Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

Paul wrote, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient” (1 Cor. 6:12). Obviously, this verse means, “All things are lawful that are lawful, but not all of these lawful things are expedient” (useful, advantageous, profitable). Paul is not including sinful and unauthorized acts in “all things.”

Brethren have had (and are having) difficulty in differentiating between the lawful and unlawful and the expedient and inexpedient. Some of us erroneously oppose inexpedients on the basis of being unlawful and others erroneously advocate unlawful practices as being justifiable expedients. Among those things wherein our thinking is warped are:

1. Eating in the meeting house. God never gave any legislation on this matter. In fact, the first century churches did not have the kind of buildings in which to meet as we do. Hence, the usage of “church buildings” was not a problem with them. Those who met in their private homes would, of course, eat in the place where they assembled.

The nearest the New Testament comes to dealing with this issue is in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 where Paul condemns the abuse of the Lord’s Supper. The apostle states in this regard, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?” (v. 22) It is apparent that Paul is teaching the Corinthians (and all other brethren, including those who meet in private homes) to separate home functions (common meals) from church functions (observing the Lord’s Supper). There is no prohibition of eating a common meal in the meetinghouse, or else a preacher could not. take a sandwich to his office and eat it, or men working on the building could not sit down on a pew and eat their lunch. Surely, no one would go to this extreme.

You will observe that Paul said “eat and drink” (emp. supplied). However, I know of no person who opposes a drinking fountain in the building. We are told a drinking fountain expedites a public assembly (indeed it does) and, therefore, it is permissible. But though a drinking fountain is expeditious, it is not absolutely necessary. Where I grew up we had no drinking fountain in the building, nor a water bucket. Brethren somehow, someway, got by without a drink of water.

Now then, if there is a need to eat in the church building, then eat. There are situations where a family or two may travel a long distance to worship, like the northwest, spread their meal in a classroom after worship, have another religious service after lunch, and then go back home. What is wrong with this? Not a thing I can see.

Furthermore, there is nothing inherently sinful about “dinner-on-the-ground” at an all day meeting. These proved to be uplifting in the past and enhanced brotherly affection. But times have changed and in most places such would be inexpedient and unwise. The trend today is toward the social gospel. Kitchens and “fellowship” (banquet) halls are the modern fads in many churches of Christ. Any practice that would encourage churches in the direction of building kitchens and banquet halls, yea, toward the social gospel, is wrong and should be abandoned. Wisdom teaches us not to use the church building and grounds for pot-luck-dinners, but to obtain other facilities for such social and individual activities. We are now seeing the evil fruits of congregations which have gone too far. (Parenthetically, I have never known a water fountain to encourage brethren to build “fellowship” halls and kitchens.)

2. Busing. We are hearing a lot about the “bus ministry.” This has been, in not a few places, a fiasco. Children gathered up in the neighborhood and bused to “church” have created a disciplinary problem for those involved. Some have discontinued the “bus ministry” because of the various difficulties encountered.

Too, there are many abuses associated with the so-called “bus ministry.” If an outing is planned at an amusement park the buses are used to haul the children to the park. Churches also use their buses to take senior citizens shopping or on excursions of various sorts. These are abuses! Also, to offer candy, cookies, cokes and money to entice children to ride the bus is a carnal ploy that is contrary to the holy appeal of the Lord’s church. Gimmickry is beneath the dignity of the heavenly kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, we need to realize that a bus owned and operated by a church is not wrong in and of itself. Many of us have become prejudiced against churches owning buses for any reason simply because brethren have abused their use. Some equate owning a bus to liberalism. By and large, I do not see any practical use for churches, having buses (or vans), but if a church has a need for a bus or van, to preach and edify, then it is their prerogative to buy one. I see no difference in a church putting a preacher on a bus and sending him to people to preach than the church putting the people on a bus and bringing them to hear the preacher.

3. Singing solos, quartets, etc. Through the years I have preached against “special singing,” such as solos, duets, quartets, etc., because of the danger they propose of making worship theatrical entertainment and the worshipers nothing more than spectators. I doubt there have been many preachers in the last 25-30 years who have been more outspoken against choirs, quartets and other “specials” in the church than I have.

