Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Should they whisper false of you,

Never trouble to deny;

Should the words they say be true

Weep and storm and swear they lie!

 

Paul wrote to the Corinthians “godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2 Cor. 7:10). Paul’s letter not only gives us an insight into what true repentance is, but also of the Apostle’s attitude towards the rebuke which brings repentance. Paul was a man of God’s own choosing, and he recognized that the stern rebuke and the threat of Apostolic discipline was necessary. Sin is like an infectious disease. If it is not dealt with early and sternly, it never becomes better; it just gets worse. Strong measures were called for in the situation in Corinth and Paul used them.

But even in the face of the necessity to condemn Corinth for what they allowed among them, he was in distress over the outcome of his action. “When we were come into Macedonia we could find no rest for our body, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears” (7:5). Paul had no choice-he agonized over whether he had done the right thing (7:8)-but in the end he did what needed to be done, recognizing the pain and danger of offense it might bring. The sting of his rebuke was brought out by necessity, and the threat of apostolic discipline a last ditch threat against the Corinthian church.

But, transcending both the rebuke and the reticence of the Apostle are the lessons on repentance that we obtain for application today from this passage. The ideal that the teacher was striving for was the perfection of his Corinthian brethren in the Lord. Paul’s sole goal in his rebuke was to bring the brethren to where they needed to be. His goal, and his driving for it brought pain-real pain-for both the teacher and the student alike. But the pain itself was not the object of the rebuke, but what came out of that pain: a return to the mind of God-to the right way-a changed way of life. Paul’s goal was not just to drive out the evil, but to promote healing and growth as well.

This brings us to the significance of Paul’s words on repentance. True repentance is given in contrast to the sorrow of the world. True repentance is according to God (ver. 9). Repentance makes us see sin as against God. When we “turn again” it is to come to the mind of God. Repentance leads to salvation, eternal life. One never regrets true repentance and the change it works in a life, but gives thanks for an opportunity to come back to the mind of God.

The sorrow of the world on the other hand is not repentance. The sorrow is not for the sin, or sorrow for rebelling against God, but sorrow for the consequences of our sin. We are embarrassed, found out, we feel shunned, neglected, uncomfortable. But there is no real sorrow for having’ sinned against God. Worldly sorrow does not find eternal life–but death, for it still holds to sin. Worldly sorrow would reform hell by banishing its pain, not its evil. Barclay says, “it is not really sorrow at all . . . it is only resentment. It is resentment at punishment and resentment at the fact that it did not get away with its sin. There is no real sorrow for the sin itself, but for the fact that it was found out. It would remain in the sin if the rebuke had not been forthcoming, and if in got the chance to do the same thing again and escape the consequences, it certainly would do it.”

This writer, and others I feel sure, have seen persons filled with “worldly sorrow” come forward after an “invitation” many times. These brethren usually preface their confession with “7f I have sinned or offended anyone. . . .” This “backdoor” repentance should be rejected by those who receive it. If one has sinned, he knows that he has sinned, and there is no need to repent of something that is not sin. The true repentant is like Job. 7abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. “

How many times has this preacher seen fake repentance to avoid censure, or to “take off the heat.” Repentance is not for the purpose of wriggling out of a difficult situation, it is a reversal of wrong action to righteousness. Godly sorrow breaks down pride. It does not issue forth in “Well, I am repentant, but there are a lot of other people who need to repent too!”

Alexander Campbell told a story to illustrate the difference between true repentance and worldly sorrow. The story is more than an anecdote, for Brother Campbell declared that it was true in its entirety. A deacon in a local church had a disagreement with an unbelieving neighbor. The week of the falling out the church was engaged in a Gospel meeting, in which the deacon took great interest. One evening towards the end of the meeting, his neighbor was there “looking unusually serious and devout-so much so, that some of the congregation began to suspect that he might be under conviction.” The meeting progressed to the last night, and as the meeting was about to break up, the deacon arose “for the hundreth and first time, to relate his experience, and exhort the sinners present. He protested that he had been born of God, and yet he felt his own unworthiness. ‘I feel my friends’ said he, ‘that I am a miserable, unworthy creature. I have done everything that I ought not to have done, and left undone everything that I ought to have performed. I can say with Paul that I am chief of sinners, and deserve nothing but the wrath and the curse of God.’

