Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

Following is an article that appeared recently in a church’s bulletin. It was written by the preacher of the church that publishes the bulletin. The article does not represent the congregation.

Much is said about the “plan of salvation:” II to preached more than any other subject. Brethren proclaim the “plan” everywhere. They go door-to-door and tell their neighbors about it. And few listen, and hardly any respond. Frustration has set in throughout the Lord’s body. Why can’t people see the plain truth of the “gospel plan of salvation”?

The answer to that question should be obvious to everyone. Because the “plan of salvation” Is not scriptural! The words “plan” or “scheme” do not appear one time in the entire Bible. Yet we speak of the “plan” as if it were really there. Now, what we are talking about is belief, repentance, confession, and baptism, which when lumped together we have been calling the “plan of salvation:” The kindest thing we can say about the expression is that it is a misnomer. But if we took at it honestly and clearly, we would see that calling these things “plan of salvation” borders on false doctrine. For when we speak of belief, repentance, confession and baptism, and call that the “plan of salvation”, we lure those things into our Savior. But the Bible teaches that Jesus is our Savior (Matt. 1:21). Furthermore, it sounds like we are saying that our doing of those things will save us because we therefore are entitled to ft. But the Bible says we are “saved by grace” . . . . through faith, anti that not of yourselves, it Is the gift of God, not of works, that no man should glory” (Eph. 2:8, 91. I say it sounds like ft. I know that my brethren do not believe such. (But to hear some talk-I wonder.)

More importantly, when we proclaim thin “plan” we give the impression to those we are trying to convert that the “plan” saves. In fact, we do without doubt try to convert them to “our plan”. The Baptists have a “plan”. So do the Methodists, Pentecostals, etc. So we counter “their plans” with one of our own. It’s not unlike a group of children quarreling over the rules of a game. The world looks at all us “Christians” fighting over a “plan” and they wonder shy. And we wonder why they can’t see the difference. From their standpoint one plan Is as good as another.

THEREIN LIES, THE KEY. If our salvation depended on a plan or procedure or our own doing, it would not matter which. “plan” we chose. The Jews had s “plan” but failed (Rom. 9:31cf). They could not see that the “real plan” was Christ (Rom. 9:33; 10:4). The real scheme of redemption is what God purposed to do through Christ, which He has done. Read Eph. 1:314 and see the real plan of salvation (vs. 9), which Is the gospel of Christ (vs. 13; 1 Cor. 15:1-4), which Is Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). The apostles did not preach: “believe, repent, confess, baptize”. They preached the gospel; which is Christ! (1 Cor. 1:17).

Is it necessary for us to believe, repent, confess and be baptized? YES! But only as our response to what Christ has done. What we do does not save us (Emphasis mine, wew). Christ is our Savior and He is our Plan.

-by Billy c. Williams

The above author, as you probably noticed, has no qualms in calling the gospel the “plan of salvation,” even though he says the expression, “plan of salvation,” cannot be found one time in the entire Bible. How about “way of salvation” (Acts 16:17), or “way of truth” (2 Pet. 2:2), or “way of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:21)? He is disturbed about calling belief, repentance, confession and baptism the “plan of salvation.” If he means the whole plan of salvation, certainly belief, repentance, confession and baptism are not the sum total of it. But if he means that the conditions of obedience for an alien sinner are not a plan for their salvation, then he is dead wrong. And, he is dead wrong because this is what he said.

A plan means, “Methods or scheme of action, procedure, or arrangement” (Webster). Has not Jesus given a method of action to alien sinners? He surely has! Then, He has given a “Plan of salvation.” To call the specific acts that aliens obey, “plan of salvation,” no more excludes the rest of the gospel than Peter excluded grace or belief or repentance when he said, “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21).

What kind of semantical game is the writer trying to play when he declares that calling belief, repentance, confession and baptism, “plan of salvation,” as bordering on false doctrine? Since when is it false doctrine to call something what it is? The commands to an alien sinner constitute the plan, method of action, for his salvation. He says the reason for it bordering on false doctrine is that we make the acts of obedience, by calling them, “plan of salvation,” our Savior: H this is tine, there is no bordering on false doctrine-it is false doctrine. But he goes on to say that none of his brethren believes they are the Savior, so I do not know why all the “fuss” over brethren calling something what it is.

Salvation Is Conditional

Brethren, does Jesus save an alien, conditionally? “Oh, yes!” Then, He has a plan of salvation for aliens. Call it “conditions of salvation,” or “scheme of salvation,” or “plan of salvation.” After it is all said and done, there are conditions incurred in the saving of sinners. Calling it “plan of salvation,” in its proper context and within the frame of reference is not a misnomer, but is identifying the scriptural precedure enjoined upon alien sinners.

