Truth Magazine

By Richard Weaver

The Church Is a Kingdom

The division and resulting confusion of the religious world today will continue until the leaders of the sects recognize that the church of the Lord is not a democracy whose practices are to be determined by majority vote or by conferences and councils of men. Jesus in the Word has taught us that the church is a kingdom. Read Matthew Chapter 13 that records parables of the kingdom which refer to the church and Matt. 16:18 where He spoke of building his church, then in the very next verse referred to it as the kingdom. See also verse 28 of the same chapter in which Jesus said, “There shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Moreover, Paul wrote, “God hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.” (Col. 1:13.) Jesus himself “is the blessed and only Potentate, The King of kings, and Lord of lords.” (1 Tim. 6:15.)Divine Order of GovernmentThose familiar with secular government know that in a democracy the people rule either directly or through elected representatives. In an aristocracy the ruling class is composed of a few but in a monarchy the king has all power which he may delegate if he chooses. In a democracy there are three separate branches of government: the legislative, to make laws; a system of courts, the judiciary, to interpret the laws and the executive branch composed of officials to enforce these laws. In a monarchy the legislative, judicial and executive powers are ALL vested in the king. So also it is in the divine order of government for the kingdom, the church. Of this divine kingdom Christ is King, ruling over his subjects who are members of his body, the church, and citizens of his kingdom. (I Cor. 12:20,27; Phil 3:20 ASV.)

Jesus Has All Authority

Jesus said unto his disciples, “All power (or authority the American Standard Version says) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Inspired by the Spirit Paul wrote, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” (I Cor. 15:24.) Hence, Jesus now has “ALL RULE AND ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER.”

We must listen, therefore, to Jesus in all matters religious rather than to the ideas of human, fallible man who has no authority whatever since Christ has it all. Jesus further stated to his disciples, after having declared that he had all authority, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit–ASV): Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt. 28:19-20.) Jesus in giving this worldwide commission stipulated the conditions of the apostles’ preaching, namely, they were to observe all things commanded them by him, and not by any man or group of men in conventions or synods.

Cause of Division

The reason so much religious confusion exists is because too many people take what some preacher says rather than listening to what Jesus and the apostles plainly teach in the scriptures. Following the transfiguration of our Lord, God spoke from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Let us listen to authorized teaching from the Son of God, who pleased well the Father and who has been given all authority in Christianity.

Protestantism apologizes for its divisions on the ground, “We can not all understand the Bible alike.” This is not true for when we understand anything, we must of necessity all understand it alike. Many people, however, misunderstand the Bible! What we need is more study and belief of just what the Bible says!

The underlying cause of division in the religious world is a lack of recognition of AUTHORITY. Groups of men convene to determine the practices of their denomination and forget or disregard the divine standard of authority, the teaching of Christ and the apostles contained in the New Testament. It should, though, ever be remembered that Jesus said for us to observe all things whatsoever he has taught. He has all authority! (Matt. 28:18; I Cor. 15:24.) Also, hear the words of Peter preached on Solomon’s porch, “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; (Moses was speaking of Jesus) him shal1 ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:22-23.)

Innovations

Many members of denominations will admit that the Lord authorizes a certain act in a specific way but they say, “I don’t think it’s wrong to do it another way.” They then disregard divine authority and set themselves up as the end of all wisdom.

Pope Stephen II in 1311 introduced sprinkling as a substitute for scriptural immersion. The New Testament teaches that baptism is a burial (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:3-5), a going down into, and coming up out of the water. (Acts 8:38-39; Mt. 3:16, 17.) Whether you accept sprinkling or immersion for Bible baptism is an index to whom or what you recognize as authoritative!

In 658 Pope Vitalianus introduced mechanical instrumental music to accompany the scripturally authorized singing of New Testament worship. These are the New Testament scriptures which authorize singing in acceptable worship to God: Rom. 15:9; I Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; and 13:15 and James 5:13. There is no authority in the New Testament to use mechanical instruments such as the organ, piano, trumpet, etc. in the worship of God.

Jesus said, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Mt. 15:9.) Therefore, in subscribing to those doctrines and practices un-authorized by Christ and hence commanded by men, ones worship is in vain. No man has the right to make religious laws binding upon the church nor has any conference or council of men.

