Truth Magazine

By Donald P Ames

Reviewing the “Confession of an Ex-Campbellite”

Recently a tract came into my hands by Jim B. Miller of Box 1313, Brenham, Texas, who claims to have been “formerly affiliated with your denomination,” but is presently the minister of the First Assembly of God in Brenham. Since this tract was placed beneath the windshield wipers of every car in the parking lot of the South Houston church in Houston, Texas, I am sure Mr. Miller will have no objections to my making its contents public and examining some of the points he has to offer.

Refuses to Debate

Like so many others who do not like to have their doctrines publicly exposed to the word of God before a mixed audience which is able to determine who is setting forth the truth of God’s divine word, Mr. Miller goes out of his way in this tract to note: “Let me make it plain that I will not debate with any Campbellite believer believing as I do that debate is a sinful practice loved by reprobate men (Rom. 1:28-29; 2 Cor. 12:20).” (Italic his-DPA). If Mr. Miller had taken a little more time to study the above passages, he would have discovered that the word “debate” in both passages is translated “strife” in the New American Standard Bible and other later translations, and refers to the idea of bitter quarrels with personalities, rather than an honest investigation of the word of God within the confines of a proper atmosphere. Even the apostles themselves “argued” (Acts 6:9), “debated” (Acts 15:7), “reasoned” (Acts 17:2), and showed such was to be done (Jude 3, I Thess. 2:2, etc.). Jesus’ many exchanges with the various leaders of Judiasm are still further evidence that such is expected of all who would defend the whole counsel of God.

However, after his bold statement of why he refused to engage in a debate, Mr. Miller then goes on to say that such “does not mean that I will not welcome your disputation or criticism.” Now, I wonder if that means that he would answer such with what he believes the word of God teaches? If so, he has a debate (“a rose by any other name is still a rose”), and if done in the proper spirit, would be doing exactly what the apostles and our Lord did-and if not, it would be done in the manner which was condemned. I trust we can conduct this study on the high plane God would have it.

Formerly A Member

Mr. Miller says he was formerly a member of the Shaw Street Church of Christ in Pasadena, Texas, being baptized in 1962. He claims he “remained with them long enough to objectively compare their teachings with the plain teaching of the Bible,” and that as a result of careful study, promptly left again in 1963. He then objects to the plea to “Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where it is silent;” saying that in many cases, “the Church of Christ often speaks where the Bible is silent and remains silent when the Bible speaks-especially in regard to their pet doctrines!” Since I know nothing about the Shaw Street Church of Christ itself nor Mr. Miller, I hope he will not think me rude for being equally as blunt in assessing the situation as I see it. It seems quite obvious to me that Mr. Miller did not remain “long enough” to fully understand what the word of God actually teaches, or else never fully understood it in the first place. In reading the material within his tract, I note he himself is very guilty of “speaking where the Bible is silent and remaining silent where the Bible speaks.” If I am wrong in such an assessment, I welcome his efforts to show me such from the word of God. However, his statements serve as pretty good evidence that he went out from among us that it might be made manifest that he was not of us (1 Jn. 2:19).

“One Scripture Only, Please”

Listing 30 challenges against the “pet doctrines” of the body of Christ, Mr. Miller calls for “one Scripture only, please.” His argument is that anything requiring more than one scripture is unscriptural. Such logic does not follow, and I am sure I could readily demonstrate such to be true about the doctrines of the First Assembly of God as well. Nevertheless, I shall seek to give him some very plain Bible answers that ought to satisfy anyone seeking to do the will of God. This, we shall seek to do by placing his challenge first, and then the answer to follow.

