Truth Magazine

By John McCort

Some of our brethren have begun marching inexorably toward an eventual rendevous with Calvinism. They have accepted the basic presuppositions of the Calvinistic theology. With the basic premises from which they are now operating, these brethren will eventually become full-fledged Calvinists, if they take their basic presuppositions to their logical extension.

One of the primary doctrines of Calvinism is the doctrine of the unconditional imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Some of our brethren are now taking the position that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ will unconditionally cover such doctrinal errors as institutionalism, premillennialism, instrumental music and other such sins of doctrinal ignorance or weakness of the intellect. It is very interesting to read what Benjamin Warfield, the great Presbyterian apologist, had to say on the subject of imputation. “But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to ones’ account; and the act of setting to one’s account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account …. the threefold doctrine of imputation-of Adam’s sin to his posterity, of the sins of His people to the redeemer, and of the righteousness of Christ to His people-at last came to its rights as the core of the three constitutive doctrines of Christianity-the sinfulness of the human race, the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and justification by faith. The importance of the doctrine of imputation is that it is the hinge on which these three great doctrines turn, and the guardian of their purity.” (Warfield, Biblical And Theological Studies, pp. 263, 266)

Warfield made two very important statements. He said that imputation can be made either on the credit or debit side of an account. In other words, imputation of sin is just as logical and easy to prove as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. If God can unconditionally impute the righteousness of Christ to whom He chooses, He could just as easily and logically unconditionally impute sin to whom He chooses, which, in reality, is the Calvinistic doctrine of election. War. field further stated that the doctrine of imputation is the whole basis for Calvinistic theology. The whole Calvinistic system is based upon the presupposition of unconditional imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Our brethren who have adopted this false premise might eventually swallow “the whole thing.”

The doctrine of predestination arises from the unconditional imputation premise. If God will unconditionally overlook sins, then one of two things must follow. Either all people will be saved (universalism) or God must arbitrarily forgive the sins of some unconditionally and hold others guilty of their sins unconditionally, which is the basic premise of the doctrine of limited atonement. If God unconditionally forgives the sins of some but does not unconditionally forgive the sins of others, He then becomes a respecter of persons. This is where the doctrines of unconditional election and predestination come from.

Let’s look at this line of thinking. Our brethren are teaching that God will unconditionally overlook the doctrinal sins of institutionalism, premillennialism, instrumental music, etc., because of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. These brethren state that God will overlook such sins if they are done in sincere ignorance. What I do not understand is why they draw an artificial Line of Demarcation at baptism. Why would not God just as logically overlook sincere ignorance on the purpose of baptism? Why could not God overlook sincere ignorance on the mode or action of baptism? Why couldn’t God overlook sincere ignorance on the subjects of baptism and accept infant baptism? Why wouldn’t God overlook sincere ignorance on the nature of Christ or the inspiration of the Bible? Why wouldn’t God overlook sincere ignorance on the nature of God himself, which is all that idolatry is?

This unconditional imputation position leads logically to the premise that we are not saved upon our obedience to Christ but upon the unconditional election of God. Our salvation is not merited by our obedience, but salvation is conditioned upon our obedience. The grace of God hath appeared to all men (Tit. 2:11). Not all men are going to be saved. Salvation is conditioned upon our obedience to Christ (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Unconditional remission of sin removes obedience as the condition of salvation and places salvation upon the free will of God to determine arbitrarily which sins He will overlook and which sins He will not overlook.

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, p. 194
February 6, 1975

By Samuel F. Carter

The disciples of Christ had difficulty in understanding the words of their Master in this passage, and it seems that many today are equally confused. I am speaking of these sayings: “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord. . .” (Col. 3:17); “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do” (Phil. 4:9); and “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

These verses are quite simple and explicit as regards the law of divine guidance. Whatever is written by way of commandment, teaching, and approved example is what one is authorized to do. At least this is my interpretation, and I can not see any other interpretation which may be gotten. Of course, I am not an English scholar, so if I am wrong in this point, will someone out there please correct me? Now if my conclusion is correct, then everything done which is not authorized must then be unauthorized. With these principles and scriptures before us, I am completely amazed at the “bus ministry” now plaguing the Lord’s body.