I know by experience what is involved in, “special singing” as I. used to do it when I was 17 and 18 years old. I sang in a quartet, and even sang solos, in some Christian Churches of eastern Kentucky. I was offered a scholarship, everything paid, by a Christian Church to attend Kentucky Christian College at Grayson, KY. I know what the Christian Church was and what it is. I know why I oppose this kind of singing and I know why it is practiced. I have no sympathy toward the false doctrines of the Christian Church.

However, objection to solos and quartets can be only opposed, reasonably and logically, on the basis of inexpediency. 1 Corinthians 14:26 plainly shows solos were sung in the assemblies of the first century church, even at the same time that Paul wrote Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These passages in Ephesians and Colossians did not condemn and preclude what 1 Corinthians 14:26 allowed, namely, solo singing, and neither do they today.

But somebody says, “1 Corinthians 14:26 does not apply today because it is regulating spiritual gifts which are no longer in operation.” Are we to believe that nothing in 1 Corinthians 14 applies today? The first verse states, “Follow after charity.” Does this apply today? Verse 5 says, “. . . that the church may receive, edifying.” We still need this. Verse 15 reads, “I will pray with the understanding. . . . I will sing with understanding.” You suppose this has no bearing on praying and singing for our time? Verse 33 states, “God is not the author of confusion.” May not this verse still be used to show that God is not the author of confusion? Verse 34 says, “. . . but they (women) are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Did this principle cease with the miraculous age? “Let all things be done decently and in order” (v. 40) is certainly timely today.

Brethren, we still sing. That did not pass away. It is strange to me that solo singing was scriptural for the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church, but sinful today. It is also strange that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 allowed solo singing then, but not now. Indeed, it is strange! Brethren, let’s oppose “special singing” for the proper reason; not homemade ones.

4. Announcements of social events. Announcements in conjunction with the assemblies of the church have become a problem. This is also true with our bulletins. Some brethren contend that no social occurrences should be announced from the pulpit or put in the bulletin. For example, if there is going to be a picnic (on an individual basis) it will have to be made known by word of mouth before or after the service. Such cannot be announced publicly before the assembly.

Others will allow selected social announcements from the pulpit or bulletin. They will permit birth announcements, but they will not permit announcements of a baby shower for the mother. Women will stand in the vestibule and hand out shower announcements to the other women as they come, in or leave. Also, they may announce deaths, but nobody may announce the arrangements for food to take to a home during the interim between the death and the funeral. A few places dismiss and then tell everyone to remain a few minutes for a special announcement. Such narrow restrictions and convoluted reasoning curtail us in rejoicing with those who rejoice and in weeping with those who weep. This kind of thinking does not permit us to share to the fullest in the joys and needs of our brethren in Christ.

Certainly, some brethren have gone overboard in announcing every little frivolous matter that has nothing to do with church function or a Christian’s responsibility, but let’s not deny ourselves what is beneficial for our own good because of the abuse of others. We can, and do, paralyze ourselves to our own detriment. Some of us have become so rigid that the salutations of the epistles, some highly personal and social in nature, could not be read in our own assemblies without violating our self-devised rules. This is tragic!

In conclusion, let us seriously take to heart what Paul said, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient, ” and follow it, applicably. Some good common sense needs to prevail.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 198-199
April 2, 1987

By Forrest D. Moyer

(With a deep sense of awareness of my responsibility to God and to you, I send forth this message on Biblical Authority. I am doing so with a sincere desire to help “heal the hurt” of God’s spiritual Zion. That God may truly bless our efforts to be drawn closer to His will and to one another is my earnest prayer for this day. FDM)

One of the grandest chapters in the annals of our nation’s history is that of the great Restoration Movement that took place in the previous century here in America. American historians have not given to it its rightful place. The only movement that has overshadowed it was that of the beginning of the kingdom of Christ in the first century when Jesus had called and commissioned a few humble men to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostles began to declare the divine message throughout the world. The kingdom grew and spread throughout all lands captivating the hearts of thousands upon thousands of men and women.

But as time passed and the apostles died, men who did not respect the authority of our Lord began to substitute human wisdom for the divine and to institute human practices for the God-ordained worship and work. The church departed from the faith and went into a dark period in which the beauty of Jesus and His plan was no longer seen. As centuries came many valiant men arose in efforts to reform the church of that day. Most of their efforts resulted in the formation of human denominations.

