Truth Magazine

By Leon Willis

The New Testament scriptures do not command the use of a mechanical instrument in the worship of God. This fact is generally conceded by “instrumentalists” and “non-instrumentalists” alike. Therefore those who wish to use the mechanical instrument must find some other means of justifying their musical preference. Some seek to discover in the old covenant what they cannot find in the new. Dwaine Dunning stated in an article that,

those who advocate them may go to the Old Testament Scriptures, such as Psalm 92, “It is a good thing to give thanks to God … upon an instrument.”

He anticipated the non-instrumentalists’ reply that the mechanical instrument of music could not be used because, as part of the old covenant, it was taken out of the way, by adding,

It is hard to believe that this argument is considered at all valid among people who believe that “the new covenant is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed.” God certainly declared himself under the old dispensation as highly favorable to instrumental music in His praise, and never did He rescind His approval. Is it proper exegesis to take His “silence” in the New Testament in such a manner as to outweigh His prior approval?1

It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that the mechanical instrument is not to be used in worship to God, not simply because, “the old testament was nailed to the cross and the instrument right along with it,” but because the very nature and purpose of the new covenant demand such not to be used.

Let us first contrast the nature of the old covenant with the new covenant. In the fourth chapter of John, a Samaritan woman, seeking to know “the place where men ought to worship,” asked Jesus whether it was in Mt. Gerizim or in Jerusalem. Jesus gave the surprising reply that soon worship would be in neither of these places, “but the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4:23).2 There are several contrasts worthy of notice. Worship will soon not be identified with a physical place such as Jerusalem, but will be in spirit and truth. Secondly, Jesus said that the Jews were right, “salvation is from the Jews,” however, a change in the system would soon take place. Finally, the law itself is contrasted with Christ as in John 17:17: “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

Some have suggested that the phrase “spirit and truth” refers to the sincerity of worship and its accordance with God’s revealed truth. This, however, fails to reveal the true impact of the statement. Even under the old covenant, sincerity was demanded. God’s law was to be upon the heart, and obedience was to be motivated by love for God (Deut. 6:4-9). Jesus condemned the Pharisees for hypocrisy in worship-mere lip service without the sincerity of the heart is vain (Matt. 15:6-7). Truth, also, was a necessity of the-old covenant. Otherwise, how could Jesus have answered the woman’s question, “Where ought men to worship?” The law could not be added to nor diminished from; the result of such would make void the law (Deut. 4:2; Mk. 7:5-13).

What then is the meaning of this contrast? To comprehend this, we must first understand and appreciate the nature and purpose of the old covenant. The writer of Hebrews states that the “first covenant had ordinances of divine service,” but he terms these ordinances carnal, that is, material, worldly, sensual (9:1,10). It consisted of things to see, as “the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry” (9:21); things to do, as “the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services” (9:6); things to smell, as the “golden censer” (9:4); and even things to hear’ as “with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbols” (I Chr. 25: 1). Instruments of music were an integral part of the old covenant, having been used in the dedication of the temple of Solomon (2 Chr. 5:11-14), in cleansing of the temple by Hezekiah “for the commandment was of Jehovah” (2 Chr. 25:29)3, and generally in all worship to Jehovah (Psalm 150). Some of the instruments used were trumpet, psaltery, harp, timbral, stringed instrument, pipe, and cymbols.

However, the Hebrew writer maintains that the old covenant was “weak and unprofitable” (7:18), and that it was “imposed until a time of reformation” (9:10). This does not mean that God failed in His first attempt at legislation, but simply indicated that the purpose of the old covenant caused it to be inherently “weak and unprofitable.” There are, in actuality, two purposes of the old covenant that are pertinent to this discussion.

The old covenant was never meant to justify man before God, but was given to demonstrate that man needed to be justified, (Rom. 7:7, 12-14; Gal. 3:21-22; Heb. 10:4,11). Paul said, “It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come” (Gal. 3:19). Through the old covenant, man was caused to recognize the need for a Messiah. In this sense, the old covenant brought the Jews to Christ (Gal. 3:23-24). When the seed came, the need for the old covenant no longer existed; its time had lapsed (Gal. 3:25; Col. 2:14; Heb. 7:18-19).

