Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

Brother John Waddey of Knoxville, Tennessee had an article in the September 1975 issue of First Century Christian entitled, ‘Anatomy Of An Anti.” Never in my life have I read so few lines with so many Unprovable Assertions. In fact, I am somewhat surprised that the editor of that journal printed it! However, usually every Naaman hangs on his own gallows-the gallows prepared for others (Esther 7:10). Brother Waddey says the Anti is an “alarmist, fearing that the church is apostatizing,” Again, he writes, “they are trying to save the church from this imagined apostasy.” His third charge is, “most all antis suffer from spiritual false pride.” His fourth, “they always suffer from a legalistic attitude toward their religion. They are more interested in rules than in the soul of men.” Again, he says, “the anti mind is addicted to mote hunting.” His ninth charge is, “Anti brethren are strongly opinionated.” Number eleven, “all antis love to forbid the church from practicing some good work or method of doing God’s will. It matters not to them that God has not prohibited it.” Number twelve, “when a man is of the anti bent he will sooner or later be involved in a factious strife within the church.” He additionally asserts that among the antis “funds are generally expended in attacking non-conforming brethren through radio broadcasts and journals, Rather than evangelize, they work as parasites.” In blind prejudice he exclaims, “they would rather see a congregation, or an entire mission effort, destroyed, rather than allow it to exist without accepting their views. This is true also of congregations here in the States.”

Waddey’s Choice

The virulent sayings in these worthless charges made by this brother cannot be proven true by him, against these brethren who demand Bible authority for congregational function, and he surely knows it. These are mere assertions made by him and he offers no proof whatsoever to substantiate them! The treacherous and serpentine efforts of Ahab to implicate Elijah as “he that troubleth Israel” is as reasonable and true as Brother Waddey’s wile, insidious charges (1 Kings 18:17ff). His charges remind one of the legendary kings of Corinth, Sisyphus, who, condemned to roll a heavy stone up a steep hill in Hades only to have it roll down again as it nears the top, He chooses to blame the wrong people for his problems, but we will not sit idly by and allow them to pass. Why did he not name someone and give us an account of his “anti” work? It was much easier for him to do what he did. His trouble is not created by those who call for Bible authority for congregational action, but, like Ahab, “thou and thy congregation. They did succeed in leading astray three families. The congregation is determined to carry on the Lord’s work, but they need help. They are surrounded by anti-congregations and preachers that are working unceasingly to destroy them. For over a year they have been trying to find a faithful preacher to move there and work with them. Is there a sound congregation somewhere that would send a strong preacher to help save this beleagured congregation? Is there a brother reading this who would accept the challenge? The Oil Valley brethren can supply about half of a family man’s salary. Monticello is a lovely, quiet town of about 5,000 in a farming area. It is an ideal place for a family to live. If you are interested in this needy mission work, please write or call John Waddey” (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 30, 1975, p. 79).

Though this “beleagured church” is “surrounded” by congregations and preachers who are working unceasingly, John declares it is a “Mission work.” Is he not the man “expending funds attacking the non-conforming brethren?” Is he not identified here in as “anti-bent”? Brother John, Paul is asking: “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” (Rom. 2:21). Would not this man rather see all these socalled anti churches” die if they do not accept the views of no rules”? Hopefully, the digressions of these brethren will be partial means of causing their, restoration (cf. Jer. 2:19).

Father’s house” are the troublers, said Elijah. Brother Waddey had the choice of honestly stating the position held by many Christians that the church of Christ is sufficient for the accomplishment of all work God gave it to do without its subsidization of human organizations to the performing of this work, and then showing by the word of God what is wrong with; or, making a great number of unprovable charges without the slightest trace of evidence to substantiate such. He chose the latter and subterfuge shows in every word!

