Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“The great church history writers state that baptism misunderstood and misapplied became the major factor of separation in the early church which Jesus formed. Apparently the much mention of baptism in the New Testament overworked the minds of some ceremonialists to the point of declaring it a requirement unto salvation; hence, no longer the elective ceremony as it properly is. Mind you the same spirit launched the doctrine of Mariolatry and Popery.

“Elective means baptism is by choice of the believer. It is a command of Christ to the disciples-saved, born again child of God. No place in the Word of God is baptism ever enjoined upon the unregenerate. Jesus’. : . made and baptized more disciples . . .’ John 4:1. He in turn commissioned His church to do the same kind of work. Matthew 28:18-20. While baptism is commanded by the Word of God, no condition of condemnation is impending those who fail to comply. The failure to be baptized results in a disobedient child of God, but a child of His nevertheless. Of course, it is always better to do exactly as the Bible teaches, but this article is to point out that baptism is an elective.

“Passages from which baptismal regenerationists draw a mistaken notion and change this ordinance into a ceremony of procurement instead of what it was originally intended are such as the following:

“Mark 16:16, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ The only safe interpretation of such passages as this is to investigate it in the light of the Bible on this subject. What it ‘sounds’ like and what it actually teaches may not be parallel. This is true with many passages in the Bible. The trouble is not with the Word of God, but with man’s artificial taste. Man wants the Bible to say certain things and reads them into its structure.

“Were any ever saved without being baptized after the beginning of its function? Yes, obviously. (1) Luke 18:14, ‘I tell you, this man went down to his house justified . . .’ Now he either was justified, or he wasn’t justified. Jesus said he was so. What! without being baptized? Yes! Then evidently baptism does not stand as a condition of justification. Mark 16:16, if made to mean one must be baptized to be saved, would be in contradiction with the Lord Jesus Christ who spoke these words in Luke 18:14. (2) Luke 7:50, ‘ . . .thy faith hath saved thee,’ said Jesus to the person on this occasion. What! Salvation pronounced without being baptized? Yes! Then evidently baptism does not stand as a condition to being saved since the woman in Luke 7:50 was said to be saved without it. Again, we would have the words of Jesus in discord with Mark 16:16, if we make baptism requisite to salvation. (3) Luke.23:43, ‘. . . Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.’ This is the promise of Jesus to the repenting thief on the cross. What! Paradise without baptism? Yes! But again our baptismal regenerationist would lean heavily on their own notion of Mark 16:16 regardless of the statement of Jesus. Here is that artificial taste of man again. There just must be some ceremony mixed with the condition of salvation according to them.

“Other cases of salvation without baptism can be multiplied in the New Testament. But here are three indisputable happenings where people were saved without being baptized. Mark 16:16 is not a contradiction. What does it mean? Let’s see a parallel statement to it:

“1. Mark 16:16. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.

“2. Statement: He that gets on the bus and takes a seat arrives. Now the question concerning our parallel is this. Was ‘taking the seat’ what got the rider to his destination? No, of course not. It was the getting on the bus. And the seat was for comfort along the way. According to the Lord Jesus Christ in the above Scriptures, folks were JUSTIFIED, SAVED, AND headed for PARADISE without baptism. Had these folks the opportunity to be baptized, they should have done so for their own enjoyment of the Christian life as well as to obey the command of the Scriptures. But baptism is elective to the saved individual Christian and is absolutely not a condition to being saved then, now or later.

“In saying baptism is elective in no way lessens the obligation of the saved to submit to its application. It is an obligation to the disciple” (Bedford Andrews, Missionary Baptist Searchlight, March 25, 1976, p. 2).

What Is “An Elective?”

Webster says an elective is “dependent on choice.” Further, an elective is “that (which) may be chosen but is not required; optional.” This is the use made of the term by Mr. Andrews. Baptism, Andrews announces, is an elective; hence, “not a condition to being saved.” He says “the saved” have “the obligation . . . to submit” to baptism. “The failure to be baptized results in a disobedient child of God, but a child of His nevertheless.” These statements introduce an interesting thought or two.

