Truth Magazine

By Royce Chandler

Just as the local work seems to be getting off to a good start and the future harvest appears promising, the preacher calls together the elders and informs them of his intention to move. After all the time spent in searching for a replacement and the money spent in moving him, it still takes, usually, at least a year or more for the church and the new preacher to adjust to each other, and for things to level out to where they were (if, indeed, such is possible) before the former preacher resigned.

The new man must start from scratch to win the confidence and respect of the local saints; programs begun by the former preacher are discontinued, often in midstream; contacts made by him are forgotten; fruit that was almost ready to show itself will not be harvested, for that accumulative influence which the former preacher would have exerted during the next several months is aborted, and the hidden sprouts of faith in sinners’ hearts, which with only a little more work and support would surely blossom forth into obedience, silently die. Those indifferent saints just being inspired to interest and zeal by the example and influence of the preacher are suddenly deprived of that motivating personality and, having not yet developed the independence to stand on their own devotion, lose that surge of growth as the “prop” moves to another local church.

With the new preacher comes a new stress in the local program; while the former stressed local edification through improved classes, special series of instruction, training sessions, etc., the new emphasis is placed on those areas which especially suit the new man. Thus, the entire local program often takes a good amount of time to readjust, and much damage has been done in the vineyard by churches having to readjust far too often.

How many are the elders who have not had to wrestle this problem? How many have not often asked, in frustration, “What can we do to keep this man?” “Why do preachers so often just get things going smoothly, and then leave?”

This article is not inclusive to the point of exploring the faults of preachers in upsetting local works by foolish, selfish and ill-considered decisions to move; we desire only, for the present, to offer some ideas on how to prevent such moves. In keeping with this one-sided theme, then, let us suggest that local elderships could prevent many preachers from moving by giving due regard to this statement: “. . . for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8); i.e., they are more mindful, more prudent concerning the matters of everyday life.

Can we not learn from the sons of the world? How do successful businesses prevent within their ranks this same upheaval, which surely would destroy them? Are we to refuse to learn all we can from what practical wisdom the world so prudently employs? To do so is an evident sign of folly. How, then, do successful businesses retain their most qualified men for many years of service with little fear of their leaving in favor of another company? It there is a general statement to explain it, perhaps it is this: the sons of men have learned that when a man is made to be happy in his work, and when this happiness and his productive efforts are reinforced with positive rewards from those around him, there is little motivation for leaving. This one small bit of secular prudence could often enable an eldership to retain a hard-working, productive preacher for many years, resulting in an abundant harvest that can hardly be matched by churches which regularly must be searching for new preachers.

Acts of Kindness

In one sentence, elders could frequently secure a continued and fruitful work simply by showing genuine consideration to the preacher with whom they work.

As this article must be brief, let us now suggest some simple acts of kindness-of consideration-that would greatly aid a preacher in his work and would in most cases disarm the ever-present temptation to leave. This list of suggestions is necessarily brief, and should be used as a springboard to other suggestions.

1. Do not ask a preacher to leave unless there is a strong and pressing reason for such. Giving in to the baseless idea that a preacher should move every four or five years promotes an atmosphere of insecurity and futility, to say nothing of the unsettling effect it has on his wife and children. Knowing that they might be told to move at any time does nothing to give a preacher’s family a sense of belonging and of security. Children do not need to be shuffled around, always having to leave friends and to change schools, sometimes at a moment’s notice. Would you want your family to be treated that way? The emotional impact can sometimes be devastating on both the preacher and his family. Be considerate; be fair.

2. Realize that a good preacher is just really getting started after his first two or three years. Give him the support and the security he needs to spend several more years building on the foundation of the first few. This is a major key to local growth.

3. Periodically, tell both the preacher and the brethren how much you appreciate his work. Every man needs to know that his work is beneficial, and the brethren need to know that the elders are well aware of what work is being done, and that they are solidly behind it. Encouragement breeds more diligence.

4. Send your preacher to “training” or study situations which will help him to grow. Maintain his support and pay his expenses to go study; this is for his benefit; but mainly for that of the church, as he can return to teach those things which he learned. Especially would this sort of work be good for young preachers, who have not yet had the time to study, in detail, certain subjects. If business organizations recognize the great benefit of such programs to their employees and leaders, why cannot we use a little of that same wisdom?,

5. Look for things to do to encourage him and to make things comfortable for him and his family. Don’t make him ask for every little thing that needs doing to the house, if the church owns it; be considerate enough to purposely notice things that could improve his situation. Provide him with study space and efficient equipment, such as a typewriter, an overhead projector, etc., to be used in his work.

