Truth Magazine

By J. W. McGarvey

(Ed. Note: The following article originally appeared in the Christian Standard, Nov. 13, 1897).

I answer the following question: I read, years ago, your article in Lard’s Quarterly on “By one Spirit are we all baptized into the one body,” etc. J. J. Haley claims for it Holy Spirit baptism. Have you changed your view, or do you believe now as you did then? – W. C. Rogers.

I remember the article referred to, but I long ago gave away the copy of the Quarterly which contained it, and I can not now consult it. The article had rather a singular origin. Bro. Lard and I agreed as to the meaning of the passage; but he had some misgivings about it, so he made the proposal that I should write a defense of our interpretation; that he should make under an assumed name the strongest objections to it that he could, and that I should then make a short rejoinder. It has been so long since I read my article that I can not now recall all the course of my argument, and I am not sure that I did not say some things that I would not now repeat; but my understanding of the apostle’s meaning has undergone no change, and I will try to set it forth in brief.

As given in the Revised Version, the language of the text is this: “For in one spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit” ( 1 Cor. 12:13). Two facts in the past experience of the disciples are here set forth: first, that in one Spirit they had all been baptized into one body; and second, that they had all been made to drink of one Spirit. I think that it will not be denied that the word “drink,” in the latter clause, is a metaphor for the enjoyment of the Holy Spirit; and that the reference is to that gift of the Holy Spirit promised to all who repent and are baptized. This enjoyment of the’ Spirit, which begins of course with its reception, is represented by the apostle as being preceded by the other fact that all had been in one Spirit baptized into one body. In other words, being baptized into the one body had preceded being made to drink of the one Spirit. Can the baptism then mean the baptism in the Holy Spirit? I think not; for he who is thus baptized begins in the act to drink of the Spirit, and this drinking would not be spoken of as a subsequent and separate experience.

Again, in all passages where the word “baptize” is connected with that in or into which the act brings the subject, the verb is placed first. For example, “I baptize you in water;” “He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire;” “All who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death.” Even in our passage, “baptized into one body.” Now, if the apostle had meant to say that this baptism into one body was the Holy Spirit baptism, he would have expressed himself, according to the universal usage, differently. He would have said, “We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body.” This would have been unambiguous. But, connecting the expression “into one body” with the baptism, he places the expression in “one spirit,” not between them, but before both. What, then, does he mean by this latter expression? This is the real issue.

It is well known that Paul, in a few instances, uses the expression, “in the Spirit,” for the state of one in whom the Spirit dwells; but it is also used to indicate the controlling guidance of the Holy Spirit; and the latter usage is more frequent than the former. What is more to the point, the latter usage is the one that prevails throughout the context of the passage under discussion. The introductory remark of the context is this: “Wherefore, I give you to understand that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith Jesus is anathema; and no man can say Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit” (v. 2). Now, a man can say Jesus is Lord without being in the Holy Spirit in the sense of having the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, but he cannot say it without the Holy Spirit as his guide to a knowledge of Jesus. The Spirit’s guidance in the matter is exercised through the word of truth. Farther on the apostle adds: “For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; and to another the gift of healing, in the same Spirit” (vs. 8, 9); where the expressions “through the Spirit,” “according to the same Spirit,” and “in the same Spirit,” are equivalents, and all specify the action of the Holy Spirit in the several instances, and not the state of being in the Holy Spirit. If there could be any doubt of this, it would be removed by verse 11, which is a summary of the preceding specifications of the Spirit’s work: “But all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will.” In such a connection, when the apostle adds, “in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,” it appears incontrovertible that he is adding another specification of what the Holy Spirit does–that by its guidance, which was known to be exercised through the preached Word, the disciples had been baptized into the one body. The baptism could be understood by his readers only as the same by which they were baptized into Christ, and into his death; that is, the baptism in water.

I may add that, in the only two instances of baptism in the Holy Spirit expressly so styled in the Scriptures, this baptism did not introduce its subjects into the one body. The first was that of the apostles on the great Pentecost, and the second the family and friends of Cornelius. In the former instance the subjects of the baptism were already members of the body, and in the latter they became such afterward by being baptized, as Peter commanded in the name of Jesus Christ.