Secondly, the old covenant revolved in the realm of the sensual for a reason-it was to be the divine demonstration of coming attractions. The Hebrews writer calls it a “shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things” (10:1). The law, therefore, was “weak and unprofitable” because it was only a shadow, not the reality. According to the chart given on page 12 many of the old covenant types found their anti-type, or reality, in the new covenant.4

(See chart at bottom of preceding page)

Truly, “the new covenant is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed.” Once the nature and purpose of the old covenant are firmly fixed in our minds, we can readily understand what Jesus meant by the expression, “in spirit and truth.”

When Jesus speaks of “in truth,” he is referring, not to true as opposed to false, but shadow as opposed to reality. “True worshippers” worship in the truth of the new covenant, not in the shadow of the old. Under both covenants, worship is based upon man’s relationship to God. The old covenant relationship of the Jews to God was intensely physical-they were His chosen people through whom the seed was to come. God’s dealings with them were on a worldly plane. When obedient, they were materially blessed; when disobedient, they were materially cursed. It is understandable that worship would be compatible with this relationship. The outward show of the temple, priesthood, mechanical instruments of music, and daily ministries reinforced it. The new covenant, however, is not based upon such a sensual, ritualistic system; its worship should quite naturally be expected to possess a different nature also.

Man is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26); as God is a spirit (Jno. 4:24), so is He the Father of our spirits (Heb.12:9). Under the new covenant, the emphasis is upon the Christian’s relationship to God as the spiritual seed of Abraham, not his physical seed. Those who are obedient are spiritually blessed, those disobedient are spiritually cursed. Worship, therefore, must be compatible or coordinate with the spiritual nature of the covenant. Under this covenant, there is the twofold aspect of the temple: first, each Christian is a temple (2 Cor. 6:16) and an officiating priest, “accomplishing the services;” also, each Christian is a unit that is integrated with others “into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:19-22). Indeed, we worship “in spirit” John 4:24; Rom. 1:9, 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6). The Christian is to present his body “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service” or logike latreia (Rom. 12:1, cf. I Pet. 2:5).

The adjective logike was current in the philosophical literature for the distinctive nature of man, the reasoning power (logos), which distinguished him from animals, and his spiritual nature in contrast to his sensual nature … worship characterized in this way can neither proceed from nor appeal to the lower nature of man, but is not thereby simply “intellectual” worship. 5

Logike must describe all aspects of worship under the new covenant.

Is instrumental music as much a part of the new covenant as it was a part of the old covenant? To this question, we must answer “yes” along with Dwaine Dunning, “God certainly declared himself under the old dispensation as highly favorable to instrumental music in His praise, and never did He rescind His approval.” However, with this answer, we are faced with the crux of the whole matter. The instrument of music, as a part of worship, must be coordinate with the nature of the covenant. The old covenant was sensual, and the instruments employed were mechanical. The new covenant is spiritual, and the instruments used must correspond with this nature.

Music, as described in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, served two purposes. The first was for edification. Paul said, “speak one to another” and “teach and admonish one another.” The instrument thus specified is the vocal cords.

Edification for Paul in I Cor. 14 meant intelligible, verbal instruction, in contrast to speaking in unintelligible (to those present) tongues.6

“I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also” (v. 15). If a tongue cannot edify because it has no appeal to the understanding (and “ye will be speaking into the air,” v. 9), how can a mechanical instrument be used for edification? It cannot teach nor admonish. It does not cause one to understand. Like the unknown tongue, it Aspeaks into the air.” Secondly, music is to be used in worship to God. The instrument specified for worship is the heart-“sing and make melody with your heart to the Lord.” Music is no longer representative, as when the Levites played for the assembly (2 Chr. 29:25). It is now an individual act. Every Christian can make melody to God. Just as the temple and the priesthood, the mechanical instrument typified the new covenant.

Can the mechanical instrument then be consistent with the’spiritual nature of worship? Some have erroneously assumed that what stimulates the feelings, that what is 11 aesthetically satisfying” constitutes worship to God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Worship is maintained on a rational, spiritual level, and feeling should come as a result of knowing we have pleased God in acceptable worship. Mechanical music, on the contrary, cannot offer spiritual worship. A mechanical instrument cannot worship God.