I call your attention to the Sept. 19, 1974 issue of the Gospel Advocate, page 596, an article written by Gynnath Ford entitled Bus Evangelism Or “Playing Church. ” The article deals with the apparent successful bus ministry carried on by 4 congregations. They have attributed to the bus ministry 115 converts plus great attendances over a one year period. But please notice the justification for this bus ministry. “If you are not engaged in bus evangelism we want you to answer this question truthfully. Are you reaching the people of your community for Christ or are you just baptizing your children…?” This principle of justification of the practice evades me. Where do the scriptures read, “go ahead if the results are good?” I see no oracle of God with this import in the Word of God.

If the bus ministry is authorized by this means, then let us look at what else we may engage in. The attendance at the Gettysburg church would increase if we would only add a piano. I have been told this. Wouldn’t that be a good work to get some lost families to attend the Lord’s church, and not a denomination? Would having a Christmas program increase attendance? What about a pie supper after Sunday evening services? We could get the young children to come by building a recreation hall, so they could engage in games between services, at about the same cost as those 12 buses. We could also contribute to the Herald of Truth and sponsor a program on the local radio station. That would really get the gospel into a lot of homes.

Yes sir, we could do so much good work in so many different ways couldn’t we? But the verses still read, where is the authority for the buses, pianos, parties, pies, and games? The scriptures are silent on these points. Therefore, being silent, they are not authorized; we cannot engage in such practices. When will people realize that going beyond that which is written is a sin? The church has never been authorized to replace the gospel with a bus for the drawing power to God. Since when did the individual Christian begin to feel that his responsibility of personally getting his neighbor to attend the Lord’s church could be handled better by a gas-eater than by a warm invitation and the personal association and contact?

It may also be added that the argument to justify the bus ministry is the same one used to justify the Herald of Truth, Missionary Society, and pianos: They are just aids! As falls one, so fall all the others. There certainly are some hard sayings in the Bible, but they are only hard to those who have hardened their hearts to the truth. 2 Pet. 3:16 tells us they will go to their destruction.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, pp. 189-190
January 30, 1975

By Lowell Blasingame

I like the American system of trial by jury, yet I recognize that juries do not always render fair and equitable verdicts. In the May-June, 1974 issue of Herald of Truth International Brother, Reuel Lemmons writes under the heading of Broadcast Evangelism in defense of Herald of Truth. Several statements merit comment, but the paragraph that is most striking to me is the one next to the last which reads as follows:

“Highland and Herald of Truth have been through some rough waters recently. The case went to the brotherhood jury for judgment through scores of inflammatory articles and `statements.’ The jury has been out long enough now to signal a verdict. And it has. Receipts for Herald of Truth January 1, 1974, through May 1, have been roughly $100,000 more than for the same period a year ago-up 20 per cent. The brethren have decided that this program should go, on-and by the grace of God it will.”

That Highland and Herald of Truth have gone through some rough waters is not denied. I have received and read some of the articles and statements that Brother Lemmons calls “inflammatory.” Which side; if either, has completely told the truth about the degree in which liberalism has infiltrated the Highland church, and the charges relative to control of Herald of Truth, is a matter which I have not been able to determine. Whether Highland’s elders “watergated” the matter and told us only what they had to, or whether we received the full story, are matters open to question.