Truth Magazine VI:5, pp. 14-15
February 1962

By Osby Weaver

We do not propose to be able to answer all the questions that might be asked nor solve all of the problems that might arise as a result of marital entanglements in which some people find themselves involved. We do know that if all parties concerned would always respect the word of God on this question, no such problems would ever arise. Hence, whatever confusion, disunity, and inequities exist in marriages cannot be charged to the Lord.

In this article we are primarily concerned with a discussion of those issues about which we can be certain and regarding which errors have been propagated.

It is erroneously affirmed by some that one can marry, divorce for any cause, and re-marry as many times as it pleases him before he becomes a Christian, and God takes no notice of his marital capers until he is baptized, at which time, God then joins him to the one he got caught with when he was baptized. The reasoning employed by the exponents of this theory is as follows. “One is not a subject of God’s law until he becomes a citizen of God’s kingdom; that while he is in the devil’s kingdom, he is not amenable to God.” We shall now proceed to point out the fallacy of such reasoning and show that such a conclusion proves too much for the the0rizer, and that he will not accept the consequences of his own proof.

The first consequence of this theory that we mention is this: It makes marriage a church ordinance, ignoring the fact that marriage is 4000 years older than the church, and declares that all those outside the church are not married in God’s sight. This in turn demands that children born of such alien parentage be considered illegitimate by the God of heaven and makes marriage depend upon the church for its acceptability with God.

That such a position is ridiculous when one contemplates the baptism of only one party to the marriage vows is clearly seen. According to this theory, we suppose the one being baptized would be considered married in God’s sight, while the other would not, seeing that he was not subject to God’s marriage law and God took no cognizance of his marital state. Would this constitute a half-marriage? If the one not baptized was not subject to God’s law, then he would have the same liberty to put away his wife and take another, as the theory supposes any alien has, with the one being put away in this case being a Christian. The wife, who is a Christian, could not plead fornication as the cause of separation no matter what her husband had done, for if the alien is not subject to God’s law, then he cannot be guilty of the sin of fornication. Therefore, a non-Christian could desert a Christian, engage in the practice of any and all immoral acts, and the Christian could do nothing about it. She would stand to lose her home, never able to contract another marriage (on the basis of fornication being the cause), and that, too, with no objections from God. How could God object to the actions of an alien if the alien was not responsible to God in any sense except from a civil point of view?

Let us further consider the consequences as it relates to one who lives in a land that permits the practice of polygamy. A man comes to be baptized who has several wives. Can he keep them all? Does God join him to all of them at the point of baptism? Can he keep any of them? If so, which one? Can he pick his preference? Sometime it is argued that because children are involved, certain exceptions should be made to God’s demands concerning marriage. Well, let us suppose that this polygamist has children by each of his several wives; does that mean he can keep all the wives? If not, then why argue that one could keep one wife because there were children involved? We are not unmindful of the plight of children in such circumstances, nor unsympathetic toward them, but their presence does not change God’s law in any degree.

But the consequences thus far mentioned by no means represent the greatest danger involved in the theory. If one is not accountable to God while in the devil’s kingdom, he cannot be charged with transgressing God’s law. One certainly cannot transgress a law of which he is not subject. Romans 4:15 says, ” Where there is no law, neither is there transgression.” Hence, if God has no law for the alien, the alien has not transgressed God’s law. Again we read in Romans 5:13: “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Therefore, the alien who supposedly is not under God’s law is not charged with sin. If he is not charged with sin, he is not separated from God, because sin is that which separates a man from God. (Isa. 59:1, 2) It would then follow, if the theory is correct, that a man in the devil’s kingdom is not charged with sin and is not therefore separated from God — an alien sinner but not charged with sin–in the devil’s kingdom, but not separated from God! What a theory! I suppose this would establish the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy, for if one were in the devil’s kingdom yet not separated from God, there would be no place from which he could fall and to which he could fall. He would be with God and the devil both at the same time. If such a one came to be baptized, for what would the advocate of this theory tell him he should be baptized? Certainly not for remission of sins, for “where there is no law, sin is not imputed.” If he were not responsible to God, he would have no sins for which to be baptized. A preacher who holds this theory was pressed with this argument and finally answered, “He would not need to be baptized at all.” He had to say it in order to be consistent, thus the consequences of a false doctrine. This doctrine invalidates the gospel of Christ, renders His death a useless sacrifice, and declares His earthly mission to be a total waste of time. Jesus came to “seek and save the lost” only to find that after all had been done to accomplish this aim, that there were no lost, because those outside the kingdom of God were not subjects of His law therefore not sinners.