Those who advocate using an instrument assert that it is merely an aid, to help the assembly worship God. There are several problems with this view in light of what has been shown. The use of a mechanical instrument denies the individual act of making melody to God, by placing the worship service back to the representative system of the old covenant. If an instrument is needed to “help the assembly,” the implication is that the heart is not sufficient to offer acceptable worship to God. A mechanical instrument is sensual by nature. It activates the feelings by appreciation of the sound of the instrument, rather than by the recognition that acceptable worship has been offered. In this sense, the instrument diverts the attention from the heart, and thus depreciates the worship.7 Finally, for something to be an aid, it must first be compatible with the nature of the thing it aids. The sensual nature of the mechanical instrument and the spiritual nature of the new covenant worship are directly antagonistic, in antithesis to one another. Such an instrument therefore, cannot be an aid.

We are asked, “Is it proper exegesis to take His ‘silence’ in the New Testament in such a manner as to outweigh His prior approval?” Many years ago, the prophet Ezekiel complained that some. men “have made no distinction between the holy and the common … between the unclean and clean” (22:26). The writer of Hebrews states that the tabernacle was cleansed, or sanctified, by sprinkling of blood (9:18-22), as was the temple dedicated by sacrifice of animals (2 Chr. 7:4-7). God set all things that were to be used for worship within the bounds of the sanctified temple area, including the instruments of music (2 Chr. 29:25). The sin of Nadab and Abihu was that they violated God’s silence by offering that which was not sanctified. The law specified that the fire to be used for the censer had to be taken from the altar (Lev. 16:12), yet they disobeyed by offering “strange fire” (Lev. 10: 1). The temple of the new covenant has also been sanctified by blood (Heb. 10: 10), including the instrument of worship-the heart (Heb. 10:22, cf. 8:10). The mechanical instrument has been left outside the temple gates, and within the silence of the NT scripture. Shall we call holy, what God has left profane?8

In new covenant worship, therefore, the mechanical instrument would be an anachronism, that is, something historically out of place. In Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Julius Caesar (II.1), the conspirators were interrupted by a clock that strikes three times. Now, although striking clocks were plentiful in seventeenth century England, there were, in fact, none in Rome during the time of Caesar. Anyone that would seek to play a mechanical instrument in worship to God today would be, like Shakespeare’s clock, at the wrong place and at the wrong time.

An attempt has been made to show that the mechanical instrument has no place in the worship of the new covenant. This has not pretended to be an exhaustive treatise,.but a summary of some arguments that have proved persuasive in our own mind. Since the instrumental music question is of such grave import and not to be lightly discarded, if we have overlooked any important detail, the reader will please bear the responsibility of guiding us to the right path.

Footnotes

1. “New Thoughts on an Old Problem,@ Christian Standand, Feb. 12,1966.

2. For an excellent analysis of this passage, see James D. Bales, Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, pp. 15-30.

3. Some discredit this passage due to an alleged corruption in the text, but see Hugo McCord’s article, “Old Testament Instrumentation”, Firm Foundation, Apr. 26, 1966.

4. Adapted from Book-Miller Debate, p. 26.

5. Everett Ferguson, A Capella Music, pp. 88-90.

6. Ferguson, pp. 90-91.

7. See R. L. Whiteside’s comments, Reflections, pp. 368-369.

8. For a similar argument, see Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Bulwarks of the Faith, II.226-228.

Bibliography

Bales, James D., Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, Searcy: 1973.

Book-Miller Debate. Gainesville: Phillips Publications, 1955

Dunning, Dwaine, “New Thoughts on an Old Problem”, Christian Standard. February 12, 1966.

Ferguson, Everett, A Capella Music in the Public Worship of the Church, Abilene: Biblical Research Press, 1972.

McCord, Hugh, “Old Testament Instrumentation?” Firm Foundation, April 26, 1966.

Wallace, Foy E. Jr., Bulwarks of the Faith, Part 2, Oklahoma City: Wallace Publications, 1951.

Whiteside, Robertson L., Reflections, Denton: (privately published),’1965.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:37, p. 12-14
July 25, 1974

By Mike Willis

The American religious movement which is commonly called “The Restoration Movement” and which was led by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone was as much a unity movement as is the twentieth century ecumenical movement. However, the basis on which unity was to be attained in that movement was through the restoration of the New Testament church. When Alexander Campbell began the publication of the Millennial Harbinger, he proposed these as his goals:

“As the harbinger of such a millennium, the periodical’s aim was to be: (a) to restore the faith, ordinances, organization, and terms of admission of the apostolic church; (b) to do this by resting directly upon the teachings of Scripture; (C) thus to come to what Thomas Campbell had called ‘simple evangelical Christianity’,- and (d) to make this the basis of union ” (W.E. Garrison and A. T. DeGroot, THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST, A HISTORY, pp. 206-207).

