Truth Magazine

By Aude McKee

Note: Every quotation from Catholic writers is made from a book bearing the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church.

Introduction:

I. Thus far in our study we have traced the origin and early growth of the Lord’s church. We have also given attention to the warnings about apostasy sounded by the Holy Spirit.

II. Last week we traced the rise of the Catholic System.

A. Departures came in teaching, worship, work, and religious practices.

B. The rise of Catholicism can most vividly be traced in the departures from God’s pattern in organization.

1. Organization of the New Testament church.

a. Christ – head of the church universal.

b. Each local congregation overseen by elders (bishops).

2. Three fundamental points were made regarding elders:

a. Each local church had a plurality.

b. Elders in each local church were equal in authority.

c. The elders had authority only in and over the local church that appointed them.

3. These fundamental principles were ignored. Elders extended their authority until finally in 606 A.D., Boniface III, Patriarch of Rome, declared himself the Universal Bishop. It took hundreds of years for the church to go into apostasy, but eventually the process was completed.

III. Today we study some of the basic things that make Catholicism what it is.

Discussion:

I. Attitude Toward the Bible.

A. The Catholic Church makes the claim that the Bible is a Catholic Book.

1. Following are quotations from an advertisement placed in the newspaper by the Supreme Council of Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, St. Louis, MO.:

a. “Yes, the Bible is truly a Catholic book. They were members of the Catholic Church who, under God’s inspiration, wrote the New Testament in its entirety.”

b. “It was the Catholic Church which treasured it and gave it to the world in its original and unaltered form.”

2. In the light of this claim, the following questions need to be answered: (If the Bible is a Catholic book, then . . . . )

a. Why is it not accepted as their authority in religion?

b. Why does the name “Catholic” or “Catholic Church” not appear therein?

c. Why is there no mention made in the Bible of the “Pope,” or of his exalted position in the church?

d. Why is there no reference to Peter as the Vicar of Christ on earth or of his being the head of the church?

e. Why does the Bible say that Peter was a married man (1 Cor. 9:5)?

f. Why is praying to Mary not mentioned in the Bible?

g. Why is the Bible so silent about the doctrines of “Purgatory,” “Limbo,” “The Rosary, ” “The Mass,” “Auricular Confession,” or “Indulgences”?

h. Why does the Bible expressly forbid the making or bowing down to images (Ex. 20:4-5), and the calling of a “priest” by the name of “Father” (Matt. 23:5-12)?

3. The fact of the matter is, the Bible was written between 1500 B.C. and 96 A.D., hundreds of years before the Catholic Church was born. The Catholic Church is too young to be the mother of the Bible – a mother must be older than her offspring! The Bible is not a Catholic book!

B. The Scriptures are not inspired and are not infallible.

1 . “Is the Bible the Infallible Word of God? . . . The Catholic’s answer is a decisive ‘No!’ Indeed, it is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the Scripture is the Word of God and what books certainly belong to the Bible. The Bible is not its own witness. It is like a will without a signature or probate. It is infallible only because of and to the extent of the Church’s infallible witness. Deny the Church’s infallible witness, and the Bible is at once reduced to the level of mere Oriental literature and utterly devoid of divine inspiration. The Catholic Church alone guarantees infallibly the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate, the contents of the Canon, and the inspiration of all the 72 books of Holy Writ. As St. Augustine could rightly say in the 5th century, ‘I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the authority of the Church.’ The Bible, therefore, is the infallible Word of God only inasmuch as the interpretation of the infallible Church makes it so” (The Catholic’s Question Box [Herbst), p. 653).

2. See 1 Cor. 2:1-13; Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Thess. 2:13.

C. The Scriptures are not sufficient.

1. “The New Testament does not bear the marks of having been drawn up to serve as a code of Christian belief. Neither does it anywhere direct us to take Scripture as our sole Rule of Faith, or free us from the obligation of believing more than is clearly taught in its pages. Therefore, to assume that the Bible is the sole and adequate rule of Christian Faith may perhaps be the only alternative left after rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church; but neither Scripture nor history seems to afford any warrant for such an assumption” (E.R. Hull, What the Catholic Church is and What She Teaches, p. 2).

2. See 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3.

D. Traditions are authority.

1. “The unwritten traditions which we receive from the mouth of Christ himself by the apostles or from the apostles themselves, have come down to us as if delivered from hand to hand on an equality with the books of the Old and New Testament” (Council of Trent, 16th century).

