Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

We are nearing the end of our studies on the subject of faith. At times, we have diverted from the theme proper, in order that we might, in our estimation, give some things that were of profit and value to you, and yet these things that we have discussed have been in some way connected with our major subject. We plan perhaps to have one more lesson upon the subject of faith. In our last article, we studied the relationship that exists between works and salvation. We pointed out that man is not saved by doing the works that he has chosen to do, and that man is not saved by his own meritorious works. We cited scriptures stating that man was justified by works. We learned that the works by which man is justified are the works of God. The works of God are the things that God has commanded. We had learned in the preceding article that man is justified by faith, but not by faith only. It is when that faith works that one is justified.

By entitling our lesson, “God’s Eternal Plan of Salvation,” we, or course, mean by that that God has always had the same plan of salvation. It is our purpose to point out that God has always justified man by the same principle. We might call our lesson, “The Principle of Salvation,” meaning the principle upon which God has always justified.

Some Unchanging Principles

Even though we are living in a world of change and variety, there are some things about this universe that do not change. Principles do not change. They are the same in every age. Applications of these principles might, and do change, but the principles remain the same. For example: God always has had the principle of modesty for men and women to observe, but the application of this principle changes. Even though we dress differently today than we did even a few years ago, still there is that unchanging principle of modesty governing our dress that governed our forefathers centuries ago. It seems that some of the world today has forgotten that there ever was such a principle, but principles are unchanging.

God always has had a principle condemning worldliness, but as the ages change, the application of the principle must change. Many of the things which are now to be condemned under the principle of worldliness were unknown a few years back. Everything wicked that may begin in the future will still be condemned under this same principle, for it will endure, even though the things to which this principle is applied many not long endure. God had always demanded that man be fair and honest with his fellow man. This principle is the same; whether the man is trading an ox cart, a camel, an ox yoke, or whether he is trading a Cadillac automobile, a jet airplane; whether he is dealing with an individual or a nation. The applications of the principles might change, but the principle remains the same.

So it is with salvation. God always has had a certain principle of salvation. There always have been certain conditions upon which God would justify man, and this is an unchanging principle. Man has lived in three great ages: the Patriarchial, Mosiacal, and the Christian Ages. In each of these ages, the salvation of men and women has been governed by the same unchanging principle, of salvation. The Bible very clearly points out what that rule of salvation is, and it is now our intention to study what the Bible says about men have always been justified. In this way, we can know that that unchanging principle is the same one to which you and I must comply. We also want to show scriptures teaching what one must do today.

The Principle of Faith and Obedience

The condition upon which God has always saved man has been that of faith and obedience. God has always demanded that man be a believer in order to be justified, but God has also demanded that this believer obey His commands. Just as with the other principles that we have observed, the application of this one has changed. God has not always told man to believe the same thing. The Patriarchs did not have faith in Christ, as we are to have faith in Him. The Jews under the Law did not have faith in Christ, as we are to believe in Him. They could not have believed in Christ under these old laws, for He had not yet come. They were to have faith in Him when He did come, but He had not come at that time, thus they did not have the same kind of faith in Christ that we are to have. The application of the principle has changed.

Still, as they were required to obey in every period of God’s dealings with man in order to be saved, God has not always required that man do the same thing. Under the Old Testament Law, men were required to offer animal sacrifices, burn incense, keep the Sabbath, and many things that you and I are not commanded to do under the Law of Christ. We are given different commandments. They had to obey the commandments the Lord gave them in order to be saved, and we have to obey the commandments that the Lord has given us in order to be saved.

Study the Great Honor Roll of the Bible, Hebrews 11, as composed by the Apostle, and see the principle upon which each was justified. Notice verse 4, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Abel’s faith was realized in his obedience. Verse 7, “By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear; prepared an ark to the saving of his house.” Now what did Noah do to be saved? He did the same thing that you and I must do. He believed and obeyed. It would be very foolish for one to try to apply the modern principle of justification by faith only to Noah or any other of the great men of the Old Testament. Denominationalism would say that Noah was saved by faith only. Was Noah saved when he believed, or when his faith led him to obey, to prepare, to build the ark? Certainly we all know that it was when his faith led him to work, to prepare the ark, that his faith saved him. It took faith plus obedience.

Verse 8, “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.” What did Abraham do to be justified? In the book of Romans, the salvation of Abraham is attributed to his faith. James says: “Was not Abraham our father, justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?” (Jas. 2:21). Here , in one verse we see the harmonization of these two statements. By faith, Abraham obeyed. He was justified by the principle by which all the other righteous men of the Old Testament were justified, and by the same principle by which you and I will be justified, if we are ever saved. The faith that saves is the faith that obeys! Abraham believed to be saved, but he was not saved until he obeyed. “By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac; yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son” (v. 17). Once again, the faith of Abraham was called upon to obey in order to justify him.