Notice that the Campbells proposed a union contingent upon the restoration of the New Testament church.

Today, some of the historical descendants of the movement have denied the very foundation on which it began; they have denied the validity of the restoration principle. Here are some sample quotations from those who deny the validity of the restoration principle:

“This is the, first great illusion embodied in the Restoration Principle: that there is an Original Pattern or code of laws in which are ‘ outlined the corporate structures of the Church, and that a Christian must observe in every point to be ‘acceptable to God.’ . . . The Restoration Principle is not found in the New Testament; it is, rather, a method of interpreting the New Testament” (Don Haymes, “The Restoration Illusion, ” INTEGRITY, Vol. V, No. 5, pp. 68-69).

‘From the foregoing survey of the experience of Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, we may conclude that the more specifically the restoration plea has been defined in terms of governmental, organizational, and ritualistic patterns of behavior, the less success it has had as an effective and cohesive force in the Christian world” (A.T. DeGroot, THE RESTORATION PRINCIPLE, p. 160).

“The early church was not itself a rigid structure; the development of it, as seen through New Testament letters, shows this clearly. To talk about ‘restoring’ the early church requires that we designate WHICH early church-for example, the one of Corinthians, or the one of the pastoral letters . . . . Historical criticism has shown that with the process that produced the Scriptures it is impossible for any coherent pattern to be found. Thus, far from being a basis for unity today, patternism or restorationism may become a sure and certain barrier to unity and has, as a matter of fact, resulted in more divisions” (JP. Sanders, “Failures of Fundamentalism, ” VOICES OF CONCERN, Robert Meyers, ed., pp. 39, 44).

“The problem with a restoration theology is that it, rests on the premise that the mission of the church is to set up a ‘true church’ in which all the details of church life are exactly like they were on a first century world. It functions on the assumption that there is a blueprint or pattern in the New Testament that the church is to reduplicate in each succeeding generation. Such a theology makes the church’s mission egocentric and past-oriented rather than outward looking and future-oriented” (Victor L. Hunter, “Some Thoughts on Theology and Mission, ” MISSION, Vol. V., 9, March, 1972, p. 6 as quoted by Roy Deaver, “The New Testament Is The Pattern,” THE SPIRITUAL SWORD, Vol. V, No. 1, p. 16).

Several other writers from Voices of Concern could be quoted to demonstrate their repudiation of the restoration concept.

I have no particular interest in the restoration movement as a basis for determining what I should believe and practice. However, I do believe that the restoration idea is the only one which is biblically sound. The idea is indeed based upon the presupposition that the New Testament contains a pattern for the original church which original pattern must be followed in the Lord’s church of all ages.

Patternism In the Old Testament

Under this section, I plan to demonstrate that the pattern idea was present in the Old Testament. God communicated a pattern to Noah by which he was expected to erect the ark (Gen. 6:14-1-6). Noah was commended by God when he had built the ark exactly as God had revealed in His pattern. Similarly, Moses was given a pattern for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex. 25:9,40; 26:30; Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:2,5). The pattern revealed not only the pattern for the construction of the tabernacle but also revealed how to offer services in that tabernacle, specifically describing the service at the incense and brazen altars (Lev. 16:11-14; 1-7), table of shewbread (Lev. 24:5-9); etc. Anytime men departed from this pattern, a restoration of God’s original pattern was necessary. Josiah’s reform was nothing other than a restoration of the ancient system of worship-a restoration movement (2 Kgs. 22:26-44). (Is not this restoration movement one of the things which we should learn from our study of the Old Testament? See Rom. 15-4). Every king in -Judah and Israel was judged wicked or righteous on the basis of how well he followed the pattern laid down in the Mosaical law.

A New Testament Pattern

There is also a uniform pattern revealed by God for the early church. The apostles were given the task of revealing that pattern to us (Mt. 28:20). Whatever they bound or loosed for man had already been bound or loosed in heaven (Mt. 18:18, NASB). The early church was expected to adhere to the “apostles doctrine” (Acts 2:42). What the apostles revealed was expected to be handed down from generation to generation (2 Tim. 2:2; 2 Thess. 2:15). Every commandment and instruction regarding false doctrine operates upon the presupposition that there is a uniform pattern of doctrine from which men cannot depart (2 Jn. 911; Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; Rom. 16:17-18). There was uniformity in the revelation of the apostles (I Cor. 16:1-2). The rules which they gave are called “laws,” the comments of those who call this legalism notwithstanding (I Cor. 9-21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25). (Would those who deny the existence of a New Testament law please explain the New Testament usage of these terms: “lawgiver,” “lawful,” and “lawlessness”9) No wonder the author of Hebrews compared the patternism of the New Testament church to that of the tabernacle!

