Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Some man-made churches include in their services what they refer to as “altar call.” Instead of inviting sinners to “obey the gospel” (Rom. 10: 16; 1 Pet. 4: 17; 2 Thess. 1: 7), they invite them to “come, kneel at the altar, confess your sins, and pray through.”

The New Testament knows nothing of “altar call.” On the day of Pentecost, when sinners asked what to do, Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). He did not tell them to kneel at an altar and start confessing their sins, praying for forgiveness. Take your Bible and read it for yourself.

When the people of Samaria were taught by Philip the evangelist, they believed and were baptized, both men and women (Acts 8:12). There is no hint that they feel on their knees before an altar to confess their sins and pray through.

The eunuch from Ethiopia learned about Jesus when Philip preached to him; he confessed faith in Jesus and was baptized (Acts 8:35-39). Nothing is said about his confessing his sins, going to an altar, or praying for the remission of sins.

Peter was sent to tell Cornelius and his house what to do to he saved (Acts 11: 14). They needed to hear the word of the gospel that they might believe. They were granted repentance unto life (Acts 15:7; 11:18). Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10: 48). In this example of conversion there is no altar, no confessing of sins, and no commanding sinners to pray through.

After the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, Ananias was sent to him in the city. The Lord told Ananias that he would find Saul praying (Acts 9:11). Despite his praying, his sins still had not been washed away. Ananias told him to arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Until one calls upon the name of the Lord by submitting to him in baptism, sins are not remitted. A lot of modern preachers would have told Saul to keep on praying. Had he asked about baptism, they would have denied that it is necessary. Contrast this with baptism.

When Paul and his companions taught Lydia and her house, she was baptized, and her household (Acts 16:14,15). She was not told to go to an altar and start confessing her sins in prayer.

The jailor was converted by being taught by Paul and Silas, by believing and being baptized (Acts 16:25-34). There was no “altar call.” He was not told to confess his sins and be saved. He was not urged to pray through and get the Holy Spirit. Paul and Silas did not preach what many modern preachers are presenting as the way of salvation.

The Corinthians were saved by hearing, believing, and being baptized (Acts 18:8). One who says, “I never heard of such teaching,” obviously has not read the book of Acts. Some who claim to follow the Bible are not teaching belief, repentance, and baptism as the plan of salvation; they have substituted their humanly devised “altar call” plan.

Jesus told the apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16: 15, 16). Now, take your Bible and see if that is what Jesus said. Your preacher may say, “He that believeth and confesseth his sins at the altar shall be saved,” but you know that is not what Jesus said. Who gave any man, preacher or not, the authority to change Christ’s plan of salvation?

Men say: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have come to the altar and prayed through have put on Christ.” The Bible says: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26,27). Which is right, the Bible or modern man? Both cannot be right.

Men say: Baptism doth not now save us. The Bible says: “Baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Again I ask, which is right? Will you follow man or the holy scriptures?

Men say: “We went to the altar, confessed our sins, prayed to God, and he hath quickened us together with him, having forgiven all trespasses.” The Bible says: “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath be quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Col. 2:12,13).

God’s plan of salvation includes faith, repentance, and baptism. The Bible says nothing, absolutely nothing, about “altar call.” Friend, have you obeyed the gospel?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, pp. 12-13
March 22, 1973

By Mike Willis

Brother H. E. Phillips recently has begun an examination in Searching the Scriptures of the doctrines taught by Carl Ketcherside. Brother Phillips attacks not the person of Carl Ketcherside but his doctrine. However, when Carl Ketcherside commented upon Brother Phillips’ review of his position, these were his words: “In the September issue of Searching the Scriptures, our brother in Christ, H. K Phillips, has the following editorial attack upon me and my work . . . . . His paper is a propaganda journalistic organ for our brethren who have created a test of union and communion out of what they refer to as ‘institutionalism.’ . . . I solicit your prayers for men like Brother Phillips, brethren who think they best serve the Father by attacking his other children” (“Coming Under Fire,” Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 12, p. 190).

