Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

If I can show that somebody in the New Testament “believed on Christ” and was not saved, I will have shown that “believing on Christ” is not all that stands between the sinner and salvation. And when this is shown, it will disprove the cardinal doctrine of orthodox denominationalism, that salvation is by “faith only.” The Methodist Discipline says, “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works and deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort” (emphasis mine-L.B.; Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, Articles of Religion, Article IX, page 29, 1944 edition). Baptists believe the same thing, namely that one is saved “at the point of faith and without further obedience.” In fact, this is a matter of almost universal agreement in Protestant denominationalism. But it is not the truth. The New Testament does teach that we are saved by faith, but it does not teach that we are saved by faith only, or “at the point of faith and without further acts of obedience.” There is a difference. But for the time being, let’s get back to the “unsaved believer.”

In John 12:42-43, the Bible says, “Nevertheless among the chief rulers many also believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” I don’t believe anybody thinks that these people were saved. They refused to confess Christ: they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Yet they “believed on Christ.” This is the very same expression found in Scriptures like John 3:16, 3:36; Acts 16:31, and many more. These rulers “believed on Christ,” but they were not saved. Yet Jesus said in many places, that they who “believe on him” shall have eternal life. I can hear someone say, “Yes, but these rulers didn’t have ‘saving faith.'” I agree. And that is the point and purpose of this little tract: to show the difference between the faith that saves, and the faith that does not save. The rulers in John 12 are not the only ones in the New Testament who believed and were not saved.

In Acts 2, Peter preached to an assembly of Jews who did not believe in Christ. Beginning in verse 22, he made a three-fold argument on the Deity of Christ. Then the apostle summed it all up in verse 36 and reached this conclusion: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly” (believe with confidence, L.B.) “that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ.” The sermon had its desired effect. The next verse says, “Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do?” They were convinced that the man they had caused to be crucified was truly the Son of God. They BELIEVED! But were they saved? Not unless one can be saved without repentance! Not unless they were saved without having their “remission of sins!” Their question, “What must we do?” brought this answer: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Here are some people who believed and were not saved. Not yet. Why? Because their faith was not yet obedient faith.

Some others who believed, and were not saved when they believed, are found in Acts 11:21. “And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed and turned to the Lord:” Notice, they believed AND turned to the Lord. They believed before they turned to the Lord. If they were saved the moment they believed, they were saved before they turned to the Lord. But nobody, I hope, believes that one can be saved before he turns to the Lord.

Another unsaved believer was Saul of Tarsus-at one point, that is. Saul is a fine example of a man who was doing what he believed was right, but who was sinning in doing it. He was on his way to Damascus to carry out a wicked mission, persecuting God’s people, the church. As he journeyed, he saw a light from heaven; he fell to the earth; he heard a voice saying, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest . .. and he trembling and astonished said, Lora, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do” (Acts 9:4-6). Notice that the Lord told Saul to go into the city (Damascus) and there it would be told him what he MUST do. Watch what he was told to do. The Lord sent Ananias to him in the city. When Ananias came to Saul, he told him to “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Let me explain here that the conversion of Saul is told in three chapters, Acts 9, 22, and 26. You have to read all three to get all the facts. It is in chapter 22 that we have what Ananias told Saul to do. “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins . . . .” But Saul was a believer before he was told this. He saw the Lord (1 Cor. 15:8). He heard Him speak; he heard Him say, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” If there is anyone who thinks that Saul had not yet believed, I wouldn’t know how to teach him anything. Yes, Saul, was a believer, but not a saved believer — unless he was saved before his sins were washed away; unless he could be saved without doing what the Lord told him he MUST do. No, the water didn’t wash away his sins. The blood is the only thing that will do that. But the blood does not wash away the sins until one is “baptized into the death of Christ.” It was in death that Jesus shed His blood (Jn. 19:34). We are “baptized into his death” (Rom. 6:3). That is why baptism is used here in connection with the “washing away of sins.” That is why Saul was not saved until he was baptized. He was until he was baptized, an “UNSAVED BELIEVER.”

Someone says, “Ananias called him ‘brother Saul’ before he was baptized.” He was a brother Jew. Paul later called some of the men in that mob that was trying to kill him “brethren” (Acts 22:1; 23:1). Peter called those unbelieving Jews who had crucified Christ “brethren” (Acts 3:17).

