Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

The average man is badly confused in his thinking about the New Testament church. Preachers professing to declare the whole counsel of God when actually they are not, and man’s failure to study the Scriptures privately, are largely responsible for this misunderstanding. However hazy one’s view may be of the nature of the New Testament church, most of us make an effort to become a part of what we believe to be the Lord’s church. If the church of which we are a part does not conform in any particular to what we have learned that the Bible says about the divine church, we therefore know that “our” church lacks that much being the divine church. So if the rules of admission of the church to which we belong should differ from the laws of entrance into the divine church, we know something is wrong with our religious affiliation. We need to learn God’s divine laws of admission into His divine church.

As Shown By Figurative Language

A number of different figures are attached to the church in the Bible. As we study these figures, we can learn what the rules of admission into the church are. The church is called the family of God. Paul says: “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:14, 15). The church is the, house of God. The word “house” probably here means family. Several times we read about a certain “household” being baptized. This means the family was baptized. Paul speaks of the “household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). But when we think of the church as God’s family, we learn how one gets into this family of God. Paul further says, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). The Spirit of God gave the revelation that we have and know as the Bible; so those that are led by the teaching of the Bible become members of the family of God.

While we think about our own family, let us ask, “how did I enter my family?” Of course, we can give but one answer. We were born into it. That is the same way that one enters the family of God. He is born into it. This birth is not a natural birth from the womb, but is spiritual. In John 3:5, Jesus spoke to Nicodemus and said, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” One is born into the kingdom of God, which is the church. Virtually all commentators take this birth of water to refer to baptism; other passages inform us as to what the birth of the Spirit is. But as we look at these passages, remember that Jesus said the birth of water and the Spirit makes one a member of the kingdom. Paul said, “For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). They were begotten through the gospel. The gospel is the product of the Spirit. And the Apostle Peter adds: “having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth” (1 Pet. 1:23). So to enter the church, one must be begotten by the word of the Spirit, and be baptized. He must believe according to the teaching of the Spirit, and be baptized. This is how one enters the family of God. He who has not done this is not a child of God He is not a member of the church of God

As Shown By The Definition of “Church”

We have seen that God’s rules of admission are shown by speaking of the church, figuratively, as the family of God. The terms of admission of the church are also shown by adequately defining the church. What is the church? (1) The church is a body of baptized believers. Neither an unbeliever nor an unbaptized believer can be a member of the church. Paul shows that one becomes a son of God, enters Christ, by believing and being baptized. He says, “For ye are all sons of God, through faith, is Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27). The Galatian church consisted of baptized believers. Faith must precede one’s baptism. One must believe with all his heart, repent, confess his faith, and then he is a suitable subject for baptism. Seeing that the church consists of baptized believers, one understands immediately that faith and baptism are prerequisites to church membership.

(2) We can further define the church as “the saved.” All the saved are in the church. Luke says in Acts 2:47 that the “Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Who were added to the church? The saved! The Lord did not overlook any either. He adds every saved person to the church. All one has to do to become a member of the Lord’s church is become one of the saved. If you want to become a part of the Lord’s church, look in your Bible, find out what Jesus said to do to be saved, do it, and the Lord will add you to the church It is as simple as that. Salvation is the only condition of church membership. But whom did the Lord say would be saved? Listen to Him: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Baptized believers are saved, so the church consists of the saved: baptized believers.

All one has to do to become a member of the church is to obey God’s word. James says, “Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21). The word will save your souls. Saved souls will be added, by the Lord, to the church. This fits perfectly with Paul’s statement recorded in Rom. 1:16. He said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” How does one get into the church? Become obedient to the word, obey the gospel. (Rom. 6:17, 18) To do this one must become a baptized believer, and baptized believers are saved, and saved people are added by the Lord to the church.

As Shown By Example

We can also learn God’s divine rules of admission into the church by studying some New Testament churches. Thus we will be learning by example. There was a church of Christ in the city of Corinth. Paul wrote two books of the New Testament to this church. To please the Lord, we must become members of the same body, the same church, to which the Corinthians belonged. But for us to follow the example of the Corinthians in becoming members of the church, we must be able to know what they did. Paul started the Corinthian church. He went into the city and preached to them the gospel. Here is the result: “And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). People heard, believed, and were baptized, and this put them in the church.

