Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION: From Kentucky: “Was the jailer in Philippi asking for physical or spiritual salvation?”

REPLY: The Context: Acts 16:9-40

Paul met with success in Philippi. He also faced great opposition and persecution. “We. . . suffered. . . and were shamefully entreated at Philippi” (1 Thess. 2:2). Public attention was called to the efforts of Paul and his company. This came about as a result of the spirit which Paul cast out of “a certain damsel.” The uproar which followed was broadcast throughout the city as Acts 16:19-24 necessarily implies. (See words like, “trouble our city” and “the multitude.”) The jailer was not unaware of the work of Paul. He knew who Paul was. Even the possessed damsel knew and had cried for “many days,” “saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.” The jailer, therefore, could not have been ignorant of the nature of Paul’s work. Though he assuredly did not know the truth, he knew Paul and Silas were preachers of God and of some kind of spiritual salvation.

The jailer was commanded “to keep them safely.” The men who “do exceedingly trouble our city,” are not to escape! The jailer, “having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” At midnight, the jailer was aroused and awakened from his sleep by “a great earthquake.” “Seeing the prison doors open, he drew. out his sword and would have killed himself, supposing te prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm; for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

Physical Salvation?

If we eliminate physical salvation, we shall establish spiritual salvation. Physical salvation cannot be what the jailer was requesting.

First, the reason for killing himself was already past. The prisoners had not escaped. When Paul cried, “Do thyself no harm: for we are all here,” that removed the threat to his physical life. It was the jailer’s life for the escaped prisoners, but none of them had fled. “Knowing that death was the penalty for allowing prisoners to escape, he was about to act upon the Roman code of honor, which required a man to die

by his own hand if necessary to escape that of an enemy or an executioner. It is not likely that he rushed to this desperate resort without some outcries which indicated his purpose, and which were caught by the quick ear of Paul, whose loud voice snatched him back, in the very nick of time, from the brink of eternity:

“As soon as the jailer could collect his senses he remembered that the speaker who had called to him had been preaching salvation in the name of the God of Israel, and he instantly perceived that the earthquake, the opening of the doors, and the unlocking of the fetters were connected with him, and were the work of his God. Seizing this thought, and glancing into the black eternity from which he had just been rescued, his own salvation, rather than the security of his prisoners, at once absorbed his thoughts. At sunset, when coldly thrusting the apostles into the dungeon, he cared nothing for them, or for the salvation which he knew they had been preaching; for then he was in the midst of life and health, and all went well with him; but at midnight, when he had been within an inch of death, a change as sudden as the earthquake passes over him, and he falls trembling at the feet of his prisoners.” (J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary On Acts Of Apostles, Pp. 101, 102.)

Second, the answer given by Paul and Silas is absurd if physical deliverance is the object of the jailer’s inquiry. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” What does believing on Christ have to do with his physical life in this situation? Why include his family, his “house?” They were in no physical danger. “But,” someone objects, “Paul and Silas misunderstood the question,” How do you know? The jailer did not correct them. Are you better able to tell what the jailer was asking than Paul and Silas were?

What is to be gained by the unfounded assumption and assertion that the jailer was asking about physical salvation? We conclude that the jailer was asking a question parallel to that ask by those in Acts 2:37. The jailer wanted to know what to do to be saved from his sins, from the wrath of God which is to come upon the ungodly. This is clearly shown by the context of Acts 16.

(Now, will someone ask if the Jews on Pentecost were asking for work, for employment, when they implored, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 2
October 3, 1974

 

By Ron Halbrook and Steve Wolfgang

Mission Magazine (Box 2822, Abilene, Texas 79604) has been thrashing around in search of a new basis of unity since its beginning in 1967. From the start, it has been certain of but one thing: the approach of restoring the New Testament standard as the basis of unity is anathema. In this tradition, “Six theses are nailed to the door of the restoration principle” by R. Lanny Hunter in an article entitled “Restoration Theology: A Schoolmaster,” in the June, 1974 issue. Following are a few excerpts which will be reviewed.

