Halfway Positions
Recently I received a tract on: "The Thief On the Cross." Some of the finest teaching I ever read is contained therein. And to that I subscribe most heartily. Were it not for the introduction of the subject, wherein the author wavered between the "he was" and "he was not" saved attitude, it is as good as anything I ever read on the subject. The author said of the thief: "Assuming that he was saved." Without saying so in so many words, the language used leaves a doubt in the reader's mind as to whether the author considered the thief "saved" or "unsaved." Some have said as much.
The thief had said, "Lord, 'remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom." The author questions: "Did the thief ask for forgiveness?" Did Jesus mean that he was forgiving the thief?" Why these kind of questions to leave minds untaught and unsettled? The author well states what Jesus said to this thief: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:42-43.) Just because the thief may have had the wrong kind of a kingdom in mind, when he said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom," does not alter the fact that, the Lord told the thief he would be with him in paradise.
It is well stated in the tract: "The spirits of both Christ and the thief went into paradise that day." Since paradise is in hades (Acts 2:31), and since both Christ and the thief went into paradise, need we be in doubt as to whether the thief was saved? Did Christ's spirit go into the lost part of hades? No! Since the thief's spirit went with Christ's, did the thief's spirit go into the lost part of hades (where the rich man's spirit was, Luke 16:23-36)? No! Since Jesus did have the power while he was on earth to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6), and since sinner's spirits do NOT go into paradise of hades, why hedge on the question? Why not admit the thief was saved by Jesus? Truth doesn't contradict truth, nor make it suffer.
The rest of the tract, showing Christ's promise was made to the thief before he (Christ) died, therefore made under the Old Testament, and before the great commission was given, and the New Testament not being in force at the time of Christ's conversation with the thief, is no example of how people must be saved today, is indeed fine.
Two Ascensions
One or two ascensions of Jesus, does this need to be a "halfway position"? Do we need to waver here? All of us are ready to admit the ascension of Jesus as recorded in Acts 1:3-11. This was a public matter with his chosen faithful, and this ascension was forty days after his resurrection. But is it safe to teach there was no ascension between John 20:17 and Acts 1:3-11? I have heard this taught many times. Jesus in talking to Mary said, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." (John 20:17.) Yet just eight days later (not 40 day), Jesus said to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." (John 20:27.) Since Jesus would not let Mary touch him because he had "not yet ascended," yet eight days later he asked Thomas to touch him, what Scripture, if any, is violated by saying between the Mary and Thomas conversations of Jesus he ascended?
Infallible Message — Fallible Messengers
Every Christian is ready to admit the infallibility of the message of God. The word is infallible, perfect, because it was Holy Spirit spoken through the inspired men of God. (John 14:13.) And perhaps all Christians admit the fallibility of the messengers (apostles of Jesus), and the other inspired men. At least preachers have been very free to point out the apostle Peter's fallibility, and Paul's rebuke to him for it. (Gal. 2:11-14.) And this is as it should be. Peter's preaching was infallible, for it was Holy Spirit provided, but in his living, Peter was as fallible a messenger (preacher), as any other Christian. Yet some preachers freely point out Peter's fallibility, and yet defend Paul in his fallible conduct. Paul's message (preaching) was also infallible, because it was Holy Spirit provided, but Paul, like Peter, and like other Christians, was fallible in living, in practice, sometimes. Human messengers do not always obey the infallible message the Spirit spoke through them. Both Peter and Paul proved themselves to be fallible messengers of the Lord. It is accepted by all that Peter was such a fallible being. Some preachers try to defend Paul when he became a fallible practitioner. Let us note the following.
Paul gave the infallible message correctly concerning the abolition of the Mosaic law. (See Acts 18:13; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 10:9; Heb. 9:15-17.) But in his practice of these principles he was a fallible messenger. He listened to his Judaizing brethren in Jerusalem, and submitted with four others to the Old Testament rites of purification, after which "offerings" according to the Old Testament be offered for them all. Paul, the messenger here, seemed to be hazy of comprehending his own preaching. Would gospel preachers today do as Paul did here in the, temple? I think not. Then why try to defend Paul in his fallible practice? and condemn Peter? (Acts 21:17-26.) Here Paul's practice is the opposite of the Spirit's preaching through him. Do we need to take a halfway position here? Why waver here? Truth will not suffer to tell the truth about Peter's and Paul's mistakes. Truth is more likely to suffer if we try to defend the practices of fallible men when they disobey the infallible message. And sometimes elders and preachers encourage a "quarantine" of brethren who point out these and 'other truths."
Concerning the institutional digression among us, can there be a "halfway position"? In the absence of "precept," "example," or "necessary inference" for centralized control and oversight, or church supported institutions to do the benevolent work of the church, can we be neutral? I am opposed to hobbyism as much as any one I think. In thirty seven years of preaching I have not been a divider of churches. I am not now. I shall not be in the future. But I can not be a party to a quarantine." If standing for my convictions puts me on a "black list," I take consolation in the fact they called my Lord "Beelzebub." I don't want to see division in the body of Christ. But I "do want" to adhere to the "infallible message" of my Lord.