Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

In a Baptist publication, The Grace Proclamator and Promulgator, Wayne Camp states that the apostle Paul was “a Baptist preacher.” I do not know where Mr. Camp learned this, but it was not from the New Testament, unless I have overlooked something. A goodly number of Baptist preachers “at sundry times and in divers manners” have sought for such proof for many years. If Mr. Camp has it, they would give him their last nickel. In debate, I have seen some mighty desperate Baptist preachers who looked like they would surrender their next breath for a New Testament reference to “a Baptist preacher,” or “a Baptist Church.” But, alas, their breathing was labored and heavy laden.

Consequences

If Paul was a Baptist preacher, consider the consequences.

First, it cuts out Methodist ministers, Presbyterian pastors, and Pentecostal preachers. Imagine Paul as a Baptist preacher. As such, he could not have been a Methodist or a Presbyterian, for they teach and practice sprinkling and infant baptism. He could not have been a Pentecostal preacher, for they believe in at least three baptisms, but Paul said there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5).

Camp’s claim on Paul as “a Baptist preacher” is a slap in the face of every denominational preacher. If I were them, I would resent Wayne’s efforts to put Paul in his camp, thus excluding them.

Second, there is a problem with Paul’s baptism. How could he be a Baptist preacher when his baptism was not received under the auspices and authority of a Baptist Church? Paul did not present himself to a Baptist Church, relate his experience of grace and request baptism (Acts 9, 22, 26). How, then, could he be “a Baptist preacher” since he did not follow the “standard operating procedure” of Baptist Churches?

It is obvious that Ananias was not a Baptist preacher, for he told Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). No self-respecting Baptist preacher would ever be guilty of telling a penitent believer, such as Paul was at the time, to be baptized to wash away his sins. Perish the thought! Why, nothing common or unclean like that has ever entered a Baptist preacher’s mouth.

Third, Paul would likely lose his ordination papers as a Baptist preacher, for he said that we are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). If Paul was a Baptist preacher, he could not preach his doctrine in Baptist Churches today. Just see how long you last in a Baptist Church after you tell them what Paul said about being “baptized into Christ.” Have you ever heard a Baptist preacher say, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27)? Have you ever heard a Baptist preacher say that one walks “in newness of life” after he has been baptized into Christ?

Fourth, Paul said to certain saints who have been made “free,” “Ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:1-4). Baptists preachers today tell us that it is impossible to fall from grace. Wayne Camp himself is on record as stating that a man could die drunk in the act of adultery and still be saved! If Paul had been a Baptist preacher, he would not have said what he did about the very danger of apostasy (Rom. 8:12, 13; 1 Cor. 10:1-2; 1 Tim. 4:1; 5: 11, 12; 2 Tim. 2:12, 16-18).

But since, according to Camp, Paul was “a Baptist preacher,” he (Paul) could not fall from grace, even though he told some, “Ye are fallen from grace.” So, Paul, according to Baptist doctrine, could teach falsely on the subject of apostasy, yet still be saved!

Fifth, Paul said, “The churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16). Do you ever hear a modern day Baptist preacher talking like that? NO once did Paul ever say, “The Baptist Churches salute you.” Oh, how Baptist preachers wish he had! But he did not. And is it not strange that a man who was “a Baptist preacher,” and who wrote a major portion of the New Testament never once referred to or mentioned a “Baptist Church” of any kind, shape or variety?

No, Paul was not “a Baptist preacher.” Baptist preachers are sent and commissioned to baptize, but Paul was not (1 Cor. 1:17). Mr. Camp is a Baptist preacher; he preaches Baptist doctrine; he is a member of a Baptist church. Those are things and titles unknown to Paul, unknown to the New Testament, unknown to the Word of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 72-73
February 4, 1988

By Kenneth E. Thomas

If every other belief and practice is in complete harmony with the will of Christ except the name by which one is called religiously, that person cannot be pleasing to the Lord.

I hope my opening statement will gain the attention of the reader sufficiently to hear me out completely. If I am correct, then you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by considering this subject except a little of your time.