1. That “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” is not valid without water baptism (Acts 16:31). Jesus answered this in Mark 16:16 when He Himself placed the additional restriction “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” on to the plan of salvation. Since “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17); it follows that the jailer had to believe before he could do anything else, thus Paul spoke the word of the Lord to him to produce that faith (verse 32), that ,he might be saved. James 2:19 notes that even the demos believe, however, that does not mean they are saved, because one must also “obey” in order to be saved (Heb. 5:9). No one can “obey” a command to believe, hence that is still further testimony that something more is required (Acts 2:38). Mr. Miller might also note that nothing is said in that passage about repentance either (Acts 17:30) nor of confession (Rom. 10:9-10), yet he would not exclude either because they are not in that one verse. No one passage within the word of God contains all the plan of salvation, yet one cannot be saved without doing all that is required by God.

2. That if we love the brethren but have not been baptized we cannot pass from death unto life (I John 3:14). We readily acknowledge no man can love God and hate his brother (1 Jn. 4:20), but is that the plan of salvation? John 3:16 alone is more than enough to answer this argument, since the above passage says nothing about believing, repenting, or confessing-all of which even Mr. Miller would admit is essential. That which proves too much proves nothing, and again Mr. Miller is caught within his own contradiction by denying the rest of the word of God to lift one verse and try to base his whole argument upon it alone.

3. That the term “born of water” (John 3:5) really means “born of baptism” (John 4:14, Isa. 12:3). Since neither Isa. 12 nor John 4 even mention being “born” at all, Mr. Miller is caught groping in the dark for a mere play on words, as Jesus was merely using the situation at hand in John 4 to illustrate a spiritual lesson, as he also did in John 6:54. The proper parallel to this passage readily identifies baptism as the thing under consideration when one looks at either Titus 3:5 or Eph. 5:26 where the word “regenerate” means to be “born anew” and refers back to the very idea in John 3:5.

4. That “whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” is not valid without baptism (John 3:16). Again, we could just ask the same thing about repentance (see point No. 1). Note the following from the NASB in John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Belief often includes the idea of obedience, and that includes repentance and baptism as well, thus he who believes “should not perish” because he should go ahead and obey (Heb. 5:9, Acts 6:7, etc).

5. That “the just shall live by faith” includes water baptism and works (Rom. 1:17). What faith? The word of God itself is what is under consideration, and all that is included therein (Rom. 1:16). There is a difference in the works of men and the works of God that we might also point out too. In Jn. 6:29 belief is referred to as a “work” of God. Only by faith in the word of God to do all that it requires can any righteous man live-and that includes the whole of the plan of salvation.

6. That the “works” of James 2:14-20 is water baptism. Who ever said it was? The “works” here refers to an obedient faith as contrasted with a professed faith (vs. 1819). That simply means true faith is manifested in obedience, or doing the “works of God” which He has instructed. Thus one passage refers to Abraham as being justified by faith (Heb. 11:7), while another speaks of it by works (James 2:21). But again, the works were not works of man’s merits, but works’in obedience to the will of God, by which we are justified by Him (vs. 21, Heb. 5:9).

7. That Saul of Tarsus was not saved in Acts 9:6 before his baptism in water (I Cor. 12:3). If so, he was saved while he still was in his sins (Acts 22:16), and since sin cannot enter heaven, neither could Paul until he was saved, redeemed from his sins! As for the term “Lord,” it merely refers to a title of respect for a higher power (sometimes translated “sir”-see also I Pet. 3:6), and did not mean Paul was saved (Matt. 7:21, Luke 6:46). Paul was well aware something greater than himself was present (hence the term “Lord”), but he did not know who until Jesus answered him. “By the spirit” within the context of 1 Cor. 12, does not mean “one who is a Christian,” but rather refers to the guidance and planning of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the purpose of God (Mark 16:20, Heb. 2:4) and thus is totally unrelated to this subject.

8. That what Paul Amust do” (Acts 9:6) was to be baptized rather than suffer Agreat things”(v. 16). Who said either was excluded? I wonder if Mr. Miller actually thinks Paul could have become a great spokesman for God in pointing men to Christ and the remission of their sins if he was still in his own sins? (Acts 22:16) Obviously it had both an immediate anti future application.