We can study another New Testament example. Take the church in Jerusalem. This was the first church. How did it begin? How did the people of Jerusalem become members of this church? In the first part of Acts 2 we read that a preacher spoke to them. The gospel was preached. By the preaching of the gospel, the people were cut to the heart. “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). They were guilty of crucifying God’s Son. They were sinners! What could they do about it? They believed what Peter had just told them about Jesus being. the Christ, the Son of God. So, “Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). He told these believers to repent and be baptized. Let us read a little more: “They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls” (2:41). And one more verse. We read that the disciples were “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). So with this reading fresh in. our minds, what did these people do to become members of the Lord’s church? (1) They heard the gospel preached; (2) Gladly received it; (3) Believed; (4) Repented; (5) Were baptized; (6) Were added by the Lord to the church. These things put them into the Lord’s church.

Man-made Laws of Entrance

Man has perverted virtually everything God did in making the divine church. Man has changed the form of government, the name, mission and worship in the church. These things have been divinely given, and man should not alter them. Men have also felt that the Lord left it up to them to establish the terms of admission into the church. I suppose men have a right to legislate as to the terms of admission into man-made churches, but men do not have the right to make the laws of admission to the divine church. The Lord alone has that right. In order to show you the audacity of men, let me cite now a statement showing that men think they can establish the terms of admission to the church. “Every church (is–C.W.) possessed of the positive power to declare its own terms of communion. `Every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members.’ ” (Manual of Presbyterian Law, p. 40.) So said one group of men. But God alone has the power to establish the laws of admission to His church.

In order to get into some human institutions, one has to relate his experience of grace. One must tell some mystical, miraculous happening in his life, in order to be granted entrance. But you read of nothing of the sort being required of one wanting to be a member of the divine church. This experience must be very persuasively told for after the person seeking admission to this particular denomination has finished with his story, the people take a vote as to whether they will accept or reject him as a member of that denomination. You never read of a person being “voted” into the church of which one reads in the New Testament. One does not enter the divine church by the vote of men. If you entered a church by being voted in, you can be confident that you entered the wrong one. Following the laws of men does not make one a member of the church of God. It just so happens that the Lord did not leave it up to men to decide who gets into His church and who does not. The Bible says “the Lord added to the church daily,” the Lord puts one in.

Some denominations require that a person confess that God for Christ sake has pardoned his sins. And if you can persuade them that God has pardoned your sins, you are then entitled to be baptized, not to be saved as the Bible teaches you should be, but man says it is to show you are saved. No Bible instance is on record of one confessing he was already saved in order to be permitted to become a member of the church. The same steps that save a man also put him into the church.

The divine church has divine rules of entrance; not human ones. They are God-given, not man-made. One is born of water and the Spirit into the family of God. One must be a baptized believer to be added to the body. One must be saved before the Lord puts him in His church. The Corinthians heard, believed and were baptized. So did the people of Jerusalem. And so must you! Obey the gospel, believe on the Lord, repent of your sins, be baptized for the remission of your sins, and surely, the Lord will add you to His church. There is no other way to enter the church which belongs to Christ, and of which He is the Head.

Truth Magazine XIX: 11, pp. 163-165
January 23, 1975

By Irvin Himmel

It is asserted sometimes that God punished the wicked in Old Testament days, but that He is shown to be loving. and compassionate in the New Testament; therefore, the Old Testament concept of punishment for sin is thought to differ from the New Testament concept.

What Jesus Said:

Let us begin by noting what Jesus Christ said on this important subject. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). The word for “destroy” that Jesus used here means “to devote or give over to eternal misery” (Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon). “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. 23:33). This was the question which our Lord put to the Pharisees and scribes. Depicting the final judgment of the wicked, Jesus said, “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels . . . And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46)_ Our Lord made three points clear in this passage: (1) The wicked will be given “punishment.” (2) It will be “everlasting” punishment. (3) It will be in the “ire” prepared for the devil and his angels.

What Peter Taught:

Now notice what the apostle Peter had to say on this subject. “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly . . . The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (2 Pet. 2:4-9). Peter here gave three arguments to show that God will reserve the unjust to be punished. First, God did not allow sinful angels to escape judgment. Second, He spared not the wicked world of Noah’s day. Third, God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah.

What Paul Wrote:

No writer in the New Testament spoke more clearly on the subject at hand than Paul. “. . . The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 These. 1:7-9). Paul taught that in the judgment God will render to every man according to his deeds. “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,” God will render “eternal life.” “But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness,” God will render “indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile” (Rom. 2:6-9).

What John Stated:

We often think of John as the apostle of love because he had so much to say about love, but John, like the Lord and the other apostles, understood that the wicked will be punished in the lake of fire. Hear John’s testimony. “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15). “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: Which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8).