None Other Name Than Christ’s

Why is the name one wears religiously so very important? It should be sufficient to say because God chose the name for followers of Christ to wear. He did you know. The name he chose is Christian.

It had been prophesied for generations in the Hebrew Scriptures that in the “last days” the Messiah would come and the kingdom would be established. This was to be an international kingdom, not for the Jews only but also for the Gentiles. After these events had transpired and kings and Gentiles should see his righteousness, this new name would be given (Isa. 2:2-4; 56:5; 62:2; Dan. 2:44; 7:13-14.)

We read of the first Gentile converts to Christ in Acts chapters ten and eleven, the house of Cornelius. Then we read in the latter part of Acts 11:26, “. . . disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” No one to my knowledge who believes in Christ denies the propriety of his followers wearing this name. My brethren and I hold that not only must we wear this name, we must as a name wear only the name Christian. One reason being that it clearly says in Scripture that one cannot glorify God in any other name! I will call your attention now to two passages of Scripture which I believe prove this point to any honest thinking person:

“But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16, ASV).

If the above isn’t plain enough to prove the point, read on: “This is the stone which was rejected by you (Jewish people, ket) builders, which has become the chief cornerstone. Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12; italics mine, ket).

God the Father has given unto God the Son all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18); a name above every name (Phil. 2:5-11); made him head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18); all things must be done by his authority (Col. 3:17), and such cannot be done while honoring names of men and systems, unauthorized by the Lord (2 John 9-11; Matt. 15:8-9).

When the apostle Paul made his famous defense before King Agrippa as recorded in Acts 26, he just about convinced the king of his need to believe and obey Christ. Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian” (Acts 26:28).

You see, that was all Agrippa could have possibly become. No denomination existed at this point in time, only the church you read about in the New Testament which Christ said was his (Matt. 16:13-18; Rom. 16:16). Every converted person was therefore added to it by the Lord upon hearing, believing and obeying the gospel commands (Acts 2:22-38,41,47). The church is the “house of God” (1 Tim. 3:15; Isa. 2:2-3). God has no children out of his house (family) and his children all wear the family name, Christian (Eph. 3:15).

Six hundred years before what we now know as Roman Catholicism, and fifteen hundred years before the Protestant churches came into existence, there were Christians, citizens of the kingdom of Christ. Paul who later wrote by divine inspiration Romans and other New Testament books was told after becoming a penitent believer in Christ, “arise and be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16). Later, he said that he was “delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Col. 1: 13-14). He said that he and others had been baptized into the name of Christ, as well as into his death and into the one body, where reconciliation between God and man is found through the cross (1 Cor. 1:10-12; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:13-16).

The honoring and wearing of human names is in effect forbidden by what Paul wrote to the church at Corinth. They had begun the practice which is so prevalent to this day. Some were saying, “I am of (means I belong to) Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul asked them some rhetorical questions to drive home his point that it was sinful, a sign of carnality, to wear names other than the name of Christ, saying

1. Is Christ divided?

2. Was Paul crucified for you?

3. Were you baptized into the name of Paul (1 Cor. 1:13; 3:1-7)?

You see only such as have heard and believed the gospel, all who repented and confessed said faith before being baptized (immersed) with Christ into his death are Christians. Such also wear only the name Christian. So my title for this article holds true to the Scripture, “The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only Christians.”

The way one becomes something other than a Christian only and a member of Christ’s one blood purchased body or church, makes one something other than a Christian! Let me explain myself further: The Lord does not “add” people not even saved people to some human denomination. He still adds the saved to his church just as in the first century (Act 2:41,47; Col. 1:13-14). You cannot find how to become a member of any denomination on earth by the New Testament Scriptures! The terms of entrance into Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church are different from one another in many cases and different from the terms make the gospel necessary for membership in Christ’s church in all cases! One may therefore “join” any number of the organizations (churches) of men and never have accepted God’s saving grace through Christ and his gospel .or salvation from alien sins. This is why Jesus said, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13). The Psalmist said it in these words, “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psa. 127:1a).