“Having resumed his seat, it was with astonishment, and not without hope, that the brethren noticed the deacon’s neighbor rise in his place to speak. All eyes were turned. ‘I feel it my duty’ protested the neighbor, ‘to rise and bear witness to the truth of what the deacon has said. He has acknowledged himself, before you and his God, to be a scoundrel. I know him to be such—I can bear witness to his dishonesty.’ The deacon fell into a rage, exclaiming vehemently, ‘You lie!. You lie!’ and in a spirit none too becoming the congregation broke up and dispersed….”

Brother Campbell concluded his story, and his words summarize the point of this lesson as well. AThe deacon never expected nor wished to be believed in his confession. They were made as the most effectual mode of illustrating his spiritual pride and of obtaining the reputation of being religious par excellence. When taken at his word, he evinced his hypocrisy and insincerity. Too many, we fear, of such confessions are made rather form the spirit of pride than humility, and ought therefore, to secure but a mean credit for the narrator@ (Campbell, Millenial Harbinger, Dec. 3, 1832).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 13-14
October 17, 1974

By Wallace H. Little

Note the Philippine proverb: “When the mango tree is being stoned, it is to be understood it is full of fruit.”

I am seriously disturbed over unjust criticism of two Philippine preachers, brethren Romulo B. Agduma and Victorio R. Tibayan. It is from two sources. One, the institutionally-minded brethren, especially those Americans running the Philippine Bible College (PBC). It would be difficult to overestimate the fear these PBC-Americans have of Agduma and Tibayan because of their strong and effective opposition to the liberalism of that school. The Americans try to discredit these men by accusing them of things they have not done, saying things they have not said and holding positions not held, all without acknowledging their denials, to say nothing of considering the proofs offered. Also, unable to meet their arguments, the Americans try to silence the man making them. While I was back there in 1973,. Don Huddleson, preacher at the liberal Clark Air Base church told me we could have peace between us if only we would cease our opposition to the PBC. Error would always have it so!

Agduma and Tibayan have been tremendous sources of strength among conservative brethren in that nation. Hence the second source, the unfair fault-finding and jealous sniping by those who, supposedly, are also conservative is even more disquieting. I will cite one example. It is typical and the man involved needs to be exposed publically. Mateo E. Dawi asked and received Agduma’s recommendation for US financial support. He went to Davao City to preach. Later he abandoned that work and moved to a small barrio. Romulo was distressed over this but urged that Dawi continue to be supported. He believed the man was capable of an acceptable work in his new area. Agduma then asked me to join him in requesting Dawi give up half of his support due to reduced expenses where he now lived. We recommended he urge his supporters divert the remainder to a worthy young preacher, Ecclesiastes C. Licayan. Dawi had previously assisted Licayan personally. He turned on Agduma. Having received nothing but good at Agduma’s hands, Dawi now wants to ruin his benefactor. He and his associates sent out many vicious letters against Agduma, none containing any truth! He. forged letters against Licayan and also wrote US brethren falsely charging me. But Romulo bore the brunt of the attack by Dawi and his friends. In his last letter, Dawi made a thinly-veiled threat to “go back to the liberals if his full support was not restored.” We have all begged him to repent, without effect. Dawi has access to addresses of many conservative US churches. He has, and probably will continue writing these seeking “restoration of his full support.” Before acting favorably on any request, it would be wise to contact one of us who has been there.

In the same manner, some are trying to ruin Vic Tibayan. Earl Robertson and Larry Hafley who recently returned from an extended preaching trip there were witnesses to one such dishonest effort. I mention the abuses these men are enduring to urge all to disregard jealous and unfounded criticism. A valid charge backed by testimony from two or three competent and reliable witnesses is one thing; false charges quite another. Attacks on Agduma and Tibayan by men like Dawi are false charges.

