Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

On January 7, 1875, James H. Garrison, editor of The Christian, proposed a new direction for his publication, stating as its goals:

“In short, to aid in family and church culture, to promote greater love and piety among the brethren, in order to encourage individual growth and church cooperation, to keep before the world our great plea of the restoration of primitive Christianity and the union of Christians, and to insist upon a practical demonstration, in our own history, of the unifying power of the ancient gospel-this shall be our line of work.@1

Ninety-nine years later, William E. Wallace, editor of the Gospel Guardian, announced similar plans for that periodical, stating the desire to re-make it into a “family paper,” seeking “to do more for Christians and families than most of our papers are known to do.@2

At the time Brother Wallace made his announcement, I was being privileged to read about the causes of the division of the Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ as reported in David Edwin Harrell, Jr.’s superb volume, The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900. In reading this definitive work, I could not help but be made. aware of a number of historical parallels between the situation then and circumstances today.

The best interpretations of J. H. Garrison’s life3 have pictured him as a “moderate,” that is, while not a religious “liberal,” certainly tolerant of them. Garrison, perhaps more than any other one man in the late nineteenth century, served as a “bridge” between the conservatism of the early restoration leaders and the unabashed liberalism of its “second- or “third-generation” spokesmen. He thus promoted and harbored from criticism his younger contemporaries who would later lead a large portion of the “Restoration Movement” straight into the mainstream of American denominationalism.

It is not pleasant to contemplate the possibility that a similar progression (or should we say, “digression?”) may be occurring today even among the so-called “conservatives” in the Churches of Christ; nor is it pleasant to observe formerly respected “first-generation preachers” either encourage, or at least harbor and protect from criticism those who seem bent on broadening the “horizons of fellowship” and perhaps eventually even leading to denominationalism as well. But, in the words of the philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This is not to say that all of the parallels between this and an earlier age are exact parallels, or that the issues are identical, or that the liberalism of one generation is precisely the same as that of another-but there are some striking and disturbing likenesses.

Some have sought to reduce the issue to personalitiesboth then and now. Brother Harrell quotes a critic of Austin McGary, rough-hewn and caustic Texas conservative and founder of the Firm Foundation, as protesting that, although he agreed with the editor’s position, “your manner of speaking to and of your opponents gives me trouble@4 -a statement which has a ring of familiarity! Garrison himself had these observations about the methods and manners of controversy:

“I presume to say that it has not escaped the notice of the careful reader of our religious periodicals, that there is, among our brethren, an increasing tendency to mercilessly criticize each other for any supposed error that they may harbor . . . . Our religious papers are full of such controversies. One brother sets forth his views upon a certain subject, in all good conscience. Another objects to the reasoning and proof, and severely flogs him for advocating an absurd position. The first brother, finding his logic assailed, and even his motives sometimes impugned, is incensed and replies accordingly. ‘Like begets like,’ and so the controversy continues, increasing in virulence, abounding in sarcastic thrusts and personal allusions, until the ‘brother’ is lost sight of in the ‘antagonist.’ But little attention is paid now to the original matter of difference, but the greater portion of the replies are occupied in discussing ‘false issues,’ ‘exposing fallacies,’ ‘exposing non sequiturs,’ correcting ‘false impressions,’ etc.”5

Certainly it has become characteristic of the present discussion of vital issues among “conservative brethren” (I use the term advisedly) that some refuse to discuss issues and have attempted to make the discussion appear as merely one set of politically-motivated, prideful preachers out to massacre a few other unfortunate preachers who are incapable not only of defending themselves but of even making themselves understood clearly. Whether or not it has always been wise to reply to personal charges in the manner that this has been done may vary according to each individual’s judgment and perspective. But as Brother Willis used to say during the several years that I was associated with him in local work, “If you agree with the substance of what is said but don’t care for the manner of expression, you say it your way!” The problem is, I suspect, that some brethren not only don’t like how something is said, they don’t like what has been said, and likely would not accept it regardless of how it could be said.

The fact of the matter is that problems have arisen (and will continue to arise, for the end is not yet), not merely because of personal disagreements, matters of judgment, bad attitudes, etc., but for the same reason that problems came in the first or second centuries, or the nineteenth and twentieth: because some apparently are not content with the message of the New Testament and seek to alter it. With the coming of a “second generation,” there has arisen (as with digressions past) a different kind of person, with a different outlook, different basic principles, even a different conception of what it means to be a Christian.

