Who Are God's Children?

By Roy Loney

[Page 5]

     The genealogy of Christ, given by Luke, is through Joseph, his legal father, rather than through Mary, his real blood line. This genealogy does not stop with Abraham as Matthew's genealogy does, but goes straight back to Adam who is designated "the son of God." Adam was created, not born, hence did not have a natural birth. The question naturally rises, "In what way was Adam a son of God?" The answer is not difficult to find if the word of God is carefully read. When

[Page 6]

Adam's body was formed of the dust of the ground, God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7). In Zech. 12:1 it is stated that God formed the spirit of man within him. James teaches us that the body without the spirit is dead (James 2:26), hence, we learn that the breath which God breathed into man's body was the spirit. The spirit comes from God, and at death returns to God (Eccl. 12:7). When Rachel's spirit (soul) left her body she was dead (Gen. 35:18). When Christ raised the girl from the dead, it is stated that "her spirit came again" and she lived (Luke 8:50-55). Now we are prepared to consider Heb. 12:9 where it is stated that God is the "Father of spirits." Inasmuch as Adam's spirit came from God who is the Father of it, we can now understand in what way Adam was the son of God. There is an outward man and an inward man (2 Cor. 4:16). The inward man is the spirit that comes from God and is imperishable as far as its existence is concerned. So in that sense, all of Adam's posterity are God's children in the same sense as was Adam.

     When Nicodemus came to Christ he was startled when Christ affirmed, "Ye must be born again." (John 3:1-9.) We can understand his perplexity when he asked, "How can a man be born again when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb?" In his reply, Jesus gives to us the key to heaven: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This birth is the regeneration that turns a soul from Satan to God. His heart, his affections are regenerated. Practically all Bible scholars of note agree that this birth of water refers to baptism; for only in baptism is water used in a regenerative sense. Paul calls it "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). We are born again, "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which abideth forever" (1 Peter 1:23). When the gospel, God's power unto salvation, is preached, it turns men from darkness to light; and from the power of Satan unto God. Convictions produced by hearing the gospel cause people to cry, "What shall we do?" Baptism then is enjoined to all those whose hearts have been changed by the story of the cross. When the heart is changed, the body then is buried in the waters of baptism to signify that the old life of sin has been buried; and in rising from the water, it signifies a resurrection to a new life (Rom. 6:4). This is the new birth -- born of water after being begotten by the Spirit.

     Many times I've been impressed by the fact that we, as a religious people, have placed greater emphasis on baptism than we have on the rebirth of the spirit, or the heart. It is true that Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"; but we have slurred over the believing that should precede baptism. That "believing" is something far more than merely accepting the evidence of Christ's divinity. It is an acceptance of Christ into our hearts, changing our hearts so that we no longer walk after the flesh but after the Spirit. Thousands of people have been baptized merely as a means of joining a popular church, without giving any real thought to the real change of heart that must precede our entrance into God's kingdom. We have heard of children being still-born, which means that the babe is dead at birth. The spirit that giveth life was not in its body when birth took place. The same principle holds true of thousands who are baptized. The spirit that giveth life, has not been permitted to enter into their hearts. In such a case, have they really been re-born? Unless we rise from the watery grave to "walk in newness of life" we have not been truly been born again.

     The native Mexicans who illegally cross over into the United States by swimming the Rio Grande river are called "wet-backs." The immigration officers who are constantly on guard at the international line, may apprehend Mexicans, and if their backs are wet, the officer decides they have entered the country illegally. We have too many wet-backs in the church today, in that we decide that everyone who has been baptized is "Our

[Page 7]

Brother." Our kinship with God is predicated entirely on our attitude toward his word. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, my sister and mother" (Matt. 12:50). Obedience to God is the real mark of identification, not water baptism.

     Just here someone may say, "O you must consider that one newly baptized cannot know the entire will of God and therefore will be ignorant of God's commands." True! Even as a new born babe is too helpless to feed itself; but it must have the desire for food and a willingness to accept it before it can be fed. By the same token, one who is truly born again in the spiritual sense must accept all truth that comes from God. "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby." This is in harmony with the statement of Jesus, "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me" (John 10:27), but "a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of a stranger." The born of God are not prejudiced against any revealed truth, and at all times their character and actions reveal the nature of the spirit that is within them. Paul emphasized this when he declared, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Rom. 8:9). Rachel died when her spirit left her body (Gen. 35:18) and there are thousands in the church of Christ, who are as bereft of the Spirit of Christ as if they had never heard of him. This is why John gave us that solemn admonition, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).

