Watchman Magazine

Columnist Mona Charen revealed in a recent column that more than 90 percent of Americans believe in God, 43 percent say they attend religious services at least once a week, and 58 percent report that religion is very important in their lives (Jewish World Review, 29 March 2000). The one thing they do not believe in is sin.

That old-time religion of frontier days, which emphasized themes like sin, redemption and judgment, has been gradually replaced by a self-esteem, self-help program of moral relativism and secular therapy.

Charen cites a few examples. Well-known preacher and head of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, still counsels young people against fornication, but his first line of deterrence is the risk of venereal disease, not displeasing a vigilant God. Dobson also advises teens that their formative years should be consumed with the pursuit of healthy self-esteem. A preacher years ago advised, "Remember now your creator in the days of your youth, Before the difficult days come And the years draw near when you say, ‘I have no pleasure in them’" (Ecclesiastes 12:1). The shift is subtle, but pervasive and fatal. There is a purity about the pursuit of God that is lost when spirituality is more defined by that loose phrase, "self-esteem."

Sin, of course, is viewed by American society as the greatest enemy of self-esteem, for failure makes people feel bad. Hence, the megachurch movement eschews it as a theme and focuses on what they call edification instead. Through the Old Testament prophets and New Testament writers, however, God made plain that true spiritual edification must be preceded by the demolition of wrong ideas. Jeremiah was sent with a divine mandate "To root out and to pull down, To destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant" (1:10). Paul wrote to three different churches about the burial of the old man of sin and the regeneration of the new man of faith (Romans 6:6, Ephesians 4:22, Colossians 3:9). The lot of the human heart is condemned and some clearing must occur before new construction may begin. Sin is the debris that penitence and conviction will remove.

• Continue reading

Dear Larry,

Due to the fact that you believe that you are saved in part or wholly by baptism, I must mark you as one still in darkness and as one who has not seen that we are complete in Jesus Christ and his finished work. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves. What is it about that that you don’t understand? Paul said if it be works it is something that God owes us but grace is the gift of God which is faith. Larry, due to the fact that the Bible says that we are saved by grace through faith, and you say that it is by some work that we do like baptism, or any other thing, I would bid you to repent and trust in the finished work of Christ and nothing else but Christ and God will save you. I hope you will take this as a letter of love and may God have mercy on you.

By his grace, Frank L. McClanahan

Dear Frank,

Thank you for your letter and for your clarity of expression. I appreciate your willingness to state boldly what you believe. I trust that you will grant me the same right to respond with equal directness to your arguments.

(1) Baptism And The Finished Work Of Christ: Frank, suppose I were to say, "Due to the fact that you believe that you are saved in part or wholly by faith, I must mark you as one still in darkness and as one who has not seen that we are complete in Jesus Christ and his finished work," how would you answer me? Primitive (Hardshell) Baptists make the same argument against you as you have made against me. They do not believe that faith is essential to salvation. Thus, when you say that one must believe in Jesus, they will accuse you of not trusting "in the finished work of Jesus Christ." Tell me, Frank, how you would answer their charge?

• Continue reading

Is it possible to have unity in doctrinal matters? It is increasingly proclaimed that we cannot all believe the same things and practice the same things in doctrine. Thus, the need for “unity in diversity.” What used to be a voice from ultra-liberalism has now become a common theme among more conservative brethren. “We cannot have unity in doctrine; the only unity we can have is unity in Christ.”

Years ago, there was a small core of radical brethren who tried to make a distinction between “gospel” and “doctrine.” Their “gospel” was defined to be 7 core facts about Jesus: birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation. We were told that so long as one believed in the 7 facts about the deity of Jesus, salvation was assured. “Doctrinal” matters were not salvation matters. Thus, so long as one accepted Jesus Christ as the Son of God, it did not matter if one accepted premillennialism, instrumental music, the Lord’s supper on days other than the Lord’s day, etc. Doctrine, we were told (any doctrine), was not a salvation matter. We were urged to “accept into fellowship every believer in Christ, regardless of doctrinal beliefs.” If a belief was not a “salvation matter,” we were told, we should not make it a test of fellowship. One man taught that every believer in Christ was a “child of God in prospect and a brother in deed” (Carl Ketcherside). He finally gave up the “doctrinal” teaching on baptism and accepted as his brothers those who rejected baptism for the remission of sins.

• Continue reading

Associate Editor’s Note: I submit for your study this fine sermon outline by brother Thompson in the hope it will benefit you as it has me.

Larry Fain

“Forever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven.” (Psalms 119:89)“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

“Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

God’s Word Has Forever Settled:

• Continue reading

(June 01, 2001) The regional duma (parliament) of Belgorod region, approximately 450 miles south of Moscow, has passed a local law sharply restricting missionary activity. The new law is supported by the local Orthodox bishop and the governor, but opposed by Belgorod’s Protestants, some of whom have already had it applied against them.

