Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Earl Irvin West, in Volume 2 of his The Search For The Ancient Order (p. 250), introduces a chapter called “Prophets of Liberalism,” with an astute observation about what he calls “seeds of liberalism”:

Whether in the halcyon days of the restoration there could be found the seeds of the later liberalism that swept the brotherhood, may be doubted. Certainly, however, it can never be questioned that these seeds are discovered buried deep in human nature. There are always those who believe they sense something in the “spirit” of a thing contrary to what may be found in its “letter,” or, who, reacting against what they consider a radical extreme of isolationism devote their energies to popularizing a movement. The restoration period came to know these individuals following the war between the states. The church appeared to them to be too narrow and restricted, and their ambition therefore was to lift the brotherhood to a “dignified church” in a world of denominationalism, commanding at least some respect from these religious bodies.

I believe West correctly assesses the beginnings of liberalism. It is thinking that interpreting and/or applying law to the “letter” is unnecessarily restrictive, exclusive, or even harsh. So, the liberal thinker turns to something called the “spirit of the law” to relax the restrictions and harshness imposed by the “letter.” He may freely admit that the actual wording of the sacred text, strictly applied, would demand a certain thing. However, he appeals to a higher (?) court called “the spirit of the law” for a broader application than the actual wording would permit. Having dismissed the objective “letter,” in favor of the more subjective “spirit,” he can now freely adjust to the situation at hand. In reality, his so called “spirit of the law” is nothing more than his subjective view of what the law should be.

If God’s word does not mean exactly what it says; and if we do not need to follow it exactly, then we are free to believe and do as we jolly well please, which is what a true liberal does, convincing himself that he is justified because he is within the flexible boundaries of the “spirit of the law” – which boundaries he and his liberal cohorts define and redefine as the situation warrants.

It is not unusual for these, “Prophets of Liberalism” to appeal to the Lord and his word to defend their stance. They see our Lord as one more interested in the “spirit” while the Pharisees insisted on the “letter.” They are not at all bashful about comparing modern day “conservatives,” who insist on doing exactly what the text says on every subject, to the Pharisees.

To me, it is the height of absurdity to suggest, as I recently heard one preacher do, that the Pharisees were the “conservative church” of that day who really wanted to do just what the law said. They were no such thing. They demanded that others do exactly what their traditions said, while they themselves would not take their own medicine (cf. Matt. 23:4). Where is the passage where Jesus ever criticized a Pharisee for being hung up on “the letter of the law”? He criticized their hypocrisy, their inconsistency (Matt. 23) and their making void the commandment of God by their tradition (Matt. 15:1-7), but never their strict application of the law itself.

Jesus’ rejection of the Pharisees’ sabbath traditions is freely used to illustrate Jesus’ rejection of the “letter” in favor of the “spirit.” The truth is that the “letter” of the Old Testament did not forbid the kind of things that Jesus and his apostles did on the sabbath. It was the “traditions of the elders” (which were often inconsistently and hypocritically applied) that forbade such things.

Jesus expresses his attitude toward keeping the law to his disciples in the Sermon On The Mount. He not only insisted on personally fulfilling the law down to the smallest letter (jot) and the smallest marking (tittle) (Matt. 5:18), he warned his disciples that by breaking the “least of these commandments” and teaching men so, they would forfeit their entrance into the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:19).

The Bible really says nothing about obeying either the “spirit of law” or “letter of law.” It simply speaks of obedience. Some think they have found a distinction between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law” in 2 Corinthians 3. However, a close look at the chapter should make it clear that two laws are being contrasted rather than two methods of interpreting and/or applying law. Notice verses 6, 7 and 8:

Who also made us sufficient ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives fife. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?

The contrast is between the two Testaments – the Old (v. 14) which was written on stones (the letter) and the New written by the Spirit on the hearts of the apostles. The Old Testament (letter) was ushered in by the letters written and engraved on tablets of stone. The New Testament (spirit) was ushered in by the outpouring of the Spirit, engraving the New Testament on the apostles’ hearts.