9. That a person “contacts the blood in the waters of baptism. ” Since we are saved by the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7, Rev. 1:5), maybe Mr. Miller would like to show me the verse that says we contact it in faith only. Christ’s blood was shed in his death (Matt. 26:28), and in the watery grave of baptism we come in contact with his death (Rom. 6:3-7) where the blood washes away our sins and we come forth with a clean conscience (1 Pet. 3:21). The same parallel exists in the cleansing of the leprosy of Naaman in 2 Kings 5-full obedience was required to obtain the blessings, and not that the water itself was miraculous or that one must find literal blood.

10. That a man cannot be justified by faith without baptism (Rom. 3:8). I suspect the real passage he has in mind is Rom. 5:1, and no one denies we are saved by faith, just like we are justified by works (James 2:24). What Mr. Miller assumes in this passage is that we are saved by faith only (reread James 2:24). A rereading of points No. 1 and 4 will answer his point here also.

11. That the “one baptism” of Eph. 4:5 is water baptism (1 Cor. 12:13). Since the disciples were told to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ” (Matt. 28:19), he has his answer. No one but God can baptize one with the Holy Spirit, but Jesus told his disciples to do the baptizing. We note that “water baptism” was what they practiced (I Pet. 3:20-21, Acts 10:47, Acts 8:37-39), and there is no reference of them commanding anyone to be baptized in the Holy Spirit or that Holy Spirit baptism was to save anyone. As for 1 Cor. 12:13, we have here another parallel to John 3:5, Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:5-under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (through the word-Eph. 3:5), they were all baptized into the one body. Mr. Miller has no case at all for Holy Spirit baptism in this passage if he keeps it within the context of 1 Cor. 12, which he tries so hard not to do.

12. That the word ‘for” in Acts 2:38 means “in order to” and not “because of” as in 1 Cor. 15:3, etc. For one who claims to have searched carefully to learn what God has taught, Mr. Miller shows a great lack of comprehension with this argument. The word “for” in Acts 2:38 is from the Greek word eis, and is rendered “in order to” by every reputable lexicon in print. It is a forward looking word, and does not look backwards. Jesus used the same Greek word eis in Matt. 26:28 when he said his blood was being shed “for the remission of sins.” Did he mean “because of?” When Mr. Miller finds the answer to that passage, he will find the answer to Acts 2:38. As for the word “for” in 1 Cor. 15:3, Mr. Miller shows poor research. The Greek word here is the word gar, and is correctly rendered “because.”

13. That baptism is not a ‘figure” (1 Pet. 3:21) and ‘likeness” (Rom. 6:5) but a means of salvation. Again Mr. Miller is guilty of mixing his figures and substituting in order to suit his man-made doctrines. The “figure” in 1 Pet. 3:21 is between the water that separated Noah from the lost and dying world during the days of the flood and the water of baptism which separates the Christian from the sinner today. And in Rom. 6:5 the “likeness” is in the burial of Christ in the grave and the burial of baptism as the old man of sin is done away and we are raised to walk in “newness of life . . . freed from his sins.” The figures and likenesses do not do away with the purpose itself, but merely serve to illustrate its nature and purpose.

14. That `form” in Rom. 6:17 refers to water baptism. The word “form” means “a mold or pattern,” and refers to the results of the teaching of the doctrine of Christ molding us into a creature of His will when we have become “freed from sin” (v. 18)-which was accomplished when we were buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3-7). Again, the context itself serves as the answer to Mr. Miller.

15. That observance of a weekly Sunday communion is commanded. Using his own logic, perhaps he would also like to show where a weekly contribution is commandedyet he would not think of abolishing it. By apostolic example we find the disciples meeting on the first day of the week to break bread (Lord’s Supper-Acts 20:7), and since every week has a first day, we know this is the pattern (as is also verified by history-see also 1 Cor. 11:20). As the “seventh day” meant weekly, so does the “first day.” Here again, not only does Mr. Miller follow an example (1 Cor. 16:1-2) for giving, but violates it in partaking of the Lord’s Supper any time other than weekly.

