Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

From such passages as 1 Cor. 15:42 and 1 Thess. 4:15 we know that there will be Christians living on the earth when the Lord comes. The writer of the Hebrew letter says we have received a kingdom “which cannot be moved” (Heb. 12:28). Whatever benefits earthly governments may be able to bestow, whether lucrative positions or pauper’s pensions, they are necessarily temporal and confined to this world. My mother was receiving an old-age assistance check each month when it became my sad duty to inform the proper authorities that she had passed from this life. No more checks came. She had passed beyond the reach of any earthly government to either help or harm. But the “kingdom which cannot be moved” knows no such boundary as death. “Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:8).

In view of these well known facts, it would seem that members of the church would be more interested in prayer than in politics; more concerned about truth than taxes. But such is not always the case. A sizeable crowd of church members I have known are more concerned about liberalism in the government than they are about liberalism in the church. They will fight about their politics, but they couldn’t care less about the error and apostasy that threatens the church. They can get as mean as an acre of snakes with a fellow who disagrees with their political philosophy, but with teachers of error in the Lord’s church they are as gentle as an autumn breeze.

We need to be concerned about the church in every place, from the largest churches in the largest cities to the tiny struggling group in the far-flung reaches of civilization. Our first consideration should be, of course, to the congregation of which we are a part. And this concern should be positive as well as negative. We don’t build and strengthen churches by merely fighting error. Truth has a positive side. You don’t grow a garden by merely keeping the weeds down. The seed must be planted and the growth cultivated. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom. Let us see that it is planted and nurtured, and God will give the harvest.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, p. 792
December 16, 1976

By Bob Felkner

“Once Saved, Always Saved”

I am not a Baptist because Baptists are wrong when they teach that once a person is saved he cannot be lost. The Baptist book declares: “When a person believes unto salvation, he is saved forever” (Joe T. Odle, Why I am a Baptist, p. 99). Although that is not true, the Baptists try to support their doctrine by quoting a couple of scriptures. But the Catholics quote a few scriptures to justify their pope too, don’t they? You will also remember that the devil quoted scriptures when he tempted Jesus (Matt. 4:6). Baptists, Catholics, and the devil are all guilty of perverting the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).

Baptists misunderstand John 10:27-29, which says:”My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” The key word in this passage is “pluck,” and it means, “to seize” or “snatch” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 190). No one can seize or snatch a disciple from the Lord any more than they can force him into becoming a disciple. Obedience and disobedience are voluntary actions (Rom. 6:16). The grace of the Lord provides adequate protection to all who seek it, and no outside power can destroy this security. However, a person can voluntarily disobey just as he can voluntarily obey. This is why we are warned: “Take heed brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God” (Heb. 3:t2). Baptists do not truly believe in this scripture, for they teach that brethren are “saved forever.” This passage was addressed to “brethren” who could have fallen away, but Baptists claim that their brethren cannot fall away. What a great difference we see between Baptist doctrine and the doctrine of Christ!

It is comforting to know that nothing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39). Unfortunately, Baptists find false comfort in these scriptures. There is absolutely nothing here that supports the idea of “once saved, always saved.” Baptists should remember that God loved us even while we were in sin: “But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). God loved us, and He made it possible for us to be saved through the gift of His son. Although nothing can separate us from the love God has for us, we can commit sin and become alienated (Isa. 59:2). We can be separated from God without being separated from the love of God. But when we consider the context of Romans 8:38-39, we must conclude that the “love of God” refers to the love that we have for God. The point that Paul makes here is that no outside force can compel us to stop loving God. If we stop loving God, it will be a voluntary act rather than something that was forced upon us.

It is evident that the Baptists are wrong on this matter, for the scriptures teach that a person is saved if he is faithful until death (Rev. 2:10). Salvation is a conditional gift, and if we fail to meet the conditions, we will not receive the gift. We are informed that “the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” but “all men” will not enjoy the benefits of God’s grace (Tit. 2:11). If we are to receive the benefits of God’s grace, we must continue to deny “ungodliness and worldly lust” and “we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world” (Tit. 2:12). The only way to remain saved is to remain faithfultherefore, we must be diligent to make our “calling an~ election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). Paul shows that salvation is conditional when he speaks of the gospel “by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain” (1 Cor. 15:12). There is a very real possibility of “falling away from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). Baptists, therefore, are wrong when they proclaim the impossibility of apostasy. They teach that a Christian cannot fall from the grace of God and be lost, but let me direct your thoughts to what the New Testament teaches. The book of Galatians was addressed to the churches of Galatia; therefore, the warnings and instructions in that book were meant for church members. Paul wrote to them and said: “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Now, if those people had been “saved forever,” how could they have been “severed from Christ”? And the old cliche that claims “they were never saved in the first place” cannot be supported, because these people had to be united with Christ before they could become “severed from Christ.” Also, they had to be in God’s grace before they could fall away from it. From this, I hope you can see why I am not a Baptist.