Consider. . . .

1. The Bible plus the Methodist Discipline or a Book of Major United Methodist Beliefs is, when followed, what makes one a Methodist.

2. The Bible plus the Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Hiscox equals Southern Baptists.

3. The Bible plus the Baptist Church Manual by J.M. Pendleton equals Northern Baptists.

4. The Bible plus Luther’s Catechism equals Lutherans, etc.

The most generally held doctrinal position among Protestants is that made popular by a noble man in many ways, Martin Luther. It is the doctrine of “Salvation by Faith Alone.” Strangely enough many Protestants include in their membership infants who were “baptized” without faith. The Roman Catholics also are among the number who count their numbers including infants, though neither Protestant nor Catholic are they considered full members until after confirmation classes on “their faith.” In Scripture, we have already seen a person was not a Christian until he of his own volition and will responded by faith to the gospel commandments for forgiveness (Rom. 6:16-18; 1 Pet. 3:20-21; Mk. 16:15-16; Matt. 28:18-20). The only time we find “faith” and “only” together in the Scriptures of the New Testament, they are preceded by a not”! (See Jas. 2:14-26, v. 24 in particular.) Salvation is not by faith only regardless of what Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham or any other uninspired man may say.

Proof further that one is not saved in a man-given religious name may be seen in a number of ways. For example: Ask a Methodist preacher if one must be a member of the Methodist church and wear the name Methodist to be saved? He will answer in the negative. I suggest you follow this procedure on every preacher in town and you will likely get the very same answer from every preacher until you happen to run into a preacher of the ancient gospel of the Son of God, who holds membership in no human denomination, but is simply and only a Christian. He will say one must obey the gospel and become a part of the bride of our Lord Jesus Christ via the “new birth” of the water and the Spirit, and wear the name of the bridegroom Christ to please the Lord. He will be correct regardless of what all of the “pastors” and “reverends” you may have asked have said (Jn. 3:3-5; Eph. 5:22-27; Rom. 7:4).

Sometimes members of the church of Christ are accused of being so narrow-minded in the matters herein under consideration. “We say we are the only ones right and everyone else is wrong.” “We believe, they say, that we are the only ones going to heaven. Well, let us see who is narrow-minded and who it is according to the Scriptures that will be going to heaven.

1. We bind nothing on anyone as a matter of faith and/or fellowship but what the Lord revealed as his will for man (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Gal. 1:8-9). One must submit to a human creed to join a denomination (2 John 9).

2. Every person in all the world who has obeyed the ancient gospel is our brother and the church of our Lord is large enough to contain all of the saved in all the world (Eph. 2:11-16; 3:1-6; 4:1-6; Acts 2:47). We accept into fellowship on the local level all such requiring no more than the Lord does for fellowship. No denomination claims to be large enough to contain all the saved. Who’s narrow-minded?

3. When one “accepts Jesus as his personal Savior” and is according to denominations a Christian at the point of faith, is he a member of any denomination? They all say no to whom I have asked this question. So there you have it. If they are right, they are still wrong! If one is saved out of a church, it certainly cannot claim to be the Lord’s blood-bought church for all, the saved are added to it (Acts 2:47). Furthermore, one does not take the denominational name peculiar to whatever denomination he may be speaking of until such time as he is “baptized” into that name, thereby dividing people into different sects promoting, against the will and prayer of the Christ, division caused by human names, creeds, organizations, etc. Can’t you see?

The solution is so simple, yet so many refuse to accept it. Just come with us back to the Bible and the Bible alone. Leave off all human elements in religion. Don’t be a slave to the man-made rules of denominationalism. Step out and become a free man or woman under Christ. Obey the ancient gospel and become just a Christian as in the Bible days.

Identify with a faithful local congregation of New Testament Christians where you can engage in those activities the Lord enjoins upon Christians collectively. You will never be sorry. As Jesus said, “Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed” (Jn. 8:36). Do you want to be free? It’s up to you! Act now (2 Cor. 2:2)!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 80-81, 87
February 7, 1988

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Is it a violation of Acts 17.29 to use pictures that depict Jesus in teaching children’s classes or to use other graphic art in bulletins or on transparencies that portray events in the life of Jesus?