(More to follow)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29; p. 8-10
May 23, 1974

By Cecil Willis

We have continued to tell you that the position being taken of late by some of our brethren is a dangerous approximation of Calvinistic theology. While the older preachers among us fought Calvinism half a century ago on a thousand fronts, some of our “precocious neophytes” (as Brother James W. Adams so aptly named them) act as though their latitudinarian concepts on the grace of God just freshly have been discovered. Nearly everything these young brethren have said on the subject of grace could be read, nearly word-by-word, from the writings of John Calvin, and if not from Calvin, in the revised vocabulary of neo-orthodox Calvinistic theologians.

Evidently another very close associate and preacher friend of mine has “bit the dust” and begun the acceptance of this looser view on the grace of God. When once one starts down that road, his destination is predictable by the pattern of those who have trodden the same path before. Some of the statements these brethren make as they begin to digress from the truth astound me. It is beyond me as to why they cannot see rank-denominationalism permeating what they are writing. But evidently they do not see it.

Some Quotes

The dear brother to which I just alluded has written me several times trying to explicate his views. Recently he wrote:

“If I admit that I commit sin, and I would not defend the position that I am sinless, then does not this make me a sinner? A sinner is simply one who sins. If I understand the writings of John correctly, although he teaches that a Christian commits acts of sin, he nevertheless strongly insists that a Christian cannot live in the practice of sin (1 Jno. 3:6, 9). The one who really knows God always strives to keep the commandments of God, although he never achieves this in a perfect sense. If, as some teach, each act of sin separates from God (and John says that if we say we have no sin we lie), then every Christian faces the frightful daily situation of being ‘in= and >out’ of Christ, or >in’ and >out’ of grace.

“It would appear to me that if we take the position that each and every sin must be specifically confessed in prayer, regardless of its nature, then we are forced to believe that we can live days and weeks at a time without sinning, or else we must constantly pray for the forgiveness of sins, and still live in fear that we have committed some sin in between that could condemn us if we suddenly die. Which side of the coin do you take?

AAny concept we hold must be harmonized with the picture in the New Testament that the child of God can constantly stand in a state of grace (Rom. 5:1; 8:1). The kingdom of God is characterized as one of righteousness, joy, and peace (Rom. 14:17). There is no peace, assurance, or confidence if the nature of the Christian life is one of constant fear of being lost regardless of how hard we might try. These are some specific issues that are crying for some specific answers. Would you please clarify this problem for me?”

This brother deeply resents the fact that I have represented to some that he is changing his position, and is moving in the direction of Brother Edward Fudge’s position on grace. But it does not take any “Solomon” to see the logical consequence of what he has said, and where his premises are going to take him, unless he forsakes his premises. In a later effort to more fully state his position, this brother wrote me very similarly, as follows:

“Your position that `every sin separates from God’ must lead you to the conclusion that the child of God is constantly `in’ and `out’ of grace, as you have admitted. This is consistent with your position, but this is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1-2; Rom. 8:1-4; Col. 1:1-2; etc.). There can be no real joy and peace if we must constantly be `in’ and `out’ of grace. Again, your position demands that you can be in grace only when you are sinlessly perfect in practice. Can we constantly `walk in the light’ without being sinlessly perfect in practice? You deny that `walking in the light’ demands sinless perfection, but your theory demands it.

“I freely admit that I am a sinner and constantly need the blood of Jesus Christ. To speak otherwise is to become a liar. I freely admit that I do not have all of the answers to all of the issues facing brethren today. I am trying to grow daily in knowledge and in favor with God. But I do know that I love God, love the brethren, and strive to keep His commandments. I can know that I am in a saved condition if I continue to walk by faith.”