The “ministry of the new covenant” (v. 6) or “ministry of the Spirit” (v. 8) or “ministry of righteousness” (v. 9) is contrasted to “the ministry of death” (v. 7) or “ministry of condemnation” (v. 9) or “Old Testament” (v. 14). “The letter” that kills is the same as the “ministry of death” (vv. 6-17), while “the spirit” that gives life is the game as “ministry of the new covenant (testament).”

The rest of 2 Corinthians 3 is given to a contrast between the two covenants or testaments. The contrast is not between two methods or manners of interpreting and/or applying either testament, but a contrast between the two testaments themselves.

The Jew under the old system had to obey its requirements – those that applied both to his outward and inward conduct. The Pharisee often meticulously, to “the letter,” if you please, applied those commands that affected outward conduct without doing the same with those commands that governed his inward conduct. Jesus said that he did what he should have done with the former without leaving the latter undone. We, under the new system, must”‘observe all things” commanded (Matt. 28:18), down to the last letter (cf. Matt. 5:19), that apply to both our inward and outward behavior.

That there are times when we will “miss the mark” (a meaning of the word translated “sin”) and have to ask forgiveness, is admitted by all. We may even at times have to be patient and gentle with others who miss the mark. But that is a far cry from blurring the mark by invoking something called “the spirit of the law” that assumes that we have the liberty to loosely apply what the Book actually says.

Again, I maintain that the idea of “the spirit of the law” is not only not found the New Testament, it is nothing more than a device to set aside what the Bible really says in favor of each man subjectively deciding what the law should say.

The liberal mind may even convince himself he has as much respect for God’s law as anyone, but it is just that he emphasizes the “spirit” rather than the “letter.” But, the New Testament is given in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12, 13). We are to live by “every word of God” (Luke 4:4). If we are not to live by the very wording of the Bible, the “letter of the law,” if you please, then why not just toss the whole thing aside? Then we could decide, from scratch, for ourselves what God’s will should be, without having’to search through the “letter of the law” and then dismissing what we find in favor of the “spirit of the law” as we see it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 67-68
February 2, 1989

By Randy Reynolds

Is Jesus An Angel?

In the mind of a Christian, such a question as this is utterly ridiculous, and without any foundation whatsoever. But to some in the world of religion, it is accepted and proclaimed as though it were true. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses actually believe and teach that Jesus is the first angel that God created. As a matter of fact, they say that Jesus is really Michael, the archangel.

Is this belief or teaching something that is a new doctrine? Did it originate with the Jehovah Witness group? Apparently the answer to both of those questions would have to be no. There seems to be something more than a strong similarity between this denial of Jesus as Deity and what those who believed in Gnosticism concluded many years prior to the Watchtower Society.

As a quick reference to Gnosticism, this writer chose to consider what the College Press Bible Study Textbook Series has to say on Gnosticism in the commentary on Colossians, (pp. 123, 124). The following is a quote taken from that source concerning Gnosticism: “Between God and man there was supposedly a long series of intermediary beings, which were called aeons. Those intermediary beings become less and less spiritual, and more and more material the farther they got from Christ. Christ Jesus was supposedly one of these aeons, a high one evidently. The lowest aeon, called the demiurge was the creator of the earth and material things.”

Let’s examine this question or concern from the Bible to rind out what the truth is. And this should help each one of us to be better prepared when someone comes knocking at our door teaching a doctrine that is not according to the one that was taught by the apostles and other inspired men.

“His Goings Forth Are From Long Ago”

“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel, His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Mic. 5:2). There can be little doubt, that this is a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, especially when we clearly see its fulfillment in Matthew 2:6.

The point that can be established from this writing is this. The prophet Micah says concerning Jesus, that He is “from

the days of eternity.” The Psalmist said the very same thing about Jehovah, using the identical Hebrew word in Psalms 41:13. Simply stated, whatever Jehovah is to eternity or to everlasting, the Son is equal. Thus the Son cannot be created, unless the Father is created. It is a known fact that Jesus was not created because Paul said, “. . . all things have been created by Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16). If Paul’s words are accurate (and they are) Jesus would have to be responsible for having created himself. Also see John 1:1-3.

“The Alpha And The Omega”

“Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him, Even so. Amen. I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:7-8). “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and Hades” (Rev. 1:17-18).