Little in this quotation would have bothered me had it not been that just three issues earlier in the Mission Messenger, the situation was reversed; instead of Brother Ketcherside being reviewed, he was reviewing the doctrines of another. In Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 9, he replied to an article written by Reuel Lemmons. Notice the difference in what Brother Ketcherside has to say about reviewing the work of another child of the Father when he is doing the reviewing instead of being reviewed: “It has been my intention, God being my helper, to refrain as much as conscience will permit, from direct confrontation with other editors among the brethren. If they differ with my position I prefer to publish notice of their presentation and urge my readers to secure it and read for themselves. I want no rival except Satan and I do not intend to edit a partisan journal. Occasionally, however, I feel it necessary to state my convictions in opposition to an editorial, and when I do, I seek to be as objective as possible without being objectionable” (p. 129). Later, in that same issue, he charged Brother Lemmons with prejudice: “Brother Lemmons cannot deal honestly with the question because he already has his mind made up” (Ibid., p. 136). Surely, Brother Ketcherside was not reading the heart of Brother Lemmons, was he?

When Brother Ketcherside is being reviewed, the one reviewing is launching “an editorial attack upon me and my work.” The one reviewing Brother Ketcherside is one of those men “who think they best serve the Father by attacking his other children.” As a person uninvolved in these exchanges, looking at these two articles, to me Brother Ketcherside appears to have double standards–one for him and a different one for others. Let us all walk and be measured by the same rule. As a child growing up in East Texas, I learned a saying, which Brother Ketcherside needs to learn. It said, “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.”

Brother Ketcherside calls Searching the Scriptures “a propaganda journalistic organ.” Surely, Mission Messenger would not be a propaganda journalistic organ for the “unity-indiversity” fellowship faction, would it Brother Ketcherside? “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” Brother Ketcherside, is your labeling Searching the Scriptures a “propaganda journalistic organ” one of those debaters tactics to which you referred in Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 4, p. 62 in your criticism of the brother’s speech on fellowship which was delivered at Florida College? As one can see, not all that flows from Brother Ketcherside’s pen is honey. Sometimes Ketcherside “speaks with forked tongue!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, p. 11
March 22, 1973

 

Tonight is the 23rd of December. In another week a new year will be upon us. It, naturally, is a time for reflection and a time to count our blessings. We are blessed because we live in America and are free to worship God in the way He commanded us; we are blessed because we have plenty to eat and warm houses in which to live while people in other parts of the world are starving. But there is one blessing that I share with a relative few in this world. It is a blessing that I prize very highly and one that I am thankful God gave me the freedom and opportunity to choose I am blessed in that I chose to become a preacher’s wife.

I can almost hear some now saying: “That’s a strange thing to say. She must be off her rocker in some way. A preacher’s wife can’t be thankful or call that a blessing. Why, she is often criticized and put on the spot. Her husband is often gone for days at a time and she is alone. Her children are in the spotlight and their actions minutely inspected. Preachers never make much money or have fine houses. They must move ever so often. How can she call that a blessing?”

Yes, I can hear all these comments, even though unspoken. And I grant that most of them are true. But I still count it a blessing. Until recently, I never gave it much thought. I just went along from day to day doing what had to be done. However, some recent events have prompted me to reflect on this blessing. Perhaps my reflections can help a few others to appreciate their lot in life a little more and also cause others to choose this way, if the choice presents itself.

Recently, I have heard some voice the opinion that they did not want to be a preacher’s wife or that they did not want their girl to become a preacher’s wife. I have heard of boys who want to give up preaching because their sweethearts did not want to be preacher’s wives. You know, I never gave that a whole lot of thought. Maybe my mother wishes I had; but if so, she never spoke that thought. She did tell me that she wanted me to help make my husband a good one. Those of you who know him can judge how well I succeeded!

What is the life of a preacher’s wife really like? There are others who have been “at it” far longer than I and who could tell far more about it, I am sure; but tonight let me give you some of my thoughts.