The Six Theses

“Although understandable, it is unfortunate that we have not critically evaluated restoration theology. For if the fundamental principle upon which we base our religious conviction is defective, it does not matter how meticulously it is followed, the result will be distortion of the Christian faith.”

“Restoration theology begins with the assumption that the Christian church is (or has been) apostate, and that it must be restored to its original form in order for the church to receive God’s approval and for Christians to be able to work and worship acceptably within it. Restoration theology proceeds on the hypothesis that the Bible’s basic purpose is to provide a pattern or blueprint on which such a restoration can be made. Thus in liturgy, organization, ritual form, and doctrinal ideology, the New Testament provides a God-ordained pattern for the church which must be meticulously followed. . . The pattern, once discovered and implemented, is the basis for religious unity.”

“Restorationists should not be faulted for failure to completely live up to an ideal if the ideal itself is flawed.”

“In my judgment the restoration principle, as an interpretive philosophy of the Bible, has several fundamental defects that make implementation impossible.”

“How can we be so confident that the Bible teaches what. we believe it teaches when many other denominations which are equally devout, equally concerned, equally intelligent, and equally scholarly fail altogether to find our kind of church in the pages of the New Testament? Are we alone right and all others wrong?”

“We shall undertake to analyze restoration theology by focusing on six of its major defects (Footnote: The author would like to acknowledge his debt to Morrison’s The Unfinished Reformation for helping crystalize his thinking at this point.):

(1) Restoration Theology regards the church as given by God in the New Testament, rather than given by God in history. “

Restoration “is not a divine directive…. There are many different philosophical approaches to biblical interpretation. There is no method which has God’s imprimatur, nor is there any method which is inherent in the scriptures themselves.”

“We may proceed by observing that the conviction that the Christian faith requires restoration of the structure of the primitive Church is without foundation, in either the spirit or the letter of the New Testament.”

“(2) The spirit of Restoration Theology is in irreconcilable conflict with the spirit of unity.”

“. . . it is a practical impossibility for men to understand the Bible alike in the precise detail necessary to develop the uniformity required for unity in a pattern church.”

“Thus, in the latter half of the twentieth century, instead of being a force for religious unity we have become one of the major obstacles to its achievement. We are part of the problem, not part of the solution. As we contemplate this fissiparous process, we might be driven to the conclusion that our basic theological premise is faulty. In reality, the restoration principle is the mother-concept of sectarian division.”

“(3) Restoration Theology makes the authority of Christ subordinate to the authority of the Bible.”

“For all of the importance of the Bible, it should not be the true focus of the Christian’s loyalty. Christ alone claims ‘the undivided loyalty of the Christian and he alone is the sole authority in the church.”

“Those who would restore New Testament Christianity should begin by restoring Christ to the place he held in the primitive church and not allow the Bible to compete with him for authority.”

“(4) Restoration Theology assumes that a standardized and jealously guarded body of belief will keep the church from drifting into apostasy.”

“Instead of the church drifting into apostasy as feared, it is more securely protected against heresy by the challenging free flow of ideas.”

Romans 14 will “allow the individual Christian to hold his own opinions, follow his own convictions, and be answerable to the master alone.”

“(5) It is impossible to restore the first century church.” “In applying restoration methodology we find that custom, culture, and the Greco-Romano-Semitic ethos are so indivisibly suffused throughout the doctrine and form of the New Testament church that they cannot be separated.”

“(6) Restoration Theology produces a repository of pride at the depths of the collective spiritual life of the Church.”

“Within an open fellowship, our differences, as we freely intermingle and interact, would stimulate, guide, and enhance our spiritual life beyond anything we have known in our sectarian isolation.”

“The letter which kills will be consumed by the Spirit which gives life.”