Some Observations

You will notice that the brother just quoted said, “your position demands that you can be in grace only when you are sinlessly perfect in practice.” I wonder if this brother never heard of the word `forgiveness” in relation to a Christian. It ma very well turn out that the battleground on this grace- fellowship heresy is going to be the book of 1 John. Brother Roy E. Cogdill and I had about fourteen hours of discussion with the above-quoted brother in Conroe, Texas during February, 1974. We discussed these matters at great length. There were three other preaching brethren who sat in on various parts of these discussions which included three separate sessions.

My position does not demand perfect practice. My position simply demands that a person repent of his sin, and ask God’s forgiveness. Neither do I maintain that every sin must be specifically confessed, one-by-one. Some of these brethren cite David as an instance of one who committed sin, and yet remained in the favor (grace) of God. But these brethren. need to remember what the Bible tells us about David’s disposition toward his sins. David said “My sin is ever before me.” Our brother said that if one took the position that I hold, “. . . we must constantly pray for the forgiveness of sins . . . .” Yes, brother, that is exactly what I believe. Paul said, “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). But notice what David said his attitude was toward his sins.

“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear, joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free Spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise” (Psalm 51:1-4, 7-13, 16-17).

It was really David’s penitence that made him a man after God’s own heart. In Psalm 19:12 David said, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.” David even asked for forgiveness of sins which he knew not how to confess specifically one-by-one. On this passage from Psalm 19, Albert Barnes said:

“The word rendered errors is derived from a verb which means to wander, to go astray; then, to do wrong, to transgress. It refers here to wanderings, or departures from the law of God …. In view of a law so pure, so holy, so strict in its demands, and so extended in its requirements, asserting jurisdiction over the thoughts, the words, and the whole life,-who can recall the number of times that he has departed from such a law? . . . Who can number the sins of a life? Who can make an estimate of the number of impure and unholy thoughts which, in the course of many years, have flitted through, or found a lodgment in the mind? Who can number up the words which have been spoken and should not have been spoken? Who can recall the forgotten sins and follies of a life-the sins of childhood, of youth, of riper years?”

Do you think that David went around complaining about the fact that he was going all the time to have to be confessing his sins? Do you think David complained, “. . . we must constantly pray for the forgiveness of sins…”? On the reference to “secret faults,” Barnes said:

“The word here rendered secret means that which is hidden, covered, concealed. The reference is to those errors and faults which had been hidden from the eye of him who had committed them, as well as from the eye of the world. The sense is, that the law of God is so spiritual, and so pure, and so extended in its claims, that the author of the psalm felt that it must embrace many things which had been hidden from his own view,-errors and faults lying deep in the soul, and which had never been developed or expressed. From these, as well as from those sins which had been manifest to himself and to the world, he prayed that he might be cleansed.”

David gives no comfort to those who would seek to contrive some way to extend God’s grace to those who have not met His terms of pardon, and this is precisely what our brother is trying to do.

“In” and “Out” of Grace

The brother whose letters I am reviewing said in the quoted sections, “. . . then every Christian faces the frightful daily situation of being ‘in’ and ‘out’ of Christ, or ‘in’ and `out’ of grace.” Later he said, “Any concept we hold must be harmonized with the picture in the New Testament that the child of God can constantly stand in a state of grace (Rom. 5:1; 8:1).” If a Christian cannot be “in” and later “out” of God’s grace, then only two alternatives are possible: (1) Either the Christian is always “out” of God’s grace, or (2) Else the Christian is always “in”God’s grace. Brother, as you said to me in your letter, “Which side of the coin do you take?”

However, I guess that question is not necessary for you already have told us that “Any concept we hold must be harmonized with the picture in the New Testament that the child of God can constantly stand in a state of grace . . . . ” I emphatically deny that the New Testament teaches that a sinning Christian is “constantly in a state of grace.” Your position is the one that would require perfect practice, since you expect to receive forgiveness of sins, of which sins you neither have repented nor confessed. Such a promise God has never made to us. The passages which you cite certainly do not prove your contention. The Baptists call the position you have taken, “once in grace, always in grace;” “once saved, always saved;” “the security of the believer;” “the perseverance of the saints;” or “the impossibility of apostasy.” But call it whatever you will brother, it still is a false doctrine!