The consequences of such a theory would be enough itself to explode the theory if there was nothing more, but there is more. In 1 Cor. 5:9, 10, Paul said, “I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators, not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.” If those in the world are not subject to God’s law, just how did they get to be fornicators, covetous, extortioners, and idolaters? What made them such? Again in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 it is said that “fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed . . .” Here were some who were adulterers and fornicators before they were washed and justified, hence one in the devil’s kingdom can be guilty of committing adultery. Therefore, God does take cognizance of one’s marital relations and holds him accountable, therefore, before he is baptized, while he is still in the devil’s kingdom.

After it has been shown conclusively that one in the devil’s kingdom is a subject of God’s moral law; that God does take account of his doings; that he can be guilty of the sin of adultery and fornication, then the advocate of this theory jumps to another position. He admits that God does hold one accountable prior to his baptism, but that baptism cleanses one of his sins, therefore he can go right along living with a companion with whom he was in adultery before he was baptized. “Baptism,” he says, “cleanses the adultery and purifies the marriage so that it is no longer adultery.” To which we have just as often answered that baptism of itself cleanses no one of any sin. Baptism alone will not wash a single sin away. It must be preceded by faith and repentance. Now, whatever is involved in “repentance” is essential to the washing away of sin in baptism. “Repentance” means to “have another mind”–to change the mind, which in turn results in a change of conduct. One cannot habitually continue the practice of sinning and claim to have repented. That is the sense of 1 John 3:9. He cannot continue to sin if he is born of God, but he is not born of God unless he has repented. Things morally wrong before baptism are also wrong after one is baptized. If one insists on continuing in that which was wrong before he was baptized, therefore still wrong, it evidences his failure to repent.

Let us suppose that one is a drunkard before he is baptized, will baptism purify drunkenness and make it righteous? No one argues that he can keep on drinking after he becomes a Christian and do it with God’s approval. “Another,” let us say, “is a thief.” Can he keep on committing acts of theft after he is baptized because baptism cleanses it and makes it righteous? All agree that he must quit stealing and if repentance has been genuine, he will quit. Through fleshy weakness, he may take it up again but each time he steals, he is guilty of sin. Another comes to be baptized who is married to a woman with whom he is in adultery. Must he cease this act with her or does baptism cleanse it and make it righteous? Strange as it seems, there are those who will tell the drunkard and the thief that they must cease their unrighteous acts or be lost, but will tell the adulterer that it is all right for him to continue. “O,” it is said, “it is no longer adultery after baptism.” Well, just what keeps it from being adultery? Was baptism responsible for the transformation? If baptism changes adultery to purity, why will it not also do the same for drunkenness and theft? Is the blood of Christ powerful when applied to adultery?

Though they reach it in different ways, the blood of Christ is the cleansing power to wash sin away for both the alien sinner and the erring child of God. Now, will the blood do something for the alien that it will not do for the erring child? Does the blood of Christ lose some of its power when applied to the sin of the erring child? If it cleanses the alien of adultery and allows him to continue in it, will it do the same for the child of God? If the blood of Christ reached in baptism by the alien sinner will purify for him an adulterous marriage, will it also do the same for an erring child when he reaches it through repentance and prayer? If an alien sinner can put away his wife and marry another, without fornication as the cause, and be so purified by the blood of Christ that he can continue in this second marriage, can a child of God also put away his wife for other reasons and marry another and have his second marriage purified by the blood of Christ so that he may continue in it? If this is so with reference to the second, how about the third, fourth, and fifth? If this is so, then God has no law to protect the home, and the whole marriage realm becomes one big round of promiscuity, and that, too, with God’s approval! Believe it who can!

God holds both saint and sinner accountable for misdeeds. Sin separates from God for whoever is guilty. (Isa. 59:1, 2) The only way for one, who is separated from God to be reconciled, is to have his sins forgiven. Through the good providence of God, a plan has been revealed from God by which man can be made righteous. That plan is the gospel of Christ. In order to appropriate the grace of God offered in the Gospel, one must meet the conditions set forth, one of which is the cessation of the practice of habitually sinning. Whatever sacrifice one must make, whatever human relationships must be severed in order to meet these conditions, are essential to our salvation. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) From this there is no appeal. Hypothetical cases, borderline incidents, and man-made theories may be brought up; the innocent may suffer for the guilty, but the word of God still reads just as it did before. It is our business to respect it, not attempt to circumvent it.