First, what happens to the “disobedient child of God” who refuses “the obligation” to be baptized? Baptist doctrine says, “once saved, always saved.” So, one can be a “disobedient child of God;” one can refuse a divine “obligation” and still be saved, according to Baptist doctrine. Though “baptism is commanded by the Word of God,” one can reject the command and be saved anyway. Let Mr. Andrews speak to the contrary if he will.

Second, since baptism is an elective and not essential to salvation, “the Pharisees and lawyers (who) rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of” John the Baptist, stand in no jeopardy whatsoever (Lk. 7:30), according to Baptist doctrine. As Jews, they were children of God, and however disobedient they were in refusing “the obligation” and “the purpose of God,” they were saved regardless. Who believes it?

Third, we notice a possible Baptist objection. The objection, though not given by Andrews, but which is designed to offset and overthrow the force of the last two points is this: “A true child of God will not refuse to be baptized. If one repudiates baptism, it shows he is not truly converted.” But this objection cannot be valid if “baptism is an elective,” something “optional.” If the saved will be driven by some divine force to be baptized, then down goes the proposition that “baptism is an elective.” So, Mr. Andrews, if you respond to this review, do not forget that point. Baptism cannot be “an elective” and at the same time be a thing which a sincere convert cannot refuse. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

Now, since “baptism is an elective,” what becomes of “a disobedient child of God” who dies while refusing “to submit” to “the obligation” to be baptized? Will someone tell us? When they do, remember, “no condition of condemnation is impending those who fail to comply.” Therefore, one truly saved, “may fail to comply;” it is not compulsory.

Mark 16:16 Bussing Illustration

See the bussing illustration near the end of Mr. Andrews’ article. The same basic argument was made by Glenn V. Tingley in a debate with W. Curtis Porter in 1947. We submit Tingley’s argument and Porter’s answer. This shall serve to answer the bussing analogy.

1) Glenn V. Tingley’s Argument: ” ‘He that entereth a train and is seated shall reach Atlanta.’ ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ Now suppose a man enters a train but does not take a seat. Will he not go to Atlanta anyhow if that train goes there? The taking of the seat involves his comfort but does not involve his going to Atlanta. So baptism relates.to the privileges of the Christian life and does not secure such a life. The believer has entered the gospel train and whether he takes a seat or not, he will reach heaven if the train does (Porter-Tingley Debate, p. 106).

2) W. Curtis Porter’s Answer: “Then to his train proposition. ‘He that enters a train and sits down shall go to Atlanta.’ I want to put that on the board . . . Here we have it: ‘Enters the train (marking ‘E’ on board) and sits down (marking ‘SD’ on board) and goes to Atlanta (marking ‘A’ on board).’ He that believeth (marking B on board) and is baptized (marking another B on board) shall be saved (marking S on board).’

(Blackboard)

Enters Train — Sits Down — Reaches Atlanta

Believeth — Is Baptized — Shall Be Saved

He makes belief equal to entering the train; and being baptized equivalent to sitting down; reaching salvation equivalent to reaching Atlanta. Since the man who ‘enters the train’ can ‘reach Atlanta’ without ‘sitting down,’ so the man who ‘believes’ can ‘reach salvation’ without ‘being baptized.’ ‘Sitting down’ is not necessary in ‘reaching Atlanta;’ ‘being baptized,’ therefore, is not necessary in ‘reaching salvation.’ So we cross them out. (Marking ‘Sits down’ and ‘Is baptized’ off the board). Entering the train is the thing necessary to reach Atlanta. My friend, did you know that I could go to Atlanta without ‘entering a train? ‘Didn’t you know that I could go to Atlanta without entering a train? Why I could walk or go in an automobile. There are a dozen ways I could go to Atlanta without ‘entering a train.’ So ‘entering the train’ is not essential to going to Atlanta. We’ll cross that out (Marking off ‘Enters train’). And since faith is equivalent to it, we cross that out, too (Crossing out ‘Believeth’). So we do not have to believe or be baptized either to get to salvation, according to his illustration.

