Truth Magazine

By Paul K. Williams

I was 27 years old when I was a central figure in a church split. It was the most harrowing time of my life. After I agreed to move to that congregation and before the time for the move had come, an institutional preacher told that church that I would split it within a year. And a respected brother told me, “Paul, that is a good church, but they have six elders and not a one is qualified.” When I moved there I found that he had told me the truth, and they were hopelessly divided.

I attempted to preach, teach, and live the truth. It was a time of great soul-searching. And one of the truths which had to be preached was the subject of church discipline. One of the troubles in the church was that the only child (a son) of one of the elders had committed fornication, married the pregnant girl, but had made no confession of sin. I talked to the son. I talked to the father. But nothing was happening.

Then an older, respected preacher who was a close friend of that elder came for a meeting. I talked to him about the problem and told him that since he was a friend of the elder, he was in a position to help him make the decision about discipline that needed to be made. That very night the older, respected preacher preached about young preachers coming into a congregation and taking control away from the respected elders!

The split came, with all the ugliness that such things inevitably bring. But I loved those brethren dearly. I knew that another preacher, even older and more respected, was to preach a meeting for the old congregation. I wrote to him and asked him to preach on church discipline during the meeting. I told him that in my opinion if he would preach what he had written on the subject it would do good. He wrote back to the effect: “Brother Williams, I have been preaching more years than you have been living. I don’t need anyone to tell me what to preach!”

Right then I promised myself and God that when I got old I would never pull rank on a younger Christian, preacher or not. Years of life do not give us the right to disregard advice, or to be rude. 

And in the cases of both preachers, I saw that they were favoring their friends. Friendships and old loyalties were more important than the truth of God! They would not have admitted that, but their actions convinced me of the fact. 

But how easy it is for us to act that way. How hard it is for us to do “nothing in a spirit of partiality” (1 Tim. 5:21). But, my brethren, I exhort you to try, and keep on trying, and never stop trying. If we want to go to heaven, we must not let friendships or the pride of age cause us to  P.O. Box 324, Eshowe, 3815 South Africa bible@netactive.co.za

By Larry Ray Hafley

(Introductory Note: As you will see, Margaret was not pleased with our rebuke of Rubel Shelly for his participation and fellowship with Billy Graham who, as we noted, even some conservative Baptists have refused to accept [Truth Magazine, 2/17/00]. Our response, in italics, is given following each of her paragraphs.)  

Mr. Hafley:
As a lifelong Christian raised in the church, I am growing so very weary of the diatribes by your ilk, whose sole purpose is to demonize those who do not toe the line as you and your cronies have set forth. How very Pharisaic! 

(Thank you for writing. It is always good to hear from those who are concerned for truth and who are willing to contend for the faith [Jude 3]. Now, to a reply of your letter.
    
You state that it is the “sole purpose” of folks like me “to demonize” others. How did you learn this? At the conclusion of the article to which you have taken exception, I described the attitude that we should have toward such events, “let them serve as a spur to renewed diligence and devotion.” Does that sound like the words of one whose “sole purpose is to demonize” others?  

Were you trying to “demonize” me because I did not “toe the line . . . you . . . set forth”? If so, were you not also being “very Pharisaic”? If not, how is it that you may write critically of me without doing those things, but when I write critically, I am guilty of demonizing others and of being “very Pharisaic.” Please explain. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways!)     
My first question to you is this: whatever happened to the doctrine of autonomy? It seems the church today has a real problem with being busybodies when it comes to commenting on what other churches and elderships decide to do in their ministries. If I remember correctly, that is a sin (and I believe to God a sin is a sin is a sin).

(Margaret, since you protest my right to write and criticize brother Shelly, as I did, let me ask you, “whatever happened to the doctrine of autonomy?” The article I wrote first appeared in our local church bulletin, in Baytown, TX. What happened to our autonomy, Margaret? Please tell me. What gives you the power to limit our autonomy? Or, is this another of your rules that only works one way?