Certainly, the plan of salvation involves Jesus and His grace. Paul said, “. . . by grace ye are saved” (Eph. 2:5). But does grace save us without conditions? Absolutely not! Neither does the cross or the gospel. The Bible says that faith saves (Acts 16:31), repentance saves (2 Cor. 7:10), confession saves (Rom. 10:10), and baptism saves (1 Pet. 3:21). Were these inspired writers bordering on false doctrine when they said these things save us? Peter told the Jews, “Save yourselves (emphasis mine, wew) from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Was Peter denying that Jesus was Savior by such exhortation?

Notice that he underlined in Eph. 2:8-9, “gift of God, not of works. . .” What is this supposed to mean in regard to belief, repentance, confession and baptism? Is he implying that these works of righteousness are the meritorious works that Paul was writing about in Eph. 2:9? Maybe you can figure out what he meant. Apparently, he is confused as to what kind of works Paul had in mind. Paul certainly did not mean works of faith (Jn. 6:28-29) or works of righteousness (Acts 10:34-35) as these works must be done in order to be saved. In fact, Paul gave faith as a condition in Eph. 2:8 and faith is a work (Jn. 6:28-29).

Jesus and the Plan

The author tells us the Baptists, Methodists and Pentecostals have a “plan,” and if we have “plan,” we are. just like them. But their “plan” is somewhat like the writer’s above-Jesus the Man, but no gospel demands. In fact, a Baptist preacher could have written the article in all good conscience. I wonder how the writer would convert a Baptist if he does not teach them, among other things, what Jesus said on baptism. Is he just going to tell them about the death, burial and resurrection in order to change them on the purpose of baptism or the establishment of the church or the impossibility of apostasy? I was under the impression that Baptists already believe in the death, burial and resurrection.

Listen friends, the gospel contains facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed and promises to be enjoyed. The above writer wants us to think that the gospel just consists of the facts. But there are commands to be obeyed, also. He wrote, “The apostles did not preach: ‘believe, repent, confess, baptize.’ They preached the gospel, which is Christ () Cop. J: J 7)J” Here we learn (?) that “believe, repent, confess, baptize” are no part of the gospel. I wonder if this brother ever preaches a sermon on faith or repentance or baptism? If he does, according to him, he is not preaching the gospel.

Judge yourself as to whether the apostles preached faith, repentance, confession and baptism. On Pentecost, Peter told the Jews, `Repent and be baptized . . . .” (Acts 2:38). Again, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). Sounds like Peter preached .baptism somewhere along the line. At the household of Cornelius, Peter was sent to tell them words whereby they could be saved (Acts 11:14). Among those words was baptism (Acts 10:48). I am getting the feeling that Peter preached baptism-that he was a “plan” preacher.

Observe the preaching of Paul. At Philippi, he spoke to Lydia and she was baptized. How did she learn of baptism if Paul did not preach it? The Philippian jailer was baptized the same hour of the night after Paul spoke the word of the Lord unto’him (Acts 16:30-33). By the way, Paul preached first that he must “believe” (v. 31). Yet, the writer of the above article said the apostles did not preach “believe, repent, confess, baptize.” They preached much more, but to say they did not preach these commands is inexcusable blindness.

Finally, this brother wrote, “What we do does not save us.” Yes, you read it correctly. No, a Baptist preacher did not say it, but a preacher in the church of Christ. He stated that we have to believe, repent, confess and be baptized, but only in response to what Christ has done. He did not say “in response to what Christ has commanded,” but “in response to what Christ has done.” I thought we were to be baptized, for example, because Jesus commanded it (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16; Acts 10:48). How could one properly respond to Jesus if he were not told in the gospel what to do?

If what we do does not save us, then why did Peter say, “baptism saves us” (1 Pet. 3:21)? Did not Peter know that the gospel saves or that Jesus saves? Certainly he did, but Peter knew that the gospel has conditions and these must be met. Whatever man is told to do by Jesus Christ has a part to play in man’s salvation. Man complies with these conditions and thereby saves himself (Acts 2:40; cf. 1 Pet. 1:22).

Let’s not be guilty of trying to separate Jesus from what He said. We can only know Jesus by His Word. We can only come to Jesus by His Word. We will be judged by His Word.

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, pp. 181-183
March 16, 1978

By Earl Robertson

The religion of Jesus Christ rests upon the affirmation that He is the divine Son of God. This affirmation is either fact or fiction. Both positions are constantly taught by religious folk. Both positions can not be right; both can not be true. So, one position is essentially a lie.

Judaism says Jesus is an illegitimate son of a cheap peasant woman and canny, therefore, be the divine Son of God. Recently established religions, – being materialistic in doctrine, tell us that Jesus is a “created angel.” If this doctrine is true the Bible doctrine affirming the deity of Christ, the character of which was demonstrated in the creation of all things, is not true. It is a question of integrity: which is true (1) the Bible or (2) the creeds of men? We believe the Bible!