“Then, we look at it from another angle. ‘He that enters the train and sits down shall reach Atlanta.’ The ‘sitting down’ is not necessary. ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ The ‘baptism’ is not necessary. ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ But in order for it to fit my opponent’s theory, since he says ‘He that believeth is already saved,’ it should say, ‘He that enters the train reaches Atlanta before he has time to sit down.’ (Laughter). ‘He that believeth is saved before he has time to be baptized.’ Is that so, Tingley? That’s your position, isn’t it? ‘He that believeth is saved before he has time to be baptized.’ So he that enters the train is already in Atlanta before he has time to sit down.’ (Laughter). Now, I know anybody can see that. You may not accept it, but you can see it. I’m just certain of that” (PorterTingley Debate, pp. 120, 121).

Luke 18:14; 7:50; And The Thief

1) Luke 18:14 — This is the parable concerning “two men” who “went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee and the other a publican.” Both were children of God before they prayed since the uncircumcised could not enter the temple (Ezek. 44:9; Cf. Acts 21). The one who was justified was an erring child of God, not one who was seeking to become a child of God. As such, the passage is not applicable to Andrews’ proposition. Even so, prayer is mentioned. That makes at least two conditions for the Baptists, faith and prayer. If prayer is also required, then the sinner must do something besides repent and believe. Maybe we ought to charge Andrews with “works” salvation or “prayer” salvation. Is prayer a “work,” something that one must do? On this issue, the Baptists meet themselves coming back on their “works” and “water” salvation charge.

2) Luke 7:50 — Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6). He forgave this woman whose faith was active in serving the Lord. This was prior to the “beginning” of remission of sins which was to be preached in Jesus’ name (Lk. 24:47; Heb. 9:16, 17; Acts 2:38). No, baptism is not mentioned, but neither is repentance. The text does not say the woman repented. Should I conclude the woman was saved by faith without repentance? I can as easily cut out repentance from Lk. 7:50 as I can baptism with that kind of reasoning. The truth is that one must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

3) The Thief — Jesus had the power to forgive sins. He evidently forgave the thief. Again, this was before the New Testament came into force (Heb. 9:16,17). What the thief did or did not do does not negate the fact that in order for one to be in Christ today, he must be “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:26,27).

Summary Point: One final point that is pertinent to the three cases cited above is this: The Baptist position is that one should be baptized to picture or demonstrate to the world that he has been saved. But in none of the above cases were any of the characters baptized. They were not baptized in order to the remission of sins, but neither were they baptized because of the remission of sins. Because it is not mentioned before one is pronounced justified, Andrews concludes that it is not necessary, and what is more, that it never occurs before salvation. Well, if that be true, it is not referred to after their justification, either. Should we conclude that baptism should never occur after justification, using Baptist rules of interpretation? Thus, we completely eliminate baptism from God’s scheme of things.“Saved By Faith” Excludes Baptism?

That is Andrews’ conclusion from Lk. 7:50 and 18:14. Says he, “We would have the words of Jesus (i.e., ‘Thy faith hath saved thee’-LRH) in discord with Mark 16:16, if we make baptism requisite to salvation.” He thinks that salvation by faith excludes baptism. If so, it excludes repentance, too. When Baptists explain how “saved by faith” can include repentance, they will open the door for baptism.

The Ephesians were saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9). Yet, they had been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). So, to say that one is saved by faith does not eliminate baptism. Likewise, the Romans were “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1), but their justification did not occur until they “obeyed” and were “baptized into Jesus Christ,” and “baptized into his death” (Rom.

6:3, 4, 16, 17). Therefore, to say one is justified by faith does not erase baptism.

Loose Ends-Incidental Points

Several items in Andrews article require but brief comment.

First, Andrews assumes that the term, “disciples,” always refers to a saved person. That is not true. A disciple is a pupil, a learner. In Jn. 2:11, upon witnessing Jesus’ first miracle, the record says, “and his disciples believed on him.” According to Baptist useage, they were saved, disciples, then they believed, for it says, “his disciples (saved ones according to Andrews) believed on Him.”