It was not until the nineteenth century that we see genuine efforts to restore the original plan and purpose of God for His church. Godly men, determined to “speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent,” advocated a return to the New Testament pattern of doctrine, worship, work and organization. They recognized Jesus as the only head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23) and the Bible as truly the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13) and therefore, the only guide in religious matters. The result was that thousands of people obeyed the simple plan of salvation and the kingdom was spreading across this nation like a blazing prairie fire.

Even more tragic than the hideous civil war of the United States was the division that came in the ranks of the churches of Christ. Instead of brethren marching arm in arm in the mighty conflict against sin, swords were turned on one another as a result of the innovations that crept into the church. I think that A. W. Fortune in The Disciples in Kentucky summed up the causes of the division as well as anyone could. He wrote:

There were two different interpretations of the church which inevitably came into conflict. There were those who believed the church should move on with the world and adapt the spirit of the New Testament to conditions that were ever changing. They held that, when not forbidden by the New Testament, they were free to adapt their program to changing needs. On the other hand, there were those who believed the pattern of the church was fixed for all time, and the fact that certain things were not sanctioned was sufficient ground for rejecting them. The men on both sides were equally honest, but they had a different approach to these issues that were raised (A. W. Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky, pp. 364-365).

He further stated:

The controversies through which the Disciples have passed from the beginning to the present time have been the result of two different interpretations of their mission. There have been those who believed it is the spirit of the New Testament Church that should be restored, and in our method of working the church must adapt itself to changing conditions. There have been those who regarded the New Testament Church as a fixed pattern for all time, and our business is to hold rigidly to that pattern regardless of consequences. Because of these two attitudes conflicts were inevitable (Ibid., p. 383).

We should do well to ask, “Were our brethren in error who believed that the pattern of the church was fixed for all time, and the fact that certain things were not sanctioned was sufficient ground for rejecting them?” Were they right in their contention that it is our business to hold rigidly to that pattern regardless of the consequences? Or were those who formed the Disciples movement correct in their advocacy that we adapt the spirit of the New Testament to conditions that are ever changing? Were they right in saying that it was the spirit of the New Testament Church that should be restored and in our method of working the church must adapt itself to changing conditions? Which of these attitudes was really responsible for the division that took place? Do we see both of these attitudes in the churches of Christ today?

After the division had taken place, the churches of Christ were often left without buildings to meet in. Virtually, they had to begin again. But the brethren believed implicitly in the power of the gospel and they preached that gospel with fervor. The churches grew as a result of that gospel preaching. In 1906 the government reported 2,649 congregations with 159,658 members. By 1926 there were 6,226 churches with 433,714 members. By the 1950’s churches of Christ were the fastest growing religious body in America. (The 1984 census reported over 13,000 congregations.) But once again the ominous clouds of division loomed on the horizon. Once again, there were two differing attitudes toward authority and the application thereof. It becomes absolutely compulsory that we look once again at Bible teaching concerning authority and to the proper application of it to our practices. How important is it for us to have Bible authority for all that we do? When we ask for Bible authority, is it “pattern theology”? Let us address ourselves to this issue.

I. Authority Must Begin With God.

A. 1 Cor. 2:9-13.

1. God’s will for our lives is in the mind of God. It has not by any natural means come into the mind of man. Man did not think of it; man did not originate it.

2. The only way we can know the mind of God what God thinks – about any subject is by a divine revelation. The Holy Spirit reveals what is the mind of God on any subject.

a. How could I know how God feels about baptism without a divine revelation?

b. How could I know how God feels about the worship He desires unless He reveals it?

c. How could I know how God feels about the work and organization of the church unless He reveals it?

3. Therefore, in order that man may know God’s mind, God has revealed what He wants us to know by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through His apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:3-5). This has been revealed in “words taught by the Spirit” (v. 13). By verbal inspiration, God has made known His will for us. Without that revelation I could know nothing of what God wants His people to do in serving Him. I cannot reason that “surely God wouldn’t care if we did this.”

B. What we have observed in 1 Corinthians 2:9-13 is in complete harmony with John 16:12-13.

1. Jesus had not taught the apostles everything’ that was in His new covenant. Even if He had done so, they would not remember it all.

