Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Unity through Pietism

Pietism is related to mystical, inward, or intangible unity. Pietism is also related historically to the Quietist movement which promoted unity on the basis of saintly character-all who manifested good character were one regardless. of religious affiliation. The Pietists spoke much of an inward rebirth resulting in fellowship within “an invisible, ‘spiritual’ Church.” So, both rebirth and unity were experienced within the individual; he was united with others who knew this inward rebirth, though he and they might follow different forms of worship. As the inwardly reborn person grew, he was moving toward inward perfection. The idea that inward perfection could be reached led many to entertain millennial hopes-i.e., when enough individuals were inwardly perfected, visible perfection and unity would appear. Philipp Jacob Spener (1635-1705) is considered the father of Pietism. His personal work centered in Frankfort-on-the-Main, Dresden, and Berlin; but from Germany, his impact reached all over Europe. Pietism spread to the Netherlands, France, and England. It had a definite influence on the early Methodist and Revival movements. Its emphasis on unity on the basis of “Christian character” is still current in many quarters.

Unity through the “Holy Spirit”

Invisible unity through the so-called “Holy Spirit” .has a long history, and certainly overlaps with mysticism. But its more modern history would include Valdimir Soloviev (1853-1900). In his Russia and the Universal Church and Story of the Antichrist, Soloviev said that the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox Churches have in Christ a unity which “transcends history,” through the Holy Spirit. Some of the frontier revivals in America promoted the concept of unity through strange experiences supposedly caused by the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostal movement of the early 1900’s gave great emphasis to certain works of the Holy Spirit such as “speaking in tongues.” In this Pentecostal movement can be seen elements of Pietism, Methodism, and Revivalism; in all these, subjectivism is prominent. Since the 1960’s, a resurgence of Pentecostal-type ideas and sentiments has occured. This is called the Neo-Pentecostal movement. It is not the old frontier or early-1900’s pentecostalism, but it shares significant features of those older movements: much subjectivism, “speaking in tongues,” and unity through some experience of the Holy Spirit.

Unity through Cooperation

An early form of this approach to unity can be seen in religious societies organized for individuals of diverse religious backgrounds. One of the most notable efforts was made by Johann August Urlsperger (1728-1806). He established the German Christian Fellowship at Basle, Switzerland. The concept caught on in England, resulting in the Bible Society and the Religious Tract Society. Beginning with the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (1810), a great host of these religious cooperation societies were formed. Through these organizations, men who would not normally do so would call upon each other to lead prayer, would combine their resources in religious work, and would even get differing denominations to contribute moral or financial support.

Unity through the “Union” Movement

Our brief notice will not do this movement justice. In the early 1900’s, the effect of industrialization, urbanization, and other social changes began to be felt more and more by rural churches. Very small towns might have several small religious groups, even two or three varieties of the same denomination. The lack of money and manpower to keep these groups going led to the Union Movement. There were men who promoted this outright, but frequently it happened “by itself.” The members of the different denominations would agree to meet in the representative meeting houses (for instance) one time per month, i.e. one week at the Methodist Church, the next at the Baptist, and so on. “Union” meeting houses were erected in some communities and the various groups would “get the building” one week in the month. A good deal of “cross-fertilization” occured this way. Perhaps this was a contributing factor to the atmosphere in which more concrete union movements have taken place; the last several decades have seen several church mergers within certain denominational lines-as a number of separate Methodist groups uniting under one name and organization.

Episcopal Plan of Unity

The Episcopal plan was proposed by William Reed Huntington (1838-1918) in 1870 and is known as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. The four planks in this plan are (1) the Bible should be recognized as the Word of God, (2) the primitive creeds such as the Nicene Creed should be used in place of more modern ones, (3) only two sacraments should be used: baptism, the Lord’s Supper; (4) “the historic episcopate” should continue to exist. At first only the Presbyterians responded in any serious way to this call, but actual union did not occur. Obviously, the emphasis on “the historic episcopate” tends to make this plan popular among Episcopalians and unpopular to others; but the plan has been discussed, debated, and modified, with some interest in it being shown, in the modern ecumenical movement.