“Almost thou persuadest me to be a . . . “

Baptists are wrong when they conclude that the Bible makes Baptists. From the Baptist book, we hear the following statements: “The Bible has’a tendency to turn men toward the Baptist position” (Odle, p. 94). “I believe that anybody who gets hold of a New Testament, reads it, and obeys it is very likely to come out of that experience a Baptist” (Odle, p. 24) . . . . . . every doctrine of the New Testament is Baptist doctrine” (Odle, p. 93).

It would be nice for them if they could turn to Acts 26:28 and read, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Baptist.” But they cannot read that in the New Testament; furthermore, they cannot read of anyone ever being “a Baptist.” John, the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth, was known as “the Baptist,” not “a Baptist.” He was called this because he was “the baptiser” or the one who baptized (Mk. 6:14, 24, ASV). He was not a Baptist preacher, and he was not a member of the Baptist church, but it does mention the church that Christ built. John the Baptist was never a member of the church that Christ built because he was dead before it was established. In Matthew 14:10, we read that Herod “beheaded John in the prison,” and in Matthew 16:18 (two chapters later), Jesus promised to build the church. John was never a member of the Baptist Church, and Paul never persuaded anyone to become a Baptist, and that is why I am not a Baptist. I had rather be a member of the church that Christ built and wear the name that shows my relationship to Him. The apostle Peter said, “if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16, ASV).

The doctrine of the New Testament is not Baptist doctrine; it is the doctrine of Christ. The warning is: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9). The doctrine that produces Baptists is not the doctrine of Christ, and the “gospel” that Baptists preach is different from the gospel of Christ. Paul said: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9). Baptists are guilty of preaching doctrines other than that which the apostles preached, and that is why I am not a Baptist.

Denominationalism (Division)

Baptists are wrong when they endorse denominationalism. From the pen of a Baptist, we read: “At this point I might add that I am a denominationalist. I have never had any temptation to shed my denominational loyalties for a wider ecumenicalism” (Odle, p. 46). When a Baptist says he is a denominationalist, he is confessing membership in an unscriptural organization. During New Testament times, there was no such thing as a denomination. The term “denomination” itself suggests division, and anyone who endorses denominationalism encourages division. The inspired apostles taught the same truth “everywhere in every church” (1 Cor. 4:14). Jesus promised to build only one church, and He gave no authority for any kind of division (Matt. 16:18). Instead of telling people to join the church of their choice, He prayed for unity (Jn. 17:21). Politically speaking, religious freedom is good, but Jesus never authorized men to establish their own churches. He said He would build His church, and He did; therefore, any religious body other than the church of Christ is unscriptural. This is not a narrow-minded view; it is what the New Testament clearly teaches. Jesus built the church (Matt. 16:18); He purchased it with His blood (Acts 20:28), and He is the savior of it (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18). He is not the builder, purchaser, or savior of denominational churches. True Christians are non-denominational, and they have no “denominational loyalties.” Their allegiance is with Christ instead of seminary professors and the doctrines of men (Matt. 15:9).

All attempts to defend donominationalisin are futile. Some sectarians think of the seven churches of Asia as “the seven original denominations” (Rev. 1:4). Of course, there is absolutely no basis for such presumptuous thinking. The Psalmist said: “Keep back thy servant also from presumptous sins” (Psa. 19:13). The seven churches of Asia were local congregations that belonged to Christ. They were all known as “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). But some folks will argue that “all denominations are churches of Christ.” A perversion of John 15:5 is sometimes used to justify such claims. However, when Jesus said, “I am the vine, ye are the branches,” He was speaking to individuals rather than denominations. A study of the immediate context will support this view. Verse six clearly shows that individuals are branches in the vine. Jesus said: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” Jesus spoke of “a man,” not “a denomination.” There is nothing in the New Testament that justifies denominationalism, and that is another reason why I am not a Baptist.