Second, Andrews avows, “No place in the Word of God is baptism ever enjoined upon the unregenerate.” “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Strange language, is it not, to use to a saved, regenerated man? If, according to Baptist doctrine, Saul was saved at this time, why use this’ language?

Third, Andrews allows that “it is always best to do exactly as the Bible teaches, but this article is to point out that baptism is elective.” In other words, it is best to be baptized “exactly” as the Bible teaches, but you can choose not to do so if you desire! How many other things can one ignore with impunity? What about the Lord’s supper? “It is always best to do exactly as, the Bible teaches, but” one can refuse to eat the Lord’s supper, too. If not, why not? Is not the Lord’s supper also an “elective,” something one can choose to ignore?

Fourth, Andrews avers that Mark 16:16 ” ‘sounds’ ” like it teaches the essentiality of baptism. Yes, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” does indeed “sound” like that! He says, “The .same is true with many passages in the Bible.” That, my friends, is a reflection on the word of God. One wonders if Mark 16:16 only “sounds like” it teaches the necessity of faith.

Fifth, Andrews avouches that people should be baptized “for comfort along the way,” and “for their enjoyment of the Christian life.” Where does the Bible say that? According to Andrews, Mark 16:16 should say, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be comforted,” or, more appropriately, “He that believeth is saved and shall be baptized for comfort and enjoyment.” Does one lack comfort and enjoyment with the knowledge that he is saved? Salvation is good enough for me. How could one be uncomfortable knowing he.is saved? What does baptism have to do with enjoyment, according to Baptist doctrine? See Acts 8:39; 16:34.

Acts 2:38 should read, “Repent, and be baptized for the remission of your discomfort.”. Acts 22:16, to suit Andrews’ view, should say, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your discomfort.” 1 Peter, 3:21 should be rendered, “The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now comfort us.” Romans 6:3,4, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Christ’s comfort, were baptized into his enjoyment? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into comfort, that- like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in enjoyment of life.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 24, pp. 377-380
June 16, 1977

By Larry A. Bunch

The purpose of church discipline is not to take vengeance on anyone or to throw someone out of the church (Rom. 12:19; 3 John 10). Any brother disciplined is still to be admonished as a brother (2 Thess. 3:15).

Instructive discipline is, as has already been pointed out in this article, for the purpose of strengthening the Christian so he can serve God in a manner pleasing to God. When one knows the will of God, he can live the life pleasing to God.

Corrective discipline is as important as instructive discipline. Here are five reasons why it is important:

1. Corrective discipline must be practiced to maintain the honor and authority of Christ. We must do what Jesus says (Luke 6:46) since we are in subjection to Him (Eph. 1:22) and He has all authority (Matt. 28:18). He tells us, through the apostle Paul, “. . . withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

2. Corrective discipline is necessary to maintain the purity of the church. The church is made up of “purified” souls (1 Pet. 1:22; Rom. 6:17-18; Rev. 7:14) and must be kept pure, as far as humanly possible, in doctrine and practice both in the local congregation and the individual lives (1 Tim. 5:22; 4:12; 2 Cor. 6:17-18; 2 Pet. 2:13; 1 Cor. 5:12; 5:6; Rev. 1:20 with 2:5; Eph. 5:25-27; 1 Cor. 15:24).

3. It is necessary in order to demonstrate that the church is subject to Christ in all things (2 Cor. 2:9).

4. Maintaining the respect of the world makes it necessary (Acts 5:1-11; 2 Pet. 2:2). Increased respect would result of ungodliness were not tolerated!

5. The most important reason, I believe, for brethren practicing church discipline (corrective) as God instructs is in order t save the erring brother (James 5:19-20; 1 Cor. 5:5). evangelism is to save the alien sinner; corrective discipline is to save the erring brother. Friends of brethren living in sin should demand that corrective discipline be employed to try and save those whom they love!

