Truth Magazine

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

 

By Mike Willis

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power bath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that bath called as to glory and virtue: whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that Is In the world through lust (2 Pet. 1:14).

The apostle Peter introduces his treatise in which he warns the brethren against false teachers by reminding them that God has granted unto us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” in Jesus Christ. False teachers have persistently implied that the gospel is insufficient to meet man’s spiritual needs. They may affirm that “many parts of the Bible are missing,” “the Bible cannot be understood without the help of the church to interpret it for you,” or “another revelation is needed.” All of these misguided statements deny the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures which Peter affirms in this text. Let us examine this text in more detail.

Like Precious Faith

Peter addressed those of “like precious faith with us” (whether “us” refers to the apostles or the Jews is unclear). This phrase emphasizes that the “like precious faith” (cf. Jude’s “common salvation” in v 3) is available to every man. The faith is believed by men of all races, not being limited by race, gender or social standing. The gospel is a universal gospel, addressed to every creation of every nation under heaven (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16). This faith is available to all men without respect of persons because God is righteous (2 Pet. 1:1), not one who shows partiality. Of all men, Peter knew this was true having learned at the household of Cornelius this truth: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35).

All Things That Pertain To Life And Godliness

1. God has provided all things that pertain to life. “Life” is the opposite of spiritual death. Spiritual death occurs when one sins; he is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). This passage affirms that God has granted unto us everything we need to be “quickened” (Eph. 2:5) or “born again” to “newness of life” (Jn. 3:5; Rom. 6:3-4). The gospel, therefore, is adequate to produce spiritual life in those who are dead in their trespasses and sins. It is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16, 17).

2. God has provided all things that pertain to godliness. This text also affirms that God has given to us everything we need for godliness. Through the gospel, we can become partakers of the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world through lust (2 Pet. 1:4). Other Scriptures affirm the same truth. The inspired Scriptures “throughly furnish us unto every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17); all the “treasurers of wisdom and knowledge are hid” in Christ (Col. 2:3). Everything one needs to know to be pleasing and acceptable in God’s sight is provided in the gospel.

The gospel provides sufficient revelation to identify what sin is in order that we can escape the “corruption that is in the world through lust. ” The works of the flesh are “manifest” (Gal. 5:19-21), not hidden and incomprehensible. They can be identified and avoided because through the law of the Lord comes the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7).

The gospel provides sufficient revelation to motivate us to escape the corruption of sin. The gospel speaks of the motivating power of the “fear of the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:11) and the constraining power of the love of God (2 Cor. 5:14). Hence, the gospel provides adequate motivation for man’s salvation. Everything man needs for life and godliness is available to him in the gospel.

3. The gospel has been given to us. When Peter wrote, he could already say that God “hath given” (perfect tense). The gospel had already been revealed to men. There is no need for a “latter day” revelation. God has already given all things that pertain to life and godliness. We, therefore, do not need a new revelation for a new age. The revelation provided in the gospel is perfectly adequate to meet man’s spiritual needs. The Koran of Mohammed, the Book of Mormon of Joseph Smith, Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, and the writings of Ellen G. White cannot add one thing which we need that pertains to life and godliness. Everything man needs for salvation is revealed to us in Christ Jesus.

4. The gospel can be known. Man receives the benefits of the gospel’s revelation “through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.” This passage affirms that there is a truth and that truth can be known (cf. Jn. 8:32 – “ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”). Furthermore, man’s participation in the benefits which the gospel provides (life and godliness) is contingent upon his knowing that revelation. The revelation of God is not some mystical revelation which is unknown and unknowable. It can and is understood, known, and obeyed. One’s salvation from sin depends upon knowing and obeying that truth (Jn. 8:32).

5. The gospel contains great and precious promises. The things which pertain to life and godliness which have been given to us contain “exceeding great and precious promises.” Among those promises are these: (a) forgiveness of sins (Mk. 16:16), (b) eternal life (Jn. 3: 16), (c) resurrection of the dead (Jn. 5:28-29), (d) heaven (Rev. 21:1-3; Jn. 14:12), etc. These promises are to be enjoyed by those who share the “like precious faith.” God is faithful who made these promises; he will keep his promises.

Conclusion

Recognizing that God has given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness and that this is contained in the pages of divine inspiration known as the Holy Bible, what should we do with the Bible? If one truly believes that these things are true, he will turn to that Bible, perusing its pages to learn everything revealed therein – if he desires life and godliness. If a man claims to believe that God has provided “all things that pertain to life and godliness,” in the gospel and professes to desire “life and godliness,” but does not read and study his Bible, he is a “sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” If we truly believe the Bible to be God’s instructions for man to obtain life and godliness, let us study it and recognize it as authoritative in defining how to obtain life and godliness.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 290, 310-311
May 18, 1989