Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The United States is rapidly becoming a fatherless society. Dan Davenport reported, “In 1960, 5.8 million American kids lived in single-parent families. Today, that number has more than tripled, to an astonishing 18 million. Another figure is equally startling: nearly 40 percent of our children do not live in the same home as their biological father” (Better Homes and Gardens [June 1996], 46).

David Blankenhorn re-ported, “About one-third of all childbirths in the nation now occur outside of marriage. In most of these cases, the place for the father’s name on the birth certificate is simply left blank. In at least two or every three cases of unwed parenthood, father is never legally identified” (Fatherless America 10). Another wrote that “27.1 percent of all American children are born into single-parent homes, a number that is on the rise. In the black community, that figure is an astounding 68 percent” (Critical Issues [I:2], “Family Values,” Web address: http://www.leaderu.com/critical/family.html).

When Dan Quayle called our attention to this issue by commenting on the Murphy Brown sitcom in which the leading character decided to bear a child outside of wedlock, he was soundly attacked by Hollywood. The New York Daily News headline that reported on Quayle’s Murphy Brown speech was titled “Quayle to Murphy Brown: You Tramp!” However, more and more sociologists are reaching the same conclusion  Dan Quayle was right!

The Impact of Fatherless Homes

Enough time has elapsed since the social revolution of the 1960s that sociologists are able to critically analyze the impact of the breakdown of fatherhood on the lives of the children. Here are some of their findings:

 Poverty. “Over half of all children living with a single mother are living in poverty: a rate five to six times that of kids living with two parents.”

 General Health Problems: “An Australian study of over 2,100 adolescents found that teens from disrupted families had more general health problems, were more likely to display signs of emotional problems, and were more like to be sexually active than kids from intact families.”

 Child Abuse: “Child abuse is significantly more likely to occur in single parent homes than in intact families. In a study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse by the U.S. Department of Justice, the majority of the children were found to come from disrupted or single-parent homes. Only 31 percent of the children lived with both natural parents.”

 Crime: “Children from single parent homes are more likely to get involved in crime than those growing up in traditional homes. Robert Rector, a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, has found that across the economic spectrum, children from single-parent households are more involved in crimes and drug than kids form two-parent homes. `The most accurate indicator of future delinquency in children is whether they are reared in one or two parent homes’ (Critical Issues [I:2], “Family Values,” Web ad-dress: http://www.leaderu.com/critical/family.html).

These conclusions concur with those of Blankenhorn in his book Fatherless America.

 Violence: “. . . fatherlessness is a primary generator of violence among young men… Surveys of child well-being repeatedly show that children living apart from their fathers are far more likely than other children to be expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional and behavioral problems, to have difficulty getting along with their peers, and to get in trouble with the police” (31). “Boys raised by traditionally masculine fathers generally do not commit crimes. Fatherless boys commit crimes” (30).

 Poverty: “In married-couple homes in the United States in 1992, about 13 percent of all children under the age of six lived in poverty; in single-mother families, about 66 percent of young children lived in poverty  a ratio of 5 to 1” (42).

 Domestic Violence Against Women: “Of all violent crimes against women committed by intimates during this period, about 65 percent were committed by either boy-friends or ex-husbands, compared with 9 percent by husbands” (35). The situation of a divorced woman con-trolling the husband’s right to see his children, a live-in boyfriend (or husband), resentment for the divorce and child support payments, feeling powerless to change it  all of these created a combustible atmosphere that frequently results in violence against women.

 Child Sexual Abuse: “A number of studies have shown that girls living with non-natal fathers [boyfriends and stepfathers] are at higher risk for sexual abuse than girls living with natal fathers” (41). “. . . a young child left alone with mother’s boyfriend experiences substantially elevated risks of abuse” (Idem.).

 Adolescent Child Bearing: Garfinkel and McLanahan’s study of fatherless homes reported that “daughters of single parents are 53 percent more likely to marry as teenagers, 111 percent more likely to have children as teenagers, 164 percent more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92 percent more like to dissolve their own marriages” (46).

 

Messages We Are Sending About Fatherhood

Our culture is sending distinct messages about father-hood in a number of ways. Television portrays fatherhood in a number of ways. Consider the role of fathers as portrayed in the following programs:

*Murphy Brown: The man is only necessary for sperm to conceive a child. After the child has been conceived, the man is not needed or wanted in the life of the mother.

*The Cosby Show: The man is portrayed as a “Father Knows Worst” type of guy, with the brains for knowing how to run the family clearly residing in the mother.