The Manner of Action

Almost all things can be done in a wrong way as well as a right lay. In the matter of church discipline, wrong attitudes coupled with wrong actions are too often characteristic of churches and brethren. The attitude and action oust be toward the end of accomplishing the objective in view – saving an erring brother (Matt. 18:25; James t:20; 1 Cor. 5:5). This may require strong teaching, but it should be done in gentleness (Gal. 6:1). It must be done with kindness and love (Rom. 13:10; 1 Cor. 16:14; Col. 3:12-14; John 13:34-35) while at the same time recognizing that we must do what the Lord says in regard to discipline. We must tell the sinner his fault and help him correct it if possible.

It must be practiced according to the Law of Christ and done constantly and steadily, otherwise the disorderly will accumulate. We should not wait to “clean house” until it becomes a reproach. It must be practiced impartially and without discrimination (1 Tim. 5:21; James3:17). Those rich, powerful, prominent, intimate friends should all receive the same treatment as the poor, humble, quiet and those with whom we do not intimately associate. The action must be taken with wisdom and the elders (who should take the lead in this) are to be discreet (1 Tim. 3:1-6). The absence of elders, however, does not negate the necessity of church discipline.

Who Are The Subjects of Discipline?

“Those who need it” would be an easy answer “False teachers, indifferent brethren, defilers of the themselves with the world” – but we want to look at it a little more closely. In doing so, we probably will cover again some of the material already covered or alluded to. In this section we are speaking, not of the whole range of church discipline, but particularly of withdrawing fellowship or of having no fellowship with these ones.

1. Those who refuse to correct personal offences (Matt. 18:15-17).

2. Those who cause divisions contrary to the gospel. Those brethren who are contentious (Rom. 16:17-18; Psa. 133:2; Prov. 6:16-19).

3. Those who are factious or who teach heresy (2 Pet. 2:1; Titus 3:10).

4. Those who are guilty of the sins of the flesh (1 Cor. 5:9-1b): Fornicators (1 Cor. 5:9; 6:13-20; Gal. 5:19); Adulterers (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Rom. 7:1-2; 1 Cor. 5:1-4); Drunkards (1 Cor. 5:11; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18); Covetous (1 Cor. 5:11; Eph. 5:5); Idolaters (1 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5); Railers and Revilers (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Tim. 3:1-5); Extortioners (1 Cor. 5:11); Tale-bearers and Idle (2 Thess. 3:6-15; 1 Tim. 5:13).

5. And, we list separately, those who are “disorderly” (2 Thess. e:6). We want to spend some time on this subject because some want to limit the “disorderly” to those who will not work and are busybodies (2 Thess. 3:11). Others charge that if we cannot get someone on a “specific sin” (by this I suppose is meant things like adultery, murder, drunkenness, etc.) then we just “lump it” under “disorderly” and get them on that (usually with reference to non-attendance, Heb. 10:25).

The word translated “disorderly” in 2 Thess. 3,:7, 11 means “to be disorderly; a. prop. of soldiers marching out of order or quitting the ranks . . . Hence, b. to be neglectful of duty, to be lawless . . . c. to lead a disorderly life . . . .” The word in 1 Thess. 5:14 (“unruly”) and 2 Thess. 3:6 means “disorderly, out of the ranks, (often so of soldiers); irregular, inordinate, deviating from the prescribed order or rules . . .”(Thayer p. 83). Hence, the “disorderly” are impenitent, defiant, and show a disposition to continue in sin. It certainly includes those who habitually absent themselves from the assemblies, according to this definition!

We assert that the context of 2 Thess. 3:6 will not allow us to confine the act of “withdrawing fellowship” to those who will not work.

1. After commanding them to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (v. 6) he said, “For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us; for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you.” (v. 7) This does not mean that he behaved only in the matter of working, but in every respect! Then he gave an example of his behavior (v. 8); “Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labor and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you.” The word “neither” indicates the beginning of another thought and in this case it is an example of one way “we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you.”