The word of Christ which is to dwell in us richly (Col. 3:16) and by which we are to live and ultimately be judged (John 12:48) is our authority in Christianity. Since we are to be judged by this divine standard, the teaching of the New Testament of Christ, let us diligently study it that our lives and religious practices may conform thereto.

Truth Magazine VI: 9 & 10, pp. 12-13
June and July 1962

By Jerry C. Ray

There are in the New Testament, including repetitions, only about 80 references to demonology. There are many things not said concerning this subject that the natural curiosity of man would desire to know, but which God has not seen fit to reveal. In view of the limited information that we have, we should be careful in the conclusions we draw. For this reason this writer shall not attempt to argue some of the knotty problems surrounding this subject. I shall not even try to explain what the writers intended to express in some of their statements, but shall simply state the passage, and leave the exegesis upon the reader.

As to the origin of evil spirits, there is controversy as to whether the demons are fallen angels (Dr. William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary) or the departed spirits of wicked men. (As a sub-heading under this it might be noted that some argue that demons are the disembodied spirits of a Pre-Adamic world.) To the latter view (departed spirits of wicked men) brother J. W. McGarvey subscribed in these words: “In the Jewish usage of the term it is applied exclusively to the departed spirits of wicked men. This usage was adopted by Jesus and the Apostles, and consequently all that is said of demons in the New Testament agrees with it.” (Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 78.) Josephus spoke of demons as “the spirits of the wicked that enter into men that are alive.” (War of the Jews, 7:6:3.)

The writer of the article on “demon” in McClintock & Strong holds to the former view as being more likely and gives the following reasons. He is called the prince of the demons; the demons whom our Lord cast out are collectively called Satan. (Mt. 12:24-29; Lk. 13:16.) The phrase “unclean spirits” which is applied to them (Mt. 10: 1; Mk. 3:11; 6:7) is applied also to fallen angels (Rev. 16: 13; 18: 2), and even in the singular to Satan himself. (Mk. 3:30, cf. v. 22.) From this the writer inferred that the demons are of the same class as Satan himself, and that they must be the same as “the angels of the devil.” (Mt. 25:41; Rev. 12:7, 9.)

The New Testament writers believed in the existence of demons. They speak of their existence (James 2:19; Rev. 9:20), describe their nature (Lk. 4:33; 6:18), and their activity (1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 16:14), mention their expulsion from human bodies (Lk. 9:42), suggest their organization under Satan (Mt. 12:26; Eph. 6:12), indicate their abode (Lk. 8:31; Rev. 9:11), and point out their final doom. (Mt. 25:41.) Christ likewise indicated the same belief. He commanded his disciples to cast out demons (Mt. 10:1), cast them out Himself (Mt. 15:22, 28), rebuked | them (Mk. 5:8), had complete power over I them (Mt. 12:29), and viewed his conquest l over them as over Satan. (Lk. 10:17-18.)

Merrill F. Unger in his book, Biblical Demonology, states concerning the intellectual nature of demons:

“That evil spirits are believed to possess superhuman knowledge, especially foreknowledge, is attested by the widespread practice of seeking oracles from them. If Plato’s etymology of daimon from an adjective signifying “knowing” or “intelligent” is correct, it hints at intelligence as the basic characteristic in the conception of demons. Scripture, moreover, uniformly emphasizes their perspicacity: they know Jesus (Mark 1:24), bow before Him (Mark 5:6), speak of Him as the ‘Son of the Most High God’ (Mark 5:7), realize that there can be no fellowship between light and darkness, between Him and them (Luke 8:28), entreat favor of Him (Luke 8:31), obey Him (Matt. 8:16), withhold knowledge of His incarnation and finished sacrifice: (1 John 4:1-3), prevent and corrupt sound doctrine (1 Tim. 4:1-3), discern between those sealed by God and those unsealed (Rev. 9:4), and comprehend the future, and their own inevitable doom.” (Matt. 8:29.) (Page 66.)

And,

“Coupled with their superhuman intelligence and moral viciousness is an amazing strength. They have power over the human body to cause dumbuess (Matt. 9:32-33), blindness (Matt. 12:22), insanity (Luke 8:26-36), suicidal mania (Mark 9:22), (Urger’s interpretation of this passage I question. JCR) personal injuries (Mark 9:18), and various physical defects and deformities. (Luke 13:11-17.) They are represented as being of various degrees of wickedness. (Matt. 12:45.) Their titanic energy is seen in the supernatural strength they can impart to the human body.” (Luke 8:29.) (Pages 67-68.)