*Archie Bunker: The man is portrayed as an ignorant, prejudiced tyrant over the family.

We are sending the message to our children that divorce is a normal part of life. In divorce, the mother gets the custody of the children, the father sends child support payments and visits on every other week-end, and the divorced mother and father go on happily in their lives. Parents who divorce with hostility are encouraged to learn how to have a happy divorce. Not ever is the message being sent that divorce is not the solution to family problems. Even in the best divorces, both parents remarry and go their separate ways. The father is consumed with the responsibilities of his new family and his children see less and less of him. Within a couple of years, his children will rarely see him.

Restoring the Role of Fatherhood

In the darkness created by the deterioration in the home, Christians have a wonderful opportunity to display the light of the gospel, both in word and by example.

The word of the gospel is that God ordained that children be raised in the home of their natural mother and father. When God created the world, he created the home. Children were to be raised by Adam and Eve, not some state agency, a day-care center, a grandparent or close friend, but by the biological parents who conceived them (Gen. 2:18-25). The home is not a temporary arrangement for sexual gratification that is cast aside when the “new” wears off. Rather, the gospel announces that marriage is a life-time commitment between a man and woman (Rom. 7:1-6). It is to last “until death do us part.” This stable home is the best environment in which to rear children. Christians need to be preaching at every opportunity what God reveals about the home. The darkness of the world around us with reference to the family should cause each of us to preach what God reveals on the home to our friends and neighbors.

We can display the light of the gospel in our own homes. When father and mother love each other, accept their respective roles of husband/father and wife/mother in the home, and bring up God-fearing children, their home will be a refreshing oasis in the midst of troubled homes. Their children will not be troublemakers at school; they will show respect for their teachers and principals. They will learn their lessons and move on into higher education or specialized job training so that they can assume the roles of parents in their own homes. In contrast to the children of broken homes, this family will be an exemplary role model for others. Non-Christians will see the family of Christians and be drawn toward the God of the gospel who revealed how to have Christian homes.

Other messages about manhood emphasize that father-hood is being respectfully discharged so long as the child support payments are paid in a timely fashion and occasionally the father makes time to visit his children. The father is especially good if he is a “Disney World Father,” one who takes his child to an amusement park on week-ends or otherwise buys the children things the mother cannot afford. Can the role of “fatherhood” be satisfied by a man who visits for a few hours every other weekend?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 12 p. 1
June 19, 1997

By Alex Caldwell

Greetings, from your brothers and sisters in Christ at Sturgis, Mississippi! Brethren, thank you so much for your fervent prayers and support. Let us all thank our God in heaven for his rich and wonderful blessings! Let us also continue to do more for Christ and each other this year.

In November of 1996, the congregation decided to put an ad in the local newspaper seeking for anyone who was interested in a complete survey of the Bible. The response was overwhelming! I had the opportunity to teach Bible classes in people’s homes, in my home, and at the church building. For every question that was asked, I gave a Bible answer, because I know that the Bible is always right.

One couple that I studied with invited me to their congregation (Methodist-Baptist mixture). They wanted me to show their members one of the filmstrips that I was using for teaching the Bible survey. About 20 people showed up, and the study went well, except at the very end. One question concerning women preachers came up. As I stated before, I gave them a Bible answer showing that God does not give women such authority or leadership roles over men (1 Tim. 2:12). Some of the women were not too pleased with that answer, but I had to tell them the truth. I will not back down when it comes to teaching God’s word!

The couple said that they wanted to continue with the survey despite the feelings of some of the members. They have completed the filmstrip series and desire more home studies. I will update you on their progress. I continue to teach classes as the opportunity arises.

Now, concerning the Sturgis family, we are growing numerically and spiritually. The membership has grown to 30, including visitors every Lord’s Day. We have a young men’s class which is being taught by one of our own faithful brothers. Every Sunday night, we study the doctrines of different denominations and discover what the Bible says about false teaching. In February of this year, the congregation had its first business meeting. Great ideas were exchanged. The members really want the Sturgis church to grow! We are now preparing for our Spring Lectureship in April. We are doing fine, but we still have more growing to do. Please continue to pray for us and our efforts in spreading the gospel.

I continue to teach and preach every Sunday and Wednesday night. I also continue to preach on two 30-minute radio programs weekly. At this time I am scheduled to preach in two gospel meetings this year, one in Texas and another in North Carolina.