It will soon be twenty-three years since I decided to take that “giant step” and I never have been sorry for one minute. It has not always been smooth sailing or an easy course to follow. I have made a lot of mistakes-for these, I am truly sorry-but God forgives a preacher’s wife on the same basis He forgives anyone else. The brethren where we have lived have “put up with,” encouraged, laughed, and even cried with us on various occasions. For this, I am grateful. Without their help, I never could have “made it,” I suppose.

I do not believe that I was consciously trained to become a preacher’s wife. However, I never was discouraged. It just never really concerned me too much one way or another. We had preachers in our family (though all are either dead or liberal now), and when we could all get together, it was a wonderful time. I am sure that when I left to go to Florida College in 1949 the thought must have occurred to my parents that I might marry a preacher, since that institution was (and is) well known for the marriages that are created there. I am an “only child” and when I left for college it was for good, except for short, infrequent visits. That is not the way I would like for it to be. However, because of our work it has had to be like that. So, being an only child is no excuse for not becoming a preacher’s wife.

Next week is the fifteenth birthday of our older son. Some of you will remember where he was born. Not in some comfortable American hospital in my hometown, to be sure. No, he was born in a university hospital in Bergen, Norway, thousands of miles from either of our homes and parents, with a doctor who was a Communist and nurses and attendants who did not speak or understand English. It was not an easy time. We had few friends there then, having been in Norway only four months. At the time, I came as close to not caring about anything as I ever have. But I thank God that I did not entirely give in. Even then, I did not regret being a preacher’s wife. What I am saying is this: There may be times when you, as a preacher’s wife, will have to leave this country. It is almost a certainty that you will have to leave your hometown and parents. But as Jesus said in Luke 14:26, “If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

This is a time of protest and discontent. The younger generation is critics of the older generation. They say we are materialistic. But I just wonder what it is when a boy decides not to preach because the girl he wants to marry just does not want to move around ever so often, or does not want to leave her parents or her hometown. She wants the security of a job and a house in one locality all her life. Is this materialism? What else?

Preachers’ wives are not a special breed. Why, God did not even give us special admonitions as he did wives of elders and deacons. We have only the same admonitions as all other women. However, there are a few commands which certainly pertain to a preacher’s wife.

As with other Christians, we are not to gossip or bear tales. No Christian should do this. And certainly not a preacher’s wife. She is in a position to know things about other Christians which do not need to be made public. Things are said to her and her husband in confidence and she needs to be able to keep such knowledge to herself, lest it hurt the person, her husband, and even the congregation. In fact, some things her husband should not even tell her. If I had any one piece of advice to give any girl who is about to become a preacher’s wife, it would be, “Keep your mouth shut!” Neither is it her business to advertise decisions that the elders make or, for that matter, to try to tell the elders or her husband which decisions to make.

And which of us has not at some time engaged in a little self-pity? Some are more prone to this than others. But a Christian has no right or need to do this. We are called to serve God wherever and whenever we can. The preacher’s wife cannot afford self-pity. There will often be times when her husband will be called away to the hospital to sit with a family during an operation; or to a funeral home after a sudden death; or to a person’s home during a trying time when a marriage is on the brink of failure; or even to the local jail to help somebody in trouble. She must wait at home with a supper pushed to the back of the stove or in the oven. Or, he may be gone for several days at a time in a gospel meeting clear across the country, or to a lectureship, or to a debate. Maybe he will even he involved in his work halfway around the world.

I have never asked my husband not to go where he thought he was needed for God’s work. Yet, I must confess that I came close in 1971 when he and J.T. Smith decided to go to the Philippine Islands. I knew there would be physical danger involved in such a trip; it would mean that the children and I would be alone for an entire month. What if one of the children got seriously ill? Or what if I became sick? However, I agreed that he should go. In fact, I knew he would go before he had even finished telling me of the need. For some reason, I have always believed that it was up to me to let him go and that it was up to God to take care of him. So far, it has worked out that way. How glad I am now that he and Brother Smith went. Because of their efforts and the efforts of others who have gone, the brethren there have been helped immensely. By mail, I have come to know many of those people. They have had many difficulties and troubles, which many of us would find unbearable. Would I be willing for him to go again? You bet I would!