Were the Lord and the apostles “being busybodies when it comes to commenting on what OTHER churches . . . decide to do in their ministries”? Both commented at length on the deeds and doctrines of numerous churches (1 Corinthians; Galatians; Revelation 1-3). The Spirit says we should speak as they spoke (1 Pet. 4:11). Would you deny us this right and again seek to curtail our autonomy? 

Know this, too. Churches are self governing, autonomous, bodies (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). However, no man, nor church, has the right to act or teach contrary to the word of God. “The word of God is not bound” (2 Tim. 2:9). It must have free reign, free course (2 Thess. 3:1) . Ananias and Sapphira could do with their money as they pleased, but they could not use it to lie (Acts 5:4). Churches are free to conduct their work independent of outside authority, but they are not free to author, harbor, or sanction false teachers or false doctrines (Acts 15:24; Rev. 2:2, 6, 15, 20). The man who so teaches, under the guise and subterfuge of a self-devised concept of autonomy, does so to his own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). 

Did the church where Diotrephes paraded his preeminence have the right, by reason of their “local church autonomy,” to reject John (3 John 9)? No, they did not, for when they refused John, they demonstrated that they were “not of God” (1 John 4:6; cf. 1 Cor. 14:37 — one who is “spiritual” will receive the apostles). Likewise, neither Rubel Shelly nor Margaret shall be allowed to hide under their imaginary form of a false and fraudulent “church autonomy.” 

In Acts 15:28, certain “necessary things” had to be kept. No “church autonomy” allowed those things to be spurned with impunity. Today, in accordance with “the apostles’ doctrine” and “the form of sound words,” certain ideals must be maintained which no alleged autonomy can prevent or circumvent (1 Cor. 4:17; 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15).  
         
How arrogant for you to proclaim that Woodmont’s plan of operation does not meet with God’s approval! I can read in the Scriptures that David’s plan definitely did not meet with God’s approval, but it is pure speculation and opinion on your part that Woodmont’s does not. 

(I note with interest that you did not present Scriptures which show that the Woodmont church’s “plan of operation” with respect to Billy Graham meets “with God’s approval.” Why did you not cite the authority for it? Brother Shelly and Woodmont are condemned on the same basis as David. All acted without scriptural authority. They have done that which is contrary to the will of God. 

If I am “arrogant” simply because I say that Woodmont is acting contrary to Scripture, are you likewise “arrogant” for saying that I have acted contrary to Scripture in criticizing their actions? Or, does the rule for arrogance only work against me, but not you? If so, that is arrogance puffed up and gone to seed !    

Next, you lamely try to draw Dr. Shelly into a defense of his actions. I believe he has said on numerous occasions that he is too busy being about God’s work to acknowledge these childish attempts at self-justification.

(What brother Shelly has not proved is that he is “busy [doing] God’s work.” He assumes the very point he must prove. Let him prove that his actions are indeed “God’s work.” 

Margaret, if brother Shelly is “too busy being about God’s work” to respond, does that mean you are not “busy being about God’s work,” since you had time to reply? 

When I review and rebuke brother Shelly, you judge that I am guilty of “childish attempts at self justification.” Margaret, since you defended your beliefs, condemned me, and rebuked my efforts, were you “engaging in childish attempts at self justification?” If not, is this not another case of your making a rule which applies to everyone but you?  
 
Yes, we know what Rubel has said in a lame and vain attempt to avoid the searchlight of Scripture. Here, though, is what the Lord has said of men like him, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” [John 3:20, 21]. Margaret, Proverbs 28:4 speaks concerning you and me and Rubel Shelly,“They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.” 

No, brother Shelly will not defend himself. Why should he, since women like you will do it for him? Can anyone imagine Paul saying he was “too busy being about God’s work” to defend his actions (Acts 22:1; 26:2, 3)? No, you cannot imagine such a thing, for Paul, unlike Rubel, was “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17).  

The thing I believe I am most fed up with, however, is the false application of 2 John 9-11 to justify condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. Read the context, brother. John was referring to the very great problem in that day of Gnosticism . . . false teachers are those who teach that Jesus Christ is not God, did not raise from the dead. God is not pleased with the way you twist his words to invent your truth.