2. “It would be well to remember that the Bible was never intended to take the place of the living, infallible teacher, the Church, but was written to explain or insist upon a teaching, already preached. . . . The Catholic Church a divine, living, infallible voice, guarantees to every one not merely the written word, but also the unwritten teaching of divine tradition” (Catholic Box, pp. 653-654).

3. See 1 Cor. 4:5; John 20:30-31; Eph. 3:3-4; Rev. 22:18-19; Deut. 4:1-2; 2 John 9-11; Jude 3.

E. The Common Man is Unable to Interpret the Scriptures.

1. “That in matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one confiding in his own judgment shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures contrary to that which has been held and still is held by the Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred writ; or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers; even though such interpretations should never be published” (Council of Trent, 16th century).

2. See Luke 10:21; Isa. 35:8; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 4:11.

II. Papal Infallibility.

A. “We the sacred council approving, teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed; that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when discharging the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal church, he by the divine assistance promised to him in the Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed the church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one – which may God avert – presume to contradict our definition, let him be anathema” (Declaration of Papal Infallibility made by Pope Pius IX, and adopted by the Vatican Council of 1870).

B. There have been numerous contradictions between popes

1. In 1088, Pope Paschall II (and in 1145 Pope Eugenius III) authorized duelling. In 1509, Julius II (and in 1560, Pius IV) forbade it.

2. In 867, Pope Hadrian declared civil marriages to be valid. In 1800, Pius VII condemned them.

3. In 1585, Pope Sixtus V published an edition of the Bible and by a bull recommended it to be read. Pius

VII condemned the reading of it.

4. In 1520, Pope Urban Vill excommunicated the famous Italian Galileo and put him in jail because he taught that the earth was round and revolves around the sun. Popes today state that Urban was wrong in condemning the teachings of Galileo.

C. For about 40 years in the 14th century, three men claimed the papacy.

D. Prior to 1870, Catholics denied Papal Infallibility. After 1870, they had to believe it or be guilty of heresy.

E. There have been many wicked popes. Archbishop Purcell, who debated Alexander Campbell, said: “Without doubt some popes are in hell.”

III. Primacy of Peter.

A. “Sitting in that chair in which Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, sat to the close of life, the Catholic Church recognizes in his person the most exalted degree of dignity, and the full jurisdiction not based on constitutions, but emanating from no less authority than from God Himself. As the Successor of St. Peter and the true and legitimate Vicar of Jesus Christ, he therefore, presides over the Universal Church, the Father and Governor of all the faithful, of Bishops, also, and of all other prelates, be their station, rank, or power, what they may be” (Council of Trent, 16th Cent.).

B. Catholic position can be summed up in three points.

1. Peter was appointed by Christ to be his chief representative and successor and head of the church.

2. Peter went to Rome and established the “diocese.”

3. Peter’s successors (popes) succeeded to his authority.

C. Papal claim based in part on Matthew 16.18-19.

1. “Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.”

a. Petros is masculine gender – Peter’s name. b. Petra is feminine gender and means “a rock, ledge, cliff.”

2. Jesus had just asked, “Whom do men say I . . . am?” Then he asked, “Whom do you say I am?” Peter replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then the Lord said, “Upon this rock, I will build my church.”

3. The church was built on Jesus Christ.

a. Isa. 28:16.

b. Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 3:11.

D. There is no such office as “pope” in the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:29-31; Eph. 4:11-12).

E. Peter never claimed or assumed authority and superiority (Luke 22:24-27; Gal. 2:11; Acts 10:25-26; 1 Pet. 5:1).

1. All the apostles were given the same authority Peter had (Matt. 18:18).

2. Ability to remit and retain sins (by being allowed to reveal the gospel terms of pardon) was given to all the apostles (John 20:23).

3. Paul was not behind the chiefest apostles (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11).

F. Peter was a married man (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

G. It cannot be proved that Peter was ever in the city of Rome.

1. Paul wrote the letter to the Roman Christians. In it he saluted 27 people but not Peter. In the Roman letter he did not mention the pope.