Congregations often expect too much of the preacher’s wife. They seem to think that for some reason they “own” her and should be able to tell her what to do and how to do it. This attitude can cause problems. Let me hurriedly and thankfully say that I have never really faced this problem. The congregations where we have worked have been very considerate along this line; but I do know that such things have happened. Just because the church owns the house in which the preacher lives or pays the rent for him, does not give the members the right to tell the wife how to run her house. This is their home for the time that they live there.

Neither does the congregation “hire” the preacher’s wife. For the first twenty years we were married, I did a lot of secretarial work for my husband and the church. I knew how to do such work and was glad to do it. With but one exception, I have never been paid for such work. However, a congregation has no right to expect more from a preacher’s wife along this line than from any other woman in the congregation.

A preacher is not always as well paid as some in this life. He does not have many fringe benefits which workers in plants or offices have. Few churches pay social security, health insurance premiums, or pension plans. Yet, I do not know of many churches that will deny a preacher an extra day off at a holiday season or fail to continue his salary during a long, drawn out illness. Though your daughter may not always have the “most” in this life, you can rest assured that there are fringe benefits which few others will ever have.

What am I talking about? For one thing: friends. Yes, our friends . . . from Maine to California; Washington to Florida; in Canada, Norway and the Philippines. We would not trade these acquaintances for any amount of money on earth. These are people with whom we have worked through the years and who now have scattered around the country and the world. They include preachers, and, yes, their wives. They include sons and daughters of preachers who have grown up and married in the past twenty years. Whole congregations are included. These are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and all of them are (or should be) striving toward the same goal-an eternal home in heaven. These friends are the finest people on earth.

These “Preacher-wife” years have meant a broader education for my children and me than would have been possible had we always lived in the same place. How else could we have seen the midnight sun of Norway; the snow of northeast Ohio; the blast-off of a rocket at Cape Kennedy; the rock-bound coast of Maine; the lakes of Ontario; the cathedral of Worms, Germany where Martin Luther took his stand? I do not mean for this to sound as if we have been to these places just for the fun of traveling. That is not it at all. The work came first and that is what took us to these places, but I would be foolish to let you think that it did not benefit our lives. It has even helped our children in their schoolwork.

One of the greatest fringe benefits is being the constant recipients of the prayers of the congregation. Who else has God’s blessing invoked upon them in public prayers as much as the preacher and his family?

Most of all, a preacher’s wife develops a better understanding of people and a desire to have a part in the saving of their souls. Who could describe the frame of mind a preacher is in after someone has obeyed the gospel, or a wayward church member has repented, or some evidence is seen of good resulting from your husband’s efforts? Could it just be that I did have some part in making that possible? If so, then it has been worth it after all.

Wife of a Preacher for 23 years

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, pp. 8-10
March 22, 1973

By James W. Adams

The history of “Christianity” is inseparably linked with the births and deaths of almost countless, human I movements –all professedly aimed at bringing errant believers back into line with the “eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Each of these movements should be judged objectively by the student on the basis of its own merit. The criteria which should form the basis of such judgment should be: (1) Does it or does it not conform to the principles of Divine truth revealed in the Scriptures? (2) What were the circurmstances, which gave it birth? (3) Is the proposed solution, which it poses, not only consonant with Scripture, but does it in fact offer a practical solution to the problems which obtain? (4) If it is a movement of the past, what were its fruits; what significant contribution has it made to the furthering among men of “the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” as revealed to us through the inspired apostles and prophets of the New Testament era?

That God in His infinite wisdom had, from eternity, a well-defined purpose (plan or scheme) for man’s redemption which, “in the fullness of time,” was to be consummated in Jesus Christ is a fact of Scripture too ell known to Bible students to admit of controversy. It is also a fact just as well known t at the details of the Divine purpose were kept secret in the mind of God from the sin of man (Gen. 3) until the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 2), and were made known to mankind, during that period of time, only in dim outline through shadowy types, generic promises, and prophecies, the interpretations of which were earnestly sought but not definitively determined either by men or angels.

