TWO GOSPELS
(Part One)Maurice M Johnson & Bob Haines
Hollywood, California
circa 1940How do you do. I'm delighted to come to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I'm also delighted that in this transcription studio with me at this time here in Hollywood are my wife and daughter and brother Bob Haines. Brother Bob Haines is from Toledo, Ohio. I call him Bob, that's shorter than R.H. to me. Brother Bob Haines and I so far as I know are one in the things of God. We endeavor to stand fast in one mind, in one Spirit, striving together for the faith of the gospel. It was not always so. We have known each other some few years, and there have been times during these few years when we didn't see eye to eye, but that wasn't God's fault because God is not the author of confusion.
We're going to have a sort of dialogue at this time, but first brother Haines is going to bring a message in song. I believe the Lord has given him a real gift in singing and he wants to sing a new song now. He'll be accompanied by my wife at the piano and my daughter Helen with the violin. Now listen to brother Bob Haines of Toledo, Ohio.
(sings "He Died of a Broken Heart")
Yes, we read in the 69th Psalm, a prophetic utterance concerning the son of David the Lord Jesus, "Reproach hath broken my heart." Don't forget my dear friends that He gave His life a ransom for all, He gave His life a ransom for all. You just listened to brother Haines, brother Bob Haines of Toledo, Ohio. He's the one who just sang that message.
Now brother Haines and I are going to discuss a phase of Bible study that's very, very important I'm sure. Of course, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." But I think very important this particular line of Bible study is very important because to me it strikes at the very ... very heart or rather is the very heart of the whole revelation from God to man, and that is "How are children of Adam, fallen children of Adam, saved from their sins?" How was Adam saved? How was Abel saved? How was Enoch saved, and then able to walk with God, and then be translated, caught up into the glory without having to die physically? How was Noah saved? We know how he was saved physically by a building and then entering into that ark, the plan for which God gave him. But how are men saved? Are there two ways, or at least two ways? Have there been two ways of saving sinners?
Many of you listening in probably are members of organizations or you know of organizations, have some loved one, or you have been a member of some religious organization that teaches that the present plan of saving lost members of Adam's fallen race is a different plan than in a former day or age. Most of the denominations, or at least most of the largest religious teach that the way people are saved from the guilt and penalty of sin now, according to their denominational interpretation or doctrine on the subject is different from the way they were saved before their particular denomination came into existence. The largest sect in Christendom teaches that: that the way people are saved or may be finally saved is according to a plan that that particular sect has in its own keeping. But they do not for one moment teach that David had to follow the same plan.
Well, what about that? Has God had two plans for saving members of Adam's fallen race? Or at least two? No. Absolutely no. Now brother Haines here with me, brother Bob Haines of Toledo, Ohio and I both, as we are going to bring out, accepted (sad to say), we accepted some teaching that is gaining ground in many quarters. Teaching that there have been, even since the cross, two ways of saving sinners. I'm referring specifically to teaching that is more or less. accurately referred to as "Bullingerism". And that name is given to that teaching because of the teachings of a very able, brilliant, scholarly, and I think in many respects, godly man in England who died a few years ago. His name was E.W. Bullinger.
Now Mr Bullinger taught, most that he taught I think was true, was according to the truth as it is in Christ. But his distinctive doctrine, the doctrines, the things he taught that characterized him, made him stand out from others who taught so nearly all that he taught, was teaching that the gospel of the circumcision, referred to in Galatians 2,. and the gospel of the uncircumcision (and both of those expressions you know are found you know in Galatians the 2nd chapter), Mr Bullinger taught that those were two different ways of saving sinners. And he has many followers. Oh, not that all who teach that today admit that they're following Bullinger. But anyway there are many today who teach that the way Jews were saved during the early years after the cross was by the gospel of circumcision which message these teachers say had works mixed with grace. But that Paul, who received what he called the gospel of the uncircumcision, was the first one to preach and teach salvation by faith, by grace through faith without any admixture. Now brother Bob Haines used to believe, as he'll tell you in a moment, and I too, that there was a radical distinction between what Paul calls in Galatians 2 the gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision. But by the grace of Almighty God both of us have renounced that position. It is today advocated by such outstanding teachers, outstanding in some areas especially, as J.C. O'Hair of Chicago, Cornelius Stam for many years of Paterson, New Jersey, and Charles Baker of Milwaukee, and Harry Bultema of Muskegon, Michigan. All of them, well rather quite able men, and men that teach so much that is fine and true. But they are now rather emphasizing this error. And that's always the way with leaven, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." Now brother Haines and I are going to continue with this time and in the next broadcast on this same general subject: what is the gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision, and were the Jews in the early days of Acts, or in the Acts period, and was Cornelius and his household of Gentile kinfolks and friends who gathered there to hear words whereby they might be saved from the lips of Peter, were those people in the first half of the book of Acts period or the first fifteen years after the cross, were they saved by a law and grace mixture called the gospel of the circumcision where water baptism was essential for the remission of sins; but after that and now people are saved by the pure grace of God without any admixture?