     A heart that is open to the truth is not necessarily a "broad-minded" heart. It is broadminded only to the truth. It hears the truth, believes the truth and obeys the truth. On the other hand it has an unshakable antipathy to everything that is opposed to the truth of God. It advocates nothing, defends nothing and excuses nothing that is out of harmony with the will of God. If the Spirit of Christ is in us, then we will desire only the things of the Spirit. I cannot conceive of people having the Spirit of Christ if they will defend, advocate and foster unscriptural practices. Neither will they persecute those who seek to lead them to the truth. The false brethren of Paul's days (Gal. 2:4) were certainly not limited to that age, for today their number is legion. John's admonition to test them did not mean that we were merely to ascertain if they had been baptized, but whether they walked in the Spirit of God. Recently in the home of a professed "sister" she spent sometime telling me what a good Christian she was, and when I attempted to show her certain truths she handed me my hat and showed me to the door! "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

     The advocates of this new broad-mindedness boast that they will permit all dissenters to speak their minds, but when they have spoken or written, the Broadminders insist on having the last word. They must review at length what the dissenters say. Just how broadminded are they, if they insist on having the last word? I do not consider it is broad-minded to permit false teachers to infiltrate the ranks of the disciples, and sow the seeds of contention and strife. Eternal vigilance is the price of spiritual liberty, just as it is of political liberty. We have a right to insist on something more than a baptismal certificate, as proof that one is a child of God. Jezebel, of Thyatira, no doubt had proof of her baptism; but the vile corruptions of her life gave the lie to any claims she made that she had left the flesh pots of Egypt behind her. John the Baptist was not merely contented with baptizing people, but insisted that they bring forth fruits meet for repentance, as proof that the Spirit of God was in their hearts.

     A heart truly dedicated to Christ, has no room in it for the doctrines and commandments of men. A heart dedicated to Christ has no room in it for anything but Christ. Let us not have such a broad reach for a wider brotherhood that we will take in some of Satan's territory. Let

[Page 8]

us conquer that territory by bringing it in submission to Christ. Just here I wish to quote from Bob Clapp's "Enlightener": "O, the weakness of the age! When there are so many soft peddling, soap-washed atheistic tinted advocates of open-membership, and on down the line to the modern day preacher who won't fight the faith, won't take a real stand for Christ, won't take God at his word, won't preach boldly against sin, naming it by its unrespectable terms, and then just sits back and says to all who have two eyes and two ears, a mouth and a pocketbook, and with an inkling of religion, 'Sweet Brother!'"

     I believe that I can justly claim to have read church history a little more than the average, and in such history I've found that in every case where some sugar-hearted man came along advocating a broader fellowship, it always resulted in an apostasy. It has never failed. It is still eternally true. "A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump." It will be foolhardy to so broaden our practice that we will take in the leaven of apostasy. "Quit you like men and be strong!" "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His!"

REMARKS BY THE EDITOR

     Our brother says, "We have many wet backs in the church today." I do not think there is a one. The only way to get into the church of Christ is to be added to it by God. You cannot sneak into it like you can the United States. There is no illegal way of entry. Aliens sneak into our country because customs officers do not see them. But "the eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good." I doubt that any one will outsmart God. Again, it is said, "There are thousands in the church of Christ who are as bereft of the Spirit of Christ as if they never heard of him." The Book says, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." The church of God is composed of the family of God. Those who are in it are all his. Those who are "none of his" are just not in it!

     I agree that one truly born again will have a proper attitude toward truth. This does not mean he knows it all, but will accept it as he learns it. It is possible for people to be honestly mistaken. They believe they are advocating and defending truth. They do not know they are fostering unscriptural practices. There is a difference in involuntary and wilful ignorance. The second is a sin; the first is not. We ought not to make a blanket accusation that all who are caught in a net of error are "false brethren." We need to deal kindly with those who differ with us, treating them as individuals, not lumping them all off as sectarians. Some are in the various sects through circumstances of birth, training, environment, or other conditions. They are not deliberately, maliciously teaching untruth. They want the truth, and are seeking it. How shall we treat them while they are learning?

     Much of what our brother writes is good, but he does not touch the real issue. Let me pinpoint it, so you'll see it clearly. I hold that every sincere, conscientious believer in the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus, who is immersed on the ground of that faith is God's child. I do not care if he is immersed by a Christian Church preacher, Baptist preacher, or Catholic priest, if he can get one to do it. When that man thus believes, and is thus baptized, he is added to the body of Christ. Because he is a child of my Father, he is my brother. And because he has been born of the water and of the Spirit, he will always be a child of God. He may be a disobedient child, but he need never to be baptized again. Through ignorance, he may continue in error. He may espouse and practice things that are wrong, and when he does, he is a brother in error, to that extent.