His article smacks spiritual criminality. It reveals no understanding or acceptance of the fact that all actions of churches of Christ must be circumscribed by the word of God. He belittles “rules”. (divine authority), asserting that souls can be saved from sin apart from them. The power of God to save souls is the gospel of Christ and it is the only “rule” by which salvation is offfered to sinners. He would have us think the name of Christ is unimportant. But salvation is offered only in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:11,12). The “rules” by which this is offered, Brother Waddey, are “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). None can be saved without obeying these! Or can they? “Name” comes from nomos, and is defined, “In the New Testament a command, law; and 1. of any law whatsoever: Rom. 3:27; a law or rule producing a state approved of God, i.e. by the observance of which we are approved of God.” Men are made right with God through the name (law, authority) of Christ. Guidelines for salvation, Christian behaviour, and church action are essential. Without rules for action (individual or congregational) no action could ever be unruly. Yet, the word of God says, “Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing” (Phil. 3:16). Again, the apostle says, “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).

Beleaguered Church Needs Help

Let us see what further this brother has written: “Beleaguered church needs help. For the last two years I have been associated with the church at Oil Valley, near Monticello, Ky. They have a lovely new building and number about forty in attendance. In 1974 the anticooperation brethren tried to take over this congregation. They did succeed in leading astray three families. The congregation is determined to carry on the Lord’s work, but they need help. They are surrounded by anti-congregations and preachers that are working unceasingly to destroy them. For over a year they have been trying to find a faithful preacher to move there and work with them. Is there a sound congregation somewhere that would send a strong preacher to help save this beleaguered congregation? Is there a brother reading this who would accept the challenge? The Oil Valley brethren can supply about half a family man’s salary. Monticello is a lovely, quiet town of about 5,000 in a farming area. If you are interested in this needy mission work, please write or call John Waddey” (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 30, 1975, p. 79).

Though this “beleaguered church” is “surrounded” by congregation and preachers who are working unceasingly, John declares it is a “Mission work.” Is he not the man “expending funds attaching the non-conforming brethren?” Is he not identified here in as “anti-bent”? Brother John, Paul is asking: “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” (Rom. 2:21). Would not this man rather see these so-called “anti churches” die if they do not accept the views of “no rules”? Hopefully, the digressions of these brethren will be partial mans of causing their restoration (cf. Jer. 2:19).

Oil Valley Known By Me

The Oil Valley church is not unknown to me. I lived in Monticello for years and drove out to Oil Valley early Sunday mornings and preached. I know what I then preached, and I also know that those brethren asked me to return for meetings after I moved out of state, and 1 know what I preached in those meetings! In those days I knew what those brethren believed, if they believed what they often said to me, and I have no doubt concerning their honesty. They, having no services on Sunday evening, came to Monticello. They were respected and godly saints. Many of them are now gone from their labors. God bless their memory. In later years I have been called back for funerals of some of those saints-men who did the work of the Lord and whom I loved as dearly as any Christians I have ever known. I have been often times a guest in their homes and believe that I knew them and that they knew me. What Brother Waddey saw in his “Anatomy” was not what he thought he saw: his obsession for congregational actions without “rules” simply burst forth in this assertive vision he poured out upon a suffering brotherhood. In these words of Jesus, we say: “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee” (Lk. 19:22).

This church got itself a “strong preacher” as Waddey begged for in the Advocate article. As to his strength the record speaks for itself. See if the record does not reveal the fact of a “flip-flop” from church of Christ to Christian Church; from Christian Church to church of Christ! See further if some who have come to the aid of that “beleaguered church” see nothing wrong with instrumental music in worship. Yes, the record speaks for itself, Brother Waddey. The “attack (of) non-conforming brethren” through a journal (First Century Christian) is “parasitic” indeed! Brother John tells us the “antis” are willing to practice deceit in order to grab control of a congregation. I wonder what produced the change at Oil Valley? The Oil Valley agree with the stand set forth in Waddey’s article, which position it did not hold a few years ago, who and what brought about this change? Who taught Oil Valley it was “obligated to separate” itself from brethren? Brother Waddey, I remember when there was no such separation! The separation of Oil Valley from the other brethren in Wayne County came after John Waddy went there and became involved in “factious strife” within the Oil Valley church! Indeed, the very crimes he seeks to lay to the “Anti’s” charge are his own – his very own! Shame, shame, my brother!

Is Waddey An Anti?

