Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good to all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:7-10).

This year has been a disaster for the farmers in the Midwest. Because of a drought at the time corn was tasseling, the crops will produce much less than average yield this year. Some farmers will lose not only a year’s wages, but also the cost of planting their crops. Some will be forced into bankruptcy; others will become disheartened and quit.

Paul used the metaphor of farming in teaching the lesson “whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.” In verse 9 of the text before us, he was concerned that some Christians would become disheartened, like some modern farmers, and quit. Consequently, he exhorted, “Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” Please consider this text with me.

Christians Should Be Busy In Well Doing

Man has a choice regarding how to spend his life. He can use his life to “sow to the flesh” or “sow to the Spirit.” We are free moral beings. However, God’s will is that we devote our lives to sowing to the Spirit. Just as Jesus “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38), Christians should spend their lives doing good. We are created for good works (Eph. 2: 10) and are exhorted to maintain good works (Tit. 1:16; 2:14; 3:1,8).

There is a limited time for sowing to the Spirit, just as farmers have a limited time to plant. Jesus taught as much when he said, “I must work the works of him, that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work” (Jn. 9:4). We have a limited time on earth to sow to the Spirit. There comes a time when it is too late to plant.

Reasons For Persevering In Well Doing

1. You reap what you sow. The eternal reward of heaven, life everlasting, is prepared for those who have spent their lifetime making choices to serve God by doing good. The eternal punishment of hell is reserved for those who have made a lifetime of decisions to sow to the flesh. We need to be reminded that a person cannot live the life of the wicked and die the death of the righteous; he cannot sow to the flesh and reap life everlasting.

2. To glorify God. A person should persevere in doing good in order that God may be glorified. God is glorified by a man’s loyal obedience to his will. Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Our age thinks that God is glorified by mouthing “Praise the Lord.” Religious broadcasters have taught this by example; nearly every other word is “praise the Lord.” One praises the Lord by how he lives. Although there is nothing wrong with saying “praise the Lord” or singing a hymn exhorting us to “praise the Lord,” we need to be reminded that God is praised by our lives.

3. To make the church grow. We need to persevere in well doing to make the church grow numerically and spiritually. If we become disheartened and quit serving God, the church will decrease in size. Many congregations are suffering from disheartened saints who are “keeping house” for the Lord. The result is a dead church which does little or nothing except go through the five acts of worship on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night; even this is done with little enthusiasm and zeal. Such a church cannot influence others to obey the gospel.

4. To secure our own salvation. Paul exhorted, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). My reaping everlasting life is contingent upon my first sowing to the Spirit.

Causes Of Weariness In Well Doing

Despite these facts, saints become weary in well doing. If we can identify some of the causes of becoming weary in well doing, perhaps we can better overcome the temptation to quit sowing to the Spirit.

1. Conflict with the ungodly world. Some people become tired of the continuous conflict with the ungodly world and give up the fight. They surrender to the world. I have experienced this feeling. While attending seminary in Indianapolis, I got tired of the continuous conflict with infidel teachers,who did not believe in miracles, the inspiration of the Bible, hell, etc. I was glad when I completed my degree program so that I would not have to be in that conflict rive days a week.

2. Ingratitude of those we serve. Sometimes we become disheartened because those who serve fail to express appreciation for that service. They are like the nine lepers whom Jesus healed who never returned to express gratitude (Lk. 17:11-19).

3. Indifference of others who should be serving. Some become discouraged and ready to quit because other Christians are not committed to serving. They do not have enough interest to attend Bible class, much less be involved in the work God has given us.

4. The size of the task before us. Sometimes we are reluctant to begin because of the size of the task before us. I have a stack of correspondence which needs to be filed; I have not begun because of how big the stack is. Sometimes when we perceive how much needs to be done in the local church, we hesitate to begin.

5. Opposition to plans to work. Where the local church is successful, the devil will raise up opposition. When this opposition comes, some will quit, not persevering in doing good. Not all opposition comes from without the church; some brethren oppose every suggestion for doing good saying, “This will never work” or “we tried this before and it did not work.”

6. Fatigue. Some experience what has been labeled as “burnout.” Someone observed that 90 percent of the work in the local church is done by 10 percent of the people. Because of the heavy demands on the time of the 10 percent, some quit.