     We are being treated to a new and dangerous doctrine, that subsequent mistakes in thinking invalidate birth; and adoption of a wrong interpretation after baptism, nullifies the family relationship into which we were born. Some are actually incensed because I refer to some who use instrumental music, as brethren. They are aggravated with me, not because I believe

[Page 9]

in instrumental music, for I oppose it, but simply because I believe many who use it are my brethren, although I think they are in error upon this matter. These brethren in the Christian Church believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they have repented of their sins, and have been immersed into the Christ. They use instrumental music in their public praise service. This I deem to be an innovation and I oppose it. They seek to justify it. They sincerely think we are trying to bind a law upon them where God did not. But they are my brethren, and this is a conflict between brethren, not aliens.

     For this attitude, I am called "broad-minded." I doubt that this is correct. I am not seeking to go beyond God's word, but to reason with brethren about our differences. It seems to me to be the only logical approach to the problem of division in the disciple brotherhood. These brethren are not in the class of Jezebel. They are not guilty of vile corruption. They are not a brood of serpents, such as confronted John.

     I once refused to regard as brethren those not directly allied with our segment of the brotherhood. Let me state our previous view. All who opposed what we had were hobbyists; all who had what we opposed were sectarians. We had classes, women teachers, baptisteries, and individual cups. Those who opposed these were hobbyists. But we opposed colleges, missionary societies, instrumental music and orphan homes. Those who had these were sectarians. None were brethren. If I spoke to, or about one of them, I was careful to say "Mister." In order to be my brother, you had to see everything like we saw it, and write to the paper currently in our favor. The new birth, sonship with God, and relationship with the father -- all of these were judged in the light of partisan alliance. I can see now that my attitude was more sectarian, in the true sense of that word, than many I opposed. I'm sorry for it, ashamed of it, and deeply penitent. Through God's grace I shall try to be better!

     I have not changed one iota in my view of classes, individual cups, women teachers, baptisteries, colleges, orphan homes, instrumental music or missionary societies. But I no longer brand all who differ as "hobbyists or sectarians." It is the attitude toward truth which determines the true status. I recognize as brethren those who hold dissenting views. They are not my brethren because they oppose cups and classes, or because they endorse colleges or instrumental music, but in spite of it.

     If those who oppose classes changed their minds and adopted them, the change would not make them brethren. It would simply mean that more brethren agreed with my view on classes.

     If those who uphold instrumental music agreed to discontinue it, the change would not make them brethren. It would simply mean that more brethren agreed with my view on instrumental music.

     We become brethren, not by accepting a particular view as to classes, or instrumental music, but by being born into the same family. We are made brethren, not by defending or upholding a certain position, but by the new birth!

     I do not want to be a "Broadminder" or 'a sugar-hearted man advocating a broader fellowship." I do want to try and be an honest child of my Father, and to love him and all the brethren. I am saddened by the way I once treated some who differed with me. I thought I was doing God's will when I insulted and accused them of false motives. I'm grieved that my attitude drove them away instead of drawing them near. I pray that God and the brethren will forgive me! I do not think we can accomplish God's will by being arrogant, haughty or domineering. There are many of God's sheep among the sectarian hills. I want to seek and save them before the night comes when no man can work.

     Our good brother Loney feels we should publish what he writes without reply. He does not want us to have the last word, nor review the articles of those who dissent. We love our brother, but we will not agree to this. All I write is open to review in the same journal in which I publish it. I have pleaded with brethren to disagree with my position if they wish to do so. I want the readers to see both sides. Any person who writes in this journal must expect that I will review what he writes. We do not guarantee any immunity from criticism. Those who do not want their position questioned should not state it.

     The reason we publish our remarks in direct conjunction with some of the dissenting articles is so our readers can study both sides as they appear side by side. This is fair, honest and just. We think the readers will be able to read what is written and study it in the light of God's word, and I am not seeking to influence any of them to my way of thinking. They will not give account to me but to God. I do not want a "Ketcherside faction" or a "Mission Messenger clique." And as long as I allow both sides to be heard, there will not be one.

[Page 10]

If our brother has the truth, it makes no difference who writes last. Truth is truth, whether it is on page one or page seven. If it is not the truth, writing it last will not make it so. Truth never craves a favored position nor seeks for any advantage! It shines brightest when laid down beside error. A light shines best in contrast with darkness! We shall continue to follow our policy of allowing both sides to be heard. And we shall continue to regard as our brethren every one of God's children on this earth, although we may seriously differ with the ideas of a lot of those children who are our brethren. We will not be driven either to unfairness or to hatred. This is our stand and we will not be moved! Upon this stand we are willing to face the judgment of God.