(Why are you so “fed up,” sister Margaret? According to you, so long as I believe in the Deity and humanity of Christ, I have “both the Father and the Son.” I can continue to make a “false application of 2 John 9-11” and, according to you, be accepted of God because I teach that Jesus is Divine and was raised from the dead. Your interpretation and application of 2 John 9 forbids you to condemn me, since I believe the truth concerning the nature of Christ. Ironic, is it not, that your rule forbids you to condemn me!  

“Read the context, brother.” Alright, sister, let us read the context of 2 John 9. “Walking in truth,” and “that we walk after his commandments” are in the context [vv. 4, 6]. Yes, a specific doctrine is mentioned in verse 7. It is that of those “who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” However, that is not all that is contemplated in 2 John 9. 
    
Consider this parallel. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Paul said some would “depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” How they would do so was illustrated by two points of doctrine, “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats.” But is that all that is involved in departing from the faith? No, there are other items, too (1 Tim. 1:3, 8-11; 4:16; 6:1-5). Likewise, in 2 John 9, one who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, which certainly includes the doctrine or teaching of his humanity and Deity, is not of God. However, the issue of his humanity is not the only gauge or standard, no more than the two items of 1 Timothy 4, forbidding to marry and command ing to abstain from meats, are the only signs of departure from the faith. 

Further, John shows that “the doctrine of Christ” is more than confessing that Christ has come in the flesh. “If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 John 1:6). “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (1 John 2:3-5). “And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him” (1 John 3:24). “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6). “For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3). “And this is love, that we walk after his commandments” (2 John 6). “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9). Yes, Margaret, I am happy to reside in the “context” of John’s interpretation of what it means to abide in the light, commandments, and doctrine of Christ. Are you? 

Finally, with respect to “the doctrine of Christ” being a reference to the teaching about Christ, rather than the whole body of doctrine he taught, let me ask the following questions.

The disciples continued steadfastly “in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). Was this the doctrine about the apostles themselves or was it the doctrine they taught? When Jesus warned his disciples of “the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees,” was he concerned with teaching regarding the nature of those sects, or was he warning them about the teachings of those groups (Matt. 16:12)? When Paul spoke of “doctrines of devils,” was he speaking of doctrines about devils, or the doctrines they taught, such as, “forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. 4:2, 3)? Was “the doctrine of Balaam” the doctrine about Balaam himself, or was it what he “taught” (Rev. 2:14)? Some in Pergamos held “the doctrine of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:15). Was this the doctrine about the Nicolaitans, or was it the doctrine they taught? 

See the point, sister Margaret? Thus, “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9; cf. 1 John 2:3-5; 4:6; 2 John 4, 6; 3 John 4). 
                            
As for Billy Graham, I am no great fan of his. But for you to falsely accuse him of “damning the souls of millions to Hell” (based, once again, on the mis-interpretation of John 2) is appalling to me — much more so than what he is allegedly doing wrong. Wrong is wrong, Mr. Hafley. Your wrong is just as damning. Let me clarify one point      . . . if Mr. Graham preaches that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that He was crucified and was raised from the dead, he IS preaching Christ and Him crucified. There is no way around that. You are wrong there. I agree with you that he does not complete the thought. Perhaps that is where the Lord would like for Dr. Shelly to step in (although I understand, in your mind, Rubel being the anti-Christ, is incapable of doing anything good).
                                    
(Again, sister Margaret, given your view of 2 John 9, how can my alleged “wrong” be “damning”? Please explain.

In what sense does Billy Graham “not complete the thought”? What “thought”? If he preaches “Christ and him crucified,” as you say “he IS” doing, and that there is “no way around that,” in what sense is his work incomplete? I challenge you to explain. With your view of 2 John 9, you dare not attempt to clarify the matter. If you do, we shall be pleasantly surprised and promise to examine your remarks with all candor. 