Brother Lemmons thinks that the brotherhood has served as jury and decided as reflected in a 20 percent increase in contributions that Herald of Truth should continue. I, for one, am a wee bit leery of allowing the brotherhood to serve as a jury in deciding whether the sponsoring church arrangement for cooperation of churches should continue. I believe that church history will verify that a little. over a century ago a brotherhood jury gave its endorsement to the missionary society and the use of instrumental music in worship. Neither do I consider an increase in financial support a safe rule for determining the Scripturalness of a project. By this same rule, we might build a defense for the “Oral Roberts Show,” “The Hour of Decision” or “The Lutheran Hour.” These, too, have experienced an increase in financial support over that of last year.

There are still some brethren who are more concerned about Bible verdicts than they are about brotherhood verdicts. They are still interested in what the oracles of God say (1 Pet. 4:11) and in refraining from going beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9). For some strange reason, I still like that attitude and do not feel badly about questioning a jury’s verdict when it differs with the oracles of God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 189
January 30, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

The mission of Christ into the world was fully accomplished. He will not be reincarnated to dwell on Earth. He will come a second time to award salvation to them that wait for Him.

For four thousand years the world looked forward to the Coming of Christ. It was heralded by all the prophets as the hope of the race. Every event in Old Testament history was made converge into the design of His Coming. It was the event of supreme importance. Any doctrine, the consequences of which make the Lord’s first coming a failure, is pernicious, and cannot be ignored as some are wont to do.

We want in this article to contrast the Lord’s first coming in both manner and purpose with what the Bible has to say concerning His second coming. The text suggesting the basis for such a contrast is Hebrews 9:2728: “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him unto Salvation.”

The First Advent

Our text declares that Christ “was once offered to bear the sins of many.” This is the foundation of the Gospel of Christ. Paul preached that Christ died for our sins, “According to the Scriptures.” God’s law had been violated. Death was required as a penalty. Christ died in our stead. That is the doctrine of atonement.

The scriptures declare that Jesus came into the world to destroy the works of Satan. “To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil” (1 John 3:8). The destruction of the works of the Devil was the very purpose of Christ’s first coming. Premillennialism teaches that Christ will come again to accomplish that purpose. A mighty carnal war will be waged by Him at the time of His second appearance, in their scheme, for the purpose of accomplishing what he came the first time to do, viz., put down Satan, destroy his works, and establish His Kingdom. That means that he failed to accomplish this at the time of His first advent; that instead of conquering he was conquered, and instead of being exalted and crowned in His ascension to the Father, He went home in defeat and humiliation. What other conclusion can such a doctrine have?

That is not all. Christ came into this world and was made flesh and blood in order “To bring to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Premillennialism teaches that He will triumph over Satan and bring him to naught, at His second coming; again proving that they regard the first advent of the Lord a failure. Such consequences cannot be overlooked, nor excused with any regard for truth.

The Bible not only declares that Christ came into the world to “destroy the works of the devil” and to “bring Satan to naught” but, according to the Scriptures, he succeeded in accomplishing this. Paul declares in Colossians 2:15 that He “despoiled the principalities ,and the powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,” and in Ephesians 4:8 he.; said “when He ascended on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men.”

Jesus said: “But no one can enter the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man.” Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan (1 John 3:8). This he could not do without binding Satan (Mark 3:27). He accomplished his purpose (Colossians 2:15). Therefore Satan, the strong man, was bound. Satan has only the power and privilege that is yielded to him. “Each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” (James 1:14). “Resist . the Devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). We have indeed been delivered from Satan’s power and bondage to sin.

The Second Advent

The second coming of Christ will be “to them that wait for him unto salvation” (Heb. 9:27). His promise is, “I will come again to receive you unto myself, that where I am ye may be also” (John 14:3). When He comes again, “even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him . . . then we that-are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:14-17).

We shall not know Christ after the flesh again for “though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more” (2 Corinthians 5:16). He will not, therefore, return to dwell in the flesh. Concerning His first coming, Paul says, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” But in sharp contrast, of his second coming he declares that Christ “shall appear a second time, apart from sin.” Those words can have no meaning if Christ comes back in the flesh to dwell on earth.

-The Gospel Guardian, February, 1936.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 188
January 30, 1975