Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Consistent Pattern of Openness

It is important to emphasize that Truth Magazine has never been characterized by that bigoted brand of journalism that can allow only one side of vital issues to be published. From its earliest days, there has been openness to consider opposing views, to let them be heard. This does not mean the paper has become a forum for the propagation of every crackpot idea to come along. Editorial restraint and balance has guarded against the paper becoming needlessly repetitious, tedious, or irresponsible. When modernism was opposed at the beginning, Roy Key was allowed to make his defense. When institutionalism was opposed, not only were opponents allowed space when they asked it, but special debates were arranged to ensure both sides a fair hearing. During the battle over the new grace-unity movement, opposition articles have been reprinted from other journals, those asking for space have been given it, and those who have been under review have been invited to respond.

If militant propagation and defense of truth is vital, the posture of openness is no less so. The author’s first contact in recent years with editor Willis, was for the purpose of responding to two articles which had appeared in truth Magazine (cf. Ron Halbrook, “The `Spiritual’ and the Prayer Amendment: A Review,” XVI, Aug. 31, 1972, pp. 663ff.). Exchanges with R. B. Sweet and Lindy McDaniel have already been noted. Discussion on both sides of the carnal war question has been allowed (cf. Bruce Edwards, Jr., Cecil Willis, and Robert H. West in Vol. XVI, Oct. 12, 1972, pp. 757 and 755; XVII, Dec. 21, 1972, pp. 122-124). When he was under review, Randall Mark Trainer asked to have “Having Trouble Over Baptism?” printed (Vol. XVII, Sept. 27, 1973, p. 722). As he promised to do, Cecil printed a letter from Edward Fudge in “Editor’s Memory Is Fallible!” (Vol. XVIII, Jan. 24, 1974, pp. 179-180).

The editor’s willingness to apologize when appropriate — something impossible for a closed mind — has already been mentioned. Brethren who have felt a need to criticize the editor’s way of expressing himself on a subject, have been allowed a hearing in print (cf. Vol. XVIII, July 11, 1974, pp. 546-550). When a potentially misleading statement has been called to his attention, Cecil has been willing to clarify. One example is his “Concerning the Brethren In Tuscaloosa, Alabama,” on December 6, 1973. The preacher at Tuscaloosa, Aubrey Belue, Jr., added an unsolicited statement regarding Cecil’s editorial work — “not because I am in `his party,’ but because he and I stand together on Scriptural truth.”

Brother Willis has been “knocked” more than praised — I myself have been critical of his editorial judgment. It is very easy for us who are onlookers to see flaws-or things we think are flaws-in the activity of those who are at work. I am sure that he has expected some of this, and I am glad to see that it has not deterred him from doing his duty as he saw it (Vol. XVIII, pp. 83-84).

Along this same line, Brother Willis has not attempted to make Truth Magazine a one-man show, even on the matter of editorial judgment. Throughout his fifteen years of editing, he has tried to surround himself with men of mature, sound judgment and has actively sought their counsel. In recent years, he has repeatedly sought the advice of men like Roy Cogdill, James Adams, Earl Robertson, and others. His “Tell Us It Is Not So” article “was not published until several other brethren of great knowledge and experience, and to whose wisdom I often resort for editorial advice, had read the article and unanimously recommended it be immediately published,” as he later explained (Vol. XVII, Oct. 18, 1973, pp. 771-775).

Looking to the Future

Perhaps the one piece of advice repeatedly offered which Cecil Willis has found hardest to accept is the warning that he was pressing himself beyond reasonable human limits in his work. After ten years of editing, Cecil wrote “Ten Years Ago,” saying he enjoyed the work in spite of its demanding rigors (Vol. XVI, Sept. 7, 1972, p. 675). “Looking to the Future” in 1974, he said the “tenuous existence” of a paper like Truth Magazine hung upon one thing: “its contents.” In addition to the two generations already on the staff, Cecil announced that “yet a third generation of preachers and writers” was to be added-beginning with his youngest brother Mike as a new Associate Editor, and’including several others shortly as “Staff Writers.” Without compromise “in soundness, ability, work out-put, or quality,” the additions would enhance the papers effectiveness, he felt. He added that Mike, being nearby, would assist in “the editorial position a little.” Mike had developed “very good work habits” before and during college, was “a very capable worker in personal evangelism,” had “good pulpit ability,” demonstrated “competent writing skills,” and maintained “a rigid reading schedule” (Vol. XVIII, Apr. 25, 1974, pp. 387-389). The Staff Writers were presented the following November: Donald P. Ames, Karl Diestelkamp (who had actually been writing in Truth Magazine for twelve years, and doing the `News Briefs” for some time), Bruce Edwards, Jr.,- Ron Halbrook, Jeffery Kingry, John McCort, Harry Ozmont, Steve Wolfgang, and, as Circulation Manager, George T. Eldridge (Vol. XVIX, Nov. 7, 197’4, pp. 3-12).