I heard J. Frank Norris say that Saul was saved on the Damascus road when he saw the light. His proof was Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 15:8, where he spoke of seeing Christ: “Last of all he was seen of me as of one born out of due time.” Mr. Norris referred Paul’s “born out of due time” to the new birth. The idea of being born again “out of due time” is preposterous. That would mean that there are certain seasons when a fellow can’t be saved. Salvation is not seasonal, like dove hunting. Paul was speaking in 1 Cor. 15:8 of his being qualified to be an apostle. In order for one to be an apostle, he had to be a witness of the Lord’s resurrection (Acts 1:22-23). This is; why the Lord appeared to him. Note Acts 26:16: “. . . For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness . . . .” Paul was not made an apostle when the others became apostles. He had not seen Christ after His resurrection, as had the other apostles. So he referred to his apostleship as being born out of “due time.”

One of the strangest things to me in all my experience with religious people is the way some of them will fly into the face of plain statements of Scripture in order to escape the force of the Bible’s teaching on baptism for the remission of sins. Nearly every religious body practices baptism-or what they call baptism — and in most instances one can’t get into their churches without it. But they seem to think that it is almost sacrilegious to consider it essential to salvation. They say salvation comes before baptism; that baptism is just an outward expression or sign of an inward cleansing; that the blood cleanses, by faith, and then one is baptized to “show forth” to the world that he has been saved. But that AIN’T what the Bible says about it.

The Kind of Faith that Saves

I said earlier that the purpose of this tract is to show the difference between faith that saves and faith that does not save. The Bible teaches that salvation is by faith. Over and over the Lord promised eternal life to the believer. But what kind of believer has eternal life? We have shown already that some “believed on Christ” but were not saved. What is the explanation?

In the Bible, when salvation is said to be by faith, the word “faith” is used in a comprehensive sense. It includes the obedience necessary to express faith. Faith in this sense then includes the action of faith. Abundant proof of this will be given later, but let me say now without fear of successful contradiction, that in this way, and in no other, can the Bible teaching of salvation by faith be understood. As long as men continue trying to explain away the obvious meaning of certain Scriptures, the doctrine of salvation by faith only reduces to utter nonsense certain passages of Scripture. If one is saved by “faith only” then he is saved without repentance, because “faith ONLY” doesn’t mean faith and repentance. Then all those passages that demand repentance are meaningless. In Mk. 16:16, Jesus said,”He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” He joined faith and baptism together with a coordinate conjunction and made them equally related to “shall be saved;” and most any fifth grade student knows this. But the faith only advocates arbitrarily declare that faith is essential but baptism isn’t. They would read the passage this way: “He that believeth shall be saved and then be baptized.” Jesus said, faith-baptism-salvation. Man says, faith-salvation-baptism. In Acts 2:38, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” We showed earlier that these Jews were believers when they asked the question, “What must we do?” So the advocates of “salvation by faith only” would have to say that the Jews were saved before they asked the question, and before they were told what to do for the remission of sins. If they did not believe on Christ, then Peter gave them the wrong answer. He should have said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” But he didn’t say that. He said, “Repent, and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins.” If these Jews were already saved, they didn’t know it, because “they were pricked in their hearts” by Peter’s sermon and asked “men and brethren, what shall we do?” Do, for what? Well; they didn’t want to know what to do for leprosy. ‘What must we do to be rid of the sin of killing the Son of God?’ If they were saved, Peter didn’t know it, because he told them to “Repent, and be ,baptized . . . for the remission of sins.” If they were saved, the Holy Spirit didn’t know it, because he was guiding Peter to say what he was saying.

Preachers have done about everything to this passage but take the scissors and cut it out of the book. They say that “for the remission of sins” means “because of remission of sins;” that “for” in the passage looks back to remission. They were to be baptized because their sins were already remitted. But the preposition efs, which is translated “for” in this passage, never looks back. It means here “in order to” remission of sins, and all the real scholars admit that. Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Baptist and one of the world’s leading Greek scholars. He was one of the committee that translated the American Standard Revised Version. He translated Acts 2:38 thusly: “Peter said to them, you must repent and every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to have your sins forgiven.” This is in his own translation of the New Testament. Copies are available to show any skeptic. I was told that a Baptist once wrote Mr. Goodspeed and asked him how he, a Baptist, could translate Acts 2:38 that way. His answer was, “I translated Acts 2:38 as a scholar, not as a Baptist. And the reason I translated it that Way is because that is what the -passage says.” Goodspeed was a modernist, but he knew what the text said. Horatio B. Hackett, another Baptist scholar, in his commentary on Acts, said on 2:38, “in order to the forgiveness of sins, we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part to the exclusion of the other” (emphasis mine L.B., The American Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. IV). Hackett used the phrase, “in order to the forgiveness of sins” instead of “for the remission of sins,” and said that he connected it naturally with BOTH PRECEDING VERBS. What verbs? Repent and be baptized. It ill becomes a “top-water” preacher — if I may borrow a phrase-to fly in the face of scholars like Goodspeed and Hackett and say that repentance looks forward to forgiveness and baptism looks back to it. These two verbs are joined together and sustain the same relationship to “for the remission of sins.” They cannot be separated without doing violence to both Scripture and Grammar. Whatever repentance is FOR, baptism is FOR; whichever way repentance LOOKS, baptism LOOKS. And if a fellow were not trying to defend an erroneous theology, he would never think of trying to separate them. Another thing about this “for the remission of sins” is this: one finds the very same language in Matt. 26:28, where Jesus said, “This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for the remission of sins.” If “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 means “because of remission of sins,” then it means the same thing in Matt. 26:28, and one has Jesus saying that He would shed His blood “because of remission of sins”-He shed His blood because the sins of the world were forgiven already. With reference to Goodspeed and Hackett, some may ask, “Why do scholars like that, knowing that this contradicts their doctrine, continue to remain in churches which teach salvation by ‘faith only’?” The only reason I can think of is that they just do not let their theology and their scholarship mix. They likely think that if one is a good fellow, religious and pious, that it matters not whether his theology is in harmony with the Bible-a fatal error according to the Scriptures.

