Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

A good fight for the faith has been waged in stemming and stunting the cancerous growth of a new unity movement. The efforts of many faithful brethren have, for the moment at least, successfully stifled the progress of Calvinism and denominationalism among Christians. All the faithful should be thankful for the public and private efforts of those who have fought so vigorously and valiantly against a compromising denominationalizing spirit that would disown and dethrone the doctrine of the Lord. Ketchersidian conclusions and Fudgian philosophies would have made greater havoc if they had gone unchecked and unopposed. But they were, thank God, checked and opposed. Carl Ketcherside has embraced alien, Baalian brethren. He still loves those who earnestly contend for the faith once delivered, he avers, but those same contenders are the only ones he makes unloving faces at in his writings and rantings. Otherwise, it is smile and pass the sugar, my dear brother. Mournfully, Brother Edward Fudge courts and curries the favor of sectism with his and Calvin’s imputed righteousness of Christ doctrine. We have been counseled thusly: (1) That if one’s convictions lead him into corruptions of the work, worship, and organization of the church, he is not severed from Christ; so, he should not be shunned by those who remain in the New Testament mold; (2) That societies to do the work of the church and instrumental music do not stand in the way of fellowship with God; no, rather, it is our opposition to such things that has kept us apart from the Christian Church and other “evangelicals.” If we will but cease to condemn such items, we can then seek a “re-approachment.” At least, that is how we were advised, but the advice was not taken. As a result, many have been saved from death in error (Jas. 5:19; 2 Pet, 3:17). Many more doubtless would have been overcome if numerous, nameless brethren had not taken a stand for the truth as it is in Jesus.

Is It Time To Relax?

So, what next? Where to now? Do not think those who advocate and propagate softness and false teaching are through. They are not. Certain events have forced a revisement and retrenchment of their efforts, but they are not wiped out. Where will they launch their next attack? What means and methods under the general guise of good words and fair speeches will they employ to destroy fundamentals of the faith? I do not know. This one thing I do know, however, and that is they will return. This is not the time for glorying and gloating as if all the grapples for truth had been won. The enemy is temporarily regrouping. He is not vanquished. Watch, therefore, for we know not the day nor the hour of his return.

The very spirit and disposition of the new unity movement is too much in tune with the times to be killed so easily and quickly. Signal sentiments tell those who are aware that the peace at any price doctrine is too soothing and serene to be ignored. Among those who stand for the truth, a weariness of battle is a potential danger. Let no one be found drunk on the wine of seeming victory. Eternal vigilance is, as Jefferson correctly observed, the price of liberty, but it is also the cost of truth. Thus, there should be no moans, no hand-wringing complaints about “another preacher fuss” when the soldiers of denominational gospelism renew their campaign for peace in and with error. Expect them, for they will appear on the horizon. They will not have on the same uniforms, but their end, their ultimate goal, will remain essentially unchanged. That end is the end of speaking as the oracles of God.

Let us hear no griping, groaning, and grumbling. Gravely pick up your scabbard, draw your sword, the word of God, attach your shield of faith, put on the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, the shoes of the gospel, and the girdle of truth. Then, and only then, stand, and having done all, stand.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, p. 795
December 16, 1976

By Lewis Willis

“There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish” (Lk. 13:1-5).

New Testament Christianity is a system of faith and practice that is predicated upon sound, solid, Scriptural reasoning and argumentation. It is not a weak, unintelligible form of activity that is susceptible to many varied, conflicting interpretations. Thus, the passing years have presented to a wicked world certain points of argumentation that are designed to convince and convert. Much of this argumentation is the product of the thinking of pioneer preachers who fought a valiant fight for Truth in another century. All too frequently, those arguments have been accepted and used without any thought being given to personally validate them with the Scriptures. This article concerns itself with one such consideration. For years, to show the essentiality of repentance unto salvation, we have quoted Luke 13:3,5. Above, you can read the first five verses of that chapter. Does the Lord have reference to the ultimate perishing of the soul? Or, is He concerned with a physical perishing of the Jews? Could we be guilty of using the passage out of its context? Does the case for repentance rest upon this passage and this alone? The answer to this last question is “No” (cf. Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9). The necessity of repentance is clearly established in these passages, so that Luke 13:3 is not pivotal regarding this human responsibility. And, certainly no one wishes to use a passage in a manner not intended. If someone should endeavor to use the passage through “principle application,” it would be acknowledged that such is certainly done with efficacy regarding Old Testament events. However, let us be advised to understand the principle involved so that we use the passage “aright.”