For the past fifteen years, besides editing Truth Magazine, Cecil Willis has been writing books, debating, traveling to preach in foreign countries, holding numerous gospel meetings in this country, trying to do located preaching work most of the time, and serving as an elder part of the time. As of April 1, 1977. he formally resigned the editorship of Truth Magazine and related responsibilities with the Cogdill Foundation. Recurring health problems coupled with some personal considerations and pressures which have mounted over time, helped bring about this action. The Corinthians gave beyond what Paul expected and “beyond their power” to the needy saints of Jerusalem. Just as certainly, Cecil has given himself to editorial and related duties along with evangelistic labors beyond what could be expected of any human being. Extending himself beyond the limitations of human power-with reference to normal needs of rest, recreation, and diversion — his body has forced him several times to curtail his work and to lean on the faithful help of co-laborers like Mike Willis.

Though still relatively young at 45, brother Cecil Willis has accomplished more in the variety and volume of his work than most of us can do in a lifetime. He has paid a dear price in the demands, pressures, and sacrifices of such labor. Though mortals cannot make the final .judgment or evaluation of this labor — “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom. 14:4) — yet we can know that we have benefitted and shall continue to benefit from these labors. We are not ashamed to say what a great debt of gratitude we owe Cecil Willis. We are not afraid to say that we hope and trust that his future labors will benefit us yet again and again. Somewhere these words are inscribed on a wall at a university: “On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest and resting, died.” Obviously, Cecil Willis did not sit down in the editor’s chair to rest! Perhaps his determination throughout as editor is best portrayed in an editorial on “Our Obligations Toward Truth”: Procure It, Practice It, Proclaim It, Protect It, Plead It (Vol. XVIII, Nov. 15, 1973, pp. 35-37).

Truth Magazine’s early years set the tone for a wellbalanced paper, a militant paper, an evangelistic paper. During the next fifteen years of diligent, determined labor, the paper has continued admirably in that same path. Looking back, and looking forward, we must realize that now is not the time for hesitation or rest. Truth Magazine must continue to be well-balanced. militant, and evangelistic. We believe it shall!

III. Hopeful Anticipation (1977- )

Truth Magazine will continue to be well-balanced, militant, and evangelistic because its newly announced editor is Mike Willis. “On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest and resting, died.” Mike Willis has not taken the editor’s chair to rest. He brings the energy of youth to this demanding job, and brings as well a maturity beyond his years. The editor’s mantle is passed on to safe and hopeful hands. We view his work with hopeful anticipation because we know Mike, and because he comes to his work with hopeful anticipation.

Mike’s willingness to press the demands of truth in the face of denominational error has been evident since his first article in Truth Magazine. His article entitled “Abolished” dealt with the Sabbath, and was to be followed later by one on “Contradictions in the Book of Mormon” (Vol. X1I, Apr., 1968; XIV, Feb. 12, 1970). His second article dealt with “The Goodness and Severity of God” (Vol. XII, Aug., 1968). In “Vestigial Organs” on the subject of evolution, Mike quipped that some members of the church appear to be vestigial organs (Vol. XIV, Nov. 27, 1969). After several other articles on a variety of subjects in 1969-70 (Vol. XIV, pp. 60, 164, 320, 752, 787), he examined at length the “Ancestry of the English Bible” the following year (Vol. XV, ten parts between Feb. 11 and Apr. 15, 1971). Another good series the next year was presented on “Archaeology and the Bible” (Vol. XVI, ten parts between Aug. 24 and Oct. 26, 1972). He has wrestled with such difficult subjects as “The Problem of Suffering” and written on such unpopular ones as “More Evidence on Smoking” (Vol. XIV, p. 164, p. 752).