Removing the “Nails”

Lanny Hunter laments the lack of critical evaluation of the restoration principle. We lament his lack of critical evaluation of the alternatives. “How can we be so confident that the Bible teaches what we believe it teaches when so many other denominations “who are devout, concerned, and intelligent do not “find our kind of church” to be God’s will.@ “Are we alone right and all others wrong?” Substitute “religions” for denominations and “Christ” for church; how now?

This lands us on the fundamental question: is there an exclusive faith and practice presented in the New Testament, binding upon us by divine authority? Are we required to believe and teach any certain pattern concerning Christ? or the Church? Must we adopt, exclusively, the testimony concerning Christ-his divine Sonship, his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, reign, offer of salvation, example of life, authority over God’s people? And how shall the church be organized, what worship shall it engage in, what mission adopt? Is there a basis and pattern for discipline? What shall be its message and doctrine? Are the testimony, teaching, and practice of the New Testament church our exclusive pattern? If the answer is no, then we are without chart or compass, without a standard. We have no basis for confidence that God approves our faith and practice any more than that of the denominations – indeed, than that of Buddhists, Moslems, and the rest! As Boston University philosopher Edgar Sheffield Brightmen said, “Christian Science and Roman Catholicism . . . both cannot be true at the same time unless the universe is a madhouse” (An Introduction to Philosophy, N.Y., Holt, 1925, p. 56).

What about those six shiny nails driven by Lanny (more like a few old rusty straight-pins, borrowed almost verbatim from C. C. Morrison, notable liberal of the Disciples of Christ, in his book The Unfinished Reformation)? (1) The New Testament is a record of what God approves and disapproves for His people in history-a selected record (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:13-15). Does the New Testament preserve a norm of church structure meant to be always remembered and observed? Yes, the written things are inspired and selected by God, normative for the affairs of the church and meant to be always remembered and obeyed (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Tim. 3:14-15; 2 Pet. 1:14-15). Lanny says there is no approach to Scripture “which has God’s imprimatur.” Then any and every method is permissible and the author must concede there is as much “divine directive” for our “method” as for any other, including his!

(2) “The spirit of unity” must find the basis of unity. If the New Testament order is not our pattern for faith, practice, and unity, then we face the prospect of an ever-widening circle of fellowship. Morrison is remembered as editor of the ultra-liberal Christian Century, in which Ronald E. Osborn wrote, “Disciples who have repudiated restorationism have no adequate basis for justifying their congregationalism, weekly communion, immersion-baptism, . . elders and deacons … or other distinctive practices. They have even less guidance for formulating new procedures except what may be uncritically absorbed from the culture” (Sept. 25, 1963, p. 1164). This kind of expanding brotherhood (“spirit of unity”) cannot stop short of brotherhood without barriers, i.e. the brotherhood of man in the old humanitarian sense! And the moment one stops anywhere short of that, he not only has a basis of unity, but a “mother-concept” of division. When “the spirit of unity” recognizes a basis of unity, it has also recognized a basis of exclusion.

(3) The authority of Christ is revealed and expressed in the New Testament exclusively; this makes man subordinate to Christ, not Christ to the Bible. (Matt. 28:18; Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13). He tells us to restore and emphasize Christ, not the Bible; we trust he does not offer this as a “rigid pattern.” Christ cannot be separated from his voice (the Bible). “The sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (Jn. 10). To follow Christ is to follow his word.

(4) There is no absolute guarantee against apostasy, but yes, God has willed that we guard the “body of belief.” Lanny’s “nail” managed to fly directly into the face of Jude 3 here (cf. 2 Tim. 2:2). Rom. 14 is always the golden text for those trying to enlarge the borders of unity and fellowship; under this banner brethren have marched all the way to the humanitarian “brotherhood of man.” Any stopping place short of that can be removed by the next fellow quoting Rom. 14. We simply cannot escape the job of going to the Bible to find out what God has bound; only then can we go to Rom. 14, which allows liberty where God has not bound or loosed. We are at liberty where there is no “body of belief” revealed, but not beyond (Jude 3).

