Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Let me again remind you why we are spending so much time studying the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the account of the believer. Some of my brethren are wanting to use the Calvinist doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the account of the believer (which is used in the system of Calvinism as theological justification for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or “once saved, always saved”) as theological justification for fellowshipping those brethren who are actively propagating false doctrines among us. They want to use the Calvinist doctrine to cover the sins of the baptized believer in order that they can fellowship every baptized believer, regardless of what doctrines he is teaching. They believe that Christ’s perfect obedience is transferred to the believer and, therefore, God does not see that brethren are involved in using mechanical instruments of music in worship, supporting human institutions (schools, hospitals, and orphans homes), perverting the organization of the church through the sponsoring church arrangement, premillennialism, etc. Hence, God is going to save these brethren who are engaged in these sins because the perfect obedience of Christ has been applied to the account of these believers. The next step is this: if we are going to live together in sweet fellowship in heaven, should we riot also be in fellowship on this earth? Consequently, those who are teaching the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account are using this as theological justification for fellowshipping brethren who are teaching and practicing sin and who refuse to repent of these sins.

We must not become so involved in the argumentation of these doctrines that we forget the practical application which is being given to them. Some brethren are trying to establish some kind of justification for fellowshipping the Christian Churches and those who are in the liberal churches. Because this is being used as their justification for this fellowship, we must carefully examine their doctrine.

Let me briefly remind you of what we have done already in this series on the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account. In my first article, I showed the relationship of the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience to Christ to the believer’s account as being a part of the system known as Calvinsim. In my second article, I showed that the Greek word logizomai offered no support to this doctrine. In the third article, I showed that the various passages ,used to support this doctrine offer no support for it. The texts must be perverted to make them mean that Christ’s perfect obedience is applied to the account of the believer. Let us move on in our study by making the following criticisms of the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account:

I. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account depreciates our dependence upon the atoning blood of Christ. Instead of the believer’s salvation resting solely upon the blood of Christ as the grounds for salvation, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account minimizes the blood of Christ. In fact, it cuts in half our dependence upon the blood. Rather, we are told that we are saved by two things: the blood of Christ and the perfect obedience of Christ. Hence, this doctrine cuts in half our dependence upon the blood of Christ. Lest you think that I am misrepresenting those who teach this doctrine, read the following quotations:

“There are two elements blended together in God’s redemptive act in Christ. These elements are righteousness and blood. Paul not only ascribes salvation to the blood of Christ but also to the righteousness of Christ . .. . The gospel is about Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:3) — His righteousness and blood. If Christ to our Sun, then half of this Sun’s luster is dimmed when we fail to rivet our attention on the grand theme of the righteousness of Jesus” (Robert D. Brinamead, “The Righteousness of Christ,” Present Truth, Vol. VI, No. 2, p. 16).

“And no sinner is going to be justified other than on the basis and merits of that perfect life and death. Therefore imputation of righteousness is not to transfer the holy and moral life of Christ (infused into sinners) but faith in Him brings to the sinner’s account the merits of his perfect obedience (satisfaction of lw) and death (satisfaction of penalty for the broken law)” (Arnold Hardin, “Imputation of Righteousness # 4,” The Persuader, Vol. XI, No. 11, April 3, 1977).

“We are saved, therefore, by both the doing and the dying, a fact foreshadowed by the Law itself and specifically stated by the apostle Paul (Rom. 5:10, 19). The two elements of the Lord’s Supper remind us of both elements of our redemption: the bread signifies the body in which a perfect life was lived on our behalf (Heb. 10:5ff); the cup signifies the blood shed in atonement for oar remission” (Edward Fudge, “Which Sins Matter?”, Firm Foundation, Vol. XCI, No. 40, October 1, 1974, p. 3).

Notice that all of these quotations show that these men believe that salvation rests for its grounds not exclusively upon the blood of Christ but half upon the blood and half upon the perfect obedience of Christ.