By the time Mike began writing in Truth Magazine the institutional battle had passed its hottest period; the two groups had pretty much gone their own ways. But when controversy broke out over grace-unity-fellowship, it became quickly evident that Mike had been doing his Bible homework. His March 1, 1973, article, “Unity in Diversity or Unity in Doctrine?” compared Ketcherside’s plea to Paul’s approach in 1 Corinthians: “Paul urged that unity in the body of Christ be attained by unity in doctrine; not by unity in diversity!” Mike dealt with other key concepts related to this matter, such as the authority of silence (March 8, 1973), the charge of legalism (March 15), and the exclusive nature of truth (Nov. 22). In “When It’s Me and When It’s You,” Mike pointed out that when Ketcherside reviewed someone he said he was simply stating his convictions, but when someone reviewed him they were guilty of journalistic propaganda — “Ketcherside `speaks with forked tongue’!” (Mar. 22). Mike continued to uproot error with articles on “Sins of Ignorance” (exposing such special pleading as essentially situationism; July 18, 1974), “The `Unity Movement’s Distinction Between `Gospel’ and `Doctrine’, ” (Oct. 24, 1974), and `Twisted Scriptures” (June 12, 1975). The latter in Vol. XIX (pp. 488-492) began a series reviewing Ketcherside’s reconstruction of many passages; the timeliness of this series can be seen in the fact that Ketcherside recently re-issued his own volume entitled The Twisted Scriptures. Beginning January 8, 1976 (Vol. XX, pp. 23-24), Mike also followed a similar series by Leroy Garrett on “The Word Abused,” dealing first with Amos 3:3, then Romans 14:23 (p. 235f), 1 John 1:7 (p. 264f), 2 Peter 2:1 (p. 518f), 1 Cor. 1:10 (p. 647f), and others. During this time, he also presented a series on “Descriptive Terms of Christians” and prepared the “Book Briefs” column.

Honored to Serve Through This Medium

Mike wrote the wrap-up for Vol. XX (Dec. 23, 1976, p. 804), observing that Truth Magazine emerged during “the fight against institutionalism and the sponsoring church concept.” In more recent years, Truth Magazine exposed “the grace-unity heresy as propagated by Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, etc . . . . Frankly, those of us who are associated with this paper are honored to have served the Lord in exposing this heresy through this teaching medium.” Obviously, Mike’s work will not represent an apologetic or compromising stance with reference to the previous editors’ determined work for truth and against error. In time, it will be apparent that the work of these men blends, overlaps, and bonds together as a unified whole.

Just as Cecil Willis had earlier indicated would be the case, Mike was doing editorial work at the beginning of 1977 (Vol. XXI, Jan. 13, 1977, p. 22). Mike’s editorials have appeared with unbroken regularity since February 3, 1977. On March 10, Mike announced these additional Staff Writers: Bill Cavender, Daniel H. King, Keith Sharp, and Johnny Stringer. Therefore, Mike was to begin editing the paper with ten Staff Writers, including Donald Ames, Karl Diestelkamp, Ron Halbrook, Jeffery Kingry, John McCort, and Steve Wolfgang. As Mike formally began editorial labors on May 19 (announced in the issue for that date), his Associate Editors were O. C. Birdwell, Luther Blackmon, Roy Cogdill, Larry Hafley, Irvin Himmel, Earl Robertson, and Jimmy Tuten, with George T. Eldridge the Circulation Manager. One sample of Mike’s work can be seen in the special issues arranged on Gospel Preaching and The Work of the Church which appeared March 17 and 24. Already, he is working ahead to produce similar issues on other interesting and important topics.

What lies ahead? No man can predict the future, but we believe fully that hopeful anticipation is justified. Reviewing the history of Truth Magazine helps us to see that it has been a well-balanced, militant, evangelistic paper. So long as the paper keeps that character, it will be a much needed voice in a world of darkness and sin. Should it ever lose that character, it will deserve to die. Our loyalty is not a printed medium called Truth Magazine, nor to the Cogdill Foundation which publishes it nor to any man or group of men connected with the paper. Our loyalty must be to deity alone, to Jesus Christ, to the everlasting gospel! With that in mind, those of us who have promised to write should do so, to the very best of our abilities. Mature men connected with the paper should give Mike all the benefit of their advice, wisdom, and counsel. We encourage our readers to re-subscribe (why not use the automatic renewal plan), and to subscribe for others who might not otherwise take the paper (only $5.00 per month for 10 subscriptions, or $10.00 for 20).