Why are you “no great fan of” Billy Graham? According to you, he “preaches Christ” and has not been guilty of damning millions of souls to hell. Plus, he has the sanction of brother Shelly and the Woodmont church in an effort to win souls for Christ. So, why are you “no great fan of” his? Please explain. 

When Philip and Paul preached Christ, people “believed and were baptized” (Acts 8:5, 12, 35-39; cf. 1 Cor. 2:2; Acts 18:8). Is this what happens when Mr. Graham preaches? No, thus, he does not “preach Christ” as they did. I suspect this is the incomplete “thought” to which you referred. Margaret, when I defend the truth, I am “doing wrong.” When brother Shelly endorses and supports Mr. Graham who does “not complete the thought,” he is defended. Surely, such inconsistency must cause you at least a little conscientious discomfort.)

Normally I take articles such as yours and file them under “consider the source” however, I believe you truly think you are “standing for the truth” — wrong. Jesus told his disciples himself not to hinder anyone doing good works in his name, just because they were not of their group.

 According to you, I am not “‘standing for the truth,’” but Billy Graham is. Margaret, Billy Graham not only denies that baptism is “for the remission of sins,” he also believes and teaches the Calvinistic doctrines of “original, Adamic sin,” the miraculous, direct work of the Spirit in the conviction and conversion of the sinner, and he teaches that once one is saved, he is forever saved, and cannot fall from grace. He does not believe that Jesus now reigns as King over his kingdom. He teaches that Jesus must yet return to this earth and reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years. 
    
Mr. Graham denounces the church of the New Testament and is a member of a church unknown to the word of God. He worships in a human denomination which uses mechanical instruments of music in its worship, and does not partake of the Lord’s supper “upon the first day of the week” as the early disciples did (Acts 20;7; Eph. 5:19). The church of which he is a member uses “the Pastor system” as an integral part of its organizational structure and uses means other than first day of the week contributions to raise money (Acts 14:23; 1 Cor. 16:2). Yet, you say he has not had a part in leading anyone astray, while folks like myself are not “‘standing for the truth,’” and should be “afraid . . . very afraid” in the day of Judgment.

You have misunderstood and misapplied Mark 9:38-41. (Since you made no specific argument on the passage, I shall not do so, either.) However, if you are correct and we should not “hinder anyone doing good works in His name, just because they were not of their group,” why do you condemn our efforts? We are not of your group and are doing good work in the name of Jesus. Why, then, given your view, do you say we are “wrong”? 
    
If Billy Graham can be “wrong” on so many points of doctrine, as cited above, and be received into your fellowship, why can we not also be be “wrong,” as you say we are, and be accepted? Why apologize for Billy but demonize me?  

Too, how far do you apply this view? Obviously, it allows you to approve Graham and reprove Hafley. How about the “good works” of the Pope and of the late “Mother Theresa”? Should Rubel and Woodmont accept them as they receive Mr. Graham? Since you say Jesus taught us not to “hinder anyone doing good works in His name, just because they were not of their group,” why not receive Oral Roberts, Mother Theresa, me, and the Pope? 

When you answer that question, you might consider this from Jesus: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:21-23). Please reconcile your view of Mark 9:38-41 with the words of Jesus. 
     
My prayer is that you will humble yourself before God and realize that Jesus meant it when he told the Pharisees that He preferred those who were wrong in certain points of doctrine but had a heart for Him over those who thought everything they believed was right, exclusively, and held it over peoples’ heads. With that kind of thinking, I have only one thought for you . . . be afraid; be very afraid. For there is NO way we can get everything just right . . . why do you think God brought us grace? Margaret

(Margaret, thank you for your concern for my soul. Will you please find the passage which says that Jesus “told the Pharisees that He preferred those who were wrong in certain points of doctrine but had a heart for Him over those who thought everything they believed was right, exclusively, and held it over peoples’ heads.” I do not believe such a passage exists. If it does, it contradicts Jesus when he said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19; cf. 15:8, 9; 23:23). 

Yes, “all have sinned,” and “God brought us grace.” Is that grace appropriated and applied conditionally or unconditionally — which?