(5) We can retain the basis of faith, practice, and unity “the first century, church” had: the inspired teaching. They had it in the men; we have it in the book. But if custom and culture cannot be separated from divine revelation in the inspired writings, then perhaps the inspired teaching concerning Christ is a cultural adaptation of Buddhism or Communism! Thus the New Testament is made a haystack in which the pin of saving truth is indiscernible.

(6) Some worshiped the brass serpent; the abuse of what God commanded does not nullify God’s command. Neither the “repository of pride” Lanny has seen nor the arrogance of super-spirituality we have seen settles the real issues here.

Lanny offers “the Spirit which gives life” (i.e. elements of faith and practice for which we cannot give book, chapter, and verse!) in place of “the letter which kills” (adhering to the Bible pattern of faith and practice). The voice of Christ is still speaking in his word-God’s word-the Spirit’s word (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16). If the voice of Christ is found anywhere outside the New Testament, then it can be found everywhere, in every religion, in every philosophy. We trust no quotation from the “letter which kills” will be cited as an objection to this point!

Students of restoration history must wonder why brethren cannot se all this is a rerun of a very old film. Those who feed on the Morrisons, DeGroots, and Osborns ought to se where this alternative position leads. When the College of the Bible in Lexington, Kentucky took this path after J.W. McGarvey=s death, it no longer turned out men who sought to exalt Christ by exalting the word of Christ; it now turns out men who preach this Agreat message@ to a lost and dying world: AChrist is a process, not a person.@ The other side of the fence may look greener . . . until we get there. Let us be satisfied with the faith and practice presented in the New Testament to the exclusion of all else.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 12-13
September 26, 1974

By Bill Simmons

Fellowship

We, all know how easy it is to say love, and how difficult, but rewarding, it is to practice it (Matt. 5:44; 23:3; Acts 20:35; Jas. 2; 1 Pet. 1:22). We can sympathize with all who try to maintain the “unity of the spirit in the bond of Peace” (Eph. 4:1-16; 1 Cor. 1:10; Jno. 17:21; Prov. 6:19). We have all experienced wishy-washy compromise on one extreme (Jude 16) and selfish pride on the other (3 John 9,10). Nevertheless, when we try to the best of our ability and opportunity (Matt. 25:14-30; 1 Pet. 4:11) to say and do according to God’s Will (Col. 3:17), we shall have the kind of unity God wants from us. This unity will make our lights brighter (Matt. 5:13-16) for Truth seekers and keep the church as near the “pattern” (Tit. 1:7) as possible.

We will have differences; even difference we believe will affect soul salvation. These do not always have to cause ungodly division, as opposed to the kind Christ caused (Jno. 7:43). A Christian could confide doubts about our resurrection, but “saying” it in the manner of Hymenaeus and Philetus would ultimately “overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:17,18). Most of us agree it is easier to force division over matters of congregational involvement since we are “joined” to what the congregation to which we belong does (Acts 9:26). Disgraceful schism (1 Cor. 12:25) has occurred over individual responsibilities, from judgmental matters such as smoking, to the fundamental truth of the deity of Christ.

There are times we must “withdraw” (1 Tim. 6:3-5). The cause of ungodly division is on the “side” of those who taught “otherwise;” who “abide not in the doctrine of Christ;” who “cause divisions and offences;” who “leaven” others with their “commonly reported” sins; and any who “bid Godspeed” to such (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Thess. 3:6-16; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Jno. 9-11). Man’s withdrawal of “fellowship” (sharing; joint participation; communion; and togetherness) is not nearly of the magnitude of that of God’s. However, for individuals and congregations (churches do have a “sharing” with each other, but not to the extent of individual “fellowship” (Acts 14:26-28; Rom. 16:16; 2 Cor. 8:1-4) to no longer “recommend” and to “mark” another as divisive and sin-causing, should be considered a serious consequence by those commanded to “love one another with a pure heart fervently.”