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unm,oveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, pp. 88-90
February 2, 1978

By Morris W. R. Bailey

As we continue our study of handling aright the word of truth, I now propose to show that such requires that we consider

The Text In The Light Of Its Context

I recall an incident that occurred several years ago, when I was a boy in school. One day we received a visit from a woman who was from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. She gave some fine lessons and some very emphatic warnings about the evils of the use of alcohol. In the course of her speech she quoted the words, “Touch not, taste not, handle not.” It was a very impressive appeal since it was obviously supposed to be a quotation from the Bible and seemed very appropriate as regards the use of alcohol as a beverage. But none of us realized, and probably she did not realize, that she had lifted the passage (Col. 2:21) out of its setting. Paul was not discussing the use of alcohol. The context shows that he was warning against the doctrines of men.

The above incident, while perhaps not as far reaching in its implications as other examples which I shall discuss, nevertheless demonstrates how a passage of scripture can be lifted out of its context and used to teach something completely foreign to the subject being discussed by the inspired writer.

Some one has well said that a text taken out of its context becomes a pretext. Yet this is a common failing among many students of the Bible, and sadly, often among preachers. It is found especially in the denominational world and sometimes, surprisingly, among some who profess to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent. Often a position is taken on some subject, or some religious practice is introduced, and then the progenitor goes to the Bible for “proof.” The result is that passages of scripture are taken completely out of their setting, and used to teach something they were never intended to teach.

Sometimes these perversions take on the character of the ludicrous. The story is told of a preacher who was much opposed to a woman’s wearing her hair in a knob. Wanting to preach a sermon on the subject, he decided he must have a text from the Bible. After a long search he found what he wanted-Matt. 24:17 where Jesus said, “Let him that is on the housetop not come down take anything out of his house.” He then announced his subject which was, “Top not (knot) come down.” It may have satisfied him as a text, but it was a far call from the context in which Jesus spoke those words. Such is a wresting of scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

Matthew 24

There are some, especially those of the premillennial school of thought, who are prone to speculate concerning the future. With them, every event such as a war, or rumor of war, a famine or an earthquake presages the approaching end of time, and is construed as fulfilling the words of Jesus in Matt. 24:6,7, “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars . . . for nation shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places.”

A careful perusal of this controverted chapter, however, reveals that verses one to thirty-four deal, not with the second coming of Christ, but with the impending destruction of Jerusalem. In verses one and two we read: “And Jesus went out from the temple, .and was going on his way; and his disciples came unto him to show him the buildings of the temple. And he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

How can these words be construed to mean anything other than the coming destruction of the temple? Keeping them in mind, we now turn to verse three which tells us that later the disciples of Jesus came to him with the question, “When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” This question is recorded by Mark in the following words, “When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to be accomplished?” (Mark 13:4). This same question is recorded by Luke in these words, “When therefore shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?” (Luke 21:7).

In the light of the above quotations is it not obvious that the question of the disciples related to the destruction of the temple and of the city of Jerusalem? The words of Matthew, “What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?” present no real difficulty. It would be natural that the disciples, being loyal Jews, would associate such a catastrophic event as the destruction of the temple only with the end of the world. Therefore, the signs which Jesus gave pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem. Or, are we to believe that Jesus ignored the subject in which the disciples were so obviously interested, namely, the time when the temple would be destroyed, and dealt with a matter that was not even involved in their question? For it should be remembered that the disciples had little, if any, conception of the second coming of Christ, as they later did when enlightened by the Holy Spirit. There is reason to believe that they had their doubts about His going away (John 14:5; 16:5,6). That being true, how could they believe in His second coming as it was later revealed by the Holy Spirit?

A further discriminating study of this twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew suggests to my mind an obvious contrast between the subject matter discussed prior to and following verse thirty-four which says, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.” Attention is now drawn to the following contrasts.

1. In verses 5-12 Jesus gave a number of portending signs, such as wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes as signaling the near approach of the event foretold. Regarding His second coming, however, Jesus gave no sign. (vs. 42-44). Here He likened His coming to that of a thief. And we know that thieves give no signs portending their coming. Paul used the same illustration when he spoke of the time of the second coming of Christ (1 Thess. 5:2).