There seems to be a concerted effort on the part of some to become “the evangelical scholars” among the Churches of Christ, accompanied by a sort of “hobnobbing” with the “Christianity Today crowd” amid professions of “scholarship” which, after so long, become nauseous and even laughable to anyone with even a minimum exposure to a scholastic atmosphere. Some seem to be bent on re-casting the nature and make-up of the New Testament church into something resembling ” neo-evangelicalism “-with its inherent roots in re-worked and re-warmed Reformation doctrines (thus an affinity for Calvinistic and Lutheran spokesmen and even a paper spouting the slogan “dedicated to upholding the great Reformation principle of justification by faith”).6 This apparently is to be done by reducing “the common salvation” (or “the faith” for which Jude instructs us to “contend earnestly”) to a series of lowest-commondenominator doctrines which can serve as a broad platform from which to extend fellowship to any halfway “conservative” writer who meets the new “evangelical” creed. And, as in past digressions, there will be those older men, who, though perhaps not in complete agreement with their younger proteges, are wil ‘ ling to push them into prominence and protect them-passing off any criticism with a wave of the label of “persecution,” “jealousy,” “preacher pride,” etc.

But what has this to do with the Gospel Guardian? And why should one even be concerned with the past, present, and future of a publication? Certainly, the destiny of the church does not depend on this, or any other, human publication. But in view of the battles fought by those associated with the staff of the Guardian in the past, and because of its residual (although perhaps declining) influence among brethren, the future of the Guardian perhaps merits some concern among brethren. When one recalls the steadfastness and firm candor of the early years of the Gospel Guardian, he cannot help but be thankful for it and the good accomplished through it.

About a year ago, I paid $7.95 for a reprint edition of Volume I of the Guardian. As I have had occasion to peruse the various issues it contains, I have seen articles that, by themselves, would be well worth the price paid-Frank Puckett on Calvinism, pungent articles by various Wallaces, historical lessons by Earl West, articles on evidences by Pat Hardeman, miscellaneous articles by Roy Cogdill, Homer Hailey, Robert Farish, R.L. Whiteside, J. Early Arceneaux, Robert Turner, Harry Pickup, James Adams, Luther Blackmon, and others, and, of course, Yater Tant’s editorials. Consider this excerpt from the opening editorial, which sets the tone for the entire volume:

“For many months . . . thoughtful brethren from every part of the nation and from far corners of the world have raised their plea for a weekly paper in the tradition of the original Gospel Guardian. As the threatening clouds of an approaching apostacy have grown blacker and blacker, the alarm of Christians has grown apace. Their alarm has been justified. Unless valiant endeavor and resolute action are forthcoming, the church almost certainly faces another tragic descent into the depths of digression and discord.

“This journal is dedicated to a clean, militant, aggressive, and uncompromising fight ‘in defense of the church against all errors and innovations’ . . . we shall be vigilant and careful in our ‘guarding’ against what many consider small and insignificant departures from the truth. And once an error, or tendency toward error, is detected, we shall oppose it with all the strength we can muster. The best defense against error always is to wage an all-out offensive against it before it gains a foot-hold. Let those who will call this ‘heresy-hunting’; we call it guarding the gospel of Christ.

“Our unswerving policy is ‘let the truth be taught on every issue, every where, all the time.’ That is the only safe course. When any church or group of people becomes squeamish about teaching the truth on controversial issues ‘because they aren’t an issue here,’we know with certainty that the dragon’s-teeth seeds of future trouble are being sown. The best way under heaven to prevent error ‘being taught here’ is to teach the truth so firmly and so fully in advance that the errorist never has a chance to gain acceptance with his false doctrine.@7

About the time I purchased the bound volume, I let my subscription to the current Gospel Guardian lapse-not because I particularly disagreed with what was being said (I subscribe to about thirty “liberal,” Christian Church, Disciples, and even other denominational periodicals with which I am often in disagreement), but simply due to the fact that there was by and large, and quite frankly, nothing in it which I considered worthy of the expenditure of $6.00 a year and meriting the time necessary to read it. Although I have since re-subscribed, I must admit my taste in religious literature does not run to a combination of spiritual “mush, 11 false doctrine, and thinly disguised lectures on “ethics” palmed off as “family reading.”