Division: A Case in Point

In May of 1973, the church in Polson, Montana divided over a “salvation-by-faith-only” heresy. Gary Burlington, one of the preachers, gave one of his reasons for helping start a new church; “I was told I could not preach my beliefs.” Some of these beliefs were: “man is so totally depraved, he cannot do anything to save himself;” “we are saved by faith alone;” “we are saved only by grace;” “Paul places faith and works completely opposite;” “faith is not a work, Christ was being sarcastic in John 6:29;” “baptism cannot save us;” “It is impossible to keep any law;” and “righteousness of any law is wrong.” In contrast, see Matt. 7:21; Acts 2:37-41; 10:34; 17:31; 22:16; Rom. 3:27; 8:2; 10:1,3; 1 Cor. 9′.21; 2 Cor. 5; 7:1; 13:11; Jas. chs. 1 and 2; 1 Pet. 3:21; 4:11; 1 Jno. 3:4,5).

Keith Smothers, the then full-time preacher at Polson, agreed with most of the false teaching, but said his reason for helping start another church was the ungodliness of the original congregation (sin is still being corrected when it emerges). Dan Copeland, who also helped preach, after several weeks joined the apostate church.

They found comfort in Ed Fudges’ Grace of God booklet. While much taught therein is ambiguous, some definite false doctrine is taught (e.g.: “no man can be saved by keeping the rules” – P. 15; and “no one can ever be saved by law” – p. 18). Scripture teaches we are saved by keeping God’s rules and the “law of liberty”, (Jno. 8:51; 14:21; Rom. 8.2; Jas. 1:21-29; 2:10-13; 1 Pet. 1:22-25; 1 Jno. 3:24; Rev. 22:7).

Other Teachings Not “Pushed”

It was argued 2 Jno. 9-11 restricted only those who said Christ was not God. However, the context shows Christ’s commandments and doctrine of Christ are involved. It was argued we could join churches who recommended those causing division over “institutionalism,” if such churches were not currently forcing any members out over it. These teachings, though; were hardly a factor in the division.

After the division, a wresting of Romans 4 and 1 John 1 did surface. They taught, in varying degree, “the blood of Christ will >cleanse’ some sins (they specified non-rebellious and non-persisting sins) without having to >confess’ or ‘repent and pray.=” In contrast, see Acts 8,22; 1 Jno. 1:9; Jas. 2:8-14; 1:13-25; 2 Pet. 3:9; Matt. 25:14-30; Rom. 8:26; 6:23). Our “fruits of darkness” cost us the privilege of “walking in the light” of God’s fellowship (Eph. 5:8-11; Jas. 1:17; 1 Jno. 1-2:3. Our repentant confession to God is the first step back into walking “in the light,” wherein Christ’s blood cleanses us.

Some Reasons For The Division

While basically gentle and loving saints, their fruits (Matt. 7:15-29) show other attributes now: lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6); too little love (I Pet. 1:22); self-righteousness (Rom. 10:1-4); evil speaking (Jas. 4:11); stubbornness (1 Sam. 15:23); guile (1 Pet. 2:1); wisdom of the “wise” (1 Cor. 1:17-31); not abiding in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jno. 9) and causing division (Rom. 16:17).

The roots for such a tree are many. It is true many Christians act like they are “owed” a home in Heaven just because they have been baptized and are in Christ’s church, without faith-full-ness (Rev. 2:10). Similarly, there were Jews who felt the “reward” was reckoned a “debt” owed them because they were circumcised and Jews, and they too neglected faith (Rom. 3:27-4:5; Hab. 2:4; Jno. 4:24). However, when our “fruits” demonstrate faith “toward God” (Heb. 6:1) and thankfulness for God’s grace (which is not some mystical, inexplicableness, but simply means favor, undeserved, when from God to man), we should not be repeatedly accused of trying to “merit” salvation. Even God’s works for us today (opposed to works of the law of Moses; of the flesh; and man’s own (Gal. 2:16; 5:19-26; Tit. 3:5), while essential in working out our soul salvation (Phil. 2:12; Acts 10:34; Rom. 3:27; 8:2; Jas. 2; 1 Pet. 3:21), still find us dependent on God (Lk. 17:10; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Tim. 1:12).