Examples of Faith in Action

I promised earlier to give proof that the faith that saves includes whatever acts of obedience are required to express the faith. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews is filled with such examples. Verse 7, “By faith Noah . . . prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” “By FAITH Noah PREPARED an ark.” He did not simply believe and cause the ark to appear. But he believed and BUILT. And the BUILDING was counted as an element of the faith.

Verse 30, “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed about seven days.” But Joshua 6 shows that the whole army of Israel had to march around the walls for a week, a total of thirteen times, and then priests blew on the ram’s horns, and the people gave a shout before the walls fell. But the Hebrew writer said that the walls fell “BY FAITH.” So the marching, blowing the horns and the shouting were all included in the expression “by faith.” These were acts of obedience required to express their faith. And the walls did not fall until they had DONE these things.

In Gal. 3:26, 27 Paul said, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Notice that he said they are children of God “BY FAITH in Christ Jesus.” But the next verse said they were “BAPTIZED into Christ.” Therefore, their baptism “into Christ” was a part of the faith by which they became children of God, or entered into Christ. Baptism is an act of faith, a constituent part of the faith that saves. When one is baptized, he is still “saved by faith.” I say again, that it is only in this way that the Bible teaching of salvation by faith can be understood. If repentance and baptism are acts of faith by which we are saved, just like marching, blowing horns and shouting were a part of the faith by which the walls of Jericho fell, then we can understand what the Bible means when it says that we are saved BY FAITH, and yet makes repentance and baptism conditions of salvation. But if we are saved by FAITH ONLY, and “without further obedience,” then no man on earth can explain passages like Acts 2:38, Mk. 16:16, and cases of conversion like Saul’s, without perverting and wresting the Word of God, and plain rules of both Greek and English grammar.

Obedience and Works

A lot of people have been taught and have accepted the teaching, that if one must be baptized to be saved, he is saved by works. And they remind us that the Bible says that we are not saved by works. This is a misunderstanding of passages like Eph. 2:8,9 and Titus 3:5. “By grace are ye saved by faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast.” Then, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

Paul was not discussing obedience to the Gospel in these passages. In the Ephesian passage, he was showing that man cannot “earn” salvation. On God’s part it is a matter of “grace,” or unmerited favor. Man was helpless to provide salvation for himself. The provision has to be of God. Everything God has done for us-the gift of Christ-the church-the Gospel-is all summed up in the word “grace”-God’s grace. And no matter how many conditions God sees fit to impose on those who would be saved, salvation is still by grace. On man’s side it is by faith. And as we have shown before, all that we do in obedience to the commands of God is summed up in the word “faith,” because it is our faith in God and in His Son, His Word, and His provisions that moves us to obey Him. This is what is taught in Eph. 2:8. This verse, “By grace are ye saved through faith,” is the epitome of the Scheme of Redemption. It shows both the Divine side and the human side: BY GRACE-God’s part; THROUGH FAITH-man’s part. “Not of works” means one could never do enough works to earn his salvation or to bring God under obligation to save him. If one could, then salvation would be a matter of debt, and not a matter of grace. The works by which we are not saved, are the works that stand over against grace; the works that would nullify grace. One can see, that if we could earn salvation, then we would not need the grace of God, and hence such works would stand opposed to grace. But God does not need our “works of righteousness,”-as Paul expressed it in Titus 3:5. This is what Paul had in mind in Rom. 4:4 “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt.” In this chapter Paul was showing that justification is not by works of the law. He used Abraham to prove it. He showed that Abraham was justified by faith (his faith counted for righteousness) before he was circumcised and certainly before the law of Moses was given. Then, certainly it was not unreasonable that God would justify the Gentile as well as the Jew, by faith, without the works of the law. The fellow who tries to prove by Rom. 4:4 that baptism is not essential to salvation has missed the whole point in the apostle’s teaching. But this is sometimes done.