The events referred to in Luke 13 occurred about 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem. So, the time was about 30 A.D.(1) Four years earlier, Pontius Pilate had been appointed ruler of Judea.(2) He soon found himself in a running feud with the Jews. For some time he had left the ornaments of his military at his headquarters in Caesarea since the Jews did not want Jerusalem profaned with their presence. But, alas, Pilate decided to move them to Jerusalem. It was Roman custom to inscribe shields of war with insignia of animals and the bust of the Emperor. The Jews considered this idolatry and refused the presence of such in the Holy City. But Pilate “ordered the new regiments to enter the city by night with the offensive emblems on their standards, and Jerusalem awoke to see idolatrous symbols planted within sight of the Temple.”(3) The Jews counseled how this outrage might be removed. Mobs went to Caesarea to entreat Pilate to remove the offense. But, Pilate refused. For five days and nights the Jews continually surrounded his palace, raising the same cry that the emblems be removed. On the seventh day, he met with them, but he had stationed soldiers around the people. “When the Jews began to raise their mutinous cries again, on his refusing to yield, he ordered the troops to enter with drawn swords. But he had miscounted their fanatical earnestness. Baring their throats, and kneeling as if to meet the sword, the multitude cried out that they would rather part with their life than their Law. Pilate, dreading the anger of the Emperor if he commanded a wholesale massacre, had to yield, and the standards were withdrawn from Jerusalem. The power of Pilate over the people was henceforth broken. They had conquered his will by stronger wills of their own. From this time they knew how to extort concessions from him. Persistent clamor, that would take no refusal, was, henceforth, their most trusted reliance, as we see only too strikingly in he last hours of Jesus.(4) Galileans were always liable to get involved in any political trouble that might arise, because they were a highly inflammable people.(5) Pilate was always ready to shed the blood of a people he hated, and the hot-headed Galileans, ever ready to take affront at the hated infidels, gave him only too many excuses for violence.(6)

It was in this explosive atmosphere that Pilate proposed building a water conduit in Jerusalem to replace the old system which no longer served the needs of the city. He sought and received the sanction of the Jewish authorities for this modernization program. But, he made one miscalculation. “As the Temple was to be benefitted, he naturally thought that he might defray the expense from its treasury, forgetting that the money was Corban, or consecrated to God.”(7) When word of his intentions spread like wild fire through the city, a frantic cry rose that the Temple was to be plundered by the Romans. Thousands stormed the palace to repeat the tactics of Caesarea. But, Pilate had time to make ready for the mob on this occasion. He had scattered soldiers, dressed as Jews, throughout the mob. As soon as the tumultuous cries began, the soldiers rose up against the Jews and left many of them lying in the streets severly wounded. “The very precincts of the Temple were invaded by the legionaries, and some pilgrims who were so poor that they were slaying their own sacrifices, were struck down . . . . their blood mingling with that of the beasts they were preparing for the priests . . . “(8) It was an unprecedented outrage, and it filled every Jewish heart with wild indignation. The excitement even penetrated the palace of Herod, kindling bitter feelings toware Pilate, for those pilgrims Pilate had killed were Herod’s Galilean subjects, It was that massacre of Galileans that the Lord was asked about in Luke 13. Some conjecture that it was shortly after this, when work on the water conduit had almost reached the Pool of Siloam, that the tower there fell, and killed eighteen men.(9)

The Conclusion Drawn By The Jews

There is no contextual indication that the inquiry about the Galileans and the 18 who perished in the failing of the tower, was designed to entrap the Lord, as on many other occasions during His ministry. It was a barbaric act of sacrilegious cruelty committed by Pilate and it was a sample of the corruptions and iniquity prevailing under Roman domination. However, Jesus neither endorsed nor condemned the acts. “But knowing their thoughts he combats the opinion which is always the popular one, that sufferings are the consequence and therefore the evidence of excessive wickedness.”(10) They concluded, “If men might be safe anywhere, or at any time, it would be at the altar of God, and in the act of offering sacrifices to Him. But here, they would infer . . . there must have been some hidden enormous guilt, which turned the very sacrifices of these men into sin, – not a propitiation of God, but a provocation, – so that they themselves became peculiar expiations, their blood mingling with, and itself becoming part of, the sacrifices which they offered.”(11) “He by no means denies the intimate connection between natural and moral evil, but He disputes the infallible certainty of the assumption that every individual visitation is a retribution for individual transgressions, and does not concede to those who are witnesses of a judgment, the right . . . to permit themselves a conclusion as to their moral reprobacy.”(12) This was the same fallacy which prompted Eliphaz, in the long ago, to say to Job, “Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished ‘ being innocent?” (Job 4:7). The Saviour at least considers it necessary to contradict the erroneous conclusion that these Galileans were in any way stamped as greater sinners than all others by the judgment which had befallen them. Thus, he pronounces, “I tell you, nay. . . .” The word, “nay,” is translated from the Greek word, ouchi. It does not simply mean “no, not, expressing a negation absolutely.” But ouchi is an even stronger word. Thus, Jesus answers the error of the Jews with a strong expression of absolute negation.(13) So, even though these people perished, they were not greater sinners than anyone else. Which thought, of course, gave the Lord occasion to direct the thinking of these Jews back to themselves.