Take your last paragraph and explain James 5:19, 20 to me, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” Did James not know what you say Jesus told the Pharisees? Should we tell James that he should “be afraid . . . very afraid”? Should the Spirit have reminded James that “there is NO way we can get everything just right”? Would you ask James why he thinks “God brought us grace”? [But, even if the brother does “err from the truth,” and even though James says his soul is in “death,” Margaret says he is saved as long as he believes Jesus was raised from the dead — see her comments on 2 John 9 above.]  

Again, though, Margaret, do you not see the boomerang you have thrown yourself? Suppose I am as wrong and misguided as you believe me to be. Why should I “be afraid . . . very afraid,” since “there is NO way we can get everything just right . . . why do you think God brought us grace?” Why does this principle not apply to me, Margaret? If I am wrong, well, there “is NO way” I can get everything just right, and why do you think God brought us grace? Since you believe that philosophy of grace justifies brother Shelly and your brother Billy, why does it not also acquit me? Or, is this another one of your convenient rules which condones you but condemns me?

Conclusion:

Brethren, I fear that Margaret speaks for many among us. There is a growing trend of apology for error and its proponents which is matched by bristling disdain for those who teach the truth and expose the error. The irony is that the apologists say they “agree with” us, while they endorse and support the men who advocate error. They tell us they share our “personal convictions.” Then, they proceed to undermine our efforts to contend for the faith. 

Margaret has the more appealing approach. No one knows all the truth. No one can get it all just right. God’s grace will cover it. Those who teach the truth are hateful, unworthy men. Those who teach error are “good” men doing “good works.” Only jealous partisans oppose them. It goes like this: (1) We must receive some contradictory teachings on such topics as marriage and divorce, but certainly no others. (2) Well, maybe there are a few other things, such as the “day–age” theory in Genesis 1. (Sincere, devout, intellectual, Bible believing men have always differed on “hard” questions, so, there is room for both views.) (3) More liberal leanings are soon detected — “we cannot understand the Bible alike; sincere souls who  are deceived by the instrument in worship may be saved; only hard-hearted, unloving men would condemn them.” (4) Finally, “let’s receive Billy Graham — only Pharisaic brethren will object.” 

There may be a few variations in the evolutionary scenario outlined above, but, as Rubel’s route to religious rubble reveals, well meaning souls like Margaret will evolve. They will see us as angry, misguided men. They will torture Scripture and develop mutant fancies of their own mind. At the last they will do this without the apologies that accompanied their beginning, and the apostasy will be complete. 

626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521 LarryHafley@compuserve.com

By Connie W. Adams

Jesus addressed the multitudes and his disciples in Matthew 23 and aimed some of his strongest words at the religious leaders of his time. He said that as long as the scribes and Pharisees taught what the law of Moses said, they should give heed to the law in spite of the fact that these teachers did not always practice what they preached. “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers” (v. 4). He said they love “the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues” (v. 6). They loved to be greeted in public places as “Rabbi, Rabbi.” Jesus said not to do that “for one is your Master even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (vv. 8-12).

There is much to learn here that should never be forgotten. It is not wrong to study the will of God so as to teach it to others. The teacher bears a great responsibility according to James 3:1-2. It is not wrong for a student to appreciate the preparation and skill of his teacher. “Honor to whom honor” is a clear scriptural principle (Rom. 13:7).

But there is a problem when the student descends to a fawning adulation for the teacher and when the teacher comes to expect and to love such attention. For many years some of our brethren have suffered from an inferiority complex. They have gazed with eager eyes at the “Doctors” of theology of the denominational world. Some of this has generated a hunger for men of distinction among us. During the years leading up to the institutional division there was an increasing amount of deference shown to the “Doctors” among the brethren. I saw newspaper advertisements that “Doctor” so and so of such and such a school would speak in some great “campaign.” A thirst for denominational status was being satisfied.