6. Show some initiative in the local work. Many times there will be no organized program of work unless the preacher thinks it up, organizes it, and drives everyone into helping with it. This is shameful. The elders ought to constantly be thinking of ways to improve and to expand the local work; let the elders shoulder the task of providing new and better methods, concentrated studies, etc., instead of just sitting around until the preacher comes up with another “hot idea.” If the church’s program of work moves away with the former preacher, the brethren see a distinct picture of figureheads, not of true elders. And, they also may see the reason why they cannot keep a preacher-at least, not a good one.

7. Why not give your preacher a set amount of money year specifically for books. There is nothing more valuable to a preacher’s work than a good library. Good books are expensive, and most preachers have enough to pay for without having to sacrifice unduly to purchase the best study aids. Since the books are used primarily to benefit the brethren in the classes and sermons, why cannot churches give $100-$200 each year, unrelated to his regular support, for providing your preacher with what he needs. The benefits will far outweigh the cost.

8. Provide, automatically, a cost of living adjustment every six months. Inflation hits a preacher, too. Any man worth keeping is worth showing this consideration. He has no union to bargain for him, so the brethren must take the initiative. Is it “Christian” to let the world be fairer to its own than brethren are to the local preacher? This should be completely unrelated to any raise that might be given.

9. Do not make the preacher beg. How many businesses retain employees by going on and on, offering no raise until the employee finally comes in and asks for it? Consideration and fair play ought to eliminate this problem. If the world can recognize the need to increase productive workers’ salaries on a regular basis, why can elders not profit from this understanding? Is it so hard to go to the preacher, sit down with him, and open-mindedly discuss his increased financial needs on a regular yearly basis? Do you treat the preacher any less considerately than your company treats you? It is hard to leave a church where the preacher knows for a fact that the elders are constantly thinking of him, are aware of his needs and are willing to be fair with him.

10. Understanding that preachers have no fringe benefits like most workers have, recognize that an inflation adjustment is not a -raise. If a man receives only enough increase to meet inflation, he simply treads water at the same buying power he had when he first moved among you. If a man is worth keeping, he is worth an increase in his support on a regular, fair basis. If he is not worth that consideration, he should be asked to leave. And surely all would recognize that when a new child is born in his family, it takes more to support that family than it did before. Be considerate; be fair.

These suggestions are offered in a meek and humble spirit; it is hoped that they will be considered in the same spirit. They are, admittedly, one-sided; perhaps some good elder would help us preachers by offering a list of suggestions from the other perspective.

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 9-10
March 18, 1976

By Alexander Campbell

(Note: This excellent article, “Religious Controversy,” written by Alexander Campbell one hundred and forty-five years ago was a much needed piece of material then and it is equally needed now. Honorable discussions to elicit truth is a time-honored method used by the good and godly of generations past and must remain with us and those who follow. Those who believe God comes to conference tables to negotiate His will, in compromise fashion or otherwise, have never accepted the “Religious Controversy” method of teaching the word of God and perhaps never will. They have alleged themselves to be following Christ! But the greatest controversialist of all was the very Son of God. He was able to get the truth before men; He did not make all victorious in their struggles, but He made it so they could know freedom. The ones who feign themselves too nice to controvert error know not the Christ of the Bible. Read this Campbell article with profit. Earl E. Robertson)

Many good men whose whole lives have been one continued struggle with themselves, one continued warfare against error and iniquity, have reprobated religious controversy as a great and manifold evil to the combatants and to society. Although engaged in a real controversy, they knew it not; but supposed that they only were controversialists who were in debates and discussions often. Had they reflected but a moment, they would have discovered that no man can be a good man who does not oppose error and immorality in himself, his family, his neighborhood, and in society as far as he can reach, and that he cannot oppose it successfully only by argument, or, as some would say, by word and deed-by precept and by example.

There can be no improvement with controversy. Improvement requires and presupposes change; change is innovation, and innovation always has elicited opposition, and that is what constitutes the essentials of controversy. Every man who reforms his own life has a controversy with himself. And, therefore, no man who has not always been perfect, and always been in company with perfect society, can be a good man without controversy. This being conceded, (and who can refuse to concede it?) it follows that whensoever society, religious or political, falls into error; or rather, so long as it is imperfect, it is the duty of all who have any talent or ability to oppose error, moral or political, who have intelligence to distinguish, and utterance to express, truth and goodness, to lift up a standard against it, and to panoply themselves for the combat.