2. Paul wrote four books from Rome but never mentioned Peter or the papacy.

3. Peter wrote two books of the New Testament. He did not mention Rome or the pope.

4. No other writer of the New Testament ever mentions Peter and Rome together.

Conclusion:

1. As we close this lesson, we need to be reminded of these basic principles:

a. John 8:32.

b. John 17:17.

c. 2 John 9-11.

d. John 12:48.

2. There is not a commodity more precious than truth. May we search for it, believe it, and obey it.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 360-362
June 16, 1988

By James W. Adams

In my first full time local work in Vivian, Louisiana during 1935-37, Gertrude and I, being romantic newlyweds, listened with great appreciation to a beautiful, popular love song which was sung constantly over the radio. It was popularized by a Bing Crosby recording, but we heard it sung mostly by a woman singer by the name of Lee, and she gave to it a haunting beauty that lingers yet in our minds after all these years. It was called, “Red Sails in the Sunset.”

A few days ago, I ran across a statement from the pen of a nineteenth century, English preacher by the name of Alexander Foote which brought “our song” back to memory. He said, “Of all the passions that possess mankind, the love of novelty rules most the mind; in search of this from realm to realm we roam, our fleets come fraught with every folly home. ” His figurative description of the results of an inordinate love for novelty suggested “Red Sails in the Sunset” as an appropriate title for this article.

Red is a symbol of danger. Couple this with Foote’s observation that the “fleets” of the love of novelty roam the world in search of the new and different and come home “fraught with ever folly,” and you have the thrust of this article. Among conservative Christians today (encouraged by preachers) ~there is a growing affinity for the new and different and a commensurate lack of enthusiasm for just plain old Jerusalem gospel. We are caught up in the backwash of the “Social Gospel,” but perish the thought that we should acknowledge it. When I observe that large crowds will gather to hear a discussion of current social problems ninety percent of which is psychology, sociology, and human opinion supported by generous citations of secular authorities in these fields and ten percent Scripture to give it doctrinal respectability, and embarrassingly small crowds gather to hear a Bible discussion of the great fundamentals of God’s eternal scheme for the redemption of sinners, the correctness of the observation made above (i.e., “we are caught up in the backwash of the Social Gospel”) is incontrovertible.

That we are to be governed by the Bible in social relationships is not denied, consequently, the fact that it is our duty to teach every Bible principle relating to them I accept without argument. However, there is a vast difference between preaching what the Scriptures teach on these matters, and discussing them and seeking solutions of problems in this realm from the standpoint of human philosophy, psychology, and sociology. For example, it is the duty of the “older women to teach the younger women to be keepers at home” (Tit. 2:4,5). No one denies that this is a work in which a church as such may engage. Yet, this does not justify a church as such arranging, advertising, and conducting a course in “home economics.” A church must teach people to “maintain good works for necessary uses” (Tit. 3:14) and “to labor, working with their hands the thing which is good, that they may have to give to them that have need” (Eph. 4:28), but this does not authorize a church to arrange, advertise, and conduct courses in carpentry, plumbing, and secretarial science. It would seem that conservative brethren, of all people, should recognize this, but it appears they do not!

I commonly hear such expressions as: “Church of Christ doctrine; Church of Christ tradition; we need to project a new image of the church or change the image of the church; continuous cleansing; all of us are brethren in error, hence we should broaden our acceptance and participation in religion to include the pious among the denominations; a church is not an organic functional entity; any act peculiar to being a Christian may be performed by both the individual or a church.” These are but a few of the novel concepts vocalized foreign to the Scriptures. There are many more that space forbids mentioning, all of which, in my judgment, constitute “red sails” of Novelty’s “fleet” bringing home from the far reaches of the ocean of religious confusion about us cargoes of “folly” that may well presage the “sunset” of our efforts to maintain simple, uncorrupted, New Testament Christianity in faith and practice.

On one of the pages of a book in my library, “The New Dictionary of Thoughts,” I wrote some years ago, “Somewhere between the chains of mere human tradition and the charms of novelty lies the certainty of truth.” This is not true because I wrote it, but I wrote it because it is true. Things are not right because they are old and traditional, neither are they wrong. It is just as true that things are not wrong because they are new, but neither are they right. Things are right or wrong in religion to the extent that they are in harmony or out of harmony with revealed truth contained in the Scriptures.