Now that's the teaching of J.C. O'Hair of Chicago, of Cornelius Stam of Paterson, New Jersey, Harry Bultema of Muskegon, Michigan, Charles Baker of Milwaukee. Those men have formed with others (they are the main leaders), they have formed what they call now Worldwide Grace Testimony, Worldwide Grace Testimony, and they've started a Bible Institute in Milwaukee this Fall. And so they're going to crystallize unless God is allowed to stop them. They're going to crystallize and organize and galvanize this erroneous teaching that water baptism was essential for salvation when Peter was preaching but not after Paul began his ministry.
Brother Haines, did you used to believe that Acts 2:38, the baptism referred there was water baptism? And if you did, would you tell me, would you tell us a few of the arguments given by these people, briefly, as to why water bap ... Acts 2 ... first read that if you will please, Acts 2:38, and then Paul's statement in Galatians 2 about the gospel of the circumcision and uncircumcision.
Unfortunately I did for some time both privately and publicly: Matthew 28: 19-20, Mark 16:15-20, and Acts 2:38 specifically was water baptism for the remission of sins. I say unfortunately, because it's criminal when we see the truth of how God actually has always saved, is saving, and will continue to save men as long as He's dealing with mankind. Unfortunately, and not only unfortunate in the ethical sense, but criminal.
In the 2nd chapter of the book of Acts for example Peter had preached a message concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And in Acts 2:37, when these people heard what the apostle Peter had said concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus,
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles." Men and brethren, what shall we do?
These men evidently were convicted by the message that the apostle Peter was preaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, the fact that they were guilty of His death. They inquired as to what they must do to be saved, of course.
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And here is a so-called fundamental error. Theologically, it may be ethical to say that because the word The baptized' is used that automatically 'water' is implied. But such is not the case. That's what comes from isolating passages of Scripture, cutting them apart from themselves, when we're plainly told that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. Or that is, interpreted apart from the rest of the Word of God. But I did that very thing, and unquestionably these men are doing the same thing. And so, as we deal with this subject: How were these men actually saved? Were they saved? Did water remit their sins or did it not? Now Peter had just preached a message concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and said absolutely nothing about water. And up to this point in the Scripture and including this point and from here on we can find nothing about water baptism for the remission of sins. Let's turn over here to the 4th chapter of the book of Romans just briefly.
My trouble was in looking at the word 'baptize', every time I saw it in the main it meant 'water' and nothing more, simply because I had failed to do what these brethren have and possibly you are guilty of: failing to compare scripture with scripture. Romans chapter 4 and the first 5 verses.
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God.
Now we see Abraham was the father of the Jewish nation after the flesh. These Jews in the 2nd chapter of the book of Acts, also Gentile proselytes, had Abraham to their father after the flesh. Now let's read Paul's statement here in Romans 4.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Now note carefully verse 5.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
And now in verse 6 we find another Jew living under the dispensation of law.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Here was David, a man under the law, who knew of the justification whereby Abraham was saved. Abraham saved by grace through faith? Certainly. And now mark you, this is the apostle Paul the minister to the Gentiles recording this in Romans. He also speaks of David's justification on exactly the same basis which Abraham was saved.
Now then, where do we find the difference in the message of Romans 4 and Acts 2, if there be any difference, which of course, upon careful examination of the Word of God, comparing scripture with scripture, we find that there is no difference:. Stated differently of course, but the same fundamental truth expressed clearly in each instance: the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now note carefully in Acts 15 if you will for just a few moments. Acts chapter 15 and starting about verse 7. The setting here is a conference taking place between brethren who had gone to the Jews and brethren who had gone to the Gentiles. And in verse 7,
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, you know that how a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles,
note this carefully,
by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Now what gospel was he talking about?