If Eph. 2:8 and Tit. 3:5 and Rom. 4:4 mean that baptism can’t have anything to do with salvation because baptism is a work, there are some other passages that don’t make sense. Peter told the house of Cornelius in Acts 10:35 that “In every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” Then, before he had finished his sermon, he “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (10:48). Remember that when the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter he said that when Peter would come “He will tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved (Acts 11:13,14). The words that Peter told him included the command to be baptized. If baptism is a work, what kind of work is it? I read in the Bible about the works of the flesh, the works of darkness, the works of the devil, the works of the law, and the works of man’s righteousness — the prophet said man’s righteousness is as filthy rags — but you wouldn’t put baptism in this crowd would you? If baptism is a work, it is a work of God’s righteousness, and Peter said that those who work God’s righteousness are “accepted of him.” Baptism is never called a work. It is an act of faith-saving faith. You may have been told that my brethren in the church of Christ believe that water washes away sins. I repeat that only the blood of Christ washes away sins. But sins are washed away in the blood when we obey God’s command to be baptized, because we are baptized into His death (Rom. 6:3). You may have been told that we teach that one may “work his way into heaven.” I have shown that salvation is not earned. We teach no such thing. God’s grace is our only hope. But God’s grace does not preclude obedience to the Gospel of His Son. This obedience must be of faith.

Finally, may I say that there are many of my brethren who need to realize that they, too, are “unsaved believers.” Faith does not end when we arise from the water of baptism. Neither does the obedience of faith. The second chapter of James should be read often. There are too many of us who like to chide our religious neighbors about their “faith only” religion, when we are not any better off. Our faith stopped working a long time ago, and a faith that doesn’t work is a dead faith, whether it be the faith of the alien or the Christian. And a dead faith won’t save you, my backsliding, unfaithful, indifferent, cold-hearted, brother, any more than the dead faith of the man who refuses to be baptized.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, pp. 360-363
June 9, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

Often in trying to find out what something is, we find out what it is not. “The Ark was not cedar, oak, or pine” as the line usually goes, because God specified gopher wood. “`The preacher, in the very same way, has qualifications and duties that are specified. Have you ever heard the child’s joke, “When is a door not a door?” The answer is “When it is ajar.” Trite though this is, it helps to illustrate our title question. “When is a preacher not a preacher?” The answer is “When he is something else.”

Something Else

A preacher is not a preacher when he is “something else”. He may be a denominational caricature clergyman, a carnal power broker, or an indolent leech making an easy living by merchandising the church, but he is not a preacher.

As any work within the church, preaching is a function, and not a title. The preacher is an evangelist: a transliteration of euangelos, a messenger of good. One who teaches, preaches, or proclaims glad news, the gospel (evangelion). He is a minister : a servant, a waiter, an attendant who serves the church by serving God, and who serves God by serving the church (2 Cor. 6:3-10). He actively seeks to be greatest in the kingdom of God by humbly submitting himself as least (Matt. 20:25-28). He is a preacher: a herald, a proclaimer (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11). He is a slave: One totally submissive to the will of God, having put to death his own desires as a personality (Rom. 1:1; Jas. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). He is a brother: enjoying parallel relationship with all in the church as joint heirs in the family of God. He has equal responsibility according to ability before the Father (Rev. 22:9; Matt. 28:10; Matt. 23:8; Acts 1:15; 1 Pet. 3:8).

None of the terms are used as a title apart from function. The preacher is a brother, a member of the local church on an equality with his brethren. He serves God and man by teaching and living the word of God as his sole and overriding occupation. He receives both honor and monetary support from his spiritual family for the worx that he does (Gal. 6:6; 1 Cor. 7-11). This support is a wage, a misthos in Greek. It is what was given to the seventy in Luke 10. “In the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire.” This same wage is what is to be given to elders who rule well and labor in teaching the church (1 Tim. 5:18). In none of these passages is there any “employer – employee” relationship enjoined – fair support for service given is the concept. The church is not the preacher’s “boss” any more than we become our doctor’s or dentist’s boss by paying our medical bills. Furthermore, “A man cannot serve two masters.” The preacher who is an employee of the church “to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey” (Matt. 6:24; Rom. 6:16). The church has no right, authority, or place to set limitations, requirements, or standards upon a servant of God that it does not place scripturally on any Christian. Preachers are not employees of the church. Churches are not employers of preachers – unless they are the kind of church that “heaps unto itself” employees that soothe and scratch the itches of the employer. Practically, the church cannot fire a preacher any more than it can hire him. They may exhort him, discipline him, or withdraw his support, but the word “fire” as we use it is an unscriptural term.