But recently, those who have been apprehensive about the future of the Guardian have been heartened by rumors that it may soon change ownership, and be edited and produced by a staff of capable men, including some former editors and writers. One’s initial reaction to this information is, “May God hasten the day!”

But the mere changing of the editorial masthead, signifying not only a change of ownership but of purpose as well, will not in itself solve problems and controversies that have recently been brought to the attention of brethren. Issues have been raised, concepts have been taught, doctrines have been promulgated among brethren which need to be given attention! The mere fact that those teaching them have been “silenced” in the sense of no longer having a mouthpiece of the past prestige of the Guardian is not the remedy for the situation-the only real cure is a thorough and open “airing-out” among brethren of issues which confront us. Those who will blindly follow the editorial leadership of one paper or another, or, for that matter, those who read no paper but are willing to accept what an individual teaches because of who the individual is, do the cause of truth no justice.

May we all have the candor, fairness, and openness of mind and heart to consider things which confront us, owing allegiance to no paper or group of men-but to the One who died that we might truly live!

Footnotes

1 J. H. Garrison, “The New Year,” The Christian, XII (January 7, 1875), p. 4 (quoted in David Edwin Hart ell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (A Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume II; Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Incorporated, 1973), pp. 9, 10, 353).

2 William E. Wallace, “Truth and Pure Life,” Gospel Guardian, XXV: 34 (January 3, 1974), 516. See also “New Year’s Resolution and Politics,” Gospel Guardian, XXV: 33 (December 20,1973), p. 500.

3 See, for example, Harrell, op. cit., pp. 10, 15, 20, 87, 104, 115, 353 (n. 26), and 354 (n. 59); William E. Tucker, James H. Garrison and Disciples of Christ (St. Louis: The Bethany Press, 1964; originally a Yale University Ph.D dissertation), pp. 11, 109, 252, and throughout; and Harrell’s review of Tucker, Journal of Southern History, XXXI:2 (May, 1965), pp. 218219.

4 A>Speak the Truth in Love,’ but ‘Lie Not,'” Firm Foundation, III (April 1, 1887, p. 4 (quoted in Harrell, op. cit., p. 21).

5 James H. Garrison, “Another Sin,” Gospel Echo, June, 1869, pp. 228-229 (quoted in Flavil R. Yeakley, Jr., “Rhetorical Strategies Analyzed by Social Movement Theories as Applied to Conflict Within the Restoration Movement” (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Houston, 1972, p. 41). Yeakley’s thesis presents a number of intriguing ideas concerning religious division, especially in the “Restoration Movement,” which we propose to discuss in an article in the near future).

6 Present Truth, III: I (February, 1974), p. 2 (Sent free upon request from P. 0. Box 1311, Fallbrook, California, 92028).

7 Yater Tant, AConcerning Our Policy,@ Gospel Guardian, I:1 (May 5, 1949), 2.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:40, p. 8-10
August 15, 1974

By Terry D. Johnson

1 Peter 1:5: “Who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Protection (“guarded”) comes about as a result of being alerted to a danger; then preparing oneself to be in a position to be defended. Thus, “the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me” (2 Cor. 11:32).

Christians everywhere are in danger of falling from the living God. As long as we live in the flesh, we need to be alert of the fact that the “Devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour.” The writer of Hebrews said, “Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the Living God” (3:12). It behooves us then, to constantly remember this danger and prepare ourselves to be defended!

After Paul gives his thanksgiving to the brethren of Colossae for their “faith in Christ Jesus, and love which ye have toward all the saints,” he then addresses himself to the prayer and request for the brethren (1:9 ff.). He said, “for this cause we also since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray and make request for you, that ye may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God.” The apostle gives us the key to defense in his words to the troubled congregation of Colossae. A congregation burdened with men who would rob Christ from His supremacy! Think of it! Men who would “delude them with persuasiveness of speech.” False teachers who would “make spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ” (2:4,8). Is there a need for a defense? Yes! Does Paul instruct these brethren, as to the way they should prepare themselves for this defense? Yes! Notice what he has said in his prayer. “Be filled with the knowledge of His will. . .” If these brethren were to defend their faith and rid themselves of these false teachers, they had to be filled with the knowledge of God’s will! May I suggest that if God’s people today want to rid themselves of false teachers and make a defense of their faith they will need to be “filled with the knowledge of God’s will.” This “knowledge” is a “precise, correct, exact, full” knowledge. Thus, a knowledge which is not precise, correct, exact, full, is a knowledge which enables the devil to devour and destroy one!