An Explanation

Lindy McDaniel has been my close friend for more than ten years. Besides my strong personal affection, I highly esteem him for his work’s sake in the gospel. So when he wrote, disturbed over my comments in Truth Magazine (Vol. XVIII, No. 9, 3 January 1974, page 8 beginning, title: That Philippine >Christian’ Again), I took inventory. What bothered Lindy was in paragraph three, which read: “. . . They, and I seek a debate there solely and singly that the school (PBC) may be exposed to the Filipino brethren for what it is; a violation of the Word of God in practice which if not repented of and corrected, will send all connected with it to hell. . . .” I believe I qualified the statement in the following paragraph. I wrote: “. . . Further, while it is possible to be wrong and sincere, after exposure to truth, a person, if sincere, will be right; if not right, he will no longer be sincere. These brethren have been exposed to the truth on the institutional errors for a number of years, including several years at least partially as a result of my efforts. This is evidence of the finest sort that, one, they do not believe the Bible (if they did, they would be scared out of their socks-Heb. 10:31; 1229 and 2 Thess. 1:07-09), and two, they know they are out of harmony with Bible teaching. Thus their refusal to engage in public discussion is an attempt to prevent Filipino Christians from learning they know this, for in the minds of the Filipino saints, it would classify the PBC-Americans as hypocrites.”

Lindy did not understand this to be qualifying. I left the wrong impression with him, and at least with one other and perhaps more. I want to be clear. When I stated my conelusion as to the eternal destiny of these brethren, unrepentant, I referred to those who had both opportunity and ability to learn the principles and applications in the institutional apostasy. This is by the concept of responsibility in the parable of the talents., The distinction is in the hands of the all-knowing God of heaven. I personally doubt any of the Americans connected with the PBC fit this category, however. I base this on Mt. 7:20 and Jn. 7:24.

I can state my beliefs briefly, When evidence is examined and points to a definitive conclusion, while this is judging, a Christian is not putting himself in the place of God. All he does is declare the obvious, using God’s law as his standard. Also, I understand 2 Jn. 9 means the doctrine which Christ taught, including but not limited to that about Himself. Hence I accept as fact, doctrine limits fellowship, with all this implies.

Finally, I do not want anything I write here considered personally derogatory to Lindy. We disagree on some important doctrinal points. However, he continues to love me enough to point out what he believes my errors. I love and respect him enough to consider carefully what he said. In his latest letter he left it to my judgment whether or not I should make this explanation.

Robertson’s and Hafley’s Trip

Earl Robertson and Larry Hafley graciously interrupted their return trip at the Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport to spend hours with me discussing their preaching visit to the Philippines. I am much encouraged. It is evident the cause of Christ prospered in their hands. There is the ever-present danger that this not be so. Those who go must respect the customs and traditions of the Filipino society. In our conduct, we need to remember always, we are the foreigners there. They obtained proof of several men passing themselves off as gospel preachers whose god is their belly. As regrettable as it is, some do depart from the faith. Those opposing the institutional apostasy were again greatly encouraged and strengthened by their visit. While it is impossible to measure the total good from these yearly trips, statistics alone show growth far exceeds what might be expected from a comparable-length gospel meeting in the US or Philippines. In time these visits may have to end, or at least no longer be conducted on an annual basis. But I do not believe that time has come yet. There is also still the need for on-the-spot reporting of the work being done there through financial support provided by US brethren. Cecil Willis and Connie W. Adams plan to return in 1975. Already I am receiving letters from Filipino brethren eagerly looking forward to that trip and the much good it will produce. I commend these two godly men to churches and individuals for financial support. Make your plans now and assist them. It is a worthy endeavor.