This raises some questions in our mind. If man is saved by the blood of Christ, why does he need His perfect obedience? If my sins are washed away by the blood of Christ each time I repent and pray for forgiveness, why do I need to have perfect obedience imputed to me? My sins are removed and I stand before the law of God without guilt. Why then do I need Christ’s perfect obedience? On the other hand, if Christ’s perfect obedience is imputed to me, God sees Christ’s perfect obedience instead of my sins. Therefore, I ask, why do I need the blood of Christ to forgive me of my sins? The two systems are such that if one of them works I do not need the other. Why do I need both of them?

Hence, the first criticism which I make of the doctrine that Christ’s perfect obedience is imputed to the believer is that it depreciates our..dependence upon the blood of Christ. It cuts in half man’s dependence upon the atonement of Christ!

2. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account depreciates one’s duty to obey the Lord. The doctrine states that Christ does not see our faults; rather, He sees Christ’s perfect obedience attributed to the account of the believer. The logical conclusion from this is that I can be saved without repenting of my sins.

Those brethren who preach imputed righteousness are protesting that this doctrine does not undermine the need for obedience. However, let us judge the tree by its fruits. Those who are involved in fellowshipping those who are in the Christian Church and those who, are liberals among us have far more opportunities to speak to those in apostasy than I do, But, how many have they led out of apostasy? How many brethren have Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside led out of the Christian Church? How many.: brethren has Edward Fudge persuaded to renounce the instruments of music or the sponsoring church arrangement or the church support of human institutions in his many years of writing for the Christian Standard and Firm Foundation? In recent years, how many has Arnold Hardin persuaded to leave the liberals and take a stand for truth. I venture to guess that he has not led any out of these apostasies since he has become convinced that the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer. And, why should he lead them out? They are saved where they are, according to these men!

My brethren, the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account undermines the restoration plea. The restoration plea is a plea to go back to the Bible-to do Bible things in a Bible way. This is understood to be necessary for salvation. Man must go back to the Bible in order to receive the blessings of the gospel — the promise of salvation. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account states that one can be saved without returning the Bible. It teaches that the man who has departed from the organizational pattern of the New Testament church can be saved without restoring the organization of the church; it teaches that the man who is involved in perverting the mission of the church can be saved without restoring the mission of the church. Hence, it altogether undermines the restoration plea. Both logically and practically, the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account has depreciated the necessity of obedience to the Lord.

3. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account puts a premium on ignorance. Our brethren teach that Christ’s perfect obedience will be imputed to the account df the believer so that God does not see the sins of ignorance committed by those sincere, honest brethren attending liberal churches and Christian Churches. If this is so, then we should not tell them that what they are doing is wrong lest we cause them to go to Hell. So long as they are saved in the condition they are in, why inform them of the things which they are doing which are wrong? (Maybe this is why some of our brethren write for those publications circulated by Christian Church men and liberal brethren but never get around to telling those brethren about the things which they are doing which are wrong!) Hence, the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s accounts puts a premium on ignorance.

4. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account states that a man can continue in sin and yet be righteous in the sight of God. These brethren teach that those who are involved in the “sins” (they give this word a special definition sometimes) of instrumental music in worship, the sponsoring church, recreation as a part of the work of the church, premillennialism, etc. can be saved without repenting of their sins and asking God’s forgiveness. Rather, they say that God will simply impute the perfect obedience of Christ to the account of these brethren resulting in them being saved without ever- leaving the Christian Churches or liberal churches among us. In this respect at least, the doctrine of my brethren resembles the first century gnosticism which John opposed; those early gnostics also said that brethren could walk in sin and maintain fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:6).

5. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is nowhere taught in the Scriptures. Because it is not taught within the Scriptures, it is without divine authority. The propagation of this doctrine is the propagation of a doctrine devised by man which renders worship vain (Mt. 15:8-9).

4. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is inconsistently applied. My brethren will not tell me why the perfect obedience of Christ covers sins of ignorance and sins of the weakness of the flesh but will not cover wilful sins. And, of course, this raises another question: which sins do I commit that are not “weaknesses of the flesh”? When I rebell against God, is this “strength of the flesh”? Actually, all my sins are weaknesses of the flesh. If this doctrine can cover one sin which a man does not repent of, it can cover all sins. The Calvinists are more consistent than my brethren. They admit that the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account applies to all sins and, therefore, that the sins which a Christian commits do not affect the salvation of his soul. My brethren say that this is so with reference to only a certain kind of our sins! I guess that some of our sins are venial and others are mortal.