But yet, plain and obvious as the preceding remarks may be, many will contend that religious controversy, oral or written, is incompatible with the pacific contemplative character of the genuine Christian and promotive of strifes, tumults, and factions in society, destructive of true piety towards God and of benevolence towards man. This is a prejudice arising from the abuses of controversy. Admit for a moment that it were so, and what would be the consequence? It would unsaint and unchristianize every distinguished Patriarch, Jew, and Christian enrolled in the sacred annals of the world. For who of the Bible’s great and good men was not engaged in religious controversy! To go no farther back than the Jewish lawgiver, I ask, What was his character? I need not specify. Whenever it was necessary, all-yes, all the renowned men of antiquity were religious controversialists. Moses long contended with the Egyptian magi. He overcame Jannes and Jambres, too. Elijah encountered the prophets of Baal. Job long debated with the princes of Edom. The Jewish prophets and the idolatrous kings of Israel waged a long and arduous controversy. John the Harbinger, and the Scribes and Pharisees, met in conflict. Jesus, and the Rabbis, and- the Priesthood, long debated. The Apostles and the Sanhedrin, the Evangelists and the Doctors of Divinity; Paul and the Sceptics, engaged in many a conflict; and even Michael fought in “wordy debate” with the Devil about the body of Moses; yet who was more meek than Moses-more zealous for God than Elijah-more patient than Job-more devout than Paul-more benevolent than John?

If there was no error in principle or practice, then controversy, which is only another name for opposition to error, real or supposed, would be unnecessary. If it were lawful, or if it were benevolent, to make a truce with error, then opposition to it would be both unjust and unkind. If error were innocent and harmless, then we might permit it to find its own quietus, or to immortalize itself. But so long as it is confessed that error is more or less injurious to the welfare of society, individually and collectively considered, then no man can be considered benevolent who does not set his face against it. In proportion as a person is intelligent and benevolent, he will be controversial, if error exists around him. Hence the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of Jordan and threw the scabbard away.

We have only to ask how we inherited so many blessings, religious and political, contrasted with our ancestors some five hundred years ago, to ascertain of what use controversy has been, and how much we are indebted to it. All was silent and peaceful as the grave under the gloomy sceptre of Roman Pontiffs under the despotic sway of the Roman hierarchy until Luther opened the war. The Roman priesthood denounced the “ruinous errors” and “Damnable heresies” of Luther, the “deadly influence” of the tongue and pen of the hierarch; but they fasted, and prayed, and denounced in vain. No crocodile tears “over the souls of men;” no religious penances for “the church in danger;” no invocation of “all who loved Zion;” no holy co-operation of “the friends of evangelical principles,” could check the career of this reforming Hercules. Bulls of excommunication assailed him as stubble would Leviathan in the deep. “He feared no discipline of human hands.” All was impotent and unavailing. The fire then kindled, though oft suppressed, yet burns.

The controversy begun by Luther, not only maimed the power of the Roman hierarchy, but also impaired the arm of the political despotism. The crown, as well as the mitre, was jeopardized and desecrated by his herculean pen. From the controversy about the rights of Christians arose the controversy about the rights of men. Every blow inflicted upon ecclesiastical despotism was felt by the political tyrants.

Reformation was the era of the Revival of Literature. It has enlightened men upon all subjects-in all the arts and sciences-in all things-philosophic, literary, moral, political. It was the tongue and pen of controversy which developed the true solar system-laid the foundation for the American Revolution-abolished the slave trade-and which has so far disenthralled the human mind from the shackles of superstition. Locke and Sidney, Milton and Newton, were all controvertists and reformers, philosophers, literary, religious and political. Truth and liberty, both religious and political, are the first fruits of well directed controversy. Peace and eternal bliss will be the “harvest home.” Let the opponents of controversy, or they who controvert controversy, remember, that had there been no controversy, neither the Jewish nor the Christian religion could have ever been established; nor had it ceased could the Reformation have ever been achieved. It has been the parent of almost all the social blessings which we enjoy.