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 1,8-9
March 1962

By Glenn L. Shaver

In Matthew 13:13-15, Jesus informs us why He spoke to the multitudes in parables: “Because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, ‘By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Eor this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”‘ Thus, we see, as it was in the days of Isaiah, so also it was in the times of Christ and we are persuaded that it is true today.

Some comments from eminent scholars may be helpful in understanding the condition of the people’s heart in the days of Isaiah and Christ and thus, by analogy, we may learn why the people’s hearts of our own time have “waxed gross.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown in the COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE, commenting on the above passage said: “They ‘saw,’ for the light shone on them as never light shone before; but they ‘saw not,’ for they closed their eyes. They ‘heard,’ for He taught them who ‘spake as never man spake;’ but they ‘heard not,’ for they took nothing in, apprehending not the soul-penetrating, life-giving words addressed to them.”

S. T. Bloomfield, in the GREEK TESTAMENT with English Notes, Volume I, states: “. . . the hearts of the men were so hardened by a long course of willful and presumptuous sin, that, according to the regular operation of moral cause and effects, they, though seeing, in fact, did not see; and though hearing, yet, in fact, did not hear, nor hearken, and consequently could not understand.”

J. W. McGarvey, in THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY, Volume 1, said: “As Isaiah had written concerning his own generation (Isa. 6:9,10), this people’s heart had ‘waxed gross;’ that is, it has become filled with earthly and sensual desires, and especially so with reference to the expected kingdom of the Messiah. This state of heart made their ears dull of hearing; that is, it made them indisposed to hear with favor the words of Jesus. It led them also to close their eyes; that is, to refuse to see the evidences of his messiahship and his divinity.”

H. Leo Boles, in A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW said: “…. their hearts had become fat, as applied to the body; sensual and stupid as applied to the mind; they were like a man overcome with obesity, too heavy and dull to hear or see, sleepy and brutish. The spiritual spark is buried in a heap of earthly cares and pleasures.” (Deut. 32:15) He continues his comments on the passage by saying, “These people had hardened their own hearts, had closed their own eyes, had refused to exercise their own powers of understanding, because they did not want to know the truth. The responsibility rested upon them for their present condition; they could not blame the law, God, or any one else; they were wholly responsible. It is the law of God’s spiritual kingdom that resistance to truth hardens the heart. To reject the truth and excuse and defend themselves in opposition to it, they armed themselves with countless errors and falsehoods.” (Ibid.)

Dr. Bloomfield said: ” . . . the Jews would hear indeed the doctrines of the Gospel, but not understand them; would see the miracles wrought in confirmation of its truth, but not be convinced thereby. Not that the evidences themselves were insufficient to establish its truth, but because their hearts were too corrupt to allow them to see the force of those evidences.” (Ibid.)

Adam Clarke, in A COMMENTARY AND CRITICAL NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, Volume I, states: ” . . . these words were fulfilled in the Jews, in the time of the Prophet Isaiah, so they are now again fulfilled in these their posterity, -who exactly copy their father’s example. These awful words may be again fulfilled in us, if we take not warning by the things which these disobedient people have suffered.”

Hence, from the above comments we gather the following reasons why the people’s heart had waxed gross:

1. They had continued a long course of willful and presumptuous sin.

2. Their hearts were filled with earthly cares and pleasures and sensual desires.

3. They were indisposed to hear with favor the words of Jesus.

4. Their hearts had become too corrupt to allow them to see the force of the evidences.

They did not want to know the truth; hence, they armed themselves with countless errors and falsehoods.

Now since Isaiah described the awful condition of the people’s heart in his day; Jesus applied the lesson to the people of His time who refused to accept His teaching, and Paul made a similar application to the people in Rome who refused to believe the evidences (Acts 28: 25-27), hence, let us apply this inspired teaching to the people of our time. For example:

1. Have not many people of our day continued a long course of wilful and presumptuous sin?2. Are not many people’s hearts filled with earthly cares and pleasures and sensual desires?

3. Does not the rejection of Christ’s words show that many are indisposed to hear with favor the words of Jesus?

4. Have not the hearts of many become too corrupt to allow them to see the force of the evidences of truth?

5. Is it not true that people who do not love the truth nor seek to know it, arm themselves with countless errors and falsehoods, thus, their hearts are waxed gross?