“For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ in behalf of you Gentiles,-2 if so be that Ye have heard (if the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; 3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, 4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my undervanding in the mystery of Christ; 5 which n other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to wit, that the Gentiles are fellowheirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7 whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given to me according to the working of his power. 8 Unto me whom am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things; to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, II according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: . . . ” (Eph. 3: 1 -11).

“receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. 10 Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them. 12 To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angels desire to look into ” (1 Pet. 1:9-12).

“. . . when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons ” (Gal. 4:4,5).

In a previous article, mention has been made of The Restoration Movement” of the

nineteenth century. It is my settled conviction that this movement, though humanly generated, was a completely valid movement-scripturally, historically, and pragmatically. This is simply to circumstances of historic say that the “Christendom” of that time justified its birth, the movement was launched on principles entirely scriptural, and it resulted in a practical restoration of “the ancient order of things” which was its principal aim. Contrary to popular belief and destructive modern propaganda, unity of believers was a secondary aim and was related to the principal aim as effect is related to cause.

Personal Testimony

The value of purely personal testimony is at best doubtful, yet even so great a disciple of the Lord as Paul, the Lord’s apostle, felt on certain occasions the necessity of indulging in it, and his expressions along this line quite obviously had the approbation of the Holy Spirit. My spiritual roots are anchored deeply in “The Restoration Movement.” A great-great grandmother was baptized by Moses E. Lard in the Missouri River in 1847 or 48; a great-grandfather and grandmother were baptized by H. H. Dunn in Franklin Co. Alabama in 1844 and moving to Texas in 1850 were among the early disciples on the frontier west of the Nueces River; a great-great grandmother was a disciple in Lincoln Co. Kentucky in 1836 naming her first child after Alexander Campbell. In a direct and most intimate sense, I consider myself an heir of the faith and the labors of the stalwarts who in great sacrifice and suffering gave birth to and nurtured to maturity “The Restoration Movement. ” To this I confess without apology.

A Sense of Personal Obligation

Believing as I do in the validity of “The Restoration Movement,” and recognizing as I must the fact that I am a spiritual heir of its scriptural, historic, and practical fruit in the realm of religion, I feel a deep sense of personal obligation to the preservation in my time and for generations yet unborn the Divine, and, therefore eternal and immutable principles upon which it was launched. Since the plea of “The Restoration Movement” was a plea for a return to the belief and practice of the original gospel, I feel justified in regarding myself as a debtor to men of the past, the present, and the future in this regard. Paid felt the same sense of debt. He said, “I am debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1: 14-16).

Our Present Situation Again

Many leading figures of “The Restoration Movement” were individuals who had abandoned Presbyterian and Baptist affiliations with their Calvinistic doctrines and practices to embrace a return to the faith and practice of primitive, New Testament “Christianity.” They viewed their position as a “restoration of the ancient order” of things-a return to apostolic doctrine and practice, and it was certainly their sincere purpose to make it so. Hence, they adopted as their watchword the slogan alluded to in our previous article: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent; we are silent.”

Neo-Calvinism: it is paradoxical that modern-day heirs of the accomplishments of these stalwarts of days gone by-members of professed churches of Christ-should now give birth to a modified form of Calvinism under the delusion that they are God-called deliverers of His people from spiritual enslavement to historical “legalism.” Upon a neo-Calvinistic view of “salvation by grace” and a Lutheran concept of “salvation by faith only” (“sola fide”), they project a plea for the “unity of immersed believers” which is so permissive and pervasive in that which it allows as to render nonsensical, superficial, and sectarian divisions emanating from any divergence in faith and practice among such persons in matters relating to their worship of God through Christ and their work as members of the body of Christ (assuming they are indeed such) in reference to their personal edification and sanctification and their rescuing from the toils of sin and Satan God’s lost and recreant children (Acts 17:29) who have not accepted Jesus as Savior. It is also ironic that this newborn brainchild should come from the far right as well as the far left and from seasoned veterans as well as precocious neophytes. In our next article, attention will be paid to the sources from whence emanates this newborn “movement” within a “movement.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, pp.5-6
March 22, 1973