Once again, brethren, thank you so much for your prayers and support. May God richly bless you both physically and spiritually. Until my next report, continue to keep the faith.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 11 p. 23
June 5, 1997

By Boyd Sellers

A recent Reader’s Digest article, “Life Without Father” (February 1997), shows a picture of a lonely-looking little girl sitting on one end of a couch. At the other end is an outline of a male figure to emphasize his absence. The caption beneath the picture reads, “What a man contributes to child rearing may surprise you.” In the article, David Popenoe, professor of sociology at Rutgers University, mentions some of the “surprises” that emerge when a child loses a father, especially in the “modem, voluntary way.” He mentions some of the usual results, including out of wedlock births and teen suicide. Then, though he does not mention God or the Bible in the article, his conclusions would tell you that in order to restore soundness and stability to our homes, we need the kind of fathers God describes. That’s interesting because God’s word is the answer to problems of family and fatherhood and, it is a fact that the Bible picture of the ideal human father is a beautiful, complete, manly picture.

What thoughts does the word “father” bring to your mind? It is so natural and forceful to think of your own father that we sons even tend to “become our fathers” unless we have contrary concepts set before us! We want, at this time, to look at “father” from God’s perspective. We will concentrate on what the dictionary calls the “immediate male ancestor” and we will see him as “nourisher,” “protector,” and “upholder.” One thing that you have to notice in this biblical picture is that “father” is not a passive role. He is right in the middle of what is going on in his family.

Human Fathers

The Holy Spirit instructs, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The biblical picture of “father” is of one who “nourishes” his children. He “brings them up, nurtures, rears” them. He doesn’t wait until something goes wrong to act. He commands, “My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart” (Prov. 3:1; cf. 6:20). He is not a cruel dictator as the complete picture reveals, but he is leading his home as head. He instructs, “Listen, my sons, to a father’s instruction; pay attention and gain understanding. I give you sound learning, so do not forsake my teaching” (Prov. 4:1-2; cf. 1:8). He guides, encourages, and warns  “My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them” (Prov. 1:10). “. . . do not go along with them, do not set foot on their paths” (Prov. 1:15; cf. 19:27). In his training, he is moving his children to think beyond today. “My son, … Keep sound wisdom and discretion, . . . they will be life to your soul…” (see Prov. 3:21-26). A main part of the picture is the direction that his “nourishing takes.” In all he does by word and example, he wants that child of his to be all he can be for the Lord! That is his prayer! I have always appreciated David’s words to Solomon as he tried to prepare him to be the kind of king God wanted him to be. “As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind.” He doesn’t just want him to know about God. He wants his children to be close to God! (1 Chron. 28:9). Whatever else his children accomplish, that has to come first.

You might think right now that you want your children to grow up to be super athletes, great lawyers, drive big cars, live in big houses, wear expensive clothes. I can tell you from the experience of one who can see backward now, that none of those things is going to be top priority with you then. I know “children” who have grown up and gained every earthly advantage, but they left the Lord. Their parents are devastated, watching helplessly as their grandchildren grow up either in some false religion or in such secularism that it makes their hearts ache. It matters little then that your children have everything “in this world” in a material sense if you know that they do not have the Lord! But, if they grow up and have the Lord, and your grandchildren are being taught to know the Lord, whatever else they don’t have will be of little consequence! He “nourishes” his children “in the Lord”!

The Bible picture of father is also of one who “protects” his children. He may not have to protect them from “lions and tigers,” but there are dangers just as real. He knows from experience some of the things his inexperienced children are going to have to face and he works to prepare them. He talks to his sons about the adulterous woman. “Drink water from your own cistern” (Prov. 5:6). He in-forms his children about what God has to say about sex, strong drink, money, property rights, faithful wives and faithful husbands, people who won’t work, accepting responsibility, kindness, trust, and honesty. He lets his children know how they appear to others and how their lives affect other people. Young people don’t always like the judgments of their elders, but people “sum us up” by the way we act and, “Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right” (Prov. 20:11). He tells his kids that they don’t know everything, and, further, if they don’t listen to the voice of wisdom (i.e., dad and mom) they are going to fall flat on their faces! “Listen, my son, keep your heart on the right path” (Prov. 23:19). There is pleading in his voice. He knows what his children are doing and they don’t get by with anything! While he is sensitive to their needs, he knows “folly is bound up in the heart of a child” (Prov. 22:15), so he rebukes, restrains, punishes, and chastens. It is important to notice that he uses the rod (or switch) when it is needed. And, he says all the things we say, like, “This hurts me more than it does you” and “I’m doing this because I love you.” He knows, “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him” (Prov. 13:24). The Bible picture of a father is that of a man that, whatever the cost, is not going to let his children grow up without discipline and direction in their lives. He lets them know that he will not be the one responsible for their “destruction” (Prov. 19:18). And further, it would be absolutely unbelievable that this man would ever desert his children! (Ps. 27:10). He is their protector!