If, indeed, all mankind were equally in love with truth, equally rational, equally intelligent, and equally disinterested, we might have only to propose a change for the better, and all would embrace it. But just the reverse of this is the true history of society. He is but little experienced in the human heart – he knows but little of the world, who imagines that what appears clear, wise, and useful to him, appears so to all; or that it is only necessary to support truth and goodness by unanswerable- arguments, to render. them universally triumphant. The more clearly and forcibly and unpopular truth is argued, the greater will be the dislike to it by all who are interested in representing it to be an error. Melancthon was for a time the subject of an illusion of this sort. He once told Luther that so clear were his apprehensions, so deep his convictions, and so forcible his arguments, that he could soon convince all Germany of the truth of the Reformation principles. He became an itinerant, and commenced a campaign against the priesthood. On returning from his first tour Luther said to him, “Well, Melancthon, what speed?” “Alas!” replied the young reformer, “old Adam is too strong for young Melancthon.”

A little experience will convince the most astute that the clearness and force of argument will not subdue opposition. It very frequently provokes the greater resentment. The adversaries of the Messiah are proof of this. So were the aristocrats in the late Virginia Convention. Orpheus could, by his music, as easily have caused the oaks to follow him, as could the republicans, by their arguments and demonstrations, have caused the Oligarchs in power to consent to extend equal rights and immunities to the proscribed casts in this commonwealth.

When error has but a single ally in the corruptions of the human heart, it is very formidable; but how strong when pride, passion, and interest become its auxiliaries! To overcome these, reason and logic must be strong indeed, and rhetoric most persuasive. Pride, ambition, and selfishness, are all powerful allies of error. Hence, double, triple, and quadruple the evidence necessary to convert a layman, will not often convince a priest. The pride of the understanding is the most invincible of all sorts of pride, and more especially when religion is the problem. A bigoted sceptic, a prejudiced secretary, and an interested priest, are more without the pale of reason, are more beyond the reach of controversy, than the errorists of any other school. But while error lives, and falsehood has an auxiliary upon earth, controversy will be necessary, and argument indispensable.

When controversy proceeds from benevolence it will be more successful and less injurious to the comfort of them who are engaged in it. But when argument and debate are dictated by resentment, prompted by pride, or controlled by the lust of power, the hearts of the combatants must be polluted, and their passions inflamed. The wrath of man never did, and never can, effect the righteousness which God requires; nor can it promote the happiness of man. When we love truth for its own sake, and when our efforts to maintain it proceed from brotherly kindness and love to all men, then we will plead its cause with force and with success; and then, and then only, will we be sanctified and blessed in the work. But a controversy for opinion, or for truth, instituted by vanity, by the pride of understanding, or the lust of power, will pollute the heart, aggravate the passions, sour the temper and terminate in vain jangling. But because it has been abused shall we desist from the use of it? This would be to make a covenant with death, and an agreement with destruction. This would be to live in vain, and to die without honor. This would be to depart from the example of the Confessors, Martyrs, and Apostles of Jesus, and to renounce our allegiance to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible. For so long as error in principle and in practice exists, so long will it be the duty and the felicity of the intelligent and the good to oppose it; and as long as there are conflicting creeds, sects, and divisions among religionists, so long will it be our duty to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

But never was there so much need to study the “suaviter in modo,” and the “fortiter in re,” amiability in the manner, and firmness in the purpose, as in the defense of truth. We must conciliate the passions, while we besiege the understanding. We are not to suppose all our opponents to be knaves and impostors, to be interested and obstinate. We must remember that in this world of weakness and of error the good and the virtuous are often found enlisted under the banners of error. There are honest differences of opinion, and men equally sincere and virtuous on both sides of every question. This must never be lost sight of. It is nevertheless true that our great models, the Prophets and Apostles; nay, the Savior himself, though often mild, as the genial influence of Spring, were sometimes severe and surly as the Winter’s blast. At one time, and amidst one class of opponents, they were as gentle as the balmy zephyrs on beds of violets; at another time, and amidst other opponents, they were like the mountain storm roaring through the cliffs. Soft and persuasive were the words and arguments to those who appeared honest in their convictions, but severe and tart were their reproofs to such as appeared obstinate in error. Hence, Paul who instructed his son Timothy to imitate him in all things, admonished him to instruct some opponents “with all meekness,” and “sharply to rebuke and confute” others. So did Peter and Jude in their epistles. “Make a difference,” says Jude, between those “who are complainers, who walk according to their own lusts, whose mouths speak great swelling words, and admire men’s persons for the sake of gain” – “have compassion upon other errorists;” save them with fear, hating the garments spotted by the pollutions of the flesh.” No man ever spoke more severely of certain teachers than Peter in his second epistle. We must, in all our controversies, make the same differences. When we find persons like Balaam, obstinately intent on covetous courses, for the sake of others we must not spare them. But courtesy and benevolence will be our best guides; and a good example will often achieve more than a thousand arguments.