Writing in the October 1975 issue of the First Century Christian, page 8, Brother Waddy directs some thoughts to “Christian Colleges and Church Budgets.” He loathes the very idea of churches’ contributing from their treasuries to the generaf support of our “Christian Colleges.” He tells us that the question as to whether churches should do this is a “perennial question,” Then he says, “To introduce this (church support to the schools, EER) into our brotherhood would most surely trigger a fight and a corisequent division. This should keep us from such a trend. Surely the peace and welfare of the church is more important than getting the colleges into the church treasuries.” He concludes his article saying, “May we not Jeopardize a harmonious and well-working relationship by an unwise and questionable attempt to put the colleges into the church budget.”

Is Brother John this far behind firne? Where has he been all his life? Brother Waddey, the question of churches’ supporting colleges is no more “perennial” than the acutal church support of them has been and is. Don’t you read what your brethren write on this matter? Churches do not conceal the fact that they are engaged in support of the Colleges-David Lipscomb and Freed-Hardeman are good examples.

“Ready Unto Every Good Work”

We call to Brother Waddey’s attention evidence from these two secular institutions which affirm the practice he alleges does not exist in fact, and the testimony of churches saying they do practice regular support to the schools. In a letter mailed out to churches all over the country Brother Batsell Barrett Baxter said, “Enclosed is a copy of a newspaper ad of the Charlotte Avenue church here in Nashville. I would particularly appreciate your taking the time to read this ad and especially my letter of appeal to the church of Christ. For over half a century this great Nashville church has contributed each year to our program of teaching the Bible. They have done this under the scrIptural authority of Titus 3:1, which admonishes Christians ‘to be ready unto every good work.’ Many congregations are now helping to defray the cost of teaching the Bible to the more than 3200 Lipscomb students every school day. Some give on a monthly basis, some by an annual contribution, and others give the entire contribution on a particular Sunday. I would like to ask you to seriously to consider helping us in one of these three ways as we endeavor to do this crucially important work. if the Christian colleges are to survive-and to remain Christian-the support of the church is absolutely necessary.” (Emphasis mine, EER). In the “President’s Report to Board of Directors” Athens Clay Pullias, President of Lipscomb, said their financial plans were to “secure in gifts from congregations $350,000, or more, each year to support the teaching of the Bible.” The Finanicial Report of the Central church in Nashville, April 30, 1976, under “Missionary” work, says it gave for that month 5100.00 to David Lipscomb College Bible Department; 550.00 to Columbia Christian College; $25.00 to Western Christian College. The Herald of Truth got 550.00, Brother Waddey, this is all “Missionary work.” This has the same character as your “Missionary work” at Oil Valley! Your objection to this church work is not, because you “suffer from spiritual false pride,” is it?

Many letters of appeal to the churches go out from Freed-Hardeman. In a letter, signed by Jess M. Wilcoxson, Director of Development, we quote: “In order that Freed-Hardeman College niay ccritinue to function in the role for whence it has endeared itself to the brotherhood, it is necessary that interested congregations be informed of the ways and means at their disposal in which they can continue to su.-pport the good work of Christian education.” He further writes, “As one of a thousand churches being asked to coiltribute $100.00 between now and January 1, 1972, you will be joining forces with other interested congregations in the furthering of the great cause of Christian education at Freed-Hardeman.” Brother E. Claude Gardner, President of this College, asked the church I worship with, in a letter dated November 14, 1975: “May I request that you join with other congregations in supporting the Bible department at Freed-Hardeman College on the FIFTH SUNDAY OF THIS MONTH.” He writes of the result of this appeal in another begging letter, February 2, 1976, saying, “We were pleased to have some good congregations respond to our request the last fifth Sunday,” Brother Waddey, do you really not know that this is the common practice of churches you style “the main stream?” I am not a prophet, but I do know some history, and 1 know that if this brother is sincere in this he is in for an inelegant awakening-by his own crowd!

His Reasons For His Antipathy

In a Johnny-Come-Lately fashion he says, “While we encourage loyalty to all faithfully operated schools, this must never lead us to misuse the Lord’s money.” He tells us the church support of Colleges “is not the God ordained work of the church.” To give such support he believes its “means to divert funds given for these high and holy pufposes (evangelism, benevolence and edification of the saints, Eph. 4:11-13) to such mundane things as athletics, social programs, dramatics, and a host of similar things that inhere in a college’s program. We do not condemn these things as such, only the Lord’s money being used to finance them.” So, with this brother, it is a matter of misusing the Lord’s money and that he must condemn the practice!