“Joining” the Church

Baptists are wrong when they speak of joining the church. One Baptist said: “I joined the church at eight years of age, but 1 had been a professing Christian in my heart long before that” (Odle, p. 44). Although some Baptists will scoff at this point, it is still a matter of distinction between the two churches. In New Testament times, when people obeyed the gospel, they were “added to the church” (Acts 2:41,47). Since I cannot read in the scriptures where anyone ever became a member of the Baptist Church, and since the Baptist Church is not even mentioned in the scriptures, I have decided that I should not be a Baptist.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why I am not a Baptist. I have discussed only a few of those reasons, but I am convinced that enough has been said to show the distinction between being a Baptist and being a Christian. Baptist words and Baptist doctrines have been compared with the words of the New Testament, and there is an impressive difference between them. I have attempted to make an honest presentation of the truth. If Baptists will be just as honest in their acceptance of this truth, they will cease to be Baptists. I will admit that I have been hard on Baptist doctrine, but I cannot apologize for it. I am unable to find a pleasant way of destroying falsehood. I agree with the Baptist preacher who said: “This day in which we live, beloved brothers and sisters, is no day for dillydallying, or shillyshalling, by mealymouthed preachers. It is the day of all days for no stammerer in the pulpit or an insipid, spineless, and convictionless Christian in the pew” (Odle, p. 117). It would be difficult to respect a man who would not preach his convictions, and I could not respect myself if I did not preach mine. I am not ashamed to say that the gospel condemns Baptist doctrine. The apostle Paul set the example when he said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16). If I preached doctrines I could not defend, 1 would be ashamed, and that is why I am not a Baptist.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 790-792
December 16, 1976

By Daniel H. King

Albert Schweitzer is a perfect example of the intellectual, philosophical and practical progression which takes place when the Bible is sold down the river to liberalism. I do not mean to cast any reflection upon Schweitzer’s intellect, scholarly ability, love for his fellow man, or put in question the genuineness or sincerity of the beloved doctor and his contribution to the fight against human suffering. Schweitzer was a brilliant man. Furthermore, he was enterprising and philanthropic. He would have succeeded in any field of endeavor for these reasons. Unknown to many is the fact that before he won acclaim in the fields of theological studies and humanitarianism, young Schweitzer was internationally recognized as an organ player, organ-builder, and student of Bach. In 1906, he published a volume on German and French Art in Organ-Building and Organ-Playing, and later the same year he set forth a monograph on Johann Sebastian Bach which remains to this day the seminal work in the field. His organ recitals were so popular that he later supported his medical hospital in Africa by them.

While still young, however, Schweitzer turned to the pious and meditative life of the scholar and cleric. This in spite of his conspicuous ability in the area of music. His deep faith in God and desire to do Him service motivated his decision. He was the eldest son of an Evangelical Lutheran pastor, and the earlier formative years under the influence of one inspired by faith in the Bible had left its imprint.

But in the process of his preparative studies in theology and philosophy at the University of Strassburg, young Albert began to formulate and express radical views-views that now would be very much in vogue in most intellectual circles, but which then were known to be heretical and destructive to biblical faith and doctrine. Nevertheless, Schweitzer’s brilliance was not to be denied its due honor, even though his views were unorthodox, and he was presented the Doctor of Philosophy degree upon the receipt of his dissertation, “The Religious Philosophy of Kant.” Schweitzer served as an unsalaried lecturer at the University after his graduation, worked as an administrator and teacher, and preached for the Strassburg church. He authored numerous books on New Testament themes forwarding his liberal ideas and building his reputation. In 1906 he wrote The Quest of the Historical Jesus, wherein he interpreted Jesus not as a timeless figure whose message is as significant today as it was in his time, but as a Jew concerned with problems pertinent to his own particular time and place. But preaching and theologizing did not provide fulfillment for the young theologian and philosopher. Could it have been that somewhere along the way he lost the only thing that was worth preaching, as well as the only thing that made preaching worthwhile – his faith? I think the answer to this question ties in the direction which his life took afterward. He worked toward and earned a degree as a Medical Doctor and gave his life in service to the sick and suffering of the human race, particularly in French Equatorial Africa. In other words, the emphasis of his life and work turned from the intended business of saving human souls to that of saving human lives, from spiritual to physical service and from that which he once esteemed as eternal in consequence to that that he knew to be only temporal.