His Qualifications

The positive qualifications of a preacher are few but definite. Faithful: (2 Tim. 3:14; 2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 4:10,11; 1 Cor. 4:2). Faithful to the truth, to his work as a Christian, and as an example. Gentle : (2 Tim. 2:24; Jas. 3:1,13,17). As one who is equitable, fair, moderate, as a loving parent with unruly children. Able : (2 Tim. 2:24-26; Heb. 5:12-14; 2 Tim. 2:14-16). As one who has the ability through experience to express truth well, and accurately, avoiding sidetracking issues of no consequence. Forbearing: (2 Tim. 2:24; 2 Cor. 6:4). Called “patience” in the KJV as one who overlooks personal wrong, unaffected by personal mistreatment (2 Tim. 2:3; 4:5). God knew that the teacher of truth would suffer at the hands of his brethren and the world, so the qualities of life He looked for in the preacher were to be of the same quality as the great teachers of all time and the Master Teacher, “If they have persecuted me, they shall persecute you . . . fear not, neither be thou afraid . . .” Good Example : (1 Tim. 6:11; Tit. 2:1, 7, 8, 15 ). One cannot teach a life that is not first lived.

The preacher’s. negative requirements are equally important. Not for gain : (1 Cor. 9:16ff; 1 Thes. 2:9-12; 1 Cor. 4:10-13 ). Those who use the work of preaching primarily as a means to make a living are not fit to be servants of God. This attitude presumes that if the money is cut off, the preaching is cut off. There is always the very real danger that the message will be adapted to keep the income coming in — not so often in preaching error, as in not preaching what is needed. Not for glory (1 Thess. 2:3-8; Matt. 6:2ff). Those who serve God for the reward they may receive from men in glory and approval have “already received their reward.” Preaching is service given to others, not service given for self-service. Not as men pleasers: (Gal. 1:10; Acts 5:29). The preacher can serve the church and man in particular only by serving God, and following him. Not seeking to exercise dominion or authority: (Matt. 20:25-28; 23:8-11). The world exercises power in this way, but the real servant recognizes that “all authority” resides in the Master. Without fear of the consequences of right teaching: (2 Tim. 1:7,8; 2:3,4; Heb. 13:6). Not a quibbler (2 Tim. 2:23-26). Able to right wrong, rather than be overcome by circumstance (Tit. 1:5; 2:8; 3:8,9; Jas. 3:1318).

A preacher may receive money from churches and individuals to free himself from work (“to forbear working” 1 Cor. 9:6) to devote full energies~and time to the work of evangelism (1 Cor. 9:3-12; 2 Cor. 11:7,8; Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:10-18). Or, he may devote his full energies to the work of evangelism, and spend some of his time working with his hands to support himself (Acts 20:33; 1 Cor. 9:12,15; 1 Thess. 2:5,6,9; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 3 Jn. 7). Either way, a man’s financial income does not determine whether he is an evangelist or not; his work does. “Do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Tim. 4:5 ).

More To Preaching Than Preaching?

“When is a preacher not a preacher?” “When he is something else.” Preachers can also incidentally be school teachers, businessmen, writers, scholars, carpenters, plumbers, editors, or staff writers, But, school teaching is not preaching — neither is editing, publishing, plumbing, or selling. There is no such thing as a “hyphenated-preacher” i.e. a meeting –preacher, a debate-preacher, a personal work-preacher, an editor-preacher, a writing-preacher. The minister of God is a spiritual Jack-of-all-trades, a Universale Hominem. The preacher, like a resourceful and dedicated soldier (Eph. 6:11-17; 2 Tim. 2:3) uses every lawful means to “present every man perfect in Christ. And to this end I exert all my strength, striving according to his working” (Col. 1:25-29). He develops new skills, and hones and refines his old ones. The “specialty-preacher” may offer his own particular excellency, but to be God’s man he has to develop all the skills of a servant in God’s army.