Now, let us apply the “fruit test” (Matt. 7:14-20), that we may see the attitudes and dispositions of the people’s heart of our own day and see if it isn’t because the heart of man has “waxed gross.”

First, let us explore this among denominational churches. Have we not heard many express themselves after this manner? —

1. It must be right because it has been practiced so long by so many.

2. Others are doing it and it seems so good, so we can do it too.

3. I don’t care what the Bible teaches, I’m satisfied and feel I’m doing right.

4. I don’t care if the Bible does say that, I don’t believe it is essential.5. Don’t read the Bible to me, my parents believed this way and besides we have many educated ministers that believe as I do.

Thus, among denominationalism we see a sectarian prejudicial attitude of heart and a closed mind, which shows that their heart is “waxed gross.” Hence, they use countless errors and falsehoods to pervert, change and twist the truth to salve their own consciences.

Secondly, let us see if this same attitude and condition of heart is to be found among us–members of Christ’s church. Do we not hear many among us today express their mind after this fashion? —

1. We have been doing this for a long time, hence, we are going to keep on doing it.

2. We are going to do this because the people want to and the elders have approved it.

3. The “big preachers” among us believe it is right, hence, we can do it.4. Examples are not binding–there is no set pattern–hence, we can do as we wish.

a. The examples of the churches relieving the needy are not binding on us today, for the church is not its own home and elders of the church cannot oversee a home, hence, we must have Benevolent, Charitable Institutions or Organizations to build a home (house) to provide care–relieve the needy.

b. The church is its own Missionary Society to preach the word, but the Missionary Societies controlled the churches, hence, they were wrong, but we can voluntarily pool our funds under one local eldership–Sponsoring Church Plan–and it will be scriptural.

c. The church is to edify itself, but the schools, colleges and camps are teaching our young people the Bible, hence, it is scriptural to support them in this good work.

5. Thus, many among us pervert, change, and tw st the scriptures to justify their practices–refuse to hear what the truth teaches– and arm themselves with countless errors and falsehoods.

Reader, can you not see the same disposition of mind and condition of heart among brethren today that is found in denominationalism and which was also found in the days of Jesus and Isaiah? Indeed the hearts of many have “waxed gross.” They have closed their eyes so that they cannot see; they have stopped their ears so that they cannot hear; and their hearts have “waxed gross” so- that they cannot understand. In the present controversies we see many who have closed their eyes, stopped their ears, and refuse to understand with their hearts. It seems that pride and prejudice have taken the place of reason and understanding in the hearts of many. Thus, they allow pride and prejudice to rob them of the truth. They reject the truth (established by precept, example and necessary inference), and seek to justify themselves by trying to defend their man-made doctrine with countless errors and falsehoods. What a pitiable condition it is, when people “see,” but “see not,” “hear,” but “hear not,” and cannot understand with their heart.

My sincere desire is that all may love the truth, obey it from the heart, and walk in the truth, so that we can enjoy the wonderful assurance of the words of the Lord Jesus to His disciples, “Blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.” (Mt. 13: 16)

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 14-16
March 1962

By Ray Ferris

Recently several questions were submitted that they might be answered from the pulpit here in Kenosha. In the article which preceded this one we noted the bases upon which we can learn from the scriptures, the questions t h a t were asked, and answered two of the questions. The following material concludes the answering of the questions, along with some concluding observations of a practical nature now. You are urged to review the preceding article before continuing with this one.

VI. Who shall do the work of the church –the church or some man-made institution?A. We must recognize the church as a divinely created organism that is as perfect as an infinitely wise and powerful God could make it.

B. We must realize the church is sufficient to do everything God intended for the church to do. Otherwise the church must become subservient to an earthly, man-made plan to accomplish its task.C. The church must operate in all things according to the pattern set forth in God’s word.

D. This pattern sets forth clearly the principle that the church was sufficient to do, and did, everything God required of it in apostolic days. It was able to evangelize the world and care for its own needy without establishing any separate organization through which to function, and without supporting such organization after its establishment. To do so now is to evidence lack of faith in the pattern set forth in the Bible. Note: the buying of services from corporations such as the gas and electric company, hotel, etc. are not parallel to making contributions to build and operate these companies. To buy services from a hospital, orphan’s home or missionary society (purchase of Bibles) is not parallel to making contributions to build and maintain these corporations.