7. Failure to see results. The failure to see positive results causes some to quit. The farmer throws in the towel because the crop did not produce. Christians quit because they do not see any results from their work. First of all, we need to be reminded that the harvest is “the end of the world” (Matt. 13:39) at the “resurrection of the just” (Lk. 14:14). Consequently, we should plant the seed and patiently await the harvest (Jas. 5:7). Secondly, we live among men who have been hardened in their sin by materialism, sensuality, and indifference; our age more nearly resembles that of an Ezekiel (2:3-8; 3:6-9) or Jeremiah than that of the apostles on Pentecost. Consequently, we should not expect to see the same number baptized in our age as they saw in theirs. Thirdly, we need to remember that our job is to plant and water; God’s work is to give the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-9). God does not demand that we baptize a lot of people; he commands us to be faithful (1 Cor. 4:2).

Remedy For Weariness In Well Doing

1. Prayer. If you are becoming weary or have already quit, recognize your sin and confess it to God in prayer. Ask his forgiveness and resolve to quit quitting. Ask God’s help to overcome the temptation to quit.

2. Bible study. The word of God is designed to give us “patience (hupomone. perseverance) and comfort” (Rom. 15:4). If you lack perseverance, you probably have not been feeding your soul the word of God. Recognize that you must feed on God’s word to find the spiritual strength to survive.

3. Brotherly encouragement. One of the purposes of the worship assemblies is “to provoke one another to love and good works” (Heb. 10:24). If you see yourself becoming weary in well doing, do not begin missing the worship assembly. There is never a time that you need the brotherly encouragement of other Christians more than at this time. Dropping out of the worship assemblies is taking yourself away from one of the supports which God has given us to help us persevere. Find a Christian friend to whom you can talk and with whom you can pray, to help you through this time of weariness in well doing.

4. Trust in God’s providence. If the circumstances look unfavorable, accept the present as being in the hands of a just and loving God. God will work out his own will in his own way. My fretting about matters will not change them. I need to busy myself doing God’s will and trust him to control the future.

Conclusion

As Paul concluded his chapter on the resurrection, he exhorted, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal.6:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, pp. 578, 598-599
October 6, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote Bill Humble, The Story of the Restoration (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation, 1969), p. 74.

The most serious issue that churches of Christ have faced in this century is church cooperation and “institutionalism” . . . . a substantial number of churches, have come to oppose such cooperative programs of evangelism as the Herald of Truth and the homes for orphans and aged, as they are presently organized. During the past fifteen years, many debates have been held, churches have divided, and fellowship has been broken. This is the most serious division, numbers-wise, that churches of Christ have suffered. Whether the division is final, or whether it can yet be healed, is yet to be determined.

This assessment of current conditions among Churches of Christ, written by a professor at a “Christian college,” is interesting for a number of reasons.

First, unlike many of his fellow observers, this author seems to take seriously the division among the churches, and seeks to state accurately the cause for it. There is no ridicule, or slander, no attempt to dismiss the division as unworthy of serious attention (as in “anti churches dying on the vine,” “drying up and withering away,” “only a few isolated pockets of anti-ism meeting in run-down buildings,” etc.), so often characteristic of attempts to describe the dreaded “antis.” Of course, thoughtful students recognize that the relative numerical strength or social prominence of a group has little or nothing to do with the validity of positions it may espouse or propound.

Again, the writer is fairer than most in pointing out that the objections of those who oppose the projects described are objections not to the work itself (that is, preaching the gospel or assisting legitimate needy cases) but rather to the organization of such projects currently active among the churches. Though there may be other questions involved (including who is responsible for certain works, who are the proper recipients, poor attitudes, high-handed coercion, blacklisting, ostracism of those who object, etc.), the main objections in this controversy have always been to the manner of organization – centralization of control among the churches, and human institutions encroaching upon the Divine body, the church.