Is there a progression here that we may determine to he usual and characteristic and that can be seen in the religious leaders and movements about us? I think there is. When [hey lose their faith in the Bible and take their eyes off heaven, then they are left with only one level upon which to view things, the earthly, physical, temporal plane. Mari becomes the apple of their eye and the orchard the extent of their vision. We may compliment Schweitzer that he did not choose to waste his life in the extreme sensuality of hedonism, but we must not lose sight of the fact that his was a form of carnality-no less earthly, no less physical, and no less lemporal. We do not challenge the worthiness of the great doctor. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952 for his activities as a medical missionary in the Congo, and though we spurn his theology as despicable, yet his philanthropy was certainly meritorious. His personal sacrifice and selfless service is a noteworthy example of humanitarian principles in application. But Schweitzer’s retreat from the spiritual to the physical sphere of service is also exemplary. The esteemed physician threw out the baby and kept the bath water. Increasingly, ministers and churches have turned their attention from the commission of Christ to prepare men and women for heaven by conversion, baptism, and instruction (Matt. 28:18f f) to a “Christian Humanitarianism” suited only to making their lot a little easier while occupying this doomed planet. A lack of respect for the Bible comparable to the “Anschauung” of Dr. Schweitzer is the common denominator in it all. When it is conceded that man is lacking that spark of eternality which the Bible guarantees him, then what is there left to preach, and what to prepare for?

T. B. Larimore once wrote to a young preaching student, “The way to preach is to preach. Just get full of spirit and truth and turn yourself loose. As a good old brother once expressed it, ‘Just fill the barrel full, knock the bung out, and let ‘er come? That’s the way to preach.” A preacher who has sold the Bible down the river to liberalism is an empty barrel. Can we learn an unwitting lesson from Schweitzer?

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 789-790
December 16, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Much of the book of Acts deals with Paul’s efforts to expand the borders of God’s spiritual kingdom, the church. It tells of his efforts in cities far and near. It clearly pictures his trials, and persecutions. It tells of those converted by his preaching, and of those who rejected his teaching. Three weeks ago we studied from Acts 24 the account of the “Nonconversion of Felix.” This lesson we want to study another case of non-conversion. We are studying about a king by the name of Agrippa. The account may be read in Acts 26.

Background

You will remember that the Jews in Jerusalem rebelled against the preaching of Paul, and tried to destroy him as they had Him who was Paul’s example, Jesus the Christ. They sought Paul’s life, so that it became necessary for Paul’s to be sent to Caesarea to prevent the Jews from killing him without a trial. While in Caesarea Paul had gone before Felix and had sought to get him to repent, but in vain. Meanwhile Felix had been replaced by a man named Festus. Felix and his wife Drusilla had been sent into a distant land. When Festus became the Roman procurator, he found that Felix had left Paul in prison. The Jews readily appealed to Festus to sentence Paul to death. But Paul had appealed to the highest Judicial assembly in the Roman empire, Caesar. Nevertheless, Festus called Paul before him, but could find him guilty of nothing worthy of death, or even of bonds.

Later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesara and Festus asked Agrippa to listen to Paul. Here was Festus’ predicament: He was sending Paul to Rome to be tried before Caesar, and absurdly enough, Festus had not a single charge to make against Paul. Festus told Agrippa that the Jews were asking death of Paul, but he said: “I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death: and as he himself appealed to the emperor I determined to send him. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my Lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, king Agrippa, that, after examination had, 1 may have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not to signify the charges against him” (Acts 25:25-27).

Paul’s Audience

So Festus wanted Agrippa to help him ascertain what charge should be sent with Paul as he went to Rome. So Paul was brought before such an august assembly. Luke, the writer of the book of Acts says, “So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains and the principal men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought in.” This was probably the greatest assembly, from a secular standpoint, to which Paul was ever privileged to preach the gospel.

Two people in Paul’s audience are worthy of special notation. Festus was not at all touched by the truths preached by Paul. Festus had replaced Felix, as we have mentioned before. “But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds” (Acts 24:27). To Festus, Paul was but another step in his quest for greater political power. If he could handle Paul fairly or dishonestly, he was willing to do so to better himself. In telling Agrippa about the Jew’s request for Paul’s death, Festus indicated his complete ignorance of Jesus Christ. In speaking of these Jews, Festus said: “When therefore they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded the man to be brought. Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him of their own religion, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive” (Acts 25:17, 18). Notice the vague expressions in Festus’ language. Paul was accused of declaring that “one Jesus” was raised from the dead. Poor Festus was wholly ignorant of anything about Jesus the Savior. He obviously had been so engrossed in his political affairs that he never had taken the time to investigate seriously the Christ. There are millions of people over this country today who are so entangled in the affairs of the world, that they never seek the truth.