To your posts, then, O Israel! Remember you have enlisted not for six months, like some of our sectarian militia; but you have vowed allegiance during the war. “Fight the good fight of faith.” Keep your eyes upon the Captain; and when the conflict is over he will cover you will laurels which will never wither, and bestow upon you a crown of righteousness which fadeth not away. EDITOR (i.e. Alexander Campbell)

Excerpt from Millennial Harbinger, by Alexander Campbell, Published 1830.

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 6-8
March 18, 1976

By Cecil Willis

This is now the ninth lesson which we have devoted to trying to learn the proper relationship existing between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. We also have sought to demonstrate from God’s Word the attitude that one should have toward the Law of Moses. This week’s points will be taken directly from Paul’s instructions to the Galatian brethren recorded in the book of Galatians. We recognize that every cause has an effect; every antecedent a consequence; and every “now” an “afterwards.” So there are certain consequences of going back to the Law of Moses. We are not referring only to those, who like the Jews accept only the Old Testament, but we are referring to anyone who professes to be a Christian, wearing the name of Christ, and yet relies upon the Old Testament as a source of authority in religious matters under this Christian dispensation. Some of the Galatian brethren were attempting to take a portion of Judaism, and intermix it with Christian teaching; thus they corrupted both. Paul said there are consequences of such a practice.

Consequence: Paul Labored in Vain

First of all, Paul said if they went back to the Law, he had bestowed labor upon them in vain. “Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye are in bondage to them that by nature are no gods; but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain” (Gal. 4:8-11). The apostle Paul had gone on evangelistic tours, and he inevitably went into the synagogue of the Jews to dispute with them, to try to persuade them that they should be amenable to the Gospel of Christ instead of the Law of Moses, since Christ had nailed the Law to His cross. These Galatians were some that he had been able to reach, and he had persuaded them to forsake the imperfect Law of Moses, and follow the perfect Savior of the World. His sacrifices had been immense that enabled him to go preach to these people. Now, they were on the brink of returning to the weak and beggarly rudiments of the Law from which Paul had labored to free them. If they went back to the Law, Paul had wasted his time and effort on them. He had worked in vain.

Consequence: They Suffered in Vain

A second consequence of going back under the Law was one personal to the Jews who were going back. They had suffered in vain. Paul said, “O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified? This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh? Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain” (Gal. 3:1-4). One of the reasons why some of the Jews, who had accepted the Gospel, were going back to the Law was persecution. Their former Jewish brethren, still under the Law, were making it rough on these Jews who had obeyed the Gospel. Paul rebuked the Hebrews for giving up, and going back to the Law without shedding their blood. He said, “Ye have not resisted unto blood, striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4). But why were these brethren suffering? Or why had they already suffered so much? It was merely because they had left Judaism and had become Christians. Now, if they already had suffered for being Christians, and were now going to give up their Christianity for Judaism and the Law, they suffered in vain. They should have just remained Jews, religiously, and averted any persecution. But there are consequences far more serious than these of going back to the Law. To these we now turn.

Consequence: Christ Profits Nothing

A third consequence of going back to the Law of Moses is stated in Galatians 5. Paul said, “For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing” (Gal. 5:1,2). To go back under the Law is to forfeit the profit we have through Christ. This is a most serious consequence, yet the vast majority of religious people today go back to the Law of Moses for authority in religious matters. Circumcision is a part of the Old Testament Law, so in receiving circumcision, they were giving up the blessing they enjoyed through Christ. Paul taught that if they could be saved by observing the Law, or by living as best they could under the Law, the death of Christ was needless: “I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought” (Gal. 2:21).

The Jews had the Law of Moses long before Jesus Christ came to the earth. Now they are placed in the position of going back to that which they had before Christ died. If the Law of Moses could save them-if righteousness is of the Law-then Christ died for no good reason. If they can be saved by the Law, why was it necessary for God, in the fulness of times, to send His Son to die a horrible death on a cross?