E. Often the issue is beclouded by someone saying the Bible does not say how to do some of the things that the church is to do, and that we are thus left free to determine the how. All of the present controversy over such matters is not over the HOW, but is rather a question of WHO shall do the church’s work? Shall the church control and do it, or shall it just supply funds for some other organizations?

VI. To whom can the church make contributions?

A. The answer to this question must likewise come from the pages of God’s word. When the pattern is examined we find the church making contributions in only two senses.

1. When individuals in the church in Jerusalem were in need, shortly after the church was established, the church helped those needy saints. Note again such passages as Acts 2:44-46; 4:32-37; 5:1-11 and 6:1-8. Thus the church is authorized to provide the necessities of life for individuals who are saints. This is in a very real sense a contribution, but it must be understood that the church was “over this business” (Acts 6:3), and that when the need no longer existed in any individual’s life the “contribution” would very logically cease. This was not a matter of contributing to private homes for them to continue to assume responsibilities they could not meet.2. The saints in a particular place might logically become destitute to the point of being unable to provide for themselves as a collective group. There are two different occasions pictured for us in the word when this happened.

a. In Acts 11:27-30 the whole land of Judea was involved. The brethren in Antioch resolved to help in this situation, and did, sending contributions by the hands of Barnabas and Saul unto the elders in Judea. (Note that the relief was sent to the elders where the help was needed — in Judea. There is no basis for the claim that all help was sent to Jerusalem’s elders and that they distributed it throughout the land of Judea.)

b. A number of years later–probably about eight or ten years later according to most historians–another famine arose that was limited to Jerusalem. Help for this famine (for needy saints) was sent by a number of different churches–Read again 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1–9:15; and Romans 15:25-33. The last passage indicates that the money was delivered to the church in Jerusalem.

c. Sometimes the dodge is used in these controversies that the churches make contributions to the preacher’s home, but that some preachers who thus receive contributions refuse to consider that the church can contribute to orphans homes. Or the argument will run like this: “Why can the church support a preacher’s home and not support an orphan’s home?” There is a deceitful change of meaning in the word support in this question. Churches pay wages to a preacher–(2 Cor. 11:8). They do not support his home in the sense of making contributions to it–at least they ought not to do so. If he quits preaching his wages ought to stop. That which the gospel preacher receives so that he may provide the necessities of life for himself and his family is not a matter of charity. Note also: the objection is not to the church providing a place to live for any person for whom it is responsible; the objection is to the church making contributions to a board of directors who then determine who shall be helped, where they shall be helped, when they shall be helped, how they shall be helped, etc. As already mentioned, the question that causes the controversy is not how the job shall be done, but rather who shall do the job. All but those who do not want to see can also distinguish the difference between the church owning a house, which it provides as a part of the support (wages) for its preacher, and the giving of funds to a board of directors to spend and control in doing any work for which the church may be responsible.

B. The conclusion is inevitable. The pattern of the scriptures is very simple. The church may help Christians who are in need (contribute what is necessary to provide those needs), and the church may contribute to another church that is in need. There is no authority for the church to make contributions to any organization other than another needy church.

VII. Can one church perform its work through another church in such arrangements as the Herald of Truth, the “Lubbock plan of mission work,” Orphan Homes under the “sponsorship” of an eldership, etc.?A. Again our answer must come from the pattern set forth in the scriptures.

B. Some preliminary observations.

1. All churches are equally responsible for preaching the gospel to the whole world–to the extent of their ability they are responsible, and to no greater extent.

2. All churches are equally responsible for helping the world’s needy–they are responsible for helping their own needy saints to the extent of their ability, and may be helped by other churches to help their own needy saints if they cannot help themselves. They may in turn help a church in another place if that church cannot supply the help necessary for its own members. In every instance where help is needed in another place all churches sustain equal responsibility to the church where the help is needed–to the extent of their ability and no farther.

3. All of the arrangements noted in this question are efforts to make one church primarily responsible for a work that is far beyond its ability. These works are assumed. Any church and every church have as much responsibility to preach the gospel over radio and TV to the world, as does Highland in Abilene. Any church and every church have as much responsibility to send evangelists into the field to preach, as does Broadway in Lubbock. Any church and every church has as much responsibility to care for needy people of the world as does Cleveland Avenue in Wichita, and we have noted that the responsibility is only to saints from the church treasury. Every church could thus assume the identical works these churches have assumed and make the identical plea for help they make! These churches beg and receive money from hundreds and hundreds of other churches and then engage in a dollar swapping campaign among themselves. Highland sends money to Broadway and Broadway turns around and sends it right back, etc.