The young woman of the song to which reference has been made prayed earnestly that “red sails in the sunset might bring her lover home safe.” We should, conversely speaking, watch and pray lest the “red sails” of Novelty’s ships load us down with the self-destructive “folly” of the wild fanaticism, rampant emotionalism, and open fellowship of socially evolving, modern Christendom and derail us from the safe tracts of a “Thus saith the Lord.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 385, 407
July 7, 1988

By Wayne S. Walker

One of the unconscious phrases that tells so much about the condition of our society is the response that one receives from many when talking about a young couple a few years after their marriage. “Oh, are they still together?” The prevalence of divorce is one of our great national tragedies. However, this problem is not limited to those “in the world.” We hear with increasing frequency of those in the church, even gospel preachers, becoming involved in a divorce situation. The immorality so rampant in the world usually finds it way among members of the church. Why is this so? The answer is temptation. The apostle Paul said that the Old Testament was written for our learning. In this article let us look at an example of one who met and overcame temptation.

Turn to Genesis 39:1-23 so that we may study about Joseph and temptation. Most of us, I am sure, are familiar with the story of Joseph. He was the eleventh of twelve sons in the family of Jacob. Because he was the older son of Jacob’s beloved Rachel, his father showed him favoritism which provoked jealousy on the part of his older brothers. Eventually, Joseph’s brothers sold him to a band of Ishmaelites or Midianites, who in turn took him to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh’s guard. Though but a slave, he proved so trustworthy that his master made him the overseer of his house. But Potiphar’s wife cast lustful eyes on Joseph and presented him with temptation. There are three characters in this story who need to be considered.

I Potiphar’s wife was a temptress. We have other examples of seductive women in the Bible. Tamar tempted her father-in-law Judah to commit fornication (Gen. 39). Delilah apparently seduced Samson to enter into an illicit relationship with her which ultimately resulted in his downfall (Judg. 16). Bathsheba lured David to engage in adultery (2 Sam. 11). Of course, David’s actions constituted sin, but one of the unanswered questions of God’s word is, what was Bathsheba doing bathing herself in a place that was in full view of the king’s rooftop where he very likely was often to be found? Nothing said here is intended to diminish the sinfulness of the behavior of any of the men mentioned but, as one of my history teachers said, it takes two to tango!

To me, Potiphar’s wife is an excellent example of the kind of woman that Solomon described and warned against in Proverbs 7:10-14 (and with seven-hundred wives and three-hundred concubines, Solomon ought to know): “And there a woman met him, With the attire of a harlot, and a crafty heart. She was loud and rebellious, Her feet would not stay at home. At times she was outside, at times in the open square, Lurking at every comer. So she caught him and kissed him; With an impudent face she said to him: ‘I have peace offerings with me; Today I have paid my vows.”‘ I hate to sound “down on women” too much, but I fear that there are far too many ladies in the church today who, unconsciously I hope, are leaving the impression with men that they are “easy” or like harlots by the way they dress, act, and speak. The feminism and freedom for women that characterizes today’s society has had far too great an impact on those who are to be godly women. For example, I am appalled just at what some young women wear to church services, let alone what they probably wear in other places.

The New Testament ad dresses this subject. Certain ly, men are to guard their hearts that they do not look at a woman to lust after her and thus commit adultery with her in their heart (Matt. 5:28). But women should help the men in this area by adorning themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation (1 Tim. 2:9). Godly women will not seek to make themselves attractive to others solely on the basis of their outward appearance, whether it be by gaudy dress or by skimpy attire, but rather on the basis of “the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Pet. 3:34). While it is unfortunate, it is also true that young men may desire a certain kind of girl to date but another kind of girl to marry. Young ladies who are Christians will strive to be the kind of girl that they want to marry.

II. Joseph was the one faced with the temptation. We, too, are faced with all sorts of temptation today. We need to understand the nature of temptation and the consequences of yielding to it. “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1:14-15). Temptation is made possible because of the lusts within us. That is why John tells us not to love the world with its lust of the flesh, Just of the eyes, and pride of life (1 Jn. 2:15-17). And the end result of giving in to temptation is death – not just physical death, although that is sometimes the case, but spiritual, eternal death (Rom. 6:23; Rev. 21:8).