Will this “negative view” held by this brother lead him to ultimately “break fellowship with the main stream of the church and form a splinter body?” Should I mishandle the truth in this article as he so falsely labeled us in his it would be this way: (quoting him) “They are usually labeled anti brethren because of their negative views. They come in many varieties: antiBible class; anti-women teachers; anti-multiple cups; anti-1c,cated preachers; anti-orphan home; anticooperation,” and anti-education! Brother Waddy knows we are not opposed to orphans having homes and churches cooperating; and I know he is not opposed to education. He believes there is no Bible authority to use the “Lord’s money” to support human colleges, and we equally believe such. He quotes both B. Baxter and N. B. Hardeman and they both are on record saying church support to Colleges and Orphans Homes stand or fall together, because both are human institutions.

Is Brother Waddey’s anti-ism to be understood in the light of his article “Anatomy Of An Anti?” Are we to think of him as an “alarmist, fearing that the church is apostatizing”; that he is “trying to save the church from this imagined apostacy”; that he is “suffering from spiritual false pride, thinking. very highly of his knowledge, spirituality and loyalty to God, while discounting the same in other brethren who do riot see things his way”; that he is “suffering from a legalistic attitude toward his religion, that he is more interested in rules than in souls of men (after all, church support to the schools is said to be ‘carrying out the Great Commission’)”; that his “concept of religion is primarily a code of negatives and prohibitions”; that his “negativism results in a lack of vital love and concern for fellow-men and even fellow-saints”; that his “mind is addicted to mote hunting”; that his affliction with antiism has caused him spiritual ailment and trouble “distinguishing between traditions and cultural practices in the church and God-given Biblical principles”; that he is “strongly opinionated”; that his “anti philosophy affects his method of Bible study”; that his being an anti makes him “love to forbid the church from practicing some good work or method of doing God’s will” – that “it matters not to him that God has not prohibited it”; that being “anti bent he will sooner or later be involved in a factious stfife within the church”; that he is “so consumed with his ‘issue’ that he does not have time to seek out and teach lost sinners the gospel”; that he is “heartless towards mission work” and will “practice deceit” to have his way in this matter, contending that he is “loyal” to the Lord? Yet, in his condemnation of church support to schools, he begs of his position, “Nor should a brother be judged an adversary or an enemy who expresses a negative view of a controversial subject.” Brother!, that is exactly what you did in your article one month before!

Conclusion

It appears that Brother Waddey is willing to do the same thing in the church over congregational support to colleges that he did over congregation support to human Orphan Homes and the Sponsoring type church cooperation-split. His work at Oil Valley resulted in a division there (they were all together until he got there), and he says of the church support to the schools, “To introduce this into our brotherhood would most surely trigger a fight and a consequent division.” Waddey has to have his way in going (onward, 2 John 9) and coming (opposing congregational support to the schools). Why can he not see his inconsistency? The right to support one man-made institution with the “Lord’s money” is the same right to support the other, Brother Waddey. This is exactly what the “giants” before you and the ones with you have said and are saying, What Bible do you have for one but do not have for the other? Why is one scriptural but the practice of the other is unscriptural and grounds for “a fight and consequent division”?

The great brotherhood can now wait for our brother to give a scriptural solution to the issues that so acutely press upon it. He only wants his cake and eat it also.

Truth Magazine XX: 30, pp. 471-474
July 29, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

The expression heading this article can be found in Eph. 4:13. It refers to the complete revelation of God’s will, the finished work of the Holy Spirit in the Word of God. This finished revelation is one message – not many. It is not only characterized by unity-no contradiction or conflict in all that it teaches-but it is a unit – a complete, perfect, harmonious, final revelation of 0re will of God and the duty of man.

The expression “The Faith” simply refers to the “Gospel” and the two are used synonymously and interchangeably. The Gospel is a system of salvation predicated upon faith. It is through this message of faith that salvation is offered and it is by faith in it, in the heart of the individual, that this salvation can be appropriated. Paul tells us, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17). Here is affirmed that the gospel is the power of God to save because the righteousness of God is revealed in it “from (the) faith unto (in order to) faith.” God has revealed His will in the Gospel (tire faith) in order that men may have faith in their hearts in His righteousness. This faith in God’s righteousness can be obtained only from the Gospel (the faith). When, therefore, we believe anything in our hearts that is not found in the Gospel, it is faith in man’s righteousness and not in the righteousness of God.