2. The event foretold is cast in a local setting. In verses 15, 16, Jesus said, “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, . . . then let them that are Judea flee into the mountains.” Question: Why urge just those in Judea to flee, if Jesus was speaking of His coming in judgment at the end of time? And, to what mountains will they flee seeing that the earth is going to be destroyed at Christ’s second coming (2 Peter 3:10)? In contrast to the above local phenomenon, the second coming of Christ will be world-wide (Rev. 1:7).

3. The signs preceding verse thirty-four describe abnormal times of war, famine, tribulation, proliferation of false prophets (vss 6-11). The second coming of Christ, however, will be preceded by normal times (vs. 37-39).

From the foregoing contrasts, we therefore conclude that such signs as were given prior to verse 34 pointed to the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Jesus said that those signs would be accomplished (or fulfilled) before that generation passed away. To apply them, then, to the second coming of Christ is to take them out of their setting.

First Corinthians 1:17

This verse is often used (or misused, I should say) by sectarians in their efforts to prove that baptism is not essential to salvation. The verse says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” Their reasoning follows this pattern: If baptism is necessary to salvation, Paul would have been sent to baptize. But since he was not sent to baptize, therefore baptism is not any part of the plan of salvation.

Before examining the context in which Paul wrote these words, let us make the following observations:

1. There was only one man who was ever sent specifically to baptize. He was John the Baptist (John 1:33). It was from the fact of his being sent to baptize that he was called the Baptist or baptizer. Yet John did something more than to baptize. He preached the message of the coming kingdom of heaven (Matt. 3:1). Did John do something that God had not sent him to do? Is it not obvious that his mission to baptize included preaching?

2. Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Yet Paul did baptize some people (1 Cor. 1:14,15). Did he do something that God had not authorized him to do? It does not help any to say that he baptized very few poeple. To have baptized one would have been one too many if he was not commissioned to baptize. Surely we can see that if John’s commission to baptize included the preaching that preceded it and led to multitudes being baptized, (Matt. 3:1-5), then we should be able to see that Paul’s commission to preach the gospel included the baptizing that was the result of such preaching (Acts 18:8).

But let us now examine the context in which Paul said that he had been sent not to baptize, but to preach the go;;pel. In verses eleven and twelve we learn that the ch zrch at Corinth was divided into fractions. Some declared themselves to be of Paul, some of Apollos, some of Cephas, and some of Christ. This vexed the heart of the great apostle who regarded himself and Apollos simply as “ministers through whom ye believed,” and not as heads of parties (1 Cor. 3:5).

In the questions, “Is Christ divided: was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”, the apostle stated the only grounds on which they could claim to be “of Paul.” These questions demanding a negative answer left those of that faction without any justification for such a claim.

Fearing lest some would attach an undue significance to their having been baptized by the hands of Paul, supposing that they had been baptized.in his name (vs. 14,15), he had therefore abstained from baptizing, with the exception of but a very few, leaving the baptizing of the “many Corinthians” of Acts 18:8 to other hands. It was in this context that Paul said that he had not been sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. Had he been sent to baptize as John the Baptist was, he would not have delegated the baptizing to others any more than he could have delegated his responsibility to preach the gospel to others.

Therefore, when sectarian preachers use Paul’s words in an effort to prove that Paul did not regard baptism as a part of the plan of salvation they take it out of its context and thus pervert it.

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, pp. 86-88
February 2, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Dick Blackford met Paul Dabdoub, a Baptist preacher, in debate on December 8, 9, 1977. This discussion in Dyersburg, Tennessee, considered the plan of salvation. Mr. Dabdoub (pronounced, Dab-do) affirmed that salvation is solely by a penitent faith, before and without water baptism. Brother Blackford affirmed that water baptism is essential to salvation.

Attendance

The debate was fairly well attended. There were several Pentecostal people present. Baptist attendance was good on the last night. The crowd was about 200 each evening. The weather was a factor. However,spiritual apathy was the biggest reason why more did not attend. Interest in the truth is not keen among denominational people. It appears that many religious folks are not stirred by a Biblical study of their doctrines. This should not be true of Christians, but is it?