Draw Arbitrary Lines as the Basis of Unity

Erasemus (1469-1536) reviewed the historic creeds and confessions in an effort to sort out some articles of faith “necessary for salvation” from others which might be secondary. Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614) identified the “indispensable” doctrines as being contained in the Bible and the early creeds. Seeking to reduce the ground to some essential kernal, Fausto Sozzini (15391604) proposed the Unitarian idea as the basic “saving truth.” On the other hand, Matthias Hafenreffer (15611619) affirmed that belief in the Trinity is the one necessary fundamental. Johannes Hulsemann (1602-1661) reduced the essential to the Reformation doctrine of “justification by faith.” W. Carl Ketcherside-a writer and speaker recognized mostly among Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, ‘ and Disciples of Christ-proposes “one fact, one act.” By this, he means faith in Christ and baptism; reducing the absolutely essential further, he affirms those who accept the “one fact” but have not submitted to the “one act” may still find grace in the eyes of God. In a similar vein, Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Edward Fudge seem to think that after one accepts the “one fact” and “one act,” he can be excluded from fellowship only on one of three grounds: (1) outright denial of Christ, (2) immoral conduct, (3) divisiveness. The thing which all these approaches have in common is the drawing of arbitrary lines for the determination of unity. Of course, each line drawer would deny this and claim some concept of divine authority for his lines. As already presented, it is this writer’s conviction that all the Bible reveals and binds-in faith or practice-is necessary :or grace and unity. The Bible does not submit what it reveals and binds in faith or practice to arbitrary reduction on the part of men who seek some lowest common denominator for people who do not accept what the Bible binds.

Unity through Federation

The proposal of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was a forerunner to modern federation. He suggested a common confession to reach across many lines, but did not require men, to give up their separate creeds. In this spirit, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America was formed in 1908 so that many denominations could act jointly upon their common beliefs without abolishing their separate creeds, clergies, and organizations. The next step came in 1948 with the founding of the World Council of Churches. The F.C.C. was replaced by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. in 1950. These major federated groups were dominated by “progressive” or liberal Protestantism; more “fundamentalist” Protestant groups eventually established counterpart organizations on the federal model, since they could not be comfortable in the W.C.C. and N.C.C.

Ecumenical Unity

The idea of federal union increasingly gave way to its logical extension in the later 1950’s and the 1960’s. If “Christians” in separate denominations were brethren and could co-operate, why should they belie their true inward unity by outward division in separate camps? Why not let inward unity be seen by the world through outward unity? The Consultation on Church Union began meeting in 1962, with some denominations sending serious representatives and others sending only observers. C.O.C.U. did not have the power to form one great church by inherent authority, but was to work out a plan of union which each separate denomination might approve at will. After generating much enthusiasm for a time, the C.O.C.U. approach has fallen out of favor in many quarters. The problem of truly combining, submerging, and eradicating all the separate denominational machines is mammoth! But the ecumenical spirit is just as alive as ever, perhaps more alive than ever. The ecumenical spirit today says that while we recognize we may never remove our outward separations and even doctrinal differences, still we are “one in the Lord” and can feel free to “cross over the lines” for many joint activities. Some are even affirming the Lord never intended “one big universal church” and that C.O.C.U. was a misguided effort in the first place. The real solution is seen as defining some sort of inward unity in spite of outward disunity: “Love unites, not doctrine.” “We are one in the Spirit.” “Love unites, doctrine divides.” “Free men in Christ.” C.O.C.U. is not entirely dead and the spirit of ecumenicism is aflame, so anything can still happen. Future developments will be interesting to watch. More on these Councils in weeks to come.

Restoring Bible Unity

We dare not close this article without brief mention of the efforts made in the early 1800’s to get away from all human plans and back to the divine plan of unity. Independent efforts were made in many parts of this country to clear away the accumulated rubbish of many centuries and to return to the fountain of living waters. In most cases, the men making these separate efforts did not even know of one another. There were missteps and stumblings, but they all had their eyes on one goal: the Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. They reasoned that if the ancient gospel could be restored to the lips of men in place of human creeds, then the New Testament church and original unity would have to follow. Human creeds, clergies, and churches could be deserted for the inspired Word of God, the simple priesthood of all believers, and the New Testament pattern for the church. For instance, Barton W. Stone and co-laborers in Kentucky issued the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery in 1804, and determined to be New Testament Christians only. In a sermon to a small gathering, Thomas Campbell expressed this rule of faith and practice, “Where the Scriptures speak, we will speak; where they are silent, we will be silent.” He published the Declaration and Address in 1807 elaborating upon this concept of restoring the original gospel, church, and unity.