Conclusion

These criticisms of the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account make this doctrine more than an innocent belief of some among us. It is a departure from the one faith that was revealed by God. Its logical consequences are devastating to the Christian. It implies that one can be saved while continuing in sin. Consequently, those who are faithful to the Lord must oppose this doctrine with every ounce of their being.

Truth Magazine XXII: 6, pp. 99-101
February 9, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

In very generic terms Peter admonishes husbands regarding their treatment of wives. He says, “Ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7). Paul very specifically states that “the head of the woman is the man” (1 Cor. 11:3). This is God’s arrangement. It was not imposed upon humanity by some despotic ruler nor by some backward society. Neither was it imposed by some religious system. Indeed it is clear that “neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:9). In God’s infinite wisdom he arranged that “the husband is the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:23).

But before some modern women are completely “turned off” by the above remarks, let us be reminded that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). God’s arrangements for man and woman are not arbitrary or one-sided. It is His desire that our relationship be bi-lateral, that is reciprocal. So we can briefly outline the husband’s duty as follows:

1. The husband is the head of the family circle and must not neglect nor decline his responsibility. Let him think of this arrangement as an assignment of duty, not just a grant of power. He must not rule his house as an autocrat, a dictator, or a tyrant, but he is to rule by guiding, by giving direction to the family, by good stewardship of his opportunity. He should exercise exemplary and dynamic leadership in the home: that is, he should guide his household by his own model behavior and with enthusiasm.

2. In his treatment of his wife he will recognize that she is indeed physically weaker than he. He will therefore not impose undue hardship upon her that would unnecessarily burden or break her body. Thus, he will nurse her when she is sick, he will shield her before and after child-birth and he will guard and protect her against evil people and wicked ways. He will treat her as a tender and fragile plant, as a delicate and precious flower. He will give her strength to lean upon and courage to imitate. He will try , to satisfy her every emotional need and will not withhold from her the joys and satisfactions that are a very real part of the marriage relationship (see .1 Cor. 7:3-5).

3. The husband will recognize that he and his wife may share the most precious relationship of all: their mutual fellowship with God. They are “heirs together of the grace of life.” He is not superior to her in God’s sight. For her Jesus dies, as well as for him. They have an equal hope for eternity. Their God-given responsibilities are not identical, their physical capacities are different and their functions in the family circle are definite and distinguishable. But in a very real and significant sense they are truly equal. They are full partners in God’s design for human development and happiness. Neither is superior nor inferior; neither is better nor worse; neither is more or less important. They are equal beneficiaries of God’s grace of life and equal participants in his plan for humanity.

Christ: The Husband’s Example

Yes, Christ is married, too (Rom. 7:4). The church is the bride of Christ, and He loved the bride so much that He gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). Paul says that husbands should love their wives even as Christ loved the church. But some may say that wives are not always so loveable. It is true. In fact, they are so much like husbands in that respect! Indeed, we are all human beings, and often hard to love because we become quite unlovable. But Christ loved all of us, even though we are human and even when we deserve no love. In spite of our un-loved natures, He loved us, so surely we can love our companions even with their imperfections, and especially when we realize we have so many imperfections ourselves.

If husbands would love their wives as whole-heartedly and as totally as Christ loved the church, this attitude alone would probably solve most of the difficulties in family circles. Out of his love for her, and as a consequence of his devotion to her, would probably come a reciprocal affection from her. Thus, both would demonstrate mutual love, and not merely declare it; thus, peace and joy would be reflected in the home. The parade to the divorce courts could be significantly decreased, I believe, if each companion would nourish and cherish the affection of the other instead of taking it for granted.