To the individual who is filled with the precise, correct knowledge, God gives wisdom! “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (Jas. 1:5). This wisdom is the wisdom from above (Jas. 3:17). Wisdom which will enable men to use the knowledge of God’s will to prepare that individual for a defense of truth! One cannot have wisdom without first being filled with a knowledge of God’s will!

It is worth noting that Paul informs us of the reason why we ought to be filled with a knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding. He says, “To walk worthily of the Lord.” Thus making every New Testament Christian responsible for his own defense! Also, making it mandatory for each New Testament Christian to do so! If we desire to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, preparing ourselves for a defense of truth, we will follow Paul’s instruction.

Satan has commandeered many congregations by defenseless, accept-everything Christians. He has turned faithful brethren into brethren who accept any program just as long as it does a good work! The Devil has turned minds that at one time were governed by Bible principles into minds that do as they please without regard to authority. Christians have lowered their spiritual guard and have been persuaded to follow the world in dress, language, and actions. Let us awake to the call! Let us prepare ourselves to rid ourselves of all devices of Satan. Awake today, lest tomorrow we perish!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:40, p. 11
August 15, 1974

By Don Potts

I pray that the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in the sight of God and a blessing to every reader of this article.

Today, the religious world lies in a state of confusion and unrest. From the ranks of Catholicism arise the cries of rebellion and dissent. The Presbyterians have had their problem which resulted in a major division. The Methodists seem to continue on their downward trend. Just recently in Atlanta, Georgia the United Methodist Church voted 925 to 17 to accept a document, prepared by Albert C. Dutler, Chairman of the Commission, to help Methodist make all theological decisions based on “Scriptures, traditions, experience and reason. ” In other words, “goodbye Bible” as an infallible guide.

The Southern Baptists have had their battles and division over the verbal inspiration of the Bible and the errors of the Broadman Bible Commentary. At any rate, the Southern Baptists have had their problems and religion in general finds itself in a state of confusion. Theological seminaries are spending more time trying to determine how much of the Bible they wish to classify as myth and how much as truth. According to a reported survey, only about 1% of the theological students believe in the “second coming” of Christ. Also, a questionnaire was sent to 10,000 Protestant preachers in 1967. Of that number, 7,444 of the preachers replied to the questions. The results are shocking! 51% of the Methodist preachers, 35% of the Presbyterian preachers, and 33 %of the Baptist preachers said they did not believe that Jesus arose from the dead. 60% of the Methodist, 49% of the Presbyterian, and 44% of the Baptist denied the Virgin birth of Christ. 62 %of the Methodist, 47% of the Presbyterian, and 33% of the Baptist denied the existence of Satan. 82% of the Methodist, and 81% of the Presbyterians did not believe the Bible to be inspired. these are the figures of a reported survey.

While confusion runs rampant through Sectarianism, its absence is by no means felt among our brethren. In the past months much has been said about the work of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Others have advocated fellowship with the denominations. Our “brotherhood” papers, among the liberals, are telling of numerous preachers from the conservative (?) Christian churches, changing over, whatever that means. Others tell of people out of the Christian church placing membership, whatever that is, in the Lord’s church. I am made to wonder; what ever happened to sinners being “converted” or “obeying the gospel”? One such publication tells of an annual Preachers’ Workshop at Abilene Christian College which features a professor from Cincinnati Bible Seminary, a Christian church preacher. After the Workshop, when the preachers present were canvassed as to whom should be invited to future gatherings, the “brother” from Cincinnati was a top choice to return for a repeat performance. Well, “brother” is the term used in the article, but all my brethren are in the Lord’s family, the church of Christ. The church of Christ and the Christian church are two separate families, each having a different head or spiritual father, one the God of heaven, the other the Devil of Hell (John 8:42, 44, 47). Unless, I am ready to claim kin to Satan, I cannot declare those of the Christian church my brethren!

In the same publication, Leroy Garrett tells of a Church of Christ (?) with a gathering of 600 people who gave a Roman Catholic priest a standing ovation in California. And then to top it all off, we had the “Highland Watergate” scandal and coverup. In the midst of all this, the world rushes madly onward, not knowing its right hand from its left spiritually, helpless, hapless and hopeless, destined for the eternal fires of a burning hell! The world gropes in darkness while religion sits in a state of decay.

