herald of Truth: September 10, 1973 (n.p., n.d.).

2. H. Leo Boles, “The Way of Unity Between the ‘Christian Church’ and Churches of Christ” (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1985). This pamphlet is a reprint of Boles’ speech which was originally published serially in Gospel-Advocate 81 (May-June 1939 issues), and responded to in Christian Standard 74 (May-June 1939). See also “Unity Urged for Church Branches” (Indianapolis News, May 3, 1939), and Indianapolis Star 36 (May 3, 1939), p. 15; “Disciples Discuss Unity With Churches of Christ Leaders,” Christian Evangelist 77 (May 11, 1939), pp. 499-500. For accounts of Boles’ speech, see J.E. Choate, I’ll Stand on the Rock. A Biography of H. Leo Boles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1965), and The Anchor That Holds (op. cit.), 147-152.

3. An Expression of Concern (Ft. Worth, TX: Gospel Preachers, 1986). See also Roy Deaver, “Two False Extremes: Anti-ism and Liberalism,” Spiritual Sword 16:2 (January 1985), p. 6; Garland Elkins, “The New Anti-ism” Spiritual Sword 17:1 (October 1985), p. 17; Thomas B. Warren, “Anti-ism Shackles the Church; Liberalism Opens the ‘Floodgates’ of Apostasy,” Spiritual Sword 17:3 (April, 1986), p. 1; Probably the most complete statement of the position of this “cluster” of brethren vis-a-vis institutionalism is Thomas B. Warren, Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press [reprint]; original edition, 1958).

4. Douglas F. Parsons, “Increasing Church Visibility,” Gospel Advocate 130:3 (March, 1988), pp. 24-25. For an interesting and still-relevant exchange on “social-gospelism” among churches of Christ, see J.W. Roberts, “What is the Social Gospel?” Gospel Advocate 104 (July 2, 1959), 419-420; and Ed Harrell, “Thoughts on Dishonesty,” Gospel Guardian 11:20 (September 24, 1959), pp. 312-314; and Harrell, “The Social Gospel,” Gospel Guardian 12:15 (August 18, 1960), pp. 225ff.

5. Ashwood Leaves (Nashville, TN), February 2 & 9, 1986, and October 11, 1987; Bering Today (Houston, TX), July 1978; see Steve Wolfgang, “Social Christianity,” Weekly Reminder 16:46 (August 16, 1978), pp. 1-3).

6. George T. Smith, “No Man Wishes Women to Keep Silence in the Churches,” Christian Standard 29 (October 7, 1893), p. 798. For further discussion and documentation of this kind of reasoning, see David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973), especially chapters I and 13 (Harrell notes in the Preface that “the first and last chapters, taken together, are an interpretive essay on the sociological development of the church”).

7. For the present state of this argument, see Alan E. Highers, “The Status of the Instrumental Music Controversy,” in Dub McClish, ed., Studies in I and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon: The Seventh Annual Denton Lectures, November 13-17, 1988 (Denton, TX: Valid Publications, 1988), pp. 480-493.

8. John T. Willis, review of William J. Abraham, The Divine Inspiration of Scripture, in Restoration Quarterly 29:3 (Third Quarter, 1987) p. 169. For previous discussion of similar statements, see the references to David H. Bobo’s 1960 Abilene lecture in Banowsky, 109-110, 139-140, 145; and Warren Lewis, Every Scripture Breathed of God is Profitable,” Mission 5:7 January 1972), pp. 195ff; responses in March and April 1972 and rejoinder by Lewis in July 1972 issues of Mission; Lewis, “Let’s Look at the Text – again!” Minion 8:3 (September 1974), pp. 86ff; R. Lanny Hunter, “Restoration Theology: A Schoolmaster,” Minion 7:12 (June 1974), pp. 356ff.; editorially truncated response by Ron Halbrook and Steve Wolfgang, “The Approval of God,” Mission 8:4 (October 1974), p. 123.

9. Bill Flatt, “Harding Graduate School of Religion Commencement, 1975” Gospel-Advocate 117:26 (June 26, 1975), p. 404. On the preoccupation with academic degrees and “scholarship” among institutional preachers, see Ralph T. Henley, “Scholarship,” Spiritual Sword 6:3 (April 1975), 35ff.; and Henley, “How to Get A Cheap Degree Cheap,” Gospel Advocate 119:18 (May 5,1977), 276-277.

10. See Harrell, “Middle of the Road,” 274.

11. Ibid.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 296-297, 309-310
May 18, 1989

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