Like many do today, Joseph could have offered excuses to justify his going ahead with Potiphar’s wife. He might have reasoned, “I’m young and have a right to sow a few wild oats.” In fact, Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery at the tender age of seventeen. But he understood the principle stated by Paul in 1 Timothy 4:12: “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example of the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” He might have thought, “I’m far away from home and no one else will ever know.” Unfortunately, other people usually do learn of our sins. “And be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. 32:23). And even if no one else on earth will ever know, God will know (Psa. 139:7-12). Or he might have said, “It’s my own life and I’ll do with it whatever I want to.” But that is not true, especially for the child of God. “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Rather than throwing in the towel, Joseph overcame this temptation by saying, “No!”, by exercising self-control. Whenever we are faced with a temptation like Joseph, whether it be to commit fornication, drink alcoholic beverages, abuse drugs, watch pornographic movies, read filthy literature, tell dirty jokes, lie, cheat, steal, disobey the laws of the land, or whatever, may we have the courage of our convictions that characterized Joseph to stand by the principles of righteousness that we know to be true from God’s word. “And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore . . . I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:25-27).

III. The third character in this story that needs our consideration is God. Joseph recognized that to lie with Potiphar’s wife would in fact be a sin against God. Yes, it would be a great wickedness against Potiphar’s wife, against Potiphar himself, against Joseph’s own body, and against Joseph’s family who brought him up to do better, as well. But all sin is primarily against God. When David sinned with Bathsheba he acknowledged in his prayer to the Lord, “Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight” (Psa. 51:4). Whenever we think about doing something that is a sin, we need to consider that it will be a violation of the very will of God himself (1 Jn. 3:4). That might help us stop and think twice before doing it.

Yes, God knows when we sin. And God hates the sin that we commit. But God also wants to help us overcome sin. Jehovah is not some mean, nasty taskmaster who is just waiting for us to sin so that he can gleefully mark it down in his little black book and then look forward with joy to casting us into hell because of it forever and ever. He has promised us assistance. “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13). However, it is up to us to find that way of escape that we might take advantage of the Lord’s aid. “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16).

How does God provide this help, this way of escape? One way is through his word that he has revealed to us. David wrote, “Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You” (Psa. 119:11). In this written word we have an account of the life of Jesus who left “us an example, that you should follow His steps: Who committed no sin, Nor was guile found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:21-22). Jesus was tempted in all points like we are, so he understands what we have to endure; yet, he did so without sin (Heb. 4:15). When Jesus faced those temptations, he resisted Satan by relying upon God’s word. “It is written. . . . It is written again. . . . For it is written” (Matt. 4:1-11). If we develop this same dependence upon the Scriptures and use them as Jesus did, we can “resist the devil and he will flee from” us (Jas. 4:7).

Conclusion

I cannot think of a finer example, apart from our Lord, of how to meet and overcome temptation than Joseph, unless it be Daniel and his three friends. I would hope that, as we seek to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, their main heroes will not be war generals, television actors, movie stars, or rock singers, but the great men and women of faith found in God’s word. These stories are recorded to thrill our hearts, raise our hopes, and strengthen our resolve to keep ourselves unspotted from the world. May we turn to them often for comfort and encouragement in our struggles against temptation and sin. And may they draw us closer to the Lord that we might be more like him who died to save us from our sins.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 364-365
June 16, 1988

By Leon Mauldin

Avoid Occasions of Stumbling

Jesus encountered the “philosophy of negation” during his ministry on earth. When he was questioned as to why his disciples did not observe the tradition of religiously washing their hands before eating, he replied, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; he shall not honor his father or his mother. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3-6).

The tradition they devised was, if one had given his gift to the Lord, when it came to helping his needy parents he could say “Corban” (that is, a gift [to God], Mark 7:11). Since he had already given to God, he had no further obligation to “contribute” to relieve his parents. By this accepted line of reason and explanation, they neglected God’s commandment governing the honoring of one’s parents. They had thus denied the law of its force, and robbed it of its power and real meaning. This is the “philosophy of negation” that is addressed in this article. We are dealing with the fundamental problem of gainsaying the word of God.

Unfortunately, the Pharisees of Matthew 15 were not the last to try to somehow circumvent God’s revealed will. I remember a class in which the text discussed pertained to the eating of meat (either Rom. 14 or 1 Cor. 8). A seemingly ill-prepared teacher looked at the text he had just read aloud, pondered over the implications for a moment, and then said, “Well, if I ran into someone who believed it was wrong to eat meat, I would teach him, but I’m going to eat meat! ” His reasoning was the philosophy of negation. He, like the Pharisees who refused to honor their parents, was essentially refusing to do what the passage said. He was negating God’s will regarding sensitivity to one’s brethren, and the kind of concern which should govern one’s behavior lest he be guilty of causing one to stumble. The bottom line is that if it ever came down to it, that teacher was prepared to disregard what God had said through the apostle: “Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble” (1 Cor. 8:13). The attitude which negates the principle of this passage is not the spirit which converts sinners to Christ, nor does it edify weak Christians.