Finally, there is no responsibility that God gives his servants that conflicts with his responsibility in any other area given to him by God. If we use our responsibilities in one area to neglect another, we do it without God’s approval. The preacher who serves God must realize that he is to “endure hardness” and will refuse to entangle himself in the affairs of life; that he may please him who has chosen him to be a soldier (2 Tim. 2:3,4). But, if a man strives for excellence as a preacher, he does not receive God’s approval or reward unless he works for it lawfully (2:5). “Enduring hardness” at the expense of our duty as parent, husband, son, or brother will but bring God’s condemnation (Mk. 7:11 ). There is no reason why a man cannot be a “good minister of God” and also be a good father, husband, son, and brother.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, pp. 358-359
June 9, 1977

By Larry A. Bunch

There are various “kinds” of discipline (or, “degrees”). We will note each one, beginning with the “milder” form of discipline and progressing to the “sterner.”

Public Instruction

Many sins are sins of ignorance. Brethren must be taught in order to do God’s will and avoid sin. This is one of the purposes of the Bible classes and preaching services. This is also why it is so important for brethren to attend all the services of the church.

Not only did Jesus instruct the apostles to “. . . make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them . . . .” but to also “. . . teach(ing) them to observe all that I commanded you. . .” after their conversion (Matt. 28:19-20). All things in the assemblies are to be done for the edification or spiritual building-up of the saints (1 Cor. 14:26). This is one of the purposes of the assembly (Heb. 10:24-25) resulting in better service to God and spiritual growth of the Christian. It will also help them to be able to teach and convert others (2 Tim. 2:2). In Acts 20:7 we have an example of Paul’s public teaching and in verse 20 he declared to the Ephesian elders that he taught them “publicly.”Private Instruction and Exhortation

Not only did Paul teach the Ephesians publicly, but also “from house to house” (Acts 20:20). Many times a Christian may be zealous in his work for God, yet not know the will of God on a particular subject as he should. Then it is necessary to go to him and instruct him privately (see Acts 18:24-28). The fact that one is taught privately is no reflection on them or their character, it simply means that they need instruction they have not received from the public assemblies. It is also possible for one to hear a lesson taught publicly, but not make application of the lesson to himself. So, in our work of admonishing the unruly, encouraging the faint-hearted and helping the weak (1 Thess. 5:14), we go and teach them privately.

Privately Rebuke and Admonish

That private visit (to teach) may not be enough and sterner teaching is then necessary. Or a brother may be involved in a sin that he knows to be sin and a rebuke is called for instead of just teaching. Instead of talking to everyone about our brother’s sin, we go to him privately. It is not wise to parade every sin before the public if it can be handled privately and discreetly (see Luke 17:3; Matt. 18:15).

Public Censure

Gross and brazen sins, committed in open defiance to God and His will, merit public condemnation. You seldom hear someone’s name called from the pulpit or mentioned in the announcements in this light, yet many times it is needful (see 2 Peter 2:13; Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 5:20; 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:17; 4:10; 3 John 9).

Social Ostracism

This is usually referred to as “withdrawing of fellowship.” Some object to that term, but it adequately describes the action taken. (If someone in the congregation objects to the use of this term, then I have no objection to referring to it in another way — so long as God’s will is fulfilled in the matter.)

Brethren in Christ have fellowship with one another. As long as one is walking in the light of the Gospel, he has fellowship with others who are doing the same thing and they have fellowship with God (1 John. 1:7). This is a spiritual fellowship and may be true whether one knows the others who are “walking in the light” or not. This is why we should be able to go into any congregation comprised of people serving God according to His will and feel right at home. Another “facet” of fellowship involves joint-participation. This is simply working and worshiping with our brethren in Christ (Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23; Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; etc.).

Although the New Testament usage of the term translated “fellowship” is limited to “communion, fellowship, sharing in common” (W. E. Vine, Vol. 2, p. 90, “Koinonia”), “partnership” (ibid., “metoche”), “to have fellowship” (ibid., “koinoneo”), I believe we can demonstrate that the English definition of the word “fellowship” is applicable to New Testament practice.

“Fellowship” is defined by Webster as: “1. the condition of being an associate; mutual association of persons on equal and friendly terms; communion; companionship; . . . 2. a mutual sharing, as of experience, activity, interest, etc.; partnership; joint interest . . . .

If “fellowship” is to be limited to those things as defined by W. E. Vine or to things peculiarly “spiritual” (?), then why are we not to even eat a meal with a brother living in adultery (1 Cor. 5:11)? May we eat a meal with a brother as long as we do not “fellowship” him in “spiritual” matters? May we associate with the ungodly and false teachers at times other than in a “spiritual” atmosphere (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Tim. 3:5; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 2 John 9-11)?

Since we are to “have no fellowship with” certain brethren, then I affirm that the term “withdraw fellowship” adequately describes this type of action. Since the instruction to “have no fellowship” includes social activities (1 Cor. 5:11), we must “withdraw” from those who claim to have withdrawn themselves from the church. Otherwise, brethren could continue their social activities with the ungodly because they have “withdrawn themselves from the church.” The fornicator could “avoid church discipline” (withdrawing) by “withdrawing” first!

