My Reply

By Roy Loney

[Page 10]

     In the December issue Carl again takes issue with me in a lengthy reply and appears irked because I intimated he is not as tolerant as he would have us believe because he insists on having the last word. He had the first word, and in his last word, he takes more than double the space allotted to me. To present both sides to our readers, does one side require more than double the space of the other? I wrote privately asking for the exact amount of space he used. He replied that I might write on any subject I chose. I did not ask for that, but for equal space to answer his criticisms of my articles. Not once in all of his public debates has he been permitted the first and last speech on any proposition. Will he treat me less

[Page 11]

courteously than he did G. K. Wallace? If both sides must be heard it is strange that he must have twice the space. I am asking him to give a definition of journalistic fairness.

     Let me quote him verbatim: "I hold that every sincere and conscientious believer in the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus, who is immersed on the ground of that faith, is God's child." The issue, then, is one of sincerity and conscientiousness, regardless of what one teaches or practices. That is just the way he stated it. It is a matter of sincerity, solely a question of whether a baptized believer is sincere regardless of teaching or practice. I will let Billy Graham answer him. In his syndicated newspaper column, December 16, appears this question, "Do you believe that if a person is honestly doing what he thinks is right, regardless of his denomination or church, that God will impute it to him for righteousness? In other words, if he thinks he is right, will God think so too?" Listen to Mr. Graham's reply, "You are putting salvation on the basis of sincerity rather than faith and practice. Many are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.... Nothing could he farther from the truth than the theory that if you think you are right, God thinks so too. You can think you are on the right road, but if you are not, all the belief you can muster would not bring you to the right destination. For that reason we have road signs to direct the traveler. God also has erected road signs for the wayfaring pilgrim. He said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.' This means that the only way to heaven is through Christ. You must observe the road signs given in the scriptures if you want to arrive at your destination. Don't trust your own judgment in religious matters. Believe in the Bible. Put your faith in Christ, and he will see you through."

     I adopt as my own argument the principles set forth by Mr. Graham. No one can refute them. Sincerity is not the test of acceptance with God, not even with those who have been immersed. Carl will admit a baptized believer can fall from grace, and one can fall doctrinally as well as morally, for Satan has power to deceive the very elect. If sincere believers in Christ, teach and practice theories which "cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrines of Christ," through Satan's deception, are we to accept them in full fellowship on the basis of sincerity? Am I wrong in saying all teaching and practice must be measured by a "thus saith the Lord"? Jesus told the apostles the time would come when those who put them to death would think they were doing God service (John 16:2). When a group put Leroy Garrett in jail, can we affirm they were not sincere in thinking they were defending the cause of Christ? To affirm they were not sincere comes close to putting ourselves in God's place, who alone can accurately judge men's hearts (Acts 1:24). Instead of advocating sincerity as the test, I stand by the inspired statement, "If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his" (Rom. 8:9). Men may be called "brethren on the basis of their acceptance of Christ in baptism, but if subsequent actions belie their profession, we are justified in terming them "false brethren.' No amount of "goody goody goo" can turn a withered soul into a saint. They must have the fear of God in their hearts. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me."

     The way that seems so right to man (Prov. 14:12) will lead to death regardless of sincerity. Paul's sincerity did not save him from being a "blasphemer and persecutor." I do not want to be an Elijah moaning under a juniper tree, that I alone remain true to God, but the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal, was only a small part of the professed people of God. I do not forget that regardless of the number called, only a few are chosen. I would increase the number, but the increase must come through humble obedience, not through sincerity of belief in a false doctrine.

     It is no sin to call a man a hobbyist who is one, and when a man beclouds the face of God's Son with inane, senseless technicalities over minor points of

[Page 12]

doctrine, what is he? His sincerity may equal mine, but his miserable judgment and perversity keeps thousands out of the Kingdom. I don't believe the word of God can be explained forty-eleven different ways by that many men, and all of them be found walking with God. If we love God we will love his people, but we must not throw the cloak of unwise charity over the hobbyistic, senseless interpretations which cause so much havoc in the church. Those who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine of Christ, must be avoided, not fellowshipped (Romans 16:17). I will not excuse them with the slobber of sweetness. When Peter gave the command that, if we speak it must be as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11) he did not mean we could all talk the language of Ashdod (Neh. 13:24) just so we are sincere in our religious jabber-wocky. Billy Graham knows better than that. If we, in all humility and love "mind the same things and walk by the same rule" (Phil. 3:16), we will not sin in exposing enemies of the cross of Christ. Love and tolerance will not save those whose God is their belly and whose glory is in their shame.

     I wish I could understand Carl's logic. He first says he wants his readers to hear both sides, then states, "I am not seeking to influence any of them to my way of thinking." Why does he present his way of thinking if he is not trying to do so? What other motive does he have? I bear witness before my loving Father that I am trying to influence you to accept the plain truths of God. That is why I have referred to so many scriptures, and I will be grieved and disappointed if I have failed to convince you. This is not "my way of thinking." I am presenting the deepest convictions of my consecrated heart. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God."