2. In verse 14 he said, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” But there is more in Second Thessalonians than just the instruction regarding those who will not work! In 2 Thess. 2:15 he said, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Does this mean, then, that if one does not “Hold the traditions” the church cannot (must not!) do anything about it? Certainly not! Further than that, the instructions of 2 Thess. 3:6 cannot even be confined to Second Thessalonians! The things learned by the Thessalonians are not contained in Second Thessalonians only – Paul also wrote First Thessalonians! And, he wrote about the “disorderly” in 1 Thess. 5:14 (“Unruly”).

3. To further illustrate that one cannot confine the subjects of withdrawing to those engaged in sins specified, as in 2 Thess. 3:10-12 and 1 Cor. 5:9-11, consider the following charts:

 

 

 

 

In charts “A” and “B” we have attempted to illustrate that one cannot restrict withdrawing of fellowship to only those sins specifically listed in connection with withdrawing of fellowship. Nor can one just confine disfellowship to those sins listed as the “lust of the flesh.”

In chart “C” we have illustrated that brethren have spiritual fellowship with God and other brethren when they are walking in the light. And that they also may have association with one another.

In chart “D” we have illustrated that SIN cuts off a brother from the spiritual fellowship with God and other brethren, and that our ASSOCIATION with such brethren SHOULD ALSO BE CUT OFF! Why do brethren persist in associating with brethren who are living in sin (cf. 1 Cor. 5:11)? If God has no fellowship with a man in darkness, why would brethren want to continue their fellowship with that man?

We ask that you also consider Eph. 5:11, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.” And 1 Cor. 5:6, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” If a little “leaven” (sin) “leavens” (contaminates) the whole “lump”(church), does it matter what sins a brother or sister might continue in (refuse to repent of)? The apostle is taking a general truth and applying it to a specific sin (i.e., regarding the one living with his father’s wife). Any and all sin, if allowed to go unchecked, will contaminate the whole church!

Truth Magazine XXI: 24, pp. 375-377
June 16, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

I once overheard a preacher describe his formula for success in staying in one area for many years by saying, “I stay away from counseling anyone on family problems. That is the stickiest tar–baby one can get stuck in, and the preacher never wins!” Preaching includes more than two lessons on Sunday. It is giving people what they need from the word of God-ministering the Gospel unto all men. Paul was a man who gave people what they need. “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you and taught you publicly and from house to house”(Acts 20:20). Paul not only “taught” but “showed.” The evangelist is to be a positive part, a public example of his preaching and message. “Be thou an example unto the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” The preacher must not only “show and tell” publicly, but also “from house to house.” There are problems that can be helped by public teaching, needs cared for in a group, but there are also needs and failures that need to be dealt with on an individual scale. Paul “nourished” the Thessalonians “as a nurse cherisheth her children” (1 Thess. 2:7). He did this by his individual concern as well as public teaching. He “exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you as a father doth his children”(2:11). Too many men believe that their responsibility to the brethren begins and ends behind a pulpit.

Our work as God’s servants is to reconcile men to God through the word. We are the peacemakers of the scriptures (Matt. 5:9). But, one thing we often overlook is that one cannot make peace with God (changing a bad relationship into a good one) without also making an effort to make peace with our neighbor and brother. As scripture points out, our changed relationship with God means also a changed relationship with our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36), with our neighbor (Matt. 7:12; Luke 10:25-37), with our brother (Gal. 6:10; 1 Pet. 2:17; 1 Jn. 3:11-23), and with our family (1 Tim. 5:8; Eph. 5:21ff). No one can offer proper spiritual service to God without first seeking a right relationship with his neighbor. “If thou bring thy gift before the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matt. 5:23, 24). “If a man say ‘I love God’ and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen” (1 Jn. 4:20)? Spiritual service to God is empty and vain without accompanying service in right relationships with man (“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets”).