“By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to share ill treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season: accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked unto the recompense of reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king, for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible” (Heb. 11:24-27). In order for Moses to be saved, his faith had to act.

“By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been encompassed about for seven days.” When the children of Israel took the city of Jericho, it was only after they had marched around the city as God had prescribed; -only after they obeyed-that the walls fell down. They had to do two things. They had to believe and obey. This is once again the application of God’s eternal principle of salvation.

In summary of the things we have learned from the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, notice: By faith Abel offered; By faith Noah prepared; By faith Abraham obeyed; By faith Abraham offered; By faith Moses forsook Egypt; By faith the Israelites encompassed Jericho (and the walls fell). In every one of these instances it took the principle of salvation applied to save them. It is true that each of these individuals did different things. They were given different commandments. But they each followed the same principle. They each believed and obeyed. This is the principle of salvation. It takes the same thing today to be justified.

Summary of New Testament Teaching

The New Testament plainly states the principle of salvation. In Galatians 5:6, when Paul had been talking to the Jews and telling them that the works of the law would not justify them, he said, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.” Paul says it takes a working faith to save. The entire passage from James 2:14-26, that we studied in our last article, points out the truthfulness of this principle. James says that the faith that does not work is dead-it is barren-and that our faith is made perfect when it works. Unless our faith works, it does not produce salvation. Today, we have the principle of salvation governing us that applied to men centuries ago. Principles do not change. We must believe and obey, just as men had to do. in the long ago.

Today, under the Christian age, we have different commands to obey than they had then. Yes it is still just as compulsory that we obey as it was for them. Passages might be multiplied demonstrating that one must be a believer in order to be saved. The Hebrews writer says “But without faith it is impossible to please him, for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). This is the first part of the principle of salvation. The other things that we are to do, today, are also plainly taught. One of the commandments is, that one must repent of his sins. This means to change his mind about sin, and to turn away from it. “I tell you nay, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Peter said, “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, so that there may come season of refreshing from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19). An individual cannot receive remission of sins unless he repents. This is one of the prerequisites of the remission of one’s sin. Peter commanded the Jews on the day of Pentecost to “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Repentance must precede the remission of sins. It is one of the things that one must do in obeying the Lord.

Another commandment of Christ just as plainly taught is that one must be baptized in order to be saved. Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). In the passage we cited just a moment ago, Peter told the Jews on Pentecost to do two things in order to receive the remission of sins. They were already believers or they would not have been pricked to the heart by Peter’s charge that they had killed the Son of God. Peter told them to repent and be baptized in order to receive the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).

When the Lord commanded that one repent and be baptized upon a confession of his faith, this was no more than the application of God’s eternal plan of salvation. He has always had commandments that men must obey in order to be saved. These commandments have varied throughout the years, and yet the same things have been required: faith and obedience. Today man is called upon by God to believe in Christ, and to obey. These commandments to be obeyed, we have just cited. You must repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to receive the remission of sin. Remember friends, that principles do not change, and God is not going to alter any principle in order to save you. If you are saved, it must be by this eternal plan of salvation that God has given. We are pleading with you to accept the gospel and obey it, live faithfully, to all its requirements, and finally inherit eternal life through faith and obedience to God’s righteous commandments.

Truth Magazine XIX: 44, pp. 691-694
September 18, 1975

By Ron Halbrook

Yes, I. know many have not wanted to see any real problem on the grace-unity-fellowship error of recent times. Some no doubt thought it had been discussed enough, if not too much, after the first article was written on it. Others may feel the subject should have been brought out into the open, but that now we should turn our attention to other things. h myself have wished for signs of correction being made or of the problem abating; for, though it is necessary, it is never pleasant to deal with error and erring brethren.

While it is true many brethren are more informed and alert after this problem has received a good deal of exposure, it is not true that it is time to drop the subject. The main spokesmen and’ followers of the new unity movement are still very much alive `and active. Several events of recent months have forced some modification of their tactics, but their loose ideas and goals are still the same. One or two who have managed to get reports circulating that indicated they were reforming themselves have in fact kept right on sowing their lawless seed-as by recommending papers like Mission and Integrity to their friends as the finest available, along with Mission Messenger and Restoration Review.