Is there a clear-cut distinction made in the New Testament between mental and bodily illness and demoniacal possession7 Or is the Modernist right when he says demonology was “merely a Jewish hypothesis to account for bodily and mental diseases and for the visible effects on body and will of enslavement of sin.” (John D. Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible.)

I think the Bible does make a distinction. To what has preceded in this series of articles I add the following testimony.

There are about 80 references, including repetitions, to demonology in the New Testament. “In 11 instances the distinction between demon-possession and diseases ordinarily caused is clearly made. (Mt. 4:24; 8:16; 10:8; Mk. 1:32-34; 6:13; 16:17-18; Lk. 4:40-41; 9:1; 13:32; Acts 19:12.) The results of demon-possession are not exclusively mental or nervous. (Mt. 9: 32-33; 12:22. ) They are distinctly and peculiarly mental in two instances only (Gadarenes maniac, Mt. 8:28 and parallels, and Acts 19:13f). Epilepsy is specified in one case only. (Mt. 17:15.) There is a distinction made between diseases caused by demons and the same disease not so caused.” (cf. Mt. 12:22; 15:30.) (Sweet, I.S.B.E., 11, p. 829.)

One of the many interesting questions that comes up in a study of demonology is whether demons exist in this present age, with the powers they had in the first century, and if they do not exist today with these powers, when did this “age” cease. This writer does not feel qualified to answer this question. Many contend that this passed away with the miraculous age of the first century. While unable to answer the above-mentioned question, I do feel safe in saying that if demons are operating in the world today as they did in Biblical times, there is no one with power from God to cast out such demons, since this miraculous power passed away in the first century, with the death of the apostles and those upon who they laid their hands. (1 Cor. 13:8-10, James 1:25, Acts 8: 18.)

There are those who answer the above question affirmatively. In Lard’s Quarterly of 1865, 11, p. 288, L. B. Wilkes sets forth his reasons for believing that demons still influence the affairs and the bodies of beings here on this earth. We refer you to this article for further study of this particular point.

In conclusion I quote from brother J. W. McGarvey: “In what way these wicked spirits gained possession of men; under what condition of mind or body a person was exposed to the possession; what degree of natural consciousness was still retained by the demoniac; and at what periods of history this strange phenomenon began and ended (if it is ended, JCR), are questions which remain as yet unchanged. That the phenomenon was, however, as it is represented on the sacred page, . . . is proved by the manner in which Jesus dealt with the demons,” (Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 78.)

I am sure that this will stand as the persuasion of those who believe the Bible to be indeed the word of God.

Truth Magazine VI: 9 & 10, pp. 9-10
June & July 1962

By Curtis E. Flatt

Practically all churches of Christ have church buildings. There is much emphasis placed on church buildings in this generation. Pictures of new buildings occupy prominent places in the papers published by our brethren. When a new church is begun, one of the first things to be done is to build a building. Often plans for a new building are already in the making by the time the first one is paid for. Right or wrong, this seems to be the way of the day.

Is There Bible Authority for a Church Building?

During the past several years very little has been said in our writings about the authority for such buildings. So far as I can recall, very little restraint has been suggested except to occasionally warn against being extravagant or to warn against worshipping the building. However, toward the close of the last decade, some brethren began to speak and to write as though they think we do not have to have Bible authority for church buildings. These brethren are quick to say they think it is all right to have such buildings. But they raise the subject of authority in a vain effort to give some justification for the existence of their institutions which they have already created to do the work of the church. They hope to leave the impression that we have some things without authority and we can have these too. If there is no authority for church buildings, then lack of authority condemns them just like lack of authority condemns these brotherhood institutions. It looks like anyone could see that. The amazing thing about this is that when our denominational friends told us that they could have the mechanical instrument in their worship on the same ground that we could have church buildings in which to worship, these same brethren were quick to point out that one was without authority and the other was with authority. But is there authority for a church to have a building in which to meet for worship? I am glad to say there is such authority. You will not find it in the form of a command, but you will find it. In Hebrews 10:25 and also in I Corinthians 11 you will find the necessity of assembling. That gives authority for a place. Any suitable or adequate place will do. We know that we can’t assemble without a place. It appears that the Jerusalem Church met in the temple. In Colossians 4:15 we find Paul sending greetings to Nymphas and the church which was in his house. In Romans 6:5 we find that a church met in the house of Aquilla and Priscilla. In Acts 20:8 we find the church in Troas made arrangements to meet in an upper room. There is a place involved in the command. I know that Christ did not say: “build a house in which to worship.” I am glad he did not say that, for then it would be necessary to have a house built before we could worship and nothing else could be used. Christ gave the perfect law of liberty. It is adaptable to the needs of all. When he gave the command for the church to come together, he also gave the authority for the church to provide a place to meet. This is fundamental and we have understood it through the years. Our brethren need to show authority of some kind for their institutions instead of making great problems greater by casting doubts on practices that can be established by the word of God.