In order to comply with the instructions of the Lord in the matter of church discipline, it is necessary that obstinate sinners be publicly named so brethren can avoid them and have no fellowship with them. For example, if a Christian quits attending the services of the church, then it is the obligation of the brethren to make sure all members of the local congregation are informed concerning the matter so that all social fellowship in process may cease and/or that none might start (Heb. 10:25 and many other passages and principles, with 2 Thess. 3:6). (This, of course, would be done only after efforts were made to restore the erring Christian and it was determined that he or she was determined to continue in their own way regardless of God’s will.) Continued next week.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, pp. 357-358
June 9, 1977

By Mike Willis

We are in the throes of another unity movement. This should be encouraging to all who love the Lord; unity of God’s people is not an elusive dream which never can be achieved; it is something which each of us needs to be working to accomplish. Hence, I rejoice that men all over this great country are wanting unity. The ecumenical movement is one of the most obvious signs that many are presently wanting unity.

Unity at any price is something not worth having. America has recently witnessed a “peace-at-any-price” attitude in the settling of the conflict with Viet Nam. Frankly, I have trouble seeing the difference between the kind of “peace” which was obtained there and “defeat.” The ecumenical movement is another “peace-at-any-price” movement, although its main area of concern is with religious controversy. This unity movement has already called a moratorium against evangelizing pagan nations for the reason that they feel that pagan religions have just as much right to exist and stand just as approved before God as does the Christian religion. This movement is nothing less than a surrender to the forces of Satan.

Even as we watch the world around us discussing the problem of unity, we are made aware of the discussion of the subject within the Lord’s church. There is a mini-ecumenical movement in progress among us. The issues at stake are exactly the same ones as in the ecumenical movement facing denominationalism; both movements have the “peace-at-any-price” philosophy. Both movements would rather switch than fight over any doctrine.

Yet all of this discussion forces us to reconsider what is the scriptural foundation for unity. All men can be united upon the basis posited in the word of God. All men, that is, who believe and respect the Bible as the revealed word of God. Frankly, I have no desire for unity with any other kind of men. To those men, the command of Paul applies, “Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2 Cor. 6:18). I would like to discuss the historical emphasis in the restoration movement toward unity.

Restoration Or Unity?

Recently, I have read several statements which emphasize that the restoration movement split over two fundamental issues, restoration and unity. The liberal group took the unity route; the conservative group took the restoration route. Here is what those quotations said:

“The heart of the liberal-conservative rift was revealed in diverging views of the twofold plea of the movement -restoration of the ancient order and Christian union. To the liberal, Christian union became more and more important. To the conservative, restoration was the church’s central plea and union was only an elusive desideratum” (David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ 1865-1900, p. 8).

In a recent article appearing in Vanguard, Daniel H. King quoted from O. R. Whitley’s Trumpet Call of Reformation as follows:

“Two attitudes were struggling in Alexander Campbell’s mind, and in the mind of Disciples of Christ. This becomes increasingly apparent as the story moves along. One of these, based on the restoration idea, led in the direction of legalism, a religious hardening of the arteries; the other, the unity idea, led in the direction of reassertion of the freedom principles incipient in the original Reformation, and was expressive of the spirit of Locke’s famous Letters on Toleration. Each of these attitudes was to receive its due emphasis, at varying times, depending upon the needs of the moment. . .Significantly in the later development of Disciples, the liberals’ have followed the ‘we-must-be-free’ idea. The extreme conservatives have tended to support the `there-is-nothing-new’ contention” (as quoted in Vanguard, December 9, 1976, p. 7).

In conclusion, Daniel said, “The spirit of the restoration movement is not and has never been the ecumenical spirit. The two are not in the least related. Therefore, if in the final analysis we must face the alternative `Unity or Restoration?’, then for my part at least, I shall without the slightest reservation choose restoration.”

But, does the restoration principle demand that we choose between unity and restoration? According to those who are writing today, one must choose whether or not the restoration of the New Testament church is more important than the unity of the church. Such has not always been the case.