There are at least a couple of points that can be established from these verses written by the apostle John. First, who is it that verse 7 speaks of? Can there by any doubt? Luke records for us that two angels sent from God told Jesus’ apostles that this same Jesus “will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9-11). Second, who does the description fit? Who was it that was pierced and was dead? With all due respect, you don’t have to have the aid of a red-lettered edition to know assuredly that it is Jesus. Hence, it must be accepted that Jesus says concerning himself that he is, “the first and the last, the Almighty.”

Thus the conclusion drawn by Thomas after touching the nail scarred hand and the sword pierced side of the resurrected Lord is absolutely correct. “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God'” (Jn. 20:27-28).

Additional evidence which clearly points to the surety of Jesus’ “Deity” comes from the apostle John’s attempt to worship an angel. John says that the angel told him, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book; Worship God” (cf. Rev. 22:8-9).

These two verses in the Revelation letter and the admonition not to worship an angel, but rather that worship belongs only to God, takes an added significance when considering what the Hebrew writer recorded in Hebrews 1:5-6. “For to which of the angels did He ever say, Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee? And again, I will be the Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me? And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, and let all the angels of God worship Him.” The Hebrew writer affirms for us that, God never did give such a distinction to an angel, and the angels apparently understood this, that’s why they rejected worship. Not only does God demand the angels to worship his Son, but we also see in the New Testament where Jesus rightfully accepted the worship of man (cf. Matt. 2: 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 20:9; Jn. 9:38).

Conclusion

The only conclusion that could possibly be reached by any and all honest Bible students is that the Son and the Father are both “Deity” (cf. Phil. 2:6-7). Jehovah is “self-existent,” “immutable,” “eternal,” the “Almighty,” “absolute holiness,” “righteous,” “merciful,” “loving,” “infinite in knowledge and wisdom,” etc. Whatever Divine attributes Jehovah possesses, Christ also possesses.

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

Other Bible verses could be considered (John 8:58; Ex. 3:14; Isa. 8:13-14; 1 Pet. 2:8; Isa. 42:8; 48:11; Jn. 17:5; Psa. 68:18; Eph. 4:8; Jn. 5:18-23; 14:23; 16:15; 17:8-11; Col. 1:19).

Footnotes

(Note: No corresponding number in body of original documentation.) The 1985 Kingdom Interlinear version reveals that the Greek literally says Jesus is “the God” (ho theos).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 46, 54
January 19, 1989

By R.J. Evans

Much is said in the Word of God, either directly or indirectly, about Christians being knit together. The apostle Paul told the Colossian brethren, “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love . . . and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Col. 2:2,19). A congregation of the Lord should consist of members knit together in the common bond of love and truth, working in harmony together, seeking to build up the cause of Christ. In order for a congregation to be “knit together in love, ” various essential characteristics must be prevalent. Several of these which come to mind at the moment are as follows:

1. The elders must be working together among themselves. In other words, there must be a harmonious relationship among them all. Elders must be communicating with each other. They should be meeting together often, discussing and planning so that they can effectively carry out the important work which has been entrusted to them. The responsibility of overseeing the total work of the local church belongs to the elders. But too often, and in too many churches, elders are doing primarily deacon’s work and the actual work ,of the elders is being left undone and wanting. However, when the work of “serving tables” is given over to the deacons, the elders can then fully concentrate on the spiritual needs of the local church.

In order for elders to truly work together, they all must have a genuine love for the truth. They are bound by the pattern for the church and its work found in the New Testament. They are not at liberty to do as they please (2 Jn. 9). God’s truth and the spiritual good of the local church must at all times have priority over self-will and personal preferences.

Also, in maintaining a spirit of “togetherness” among the elders, there must exist the right attitude and proper respect one for another at all times. This may sometimes involve overlooking such things as minor personality differences, little idiosyncrasies, etc.

But most importantly, elders must be fully qualified for their office. They must not meet some or most of the qualifications – they must meet them all (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1)! Now some may be wider in scope in meeting these qualifications than others. For example, one elder may be able to teach in a public manner more effectively than another. But each elder still must meet every qualification! A congregation is headed for disaster when elders are not qualified and/or if they are not working together. Furthermore, if elders are not “working together” among themselves, there is little hope for the congregation of which they are overseeing to accomplish much “working together.” If, perhaps the congregation does, it is in spite of the elders – not because of them. “And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mk. 3:25).