The biblical father is also his children’s “upholder.” He brags on his children and lets them know that they are a delight to him when they do what is right. I can hear him telling them, “A wise son brings joy to his father….; “…If your heart is wise, then my heart will be glad; my inmost being will rejoice when your lips speak what is right” (Prov. 15:20; 23:15-16). The opposite is hard for him to take too. It breaks his heart when his children do dumb things. “There is no joy for the father of a fool,” “… a companion of gluttons disgraces his father” (Prov. 17:21; 28:7). Like the prodigal son’s father (Luke 15), he is always ready to for-give when his children’s hearts are broken over sin. One thing his children know is that whether he is rejoicing with them or playing with them, or chastening them, he has their ultimate welfare in mind. He is working, not to “provoke them to angers but to “bring them up in the nurture and chastening of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). He is giving them him-self.

God, as Father

It should be of interest to note that this biblical concept of “fatherhood” helps us be aware of what God is like, and a good father provides a definite advantage in helping his children understand God.

It is a fact that the very best example of a father is seen in the relationship God has with his people. He is the ideal Father! While the idea is occasionally found in the Old Testament, God as a “Father” is best seen in the New Testament. Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Our Father who art in heaven…” (Matt. 6:9) and he often spoke to his disciples of having that kind of relationship with God.

The wonder of it all is expressed by John. “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are…” (1 John 3:1).

God as our Father gives us every advantage! He is infinitely wise; he is our rock and protector through every storm. He rejoices when we overcome sin  grieves when we fall. He provides us with everything we have (even the air we breath). He chastens and disciplines (Heb. 12:6). And, behind all of the attention he shows us as our Father is the greatest demonstration of love that could ever be shown. He was willing to give his own Son to save us from hell! That’s the kind of Father he is! Someone has suggested that for a quick dose of “humility,” just ask yourself if you are the kind of father God is!

Conclusion

Over 25 years ago, singer Barry Manilow sang a song called “Ships.” It was a song about a father and his son, and the son describes their relationship. Here is one of the sad verses:

“We’re two ships that pass in the night, We both smile and we say it’s all right;

We’re still here  it’s just that we’re out of sight Like those ships that pass in the night.”

It is easy for that to happen  to get squeezed into a “system” like that. Instead of challenging fathers to give of themselves, it encourages us to give kids the stuff our in-creased salaries can buy: a better education  membership at the club  material possessions  nicer homes  extra cars  personal TVs  credit cards  computers, etc. We need to determine that we are not going to take our cues from such a system! We need (as fathers) to re-member that the greatest earthly gifts we can provide our children are our presence and influence while we live, and a great memory of “father” once we are gone. Fathers, let’s take our cue from the Lord.

“We’re two ships that pass in the night,

We both smile and we say it’s all right;

We’re still here  it’s just that we’re out of sight

Like those ships that pass in the night.”

It is easy for that to happen  to get squeezed into a “system” like that. Instead of challenging fathers to give of themselves, it encourages us to give kids the stuff our in-creased salaries can buy: a better education  membership at the club  material possessions  nicer homes  extra cars  personal TVs  credit cards  computers, etc. We need to determine that we are not going to take our cues from such a system! We need (as fathers) to re-member that the greatest earthly gifts we can provide our children are our presence and influence while we live, and a great memory of “father” once we are gone. Fathers, let’s take our cue from the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 12 p. 2
June 19, 1997

By Steve Curtis

On the nights of April 3 and 4, 1997, a debate was con-ducted discussing the terms of salvation. Gaddy Hall affirmed the proposition, “The Scriptures teach that water baptism to the penitent believer is for (in order to) the re-mission of sins in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:14; Rom. 3:25).” The following night Darrell G. Wright affirmed the proposition, “The Scriptures teach sinners are saved by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:14; Rom. 3:25) alone, before and without baptism.” The de-bate was conducted in Whitesburg, Kentucky at the Letcher County Courthouse. Gaddy Hall preaches for the Haymond Church of Christ, which is about six miles from Whitesburg in Eastern Kentucky. Darrell G. Wright is a preacher and “Pastor” of the Bible Baptist Church of Colson. It was the first debate for both disputants. Each is to be commended for publicly defending his position and allowing his position to be challenged and scrutinized. Despite the fact that this was brother Hall’s first attempt at debating, he capably defended the truth. God has put his power in his word (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 4:12). Paul said, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak . . .” (1 Cor. 2:12-13). What brother Hall may have lacked in experience, he overcame by speaking the “things” the apostles spoke. No one can defeat the wisdom of God’s word.