Buchanan’s Letter

Prior to their trip, Larry and Earl received a letter from Bob Buchanan, current president of the PBC. He made two points, essentially. A debate between either of them and one of the PBC-Americans was . . . not very high on my list of priorities. . . .” He also established a list of prerequisites to any such debate. His stipulations are an unhappy mixture of diversion and untruth. The PBC-Americans have added these to their previous objections to a debate. Not one of the five points dealt fairly or properly with a debate. I guess the earlier excuses were not convincing. The liberals fear losing many people if they permit them access to information on both sides. This is verified in a recent letter from Andrew Gawe. Buchanan forbad him to give PBC students any material on the institutional issues. (Andrew pays no attention to this demand.) If they had the truth, they would have no need of censorship. Additional proof is their frequent misrepresentations both of faithful Filipino preachers and conservative Americans who go there. Hafley and Robertson are now on the list of those to be misrepresented. The vehicle is their paper, the so-called Philippine Christian (its title: the contents bear little resemblance to Christianity).

The Whole, Sorry, Sad Story!

Recently I received a large envelope of correspondence from Filipino brethren who oppose the institutional apostasy, especially as represented by the PBC-Americans. In it is the whole, sorry, sad story. Ray Bryan from the PBC, aided by some native liberal preachers made a deliberate attempt to split a church.

In the fight over institutional errors, brethren are often forced to leave churches whose benevolence and preaching are by the sponsoring church concepts Their justification for these unauthorized practices? Such nonsense as: “We do many things for which we have no authority.” What? (Col. 3:17; Jn. 4:24; Eph. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Mt. 28:19, 20; 2 Jn. 9.) Next liberal brethren tell us to sit down and shut up, or leave! We have little choice. To remain would make us partakers of their sins (2 Jn. 10, 11). We leave to save our souls, to be free to worship and work according to God’s Word. It is a matter of conscience. Liberals then classify us as “Anti’s” and charge us with church-splitting using the fact of our leaving as proof. In some instances: the accusation is ignorance. Others well know they are the ones who actually divide churches by insisting on activities unauthorized in the New Testament. This is what the charge is about but seldom what those making it will admit.

Let’s see if the liberals really believe church-splitting is all that bad, or is simply a matter of whose ox is being gored. Space is limited, so I will reproduce only a small portion of the material. First is a letter to me outlining the situation. Second, is a reply to Ray Bryan’s earlier letter in which he had tried to persuade these brethren to uphold their previous “agreement.”

“An Open Letter”

“We are sending herewith affidavits, showing what the Liberals did to destroy the peace and unity of Bituagan brethren.

“They (the Liberals) tried to mislead us by offering money and in kind. Brother Marciano Manubag told the Congregation that twelve preachers and their respective churches will contribute two hundred pesos (200.00) from each preacher, and one hundred fifty pesos (150.00) from each Congregation, besides rice and vivand. This condition was offered to induce us to accept their Lectureship in 1975.

“Finding perhaps that many of us were soft-hearted and innocent, they managed to have four of us sign without giving us enough time to ponder over the matter. After that they began telling us not to receive Brother Romulo Agduma and Manuel Villanueva whenever they shall come. Are the Liberals teaching >another gospel’?

“Be it known to all the brethren that after much thought and prayers, we finally decided to recind all previous commitments of the Church pertinent to the said Lectureship.

“With much regret, it must be told that on June 16, 1974 when Manubag staged a walk-out from our Meeting Place, at Bitaugan, a factious group followed him, including our Church Treasurer. They were the ones who were made to sign in secret the Petition prepared by Lacuata. Sorry to say that (with few exceptions) from said group, we find most problematic members, who need to be disciplined.

“We charge Manubag, Lacuata and Co. for sowing discord among the brethren in Bituagan Congregation. Whatever excuses they may offer, they cannot escape the condemnation of the following Scriptures: Proverbs 6:16-19; Gal. 1:6-9; Rom. 16:17; Acts 20:29,30; Jude 4-19….”

“Retraction“

“This is to advise you that we definitely decided to decline your proposal to hold your Lectureship here at Bitaugan, San Isidro, Davao Oriental in 1975, for the following reasons, to wit:

“1. We desire to uphold the unity of faith, doctrine and practice in the body of Christ, based on Ephesians 4:1-6; 1 Cor.1:10.