That the Gentiles,
he's referring of course to Cornelius, the story as recorded in Acts 10, that they
should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.
Now if you'll note carefully in Acts 10 that while Peter yet spake words concerning the Lord Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles who were present, and they passed from death unto life. So we see here in Acts 15:8, God who knew the hearts bore them witness,
giving them the Holy Spirit even as he did unto us.
Who does the 'us' refer to? Who is the 'us'? The Jews spoken of.
And put no difference between us and them,
that is, between we Jews and those Gentiles,
purifying their hearts by faith.
What does that do to the 2nd chapter of the book of Acts and verse 38? Makes it quite clear that God purified the hearts of both the Jews there and Cornelius in Acts 10 by grace through faith in the finished work of the crucified and risen Christ.
Well how is it that these terms ... these facts are stated differently? Well there are many things in God's Word that are stated differently and are diametrically opposed as far as theological ethics are concerned but we find that the: same fundamental truth is expressed in a great many different matters throughout the Word of God pertaining to different subjects.
And so, when I was confronted with the question of example John 3:1418 was put to me when I was teaching this ungodly heresy, and I found lo and behold that I couldn't answer. Let me read it for you. The gospel of John was recorded a good many years after the apostle Paul began to preach the gospel of the grace of God. A good many years, but the record is concerning the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ to the nation of Israel. Not exclusively, but to the Jew first.
Note this carefully now in John 3. Here's the Lord Jesus Christ, a minister to the circumcision sent to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. John 3:14-18.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.
Now those Jews who heard that story were familiar with the story, or this record rather, given in the 18th chapter, I believe it is, of the book of Numbers concerning the lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness.
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Now this is speaking to Jews now through the Lord Jesus Christ here, and Peter is speaking to Jews in Acts 2. Note carefully the mode of salvation here in John 3.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth,
note carefully,
He that believeth on him is not condemned.
He's speaking to Jews, and Peter's speaking to Jews in Acts 2.
Now, if there's a difference in the two messages, one is belief while Christ was on earth, and Peter is speaking concerning baptism in Acts 2, when and where did the message change upon whose authority? Jews in both cases, when did the message change? Well we find that it didn't change except as we endeavor to force the river Jordan or any other river or any other pool of water into Acts 2.
God has always saved men. He saved men while Jesus Christ was here on earth by virtue of believing on the name of His dear Son. So brother Johnson, that's exactly how I stand concerning the subject of "two gospels" in brief. Yes indeed, in other words, the expression there the gospel of the circumcision committed to Peter primarily as the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul cannot possibly mean two ways of saving fallen members of Adam's race, or members of Adam's fallen race. That certainly is plain enough when we see that in the very same chapter, Galatians 2, after Paul has referred to the gospel of the circumcision committed to Peter and the gospel of the uncircumcision committed to himself, he then records by divine inspiration that Peter, after Peter came to Antioch, he became a coward temporarily or desired to please the larger number of believers, the larger number at that time and place being Jewish believers, and because some of the Jewish believers did not want Peter to eat with the Gentile believers, Peter dissembled. He refused to eat with his Gentile brethren in Christ because some of his Jewish brethren didn't want him to. And Paul says, Galatians 2:14,
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.
Now which gospel is that? If brother O'Hair of Chicago is right in saying that there are two gospels during the book of Acts period, two ways of saving a man rather, that the gospel of the circumcision means one way of saving a man and the gospel of the uncircumcision another way of saving a man, that water baptism and some other physical things were essential during Peter’s preaching, but that beginning with Paul's preaching of what he called the gospel of the, uncircumcision, water baptism was not necessary, if that teaching represented most cleverly, sad to say, in this country now by such men as J.C. O'Hair of Chicago, Harry Bultema, Muskegon, Michigan, Cornelius Stam of Paterson, New Jersey, and Charles Baker (and now Cornelius Stam) of the Bible Institute newly formed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, if, and other men of course, if that teaching is correct, then Paul confused things miserably when he says in Galatians 2:14,
But when I saw that they walked not,
Peter and Barnabas and other Jews, Jewish believers in Christ,
when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith,
the faith,
of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.