Consistency

It seems strange to me how many among us want to restore the New Testament doctrine about Jesus and the New Testament ethical code but have no desire to restore anything about the doctrines of the New Testament church. (They want to be a part of a restoration movement, regardless of what they might call it, which restores the New Testament doctrines about Christ but not of one which restores the New Testament doctrines about the church.) Not one among those who deny the restoration principle is consistent in his denial of a pattern. Those who deny a pattern of church cooperation and organization believe in a pattern for worship; those who deny a pattern of worship appeal to a pattern of conversion; those who deny a pattern of conversion appeal to a pattern of ethics; those who deny a pattern of ethics appeal for a New Testament pattern of situationism!

If there is no pattern, there can be no violation (Rom, 4:15)! If there is no pattern of worship, any worship of God invented by man is pleasing to Him. To admit this would make Paul’s ordinances in I Cor. 14 absurd! If there is no pattern of organization, any organizational arrangement is acceptable, including the papacy. To deny the existence of a pattern for the New Testament church logically leads to antinomianism, whether those who deny the patterns are personally openly advocating it or not.

Intellectual Honesty?

There have been several clever dodges employed by those who deny the restoration principle, such as the following:

“Patterns for congregational organization, worship, etc. are vague and open to debate. We have argued about them for more than a hundred years. There is no well-defined pattern for organic unity, so primitive congregations differed in many respects. Those bent on restoring the New Testament church should tell us which congregation they are restoring” (Carl Ketcherside, “The Body of Christ,” MISSION MESSENGER, Vol. 34, No. 10, p. 148).

Frequently, the barbed comment is added that some have done a good job of restoring the factionalism of Corinth, the indifference of Ephesus, and the legalism of Galatia. That is a rather clever and ingenious dodge; nevertheless, it is a dodge! Our brethren know what we are trying to restore no one particular congregation but the ideal given for the church in the New Testament! I think I therefore have legitimate reason to question the intellectual honesty of these brethren!

Where They Are Headed?

Let us not forget where those who are denying the validity of the restoration principle are headed. They are trying to find some type of system whereby they can fellowship the Christian Church and liberal churches among us. They no longer believe the preachers for these congregations to be false teachers. But if God has revealed a pattern of organization which the liberal churches have perverted ir the sponsoring church arrangement, a pattern of work which the liberal churches have perverted with their recreational activities and social gospel, and a pattern of worship which the Christian Churches have perverted with its mechanical instruments of music, all of those who preach for these groups are false teachers which cannot be fellowshipped. Since our brethren want to fellowship these men, they are making an assault on the principle of the restoration of the New Testament church. Such a denial of the restoration principle is heresy which leads to antinomianism and those who teach it are heretics who must be marked and rebuked.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:37, p. 9-10
July 25, 1974

By Tom Moody

In the Firm Foundation, April 9, 1974, an editorial appeared entitled, “The Church In Alabama.” Reading the article might lead one to believe that the “church in Alabama” is centered on the campus- of Alabama Christian College, since it is that human institution with which the article is really interested and the Lord’s body in Alabama is scarcely mentioned.

There is more said about the “church in Alabama” in the third paragraph than anywhere else in the article. It is here that the statement is made: “It is really hard to grasp the change in the church in Alabama in the last decade.” To this statement, those who have been familiar with the changes in the church in Alabama (and elsewhere) would give a hearty “Amen!”

Within the last decade:

1. We have seen changes in the attitudes of those with whom we once had fellowship. Where there was once peace and unity, there is now bitterness and division because those who insisted on their pet projects and institutions were willing to divide the body of Christ over what they termed “incidentals” and “expediencies.”

2. We have seen brethren who once insisted on a “thus saith the Lord” and demanded “book, chapter, and verse” change to the persuasion that “there is no pattern” and “we do many things for which we have no authority.”

3. We have seen those who ten years ago, or even five years ago, preached that the Lord’s church raised funds only by a first day of the week contribution (I Cor. 16:1-2) and criticized the denominations for their bazaars and pie suppers. Now, some of these brethren have opened their kindergartens, day nurseries, and week-end resorts, selling such services to those interested in buying them.