Conclusion

All that any of us can know about the punishment which the wicked will receive is what God has disclosed in the Scriptures. If we cannot believe what the Bible says about hell, why believe what it says about heaven, or anything else?

God is loving and kind But at the same time, His divine law demands that there be some penalty for violation. Justice could not be served in the absence of punishment for the wicked: It is for God, not man, to decide on the penalty for sin. Let us not presume to be wiser than God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 11, p. 162
January 23, 1975

By Irvin Himmel

No matter what your present belief, in this short essay I want to set before you the truth. Please study carefully the following points about belief and its relation to truth.

Believing Something Does Not Make It The Truth

The aged Jacob believed the story his sons told him which insinuated that their brother Joseph had been devoured by an evil beast (Gen. 37:31-35). So sincere was Jacob in that belief, and so emotionally moved by what he believed, he rent his clothes, put on sackcloth, mourned for many days, and refused the comfort offered by other members of the family. Young Joseph was not dead although his ;father sincerely believed he had been killed. Joseph was very much alive!

Saul of Tarsus strongly and earnestly believed in his early life that Jesus of Nazareth was an impostor, not the real Christ. He “verily thought” that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus (Acts 26:9). Saul’s belief that Jesus was a fake did not make Him a pretender.

Truth is not determined by what someone chooses to believe. One may elect to believe the Book of Mormon, but that does not make the Book of Mormon true. One may choose to believe that the Pope of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, but believing it does not make it so. Some people believe man has the same nature of a beast and no other nature, but their belief does not make it true that man is wholly a material being. A lot of people believe miracles are being performed today (tongues, healing, prophecy, etc.), but their belief, which sometimes moves them in emotional experiences, does not make it true.

Failure To Believe Something Does Not Keep It From Being The Truth

Many of the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, even after He had preached to them, worked signs and wonders among them, and had demonstrated supernatural insight, but their lack of faith did not change the truth about His identity. Jesus explained, “for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). The truth about His Sonship did not depend on their belief in Him.

There are people who today refuse to believe there is a hell. They suppose that God thinks as men think, and in their human reasoning they cannot rationalize the idea of eternal punishment. But remember this: refusal to believe there is a hell does not keep the doctrine of hell from being the truth.

Some men refuse to believe there is a God. These men are called atheists. They suppose there is no being higher than humanity. This idea leaves them without any feeling of accountability to anyone except themselves. Refusal to believe in God does not change the fact that God exists and men are responsible to Him for their deeds.

Truth is determined by what the Scriptures teach, not by what someone believes, or refuses to believe. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16); that is the truth, and if every person on earth refused to accept it, that teaching of Jesus would still be the truth.

One Must Believe The Truth To Be Saved

Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Paul spoke of the “word of truth” as the “gospel of your salvation” (Eph. 1:13). He explained that we are chosen to salvation “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13).

This New Testament teaching is a far cry from the popular notion that it really does not make a lot of difference what one believes. Some have the idea that one can believe to a large degree whatever he wants to believe and still go to heaven. To such persons it matters not whether one believes baptism is essential to salvation or is a mere symbol of salvation; whether one believes in the impossibility of apostasy or that a child of God can fall away; whether one believes in immersion only or sprinkling, pouring, and immersion; whether one believes in tithing or giving according to ability; whether one believes Christians should keep the Sabbath (Saturday) or assemble for worship on the first day (Sunday); whether one believes Christ was born of a virgin or not; whether one believes in one faith or many faiths; etc., etc.

Refusal To Believe The Truth Brings Condemnation

Paul wrote about certain persons who did not love the truth, explaining, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:10-12). We cannot obey the truth if we do not learn it and believe it. The word of God warns that people “who do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness,” will receive indignation and wrath in the day of judgment (Rom. 2:8).

James taught that if one, errs from the truth and is turned back (converted), a soul is saved from death (Jas. 5:19, 20). This implies that if one turns from the truth he is headed for eternal death.

Truth is fixed by the word of God. Truth does not depend on what you and I believe or refuse to believe, but our eternal security does depend on our believing that which is the truth and not turning from that truth.

Truth Magazine XIX: 10, pp. 157-158
January 16, 1975

By Aubrey Belue, Jr.

In recent months, much writing –“pro” and “con” (but mostly “con”) — has been done on the “grace-fellowship” issue. Due to the misdirection and “side issues” which now obscure the scene, wisdom requires us to seek clear definition of matters as they currently stand.