Each speaker was given one 25 minute speech followed by a 30 minute speech. Afterwards, those in attendance were given an opportunity to submit their own questions to the speakers. Each speaker was then allowed two minutes to respond to the question. Andy Alexander served as moderator for the debate.

Baptism Is For The Remission of Sins

Brother Hall was well prepared to affirm his proposition. He used the following passages to make his affirmative. In Mark 16:15-16, Jesus gives a universal command, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” This passage teaches salvation is conditional. Belief + baptism = salvation. Brother Hall used Acts 2:37-38 to show how the words of Jesus in the Great Commission were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. After hearing the gospel proclaimed, some were “cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, `Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ Then Peter said to them, `Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”‘ Those who believed + were baptized (for the remission of sins) = saved (Acts 2:41, 47).

With just two passages discussed, any honest soul could see that brother Hall had successfully affirmed his proposition from the word of God. The Scriptures teach (Acts 2:38, “Then Peter said unto them) water baptism to the penitent believer is (Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins (for the remission of sins”).

Brother Hall continued his affirmative discussing other passages which support the proposition. From 1 Peter 3:20-21, it was shown that God teaches us that baptism “now” saves us. It is the doctrine of men which teaches baptism does “not” save us. An effective argument was made from Galatians 3:26-27, “For you are (present condition) all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For (indicating the cause of present condition) as many of you as were baptized (past action) into Christ have put on Christ.” These passages plainly teach it is impossible to be saved and to be a child of God unless one has been baptized for the remission of sins.

Mr. Wright was never able to answer any of these arguments from the Scriptures. An attempt was made by Mr. Wright to sway the audience by showing a chart which dealt with “Pet Verses of the church of Christ.” These verses included Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; John 3:5. Such an argument had no force since his responsibility was to show that these Scriptures do not teach that water baptism is for the remission of sins and this he totally failed to do.

He tried to elude the majority of Scripture by teaching 91% of the Bible applies to Jews only and 9% to Gentiles. To support his argument, he gave what he referred to as contradictions in the Bible. One example he used as a contradiction was Matthew 19:17, “keep the commandments” and Romans 3:20, “by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified.” According to Mr. Wright, all contradictions arise when one takes Jewish passages and applies them to Gen-tiles. He applied his argument to Acts 2:38. In Acts 2:22, Peter referred to Jews, “men of Israel, hear these words.” Therefore, this would limit the command of verse 38, “re-pent and be baptized for the remission of sins” to Jews only. Mr. Wright argued that anytime we try to apply what Jesus and Peter taught concerning baptism to what Paul taught concerning salvation by grace (Eph. 2:8) contradictions would occur. This would be avoided, according to him, if we stuck to the 9% of the Bible which applies to Gentiles, Romans through Philemon.

Using such mentality, his response to the “pet verses of the church of Christ” mentioned above was “I just throw that out.” The only passage which he attempted to address was Galatians 3:26-27. His response to baptism in this pas-sage was that it was the Holy Spirit baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13. However, not once did he define what it is or how one receives it.

Mr. Wright spent part of his second speech trying to ex-plain that he did not mean to say the Bible contradicts itself. Yet, on the other hand, he continued using his argument on Bible contradictions concerning the baptism of Jesus and Peter and the gospel of Paul. Using a premillennial time line, he referred to six different gospels mentioned in the Scriptures: of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others. Since Paul preached the “gospel for the uncircumcision,” as Gentiles we must follow his gospel which, according to Mr. Wright, was not a gospel of baptism (Gal. 2:7; 1 Cor. 1:17), but of grace (Eph. 2:8). Brother Hall clearly showed that Paul not only received the baptism which Christ commanded and Peter preached (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16), but Paul also preached it (Eph. 2:8; Acts 19:1-5, 18).

By the end of the first night, everyone could see that Wright was wrong. His attitude toward the Scriptures be-came the proverbial thorn in his flesh. Even the audience members could see through the absurdity of such an argument that the Bible contradicts itself. This could be seen in their questions to Mr. Wright.