LET US EMPHASIZE WITH ALL THE MIGHT OF OUR BEING THAT THIS WAS NOT JUST ANOTHER HUMAN PLAN. IT WAS PRECISELY THE REJECTION OF ALL HUMAN PLANS. IT WAS A RETURN TO THE BIBLE PLAN! The letters written by inspired men were meant to be preserved, read, and obeyed even after the death of those men (2 Pet. 1:13-15; 3:1-2). These letters of the love and law of God were holy scripture, written under the superintending guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:13). The things written were meant to instruct the church even to the detail of its organization (1 Tim. 3:116, esp. 15-16). This Word of God is complete and eternal (Jude 3; 1 Pet. 2:24-25). In explaining “the kingdom of God” in a parable, Jesus told of a sower sowing his seed in order to reap the harvest, then added, “the seed is the word of God.” Wherever that seed and no other is sown, God’s will is done-whether in the First, Nineteenth, or Twentieth Century. That is the restoration plea-put the original seed in the hands of the sowers. That plea is scriptural to the core!

And, now, dear reader, each one of us must choose . . . between the way of God and the ways of men. “How long halt ye between two opinions?” “Choose you this day whom ve will serve.” (To be Continued)

Truth Magazine XXI: 40, pp. 631-633
October 13, 1977

By Elam B. Huykendall

This article is based on a statement found in 2 Peter 1:1. Here Peter addresses those to whom he is writing this letter. He says of them that they had “obtained like precious faith with us.” The “us” here refers to Peter himself and the other apostles and other faithful Christians. We who have that same faith today are also included. If we are to determine the kind of faith Peter had we must notice what he says about his faith.

First of all, Peter refers to himself as “a servant . . . of Jesus Christ.” The Greek word used here means not merely one who is serving another but one who is a bond servant-one who was bought. In Acts 20:28 the writer, Luke, tells us that Paul said to the elders of the church at Ephesus, `Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Notice that the church was purchased with the precious blood of Christ. We who are Christians are bond servants of Christ because He has purchased us with His blood. This we must recognize if we are to have the “like precious faith” that Peter had.

But Peter said that he was “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” We cannot be apostles because apostles had to be eye-witnesses of Jesus (Acts 1:20-22), but we can have the “like precious faith” which they had.

It should be noticed that Peter did not call himself the chief apostle, or the head or foundation of the church. Jesus is the Apostle and High Priest. “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High’ Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus” (Heb. 3:1). “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Jesus is also the “chief Shepherd.” “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Pet. 5:4). Jesus is also the foundation of the church. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).

Some people believe and teach that Peter is the foundation of the church, and quote Matt. 16:13-19 as proof of their teaching. Notice these verses. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Some people say that the word Peter means a rock and that when Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build my church” He meant He would build His church on Peter. The word translated Peter (Petros) does mean a stone, but “a large detached fragment” that can be moved about. It is masculine in gender. The word translated “upon this rock” (petra) is feminine in gender and means “an immovable ledge of rock.” Jesus was showing a contrast here instead of a comparison. In 1 Cor. 3:11 we read, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” With these things in mind we can see that Jesus was referring to the great fact that Peter had just confessed as the foundation upon which the church would be built – “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus is also the head of the church. “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22,23).

To have the “like precious faith” that Peter had we must believe as Peter believed, teach what Peter taught, and do as Peter did except when he sinned. His first recorded sin was that on the night of Jesus’ arrest he followed “afar off,” denied that he even knew Jesus, and even cursed and swore. This was, of course, before Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. But after Jesus was raised from the dead and established His church, Peter sinned again (see Gal. 2:11-13). But Peter repented of his sins. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Peter and the other aposltles (except John) lost their faith in Jesus when He was crucified. But their faith was revived when Jesus arose from the dead. Peter’s life and preaching indicate that he repented. Three times he confessed that he loved Jesus, and once Jesus said “feed my lambs,” twice He said, “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).