For What Should the Church Building Be Used?

It is also needful to give some consideration as to the proper use of the church building. Some people say the church is sacred and that should determine its use. However, I doubt that many people are of that persuasion. We know the use of the building would be determined if the building were sacred. However most people, who object to the way many churches uses their buildings, do not do so on the basis of the church building being sacred. The use of the building must be determined by considering the purpose for which it was built. It is a misapplication of truth and right to build it for one purpose and justify its existence on that ground and then use it as we please. There is no way to justify the use of a church building for political purposes or for community projects or for entertainment purposes. When we object to such misuses, let it be understood clearly that we do not object to the ingathering, to the eating, or to the drinking that is incidental to and necessary for the performance of the required to go by the Bible. People can make fun of service. But I know we can see a difference between these things and the practices of many who conduct secular education classes, who have non-religious services, and who eat and drink in an assembly which has gathered together under church direction for purely social entertaining purposes. Making fun of a water fountain or a blackboard or a baby’s bottle and comparing such things to many practices of the day may satisfy a number of people, but it will not satisfy people who want and ridicule conscientious Christians who object to such abuses all they choose, but such ridicule does not produce the authority for the church to provide a building for these misuses.

Let us build good buildings in keeping with our needs. Let us equip them with the things which are incidental to and necessary for the required service. Then let us use them for the purposes by which we justify their existence.

Truth MagazineVI: 9& 10, pp. 11-12
June & July 1962

By Bryan Vinson

The Dallas News of March 29th carried an item of news of the final disposition of the criminal charges against a Catholic priest for allegedly assaulting a girl with the intent of rape. A previous trial had ended in a hung jury. In this last action he was allowed to go free with a fine after a no defense plea was accepted. His attorney stated that this “nolo contendere” plea was not an acknowledgment of guilt, but merely says “the defendant does not choose to defend.” Further, and of significance is this statement of explanation — “This decision was made in the best interests of the church and in order not to subject the girl and Father Feit to the ordeal of another trial.”

Thus we see a whitewashing of this sordid affair, with the priest getting off with a lesser charge which was dismissed by the paying of a $500.00 fine. Also, the news account stated he was questioned about the murder of another woman, which he denied knowing anything about, but which he acknowledged having heard her confession the night of her disappearance. Of course this occurred in a section of heavy Catholic population, at Edinburgh, Texas. Also, it occurred during the present growth of the power and influence of Catholicism in America. For the courts of our land to slant their actions in favor of the Catholic religion will become an increasing practice with the present administration, there is every indication and reason to expect. The increasing number of appointees in all branches of government of those of the Catholic faith is very apparent, and this coupled with the fundamental and age-old doctrine of the subordination of the state to the church constitutes an ominous threat to the religious liberties of the American people

Why should the courts of this land be concerned about the best interests of any particular church, or any church at all? For this priest to enjoy an immunity because of his religion, and his position within the church, before the court certainly is not in the best interest of the court and the rights and liberties of American citizens. No difference should be made between citizens charged with criminal actions on the ground of their religion, or non-religion. His was a crime, as charged, of a serious breach of the moral code on which our laws are founded, and as designed to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. It is feared that our people are blind and indifferent to the lurking and rapidly developing powers of this apostate church in our land, and with eight years of the present administration such power will be gained and consolidated that we then will be helpless. Truly, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and obviously we aren’t paying that price today.