Audience Behavior

The behavior was “as it becometh the gospel of Christ” (Phil. 1:27). Not a single point of order was called. Everyone was well behaved. There was no outburst of any kind, no derisive laughter, “Amen,” or anything of that kind. This shows that religious debates are not always characterized by disorder. The disputants were gentlemen. Those who oppose debating because of disgraceful deportment should continue to object to obnoxious and obscene conduct. One should not, though, condemn all debates because a few are uncivilized. This one was peaceful. If bad behavior is an argument against debates, this one was an argument for them.

The Debate Itself

Dick Blackford was well prepared. He had beautiful color charts to illustrate affirmative and negative arguments. His approach was a direct appeal to the Scriptures. What the Scriptures say is what Dick contended for. The simple, Biblical proof text presentation was profound and powerful.

Mr. Dabdoub ran the usual course pursued by Baptist preachers. He cited passages attributing salvation to faith and concluded that these eliminated baptism. He said that all one needed to do was trust, repent, and believe. He often said, “Baptism is no part of the gospel.” He alleged that the church of Christ is “a dangerous denomination,” “a false cult,” “has no Savior,” and that memebers of it “are probably not saved.” These comments are typical of those made by Baptist preachers through the years. They were mere assertions. Mr. Dabdoub made no attempt to prove his charges. Statements like these are made by Baptists, but Christians are always the ones who “condemn everyone else!”

No attempt will be made to rehash the debate. Brother Blackford did his job well. He efforts require no reinforcement. Mr. Dabdoub made no reference to many of the arguments which Dick presented. Of course, time always limits both disputants, but Mr. Dabdoub presented affirmative material when he should have been examining the evidence which Dick set forth. Again, this is typical of denominational debaters.

Conclusion

A debate is a means of teaching. It is not always the best medium, but it is another avenue down which one may drive truth and chase error. The efforts by the brethren of the North Side church in Dyersburg are to be commended. It is refreshing to find brethren willing to support an honorable discussion. Poor Mr. Dabdoub could not secure a single Baptist preacher to moderate for him! His wife was his moderator! This is a sad commentary and a poor reflection on Baptist convictions (Jn. 3:20, 21).

Dick Blackford is a close friend and a dear brother. Faithful Christians everywhere should rejoice for his service in the truth, especially as it was manifested in the debate in Dyersburg.

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, p. 86
February 2, 1978

By Mike Willis

Last week, I presented a rather thorough examination of the Greek word logizomai to show that there were no usages of this word which might lend support to the doctrine that the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to the account of the believer so that God overlooks his sins. I want to continue an examination of the arguments used by those who defend this doctrine in this issue.

1. God demands perfect obedience. This is one of the most frequently made arguments used by those who believe in the doctrine of the imputed perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account. “It is asserted, perhaps the most plausible plea in defense of this dogma, that nothing but thorough and perfect obedience could ever be available for acceptance before a God of infinite purity; and consequently that Christ’s righteousness, which was alone perfect, must be imputed to the believer ere he can be accepted before God” (John Henry Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 332).

For years, Calvinists have argued for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account using this very argument. Here are some samples of their quotations:

“I reply that `accepting grace,’ as they call it, Is nothing else than his free goodness, with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes us with the innocence of Christ and accepts it as ours that by the benefit of it he may hold us as holy, pure, and innocent. For Christ’s righteousness, which as it alone is perfect alone can bear the night of God, must appear In court on our behalf, and stand surety In judgment. Furnished with this righteousness, we obtain continual forgiveness of sins in faith. Covered with this purity, the sordidness and uncleanness of our imperfection are not ascribed to us but are hidden as if buried that they may not come Into God’s judgment, until the hour arrives when, the old man slain and clearly destroyed in us, the divine goodness will receive us into blessed peace with the new Adam” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter, XIV, No. 12).

“We may summarize the point by saying that God requires of man a holy life. The justice of God’s judgment seat requires enact and perfect obedience to the divine law. Man cannot be saved unless that law be fulfilled — every jot and tittle of it.