The newly begotten faith, mentioned by Peter in 1 Peter 1:3, is the same as the faith mentioned by Jude. “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Notice that in this same verse Jude mentions the “common salvation.” This is the salvation that was shared by all Christians just as was the “like precious faith.” “Common” as used here does not mean something that is low in value but that this faith and this salvation were shared by all Christians. There is not a plurality of faiths authorized by God just as there is not a plurality of Gods. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6).

Peter’s faith came by his association with Jesus, even seeing Him after His resurrection, and by direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. Our faith comes “through the righteousness of God” (2 Pet. 1:1). We are told that “All thy commandments are righteousness” (Ps. 119:172). We are also told that “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Further we are told, “So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). If we are to have the “like precious faith” we must all obtain that faith from the same source-the Word of God. There is no other way that we can obtain faith today.

The Lord has given us warnings about departing from the faith. “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teachings, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). From this verse we can see that it is just as bad to “go onward” and abide not in the teachings of Chrsit as it is to fall short of His teaching. Sometimes we hear people say, “I’d rather do something and do it wrong than to do nothing.” The folly of such a statement as this is seen in this verse. Why fall short or go beyond either one? Why not find what Christ has said and do exactly that and avoid leaving the law of Christ in either direction? After all, He has “given us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The truth is there if we will only find it.

Another warning is, “For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungoldly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Throughout the ages there have crept into the church, men who have turned the grace of God into a work of the flesh. As mentioned in the above Scripture, some men have turned “the grace of God into lasciviousness.” Webster defines lasciviousness as “That which is 1. Wanton; lewd; lustful. 2. Tending to produce lewd emotions.” Thayer, in his Greek-Lexicon of the New Testament gives this definition of the word that is translated lasciviousness: “…unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, . . .wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, isolence. . .wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc.” I do not know a better way to describe dancing than this definition of the word translated lasciviousness given by Mr. Thayer. Two parts of his definition are especially appropriate: First, “. . .unchaste handling of males and females.” This is done in the waltz and other similar types of dancing. But sometimes people say, “But in many of the modern dances this is not done.” This is where Mr. Thayer’s other definition applies-“indecent bodily movements.” Many of these modern dances are a revival of pagan fertility dances-designed expressly to stir up the passions-therefore they are indecent bodily movements. Then the definition in Webster’s dictionary indicates another danger: “Tending to produce lewd emotions.” One does not need to do things that are lustful to himself to be guilty of lasciviousness. If an individual dresses in such a way, acts in such a way, or talks in such a way that it produces lewd emotions in others, he is guilty of lasciviousness-his actions have tended to produce lewd emotions in others.

Some people claiming to be doing the Lord’s work have dances in their “fellowship halls” or elsewhere and literally “turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.” One denominational church in Texas featured a strip-tease dancer to do her act in one of their services, claiming to be doing God’s work. But others who would not think of sponsoring dances will sponsor various types of recreation that appeal solely to the physical desires. Where is the Scripture for doing this? This is one of the facets of the “social gospel” that is replacing the gospel of Christ in many places even in the Lord’s church.

If these warnings are not observed and obeyed we cannot have the “like precious faith” that Peter wrote about.

Truth Magazine XXI: 40, pp. 629-630
October 13, 1977

By Mike Willis

As Paul drew to a close the book of First Corinthians, he gave a list of five imperatives which somewhat summarize many of the things which he had said in the entire book. He wrote, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity” (16:13-14). I want to discuss only one of these commands in this article and that is the one which appears first on Paul’s list: “watch ye.”

The word gregoreo means “to watch, i.e. give strict attention to, be cautious, active:-to take heed lest through remissness and indolence some destructive calamity suddenly overtaken one” (Thayer, GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 122). When Paul admonishes us to watch, there is an implication that there are certain dangers which confront us of which we must be wary.

Watch Out For False Teachers

Certainly one of the most useful tools which Satan has used to overcome Christ’s disciples has been false teachers. When Paul prepared to depart from the Ephesian elders who had journeyed to Miletus to talk to him, he warned,

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shay men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch . . . .” (Acts 20:28-31).