“2: The seed of division is beginning to creep up in our midst since the time your selected group came in and preached to us >another gospel’. Gal. 1:6-9; Prov. 6:16-19; 2 Cor. 11:1-4; Rev. 22:18, 19. . . .”

“Hence, this retraction.”

Both documents were signed by Magno B. Dacillo and Eugenio D. Kieso, evangelists for the Bituagan and Hagimitan congregations. There is much more certification, including one statement signed by nearly seventy adult members of the church there. This is not the first time Brother Ray Bryan has engaged in church-splitting in the Philippines think(ing) he doeth God service.” (Jn. 16:2).

This example is characteristic of brethren wilfully blinded by their own attitude. The so-called pragmatic concept; “The ends justify the means” is a violation of Romans 6:1, 2 yet these brethren rationalize their conduct by it. Simultaneously they accuse us “Anti’s” of the “evil of church-splitting” when we leave to preserve our salvation. I guess us church-splitting “Anti’s” are so bad, any action to save a church from us is okay … even splitting it … if their ox is being gored.

Any wanting verification: I will gladly furnish names and addresses so you can check personally. As is my practice, I will send a copy of this to Ray Bryan, and offer opportunity for him to reply, should he desire to do so. Brother Bryan, I believe Cecil Willis (Editor, Truth Magazine) will allow you as many words as I used on this event, provided you discuss issues and maintain the disposition of a Christian while doing so. Will you offer us equal space in your paper? Let us hear from you on this.

Conclusion

I have long since concluded the Americans at the PBC and their Philippine cohorts are insincere and hypocritical. I base this not on the fact we disagree, but their deportment in disagreement. Their conduct for the more than seven years I have been involved in the Philippine work indicates they are concerned with preserving their unscriptural practices regardless of consequences, knowing these cannot be justified in God’s Word! Their methods are totally pragmatic, rationalizing their bad conduct by their purposes. They need to study and meditate carefully on Rom. 6:01, 02; 2 Cor. 10:04,05 and 2 Thess. 2:10-12. I fervently wish them to come back to God, and daily pray for their recovery (2 Pet. 3:09; 1 Jn. 2:09,10). But I am not hopeful.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 11-12
October 17, 1974

By Irvin Himmel

Some of the books circulated by Seventh-day Adventists are rather vague on the design of baptism. Now and then statements appear which could lead one to think that Adventists regard baptism as essential to the forgiveness of sins. For example, the question may be raised, “Is baptism necessary?” Acts 2:38 is cited as the answer. The catch is that Adventists apply Acts 2:38 in about the same manner that Baptists apply it. They deny that baptism is essential to the obtaining of the remission of sins but think it is necessary to church membership and a public confession that one is saved, and they believe this is the sense in which Acts 2:38 makes baptism essential.

I now propose to demonstrate from Seventh-day Adventist publications what their leaders really teach about the relation of baptism and salvation. In a book entitled Drama of the Ages (Southern Pub. Co., Nashville, 1953), W. H. Branson includes a chapter on “What Must I Do to Be Saved’?” Baptism is not mentioned at all in that chapter. Belief, repentance, and confession of sins are the only requirements discussed. Branson says, I may ask, `What must I believe about Christ?’ We must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is able and willing to save from sin and to bestow upon His followers the priceless gift of eternal fife. We must believe in Him as our personal Saviour, that He died for us, and that His death on the cross was the penalty for our sins which He paid on our behalf” (p. 113).

He continues, “Believing this, the next step is to repent of sins, confessing them to Him, and then believe with all the heart that He forgives and cleanses, for ‘if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ 1 John 1:9.”

Then after quoting Jer. 3:12-14, he draws this conclusion: “Having thus accepted the pardon that is freely offered through Jesus Christ, the believer must be ready and willing to follow Him by obeying all His commands and engaging in His service. This is the Christian life, and it results from having accepted salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The Christian does not keep God’s commandments or engage in His service to be saved, but he does these acts because he has become His. Christian service is now a joy” (p. 114). If one believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins, why write a chapter on “What Must I Do to Be Saved?” and omit baptism?