Reply: When Paul came to Athens on his second preaching tour, he saw a city full of idols (Acts 17:22,23). He was standing in the stronghold of Greek mythology, and this was the occasion for his sermon on the one true and living God.

Paul introduced his discourse by showing that God is the creator of all things and that he does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is he served with men’s hands (vv. 24,25). He proceeded to show that God is the creator of mankind and that all should seek God, “for in him we live, and move, and have our being” – man is the offspring of God (vv. 26-28). He concluded his speech by saying: “Being the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man” (v. 29).

The context of Acts 17:29 is a contrast of idolatry with the one and only one true God. The phrase, “keep the text in context,” is appropriate here. Objects of gold, silver or stone are not to be worshiped. Athens was the intellectual and artistic capital of the world, as well as the center of Greek mythology. It is no wonder then, that in this idolatrous city would be found objects “graven by art and device of man.”

As to the use of pictures, cut-outs, sand tables, film strips for teaching, motive is the important consideration. Are the illustrations of Bible characters and events as depicted by pictures, cut-outs, sand tables and film strips objects of worship? We cannot believe that any of our brethren would use them in a classroom for this purpose. There is a difference in using such aids as objects of instruction about dress and customs, and using them as objects of bowing, adoration and homage. There is really no comparison of these lesson aids and the use of images in a Catholic church building. God prohibited the making of graven images when he gave the ten commandments to Israel, but he also gave the reason for which they were not to be made. The second commandment is: “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them” (Ex. 20:4,5, my emphasis). This is the idea.

Those who object to the use of sand tables, film strips etc. as aids in Bible teaching will refer to this verse as an argument against their use. But, as is true so often, what proves too much proves nothing. We observe that any likeness of anything that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth is prohibited, in addition to the prohibition to make any likeness of anything that is in heaven above. If it is objected that it is wrong to make any image per se, then it is wrong for a teacher of children to show her pupils a picture of a camel (a mode of transportation in Bible times) or a net of fishes (Peter, Andrew, James and John were fishermen). Images were not to be made for objects of worship.

Perhaps the best commentary on this prohibition is found in Leviticus 26:1. It reads: “Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down to it. for I am Jehovah your God” (my emphasis). The worship of illustrated Bible characters and events would violate Exodus 20:4,5; Leviticus 26:1; Acts 17:29 and all other Scriptures which forbid idolatry. Please consider this thought before we leave this point. While the prohibition of images for worship was in effect, the walls of the temple were figured with cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, within and without (1 Kgs. 6:29). God would not have sanctioned what was sinful within itself. Artistic figures within themselves do not fall in the realm of idols.

That certain things are right, provided they are used properly, is illustrated by instrumental music. Instrumental music is permissible, provided the proper use is made of it. Its use in a concert or at home for entertainment purposes, with no connection with worship to God is right, but sinful if used in the worship of God.

Bible teachers should be selected who are grounded in the faith and who are capable of making proper distinctions. Teachers of children should make it clear that the number of wise men who visited Jesus is unknown, and that we do not know what Jesus looked like while he was here on earth. But lesson aids which illustrate the mode of travel in those days, how people dressed and how they ate may be used effectively by knowledgeable teachers. Should the objection be made that such teaching aids should not be used if they have to be explained, we reply that we explain other things which are right within themselves. We must explain that the church building is not the church. People compose the church, thus it is not the building where Christians assemble. We also explain the proper use of the church building, but because we make these explanations is no valid objection to the church building being right within itself. The Scriptures authorize whatever visual aids may illustrate the truth (overhead projectors, canvas charts, chalk boards, work books, etc.). These violate no Scripture, provided they are properly used, illustrating the Bible truths the hearer needs to learn.