We are told today, that there are 123 million church-goers in the United States which is an increased attendance of 2%, but in the same period of time we had an increase in crime of 7%. Illegitimacy has increased 100%. Pornography has become a 200 million dollar-a-year business; multiplied four times in two years. Venereal disease increased 400% in ten years; 72% in one year and our crime bill is 20 billion dollars a year. Crime has increased five times faster than our population has increased and juvenile crime is increasing seven times faster. For every dollar given to all religions in the U.S., we spend $12,000 on crime. All church buildings, synagogues and temples are outnumbered by taverns by 175,000! And to make matters worse, over 37 million of the children of the U.S. receive absolutely no religious instruction.

The point of all this is simple-we have the greatest preaching crisis the world has known! Today, we hear much about an energy crisis and a wheat shortage, but I am talking about a preaching shortage! Now, lest someone misunderstand, I am not talking about a preacher shortage, or a meeting house shortage, or a church of Christ shortage, but a shortage of gospel preaching. Statistics show that we have an estimated 18,680 churches of Christ with a membership of 2,350,000 and some 7,500 preachers, Have you never wondered why the world is in such a critical condition spiriturally, in view of the fact that Jesus said we are the Alight “of the world, the “salt”of the earth (Matt. 5:13-14)? It seems that 7,500 preachers, or the better part of us, have lost our savor. Too many today are caught up in a “rat race” for the big churches, big money, big “parsonages” and big names, while lost souls wander in darkness and despair.

There is nothing in all the world that can bless the people and change and transform the lives of men and nations as the precious gospel of Christ. Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32). God’s primary means of lifting Christ up is through faithful dedicated, trumpet-piped preaching. I know that even in this modern twentieth century, the gospel is still the power of God unto salvation and is more powerful than all nuclear weapons known to man. It can make the enemy stack their arms and run up the white flag.

I once read of a father who had promised to take his little boy back to the little country community and the church building where he was converted, and when school was out, he kept his promise and drove down winding lanes and up hills till he came to the little country church building. Hard by the meeting house was the cemetery where his loved ones were buried.

They got out and with reverence and uncovered heads, walked into the meeting house where the little boy’s daddy was converted many years ago at the sound of God’s power to save, the Gospel of Christ. Hanging from above was a rope from the old church bell. The little boy asked what it was and his daddy replied that it was the rope that pulled the bell and called the people to services to hear the gospel. The little boy looked up at his daddy and said, “Daddy, ring it again.”

Brethren, I close this message with a soul stirred with concern and grief. I rededicate my life and my preaching to the advocating of the precious truths of the gospel. I plea with preaching brethren everywhere to join me, and together “let’s ring it again”! Let’s “ring out the gospel,” let’s “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins.” (Isa. 58:1).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:40, p. 7-8
August 15, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

“7. The Temple of the Holy Spirit”

“Every Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19). He is sealed by the Spirit until the day, of redemption (Eph. 4:30). He is not sealed until he backslides, but ‘unto the day of redemption.’ The Holy Spirit abides in the Christian forever (John 14:16). If a Christian can be lost again, the Holy Spirit is lost also for He abides in the Christian forever. John 14:16 clearly teaches us that the Holy Spirit will never leave the Christian. It is in. place to ask, ‘Could the temple of the Holy Spirit go to hell.=@

Reply: One trusts that Dr. Schroeder is not always so careless in his handling of the word of God. Observe how unobstrusively he changes “unto” into “until.” Eph. 4:30 does not say “until the day of redemption” as the “Dr.” avers and errs. It says “unto” meaning, as some translators say, “for the day of redemption.”

The Spirit does not come into or remain in our bodies unconditionally. In the very passage, Paul says, “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God.” What if we do so continually? One may lie to and tempt the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 4, 9). One may resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). One may quench the Spirit (I Thess. 5:19). One may do despite unto the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29). Will one be saved who does these things unto the Spirit? God will remove His Spirit from such persons (Cf. I Sam. 16:14; Psa. 51:11).