Branson’s next chapter is entitled, “Twice-Born Men.” He states that “Those who are saved through the power of Jesus Christ are twice born … They have been born again: the first time of the flesh; the second time of God’s Spirit” (p. 119). Again, he says nothing about baptism’s being an essential to one’s being born again.

In his chapter on “Arise and Be Baptized,” Branson makes it clear that baptism is for the person who has already been converted or born again. “From the time of conversion the individual is to live a,changed life.” He then concludes, “Thus baptism has for the twice-born man a double significance.” This is saying that one is converted before he is baptized in water; or that he is twice-born before baptism (p. 147).

Branson declares, “The prerequisites to the ordinance of baptism are faith, repentance, and a full acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Saviour” (p. 149). These are the only items mentioned as essentials of salvation in the chapter on “What Must I Do to Be Saved?” This plainly infers that one is saved before baptism. Branson raises the question (p. 156), “What should precede baptism?” His answer is as follows: “Belief in Christ, repentance of sin, and conversion.” To speak of conversion as preceding baptism is a denial that baptism is an essential part of conversion.

Branson admits that baptism is “essential.” However, he never admits that it is essential to salvation, or conversion, or the new birth. “What should every, newly converted individual do’?” he asks on p. 157. “Arise. . . and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” This answer, quoting Acts 22:16; contradicts his position. If one is “newly converted” and “twice born” before baptism, his sins are already washed away. Like the Baptists, at this point Adventists speak of baptism as a “symbol” or “public ceremony.”

“. . . Baptism is a public proclamation of a spiritual relation with Christ that is entered into before the outward ceremony takes place.” “Water baptism is valueless unless the one being baptized has been born again by the Holy Spirit.” These two quotations are from the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Review and Herald Pub. Assoc., Washington D.C.), Vol. 6, pp. 537, 772.

In a book entitled Why I Am a Seventh-day Adventist (Review and Herald Pub. Assoc., Washington, D. C., 1956), H. M. S. Richards states, “We believe that salvation for man is effected through Christ by grace alone, through faith in His atoning blood, works of obedience following as the inevitable result, not the cause or means, of salvation” (p. 21). Again he states, “We believe that entrance upon the new life in Christ is by regeneration, or the new birth, which is effected by the creative work of the Holy Spirit” (p. 21). Since baptism is an act of obedience, according to Richards it could not be any part of the “means” of salvation but follows as the inevitable result of salvation.

Richards later says, “From the very beginning Adventists have believed that salvation depends upon the grace of Christ. Material published by that church illustrates this belief in righteousness by faith and faith alone” (p. 53). He fists five of Ellen G. White’s books and remarks, “Every single one of these books teaches this glorious and wonderful doctrine that our salvation depends upon the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ, that righteousness and justification are by faith alone” (p. 55). “When the sinner believes that Christ is his personal Saviour, then, according to His unfailing promises, God pardons his sin, and justifies him freely” (p. 57). Contrast this last statement with what Paul wrote in Rom. 6:17, 18.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (issued by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1971), clearly states that baptism follows forgiveness of sins. Item 5 under “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists” is as follows: “That baptism is an ordinance of the Christian church, the proper form being by immersion, and should follow repentance and forgiveness of sins. By its observation faith is shown in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (Rom. 6:1-6; Acts 16:30-33.)” If baptism “follows” repentance and forgiveness, it cannot be essential to forgiveness.

The Manual states on p. 49: “Thorough instruction in the fundamental teachings of the church should be given every candidate for church membership before he is baptized and received into church fellowship. Only those giving evidence of having experienced the new birth, and who are enjoying a spiritual experience in the Lord Jesus, are prepared for acceptance into church membership.” This plainly separates the new birth from baptism. According to Adventism, one must experience the new birth before he is prepared for baptism and church membership. “When a person realizes his lost state as a sinner, sincerely repents of his sins, and experiences conversion, he may, when properly instructed, be considered a proper candidate for baptism and church membership” (Manual, p. 51).