The Application Of Luke 13

He said, “But, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” “The Savior does not mean to say they shall perish in a similar, but that they shall perish in the same manner, namely, through the cruelty of the Romans . . . ” (My Emph., LW) (14) What had befallen these Galileans would soon be the doom of the whole nation, unless a great change transpired in the life of Israel, through repentance. This was His lesson to His countrymen, drawn from the calamities which befell others. “Jesus knew well that if the Jews went on with their intrigues, their rebellions, their plottings, their political ambitions, they were simply going to commit national suicide; He knew that in the end Rome would step in and obliterate the nation; and that is precisely what happened.”(15) Jesus had specific reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. He was calling them to repentance, to prevent the Messianic nation from extinction. Hence, the call to repentance and the threatened perishing had nothing to do with the alien sinner of our day. The destruction envisioned in Luke 13 was that of the Jewish nation, just as the destruction by water in Noah’s day was that of the Ante-diluvians. To apply either to the alien sinner today is a misapplication of the passage.

The Prediction Fulfilled

This treatise would be incomplete if it failed to deal with the fulfillment of that which the Lord foretold. In the parable of the barren fig tree which immediately follows this text, He told of a man who sought fruit of a fig tree for three years, and found none. He decided to cut it down because it was simply taking up space. The keeper of his vineyard sought permission to work with it another season, if perchance it might produce. If not, it could then be cut down. The extended period of growth was representative of God’s longsuffering with Israel! If she repented as the Lord commanded, her doom would not befall her. Otherwise, Israel would perish.

And perish, she did! The Romans laid seige to Jerusalem. Conditions became so severe that Josephus recounts an act of cannibalism. A certain rich woman became so destitute that she took her infant child and “roasted” him. Her deed was soon known by the people of the city because of the terrible scent of cooked, human flesh. The entire city was seized with horror and amazement.(16) No appeal from Titus could get Israel to surrender. Only total defeat would put the matter to rest. “So he gave orders to the soldiers both to burn and to plunder the City.(17) So many were killed that the Romans 11 made the whole city run down with blood, to such a degree, indeed, that the fire of many of the houses was quenched with these men’s blood.”(18) The city, was filled with native Jews and pilgrims from all over the world who came for the Passover feast. The estimate of those who perished or who were enslaved by Rome was 2,700,200.(19) From which destruction, the nation of Israel never recovered to be a significant entity in the purpose of God.

Conclusion

Anytime the things of the Kingdom come under attack, I feel compelled to insist upon a full explanation of this attack. Herein I have challenged the usual application of a much used passage of Scripture. I have used it often, and I have heard preachers all over the country use it in the same way as I have used it referring to the plan of salvation, citing Luke 13:3 to prove the necessity of repentance. 1 would not presume to tell you what to do in your use of this passage. I would ask your serious consideration of the material contained herein. But, as for me personally, I shall assume the position of Brother R. L. Whiteside who said, “A long time ago I repented of applying that scripture to those we now term alien sinners.”(20)

Endnotes

1. Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 16, Pt. 2, p. 20.

2. Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, Vol. 1, p. 279.

3. Ibid., p. 279.

4. Ibid., pp. 279-280.

5. Wm. Barclay, The Gospel of Luke, p. 177.

6. Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, Vol. 2, p. 166.

7. Geikie, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 279.

8. Geikie, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 167.

9. Geikie, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 281.

10. J. S. Lamar, New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 185.

11. R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables and Miracles, p. 268.

12. J. P. Lange, The Gospel According to Mark and Luke, Vol. 2, p. 211.

13. W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 3, p. 103.

14. Lange, op. cit., p. 212.

15. Barclay, op. cit., p. 178.

16. Josephus, Vol. 2, p. 425.

17. Ibid., p. 434.

18. Ibid., p. 439.

19. Ibid., p. 441.

20. R. L. Whiteside, Doctrinal Discourses, p. 371.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 793-795
December 16, 1976

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