We have seen the issue initiated in the various writings and other forms of teaching by those whose doctrinal positions have been questioned. In reaction, criticism has been given, clarification has been sought, and opposition has been raised to these writings and teachings. As is usual, cries of “foul play,” “misunderstanding,” “un-Christian motives,” etc., have flourished–both “pro” and “con.” Some of the principals in the controversy have sought to disclaim involvement, and, after helping to raise the issues, permit no close examination of their ideas. Others, in their frustration, have seemed bitter and overly personal in their efforts to gain “full disclosure” and bring about an open study. Still others have sought to minimize the differences, and have attempted to act as buffers on behalf of those under attack.

These are typical by-products of such situations, and ought not be surprising (this is not to say that those who have been wrong in their action-or lack of action-are to be excused. All are responsible for their conduct, and for the impression it leaves upon others-1 Corinthians 11:19). Unfortunately, and just as typically, these byproducts tend to bog us down, and the substance of the controversy becomes obscured. So, as at the beginning of our article: “Why all the fuss?”

First, there are substantive differences – at least insofar as words and actions can convey ideas. In fairness, it is proper to say that some have denied the natural import of their words and plead a “misunderstanding,” though they have not specifically located such a “misunderstanding.” Still, both the words and actions of some among us show real differences.

On determining fellowship, there are wide differences. The following quotes are highly significant:

“. . . although inferences and deductions from scripture premises, when fairly inferred may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not binding (formally) upon the conscience of Christians further than they can perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so, for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power and veracity of God Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion (fellowship) (Emphasis mine-ACB), but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church …. Here is clearly stated a definition of faith’ and `opinion’ that is workable in any age. It would be very difficult to overemphasize the importance of these two sentences from Thomas Campbell.” (Gospel Guardian Reprints–“Faith or Opinion’). (Emphasis mine-ACB).

In clear explanation of the scope of this principle, the article begins with this statement:

“Whether the subject be mechanical – instrumental music in worship, the number of containers in the Lord’s supper, congregational support of various organizations, centralized programs of intra-church activity, or any of many other controversies, one ‘side’ is usually found justifying what the other ‘side’ calls a ‘departure from the pattern’ by classifying the disputed practice as a matter of `opinion’ (Ibid.).

Needless to say, when one compares instrumental music with individual communion cups as regards fellowship, teaching of both that “these are not to be made terms of communion (fellowship),” he does not reflect the past and present thinking of the great bulk of those whose doctrinal togetherness has marked them “conservative” amid the conflicting “churches of Christ.” Right or wrong, the difference is there!

Such statements explain the charge that the “grace-fellowship” line is designed to offer a basis for an “overall sharing” with our “institutional” and “instrumental music” brethren (so long as one does not commit these errors himself). And, though this particular quotation has been explained as the thoughts of Campbell rather than the article’s author, his declaration (emphasized above) enlightens us as to his attitude in the matter!

Back of this approach to fellowship lie two doctrinal pillars: (1) a “permissive” concept of grace; and (2) a “grading” of sin. This concept of grace allows wide latitude for persistent sin in the life of a sincere child so long as he remains ignorant that it is sin:

“. . . The man `in Christ’ is saved by God’s grace, not his own wisdom. He is righteous, not because he is ‘right’ on every issue, but because he is right about Jesus Christ and seeks to obey Him . . .” (Reprints -,”Truth, Error, and the Grace of God”).

And discussing the attitude toward these sins in which the unknowing Christian should receive “overall” approval (though specific condemnation of the wrong practice), these thoughts are given in the aforementioned article on “Faith or Opinion”:

“. . . Obligation, then is on the one wanting brethren to do or believe, and he must show cause for their doing or believing . . . unless the thing is a matter of ‘faith’ and salvation, an objector has only to protest- in good conscience, and . . . the advocate (must) convince the objector of the rightfulness of the thing, or else cease his demands that it be done or believed. But this does not give the objector the right to forbid the other brother’s doing or believing. (First emphasis – author’s; second – mine – ACB).

The reason the “grace-fellowship” line provides for continuing toleration and overall approval of these erring brethren can be found in “fundamental” and “growth” distinctions that are made in Bible teaching. One author (Gospel Guardian, May 16, 1974 “Answers To Questions”) sees a difference in the essentiality of “the fundamental message that is required to become and remain a child of God,” and “the rest of the healthy teaching that one grows in the rest of his life.” This same author says:

“We should learn to make a Biblical distinction between teaching necessary for salvation in the first place and teaching designed to aid our growth in Christ. Otherwise we will be condemning each other for spiritual immaturity or unwillful ignorance-a thing never done by ‘dew Testament writers . .” (‘Reprints” — “‘Truth. Error, And The Grace of God”).