Finally, the author seems to wish almost wistfully for some sort of future resolution to the controversy. It does not require astute perception of the past decades to realize that this is a futile hope, so long as those who promote such projects persist not only in pursuing everything labeled “good works” without any attempt at scriptural justification, but do so in a manner wholly inconsistent with a proper attitude toward those of us who may decline to participate. So long as such conditions exist, unity will be something, unfortunately, only to be written about, rather than actually obtained.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, p. 563
September 15, 1988

By Donald P. Ames

In the fall of 1956, York College (York, Nebr.) opened its doors to the public as a junior college. I had a part in working on the campus to prepare the school, and attended my first two years of college there. Already there was much discussion as to whether York College was a “church school” and whether or not churches would be allowed to contribute to it. I remember the strong (but compromising) stand the school took against church support, declaring the need to make the public understand that the church and school were two entirely separate organizations (and even how upset some of the school officials got when some of the early mail arrived addressed to York Christian College). Yet, because some on the board favored church support and they did not want to turn them against the school, it was written into the By-laws that the school would not accept church contributions (the By-laws can be changed – the charter could not).

During my two years at York College, I had quite a few discussions on what was the work of the church, as I studied my way out of liberalism (not knowing there were others of similar conviction at that time). I also participated in a debate among “preacher students” on whether or not York College was a “church school.” I remember it well, because Roy Lanier was head of the Bible Department and the two of us studied many topics together. He had loaned us his workbook (published by the Gospel Advocate) on the church to help in our opposition to the “church school” concept. We (David Gulley, Ron Anderson and myself) opposed not only church contributions to private colleges, but also rebutted his position on the sponsoring church as well. The discussion did not go very well for those in opposition, and at the end of the discussion they felt called upon to ask brother Lanier for some assistance. He had to back us up – after what we had done to his sponsoring church concept in the discussion. I felt then though that trouble lay ahead for the school on that subject in the future.

Over the years that followed, rumors erupted on several occasions of churches sending funds to the school – some pretty pointed. Dale Larson (then president) replied to such in a letter, flatly denying that the school was accepting church contributions. Finally one day while in Nebraska (having left there after my sophomore year), I got a chance to visit the school and asked brother Larson face-to-face about the obviously contradictory facts. It was then admitted that while the college was not accepting church contributions (“and have even sent some checks back because they were made out to the college”), they were accepting church contributions to the Bible department (that is about parallel to ear-marking a check to the United Fund for the Red Cross and trying to convince yourself you had not sent a contribution to the United Fund. All that does is free up money committed to that department, and hence more is available to the college. The end result is the very same, and you’re only kidding yourself.)

But hard times have hit York College in the last couple of years – financially and otherwise. Many of the teachers were laid off, law-suits were threatened, board members replaced, and other internal struggles contributed to a real crisis. A new board was selected and goals were set to “restore” the college to good standing. In the Christian Chronicle (July 1988) progress is reported as the school sought to put its troubles behind it. “More than $360,000 was raised in a June collection by more than 460 congregations in 36 states,” the article said (emphasis mine – DPA). “Gardner (the new president – DPA) expects proceeds to climb to about $400,000,” it went on to state.

Thus York College apparently has come full cycle and joined the other schools run by the liberals that openly are after church contributions to finance schools. Some people are apparently guided more by “situation ethics” than convictions, and the drift of the school into full liberalism is now well documented. How churches can justify supporting colleges and orphanages under boards separate and apart from the church and still object to contributing to a missionary society organized exactly the same way is beyond me. But, given a little more time and maybe they will be ready to swallow that as well. After all, look at what happened to York College! Brethren, you have drifted!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, p. 567
September 15, 1988

By Luther W. Martin

Why do men write “creeds”? Why not be content with Holy Scripture? Why substitute man written-creeds, in place of God-inspired Scripture? The word “creed” is not found in the Bible. But let me correct that by pointing out that “creed” comes from a Latin word credo, meaning “I believe,” So, one can find the word credo in the Latin Vulgate.

Synonyms for “creed” are such expressions as “rule of faith” or “symbol.” Now the word “rule” is a biblical word, in English. “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Also, “Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (Phil. 3:16-17, underscoring mine, LWM).

If one’s faith or belief is strong enough, then that one may be prompted to speak forth his “creed.” “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34; Luke 6:45).

Actually, each true Christian-to-be, expresses his “creed” . . . his, “I believe,” when, in the course of obeying the Gospel of Christ, he confesses his faith in Christ as the Son of the living God! But this all comes from Holy Scripture, not the writings of mere men! “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33). Or, in Romans 10:9-10 – “That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.”

The man from Ethiopia asked: “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:36-37).