Yet some negate the force of this passage by reasoning that there is always someone who will object to anything you do. Therefore, they argue that since you “can’t please everybody,” they will just do as they please. They may even decide that they don’t care what anyone thinks about what they do.

It may well be that no subject has been “reasoned around” more than has been the case with church discipline. Just as the Pharisees made their argumentation as to why they did not have to honor and provide for their parents, and then disregarded God’s law which clearly required such, many will enumerate the many reasons why discipline is not or should not be practiced. The Bible says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thess. 3:6). But we are told that you might act too quickly. Others say that you just can’t know all the necessary information or circumstances that you would need to know in order to take such action. Still others caution that you might run some off. And then there is always someone who will say, “Well, we all make mistakes; who among us has not sinned?” Thus when the philosophy of negation does it work, you end up with the very opposite situation as that which the Lord intended. Such gainsaying contradicts the Word of God. The result of such reasoning is that some brethren are willing to let year after year pass by, and let problems slide (and grow into bigger problems), and be like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand!

These often heard statements can be easily countered by careful students of God’s Word. Though it is certainly true that faithful Christians do not want to act too quickly, Titus 3:10 still reads, “A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse.” To say, “We don’t want to act too quickly” simply must not be allowed to nullify that command. There are some problems for which more time is not the solution: “And some save, snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 22).

Likewise, to say, “Who among us has not sinned?” (in the above context) is but an ill-disguised attempt to negate the authority of God’s Word which demands corrective action. It would seem that no church had more problems than the church at Corinth, but Paul still said to “put away the wicked man (the fornicator) from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). He said, “not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat” (v. 11). It is also amazing how selective one can be as he says, “We all sin.” He may mean that he expects tolerance when it comes to himself, his family, and his friends, but don’t be surprised if you o6serve antithetical strictness when it comes to the conduct of others.

In Luke 10 when Jesus was questioned as to what one should do to inherit eternal life, he answered by asking the inquirer what is written in the law. He answered, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself” (Lk. 10:27). Jesus answered, “Thou hast answered right: this do and thou shalt live” (v. 28). “But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, and who is my neighbor?” (v. 29) If you take the commandment as it stands, to love your neighbor, you would help those with whom you came in contact as you had opportunity and ability (as Jesus demonstrated by proceeding to tell the story of the “good Samaritan”). But the term “neighbor” became hard to define for this man who questioned Jesus. After all, how close does one have to live before he is a neighbor? You see, if you can raise enough problems and difficulties with determining who a neighbor is, that puts you back where you started (in most instances) with loving/helping friends and/or relatives – those whom you naturally were inclined to assist all along. -Others are simply not included. it seems the very question “Who is my neighbor?” in this case was intended to negate the command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

The church at Thessalonica was concerned with winning souls. Located in the Roman province of Macedonia, Paul commended them, “For from you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to Godward is gone forth” (1 Thess. 1:8). The Lord expects us likewise to be concerned with converting others to Christ; first at home, and elsewhere to the full extent of our ability. But do we instead hear ourselves saying, “I know these people here; none of them is interested”? Rather than negate God’s will that we teach the Gospel to the lost, let us live in such a way that we adorn the doctrine of Christ (Tit. 2:10), and attract others to Christ. Let us pray for opportunities to teach others, and be vigilant to recognize open doors. Let our lives be as Paul who said, “For me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21). Our only hope of glory is that Christ is in us (Col. 1:27). Far better to hope and work for the salvation of others, than to be a gainsayer.

When God said, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” he was concerned with his law being believed and obeyed. He was not interested in the Pharisees’ reasons (no matter how plausible, or even religious-sounding) as to why they were not about the matter of obedience. So it is with all the Word of God. There is no reason that will stand the test of judgment, for failure to do what Jesus said. Take heed, and beware of the philosophy of negation!

Guardian of Truth XXXII; 11, pp. 334-335
June 2, 1988