We have to be on the alert lest we be taken in by the Devil. What a cunning opponent he is! He and his disciples disguise themselves as angels of light, pretending to be for Christ as they assault the faith (2 Cor. 11:13-15). We have to be constantly on the alert lest we be deceived by the devil.

Watch For the Second Coming

By far, the greater number of New Testament passages which tell us to watch admonish us to do that because Jesus is coming back again. Jesus Himself repeatedly warned His disciples to be on the watch for the second coming. Speaking of the second coming, He said,

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only . . . .Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for In such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Mt. 24:36, 42-44).

We who are Jesus’ disciples need to be continually on the alert lest our Lord return at the moment that we do not think that He will and we be caught unprepared.

Because we do not know when Jesus will return, we must always be ready. We cannot wait until we see Him in the air and then get ready for His return; that will be too late. We must get ready now and stay ready if we expect to be prepared at the Lord’s second coming. This is so for these reasons: (I) The Lord’s coming will be sudden. The events which transpire at the second coming will occur suddenly, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. Hence, there will be no time for preparation since things will happen so quickly. (2) The time of the Lord’s return is unknown. Jesus has promised that He will return and there is no doubt whether He will return or not. However, He has given us no warning signals that we might know when He is coming back again. “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Mt. 24:36). Hence, we cannot wait until the day before He returns to get ready since we do not know on what day He will return.

There is a very real danger which faces Christians. It is the danger of taking for granted that Jesus will not return today. We have the tendency to say that the Lord has delayed His coming; therefore, I can live as I please. One of Jesus’ parables remind us of this danger; He said,

“And the Lord said, Who then Is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when be cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say ht his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; the lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers” (Lk. 12:42-46).

Some begin to think that they have plenty of time to do what they want to do and then get ready shortly before death strikes them or the Lord returns. This passage teaches the danger of such an attitude. Christ will return unexpectedly and catch these servants in the midst of committing their deeds of wickedness.

One of the things which is missing in twentieth century Christianity which was so vividly present in first century Christians was the expectation of the Lord’s return and the avid desire that it would occur very soon. As John concluded the book of Revelation, he said, “Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20). As Paul concluded First Corinthians, he wrote, “Maranatha,” an Aramaic word meaning, “O Lord come.” The earnest desire to see the second coming of Jesus is nowhere more easily seen than in the apostasy that developed at Thessalonica. There, the Christians were so anxious for the Lord’s return and were so convinced that His coming was to occur within their own lifetime that they just quit working and gave all of their time to getting ready for His return. Although they acted incorrectly in doing this, their conduct certainly shows us the expectation of the Lord’s return in the minds of first century Christians.

The anxiety for the Lord’s return is missing among us. We are content with our nice homes, fine cars, luxurious clothing, and sumptuous meals. Because we have so many luxuries in this life, we tend to forget that we should live in earnest anticipation of the Lord’s return. We should try to have the same burning desire to see the Lord’s second coming as those disciples had who were privileged to witness His ascension into heaven and who heard the angels promise, “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). So long as this desire is absent from us, we shall lack the fervency of zeal which motivates a person to live the godly life, to spread the gospel and to pray without ceasing. Hence, Paul’s admonition is appropriate for those of us who are Christ’s disciples today; he said, “Watch ye.”

Conclusion

In the book of Revelation, John wrote, “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame” (16:15). The man who is watching is the man who is prepared for the second coming of Jesus Christ.

The one who has not obeyed the gospel is not prepared for the second coming. Instead, he is under the ban (anathema) of God. Paul wrote, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema” (1 Cor. 16:13). The man who has never shown enough love to Jesus to step forward in obedience to His commandment to repent and be baptized is surely not prepared to meet his Lord. He is accursed of God, lost and without hope in this world.

Nor is the man prepared who, having been baptized, has wandered back into worldliness. Whether his worldliness has led him into gross immoralities or just neglect of his responsibilities before God, he is nonetheless unprepared for the second coming of Jesus Christ. Should Jesus return this day, such a person will be lost-doomed to dwell forever in the torments of Hell fire.