But in Agrippa we see a quite different person. Who was Agrippa? He is the only son of the Herod who beheaded the apostle James. When his father was eaten of worms so that he died, young Agrippa was but seventeen years old. He was the great nephew of the Herod who beheaded John the Baptist. He was the great grandson of Herod who sought the life of the Christ, and who in this attempt, had the innocent babes of Bethlehem slain in a futile effort to destroy Jesus. He was the great nephew of Herod before whom Jesus was arrayed in a purple robe and mocked. He was a man well acquainted with the events connected with Jesus’ life. At this time he was yet a relatively young man only about thirty years of age, but had the title of king.

Paul must have been quite surprised when the message came to him that young King Agrippa wanted to hear him concerning the faith in Jesus Christ. It would likely have been no surprise to Paul had he been told that Agrippa would like to see him beheaded, for so had been the actions of all his ancestors. Paul certainly was very thankful that there was a possibility of saving one of this family who had done so much to hinder the cause of Christ.

Paul’s Sermon

The entire content of Paul’s sermon seems directed at this young King Agrippa. Paul began by saying, “I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: whereof I beseech thee to hear me patiently” (Acts 26:2, 3).

Paul’s effort was to make a point of contact with Agrippa. He told of his past life. Paul said that he was a Pharisee, one of the strictest sect of the Jews religion. Paul was saying that at one time I was a Jew in faith just as these, my accusers are. Not only was Paul a Pharisee, but he was a fiery persecutor of the church in Jerusalem before his conversion. Paul told Agrippa that before his conversion to Christianity, “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Narzareth. And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them. And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities” (Acts 26:9-11). Paul went on to tell Agrippa that even at the time the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him, he was on the way to Damascus to find any saints he could, bind them, and bring them back to Jerusalem for persecution.

This must have really set Agrippa to thinking. He must have thought, “This man once thought and acted like my father, and grandfather did toward this one Jesus.” Certainly he was impressed with Paul’s sincerity and honesty for one would not have purposely told the story that could cost him his life if he were not sincere in it. But Paul, regardless of personal costs to himself, was intent on winning this young king to Christ if he oossibly could. So he related the story of Christ’s apearance to him while on the way to Damascus. Many scholars have expressed a belief that this is the greatest sermon Paul ever preached. Paul concluded this great discourse by saying, “Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say would come; how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim the light both to the people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22, 23).

Festus had been sitting there and listening to what Paul had spoken to Agrippa and had listened to about all he could stand. In modern parlance, we would say Paul was “stepping on Festus’ toes.” So in retaliation to what Paul had spoken, Festus interrupted Paul’s sermon by crying out with a loud voice, “Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad” (Acts 26:24). Festus’ explanation for the marvelous events transpiring in the life of the apostle was that Paul was going crazy. You have studied too long. This event has been reenacted thousands of times. Some preacher of the Gospel of Christ declares something that hits someone, or something that they do not believe, and rather than measure what is spoken in the light of truth, they try to discredit the speaker. Oh, he is just an ignoramus, or a fanatic. But, this attitude is no more acceptable to God today than it was when Festus employed these tactics.

Paul virtually ignored Festus’ statement and went back to work trying to save the King. Paul said, “I am not mad, most excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner.” Paul seemed unimpressed by Festus’ insinuation, for he had a greater work of trying to persuade this king.

Effect of the Sermon

Paul had taught Agrippa to the place where he was in position to obey what he had heard. Paul asked, “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian” (Acts 26:27, 28). The King James Version quotes Agrippa as saying, “almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Probably Agrippa could hardly realize that Paul had so nearly persuaded him to say that father and grandfather were wrong in persecuting the cause of this one, Jesus.

This is a tragic situation. Here was a man that has been touched by the Gospel, almost persuaded, but instead of listening again, he turned and walked away. The Bible says, “And the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them,” and they departed from Paul’s presence.

Are there not many people who have studied with us from time to time that are “almost persuaded”? In Agrippa we find a case of “near conversion.” Are there not other cases of near conversion in our world? One can walk away from the preaching of the Gospel today, but in judgment, the righteous decrees of Christ will still be there to judge him, and he can only walk away to enter into eternal punishment. If you are almost persuaded, I say with Paul, would to God that you were not almost, but altogether persuaded to become a Christian. Agrippa was almost persuaded, but only being almost persuaded, he was lost. Almost persuaded people are in no better condition than those not touched by God’s truth at all. Agrippa was in the same lost condition as Festus. If you are almost persuaded, become altogether persuaded, and obey the Gospel of Christ. An almost persuaded person is no Christian at all.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 787-789
December 16, 1976