“Says Calvin, `The Lord promises nothing except to perfect keepers of His law,’ and then, to underline the human predicament, he adds, `and no one of that kind is to be found.’ — Calvin, op. cit., Bk. 3, chap. 17, sec. 1. This is where God stepped in by providing for us a Surety (Heb. 7:22) in Jesus Christ. His righteousness consists in His perfect obedience to His Father’s law in our room and on our behalf. Not only by His blood (which atones for our offenses) but by His righteousness He reconciles us to God and presents us in the sight of divine justice as if we had kept the law” (Rather D. Brinsmead, Present Truth, Vol. VI, No. 2, p.18).

Now brethren who deny that they, in any way, have accepted Calvinism have accepted the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account and are using the very same arguments which other Calvinists use to prove their doctrine. Compare the statements from John Calvin and Robert D. Brinsmead, Editor of Present Truth, with those of our brethren.

‘Being under God’s moral laws God demands right doing. Man always falls short. Hence when one understands what is imputed, put to one’s account, that one who comes to Christ in the obedience of faith will spend a life time striving to please, reverence and adore by faithful living his God. . . ” (“Even As He Is Righteous,” Arnold Hardin, The Persuader, Vol. XI, No. 15, June 12,1977).

“The law of God moat be honored and since no man does honor it perfectly some one had to come and in man’s place and on his behalf keep law perfectly. It has been correctly said that `only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God: How is such possible? Through obedience as is taught? The Bible teaches that it is possible only on the basis of what faith does — that is — bringing to God the perfect obedience of Christ” (“Imputation of Righteousness # 4,” Arnold Hardin, The Persuader, Vol. XI, No. 11, April 3, 1977).

Anybody with his eyes open can see that (1) the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account is part of the warp and woof of Calvinism and (2) that brethren who have accepted the doctrine are using the very same arguments which other Calvinists have been using for years to prove that doctrine.

Let us consider an answer to this argument being used by the Calvinists among us. Please notice very carefully that there was no passage cited which showed that Christians are demanded to practice perfect obedience to the law in order to be accepted before God. The very absence of positive proof shows that this doctrine is not a part of God’s divine plan for salvation. Nowhere is there any evidence that God demands perfection in order to obtain salvation. The Bible does not say that we are saved by God seeing a perfect account of obedience attributed to our account. Rather, the Bible teaches that we are saved through the forgiveness which comes to us through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The man who has had his sins forgiven stands before the law perfect because his sins against that law have been forgiven. He is perfect because all of the violations of which he is guilty have been removed from his account through forgiveness. This supposed proof iE destitute of any passage to sustain it and stands, therefore, contrary to the Scriptures.

2. Rom. 5:9-10. The passage reads as follows: “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. ” The argument has been made that “His life” refers to the perfect obedience of Christ being attributed to the account of the believer. However, a fair examination of the context will reveal that “life” is put in juxtaposition to “death” and refers to the resurrected life of Jesus. Had Jesus not been raised from the dead, there could have been no hope for salvation for any of us. He would not have been declared to be the Son of God. His death would have been a tragedy but not an atonement.

Though my brethren want to appeal to Rom. 5:9-10 to prove that the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is applied to the account of the believer, many Calvinists recognize that this passage says nothing about the doctrine of the imputing of the perfect obedience to the account of the believer. Here are some of their statements:

“The death of Jesus effected our reconciliation; all the less can His exalted life leave our deliverance unfinished. The living Christ cannot leave what His death effected without final success. This however is accomplished not merely through His intercession, viii. 34 . . . , but also through His whole working in His kingly office for His believers up to the completion of His work and kingdom, 1 Cor. xv.22ff” (H.A.W. Meyer Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 238).

“The first antithesis is between enemies and persons reconciled. The second is between Christ’s death and his life. If a dying Savior can effect the reconciliation of enemies; much more can a living Redeemer do all that is required to the complete deliverance of his friends” (Wm. S. Plumer, Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 203).

“If even the death of Christ has such a saving efficacy, how much more His risen life, which triumphed over the realm of death and hell. . .” (J. P. Lange, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, p. 167).

“His enemies triumphed and rejoiced over him on the cross, and in the tomb. Yet the effect of this feeble, low, and humiliating state was to reconcile us to God. If In this state, when humble, despised, dying, he had power to accomplish so great a work as to reconcile as to God, how much more may we expect that he will be able to keep us now that he Is a living, exalted and triumphant Redeemer” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, p. 119).

Calvinist commentaries recognize that this verse offers them no support. However, some of my brethren still think that Rom. 5:9-10 is a proof text for the doctrine that the perfect obedience of Christ is attributed to the account of the believer.