In Romans 10:17, Paul tells its again by the Spirit that faith comes “by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” What we cannot hear from the Word of God, we cannot believe in the true sense of the word. If the Word of God, then, is one message, a unit – characterized by unity – and the only faith that can dwell in the human heart acceptably before God must come from it, there is but “one faith” to dwell in the hearts of men (Eph. 4:5). When men do not believe the same thing, therefore, someone does not have faith in the righteousness of God.

In the light of all this and many other things plainly taught in the Word of God, it is amazing that people have such a loose concept of faith. “I believe” means many contradictory and conflicting things as it is used by people today. They believe contradictory things from human creeds and yet count it all to be faith in the Gospel or The Faith. The Baptist Church Manual teaches that baptism is by “sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the convenience and preference of the candidate.” Here is an outright contradiction. The Word of God does not teach both doctrines and we would have no regard for it, if it did. A man cannot believe both and be sincere. Someone is wrong and it should be evident that someone does not believe the Gospel.

The Baptist Church Manual teaches that men are born into the world, “wholly inclined toward evil and void of any inclination toward good.” The Methodist Discipline in one article of its doctrine teaches that children are born “in Christ” though one time that same article read “born in sin.” Both cannot be right. Both doctrines are not taught in the Gospel. Both cannot be believed and the Gospel be believed. Someone is wrong and does not have faith in the “righteousness of God.”

The Baptist Church Manual teaches that when one is once saved by the blood of Christ it is impossible for him to so sin as to be finally lost in bell. The Methodist Discipline teaches that apostasy and final condemnation can come to one who has once been saved by the blood of Christ because of reverting to the course of sin. Both, again, cannot be right. One says, “can” and the other says “cannot.” The Word of God does not teach both. Someone does not believe what the Word of God does teach, therefore.

So it is throughout the denominational world. Contradictory doctrines are taught in the creeds of men and good people accept them and think they “believe.” But their “faith” is not always in harmony with “The Faith.” In order for all men to believe in the Gospel; they must all believe the same thing. The Gospel teaches, or reveals, but one message and that message is the same to all. The idea that “one faith is as good as another,” therefore, is absurd. If “one faith is as good as another” – just so one is sincere,” then it would not make any difference what a man believed. If it does not matter what one believes, just so he is sincere, then it does not matter whether or not one believes the Bible and what it teaches, if he is sincere in the rejection of it. If it does not matter whether or not one believes the Bible and what it teaches, just so he is sincere, then it could not matter what the Bible teaches. It would be a matter of no consequence and all that one would need to be saved is to be sincere. We could throw our Bibles away and believe anything sincerely and be just as near salvation.

The idea that we can be united and believe different things is absurd. There can be no unity except upon the Word of God and faith in it and in it alone. The only reason for believing anything is because God said it. If we accept anything that Christ has not taught in His Gospel, we do not accept it because Christ said it but upon some other ground and, therefore, our faith is in something else or someone else and not in Christ. Christ is the Christian’s creed. Whatever he believes, he believes because he believes in Christ. This means that he believes all that Christ teaches and only what Christ teaches and takes the “law of faith,” “the Gospel,” as his only rule of faith or practice.

When men like Billy Graham, preach for a composite of denominations or religious bodies in their “union meetings” they cannot preach according to the creed of any particular denomination or it would ruin the “union.” If he preached according to the Baptist Church Manual, the Methodists and Presbyterians would become offended and quit. If he preached according to the Methodist Discipline, the Baptists and the Presbyterians would he offended and so on with all of the rest. He cannot even preach what the Bible teaches on certain points or some would be offended. If the Jews joined in such a religious union, the preacher would have to leave off preaching that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. All that one can preach in such a union meeting with religious bodies joining in that believe contradictory doctrines is that which is uncontroverted by any and that limits the message to only moral principles and lectures about them.

