Category: Subject Index

One aspect of Calvinistic doctrine is the three-fold error whereby it is taught that (1) Adam’s sin was transferred to mankind; (2) man’s sin was transferred to Christ; and (30) Christ’s personal righteousness was transferred to believers. None of these statements are true nor do they reflect accurately the Bible doctrine of “imputation.” In this article we will note the second of these errors and study the claim that the sins of mankind have been transferred to Christ.

It is inappropriate for any child of God to behave in less than a righteous manner. Peter wrote, “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:11-12). The term “honorable” in the passage (translated honest in the KJV) is defined by Vines, “good, admirable, becoming, has also the ethical meaning of what is fair, right, honourable, of such conduct as deserves esteem” (Vines, Vol. II, pge. 229).

In less than a month I will have preached the Glorious Gospel of our Lord for fifty years. My only regret is that I don’t have another fifty to give. I know there is much work to be done yet in the Pacific Northwest as well as other places and I want to encourage men to rise to meet the challenge. Indeed, “the fields are white indeed unto harvest and the laborers are few”.

On January 3rd, 1997, JoAnn (my wife) and I left our home in Duncanville Texas and spent eleven months on an extended preaching trip, at least half of it in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wisconsin and the province of Alberta Canada. The rest of the time was spent in my holding meetings in Ohio, Mississippi, W. Virginia and the south Texas area.

Before one can trust in Christ and be saved, he must hear the gospel (Ephesians 1:13). That faith comes by hearing the word of God as found in the New Testament. It can be received in no other way (1 Corinthians 4:6, 15; 15:1-4, 11).

There are several important clues in the word of God that help us to understand that the days of creation are literal twenty-four hour days. However, the most compelling evidence is found in Exodus 20:10-11. The children of Israel were commanded by God to keep the Sabbath, which was the seventh day, holy. The Scripture says, “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Israel understood the meaning of the word day when they were reminded of His creating the heaven and the earth in six days. We are also forced to conclude that they knew how to count time; otherwise, they would not be able to keep the Sabbath and other important feast and holy days and other time requirements in the Law of Moses.

There is no question but that alcohol is one of the foremost factors in the destruction of the society, the family, human lives, and many other precious things. Alcohol kills, maims, and destroys the lives of millions of people yearly around the world. It is odd, then, that so many people, including those whose lives have been ruined by alcohol, still work hard to support alcohol. The Bible has much to say about alcohol, and Christians should be familiar with God’s truth on drinking.

If aliens are not amenable to Christ’s law regarding divorce and remarriage, aliens are not amenable to the Gospel instructions in general. For instance, if an alien is not amenable to the Gospel’s instructions, how can we oppose the use of instrumental music in denominational worship? Are they not aliens? How could the practice be judged sinful for aliens if the regulation of the gospel does not apply to them?

The death of sin is producing a generation of Americans unequipped to meet the challenges of temptation. The church of Christ is far from immune, for we hear the tone of preaching softening among us as well, in a rush to embrace the positive mental attitude approach, which cannot build anything enduringly good, for it knows not how to identify and tear down sin.

The only way to be complete and to be saved by the finished work of Christ is to be “in Christ.” Scripture says we are “baptized into Jesus Christ.” If one is not baptized, he is not “in Christ,” for we are “baptized into Christ.” Thus, one must be baptized to be complete in Christ and to have the benefits of the finished work of Christ.

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.”

God’s Word has forever settled: What to Preach; What Constitutes Sin; The Remedy for Sin; The Christian’s Conduct; Acceptable Worship; The Work of the Church; Divorce & Remarriage. May we always and forever respect the finality of God’s word.

We are to, as much as possibly, be at peace with all men (Romans 12:18). But when the Lord’s will and work conflicts with man’s law we must “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). We should not allow the edicts of men to prevent us from doing the work of God.

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.

The teaching of our Lord in Matthew 18 must be followed by all Christians. It is our responsibility as children of God to rebuke our sinning brother, in an attempt to restore him to standing. We do not have the right to ignore his sin, and we do not have the right to embarrass him by disregarding the prescribed steps of the passage.

However, the passage is limited contextually to private offenses between a sinner and the one he has wronged. The Lord never intended that his instructions to the Disciples be applied with such a broad and unsuitable stroke. A proper understanding of the passage, and the nature of public sin will go far in correcting this present destructive error.

Brother Roberts may attempt to turn the tables and place the blame on myself and others like me if he would like, but this entire present controversy really falls back upon him. I did not initiate an attack upon Phil Roberts or his views. Phil initiated an assault upon my writings. He is the one who wrote those handouts. He is the one who delivered those messages. He is the one who is doing all he can in his speeches and lectures to make plenty of room in the hearts and minds of the Lord’s people (and especially the students at FC) for these competing views of the creation, posited by his brother Hill and those like him, and at the same time attempt with all of his might and mane to poke holes in the literal approach to Genesis 1.

Having made a cursory review of Dan’s lengthy articles, I am not convinced that he understands either the main thrust of the lecture or the particulars of many of the individual arguments or hermeneutical issues involved. All the criticisms regarding what I did or did not say in representing him lack foundation in fact, as Dan would have known had he been present.

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.”

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.”

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.”