According to Keston News Service, a Pentecostal church was denied permission for public events in the city center in April as an official claimed the possible presence of children without written permission of their parents meant the events would violate the law, although the Orthodox had no problems holding public Easter celebrations with children present.

Unlike many similar local laws in Russia, "On Missionary Activity on the Territory of Belgorod Region" is not just confined to foreign citizens, although they are specifically prohibited from conducting missionary activity if they have come to Belgorod for a different reason.

Residents of other Russian regions intending to carry out missionary activity in Belgorod must also submit to the local authorities a document confirming their affiliation to a particular religious organization, a copy of their invitation to the region, an itinerary of their stay, and proof of local registration.

(http://www.keston.org)

http://news.crosswalk.com/religion/item/0,1875,347471,00.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bible Commentary
Joe R. Price

This reminds me of the visionary "invitation" (plea) to Paul to "come over to Macedonia and help us" (Acts 16:9-10). I don’t think Paul said, "No, you have to first send us a written invitation before we can preach in your country!" He instead concluded "that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them." Paul and Silas would be thrown into prison there, accused of teaching "customs which are not lawful for us, being Romans, to receive or observe" (Acts 16:21). Nevertheless, the Lord blessed their work (Acts 16:25-40).

• Continue reading

A “red flag” of warning should arise every time we hear some call for “unity in diversity.” Some have even said that the “only kind of unity is unity in diversity.” We need to be very sure we understand what this catch-phrase really means and how it is used.

It is understood that a local congregation is filled with people at different levels of faith and maturity. Some will be babes in Christ, newly converted and needing to learn a lot about New Testament Christianity. Some will be farther along the path to maturity, but still unsure about some doctrinal matters and personal issues. Some will be “perfect” (mature, full-grown, Ephesians 4:13), Christians who have a settled faith and manner of life. Among these members, there will be matters of personal opinion and personal judgment that differ from Christian to Christian. The Bible recognizes this fact and addresses it in Romans 14-15. In the apostolic days, Jewish and Gentile Christians (who came from different backgrounds) had areas of differences in applying their common faith. It should be noted that the differences were sharp and contentious, capable of dividing congregations. The word of God provides the solution to this problem.

• Continue reading

"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector" (Matthew 18:15-17).

The passage above is presently a focus of controversy among God’s people. The problem is not a matter of understanding the procedure prescribed in the text. Rather, the misunderstanding that exists is in regard to the scope of the text’s application. In order to properly understand the Lord’s instructions in Matthew 18, it is necessary to look to the context, and the greater context of the entire New Testament as it reveals how we are to deal with sin.

First notice the procedure to be taken when dealing with the sin under consideration in the text. It is a four part process. First, one must go to his brother privately to deal with the sin. "…tell him his fault between you and him alone." If the first step does not bring repentance, the second step is to take witnesses that "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." This second step affirms the serious nature of the sin, that the complaint is valid, and that resolution must come through the penitent actions of the guilty party. If the second step does not lead to repentance on the part of the sinner, the complaint is to be taken before the whole church. This is a radical step, causing the sin to become generally known, and bringing to bear the combined influence of the entire congregation. A rebellious man, who will not even hear the entire congregation as they admonish him for sin, is to be rejected (the fourth and final step).

• Continue reading

Editor’s Note: The following article by Daniel King is a rejoinder to a response Phil Roberts wrote to the material written by brother King, appearing in the December 2001 issue of Watchman Magazine. To view the initial material, click here. To read Phil Roberts’ response, click here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

I read Phil Robert’s recent response to the five articles I wrote for Watchman in absolute amazement. If he is now a friend of the literal view of the Genesis account, then it needs no critics, it needs no opponents, and it needs no enemies!

It is also passing strange that everything he has accused me of, he is himself guilty of in respect both to his original lecture, and to this present brief “review” which he has written. The difference between us, as is so very obvious from his cursory response to our series of articles, is that I have shown myself completely willing to discuss these matters in a public venue, while he prefers to talk about them behind closed doors in private meetings without tape recorders or others means for verification of precisely what was and was not said. With this in mind, let me take this opportunity to renew our offer for a public discussion of these issues with one or more of the principals involved. Phil’s recent speeches and writings, along with the clear declaration of his stance on the fellowship question, now makes him one of the principals. We therefore extend the offer to Phil. If he is willing to enter into a public discussion, let us begin the process of working out acceptable propositions, terms and conditions, to that end.

• Continue reading

Editor’s Note: The following article by Phil Roberts is in response to the material written by Daniel H. King, appearing in the December 2001 issue of Watchman Magazine.

In a recent series of articles published in this venue, Dan King asserts that I have rejected the literal-day approach to Genesis 1 in favor of the day-age approach. This is not true. I have a long history (including my classes this year) of presenting the various interpretations of the days of Genesis 1 and noting that I accept the literal-day approach as the most natural reading of the text, though I would not argue that it is the only possible interpretation.