When Pat Hardeman returned from the University of Illinois to teach at Florida College, his wife annoyed some of the staff when she would call and ask to speak to “Dr. Hardeman.” On a lecture program in the late  1950s, Hardeman defended calling men “Doctor” who had earned their degree. C.R. Nichol followed him that day and referred to the interesting things “brother Hardeman” said. Then he stopped and corrected himself and said “Excuse me, Doctor Hardeman.” That was all he said and it brought a chuckle from the crowd.

It takes a long time and much work for one to earn a Ph.D. Such an effort is honorable. I can understand why schools need to attract teachers who have attained these degrees. What concerns me is the fact that some brethren unrelated to the schools (except as supporters) want to identify certain brethren by titles when they are outside the academic environment. I attended a social function where a teacher from Florida College was the guest speaker. He was introduced by a local brother as “Doctor” so and so. I am sure the teacher did not request this or even desire it. Shall we introduce those who attained an M.A. as “Master” thus and so? If one has a B.A., shall we refer to him as “Bachelor” so and so?

Is it not so that among brethren in the Lord, there is no greater honor than to be known simply as that — a brother in the Lord? I don’t mean to make a title out of “brother” either. I mean simply to denote a spiritual bond, little brother (with a small b) and not big Brother (with a big B).

It has always been hard for schools to maintain a balance between academic credentials and soundness in the faith. Because a professor is needed for a certain department who has a Ph.D., there is a great need to be sure that this degreed professor is sound in the faith and has both feet rooted in the word of God. His influence will be far reaching in the lives of his students. When such men leave the school environment to teach and preach among brethren in the Lord, let them be treated with the same respect as any other preacher or teacher of the word of Life, but no more than that. As far as I know that is the attitude of the men I know who have earned their doctoral degrees. All brethren need to be taught to respect this principle.

Indeed, is there a “Doctor” in the house of the Lord? Or are we all brethren, simply servants of the one Lord?

P.O. Box 69, Brooks, Kentucky 40109

By Richard Thetford

As you glance at the title of this article, your first thought might be that this is going to be an article dealing in the area of personal work. Jesus said: “And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. Then He said to them, ‘Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.’ They immediately left their nets and followed Him” (Matt 4:18-20). However, this article is not dealing with personal work but rather with the idea that if we hold to some of the doctrines that are taught in the religious realm today, then we might as well just “go fishin’” rather than take the time to attend services or do anything religiously. 

“Eternal Life”

A little booklet simply entitled “Eternal Life” is being circulated by the Graceland Baptist Church here in New Albany, Indiana and the contents of its teaching echoe the teaching by most religious evangelical denominations today. They boast of a large membership as do most of the religious bodies who hold to the doctrine that “faith only is a most wholesome doctrine.” Why? Because it is a very simple religion that anyone can live, whether they go to church or not.

Saved By Belief and Repentance

This piece of literature that is being circulated is false propaganda. It begins by saying that we can know that we have eternal life (which I agree), but then proceeds to try to get us to come to the conclusion that eternal life is gained only by belief in Jesus (John 3:16), repentance, and the “sinner’s prayer.” The main premise of the booklet is to let all people know that we cannot save ourselves and cites Ephesians 2:8-9 which states: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” If that is the absolute truth, then “let’s go fishin’!” The Bible student knows that the works mentioned here in Ephesians are our own works that we come up with. It is not talking about the works that God has authorized and asked for us to do. It goes on to teach that Jesus was “delivered over death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). It is stated since this is the case it is “good news” because “all who received Him and believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). So if we receive Jesus and believe in Jesus, we are saved. If that is all we must do, then “let’s go fishin’!” But wait, there’s more. It states a point concerning Ephesians 2:8-9 that we are saved through faith, not of works, yet then says “we must repent of our sins.” Is not repentance a work? Or is repentance something that just happens because we believe in who Jesus is? No, true “godly sorrow” repentance takes serious effort to make a determination to turn from all sin and strive to live for Christ. It takes work to do that, a constant continuous effort on our part, a work. Yet it states in their booklet that works are not necessary, then says that repentance is required.