Beyond, however, the immediate concern as above stated there is also a significance to the heading of this little piece which finds its application within the affairs of the church of the Lord. Many are the situations where sin is overlooked, ignored, or minimized, out of a professed regard for “the best interests of the church.” To particularize, we note, briefly, the following:

1. The sin of false teaching.

Congregations tolerate, oftentimes, those in teaching whose handling of the scriptures constitutes the advancing of error rather than truth. This may be, and likely is, in many instances caused by ignorance which renders incompetent the teacher. No one should be endeavoring to teach the Word of God who is not able by reason of their knowledge to teach the truth. It is a truism that one cannot instruct another in that which they do not know, and, hence, the edification of the saints in the truth of the gospel cannot be effected by those who are uninformed and unskilled in the word of righteousness. As a result of this too many of the saints remain spiritual infants, and are subjected to the liability of being the victims of false doctrine. This creates a favorable soil for designing and deceitful teachers to gain followers to their pernicious doctrines. An informed, enlightened and devoted body of adherents to the truth is the only sort of congregation which is immured to the virus of error. Error is to be recognized and repulsed in its incipiency, rather than waiting for its full development and fruitage within the ranks of a congregation. Qualified bishops will exercise this protection, whereas the unqualified and incompetent neither will nor can do so.

2. The sin of false practice.

Here is where, perhaps, a more extensive danger resides. The desire to conform and thereby gain acceptability with the popular mind leads to many questionable practices developing within the functioning of congregations. An aping of others is the course of the unthinking. Hence, the drift is further and further away from the apostolic ground, and while perceived by some is oftentimes not arrested out of regard for the supposed best interest of the church. It is thought that peace and harmony is better than truth and soundness, and thus this is sacrificed for that. Today many congregations have been, and are being, swept into the stream of digression which could have been saved therefrom if they had not been controlled by a mistaken conception of what constitutes the best interest of the church.

3. The sinful conduct of individuals.

Here is found the most widespread evil that afflicts the congregations of the Lord. Even those who profess a firm allegiance to a “thus saith the Lord” in all matters of faith and practice are found seriously derelict. There is harbored, unexposed and uncondemned, within the ranks of many bodies of disciples those whose characters are sullied with flagrant immoralities. Not only so, but among these are those who project themselves to the fore in directing and controlling the affairs of the congregation. Too often those who know the true condition, out of timidity on the one hand, and an overweening desire to keep the peace on the other, wink at such conditions. The scriptures are replete with instructions of how to deal with the disorderly, and equally full and explicit as touching those particulars wherein given behavior is of this character. Those busy-bodies in other men’s matters, meddlers in the affairs of others, sowers of discord and defamers and falsifiers constitute a prolific source of evil within many congregations. They are having a paralyzing effect on the spiritual health and growth of the church. They create a stench in the nostrils of not only the righteous within the church, but also in the esteem of the community. They bring reproach on the whole congregation where they are allowed to go unexposed, unrebuked and un-disciplined by the responsible and righteous element within the congregation.

A light regard for the virtue of veracity pervades the churches today. Members who are known prevaricators are countenanced and allowed to continue their evil and destructive course, and carry out their evil designs to the injury, possibly fatal in some instances, of the cause of truth. A man and wife team in the early church were summarily put to death for an offence that goes unrebuked in many congregations today. They lied to men, but not just to men; they also lied to the Holy Spirit. So, also, are hypocrisy and false claims of those who seek to deceive their brethren today a sin not only against brethren but also against Deity. To affect a religious devotion and display an affected piety, coupled with falsehoods about others and self-gratulatory claims are an affront against God. In their striving for recognition and acclaim they seek to attain such deception, and to seize a control of the church to nurture their unholy ego. Brethren knowing this oftentimes ignore it and allow the church to suffer with the poison of such sin, rather than exposing the sin and the sinner, and expelling or expurging such from the body. Mistakenly they think time will heal such conditions without repentance and reformation on the part of the guilty, and thus in the supposed “best interest of the church” decline doing anything about it.

Unless there is a return within the hearts of God’s people of a proper respect for the teaching of the apostles bearing on these matters, then all pretensions of soundness will be but a tinkling cymbal and a sounding brass in the ears of all men of honor.

Truth MagazineVI: 9 & 10, pp. 16-18
June & July 1962