One of the reasons why Christ died was to redeem us from the curse of the Law, and now these people, having once tasted the goodness of the grace of God, want to go back under the Law. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). Now if Christ died to redeem us from the curse of the Law, and they were to go back under the Law, so far as these individuals are concerned Jesus’ death was to no avail. The course of the Law was that it condemned all those who lived under it, for all sinned, and no forgiveness could be had under the Law without the death of Christ. Jesus died for the salvation of those under the Law, as well as for us in the Christian age. Heb. 9:15 reads, “And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, they have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” So if there was no curse under the Law, Christ died for nought. And if they now went back to the Law, so far as they were concerned, Christ still died for no good reason. Let us again read Gal. 5:2,3: “Behold I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

The fourth consequence of going back under the Law is that one is a debtor to do the whole Law. Paul said if one received circumcision, he is a debtor to do the whole Law (Gal. 5:2,3). The reasoning back of this statement simply is that one cannot be justified both by the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. It has got to be by one or the other. If one chooses to give up the blessed promises of the Gospel in exchange for the Old Testament system, he must completely forfeit any blessing based on Christ, and rely solely on the Law of Moses. But under the Law of Moses, the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, therefore if one is to be saved by the Law, he must do the whole Law.

Notice carefully, friends, what Paul said. He declared that if one tried to bind circumcision, one part of the Law, he was morally obligated to keep the whole Law. This principle is equally as applicable today. If one wants to bind the Sabbath (Saturday) worship upon himself or any other, he is obligated to keep all the other portions of the Law. If one is going to cite the Old Testament usage of mechanical instruments of music as his authority for their use today, Paul said, “he is a debtor to do the whole law.” This means, if you are giving up the Gospel authority in one instance, you have staked your hope of eternal life on the Law of Moses instead of on Jesus Christ. Therefore to be saved by the Law, one must keep all the Law’s ordinances, so do the whole Law.

If we could get people to realize this one principle, certainly they would not argue that anything done in the Old Testament worship is permissible in New Testament worship. If one takes one thing from the Law, he is obligated to do the whole Law.

The fifth and final point which Paul made as a consequence of going back to the Law is found in Galatians 5:4, the very next verse from the ones we have just read: “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.” Notice he said that if you try to be justified by the Law, you are severed from Christ and fallen from grace. What does it mean to be severed from Christ? Jesus Christ is life. John said, “in him was life and the life was the light of men” (Jno. 1:4). Now to go back to the Law is to be cut off from Christ, or severed from Christ. So to be severed from Christ is to be severed from life. It is to be lost. He emphasized this point by saying that to try to be justified by the Law is to be fallen from grace.

There is a prominent religious organization that teaches that once one becomes a child of God, it is impossible for that person to so sin as to be eternally lost in hell. They express this doctrine by saying, “once in grace, always in grace.” But Paul not only said it is possible to fall from grace, but he declared that if a fellow tries to be justified by the Law, or should try to justify his actions by referring to the Old Testament, not only is it possible for such an individual to fall from grace, but he already has fallen. To go back to the Law of Moses is to fall from grace and to fall from grace is to be lost.

In conclusion let us review the five consequences, as stated by Paul, of going back to the Law of Moses: (1) Paul’s labor had been in vain (Gal. 4:8-11); (2) They had suffered in vain (Gal. 3:1-4); (3) Christ will profit nothing (Gal. 5:2); (4) Ye are debtor to do the whole Law (Gal. 5:3); (5) Ye are severed from Christ and fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). May God help us to remember these points from God’s Word when we are tempted to cite the Old Testament in justification for our practice in the New Testament era.

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 3-5
March 18, 1976

By William V. Beasley

For me to confess simply, “I have sinned” would not really be noteworthy to any who reads and believes the Bible. Concerning the alien Paul said, “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23), and to his “little children” (Christians) John wrote, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). In the same context we are admonished to “confess our sins” (1 John 1:9).

While I do not believe the backslider must publicly acknowledge specific sins when he returns to his first love, it is, if my understanding is correct, specific sins when James said, “Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed” (Jas. 5:16). It is in this private, specific confession of sins “one to another” we so often fail.

A little discretion is in order. Do not place a stumbling block before the weak, or a temptation before the brother or sister who may gossip. A penitent confession taken out of context would be a “juicy tidbit” to the one who goes about as a busybody (1 Pet. 4:15).

Yes, it is hard, at first, to acknowledge specific sins. Our pride gets in the way. It is even hard for many to confess specific sins to God. Oh yes, we pray, “God, forgive me for I have sinned.” But how often do we pray, “Forgive me for lusting, for lying, for speeding (yes, it is a sin – Rom. 13:1-7), for evil surmising, etc.?”

No, God does not need us to tell Him what we have done; He already knows. We need to confess our sins that we may be forgiven. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). May God help us to so do!

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 2
March 18, 1976