Christians must be “filled with the Spirit” and “walk in the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:16); that is, they are to be led and directed by the word of the Spirit. John 14:16 does not teach that the Holy Spirit dwells unconditionally in the Christian. The promise of the Spirit in this passage was made to the apostles Qn. 13: 1; Matt. 26:20), but even if that were not so, the Spirit’s presence would not be unconditional. “If ye love me, keep my commandments …. If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him (Jn. 14:15-24).

The temple of the Holy Spirit is our body. Does Dr. Schroeder believe our physical bodies will be in heaven? “It is in place to ask, ‘Could the temple of the Holy Spirit go to heaven?’ ” Finally, 1 Cor. 6:20 says, “Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” “It is in place to ask,” Could the temple of the Holy Spirit go to heaven if it failed to glorify God? “It is in place” for Mr. Schroeder to answer.

“8. In God’s Sight Every Christian Is Now In Heaven”

“God has raised us ‘with Christ,’ that is, when Christ was raised from the grave we were also raised. Our position as Christians is seated together with Him in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:5, 6). We are now, as far as God is concerned, in heaven. If a Christian can be lost again, then he must be put out of heaven since he now occupies that place (Col.,3:3).”

Reply: Our citizenship is indeed in heaven (Phil. 3,20), but Christians are not now in heaven “in God’s sight” – In Mr. Schroeder’s sight, perhaps, but not in God’s. The phrase “in heavenly places” is found in Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 6:12. Its meaning in Eph. 1:3 and 2:6 is that spiritual blessings emanate from heaven and are brought from there to us, We sit together in Christ “in heavenly places” by reason of the fact that we are “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19). Our “inheritance” is “reserved in heaven” 0 Pet. 1:4). Our hope is laid up for us “in heaven” (Col. 1:5), but we are not yet there. However, if we are now in heaven, what did Paul mean when he said, “Set your affections on things above” (Col. 3:2)? “Above” where? “Above” heaven? “When Christ, who is our life shall appear, then (not before) shall ye also appear with him in glory” (Col. 3:4). If we were in heaven, we would be already “with him in glory.”

Think it not strange, Dr. Schroeder, that one should be “put out of” an exalted position. We could grant your contention and feel no pangs to admit that Christians may be “put out of heaven.” Dr., “Have ye never read” that “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” (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6)? If God “spared not” angels but “cast them down to hell,” why should it be so amazing that He would not spare an erring Christian? Finally, the wrath of God now “abideth” on unbelievers (Jn. 3:36). “They are now, as far as God is concerned, in hell. If an unbeliever can become a believer and be saved, then he must be put out of hell since he now occupies that place.” That is according to Schroeder’s argument. Can he answer himself?

“9. Part of Christ’s Body”

“We, as Christian, are members of Christ’s body–flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone (Eph. 5:30). If a Christian can be lost again, then Christ is lost with him since He made the Christian part of His own body. If he can be lost again, the body will not be complete, and if this is true, the plan and work of Christ is lost and useless-the Word of God speaks of Christ’s body being ‘without spot or wrinkle’ (Eph. 5:25-27).

Reply: Again, Dr. Schroeder carries a figure of speech too far and creates an absurdity. What Mr. Schroeder says is true with respect to a fleshly body, but Paul was discussing a spiritual body, the church. In another figure, we learn that if one falls away, Christ is not lost with him. “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (Jn. 15:6). If our friend Schroeder had been there, he, could have told the Lord, “No, if a Christian can be lost again, then you, Lord, will be lost with him since You made the Christian a branch in the vine. If he can be lost again, the vine will not be complete, and if this is true, Your plan and work is lost and useless.”

The church will be presented “not having spot, or wrinkle,” for all who do not continue in the faith will be “spued out,” and “cast forth” (Col. 1: 18-22 .3; Rev. 3:16).

“10. Complete In Christ”

“Every Christian is now complete in Him (Col. 2:10). Can the complete work of Christ be lost again? If it can be lost, was it complete? How can a Christian be complete and lost again? Would not then the complete work of Christ go to hell?”

Reply: Christian are “complete in Him.” Where? “In Christ,” but a man may choose not to abide in Christ-“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth” (Jn. 15:6). A man is “complete” in Christ, but one may not continue in Christ”If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the father” (I Jn. 2:24). “If” it does not remain in you, you shall not 66 continue in the Son.” Outside of Christ we are not complete and, thus, cannot be saved. Baptist doctrine says we are complete and saved whether we abide in Christ or not.