The test of whether or not we believe the Gospel preached by the Apostles of our Lord is not just sincerity or the spirit of compromise but a willingness to strike from our faith and practice anything for which we cannot give chapter and verse in the Word of God and a willingness without hesitancy to accept whatever we can read in the Bible in language plain enough to understand. We must let the Bible settle all issues, answer all questions, solve all problems, or else we do not really believe it at all.

When we all unite in the “One Faith” we will not only believe the same thing but we will all speak the same thing and be united in message. We will throw away our human ideas, opinions and creeds, and do away with all of our denominational organizations and human practices and stand simply upon the Word of God.

Are you willing, friend, to limit your faith and practice as a professed Christian to the Word of God and to it alone?

Truth Magazine XX: 30, pp. 470-471
July 29, 1976

By Cecil Willis

For the next few weeks it is our plan to be studying the theme of repentance. We are hoping that you have a deep interest in this vital theme, and that as we progress in our study, that the deep interest which you now have in this subject, will become an ever deepening one.

The Bible has a great deal to say about repentance, “We find that the word repent occurs in our common English Bible forty-two times; repented occurs thirty times; repentance twenty-six times; repenteth five times; and repentest, repenting, and repentings one time each-in all, one hundred and six time . . . . Tn all the forms in which the word is used it refers to God thirty-seven times, and in reference to man sixty-nine times. It is used to indicate sorrow or regret twenty-eight times, a change of mind or will twenty-five times, and a change of mind resulting in reformation of life fifty-three times” (Brents, The Gospel Plan of Salvation, pp. 235, 236). Surely, when one recognizes the large number of times that repentance is referred to man, he must be made to realize its great importance.

Repent or Perish

We should be made to want to learn more about repentance when we open our Bibles and read in so many different places that repentance stands between us and salvation. Without repentance one cannot be saved, therefore we must know something about it. The necessity of repentance as taught by our Lord may be summed up in the words, “Repent or Perish.” This is exactly the relationship that our Lord made between repentance and salvation. Luke described the teaching of Christ on the subject as he said, “Now there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered and said unto them, Think ye that these Galileans, were sinners above all the Galileans, because they have suffered these things? I tell you, Nay: but except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but expect ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13: 1-5). In the words of Christ, either the people must repent or they must perish. There was no other alternative. As Luke gave us an account of the giving of the great commission by our Lord, he said, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk. 24: 46, 47). Repentance stands in this passage inseparably connected with the remission of sins, and the name of Christ, and this preaching must begin in Jerusalem. A few days later when preaching under this great commission first began, Peter, the key speaker on the day of Pentecost, told the Jews in Jerusalem, to “Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you. in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Repentance was a prerequisite that stood between man and his salvation.

Paul, as he preached to the Athenians, declared the universality of the necessity of repentance, in saying, “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should everywhere repent; inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:30, 31), Ali men, everywhere, are commanded to repent, or they must perish as a consequence of their impenitence.

What It Means to Repent

It is not enough merely to know that one must repent in order to be saved, but one must also know what it means to repent. It is an impossibility for one to do a thing commanded of him, if he does not understand the command. I cannot do a thing that I know nothing about. Therefore, let us reflect on what repentance is, or what it means.

Modern theology has obscured the meaning of repentance and has clouded the eyes of men and women who otherwise would see and understand what repentance means. We want to try to push aside the modern concept of repentance and permit the true import of the command to repent to shine brilliantly. In order for us to have an accurate understanding of what repentance is, and what it means, first, we must remove the perverted definitions of it. We must first view its definition negatively, that is, we must first point out what repentance is not.

To many people, repentance is nothing more than fear, but repentance is not fear. Fear of judgment, and punishment might be one of the things that prompts one to repent, but repentance is not fear.

To others repentance is conviction of sin. The denominational world speaks considerably about being “under conviction,” and I sometimes wonder if even they understand what they mean by the expression. They use the expression “under conviction” and repentance synonymously in some instances, but repentance is not conviction, We can very readily see this to be true if we examine Acts 2. In this sermon Peter boldly asserted that the Jews, to whom he was speaking, were guilty of crucifying the Son of God with their own wicked hands. The force of Peter’s argument was brought to bear upon their minds, and they were made to believe that what Peter said was true. ‘They were convinced, convicted, that they had killed God’s Son. By a great number, it would be said that these people had repented. They were “under conviction,” as expressed in denominational phraseology. But they had not repented. When they cried out and asked what they must do, Peter told them to repent and be baptized (v. 38). It was a different thing to be persuaded that one was a sinner, and to repent, according to Peter. Repentance is not conviction of sin.