Most discontented husbands who complain of too little attention from their wives and who yearn for more affection from their companions would probably not need to see a lawyer if they would recognize the principles of this chapter and would give cheerful response to these ideals. Just as he desires his wife to continue to be attractive to him and to charm him with affection, romance and love, he must respond to her needs and appeal to her emotions with gentleness, kindness and with expressions of appreciation for her. If a husband counts his marriage precious, then he will not be wasting time when he frequently shows the same tenderness in later years that he did on the honeymoon. One woman expressed it like this:

“I know your love is greater now,

Than ever in our courtship days:

Somehow you show it in a thousand different ways;

But sometimes I think wistfully,

Of how nice it was when you loved me less,

And told me so more frequently.”

In our next chapter we shall consider some pitfalls that vex many families and that thus become very real factors in the crisis at the crossroads. Next: “Home Wreckers.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 6, p. 98
February 9, 1978

By Charles G. Caldwell, Jr.

James and John, sons of Zebedee, together with Peter were among the most faithful disciples of Jesus and privileged to accompany Him on many occasions when others of the Apostles were not allowed to go. These three are sometimes referred to as “the inner circle” of Jesus. They, however, were very slow to grasp the fundamental concept of His Kingdom being not temporal but spiritual in its nature. If it was a difficult thing for these who walked and talked with the Master here on earth and who were privy to His every word spoken in private conversation-I say, if it was hard for them to understand the nature of His kingdom, perhaps we can better comprehend how it is that many in our day with their prejudices and preconceived ideas have difficulty along this line. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). It would seem that anyone would be able to understand that the Kingdom of Christ is totally a spiritual institution and not, therefore, of this world.

The Request

In Matt. 20:20, 21 and the parallel passage in Mark 10:35, we are told that James and John in company with their mother, Salome, came to Jesus with the request that they should have prominent places in His Kingdom. “Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand in thy glory” (Mark 10:37). Matthew records that Jesus put the question squarely to the mother, “What wilt thou?” She replied, “Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.” For Jesus to be in His “glory” and to be in His “Kingdom” is the same thing. In heaven today He is at the right hand of God and in His “glory”; and since to be in His “glory” and to be in His “kingdom” is the same thing, He is now in His “kingdom.” Let there be no mistake about that.

To sit on the right hand of a sovereign ruler is to occupy the highest position of honor that he can give. To sit on the`’left hand is to occupy the second highest position. Both positions entail not only great honor but also involve tremendous responsibility. To occupy these positions in the Kingdom of Christ was the heart’s desire of these two brothers.

Why The Request?

The traditional view is to look upon these disciples with disdain. In a highly critical air we are inclined to regard them as being rather egocentric, thinking more highly of themselves than they ought to think. “Why should they consider themselves more deserving of prominence than all the others? Who do they think they are anyway?”, we are inclined to ask. And so we conclude that this indeed was an ugly chapter in the lives of these otherwise good men. Is it possible that our conclusions are based solely on the attitude of the other Apostles who “were moved with indignation against the two brothers” (Matt. 20:24).

I have an idea that we have been too hard on James and John. It is my conviction that there is much here that is worthy of our serious consideration and emulation. If we can just put out of our minds for a moment the conceptions to which we have been wedded, let us look at these two men in the contextual setting.

Faith in the Promises

Note first of all, that Jesus had just made the statement, for the third time at least, that He would be crucified. He spoke of His being betrayed, that the rulers would condemn Him to death. Being delivered to the Gentiles He would be- mocked, scourged and crucified. He was careful to add, however, that the third day He would rise again. Surely James and John had heard all this and had been duly impressed with it. But, did that dampen their faith? Did that cast any doubt in their mind as to His ability to do what He had taught throughout His career that He would do and what was prophesied by the seerers of old?

Men of lesser faith would have wavered. But James and John had supreme faith in their Master and were confident that He would set up His kingdom just as He had promised and that He would rule over it. True, they did not fully understand the nature of the Kingdom but whatever the nature they wanted to be a part of it when it did come. I can think of no incident that demonstrates more forcefully their invincible faith in Christ.

I am convinced that our faith in Christ and His promises is not always that strong. Too often when the way grows weary and our sky grows dark and troubles beset us on every hand our faith wavers. In the hour when we need Him most, our faith in Christ weakens and we fail to unreservedly believe that He is with us to bless and carry the weight of the load resting heavily upon us. We should never abandon the conviction that the victory belongs to our Lord and regardless of opposing forces and obstacles in our way, if we will but walk by His side and hold to His hand we too will be victorious in the fight. The Word of God gives to us assurance that Christ will reign, in His Kingdom, till all His enemies are abolished (1 Cor. 15:25, 26). “Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (vs. 57).