Everything depends on the right answer to Jesus’ question, “Whose son is he?” (Matt. 22:42). If He is the Son of God He is God-deity, divine (John 10:36, 37; 5:18); if He is not who He claimed to be, He is a fraud. Friends, we have no other alternative for response to Jesus’ question: either, we are for Him, as the Son of mod, or we are against Him. There is no middle ground.

Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 8:18) saying,, “I am the Son of God” (John 10:36). The apostles often said the same of Him (Mk. 16:15, 16; Mt. 14:33; Acts 9:20; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 John 4:14, 15; 2 John 3). God the Father said He was the Son of God (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; 1 Pet. 1:16-18; Psa. 2:7; Acts 13:33). A friend confessed the same (John 11:27). Even the non-followers said, “Truly this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54; Mk. 15:39; 5:7; Lk. 4:41).

The miraculous works of Jesus attest His divinity. “The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me” (John 10:25). A mere man can not do the super-natural; Jesus did the super-natural-miracles; therefore, Jesus is super-human. He is divine; He is God. Nicodemus said, “No man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him” (John 3:2). Nicodemus did not then know that He to whom he was speaking was “God manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). The Word was made flesh and dwelt among men (John 1:1-14).

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, p. 181
March 16, 1978

By Mike Willis

One of the important aspects of the gospel which we all take for granted is the fact that the gospel is for all men, regardless of their nationality, economic condition or sex. Yet, Christians did not always understand that the gospel was given to all men without respect to their nationality. The early Christians thought that Christianity was a part of Judaism and that the only way that one could become a Christian was to accept Judaism in being circumcised.

The implications of the Great Commission should have been sufficient to demonstrate that the gospel was for all men. Jesus had said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:18). In Mark’s account, He is recorded to have said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation” (16:15). Nevertheless, the apostles were Jews; they looked at the Great Commission through Jewish colored glasses. Consequently, they understood that the gospel was to be taken to the Jews of all the world but had no understanding that the gospel was for all men until the miracles associated with the conversion of Cornelius showed them otherwise. At that point, Peter was able to say, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34, 35).

Though Peter and the six Jewish brethren who traveled with him were convinced that Gentiles could obey the gospel, not all Christians felt the same way. Indeed, trouble occurred in Antioch when certain Jewish brethren tried to compel the Gentiles converted in that city to be circumcised in order to be saved. The apostles convened in Jerusalem under the direction of the Holy Spirit. At that meeting, an official decision was made that Gentiles did not have to obey the Mosaical law of circumcision in order to be saved. God revealed that the gospel was to be taken to all men under the same conditions.

This decision which was made through revelation from God broke the umbilical cord of Christianity from Judaism. Prior to that, many tended to look upon Christianity as another sect of Judaism. After that, Christianity went into all of the world upon its own terms. Salvation was offered to Jew and Gentile upon the same terms-acceptance of Jesus Christ. Today, we accept the fact that the gospel of Jesus Christ is intended for all men of all times. It is universal in its scope.

Limiting the Gospel

Despite the fact that a hard battle has already been fought to show that the gospel is for all men, some have not yet accepted the universality of the gospel. The Calvinists, for example, want to limit the benefits of Christ’s shed blood to the “elect”. According to Calvinism, God has predestined who will be saved and who will be lost; the former are known as the “elect” and the latter as the “reprobate.” The atonement of Jesus Christ was limited in scope to only those who are a part of the “elect.” Read the wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or decreased.

Anyone can clearly see that the gospel of Jesus Christ would be of no benefit to those who are a part of the reprobate. Consequently, Calvinists limit the gospel to the elect.

The Bible does not teach that the gospel has been limited to a certain group selected by God arbitrarily. Rather, the Scriptures record that Jesus’ atoning death was for all men. That God did not predestine anyone to Hell is evident from the fact that “God our Savior . . . desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:6). He does not wish that anyone should perish (2 Pet. 3:9), much less predestine that they perish! Furthermore, the gospel which God revealed brings salvation to “all men” (Tit. 2:14). It does not bring salvation to a limited group of people predestined for salvation by God; it brings salvation to all men on the basis that “the one who wishes” may “take of the water of life without cost” (Rev. 22:17). Those who are saved are saved, not because God predestined that they would be saved, but because they decided to take of the water of life. The blood of Jesus was shed for the sins of the whole world (1 .Jn. 2:2) and is available to those who wish to avail themselves of the benefits of his blood.

Sometimes we act as if the gospel was intended for a limited group of people without spelling it out so clearly as the Calvinists have done. I remember, during the early days of the Civil Rights Movement, hearing a faithful Christian in the congregation where I attended make the comment that when the black man came into our building that he would be going out of it. No doubt, attitudes such as this portray our inability to transcend our culture. That we have had such inability to overcome our culture is probably more than a little manifest in the small number of Black Christians in America in comparison to the number of Whites. Have we really accepted the fact that the gospel is for all races when we have done so little to evangelize the black?