Neither is repentance the confession of guilt, for on this same occasion to which we referred, just the day of Pentecost, these people certainly admitted their guilt when they asked Peter what they must do. They believed what Peter had said about their having killed the Christ sent of God, and therefore they admitted their guilt, but still they were commanded by Peter to repent, so repentance is not confession of guilt.

Regret is not repentance. Some definitions of repentance teach that to repent is to regret your sin. There have been many who have regretted their sins, but who have never once repented of them. Some of the regret that men have had for their sins was only that they were exposed in their sin. They only regretted that men found out about their sin. While this is regret, it is not repentance. It is a far cry from it. Mere regret is not repentance.

Others, in rendering a definition of this important word, would tell us that repentance is godly sorrow. I know that this could not be true, for Paul says that “godly sorrow worketh repentance” (2 Cor. 7:10). Godly sorrow only works, or produces repentance. Repentance is the effect of godly sorrow, and if repentance is the effect, then godly sorrow is the cause. The cause and effect could not be the same in any instance. Godly sorrow is the cause of repentance, and therefore -it could not be repentance itself.

The majority of the world think of repentance as a reformation or change of life. But this also is an improper definition of this important word. A reformation of life very definitely follows repentance, just as repentance follows godly sorrow, but the change of life is not repentance. It is a product of repentance. John the Baptist said to those that came out to be baptized of him, “Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance” (Lk. 3:7, 8). In other words, by the fruits that they bore in their lives, they were to indicate to others that they had repented. The fruit bearing was the result of the act of repenting. Peter, in delivering another sermon, commanded the people to “Repent ye therefore, and turn again” (Acts 3:19). What were they to do? They were to repent and turn. The turning was to change their way of life, or their reformation. Repentance could not mean to transform one’s life, or Peter is made to say “turn ye, and turn again,” which would be tautology. Hence, repentance stands in between the time that a man becomes sorry for his sins and when he abandons his sins, and begins the better course of life.

Seeing then, that repentance is not fear; it is not conviction of sin; it is not confession of sin or guilt; it is not regret; it is not godly sorrow; it is not the transformation of one’s life, the question arises, “What is repentance?”

Repentance fully defined is a change of will or mind. This change is preceded by godly sorrow and followed by a transformation of life. We see this definition of the word taught in many instances in the Bible. Man would do well to define Biblical words in the light of Biblical usage.

In Lk. 11:32, Christ said, “The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented as the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.” The people of Nineveh repented at Jonah’s preaching. What does this mean? Jonah came telling them that unless they repented God would destroy the city. As a result of his preaching, they repented unto the thing he commanded. Their repentance brought them into the course of life that the preaching demanded. But what about the meaning of the word repent? These people changed their mind about their manner of life, and determined to alter it. Their repentance was their change of mind. Repentance is a mental change that produces a change of action.

In connection with this same case, Jonah said, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10). What does it mean when the text says that God repented? It means simply that He changed His mind about the impending destruction to be brought upon Nineveh. He decided that He would not destroy the city, and His decision not to do the thing He had purposed to do, led to His altered action. Therefore as a result of His change of will or mind, His repentance, God spared the city, or He transformed His action.

Christ further defined the word for us as He said, “A man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work today in my vineyard. And he answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented himself, and went” (Matt. 21:28, 29). The young man at first refused to go work in the vineyard in compliance with the command of his father, but later he repented and went. What did he do? He changed his mind about his will toward his father’s command. As a result of his change of mind, his action also changed, but the change of action was not the repentance, but it was the product of the changed will.