You cite Rom. 5:1 as proof that a Christian is “constantly in a state of grace.” What does Rom. 5:1 say? “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Did any of you see anything in that passage about being “constantly in a state of grace’,’? If you did, you saw something in it I did not see. I think our brother is referring to the fact that we can have “peace with God,” and if he has to worry daily about whether he is right with God or not, he would not have any peace. The very next verses speak of the necessity of being “steadfast” (Rom. 5:25). Does an unsteadfast Christian remain “constantly in the grace of God?” Brother, if you will go down the street and talk to just nearly any Baptist preacher, he will give you better passages to prove your “once in grace, always in grace” doctrine.

You also cited Rom. 8:1 as proof that the Christian remains “constantly in a state of grace.” So let us read it also. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” My, how the Baptists like that passage! But just like the Baptists, my brother, you fail to note that those for whom there is “now no condemnation” are those “who walk not after the flesh. but after the Spirit.”

And you cite Col. 1:1, 2 to prove that the Christian can “constantly stand in a state of grace.” So let us read this passage also. Paul said, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ that are at Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.” Was that really the verse you intended to use? These that remained in the favor (grace) of God were the ‘faithful brethren in Christ.”.Your position necessitates that you prove that the unfaithful brethren also remain “constantly in a state of grace.” If your Baptist doctrine is so, reckon why Paul told these same people in Col. 1:23, “if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard . . .”? The book of Colossians certainly does not prove that a Christian remains “constantly in a state of grace.” And incidentally, one must wonder why Paul and Barnabas exhorted the brethren “to continue in the grace of God” (Acts 13:43), if indeed a Christian is “constantly in a state of grace.”

Our Discussion in Conroe

In the lengthy discussion with this brother and some others who came with him, and involving Brother Cogdill and myself, we tried to show them the consequence of the position they were taking. Some of these brethren were affirming that a person could sin, and never repent of it, never confess it, and never ask God’s forgiveness and still remain “in the grace of God.” They were speaking here of just two kinds of sins: one group they called “sins of ignorance,” and the other group they called “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh.” Those two categories would include most of my sins! These brethren tried to convince us that the word “cleanseth” in 1 Jno. 1:7 implies continuous action. Both Brother Cogdill and I already knew that. These brethren cite the same passages, and with the same enthusiasm, as a young Baptist preacher fresh out of Seminary. The word “cleanseth” in 1 John 1:7 is from the verb katharizei, and is in the present tense, thus indicating that it is a constant process, conditioned on our walking in the light. But there is another word these brethren need to consider in the same context. In 1 John 1:9, John said: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It should also be noted that the word translated “confess” is from a present active subjunctive, thus it literally means, “If we keep on confessing our sins . . . . “What the Bible teaches is that “if we keep on confessing our sins, ” then He “keeps on cleansing us.”

But these passages do not help the cause of these brethren any. Their position necessitates that they prove that a man who does not confess his sins, does not repent of his sins, and does not ask God’s forgiveness of these “sins of ignorance” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh” nonetheless continues to enjoy the cleansing power of Christ’s blood. Brethren, if this doctrine be so, it is but another cheap form of the Calvinistic doctrine of “unconditional grace.” The Calvinists teach that without regard to the character or life of the “elect,” God nonetheless bestows upon them His grace, and regardless of how they live afterward, they are “always in grace.” I would like to hear these brethren explain to anybody how God unconditionally can bestow His cleansing grace upon the Christian. but then explain why this same God cannot unconditionally bestow His grace upon the alien sinner! These brethren have espoused Calvinism, and evidently do not know it yet.