Ministering to people’s personal problems is not the work of professional “clergy” or psychiatrists. It is the work of all Christians to confront one another with the truth, help each other to obey it, and help each other to structure and discipline our lives in godliness. Our feeling of inability in this area belies our ignorance of God’s will and practice in it. “Exercising unto godliness” is more than having a snappy answer for every denominational error, or knowing seven steps in effective personal work; it is “having our senses exercised (by continual use) to discern good and evil.” But before we can help each other, we must first help ourselves. We cannot give away what we do not possess.

Physician, Heal Thyself

“God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted (tested) beyond that which you are able to bear, and will with the test also make a way of escape in order that you may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13). God gives us hope in our lives that no problem is too big to overcome. We, who teach others, must first find God’s solution to our problems. The scriptures “throughly equip” us for every part of life (2 Tim. 3:17). Change is not only possible in our lives, but is vitally necessary. We were raised from baptism having “put off” the old man to walk in “newness of life.” “Newness of life” means more than meeting in a different church building without an organ. It means a rebirth, a turnover, a new personality. We die to self (put off) and we follow (put on) the righteousness of Christ. “Putting off” without “putting on” the right manner of life will bring a falling away which will make the person worse off than before. (Matt. 12:43-45). “Putting on” without “putting off” is hypocrisy and just as doomed to failure as the other. Repentance is not just “putting off” the old manner of life, sorrow for wrong doing, it is turning to right doing.

A thief does not cease to be a thief when he stops stealing “but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28). A liar does not cease to be a liar when he stops telling lies but when “he speaks truth with his neighbor”(5:25). One does not cease to be bitter, angry, an evil speaker, and malicious by “putting off” these sins alone, but rather when we become “kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ sake hath forgiven you” (4:31,32). The Bible is filled with “Put off / on.”

Changing our lives requires the development and exercise of godly responses to the way we are treated by others. Not a reactive habitual response, but a thoughtful, God-pleasing response (cf. 1 Pet. 3:8-13; Gal. 6:7-10).

Preachers, elders, and teachers cannot provide the help needed to give to others until the word of God finds fruit in their own lives. This requires change: in living, in thinking, in relationships. We will seek to provide some practical biblical ways to change in our next article.

Truth Magazine XXI: 24, p. 374
June 16, 1977

By Earl E. Robertson

The apostle wrote, “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:12-14).

This is a sad commentary indeed! And, all too often this deplorable condition obtains among so many brethren. At the time this statement was written, which was perhaps some thirty five years after the resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the church, some of these brethren ought to have been teachers (of God’s word), but they were in dire need of being again taught the fundamentals of the gospel. How long should it take for converts to Jesus to become teachers? The answer to this question depends on several factors: one’s ability, knowledge, dedication, and his love for God and his word. One can readily see how either one or all of these factors enters into this picture. One’s ability is of little value without his dedication; his knowledge is worthless in the absence of love for God and his holy word.

Casual observance reveals many things about this sinful problem. Many men are quick to speak of their long service to Christ, even a “charter member” of some congregation, but have never brought any to the Lord. They are often unable to intelligently respond to the more basic Bible questions, much less teach others. How can one be in Christ for years and never develop into anything of value for the Lord? The apostle says such a person is a “babe.” It might be that this kind of person simply has no desire to grow himself, to be of no spiritual help even to his family or friends. This is a grave problem! Heavenward traveling people “desire the sincere milk of the word” (1 Peter 2:2). From a spiritual standpoint, the person is sick. It might be that ne is interested in the things of this life, and if this interest has prevented his development, he is worldly and spiritually sick. It might be that he is stingy and will not, therefore, use either his time or money that he might learn. But, whatever the cause for one not becoming a teacher, it is still a violation of this passage. One with this character never amounts to anything of value to the kingdom of God. If you think otherwise just take a close look in your next Bible class.

Though this one needs someone else to teach him, the Bible says, yet he oftentimes thinks he is the teacher and usually is the one who creates most of the problems and burdens within the churches. Ignorance is dangerous. Only when one (like this) can see himself as he really is and change his attitude will he effect any appreciable change in his character and worth for truth and righteousness.

Truth Magazine XXI: 24, p. 373
June 16, 1977