Abuses of pictures, images, etc. can certainly be made, and we readily acknowledge it. So-called pictures of Jesus are seen hanging on the walls of homes and in a prominent place, and it appears that these pictures are venerated. And, in most instances the so-called portrait of Jesus shows the person with long hair, a violation of 1 Corinthians 11:14. When such pictures are venerated, used for homage or worship, there is no difference in this and the use made by the Catholics with religious pictures and images in their homes. But mere making of the likeness of men or women in Bible times is not wrong. Sand boxes and other tools used by Bible teachers should not be abused by making play boxes out of them. Aids should be right within themselves first, and should also be properly used and not abused.

No effort is made by faithful Bible teachers to depict the deity of Jesus by the use of graphic art, film strips and overheads, but rather to illustrate him only as a human being, as men dressed and appeared in his time. Clearly, it should be impressed upon the mind of all that we do not know what our Lord looked like as to his face, his height, his weight, etc. The Bible has not revealed his physical features to us. Qualified teachers will make it clear to their pupils that a picture of some man dressed according to the custom of the time in which he lived is not an actual picture of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus or any other Bible character. It is purely and simply an illustration of a person, any person who would have looked this way in the time that he lived.

All of us should desire to do only what is authorized by the word of God and to teach the truth in the most simple and effective manner, but in our effort to do this we should also try to keep every Scripture in context.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 69-70
February 4, 1988

By Jady W. Copeland

I am not writing of the balanced diet of our daily food, though that would be a worthy subject. There is a renewed interest in a good diet in our time and many friends of mine take vitamins to supplement their diet because they believe the foods we now eat are not complete in the nutrients that make for a healthy body. But rather we are interested in spiritual nutrition or the spiritual diet that brethren (as well as non-Christians) are getting. The Bible speaks of “solid food” (Heb. 5:14) and “spiritual milk” (1 Pet. 2:2), the first of which is for mature people and the last for babes. Paul had to “feed” the Corinthians with “milk” and not “meat” because of their carnality (1 Cor. 3:1-3).

In feeding others, whether physically or spiritually, there are several considerations that need attention. First there is the need itself. It would seem some think you do not need to be fed with the word; they never read, nor do they listen to others. But any Bible reader with a small amount of perception knows that we must be fed.

Secondly, the food must be pure. Peter addresses this in I Peter 2:2. “Sincere” here means guileless, pure, unadulterated, according to W.E. Vine. James Macknight says, “. . . earnestly desire the unadulterated milk of the gospel doctrine. . . ” (Macknight on the Epistles, Vol. 5, p. 451). The gospel must be without additions or subtractions.

But as important as these are we must be fed a balanced diet. As necessary as carbohydrates are to the diet, we must have more. That is the reason some take vitamins. They think the soils have been depleted of the many needed nutrients, so they add these daily to supplement their normal diet. Spiritually we must feed some milk and some meat. Some would have preachers preach on love, patience, forbearance, etc. most of the time. Others want “hell fire and damnation” as a steady diet. Neither is right. Just as a person physically must have a well-rounded diet, so must the mature Christian.

In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul writes, “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (ASV). The New American Standard translation says, “handling accurately the word of truth.” The New International Version says, “correctly handles.” Lenski comments, “Cut the word of the truth . . . straight when you present it to others by preaching and teaching” (The Interpretation of Timothy, p. 799). James Macknight says, “rightly distribute the doctrine of the gospel to all, according to their needs” (Macknight on the Epistles, Vol. 4, p. 311). The word “divide” means to cut straight. Therefore “rightly dividing” the word of God deals with handling it according to truth – the truth of the gospel as the Holy Spirit revealed it. I am convinced this requires teaching it all as the needs may be. Peter’s statement in I Peter 2:2 tells us that the newborn babe must have the milk without guile – without being “baited.” The goal is to “grow thereby unto salvation.” The implication is “necessary” that some can partake of more solid food than can others. The new Christian must eat of the simpler things of the gospel before he can eat of the more difficult things. Too many want to know all about Romans and Revelation before they are able to eat of the “meat” of the word.