I am well aware of the dangers inherent in reviewing that which others are said to teach, and I-along with many others-welcome indications that these are not the teachings of our brethren. For those who are interested in clarifying such matters as might be deemed “misunderstandings” in the above, we will offer a number of observations prompted by such things as we have seen taught.

It is one thing for a teacher to answer his own questions, with no avenue for a direct challenge to his teaching and quite another for one to submit himself to the critical, probing questions that those who doubt his teaching might legitimately raise!

Also, these differences must materially distort the truth-and this is really why so much has been said! I offer the following points at which the “grace-fellowship” line is at odds with Scriptural truth:

1. It largely ignores what the Old Testament says about grace and obedience. One gets the idea that eh Old Testament is all law, and the New is all grace. (and this is not specifically taught. In fact, care is taken to affirm that there is “grace” int eh Old Testament – the only trouble is, these teachers admit it and then they forget it!) God’s grace then provided a sacrificial system to give the sinner access to God – but grace then required that one meet the demands of the system! When people then did not do the will of God in whatever He said (committing adultery, worshiping idols, abut also offering strange fire, touching the ark, violating the sabbath) they suffered the penalty of the law! These are the very things God uses to illustrate His reaction to our actions now (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13). These teachers today make the distinction between Old and New, one which changes God’s approach to such things.

2. It seeks to categorize “sins”-teaching that some are so “basic” that they condemn of themselves, while others are overlooked by God if the “heart is right.”

3. It shifts the basic determination of fellowship between children of God from propositions to dispositions. Instead of accepting John’s definition of the child of the devil as one who does not do righteousness, they define him as one who does not want to do righteousness (I John 3:10). It is now, among Christians, almost altogether a matter of attitude-so they say.

4. So, it requires men to exercise judgment of “hearts” instead of “deeds” in order to determine those with whom we will “have fellowship.”

5. It requires God to have two approaches to “grace” even in this dispensation.

His “grace” to the alien sinner requires obedience to exact commands (one must be baptized!), but His “grace” to the Christian does not. And this despite the fact that most of the passages upon which they rely for an understanding of “grace” are passages which, if not wholly considering the “grace” that makes Christians (and thus requires obedience to exact commands), are at least those which include it! From these passages, which they admit do not exclude “obedience to commands” for the alien, they profess to learn that “observing law” is not essential to salvation for the Christian!

6. It considerably distorts the Bible definition of faith, minimizing the extent to which acceptable faith includes doing the divine will, not merely suggest an attitude which produces that doing!

7. It results in a need for two dictionaries-one for its advocates, another for the rest of us! Hardly any of the words which are vital to an understanding of these issues are used identically by those who differ on these matters.

8. It leaves grave implications concerning the clarity and simplicity of God’s word.

The impression is generally left that one must seek in vain to know all that God requires of him, because we will be ignorant (in all probability) of some requirements even when we die!

9. It raises hypothetical questions comparable to the one the sectarians used to ask.

“Suppose a man repented, and sought baptism, and was killed in a car wreck on the way to the baptistry?” Now, it is, “Suppose a man (a gospel preacher) is driving down the road, inadvertently and ignorantly goes over 55 miles an hour, and is immediately killed in a car wreck?” Well, why not go one better and put them in the same car? According to the present development, the preacher will be saved, and the baptismal candidate will be lost! And, the truth is, all we can tell either is what the word of God says – to the alien, that “he that . . . is baptized shall be saved;” to the erring sinner that God’s pardon to him is extended upon penitence, confession and prayer. To whatever extent God in His mercy may tempter the strictness of the law has not been entrusted to me! As Bro. Foy Wallace, Jr., often has said, “Clemency belongs to the judge; it our duty to preach the law.”

This article reflects the conclusions to which an extensive exposure to these matters has led me over many months of study. I would be happy to know of specific matters that would indicate I am mistaken in my understanding of the issue. But, brethren, if the summary of the position is valid, these nine points of objection must also be considered valid (or so I believe). And if these objections be valid, it becomes increasingly more difficult to understand how one might willingly shield the advocates of such. Surely men who are determined to continue in these views are responsible to both God and their hearers. Let them stand on their own work, and allow us a fair and frank basis upon which to know their teaching and its fruits!–(Gospel Guardian,.August 15, 1974)

Truth Magazine XIX: 10, pp. 155-156
January 16, 1975