Need For Assurance

They have “gone onward” in seeking more assurance God is with them. They say, “we can do nothing to save ourselves and therefore only grace can save us.” If this were true, we could be relieved of all concern about our own erring potential and just “throw ourselves on the cross” of our unerring God. God has the power to save us by His Greatness alone, but He has not chosen to do so (Jno. 3:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rev. 2:10).

We do find abundant assurance in that God “is not willing that any should perish” (Heb: 11:6; Matt:. 7:7-14; 11:28-36; 18:12-14; Mk. 16:16; Rom. 8:35-39; 10:10; ;1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Jno. 1; Ps. 1; 23; 84:11,12). There is no good reason to worry about diligent seekers of God dying without finding Him, meeting His conditions, whether an “alien” sinner or wandering sheep, whether on a desert or in a car speeding through a stop sign, whether in Africa or the darkest of America! We must trust God’s promises glad obey Him!

Humility?

While assigning others a “haughty spirit” through “trusting in works,” they cloak themselves with a mantle of super-humility (?). They inform us, “we cannot do anything to save ourselves, we put all our trust in God’s grace.” In such a context, only a “conceited Pharisee” would dare disagree, or so they would have us believe (see Jno. 6:27-32; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22; Acts 2:40).

Rebellion Against Authority

They stress “no law or ‘system’ can affect our’ soul salvation” (see Jas. 1:21,25; 2:10-12; Rom. 8:2). Such independence breeds spiritual anarchy, with the usual chaos and self-destructive contradiction. While it is true there are still “parties” in Christ’s church (1 Cor. 1), zeal in opposing “party-line” should not sweep us “beyond” Christ’s “party line” (2 Jno. 9), no matter how orthodox that makes us.

Mystery (?) Of Grace

A yielding to the mysterious reveals itself in their use of the word grace. Actually, God’s favor to man is more readily comprehended than His Supreme Greatness (Psalms 103 and 139; Jno. 1:1-5; Rom. 1:20), without which His favor would be no more significant than man’s grace! The proclamation, “we are saved only by grace, but not by grace only” is supposed to reflect deep faith and wisdom, approaching the mystical, when it is really desperate contradiction.

Illustrating confusion over a related phrase, “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4), were statements from two “sound” (?) preachers who recently visited me. While admitting they had sinned, both declared they “never had fallen from grace.” Even after discussing degrees of “falling,” sometimes momentary (Acts 8:18-23), sometimes continual (Heb. 10:26-31), sometimes “unto death” (1 Jno. 5:16; Heb. 6:6), they persisted. Can they really believe God has looked in favor upon them while in the very act of transgressing His Will (see Jas. 1:12-18; 2:10)? It is true, when we pray in repentance to God, we cannot have total “recall” or absolute knowledge of all that is against God’s Will. We should repent of all sins nevertheless, just as we did when we first obeyed the Gospel (Acts 2:38; 8:18-24; 2 Cor. 7:10; Rom. 8:26,27; Lev. 5:17-19). God knows if our hearts offer Agodly sorrow” or “sorrow of the world.”

Why Now?

The subjects of faith, grace, law, works, righteousness and fellowship have been disagreed among faithful Christians before, without causing division. The “lawless” among us now are going to the extreme similar to that of Hymenaeus and Philetus, to the overthrowing of the faith. Deep convictions of faithful and learned saints are disdained as “party-line.” Stubbornness is mistaken for courage: “Princes of this world” (1 Cor. 2:6) are too often lauded and brethren in Christ too often slandered. There is more willingness to accommodate denominational “Calvinists” on the “plain of Ono” (Neh. 6:2) than to keep “the unity of the Spirit” with blood-bought brothers and sisters. Pathetic cries, “we are misrepresented,” ring hollow when they consistently weave ambiguities. Yes, they are confused, and should admit it, rather than assigning to others bigotry ndd ignorance for not “understanding them.”