But there is another angle to this lawless spirit which has still not received much, if any, attention. It is time to say something about it. Brethren have often pointed out that Israel’s moral drifting generally was accompanied by doctrinal drifting, and her doctrinal drifting generally was accompanied by moral loosening. Relativism in reference to the church contributes to the attitude of general looseness which leads to relativism in reference to moral and ethical principles of the Bible. You never saw a Modernist or Liberal who took a strong stand against worldliness. 2 Peter 2 and other passages show how easily doctrinal looseness and a worldly spirit go hand-in-hand.

Even so, brethren who have promoted change recently in faith or practice on grace-unity-fellowship are very loose in their attitude toward worldliness. In preaching, they have imbibed the spirit which loves ethereal generality and “evangelical” openness and denominational broadness and high-sounding “principles” without direct application to the sins of the day. This is their whole thrust in regard to preaching on institutionalism, centralization, social-gospel-ism, instrumental music, premillennialism, pentecostalism, and just about any other doctrinal subject. They consider plain preaching with direct application to the liberalism of the last 25 years as uncouth. In exactly the same way, they consider plain preaching with direct application to the worldly practices of the day as boorish, if not downright clownish! They like to caricature preachers who do such preaching as back-woodish, unsophisticated, slow students, uneducated, prudish, narrow-minded, bumpkins. Make no mistake about it, these “sophisticated” brethren long for the dawn of a “brighter day” all across the board. Their sugar-coated, sweet-spirited concepts of compromise will not stop with the organization, mission, worship, discipline, and doctrine of the church revealed in the New Testament. Their sweet syrup will also drown out plain, direct preaching on Worldliness.

I have been told to the face by one of the most outspoken of these compromisers that the “hard line” we have taken against social drinking represents “the Southern, rural temperance viewpoint” and not the application of New Testament principles. Another who has done some “missionary” work came back bragging about how he told brethren in foreign countries that they were perfectly at liberty to drink alcoholic beverages so long as they did not get outright drunk. A new convert in the Mid-West asked one of these bright young scholars whether he could continue drinking beer in his home now that he had become a Christian; said scholar boldly told the fellow that would be perfectly in order for a Christian! And he was not ashamed to tell me this personally. Not much of this shows in their public writing to this point-though there are occasional references-but they not only will discuss it, they are promoting this spirit through more “private” channels right now. That is how they started out in regard to the doctrinal problems they have imposed upon brethren.

It seems one of our young princes preached for a time where some of the families went in mixed swimming with one another-and, no, I .do not mean in their Sunday-go-to-meeting suits, either! He and his wife did not mind “taking a dip” with the brethren there on the ancient theory “while in Rome, do as the Romans do.” But now they live in an area where much plain preaching has been and is still being done on such worldliness. Do you think they go in mixed swimming now? Do you think they reveal their former practice to brethren? Ali! What a sweet spirit. They do not want to “offend” anyone or stir up controversy: So, they simply do not oppose the practice in their preaching, they are silent on it, nor do they mention their own escapades. Like sheep, the brethren are none-the-wiser. All is bliss, and the brethren would be quite upset if some “outsider” were to charge this “fine brother” with looseness and worldliness. “Why, we have never heard him advocate anything like that!” Exactly. And you have never heard him oppose it either! Mum is the word! In the meantime, the young people drift into these worldly practices through a lack of teaching. Before long, brethren will be wringing their hands in dismay, “I just do not see why our young people are compromising with the world . . . .” The danger is not so much that our new breed of broad-minded preachers will mislead brethren by advocating worldly ways publicly, but it is by failing to oppose such ways!

These young princes think we should read a verse or two about “modesty” and let applications take care of themselves. One of these outspoken princes recently tried to discourage a faithful brother from printing an article written in good taste but dealing specifically with the sin of immodesty. “Such articles just stir up trouble,” he said, which sounds like Billy Graham’s reason for not being specific and direct on baptism: “It’s too controversial.” Of course, this approach is old hat to our modern-minded sages; they have been advocating that we read a verse or two about elders overseeing the flock, and leave applications to take care of themselves when preaching before our institutional brethren. Once in a while, brethren who are centralizing the work of the church through the Herald of Truth will find a fanatic who thinks it is wrong to preach via TV; instead of meeting the real issue, they will then caricature “the anti’s” as a bunch of nuts opposed to TV preaching. In like manner, instead of meeting the issue that when a woman wears a skirt much above the knee she cannot bend or sit or even walk modestly, our young princes caricature preachers who do plain preaching on modesty as a bunch of nuts running around with tape measures trying to find someone with a skirt an eighth inch above the knee.