3. Rom. 5:19. “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” Calvinists generally apply this verse as a proof text for the idea that the perfect obedience of Christ is applied to the account of the believer. As I stated before, this is their theological justification for the belief in “once saved, always saved:” However, the context contains a contrast between Adam’s one act of disobedience and Christ’s one act of obedience. Notice the contrast:

Adam	Christ
1. Through his sins many died (v. 15).	1. Through his death many are made righteous (v. 15).
2. Through one act of disobedience condemnation came to all men (v. 18).	2. Through one act of obedience justification came to all men (v. 18)
3. One man’s disobedience made many sinners (v. 19).	3. One man’s righteousness made many righteous (v. 19).

We can easily understand Adam’s one act of disobedience; it referred, not to his life of sin (i.e., all of the sins which Adam ever committed), but to his one act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden when he ate of the forbidden fruit. Similarly, Christ’s one act of obedience refers, not to His total life of perfect obedience to God’s law, but to His one act of obedience on the cross. (For other passages which refer to this act of obedience, see Phil. 2:8 and Heb. 5:8-9.) Though Calvinists generally appeal to this verse as proof of their doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account, the comments of Moses E. Lard more than offset their arguments:

“But in regard to the `obedience,’ the agreement is not so general. Some would make it refer to the Incarnation. But this, though an important fact, is too remote to be meant here. Others would make the reference to be to the whole of Christ’s fife. This is too general; and, besides, it does not pointedly enough antagonize the single `disobedience’ of Adam to which it is opposed. The true reference in the ‘obedience’ is, I am confident, to the death of Christ in offering himself as a ransom for the world” (Commentary on Romans, pp. 188-189).

Furthermore, if we are going to make “obedience” refer to the entire life of Christ in order to apply it to His record of perfect obedience, we are going to have to be consistent and apply “disobedience” to the entire life of Adam and in some way let it mean that all of Adam’s sins affected all of humanity. A more consistent interpretation of this passage is this: the one act of disobedience refers to Adam’s one sin in the Garden of Eden and the one act of obedience refers to Christ’s one act of obedience in dying on the cross.

4. 1 Cor. 1:30. “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” The New American Standard Bible might be interpreted to have reference to Christ’s perfect obedience inasmuch as it reads, “But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption . . . .” However, the Greek phrase translated “by His doing” in the NASB is ex autou; it cannot be twisted to imply that Christ’s perfect obedience is applied to the account of the believer. This phrase simply asserts that our salvation originates from Christ. Furthermore, the reference to righteousness later in the verse has no reference to the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account. If the reference to righteousness proves that Christ’s perfect obedience is applied to the account of the believer, then the references to wisdom, sanctification, and redemption must mean that Christ’s wisdom, for example, is applied to the account of the believer in the same way. Am I to believe that when God looks at me, he sees, not my imperfect wisdom, but the perfect wisdom of Christ applied to my account? If the reference to Christ’s righteousness means that Christ’s perfect obedience is applied to the account of the believer, then the reference to Christ’s wisdom means that Christ’s perfect wisdom is applied to the account of the believer. If not, why not?

5. Heb. 7:22. “. . . so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (the King James Version uses “surety” where the New American Standard Bible uses “guarantee”). I fail to see how one can derive the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the account of the believer from the one word “surety” or “guarantee.” The very fact that this verse is appealed to is evidence of the grasping for straws used in order to support this false doctrine by those who believe it. Check the various commentaries for the true meaning of this passage.

Conclusion

There are one or two other passages used to defend the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the account of the believer. However, these are the main ones which have been used in defending and propagating this false doctrine. As you can see from this examination of these passages, the evidence falls short of affirming what is claimed for it. It does not teach that Christ’s perfect obedience is applied to the account of the believer.

Furthermore, let me remind our readers why this is having to be discussed in the first place. We have already seen that Calvinists use the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the account of the believer to give theological justification for their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (“once saved, always saved”). My brethren want to use this doctrine is a different way. They do not believe in “once saved, always saved” (they are inconsistent in the application of their doctrine). However, 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 not 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 who refuse to repent of their sins. My brethren, that is why I am taking the time to critically examine this false doctrine.

Truth Magazine XXII: 5, pp. 83-85
February 2, 1978