The Apostle Peter expressed a God-given creed, when he responded to Christ’s question, by affirming, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:18). The church of Christ was founded upon belief in Christ’s divinity. Here again, it was and is, a God-given “creed.” So, you see, this writer is not opposed to a “creed,” as such; just so long as it is God-breathed by way of Holy Scripture, and not a “creed” based upon the commandments and doctrines of men (Matt. 15:9).

The sad fact about creeds of men is that they are divisive. You subscribe to your creed and I’ll subscribe to mine, and never the twain shall meet! A Baptist creed produces Baptists; a Methodist creed produces Methodists; while the New Testament produces Christians!

“For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name” (1 Cor. 1:11-14). Paul condemned divisions among the brethren at Corinth. Among the seven things God hates, is that of “one who sows discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:16). I affirm that writers of men’s creeds, sow discord among those who would otherwise be brethren!

How Scriptures Were Respected Before Roman Catholicism

Clement of Rome (Died ca. 99 A.D.): “You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them” (Letter to the Corinthians, Chp. 45).

Justin Martyr (Died 167 A.D.): “But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing (that the Scriptures err); and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext (for saying) that it is contrary (to some other) since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself” (Dialogue With Trypho, Ch. 65).

Irenaeus (Died 202 A.D.): “. . being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit” (Against Heresies, Bk. 2, Ch. 28).

Clement of Alexandria (Died ca. 215 A.D.): “I could adduce ten thousand Scriptures of which not ‘one title shall pass away’ without being fulfilled; for the mouth of the Lord the Holy Spirit has spoken these things” (Exhortation To The Heathen, (Ch. 8:82).

The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) was convened by Emperor Constantine. The “creed” which was drafted by this Council, did not mention the Scriptures. The twenty canons or rules drafted by this Council, make reference to two excerpts from Scripture without identifying them. This Council was attended by 315 Greeks and 3 Latins. Its proceedings were in the Greek language. Both the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church claim this Council as “theirs.” Rome’s claim is really “too little, too late.”

The First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) was convened by Emperor Theodosius. The “creed” drafted by this Council, contained in part: “He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures” (underscoring mine, LWM; The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Translated by Roy J. Deferrari, from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, p. 35). The four canons drafted by this Council made no reference to Scripture. There were 151 delegates in attendance; 150 were Greek, I was a Latin. This Council was also conducted in the Greek language.

Augustine, in a letter to Jerome (394-395 A.D.): “I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie. . . . If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author” (Letters, No. 28).

Ambrose (Died 397 A.D.): “And for this reason the divine Scripture all is called theopneustos because God inspired what the Spirit has spoken” (On the Holy Spirit, Bk. 3, Ch. 16).

Augustine, in a letter to Jerome (405 A.D.): “For, I admit to your charity that it is from those books alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it” (Letters, No. 82).

Jerome (Died 420 A.D.): “. . A am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired; but the Latin manuscripts of the Scriptures are proved to be faulty by the variations which all these exhibit, and my object has been to restore them to the form of the Greek original, from which my detractors do not deny that they have been translated” (Letters, No. 27).

Augustine, in his Reply To Faustus the Manichaean (Died 430 A.D.): “If we are perplexed by an apparent contradicton in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. . . . But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an en to that authority altogether, or involves it in helpless confusion” (Book 11, Ch. 5).

Theodoret (Died 460 A.D.): “They said, however, that all of the Psalms were not by David, but some were by others. But I say nothing about those; what do I care? . . . since all of them were written by the divine inspiration of the Spirit” (On the Psalms, Preface).

Council of Orange (529 A.D.) whose 25 canons or rules contain 44 specific references to Holy Scripture, and I only, reference to the Apocrypha. In the last portion of their proceedings, we copy as follows: “And thus according to the statements of the Holy Scriptures written above, or the explanation of the ancient Fathers, God being propitious, we ought to proclaim and to believe. .

“Innumerable are the testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures which can be brought forward to prove grace, but they are passed over out of the desire for brevity” (Enchiridion Symbolorum, by Denzinger, page 80). (See also The Church Teaches, Documents of the Church In English Translation, By Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary’s College, St. Marys, Kansas pp. 225-228.)

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, pp. 564-565
September 15, 1988