Unquestioned Loyalty

Another thing that strikes me about these two brothers is their loyalty and fidelity. Even though they had been told of all that Jesus was to endure and the assurance given that they too would suffer because of their allegiance to Him and even drink of the cup of death, it never entered their mind to turn back, to forsake, to get out of the line of fire. “We will follow all the way” was their attitude. Oh, how we need men-and women-like that today: Christians who love the Lord supremely and are not about to give up or faint in the way because of adverse circumstances. We need those, .who like James and John, are determined to “stay with it.” How about you, my brother, are you so determined?

Ambitious

The criticism most commonly leveled against these two disciples of Jesus is that they were ambitious. But, is that really something to be despised: Is it not rather to their credit: They were looking forward eagerly to the coming of the Kingdom predicted by the Master. Without a great deal of understanding concerning its nature, they nevertheless wanted to be a real and vital part of it. The very fact that it was Christ’s Kingdom and that He was to be the King over it was sufficient to commend it unreservedly to them. Certainly, they wanted to be in it. But more than that, they wanted to be deeply involved in it. There are too many in the Kingdom of the Lord today who have an altogether different view of the matter. They are those who have no ambition so far as spiritual matters are concerned. They are willing to assume an air of complacence, sit back and let others do the work, enjoy if possible the blessings without taking on any of the responsibilities. In other words, they are content to just sit around doing nothing, just going along for the ride. How unlike James and John!

The Request Not Denied

You will note that Jesus did not tell these brothers that they would not occupy the positions for which they asked. He rather told them that those positions would “be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” Then He proceeded to inform them who the Father had decreed should hold such positions. It would be the one who ministered; the one who served (Matt. 20:26, 27). He reiterated the same thought in Matt. 23:11, 12, “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Worthwhile positions in the Kingdom would come to James and John and they will come to you and me only as we meet the specified conditions. Are we willing to humble ourselves and render worthwhile service? How about you, my friend?

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, pp. 92-93
February 2, 1978

 

We come to services to worship God: Our concentration should be with the speaker — whether in class, during prayer, or during the sermon. But at times, our concentration is broken and the message lost to us because of noise in the building. Did you ever lose the entire lesson because you were trying to figure out who was clipping their nails in services? Did you lose your concentration because you were trying to figure out who was popping their gum?

Children are often the source of noise and distraction. Sometimes we give our children anything in our purse or pocket just to keep them quiet-for example, our keys. Did you ever stop to realize that just one clink of keys could be heard in the entire building — how about an entire service of keys hitting the bench? Then there is the case of squeaking toys for our children to play with during worship services. Here again, just one squeak causes a loss of concentration; but, how about constant squeaking?

Where was your interest when someone came in to sit down late for class, with the speaker or with the person late? How about late arrivals coming in during the song service? Were you able to put all you had into the song and receive the same? Who was the person that arrived late and came in the building during prayer?

When we arrive for worship services we need to come prepared. We should have our lessons studied and our minds open for the word of God. If we are guilty of coming in late, we are not only taking away from our own concentration, but also distracting others. If our nails need to be manicured, our eyebrows plucked, or our hair brushed, let us prepare before services.

For those of us who have children, we need to prepare them for services. We need to “practice” quiet times at home so this hour of worship will not be strange. We also need to prepare by having “quiet” toys, if we feel toys are necessary, for our babies. We also should prepare by feeding them before they arrive at the building. I am not referring to bottles of milk or juice for the babies, but cereals such as “cheerios” and food such as raisins are not necessary in the building. They have a way of being left on our carpet to be ground in or tracked throughout the building.

There are times when quietness is essential in our services. We need to stop and take stock of what we do to help others learn the word of God. Are we helping someone to learn how a Christian should act in worship services,? Do we add to the reverent atmosphere that is conducive to the uplifting of our souls? What are we doing here? Think on these things.

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, p. 92
February 2, 1978