Knowing of the awful consequences which await the soul which is unprepared to meet God and knowing the everlasting bliss that is prepared for the faithful, I am resolved to live in such a way that I shall be constantly prepared for the Lord’s second coming. I am resolved to watch and pray for the Lord’s return. Watch ye!

Truth Magazine XXI: 40, pp. 627-628
October 13, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

The nature and character of opposition to the truth is “without variableness, neither shadow of turning.” A study of sacred scenes and the observation of similar situations today proves this to be true.

“Boss,” “Pope,” and “Church Savior”

Let a man contend for the faith by contending against popular errors and “isms,” and he will be abominated and denominated, “Boss,” “Pope,” and “Savior of the church.” Moses, the meekest man of his era, was accused of attempting to “make (himself) altogether a prince over us” (Num. 16:3). He had heard the charge before (Ex. 2:14). Each time it emanated from one full of the spirit of Egypt. It is an ancient refrain. More stanzas have been appended, but it is the same song, twentieth century verse. L. C. Utley charged that “he (Foy E. Wallace, Jr.) would boss the church if we would take it” (Bible Banner, July 1971). Romulo B. Agduma has been called “Boss” and “Pope” by his enemies in the Philippines. Cecil Willis was charged with trying to head up his own church of Christ by William E. Wallace a few years ago in the “Gospel Guardian.”

Are there, then, no usurping bosses and potential Popes? Unfortunately, the spirit of Diotrephes did not all go to hades with him. However, reference here is made to slurring slander slingers whose mouths are muckmongers against those who prosecute false teachers and persecute their doctrines. Let a man achieve a portion of notoriety as a defender of the faith and a pretender of the same is sure to call him a “self-appointed Savior of the church.” Opposition tactics are unchanged.

“Troublemaker”

Elijah stood against the digressives of his time in bold words and daring deeds. Apostasy abounded as idolatry surrounded Israel in Samaria. Ahab abhorred Elijah. When the two met, Ahab vent and vomited his vile, verbal feelings thusly, “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” Imagine that! It is like a pig complaining about how nasty chickens are! He who had forsaken the Lord and followed Baalim calls Elijah a troublemaker. Same tune, another century, and the tactics remain the same. Men and a movement may espouse the rudiments and elements of Calvinism, sing and play with their “instrumental brethren,” and otherwise fellowship some of the unfruitful works of denominationalism, but let men and a magazine oppose these acts and the troublemaker tune is heard in the background. Ahab does not reign in Israel today, but his song is still being played, and there are dancers on the floor.

Character Assassination

Paul was debased by being depicted as frivolous and flighty (2 Cor. 1). His enemies said he wrote like a lion from a distance, but that he purred like a kitten in person. In other words, the man is unreliable, unstable, and all for his own personal advantage. They even found a way to demean his character when he refused financial aid. Against such foes, even the good one does is charged with having an ulterior motive. So, today, all who write, teach, edit, preach, and debate are open to the vain jangling of jealous snipers. How many promising young literary proponents of truth have been laid in the shade of inactivity because some careless critic condemned their first published article as an attempt to “gain recognition?” How many analytical minds, alert and keen with the ability to penetrate and puncture error quickly and concisely, have been lost to the arena of debate because some envious brother charged them with trying to “ape” Campbell or Porter? The manual of opposition tactics has been repeated and reprinted, but the latest copy reads like the first edition.

Cloak and Dagger

“And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor” (Lk. 20:20). Our Lord’s most-likely-to-succeed opponents were these spying hypocrites. They were not concerned with truth but with “his words” and how they might “take hold” of something he said so they could have him convicted and condemned by civil authorities. Their sinister efforts were used during the trial of Jesus (Mk. 14:55-59). The apostle Paul faced the same guile garbed in the garments of the gospel. He spoke of being “in perils among false brethren” (2 Cor. 11:26) and “of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal. 2:4).

Any modern conflict brings spies into the camp. They “feign themselves just men,” speaking as though they, too, are on the side of the apostles’ doctrine. They implant themselves into the bosoms of those who carry the fight so they might “take hold” of words and arguments to wind and wrest. It is a dirty business. If this sin has not survived the apostolic age, it is the only sin that ever “died out.” Animals may become extinct but sins do not.

Truth Magazine XXI: 40, p. 626
October 13, 1977