A thousand such her-haws and wise cracks will not deter faithful men from rebuking the worldly spirit in its many specific manifestations today. Tobiah guffawed at Judah’s effort to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, “Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall” (Neh. 4:3). The faithful kept right on building. That is exactly what faithful preachers will do in regard to the plague of worldliness which is decimating the church in our day just keep right on fighting it, exposing it, rebuking it, and building on the solid foundation of God’s word.

The young princes of the new unity movement may not be the only ones neglecting to cry out against such sins as social drinking, immodesty, and dancing. Let all of us examine ourselves. Remember, God said through Hosea, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” It is “out of season” to preach on such sins; perhaps in some cases, other battles have turned the attention of brethren away from such matters. Let us not assume the new generation constantly coming up will automatically understand these things. Let us not be intimidated by frowns and hardness of hearts; we are not responsible to make people obey God, but we are responsible to teach them His will. But how long are we expected to teach on such things when “nearly every one is doing them today?” Isaiah asked a similar question. “Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate” (Isa. 6:11).

Until the Lord burns this old earth up, it will be the duty of faithful men to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” One thing is certain. The lawless, soft spirit of the new unity movement cannot and will not respond to such a call when it comes to popular sins of worldliness. It is time to say so. And, it is time, as always, for all of us to heed the words of Paul, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Cor. 13:5). “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:16-17).

Truth Magazine XIX: 43, pp. 684-685
September 11, 1975

By Irvin Himmel

What does it take to give life to a congregation? A fine building? A large membership? Wealth? Involvement in community projects? Special activities for the young? Dinners and parties? Recreation and frolic? Organized visitation? Zoning and committees? Vast outlays for general benevolence? Educational Directors, Associate Ministers, Secretaries, and Youth Directors? A kindergarten? Subsidizing of colleges, benevolent organizations, and missionary societies? A Jiome for unwed mothers? A slum project or intercity mission? Workshops? Rap sessions? The sponsoring of a work beyond the means of the congregation and necessitating appeals to the brotherhood for assistance? Fund drives? Attendance drives? A bus ministry? Contests and prizes?

A local church may engage in all sorts of activities by which it makes a name for itself. By highly advertised humanitarian enterprises widespread attention may be gained. A fabulous edifice may be the envy of religious neighbors. Numerous schemes and plans will bring in crowds. Promotionalism packs pews, prods people, produces pecuniary proceeds, propagates popular programs, pleases pride, and procures public praise.

Warning to “Big Name” Churches

One little fact often is overlooked. A church may make a name for itself-a reputation that it is a live congregation, but the Lord’s appraisal. may be the reverse. Such was the case at Sardis in Rev. 3:1. The Lord said, “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.”

What a tragedy that a church gains the reputation of being alive, sound, and great, whereas the Lord pronounces it dead!

This brings us to the important question, What does it take to make a live church in God’s sight? It matters not what men may judge to be indicative of interest, growth, and vitality; what is the Lord’s requirement? The church at Laodicea said, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.” This congregation supposed it was in excellent condition. But the Lord pronounced it “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17). What a contrast between the human and divine evaluations!

Back to the Bible

Only by going to the Bible can we determine what the Lord expects of the church. A study of the book of Acts will reveal what the apostolic congregations did that brought divine approval. The epistles of the New Testament, including the letters to the seven churches of Asia, make known what God endorses, and what lacks divine sanction. The local church should pattern its activities and program of work according to the Scriptures, not current popular plans and expectations.

The local church that follows the Bible will be different, radically different, from the rank and file of modern churches. It will omit humanly-devised claptrap, fanfare, and superficial show. It will leave off unscriptural offices, titles, functions, and objectives. Stressing genuine godliness and spirituality, it will include all that the Bible authorizes for its program of work and worship. It will be remarkably simple. Many will view such a congregation as peculiar and strange. Some will speak of it with contempt and ridicule, declaring that it is narrow and outmoded.

Congregational Vigor

Christ’s church can make no better contribution to the general welfare of the community than through the preaching and living of the gospel. No higher work can be accomplished abroad than assisting in the spread of the gospel. The most valuable thing the church can do for young people is to teach, train, and discipline them in the gospel. Whether people are young or old, in the slums or high-class suburbs, educated or uneducated, their common need is the gospel, The primary mission of the church is evangelization-the proclaiming of the good news.

The church at Thessalonica was commended for sounding out the word of the`Lord (I Thess. 1:8). The church at Jerusalem sent forth Barnabas to teach and preach in Antioch (Acts 11:22). The church at Philippi was praised for sharing with Paul that he might preach (Phil. 1:5; 4:14-16). The churches of Macedonia supplied Paul with wages that he might do service for the Lord elsewhere (2 Cor. 11:8).