Though the siren song, “God does it all,” will always attract many (Matt. 7:13,14), God is still “the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey Him” (Heb. 5:9). We will stand before God and be saved or damned depending on God’s undeserved favor and our works, deeds and fruits done in our body (Jno. 5:29; 15:1-6; Rom. 2:6-11; 6:17-23; 10-16; 14,11,12; 2 Cor. 5-1-11.) We can expect to be saved eternally because God is (Ex. 3:14; Rom. 9:1421), God will save us (Jno. 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:22-25; Jno. 14:1-4); and we will save ourselves (Jno. 11:25; Acts 2:37-40; Phil. 2:12). God will not alone save us. We cannot, alone, save ourselves. Meanwhile, we must all continue to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 10-11
September 26, 1974

By Gene Tope

“One of life’s greatest privileges has been my friendship with Steve and Cora Kearney. This fine couple have been “my joy” from the time of their conversion. Now they have decided upon a difficult task: to return back to Ireland to live, work, and teach. They will not be going as strangers, but will be returning home-to parents, loved ones and neighbours. Steve Kearney is not a novice as a gospel preacher. For seven years he has laboured with me in the gospel: studying, preaching and teaching. He has unusual ability in the pulpit and a great zeal for the salvation of lost souls. His life matches what he teaches. History has shown Ireland to be a difficult field. The Kearneys know what it is all about. They are to be commended for their dedication, sacrifice and zeal. I commend Steve’s article to you. Read it. It will do you good.-Gene Tope”

“Dear Brethren,

Ireland is much in the news today, unfortunately though, for the most part it is bad news. I suppose, the majority of Irish Catholics, would class our returning home to preach the gospel, in the same category. But be that as it may, it is for us the fulfilment of a long cherished hope. In 3 short months we will leave the shores of South Africa to bring the gospel to our own people.

“Seven years ago I was converted to Christ here in Pretoria. Brother Wayne Sullivan was working with the Church at the time. A few months after my baptism, my wife obeyed the gospel. Since renouncing Catholicism I have earnestly studied the scriptures, preaching whenever I got the opportunity. All my formal training and instruction can be accredited to Brother Gene Tope, who over a period of six years has arranged special classes for preacher training, and has given me much practical guidance in and out of the pulpit. May the brethren who have continued to support such men be richly blessed! The highlight of my career, from an experience stand point, was our 3 years of work with the Krugersdorp congregation. The rugged nature of the work here, with all its disappointments and discouragements has, I feel sure, prepared me for the long, arduous task ahead in Ireland.

“I plan, if the Lord wills, to support myself in the work. I am a Display Artist and have been employed all the time I have preached regularly. I realise the shortcomings of this arrangement. The extra hours, which under normal circumstances would be given to one’s family, are devoted to the Lord. This burden my wife has to bear, and I appreciate her willingness and unselfishness. The lack of time for study, personal work, prayer, et. al. – all of this is offset by the advantage which I will have with the common people as a window dresser rather than a preacher. Knowing the barriers raised against all, outside of the Catholic faith (especially a preacher), this will help me meet the people on an equal footing and subdue this prejudice.

“Before leaving in December we will take a round trip to Cape Town, where we get the boat. First to Durban to spend a week with Brother Jim Lovell and his family. Then to Port Elizabeth to visit Brother Ron Chaffin and his family. When we arrive in England we hope to spend a week with the brethren there. Incidentally, these will be our closest neighbours. Then on to Dublin in Southern Ireland about the 17th of January, 1975. We desire to make Ireland our life-time work. If you are interested in the Irish work, I would be glad to hear from you.

Yours In Christ,

Stephen Kearney”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 9
September 26, 1974