The Manual lists thirteen questions that should be answered in the affirmative by candidates for baptism. Here is question #3: “Renouncing the world and its sinful ways, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour, and do you believe that God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven your sins and given you a new heart’?” (p. 59). If the candidate answers this in the affirmative, he confesses that he has forgiveness of sins before baptism. To affirm or confess that forgiveness takes place before baptism is to deny Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21 and other passages of Scripture.

Adventists make baptism essential to membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but they do not teach that it is essential to salvation from sin.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 9-10
October 17, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

It is alarming to hear brethren express reservations about debating. A number of saints, firmly founded in the faith and grounded in the gospel, have raised an eyebrow at the mention of a debate. Why is this? Are their objections valid?

Before we consider the complaints against controversy, it must be established that such activity is in harmony with the Scriptures. The following passages should convince any one that believes the Bible that debates are scriptural. (Acts 9:29; 17:2, 3; 17:17; 18:4; 19:9; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1; Jude 3) Look up the words “disputed” and “reasoned” that are located in some of the above passages. Obviously, debates are not sinful. Then,

Why Do Brethren Object?

1. “Because some debaters are dishonest.” Even in the first century there were those who dealt deceitfully with the word of God. (2 Cor. 2:17) Every contender for the faith should say with Paul, “We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word,. but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Cor. 4:2-RSV) If debates are dishonorable because some men are dishonest and deceitful, then it has ever been so. In some of the first public debates ever held, dishonesty was displayed. “Then they secretly instigated men,. . . and set up false witnesses . .” (Acts 6:11, 13) The apostles did not discourage nor disapprove of debates because some men were dishonest. Nor should we.

2. “Because some debaters say some harsh things.” Admittedly, no one should utter a harsh statement for hurtful effect. But listen to the Holy Spirit’s recording of some debaters’ pungent, pointed words, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51). “Then Saul, (who is also called Paul), . . . said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10) Some spiritual sweeties of the present would probably refuse to endorse Paul and Stephen for debate, because they said some harsh things. Who was it that said, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell” (Matt. 23:33)? Did he not also say, “Ye are of your father the devil” (Jn. 8:44)?

3. “Because debates hurt the church’s image.” (A church which has this concept of debating probably has an image that needs to be hurt!) Sectarian sentimentalism is outrageously contagious. It seems some brethren want gospel preachers to manifest the spineless air of the denominational clergy, most of whom would not say boo to a field mouse. Wonder how badly Paul and Barnabas “hurt the church’s image” in Antioch when “the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution . . . and expelled them out of their coasts” (Acts 13:50)? Because Paul spoke “the gospel of God with much contention” in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:2), “the Jews . . . set all the city in an uproar,” and Paul and his party were forced to flee the city “by night” as common criminals. (Acts ’17:5, 10) Such “unfavorable publicity” did not discredit debate then, so why should it do so now?

4. ABecause no one is ever converted.” That statement is false. I can give names and addresses of some who learned the truth as a direct result of a debate. Granted, few may be converted, but if this will indict debates, will it not also do away with most gospel meetings, volumes of printed sermons, and hours of radio time? Paul had but nominal success when he disputed in Athens. According to the modern idea, he should have ceased debating. But he did not, and we should not.

Conclusion

Controversy has always enveloped the truth. It surrounded our Savior and abounded around the apostles. People are prone, however, to equate religious discussions with bar room brawls. Unfortunately; disputants have not always conducted themselves “as it becometh the gospel of Christ”‘ (Phil. 1:27), thus the reason for the feelings of many. But the victory of the’ Devil over the passions of men does not negate the worth of honorable argument. Controversy can be and ought to be commendable; Let us all seek to be meek in mind and humble in heart as we fight the good fight of faith.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 8
October 17, 1974