“11. Saved By Grace”

“‘For by grace are ye saved’ (Eph. 2:8, 9; Acts 15:11). If a man is saved by grace, and grace is unmerited favor and wholly undeserved, how can he be lost? If he can be lost through some sin, or by not holding out, can it be said of him, ‘by grace are ye saved’? If our reaching heaven depends upon our good work, then our salvation would have no element of grace in it.”

Reply: One cannot earn or merit his salvation by perfect keeping of law. God’s system of grace teaches us works of God to perform in order to be saved by his grace (Rom. 4-6; Jas. 2). By mixing works of man and works of God, Mr. Schroeder reaches his position. Works of men are excluded, yet in judgment Jesus shall “reward every man according to his works” (Matt. 16:27). Is there discord here? No, on one hand, there is reference to keeping of law for justification and, on the other, there is reference to “faith which worketh by love. “

Faith is a “work” (Jn. 6:28, 29). I suppose Mr. Schroeder would call believing Christ a “good work.” Further, it can be agreed that salvation “depends” upon faith in Christ. So, faith is a work, a good work, upon which salvation “depends.” With respect to the possibility of apostasy, Mr. Schroeder has said, “If our reaching heaven depends upon our good work, then our salvation would have no element of grace in it.” Does salvation by faith have any “element of grace” in it? When one explains how that it does, though he knows faith is a “work,” then he should be able to understand how conditions do not eliminate grace.

“12. He Will Not Be Cast Out Again”

“John 6:37 teaches very clearly that it is the Christian who will never be cast out. The Christian is the Father’s love gift to the Son, and Christ dare not discard those whom the Father gives Him.”

Reply: John 6:37 is conditional. “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” No one who comes to God will be cast out, but Baptist doctrine says a man is not cast out even if he ceases to come to Christ! Christ will not “discard” those whom the Father gives him, but “if we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Tim. 2:12). Christ will not “cast out” the faithful, but He will “cast forth” and “spue out” those who do not continue coming to Him (Jn. 15:6; Rev. 3:16). It is the one who comes to Christ “who will never be cast out,” “but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you” (2 Chron. 15:2).

“13. No Condemnation”

“The child of God, according to Rom. 8:1, will never come into condemnation or judgment. Since His sins were judged at the cross of Calvary, we are assured in John 3:18 and John 5:24 that the believer is freed from condemnation. Christ bore the punishment for our sins. God cannot pour His Judgment upon the believer if Christ bore the penalty of ,@all our sins.”

Reply: The “children of God, according to Rom. 8:1 (who) will never come into condemnation or judgment” are those “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:4,12,13). We are “assured in John 3:18 and … 5:24 that the believer is freed from condemnation,” but a believer may become an unbeliever; a believer may develop “an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:1, 12; Psa. 106:12, 24).

Eleven verses down from Romans 8:1, we find this, “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after th6 flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall five” (Rom. 8:12, 13). The “ye” in verse 13 are the “brethren” (Christians) of verse 12. “Die,” or death, in verse 13 is spiritual death, for all will die physically whether they live after the flesh or not. This death is conditional, hence, physical. Living “after the Spirit” will result in life, eternal fife through the Spirit.

Finally, James tells his “brethren” to “sware not … lest ye fall into condemnation” (Jas. 5:12). But Dr. Schroeder says children of God “will never come into condemnation.” James said his brethren would “fall into condemnation” if they swore. That proves Schroeder’s brethren are not James brethren!

“14. Incorruptible Seed”

“Since the Christian has been born incorruptible seed 0 Pet. 1:23), can it corrupt? It is impossible. How can that which is incorruptible ever corrupt?

Reply: The tract leaves out the word “of” in the phrase “born of incorruptible seed.” The saints are not the seed. “The seed is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). It-the seed, not the saints, is incorruptible.

That which is incorruptible can never corrupt or spoil. The word of God will never corrode nor corrupt, but the mind of the Christian may “be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). In the Old Testament, children of God “corrupted themselves” (Deut. 9:12). Baptist doctrine says Christians cannot be corrupted. The Bible says they can. But Baptist doctrine says, “No matter if they are corrupted, they will be saved, for it is impossible to be lost.” That is a “corrupt” doctrine.

(To Be Concluded Next Week)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:40, p. 5-7
August 15, 1974