Unity Through Restoration

Though there may be a certain tension between unity and restoration, those in the early efforts to restore New Testament Christianity understood that unity could be attained only through the restoration of primitive, firstcentury Christianity. Typical of the statements made concerning this is that which was made by James Alexander Haldane, one of the men who had a major influence on the thought of Alexander Campbell. He said,

“The importance of uniformity amongst Christians, is not only evident in itself, but has been allowed in every age since the Reformation. Good men have lamented the differences which have subsisted, and which have not only occasioned strife amongst themselves, but have also given infidels a handle to reject and ridicule all religion. Various plans have been devised for promoting uniformity; but all these, as might be expected, have failed. Indeed the success of such plans was not in itself desireable. It could only have taken place, by churches giving way to one another’s prejudices. It is necessary, in common life, sometimes to give up what we know to be our right, for the sake of peace or some greater advantage. But such conduct respecting religion is not countenanced in the word of God. Every one must be fully persuaded in his own mind, and no evil is to be done that good may come. We must by no means encroach on the liberty given to every church to walk according to their own light. If we endeavor to model one church after the example of another now existing, we shall make little progress unless authority be employed, and in this case our zeal is not according to knowledge, our weapons are carnal. But if a model exist in the New Testament, by which all churches ought to be regulated; if each be occupied in imitating this, they will gradually approach nearer to each other; and thus the numberless sects and parties which dishonour the religion of Jesus, will be at an end. When a number of children are taught to write by one master, we expect to see a resemblance in their handwriting. This naturally arises from each copying the writing of the master, to whom all look up; but what progress could be expected if they were employed in copying from each other, or in quarrelling who wrote best” (A View of the Social Worship and Ordinances Observed by the First Christians, pp. 33-35).

Many other such quotations could be taken from the sermon outline books of those who have written regarding the subject of unity and who were early leaders in the effort to restore New Testament Christianity. All of them understood that unity was to be obtained through the restoration of first century church.

The quotation of the speech made by Brother James Adams in the Arlington Meeting has been much misunderstood because brethren apparently did not grasp this very point. Brother Adams, however, made himself very clear in the early part of his speech. He said,

“At this point, I should like to reemphasize a fact which has previously been stated; namely, unity is not an end within itself. I believe this was one of the mistakes made in the so-called ‘restoration movement.’ Brethren, If they did not believe it, often preached and wrote so as to give the Impression that they considered unity an end within itself. I believe that many of us today regard unity as an end within Itself. As I have grown older as a preacher of the gospel, I have become more concerned with getting men to whom I preach to do the will of God. If all of us conform our lives and teaching to the will of God, we will have unity. Hence I am more concerned about this than I am about unity. This does not mean I am not concerned about unity. I would not be here today if I were not. But I am more concerned about getting men to do the will of God. This is an end within itself. Unity is a by-product of this, hence I am more interested In the (cause than in the effect” (The Arlington Meeting, pp. 393-394).

One could almost get the impression that some have intentionally overlooked the original context of Brother Adam’s speech in their quotation of what he had to say about unity.

Why Has Division Occurred?

If the early restorers understood that unity was to be obtained through the restoration of the early church, why then has division occurred so often within our ranks? This is not an easy question to answer and perhaps the answer which I am going to suggest is too simplistic. However, I believe that this is what has caused our divisions and intend to say so.

The churches have been divided because brethren loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren and the Lord. Historically, this can be substantiated. The churches were united until some “progressive” brethren decided to bring in the mechanical instruments of music and to build missionary societies which were to be supported from the treasury of the local church. When conscientious brethren objected to these innovations, the liberals chose their innovations over their brethren. Apparently, they loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren. Later, when the liberals among us introduced the sponsoring church concept of evangelism and the church support of benevolent institutions and colleges, conscientious brethren again objected. The liberals, however, chose these innovations above their brethren; apparently, they loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren.

However, notice what has occurred in each of these divisions. The foundation principle which had initially caused them to be united was laid aside in order “to advance” the gospel. Being discontent with the organization, work, and worship which were found in the New Testament, the groups went out on their own to devise their own organizations, works, and worship. Conscientious brethren could not accept the things which they devised and were, ;therefore, forced to separate from them.A New Unity Movement

A new unity movement is in progress among the churches today. However, each of us should recognize that a different basis for unity is being suggested in this new movement than was suggested by the restoration principle. Whereas the restoration principle said that we can be united when all of us go back to the New Testament and become like the model church of the New Testament, the new unity movement says that we can have “unity in diversity.” My brethren, any movement towards unity which does not allow discussion and change regarding the matters which originally divided us is naive and destined to failure. We simply cannot be united until that which is divided us is removed. Any union which might be obtained would compromise the convictions of one group or the other.

However, there is a way to have unity. We can all go back to the Bible and become more and more like the church which we read about in it and we will inevitably become more and more like one another. Unity will be the blessed by-product of our return to the Bible. We do not have to choose between unity and restoration; unity can only be obtained through the restoration of the New Testament church.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, pp. 355-357
June 9, 1977