To further show that our attitudes portray partiality, consider what disposition we have when a movie star is converted versus our attitude toward the conversion of the man on the street. We have a tendency to elevate the professional ball player, actor, senator, governor, Ph.D., etc. who might be a Christian far above that of the average man. Have we forgotten what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 1:26-31? His message was that the gospel was more highly receptive among the common men. He said,

For consider your call, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God.

John’s disciples were told that the poor have the gospel preached to them as one of the signs that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ (Mt. 11:5). Yet, we forget this and tend to rejoice more in the conversion of the rich, mighty, noble,.etc. If and when we begin to cater to the rich and mighty, we will be headed down a road that will ultimately destroy us. The lesson of James 2 regarding respect of persons is just as applicable in this Twentieth Century as it was in the First.

Conclusion

We must recognize that the gospel is aimed at the common man. Consequently, we need to aim our sermons and evangelistic efforts in that direction. Let us plan our new building locations with this in mind. Instead of looking for a location which is necessarily in the upper middle class section of town, let us look for locations which might be more conducive to reaching the common man. Let us be careful not to cater to the rich and mighty; rather, let us show our greatest respect to the man who has matured in faith before God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, pp. 179-180
March 16, 1978

By Steve Wolfgang

Judging from the rash of recent articles on the subject, it seems to have become fashionable for some of us who preach to ask questions such as, “Are we converted to Christ or to the Church of Christ?” Recently I have heard this question expressed in several different ways; if the truth were known, I would have to own up to asking and preaching about the same sort of question.

There is nothing inherently wrong with asking this or most other questions. If our intention is simply to indicate that our ultimate loyalty is not to any group of human beings, even those who as Christians compose a local congregation of God’s people, but rather to God and His dear Son; or, if we are merely trying to teach that (as one younger preacher said in an article I saw recently) “to overemphasize the church and under emphasize Jesus is to make a very gross blunder,” then I would concur wholeheartedly. In fact, I suspect it would be difficult to find a gospel preacher who would disavow such a statement or such sentiments.

However, we need to recognize an equally gross blunder into which we may fall: overemphasizing a hazy, mystical “Jesus” at the expense of under-emphasizing or failing to teach the clear truth of God’s word regarding His church. In this regard we need to beware lest we become guilty of “spiritual decapitation,” that is, separating the Body from the Head to which it is connected. If we truly “love the Lord,” we will also manifest our love for His church, which He loved so much that He died for it (Eph. 5:25), because the church which is Christ’s is, in the words of Eph. 1:22, “His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all” (NASB).

This “tension” between Christ (the Head) and the church (His body) which has recently been emphasized by some writers and preachers “among us” is not solely the concern of gospel preachers; even some denominational writers have comprehended the point. While in the course of corresponding with a fellow younger preacher about this subject, I happened across a comment from the pen of a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary here in Louisville. Of course, whether a Baptist theologian says something is so or not so matters not in the slightest as far as I am concerned, but given the reverence for denominational “scholarship” on the part of many of those who denigrate Christ’s church while professing love for the Head, I found the following comment to be quite interesting. It comes from the Fall, 1974 issue (Volume LXXI, No.4) of the Review and Expositor, published here in Louisville (but in fact actually printed by the same firm in Berne, Indiana which prints Truth Magazine). According to Dr. Frank Stagg, who is James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, the type of thinking described above “exaggerates the distinction between ecclesiology and Christology, for just as for Paul to be ‘ in Christ’ is to be in his church, the body of Christ. . . , so for Luke to persecute Christians is to persecute Christ. . .so inseparable are his people from Christ. Neither Luke nor any other New Testament writer knows a Christology which does not look to the formation of a people, whether termed church’ or otherwise” (p. 453).

Again, while any man’s say-so does not make a certain thing spiritually right or wrong, it is an interesting and, indeed, pathetic state of affairs when a denominational theologian can see and express a point which some professed gospel preachers either claim not to see or even totally reject.

Let us work together to commit our own lives and those of the many in spiritual desolation to Christ. Let us continue the difficult struggle to keep our thinking -and actions truly undenominational and to guard ourselves from becoming simply another sect. But let us remember that the Head to whom we must be loyal above every human loyalty is yet attached to His body, and that the spiritual body and its proper functions cannot be neglected, de-emphasized, or ignored if we are to be faithful in preaching the whole counsel of God (cf. Acts 20:26-32). As with the case of “love and marriage” in the old song, “you can’t have one without the other.” If we truly love Christ let us cherish His church, as does Christ Himself (Eph. 5:29).

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, p. 178
March 16, 1978