|
We
would prefer to ignore some matters, hoping they would go away;
but the world seems differently made. The young editor of a widely
scattered journal has published a "special" to combat
the errors of 1) forgiveness without repentance, 2) imputed
righteousness, 3) tolerance of sin, 4) impossibility of apostasy,
5) saved on the basis of a right heart only, and 6)
"automatic cleansing." He says an "old headquarters
staff" is quietly spreading such doctrine, and his paper will
focus on those men. His concept of avoiding slander, giving
opportunity to repent, and some "small degree of
anonymity" is to make citations by code, and then sell the
public a copy of names and articles for $6. I first saw the
"special" (Jan. '81 issue) in April, and learned that
one of my P.T. articles (May, '75) was republished in the exposé.
This puts me on the "old headquarters staff" and guilty
of cunning heresy. Selah!
I
am a heretic for saying "Walking in the light is a manner of
life, a general pattern, which is not canceled by a specific or
single act." (This is less than half of the original
sentence.) Yet, in the same paper one of his writers says,
"The word walk is used repeatedly in the Scriptures to
represent one's way of life, his habitual course of conduct."
Too, "He whose walk is 'in the light' is also not one whose
every deed is
| |
righteous; 'walking in the light' does
not equal sinless perfection." The above piece of my sentence
is also used to prove (?) that I teach it is only the willful or
high-handed sin that separates man from God once he has obeyed the
gospel. (Hines) Two sentences above the quoted scrap I had said,
"It is difficult to conceive of one who is 'walking after the
spirit' or 'in the light' as trying to excuse any
sin."
The
editor says "these brethren" seek to reduce God's
judgment of men "simply upon a matter of attitude, not
obedience." I'm supposed to be guilty because I say
continually confessing our sins is "an expression of
attitude." (Expression of, mind you; I did not say attitude
and confession were the same.) Again, I said, "an improper
attitude toward any sin is a rejection of God." He
deleted my emphasis upon "any" — but I suppose
my use of the word "attitude" was proof.
I
do not believe I have been "misunder- stood;" I believe
an irresponsible editor and one of his writers have acted
foolishly. If any of my readers think I have ever taught any of
the errors charged, please tell me, and send proof to Faith and
Facts, 3910 Rankin Dr., Erlanger, Ky. 41018.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|