A congregation belonging to Christ, whether large or small, in the city or in the country, will come to the rescue of saints in need. The believers in Jerusalem sold lands and houses that none among them would lack (Acts 4:32-37). Disciples in Antioch sent relief to brethren in Judea in time of famine (Acts 11:27-30). Paul taught the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to contribute to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25 27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4).

The church that is truly alive will resist false doctrine. The church at Pergamos was rebuked because some held to the doctrine of Balaam (Rev. 2:14). The church at Ephesus was congratulated for finding false apostles to be liars (Rev. 2:2). Paul left Timothy at Ephesus to charge that no doctrine be taught except the doctrine of Christ (1 Tim. 1:3).

A live congregation is wade up of God-fearing, pure, zealous people. They are alert to their individual duties. They put God’s word into action in their daily lives at home, at school, at work, and on vacation. Christ lives in them.

Truth Magazine XIX: 43, pp. 683-684
September 11, 1975

By Roland Worth, Jr.

In the December 6, 1959, issue of the Russian Communist publication Pravada, there appeared a major article on page four, entitled “Rejection of religion-the only correct course.” It was signed by Alexander Osipov, a prominent individual in the Greek Orthodox Church. He wrote,

“Yes, I, Professor of Old Testament and Classical Hebrew at the Leningrad Ecclesiastical Seminary and Academy, formerly Inspector there, Master of Theology and Archpriest; have broken with the Church and with religion. I have publicly professed my atheism, attained logically by study and scientific method after a considerable and protracted inward struggle and a complete reconsideration of my outlook on life . . .

“In studying the Bible I kept coming up against the problem of the so-called divine inspiration of the scriptures. Students of the Leningrad Seminary and Academy will, I expert, remember how often I used to say in lectures and classes: `According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church’ or `Orthodox theology considers . . . .’ I used to do this in every case when I could not inwardly agree with the teaching which, as a professor of an Orthodox seminary, I was obliged to impart and elucidate to my pupils. At the same time, moreover, independent study of the problems of biblical theology, together with the arguments and discoveries of genuine scientific method, led me to discover that the Bible had been put together gradually, that it had developed century by century in the course of the historical life of the Jewish people, and that its individual books do not in any way belong to those authors to whom tradition ascribes them. I found that in the Bible (certainly necessary as a work of ancient literature for the scientific study of history) there are, closely interwoven, myths and tales of the ancient Orient, the legends of chronicle and folklore, ancient stories and poetry and magic charms from the age of primitive man–in a word, it has nothing to do with the revelation of God on earth” (quoted by Michael Bourdeaux, Opium of the People: The Christian Religion in the U. S. S. R., The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York: 1966, pages 109, 112).

The first thing that should be noticed is that Osipov was apparently sincere in his conversion to atheism-though personality conflicts may also have played a role in his leaving the Russian Orthodox Church (pages 117-118). This should be stressed because many of those theological Modernists whom we criticize for their repudiation of the miraculous element in the Bible are quite sincere in their error. However even sincere men can be wrong.

Secondly, once committed to atheism, he started playing even grosser games with Biblical and historical truth. Michael Bourdeaux, from whom we have quoted Professor Osipov’s statement, had the opportunity to attend one of the professor’s lectures on atheism while doing graduate work in the Soviet Union. The Professor contended that Jesus never existed. As proof he cited the Dead Sea Scrolls: “The information they contain about the Teacher of Righteousness illustrates a variant form of a legend current about two thousand years ago-that of a dying and rising god-and common to several Near-Eastern mythologies. Christianity is merely the most successful formulation of the legend. Jesus Christ was invented by the early Christians to compensate for their deprivations at the hands of the Romans” (page 120).

Bourdeaux’s reaction was the same most of us would have, “I was appalled at the impossible logic of this answer and its intellectual dishonesty. He quoted the documents as ‘virtually proving’ something on which they have only a marginal bearing (as all but a few sensation-seeking writers in the West would agree). This would have been laughable, if his Russian audience had any access to the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they had none then and have had none since” (page 121).

Thirdly, if you will closely read the second paragraph of our quote from Professor Osipov you can .not miss the unmistakable similarity in his description of the origin of the Bible with what is currently taught in most American universities and seminaries. “Myth,” “gradual accumulation,” “folklore,” and the other rhetoric is shockingly familiar. What is different is that Professor Osipov acted on the logical conclusion that such rhetoric leads to: The complete rejection of faith in the Bible and the open embracement of atheism. Most American Modernists will never go that far, but that is where the train they are riding ultimately stops for those with the courage to complete the journey.

Truth Magazine XIX: 43, pp. 682-683
September 11, 1975