4. These are all plans that concentrate and centralize control and money in the hands of one eldership.

C. The pattern of the scripture is very simple.

1. The church sent directly to the work that was being accomplished in every instance, and not through some other church.

a. Help was sent to the preacher as he labored from place to place in preaching the word.

(1). Philippians 4:15-16.

(2). 2 Corinthians 11:8.

b. Help was sent to the church (elders) where the need existed when one church provided help for another church to care for its needy.

(1). Acts 11:27-30.

(2). 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1 9:15; and Rom. 15:25-33.

2. The church never sent to another church, which “sponsored” a much greater work than they could do, and thus received funds from other churches that operated through the “sponsoring” church. The pattern is for one church to send to all places where it desires to help. The pattern is for all churches to send directly to the church that is in need of assistance. It was Antioch to the elders in Judea. The churches of Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia (including Corinth) sent to the church in Jerusalem where help was needed. Churches sent directly to Paul in the field. Read again the passages immediately above.

3. There was never any plan of centralized control whereby one church collected funds from many churches to send on to another church or to an evangelist in the field–the “Lubbock plan.” There was never any plan whereby a church assumed responsibility for some great work of preaching the gospel to a whole nation, province, etc., which was impossible without the help of many other churches, and thus required the collection of funds from other churches in order to do this work all under the centralized control and oversight of one church–The Herald of Truth. There was never any plan of collecting the needy people of the world (or the churches) into one place under the oversight of an eldership and then pleading for many churches to send funds so this one group of elders could do the work of many churches for them –Orphans home under Cleveland Avenue elders.

D. If many churches can do some of their work through another church why can they not do all of their work through another church? If many churches can do some of their work through another church why cannot all churches do some of their work through one church? If all churches could do some of their work through one church why could not all churches do all of their work through one church? What passage or principle would limit this if we open the door a crack to permit part of it? Would it be right for all churches to do all radio and TV preaching through Highland in Abilene? Would it be right for all churches to do all “mission work” through Broadway in Lubbock? Would it be right for all churches to help the needy through the Cleveland Avenue church in Wichita? Could we do all of these different things through just one of these churches? Which one?

E. Conclusion — These arrangements are not only not according to the scriptures; they are not even sensible and reasonable when one really examines them.

VIII. These controversial arrangements are productive of much strife and division.

A. In the southern part of the nation sharp lines of fellowship have been, and are being, drawn over these arrangements. The situation is very much parallel to the controversy over the mechanical instruments of music in the worship and the missionary societies of prior generations. Where these arrangements are presented and advocated division and strife are almost sure to follow. The one who is conscientiously opposed to them is not able to work in such plans, and if they are insisted upon, will be forced out of the fellowship of those who practice them.

B. The state of Wisconsin was once relatively free from any real problem concerning these issues. That is no longer true. It is being made a test of fellowship now in this state, and to an ever-increasing degree as time goes by.

C. This writer has never met a man who was willing to affirm that these things must be practiced by a church in order for it to be everything the Lord would require of that church. It is rather insisted that these things are expediencies and privileges that we have. (It ought to be obvious that we have no expediencies and privileges in any religious matter until there is first authority established for them.) Let us suppose they were expediencies–thus in the realm of judgment. Are they worth dividing the Lord’s church for them? Many, many of my brethren will spend eternity in hell because of hatred, bitterness, and animosity toward other brethren, and much of this has been caused because of the bitter strife about these so-called expediencies. It is my firm conviction that the Bible teaches that any man who would deliberately sever the unity of the body of Christ over that which is to him a matter of expediency or judgment will never stand in the presence of God in eternity. Read carefully Rom. 14:1-23 and 1 Cor. 8:1-13. The one who bids Godspeed to such practices and teaching is partaker with the evil (2 John 9-11). Insistence upon promoting, that which is manifestly not necessary, and which causes division and strife is assuredly not the Spirit of Christ operating within us. “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his”. (Romans 8:9 )

IX. In conclusion we express an earnest and fervent prayer that brethren may yet be made to realize the horror that is being wrought daily in the church because of these controversies, and thus give them up before it is entirely too late. If this is not the will of God we pray for strength and courage; for a firm stand for that which is right and cannot be wrong. May we ever realize that “the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy auld good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp.10-13
March 1962