2. The congregation and the elders must be communicating with one another. This is a two-way street. The elders have a responsibility toward the congregation; the congregation has a responsibility toward the elders. The elders are required to be examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:3), take the oversight (1 Pet. 5:2), take heed to the flock (Acts 20:28), rule well (1 Tim. 5:17), feed the flock (Acts 20:28), and watch for souls (Heb. 13:17). The congregation must know the elders (1 Thess. 5:12), esteem the elders (1 Thess. 5:13), be submissive to the elders (Heb. 13:17), be at peace with one another (1 Thess. 5:13), obey the elders (Heb. 13:17), remember and imitate the elders (Heb. 13:7), and call the elders when in need (Jas. 5:14).

We hear on every hand about the failure to communicate – in government, in the home, in business, and in the Lord’s church. When a congregation is plagued with a communication gap between the elders and members there can be no progress. An atmosphere must prevail where the members feel free to communicate with the elders. Yes, the elders make the final decisions, but avenues of communication need to be open so that the members have opportunities to offer suggestions, ask questions, etc. This, in turn, affords the elders an opportunity to “feel the pulse of the brethren.” The elders must make sure that the congregation is well informed as to what is expected of them and as to what is going on. Elders must guard against leading the members into believing that their work and their decisions are “deep dark secrets.” Effective ways and means must be utilized so that the elders can inform the congregation of their decisions and go over with them the details of their decisions and plans. Each local situation determines what would be the most expedient in accomplishing the aforementioned. Open communication between the congregation and the elders is imperative!

3. Everyone must have a desire to please God, rather than self. Often, in order for the “knit together” atmosphere to prevail, personal preferences and matters of opinion must be kept to ourselves. Where opinionism, radicalism and hobbyism. reign – chaos, confusion, strife and contention results.

A deep abiding love for truth is essential to the genuine spiritual growth of any congregation. Where there is not a sincere desire to please God, we then become susceptible and vulnerable to many evil consequences. When we love not the truth, we can be deceived by unrighteouness (2 Thess. 2:10); we are apt to turn our ears away from hearing the truth (2 Tim. 4:4); we may resist the truth (2 Tim. 3:8); we may speak evil of the truth (2 Pet. 2:2); we may hinder others from obeying the truth (Gal. 5;7); and, last but not least, if we have not a desire for and love for God and his truth, we shall be eternally lost. “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10).

4. Untimely talk and gossip must be eliminated. What has occurred and has been settled in a congregation rive, ten or fifteen years ago is gone, past and should be forgotten. Con tinually bringing up old incidents and problems contributes very little to the up-building of a local church. In fact, it will keep the morale of a congregation at a low ebb, incessantly. Accomplishments which may have taken years of hard work to build up, can be rapidly torn down by a few destructive tongues. Untimely, damaging talk and character assassinations destroy churches! Also, if and when there are occasions to discuss problems and grievances, they must be discussed in a constructive manner, not a destructive one!

Most of the problems which arise among us on a local level usually have their beginning between two individuals. They often become “congregational” problems, prematurely and unnecessarily, because someone has done too much talking. This should not be! We must be guided in these matters strictly by the principles and commands which are set forth in Matthew 18:15-17.

If there is an accusation against an elder, it too, must be handled correctly and scripturally. The apostle Paul told Timothy, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:19-20).

I once heard a bit of advice that I would like to share with you at this point: “We should say nothing about others that we would be unwilling to write out and sign.”

5. There must be a willingness to work on the part of all. We are not working “together” when only two or three are doing all the work. “There is nothing for me to do” is often heard, but it just will not stand. Surely, in the place where you worship, you can visit others, conduct home Bible classes, invite your neighbors to services, and a host of other things. In any local church, there is so much we all can do!

A working congregation is a happy congregation; a happy congregation is a working congregation! Are we working? Are we happy? Are we “knit together in love”?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 41-42
January 19, 1989

By Tom Oglesby

On December 1-3 of 1988, a large group of brethren came together for the purpose of discussing the issues that have divided the Lord’s church for the past thirty or forty years. Several brethren on both (all would be a better word) sides of the controversy participated as speakers and moderators. This article is not intended as a review of each speech or a commentary on the varied views expressed during the course of the discussion. However, I would like to state my general impressions of the meetings and of the potential results.