Repentance is then properly defined as the change of the will. This makes repentance the hardest command of God for man to obey. It is made difficult to obey because it involves the will of the man, and it has always been the will of the man that has prohibited his salvation. The will of man is yet the greatest single obstacle in the way of his salvation. With the abundance of evidence, to the man who has not chosen to close his mind, it is a rather simple matter to produce faith in his heart. Once the faith is produced, then the problem of changing the will of the man arises. It is a difficult matter to get man to decide that he is going to cut himself off from sin. It is hard to get man to resolve to cease sinning, to live no longer in rebellion to the commandments of God, but once the stubborn will is subdued, and man resolves to abandon sin, and to obey God, then baptism is an easy matter. The man who is determined to quit sin, and who has set his mind upon doing every single thing that God has commanded for the purpose that God commanded, will not hesitate to comply with such a plain command as that of baptism. The whole difficulty in converting one is to change his will, to change his mind about sin, to get him to repent sincerely and genuinely.

Conclusion

We have seen that repentance is one of the commands of God, and is therefore standing between man and his salvation; that with God, it is a matter of a man’s repenting or perishing. We have seen that almost the whole world misunderstands the meaning of the word repentance, but then we have pointed out that repentance is a change of mind preceded by godly sorrow and followed by a reformation of life. Finally we pointed out that repentance is the most difficult command to obey for it involves the will of man, and it is man’s will that has always kept him from being saved. Therefore resolve now to cease sinning, and to comply with God’s divine decrees, and search the Word of God for the commandments that you must obey.

Truth Magazine XX: 30, pp. 467-469
July 29, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From the Republic of the Philippines: “Was Paul baptized in the Holy Spirit? Paul was doing things that only those who received the Baptism can do, like the laying on of hands to impart the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:6). If he was. where is, the Scripture to prove if? Is it possible that he received Holy Spirit baptism when Ananias laid his hands upon him? If he did, then not only the Apostles have !he power to lay hands to impart the Holy Spirit.”

REPLY:

I. Was Paul baptized in the Holy Spirit?

2 Cor. 11:5 may imply that Paul had received Holy Spirit baptism. “For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” The apostles received Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4). If Paul did not receive Holy Spirit baptism, he was “a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” However, since he was “not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles,” I infer and aver that he had received Holy Spirit baptism. T here is no verse that tells when or where he was baptized with the Holy Spirit.

2 Cor. 12:12 may imply that Paul received Holy Spirit baptism. “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you.” The apostles had a special work of witnessing which they and no others were to accomplish (Acts 1:22, 23; 2:32; 10:39;42). There were signs, particular and peculiar, to the apostles. Paul manifested these. From this I infer that he received Holy Spirit baptism, though no verse tells specifically when and where he was baptized with the Holy Spirit.

II. Is it possible that Paul received Holy Spirit baptism when Ananias laid his hands upon him?

No, it is not possible that Paul “received Holy Spirit baptism when Ananias laid his hands upon him.” (1) The Lord baptized in the Holy Spirit (Jn. 15:26). Men did not. There is no incident of human agency connected with Holy Spirit baptism. (2) Philip could not impart the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:14-18. None other than the apostles imparted the Holy Spirit unto men. Are we to infer that Ananias imparted Holy Spirit baptism in the case of Paul but that Philip could not give the Holy Spirit in Samaria? Neither Ananias nor Philip could impart the Holy Spirit through laying on of hands. (3) If Ananias gave Paul Holy Spirit baptism through the laying on of his hands, Paul received the Holy Spirit and power as an apostle before his sins were washed away (Cf. Acts 9:17, 18; 22:16). True, Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism before his conversion, but that involved a special need which was not present with Paul. Since Paul was not a child of God until he was baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26, 27; Acts 22:10), it is error to believe that Paul was given Holy Spirit baptism through Ananias’ hands before he was baptized into Christ.

One could grant, for the sake of argument, every fact. Suppose we could not cite a passage intimating that Paul received Holy Spirit baptism? What hurt is there? Do not preach what you cannot read. Suppose we grant that Ananias baptized Paul in the Holy Spirit through laying on of his hands? That would afford no particular difficulty. If a similiar thing is claimed today because of Ananias, then show me an apostle Paul today. If you can show me an alleged Ananias, you ought to be able to show me a present Paul. We do not grant these items, but if we did, we would expect a. modern day Paul to follow every modern day Ananias.

Truth Magazine XX: 30, p. 466
July 29, 1976