In an effort to show those three preaching brethren the consequence of their “constantly in the grace of God” position, we posed for them some questions, which we would ask any Baptist preacher who took the same position. I asked, “If a Christian got drunk, and died drunk, would God save him anyway?” Would you believe that a gospel preacher unhesitatingly answered, “Yes.” So I thought I would try him again. I then asked, “If a Christian committed fornication. and died in the act of fornication, would God save him anyway?” And once again, without a moment’s hesitation, this 30 or 35 year old gospel preacher said, “Yes.” When we began then to show them the absurdity of what he had admitted, he explained that he meant that this drunk Christian or this fornicating Christian would be saved, Aif his heart is right.” Now all I need to know in order to understand this Baptist position which some of our brethren have espoused is for someone to explain to me how a Christian gets drunk and commits fornication while “his heart is right!” I need a little help on that, brethren. And a certain Baytown, Texas preacher also needs some help in explaining that. To be fair, I must report that the brother whose letters I have been examining in this article, and who had declared that the Christian “constantly” stands “in a state of grace” immediately repudiated the position into which his co-defender had been pressed. But when he did so, he logically forfeited his position of God bestowing His grace unconditionally upon the Christian when he sins, if the sin happens to be a “sin of ignorance” or one that “results from the weakness of the flesh.”

Conclusion

Now before we could get down to the conclusions and show the absurdity of the position being advocated, we had to spend many hours talking about the fellow who exceeds the speed limit by one mile per hour, and one second later drops dead. We had to discuss whether there was anything we did not know, or if it could be possible that there is anything upon which we might be wrong. What was all of this preliminary fencing about? Well, some of these brethren, like Brother Edward Fudge, also are trying to find some ground upon which to argue that people who are “ignorant” of the fact that instrumental music and institutionalism are wrong can still unconditionally receive the saving grace of God at the Judgment. The concluding step, if they ever can get that far, is this: If such people are going to be received into God’s everlasting fellowship in heaven, it is absurd for us to withhold our fellowship from them hereon earth. You may get plenty tired of hearing me tell you that this is where these brethren are headed. If so, then I suggest that you hang around a while and see whether I was right or not. You have heard the old aphorism, “Give him an inch, and he will take a mile.”Well, these brethren are trying; by every means they can think of, just to get that first inch. Once they have gotten the first inch, they think “the mile” is all thereafter a downhill pull. There are a host of brethren who are determined to contest even that first inch, and who certainly do not intend to concede them the mile they seek.

Author’s Afterthought

As most of you who have read what I have written through the years very likely already know, I do not like imprecise articles. However, in the preceding article I have not identified the brethren of whom I am speaking. I presume the reason why I have not done so is because of a “weakness of the flesh.” One of the brethren involved happens to be a particularly close friend of mine, and a brother for whom I have had very high regard. But I do not think it is fair for me to write such an article without identifying the brethren of whom I speak, and the Lord knows that I do not do so out of any malicious intent toward either of these brethren. The brother whose letters I quoted at length is Brother Lindy McDaniel, and the brother who said a Christian who died drunk or in the act of fornication would still be saved by the grace of God, Aif his heart is right” was Brother Maurice Cornelius of Baytown, Texas.

Just for the sake of public information, let me also state just now that as a result of these discussions with Brother Lindy McDaniel it was decided that the Cogdill Foundation no longer would publish Pitching For the Master. It also should be added that Brother McDaniel concurred in our decision that his paper should no longer be published by the Cogdill Foundation. Several times before, I have felt the necessity to tell Brother McDaniel that the Cogdill Foundation did not intend to publish two papers, one going in one direction, and the other going in another direction. When it became evident that this unwanted condition was going to exist, we had no alternative but to disassociate the Cogdill Foundation from Pitching For the Master. Lindy McDaniel I still consider to be a friend, but I can no more countenance what I believe to be “pernicious error” taught by him than I could if the same error were taught by Edward Fudge, Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, or the “Pastor” of the First Baptist Church.