But in addition to the emphasis on the “pure” word of God and “handling it aright” we want to give emphasis also on the diet being balanced. While I don’t consider myself to be the best judge, and perhaps I do not hear others preach as much as some, it seems to me that our preaching in recent times (at least in some cases) may lack balance. (I surely hope I am wrong about that.) In attending meetings over the past several years I seldom (if ever) hear sermons on the death, burial, resurrection and atonement of Christ. I seldom hear how awful sin is, and how the “remedy” (blood of Christ) must be given. I haven’t heard much about the priesthood of Christ or of his church, his kingdom or his vineyard. I hear a lot about some of the practical things of life (which are good); I hear a lot about teaching the lost, sexual relationships, the home and love of those around us. Now I certainly do not fault those who preach such, unless they are leaving out the other things! Except from our “older preachers” I have heard little about the independence of the local church, but more about what we are to call the church. Now I know we don’t have to preach all these things, but I do know we must reap what we sow and if we can take lessons from the apostasies of the past, it seems certain that another will occur when this type of preaching has time *to take root.

A generation of young people has grown up that know nothing (except what they have heard from others) about the problems that divided brethren in the 50s and 60s and when “institutionalism,” or “sponsoring churches” or “church autonomy” and such subjects are mentioned they may yawn and change the subject. It is “ancient history” to them and they are sure we are “beating a dead horse.” While these problems are not important to them now, it doesn’t mean they are not problems. I doubt there are many congregations around the country but what have some among them that not only do not know what the “issues” were all about, but more they don’t care. And if someone wanted to include the human institutions in the budget, about the only argument they would give is, “Don’t the ‘liberals’ do that?” I heard of a congregation recently that surely wanted to be known as a “conservative church.” Many hardly know what is meant by the term “liberal” or “conservative” (“institutional” or “noninstitutional” if you prefer, though I’m not sure that is less offensive). I believe all this is due to the fact that we are not preaching a balanced diet. Perhaps you are saying, “You older preachers are ‘unbalanced’ in your preaching because the ‘issues’ is all you preach about.” All I can say is that we try to feed a balanced diet.

I was impressed recently by an article in Christianity by brother Paul Earnhart warning us of the possibility of apostasy as we increase our zeal for lost souls. I too thrill at the zeal of many young people who are working hard to save others. But as brother Paul says, we also must give attention to faithfulness and soundness in the faith. What good is a full house of people who are not converted in a genuine way. And may I hasten to say there is no virtue in smallness, and there is no vice in bigness. The more souls saved the more will be in heaven, but if they are not grounded in the faith they will fall away and finally be lost . . . and that’s worse.

When I started preaching 46 years ago, I thought faithful preachers and others had won the battle over institutionalism and instrumental music, and all that was left for us to do was save souls. But as history has revealed, these same questions are bothering his people again. And I suppose they will again. I guess since I am eligible for Medicare I have to be considered one of the older preachers. So may I make this appeal to the young? As Paul said, “Preach the word.” But in doing so, “handle it aright” and that includes preaching it all. Yes’ preach personal evangelism, and preach love, patience and forbearance. Yes preach the home, marriage and divorce, and preach the duties of husbands and wives. But also preach the blood of Christ, and preach his kingdom (rule), his church and his judgment. Preach there are two places to spend eternity – heaven and hell. “Be instant in season, out of season.” Preach that the local church is sufficient to do all God intended his people to do in a collective way. Show the sin of instrumental music in worship, and preach that the elders of each church have oversight only of the one church where they are overseers. Indeed, feed the flock with a balanced diet! I know you were not here when the problems divided us, but neither were we there when problems bothered the brethren in the first century. But we can “fix” things now as then with the pure gospel of Christ. But we cannot do so with only a part of the gospel. As fine as pablum is for the babe suppose the mother decided to never get him off that diet.

We have been asked, “What are the problems facing God’s people today?” This is one of them. We are not preaching a balanced diet of the word of God. If all the people get is “milk” then they will never be mature, grown-up Christians. “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Think on these things.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 78-49
February 4, 1988