Saved by Confession

It goes on to say that after we repent, then we must put our faith in Jesus. It then explains that having faith in Jesus is having trust in Jesus, to surrender to Jesus, and cites Romans 10:9-10 which says: “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” This verse is taken and used without any other in this regard. It is stated that salvation is realized by anyone that “confesses the Lord” (by the way, isn’t confessing with our mouth a work?), and believes that Jesus was raised from the dead. Once done, salvation is realized. No other work needs to be done to have salvation. If that is the case, then “let’s go fishin’!” 

The “Sinner’s Prayer”

But there’s more. It then cites that we must surrender our lives to Christ fully and completely and then cites Matthew 7:21. If you don’t know what Matthew 7:21 says, please read it. A key word in that passage is “does.” Does is a work. Yet works are not necessary? Then finally the holder of this little booklet is asked: “Are you willing to place your faith in Jesus right now and turn from your sin (Rom 10:13)? If so, then you need to ask the Lord Jesus to save you. How is this done? They are then asked to read this prayer (often referred to as the “sinner’s prayer”): “Dear God, I know that Jesus is Your Son, and that He died on the cross and was raised from the dead. I know I have sinned and need forgiveness. I am willing to turn from my sins and receive Jesus as my Savior and Lord. Thank you for saving me. In Jesus’ name, Amen.” Then it says: “Welcome to the family of God. If you sincerely prayed this prayer, you have just made the most important decision of your life. You can be sure you are saved and have eternal life.” If I have prayed this prayer sincerely, then why do anything else religiously (attending services, singing, praying, giving, etc.), because I am saved? Friends, “let’s go fishin!”

Inconsistencies in Doctrine

Now, let’s look at their inconsistencies: (1) Their main premise is that man cannot do “works in order to be saved” yet they teach that all one has to do in order to be saved is to believe in and surrender to Jesus — this is a work. (2) They say that repentance is necessary, yet they claim works are not — but repentance is a work. (3) They say that confessing the Lord as their savior is necessary, yet claim works are not — but confession is a work. (4) They say that one must say what is referred to by most as the “sinner’s prayer” is necessary in order to be saved, yet claim works are not — but prayer is a work. (5) After one is saved by sincerely praying the prayer, they are asked to pray regularly, attend services, witness for Christ, and be baptized at a convenient time — all of which are works. They cite a Bible verse for the various aspects of what one must do leading up to their salvation (faith, belief, repentance, confession), yet there is no Bible verse mentioned referencing the very act that results in their salvation — “the sinner’s prayer.” Why not? Because there is none. 

What The Bible Says

What does the Bible say? God’s plan of salvation is evident and clearly spelled out in his book. We must believe in Jesus (Rom 10:17; Heb 11:6), repent of our sins (Acts 17:30; Luke 13:3; 2 Cor 7:10), confess Jesus (Rom 10:10; Matt 10:32; Acts 8:37), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 8:38; 16:31-33; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:2). The Bible clearly teaches that our sins are only forgiven after we have worked the works of righteousness and have been baptized in the name of Jesus. Prayer does not wash away sins. Baptism does. It is true that man cannot do his own works of righteousness resulting in salvation, but we will be held accountable to do the works in which God has instructed us. God tells us what he wants us to do in our life and salvation is part of that. After we are baptized and added to the church through baptism, then we are expected to “live faithfully until death” (Rev 2:10), meaning to continue to do the works that God has asked of us until we die. A faith in God, without works, is a dead faith, a meaningless faith (Jas. 2:26). We are justified before God by the works that he has given us to do, not by faith only (Jas. 4:24).

“Test the Spirits”

Friends, we must make sure that whatever we are doing religiously is approved by God. Think it through from beginning to end. Any doctrine that teaches us that faith and belief only are all that is required in order to be saved and have eternal life with Jesus is not in harmony with Christ’s teaching. The inspired apostle John wrote: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” If I was a member of a denomination who’s doctrine taught that all I needed in order to be saved was to believe in Jesus and recite the sinner’s prayer, then I would gather up my friends on Sunday and say, “Let’s go fishin’!”

8014 County Line Road, Sellersburg, Indiana 47172 RThetford@juno.com