I would also add here that I do not necessarily consider a brother unworthy of fellowship for considering or even accepting an alternative interpretation, as long as he respects the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. Devout conservatives, totally opposed to the theory of evolution, have, for many years, noted difficulties in the literal-day interpretation of Genesis 1, difficulties which have led them to suggest alternatives. And while I have not found any one of those alternatives convincing (gap-theory, day-age, etc.), I cannot in good conscience simply ignore the questions they raise. In this position, I stand in the tradition of a long line of brethren, including such men as David Lipscomb, W. W. Otey, and the editors of Truth Magazine in the early 1970s. Of course, these men are not my authority, but their commitment to the authority of scripture is well known.

• Continue reading

Second Negative

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.”

Brother Sheridan’s difficulties with the words “the Scriptures teach” continue. He has produced no Bible text proving that “biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society.” He asserts that Romans 13 sustains his proposition, but fails to make any argument from the text. There is no disagreement about the need to obey civil law. Our disagreement regards whether human law binds God’s judgments and defines divine precepts regarding marriage and the sundering of marriage. Terence would have us reinterpret and redefine the Scripture by ever-changing human law throughout history rather than interpreting and defining the Bible term “put away” by principles given in Scripture. Yes, we must obey civil law where it does not conflict with God’s law (1 Peter 2:13-17). But Scripture must take precedence in spiritual principles taught in God’s word (Acts 5:29).

Furthermore, Terence has not shown where “the Scriptures teach” that “the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.” In fact, his second affirmative resorted to ambiguous terminology replacing his explicit claim that an innocent Betty in a divorce for fornication needed to act “before” guilty Bob. Terence denies believing in the “race to the courthouse,” but affirms that “a putting away occurs only when the spouse’s intent is fully realized and civil government has officially recognized that intent.” When and where does Terence claim that official recognition of divorce occurs? He has plainly stated it is in the courthouse when the judge grants the divorce to the party filing the petition. No, this attempt at obfuscation does not help Terence. In a no-fault divorce state where the guilty husband filed first and that petition is granted by the judge, Terence would deny that an innocent wife could put away that guilty party despite any counter-suit filed, protest of the real cause before the court, renouncing of the guilty party for fornication before the elders or the church, a finding of fault in the child custody case following the divorce action, or any other action taken showing the true cause for the sundering of the marriage.

• Continue reading

Second Affirmative

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.”

In taking up my second affirmative, I wish to clarify something at the outset: I do not believe it is necessary for someone to file first in court in order to put away his spouse. Again, there must be compliance with the governing laws, etc. What kind of compliance? Full compliance. If the act of filing papers at a court house does not, per se, constitute full compliance, then it cannot be considered a necessary element in putting away a spouse. Someone can file papers and halfway through the process, decide not to divorce his spouse. A putting away occurs only when the spouse’s intent is fully realized and civil government has officially recognized that intent. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that I believe in “race to the courthouse.”

At any rate, I want our readers to note something that brother Osborne has said: “Neither is this discussion about the need to comply with civil law in divorce. A civil divorce must be obtained when a marriage is sundered and the two people depart from each other.” What that in mind, let’s revisit the elements I said were necessary in order to put away a spouse:

• Continue reading

First Negative

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.”

Before directly refuting brother Sheridan’s affirmative, let me clarify the subject of this debate. Simply put, Terence plainly states that an innocent party in a marriage sundered for the cause of fornication must beat the guilty spouse to initiating the civil divorce and obtaining the court’s ruling. His position requires that human law, procedure and judicial decree establish law binding God’s judgment in this matter. He urges brethren to make a test of fellowship out of who wins that civil race and what the judge rules. Those are my points of disagreement with Terence.

In contrast, it is important to understanding what is not being disputed. There is no disagreement over the fact that a marriage may be sundered against the will of one spouse. We agree it may. Neither disputant contends that one may lawfully remarry following a marriage sundered for a cause other than fornication regardless of who later commits fornication. Though Terence attributes the “mental divorce” view to me, I do not believe it. A marriage is not sundered by merely mental means, nor may one spouse mentally put away the other after the marriage has already been sundered. The order must be fornication, putting away, then remarriage if the innocent has a right to remarry. Neither is this discussion about the need to comply with civil law in divorce. A civil divorce must be obtained when a marriage is sundered and the two people depart from one another. Our difference regards whether that civil divorce procedure is synonymous with biblical putting away, whether the innocent must initiate that civil action, and whether the court must grant the civil action in favor of the innocent party.

• Continue reading

First Affirmative

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.”

I want to thank Harry Osborne for offering to debate me and Stan Cox for agreeing to provide space for publication of this debate in Watchman Magazine. I believe the subject under consideration is one of grave importance for the Lord’s church. Therefore, I hope that good will come of this debate and that truth will be vindicated by it.

My affirmative is as follows:

“The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.”

Now, it is customary for a disputant to define his terms as they are used in a given debate so as to avoid misunderstanding on the part of those evaluating his position. Here are some important terms to address and my respective definitions:

• Continue reading