4. Many who at one time insisted that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 authorized only congregational singing have changed. Many Alabama churches (and churches elsewhere), as the denominations round about them, have their choirs (or “choruses” as some prefer to call them).

The list could go on we are sure, but these are examples of the truthfulness of the statement quoted, that some Alabama churches have changed, a change which the editor accurately characterizes as being “…really hard to grasp ……

But what is the great change that Brother Lemmons has so elatedly noted within Alabama churches? Our brother says: “It ‘is really hard to grasp the change in the church in Alabama in the last decade. There are some 500 churches in the state, and where they once were almost totally anti-Christian education (Emph. mine, CTM), today Christians are supporting such schools as Mars Hill and Alabama Christian well.”

What awful ogres those people in Alabama must have been until recently! Imagine – being “anti-Christian education”! What is the evidence of the change to being for “Christian education”? According to Brother Lemmonsi it is that “. . .today Christians are supporting such schools as Mars Hill and Alabama Christian well.” That seems to imply that if you ‘do not support these two man-made organizations, you are anti-Christian education! It makes no difference if you cannot see what English, math, science, or physical education have to do with “Christian education.. A congregation of humble Christians might be hard working and dedicated in the task of “edifying itself in love” (Eph. 4:16). It may have the most thorough system of educating every age group within the church in the ways of righteousness. Yet if it refuses to turn over a part of its work and funds to a school by men, it is “anti-Christian education.”

While the sweeping statement that churches in Alabama were once almost “totally anti-Christian education” is an unfounded misrepresentation, it is true that there has been a great change in the beliefs of many of the digressive brethren, in Alabama in regard to church support of colleges. Just a few years ago, when promoters of brotherhood children’s homes were asked why the church could support such benevolent institutions but not the colleges, the answer given was that the church is its own missionary and edification society, but not its own benevolent society. “It is really hard to grasp the change. . .” Since many of those who made such a contention now have changed, does that mean that the church is no longer capable of functioning in edification? Of course the church is still its own “edification society” just as it always has been. I suspect that the change came when those who had been prejudicially calling others “anti-orphan” began to be called “anti-Christian education” and found it more pleasant to switch than fight.

Later in the article, the editor states, “As one learns new truth, and as times change, it is not ‘liberal’ in a bad sense to stay up with the times and honest to whatever new truth we learn along the way.”

Perhaps church support of schools and colleges is found within this “new truth” our brother seems to have come across. It certainly is not found in the truth of God’s word which is not new but was revealed and recorded several centuries ayo. it has everything we need “pertaining to life and, godliness” and leaves us “throughly furnished unto every good work” (2 Peter 1:3; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Surely, all of us can agree that “It is really hard to grasp the change in the church in Alabama (and throughout the nation) in the last decade.” We can commend the honesty of at least one of the brethren for admitting that such a change has taken place. If more of our erring brethren would recognize this, perhaps it would be a beginning for their return to the “old paths.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:37, p. 7-8
July 25, 1974

By Dale Smelser

There is cause for concern in some current ideas premised upon the grace of God. What persons with such ideas are saying of grace per se is often fine, but their projected applications are unjustified, especially when they suppose that the fellowship of false teachers and errant brethren is necessitated because such by grace still possess righteousness in Christ. As we examine the subject of grace relative to these problems, we are not alluding to any one person’s conclusions, to our knowledge, but considering numerous ideas drifting about in various quarters that do appear to our understanding to be ultimately of one fabric.

The fact of God’s favor extended out of love and for his own glory to undeserving sinners is exceedingly precious, and one can only thrill at its exposition in Paul’s treatise on justification by faith, the epistle to Rome. The Jew gloried in the law, circumcision, and his Abrahamic parentage. To show that none of these established righteousness, Paul argued that to sinners, which all are, the law is an instrument of condemnation rather than justification. He argued that God’s real concern is the cutting away of sin from the heart rather then flesh from the body, and that instead of lineal descendants he wanted spiritual sons of Abraham who imitate his faith.

Instead of futilely glorying in a legalism that could never save because of man’s inability to perfectly keep law, Paul declares that we are justified by faith (Rom. 5: 1). A synonym for faith in this sense is trust. We place our trust in God and rely upon his scheme in Christ. It is a scheme relying not merely on conduct, but having the provision of perfect atonement for imperfect conduct, if we qualify.