In contrast to the bitterness frequently manifested in the early years of this conflict, the general spirit displayed during this discussion was cordial and amiable. There was a continual affirmation of the need to love one another, which is certainly true, and generally a determined effort was made to avoid malicious labels. Accommodative labels are necessary and useful, especially in a discussion of differences; however, labels that are inaccurate and mean spirited are wrong and counter productive. I have no problem with a brother calling me an “anti” so long as he correctly identifies what I am “against. ” On the other hand, to call me an “orphan-hater” is both inaccurate and mean spirited.

The suggestion was made repeatedly that if we just loved each other more, we could solve our differences as if the division resulted simply from a lack of love and brotherly kindness. Certainly in any schism and in the heat of controversy, brethren on both sides may exhibit bitterness, malice and even hatred. This is regrettable and absolutely wrong regardless of which side is guilty. However, any careful listener to this and other discussions on these issues knows that our differences are much deeper than that and are growing even deeper. This good spirit that prevailed might cause some to think that we are drawing closer together. Nothing could be further from the truth! If some of the speakers are representative of the “liberal” mainstream, and I believe that they are, the gap between us is a vast and uncrossable chasm. There were times when the thought occurred to me that we were not even playing in the same ball park let alone on the same team. In fairness to some, let me state that not all brethren on the other side espoused such blatant modernism; if fact, some clearly repudiated the ultra liberalism which characterized several of the presentations.

During this discussion, it occurred to me that I was actually listening to real, genuine “Church of Christ” preachers rather than “gospel” preachers. Their concept of the church, biblical authority and evangelism is as denominational and unscriptural as any proclaimed by the sectarians over the years. I thought that my tolerance level for shock had been reached long ago; however, this rank modernism coming from the mainstream of liberal churches shocked me much more than I could have anticipated. When brethren deny that the Bible is a pattern in any respect, declare that commands, examples and necessary inferences are old hat, proclaim the need for a new system of hermeneutics to reach the modern world, and declare that the church can do anything that is not specifically prohibited, we have a denomination in spirit if not in name.

In view of all this, the pertinent questions are: Are such meetings worthwhile and should this one have taken place? I must confess that my initial reaction when it was announced ranged from opposition on the grounds of expediency to abject indifference. After the fact however, I am convinced that such meetings if properly conducted do accomplish good particularly in the following ways:

1. They stimulate our study and thinking. If the callous proclamation of rank modernism and the courageous defense of truth by able brethren does not stir your spirit, you are surely sitting upon the scrapheap of apathy and indifference.

2. They reinforce our understanding of and dependence on the Scriptures. The only alternative to submission to Bible authority is dependence on subjective feelings and tastes. It is obvious that some of our brethren have opted for such and innovations have multiplied as a result. In contrast, faithful and able men declared that there is no substitute for a “thus saith the Lord” and properly identified such a standard is the only basis for acceptable unity.

3. They define the tremendous differences among our institutional brethren and perhaps will salvage among them those who still love the truth. It is difficult for me to imagine Johnny Ramsey and Roy Lanier yoked together with Mac Lynn and Bill Swetmon. Johnny especially appeared to feel much more comfortable with his “anti” brethren than -with the modernists who dominated the institutional platform.

4. Perhaps, meetings like this can deter us from repeating the mistakes of the past. If seeing the potential for apostasy will cause faithful preachers to redouble efforts to instill and maintain in ourselves and in our brethren that confidence in and love for the truth of God’s word that is so essential to our relationship with God, then such meetings are worth’ much more than the effort and time put into them.

To those faithful brethren who organized and participated in this discussion, I commend and salute your efforts and your spirited and capable defense of the gospel. There may be more that we can do in seeking unity under the sovereignty of God’s word, but surely we can do no less than allow the truth its opportunity to permeate the minds and hearts of our estranged brethren. Our love for them and the truth is too great to quit the battle now and timidly accept the loss of their souls.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, p. 48
January 19, 1989