(Closing Note: Since much of what I have said in this article resulted from lengthy conversations in the home of Brother Roy Cogdill, I sent this article to him for his careful scrutiny, lest I should have misrepresented some point, either by misunderstanding or remembering incorrectly. Brother Cogdill replied: “That is just exactly the way I remember it.”)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29, p. 3-7
May 23, 1974

By Denver Niemeier

Anytime you are interested in starting a Bible discussion, introduce the subject of baptism. Those who are not members of the Church will talk about the purpose, result, and action of baptism. Even members of the Body of Christ have different views on the subject, not necessarily in reference to the above mentioned items, but in reference to how much one needs to know before baptism and who has been scripturally baptized.

As in all religious matters, an appeal to the Standard of all standards to find the answers to the questions should be made. That standard is complete and thorough (2 Tim. 3:1617). What that standard teaches is to be accepted as final authority on every religious subject. Jesus tells us in (Mk. 16:16) that belief plus baptism equals salvation from past sins. In Acts 2:47, the record shows that God adds ,the saved to the church daily. Paul, in Gal. 3:26-27, teaches that faith plus baptism puts one into Christ. Three things are accomplished as the result of faith (belief) plus baptism: salvation from past sins, one is added to the church, and one puts on Christ.

In Romans 6:17, Paul speaks of “obeying from the heart that form of doctrine (teaching).” A person, therefore, must understand what he is doing and what is to be accomplished as the result of his obedience in order to be delivered from sin and become a servant of righteousness, as Paul stated in Rom. 6:17-18. Since baptism is involved when one is “obeying from the heart,” how then can a person be baptized without understanding that he will have his sins washed away, become a member of the Lord’s body (church), and be in Christ where all spiritual blessings are found (Eph. 1:3)? People’s knowledge of Bible baptism, as well as of other basic Bible doctrines, has suffered from our neglect of preaching on. the subject. A return to the old paths of preaching the Gospel and the necessity of a continual walk in the light (1 Jn. 1:7) would clear up confusion regarding who are “brethren” and who are to be “fellowshipped” (2 Jn. 9-11).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29, p. 2
May 23, 1974

By Irvin Himmel

When pioneer preachers thundered the plea for the restoration of first-century Christianity across America, they urged that men “speak where the Scriptures speak, and be silent where the Scriptures are silent.” They insisted, “Let us do Bible things in Bible ways, and call Bible things by Bible names.” Another slogan heard often in those days was this one: “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible.”

The Bible claims to thoroughly equip man for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). This it could not do if it were not the full, final, and perfect revelation of God’s will. Many religious groups profess to believe, respect, and teach the Bible, but in the final analysis they are governed by some other book.

Some churches have an official creed book. Others have a book of discipline, or maybe a catechism, or a church manual, or a confession of faith. Some use books that were not designed to be creeds, as if they were official statements of faith. They have a book that governs, and it is something other than the Bible.

There are numerous books that may assist one in studying the Bible. Such is the sole purpose of Bible dictionaries, concordances, commentaries, books of sermons, study outlines, lexicons, Bible atlases, etc. These books have their place when properly used. But no such book should be allowed to take the place of the Bible or elevated to equality with the Bible.

If we cannot give book, chapter, and verse for what we teach in religion, it is not from God. One may support a proposition by appealing to human writings, or he may defend his contention by quoting what some man has said. Notwithstanding, his argument carries no real authority unless he gives scriptural proof.

Sometimes people are told to follow the Bible, then are expected to conform to some other book. This is plain hypocrisy. We should teach people to follow the Bible, then rejoice when they conform to it.

People who complain that the Bible is not being preached in “their churches” should start looking for Christ’s church. If one finds himself attending services where the Bible is not taught, why not go elsewhere? Why support and encourage a religion that puts the Bible on the sidelines?

No book but the Bible stands as the basis for the Christian’s faith. No book but the Bible should be preached. No book but the Bible came from God. No book but the Bible is needed to officially express what we believe and practice. No book but the Bible will endure forever.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29, p. 2
May 23, 1974