Salvation By Faith Alone

The second night found Mr. Wright affirming his proposition. Mr. Wright started off on his left foot. The first passage he referred to was Hebrews 11:1 which the night before he had tried to eliminate from the debate as being part of the 91% of the Bible which applies to Jews only. From this passage, he argued that faith is unseen. There-fore, one who is saved must put his faith in the unseen shed blood of Jesus Christ and not in the seen ordinance of water baptism. Every example given of faith in Hebrews 11 contradicts Mr. Wright’s understanding of faith. He followed this mistake by reading Romans 8:24, “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?” Mr. Wright made another wrong by showing the Scriptures teach we are saved by hope. Therefore, we are not saved by faith alone. Unlike brother Hall who successfully defended his proposition with just two Scriptures, Mr. Wright had successfully defeated himself in just a few minutes.

Mr. Wright used apples to illustrate the “measure of faith” of Romans 12:3. One apple he cut into pieces applying it to those who put their faith in confession, repentance, baptism, and Christ. Another apple he left whole to represent putting faith alone in Jesus Christ, which represented Mr. Wright’s faith. Brother Hall responded by showing the Scriptures teach we are saved by grace (Eph. 2:8), mercy (Tit. 3:5), the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-2), blood (Col. 1:14, 20), faith (Rom. 5:1), works (Jas. 2:24), obedience (Heb. 5:9), baptism (1 Pet. 3:21), and hope (Rom. 8:24). Mr. Wright accepted all the passages which fell within the books of Romans through Philemon, but argued grace, mercy, the gospel, faith, and hope are just part of faith. This statement contradicted his apple illustration.

He had claimed his faith was only in Jesus Christ. Contradicting his own proposition, now he had admitted his faith involved several elements. He refused to respond to the passages which he felt applied to Jews only saying, “I just throw that out.” Mr. Wright clearly showed his doctrine also contradicted the Scriptures. Several times Mr. Wright appealed to his knowledge of the Scriptures. He referred to the fact that he had read through the Bible several times and that he had memorized the first nine chapters of the book of Romans. However, for someone who claimed to be so well versed, he failed to show the Scriptures teach one is saved by faith alone. His remaining arguments defeated his proposition. He spent a great deal of time just reading Romans 4 and 5. Using Paul’s teaching concerning faith and the righteousness of Abraham, he tried to demonstrate that it was Abraham’s faith alone which made him righteous. However, just because one reads through the Bible, memorizes chapters upon chapters, then announces his belief and cites some passages that mention faith does not make those passages teach faith alone.

Brother Hall responded by showing the Scriptures do not teach that Abraham was made righteous by faith alone. Using the text of James 2:14-26, it was shown faith without works is dead, the devils have faith and are not righteous, Abraham’s faith was made perfect by works, and the Bible plainly says “a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

Conclusion

The question and answer period following the discussion found Mr. Wright in more hot water. In responding to some of the questions, Mr. Wright bragged about being a Gentile of which Jesus said were dogs. He bragged about being a liar, stretching the truth to save his skin, and lusting after women (even with his wife and children in the audience). Furthermore, he believed one who had put his faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ would be saved and go to heaven even if he was a drunkard. As I heard him make such statements, the importance of the debate was brought to mind. Souls were at stake. The Bible plainly teaches those who practice such will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). The purpose of this debate was to bring this error to light in order that souls might know the truth.

I know there are brethren who feel they are too dignified for debate, that taking the arguments of those who teach error and exposing the hypocrisy of their doctrine in light of the word of God is cruel and harsh. I overheard one of Mr. Wright’s companions say that brother Hall and those who assisted him appeared angry. Yet, have you wondered how the Lord would deal with a man who teaches a doctrine that will lead precious souls to hell? To see how the Lord would handle such an individual, read Matthew 23 which discusses Jesus’ thoughts concerning those “who travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as your-selves” (verse 15).

I appreciate the willingness of both men to engage in such a format. It is commendable to find such an attitude in the age of unity in diversity. Especially, I appreciate brother Gaddy Hall and the brethren in his area who supported him as he exposed this false teaching and its teacher. As he mentioned a couple of times during the debate, he came to show what God’s word said concerning baptism for the remission of sins and salvation by faith alone. It would be the responsibility of those who heard the truth to accept it or reject it.

Although no one obeyed the gospel, the precious seed was sown. God gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6). Only time will tell what the produce will be.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 11 p. 21-22
June 5, 1997