An atonement is necessary because we have not merited salvation by perfectly keeping the commandments of God’s law. And we have not, nor can we, do enough good acts to eliminate the guilt of our disobedience through which we are consequently lost. (Isa. 64:6). Thus justification, if any at all, must be by grace (Rom. 11:6), a gift undeserved (Rom. 6:23).

But God has made the reception of this grace conditional upon our faith. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). God of his own love has freely provided the basis upon which he can justly pardon our iniquities, having satisfaction made for them in the suffering of Jesus (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). But we must trust, or have faith in, the divine provisions and conditions in order to appropriate that atonement. One’s keeping the conditions by which he is accounted righteous through Christ, rather than by which he actually is righteous, is thus not being saved by his unblemished works, but by faith, or trust in something apart from himself. He is trusting God’s arrangement to effect what he has not and cannot. One rejecting or perverting these conditions, which both appropriate and retain God’s grace, rejects salvation thereby. And God’s grace is something that must be retained, else there is no such thing as falling therefrom.

The implications of this last point, especially, are given inadequate attention in the theology of brethren who continue to impute righteousness through Christ to many who have come to prefer innovation and perversion to the revealed pattern, or plan, of service. We are made just through what Christ has done, not by what we do, we are reminded. This application is only a restatement of the “man and not the plan” concept. Imputing righteousness to the continuing disobedient ignores the fact that God has required certain things of us if we are to be justified by what Christ has done.

Our salvation being, not of our doing, but trust in God’s, has often tempted man to minimize, or even eliminate, human responsibility. Even in the apostolic age it was necessary to guard against perverting grace, using it as an excuse to overlook sin (Rom. 6:1-2). It is today being misused to diminish the significance of error in those of the disparate segments of the Restoration Movement. In the past, a similar attitude taken to extreme has occasionally culminated in antinomianism. The true antinomian holds that since we are under grace, submission to a structured system of service and ethics is unnecessary. He is unable to make the distinction between meriting salvation through legal impeccability, and faithfulness to a Savior, which involves devotion to that Savior’s desires. And mark this, anyone mitigating the necessity of complying with those desires, and the pattern constituted thereby, is unfaithful to that Savior! But to the antinomian, studied faithfulness is only legalism. Once he is in Christ, he is free from any strict requirement of conduct, and any sinful action and indiscretion is tolerable. He is saved by Christ, not by merit, he says. Some contemporary harangues in the name of grace, ridiculing faithfulness as “commandment keeping,” thus sound ominous.

It is in the end a de-emphasis of human responsibility to suppose that in the Restoration Movement the purveyors of doctrinal error such as institutionalism and instrumental music remain justified by grace. Those errors are not merely ideas of personal imprudence, but ideas corruptive of the collective service and worship of God. The feeling of humanity experienced in tolerating the practitioners of such is deluding, and occurs because it is rooted in short-sighted humanism. One is ignoring God’s arrangement in deference to men. Actually, the possibly current controversy is not so much, grace versus legalism, as it is, humanism versus the sovereignty of God; the former concerned more with the cordial rapproachement of diverse human elements than with unity in obedience to God.

This fawning humanistic tolerance implies that while God is quite particular as to what conditions appropriate the benefit of grace (faith, repentance, baptism), he is really not too particular about what he has said as to how his children are to serve him, that is, how grace (favor) is retained, and that after all, their right to their inclinations as free men and continuance to embrace one another in fellowship, regardless, is more important than his desires.

Just as tragically, such permissiveness is often called love. And those being tolerated can be especially sweet-spirited. But neither permissiveness nor pragmatic sweet-spiritedness is evidential of the kind of love for the brethren required by God: “Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments” (I Jn. 5:2). If we are the children of God those who do not obey God do not really love us! They use us. One proves his love for the children of God, and for God, in sharing obedience with them. When those with supposedly new enlightenment glory rather in an expanded fellowship, beyond those who prove their love for God by faithfulness to his order, while in tending to tell us something about their gracious love for man, they tell us rather that they have more regard and love for man than for God. Such expanded fellowship is not an application of the doctrine of grace. It is grace perverted. It is humanism. And, oh so very, very contemporary. Humanism pervades our society and our young are inundated by it in secular education. That is one reason why some of them are so susceptible to any premise for overlooking significant differences among brethren.

In a nutshell, while grace implies lack of human ability, it does not imply lack of responsibility. The philosophy of permissiveness does.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:37, p. 6-7
July 25, 1974