2. So He promised to send them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. Thus, what Jesus taught plus what was revealed to the apostles would constitute “all truth” – the all-sufficient message for our-spiritual guidance. They wrote by divine guidance what was revealed and we have “all truth” in the pages of the New Testament. We can say with all confidence that if something is not in the New Testament, it is not a part of “all truth” or “all things that pertain to life and godliness” or that which “completely furnishes us unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Unless something is revealed in the New Testament, then it is not a “good work” for the church to engage in.

C. These passages help us to understand Matthew 7:21-23. Jesus tells us that in order for us to go to Heaven, we must “do the will of our Father who is in Heaven.” Those people who considered themselves servants of Jesus will be ghastly disappointed on the judgment day when they are sent away into hell. When they argue that they had done many wonderful works in the name of Jesus, they only hear Him say, “Depart from me . . .”

1. I suggest to you that this becomes a very serious matter to each of us. How tragic to labor all of our lives in that which we believed was pleasing to Jesus and yet go to Hell. There is no practice so humanly precious that is of greater value than our souls! However dear these “many wonderful works” may seem to us, unless they are in “the will of God,” we cannot, we dare not, practice them! Brother, we cannot just apply these points to denominational people! We must apply them to ourselves as well. We sometimes think that only the denominations are subject to religious error!

2. Therefore, we need to carefully examine our every practice to make sure that it is in “the mind of God” or “the will of God” or in “all truth.” The only way to make sure of such is to be able to read it in the Bible.

(To be continued.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 193, 214-215
April 2, 1987

By Frank Jamerson

Introduction:

(Mormons believe that the Bible was corrupted and that their writings are superior to the Bible. It is useless to talk with them about the contradictions between the Bible and the Mormon writings because they have already had their confidence in the Bible undermined. The following outline was prepared to present to two Mormons. They listened, but had no response – not even a quibble.)

A. The Bible claims to be God’s word (2 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Pet. 1:3,20,21; Jn. 16:13; 2 Jn. 9).

B. The truth was “once delivered” (Jude 3; cf. Heb. 9:27). C. The books were authoritative, and considered to be so, when they were written (1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Jn. 4:6).

1. “One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities” (The New Testament Documents – Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce, p. 27).

2. “The books of the Bible possess their own authority and indeed had this authority long before there were any councils of the church” (How We Got The Bible, by Neil Lightfoot, p. 82).

3 “If it is no later than the middle of the second century when the apostles’ letters became widely read in public meetings, it is no later than the last half of that century when substantial lists of the New Testament books appear” (Lightfoot, p. 84).

4. “It is necessary to emphasize that no church through its councils made the canon of Scripture. No church – in particular the Roman Catholic Church – by its decrees gave to or pronounced upon the books of the Bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not control the canon, but the canon controls the church” (Lightfoot, p. 87).

Discussion:

A. How the Bible came to us:

1. Manuscripts (copies in the same language):

a. Vatican (or Codex B) – a fourth century manuscript, housed in the Vatican Library since 1481. (It contains 759 pages of the finest vellum on which most of the Old and New Testaments are written.)

b. Sinaitic – discovered at Mt. Sinai. It dates to the fourth century and contains most of the Old and all twenty-seven books of the New Testament. It was discovered by a German, named Tischendorf, in 1844-1859, and then put in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg, Russia; but in 1933 was sold to the British Museum for half a million dollars. (Note: We could as reasonable say “the Russians gave us the Bible,” as we could “the Roman Catholics gave us the Bible.”)

c. Alexandrian – dates to the fifth century. It was taken from Alexandria, Egypt to the British Museum in 1627. Ten leaves are missing from the Old Testament, 25 from the beginning of the New, and two from John and three from 2 Corinthians.

d. The Dead Sea Scrolls – discovered in 1947 and dated to the second century B.C., scrolls were found of every O.T. book except Esther. A complete manuscript of Isaiah was found. These manuscripts simply confirmed the accuracy of what we already had.

e. There are over 4,500 manuscripts, or partial ones, of the New Testament. The large number of manuscripts leads to a large number of “variations” (such as mis-spelled words, letter reversals, or a dropped line), but the large number of manuscripts help scholars determine the genuine text, and no doctrine is affected by these “variations.”

2. Ancient Versions (Translations):

a. The gospel preached on Pentecost in different languages (Acts 2:4,6) needed to be translated into different languages after it was written by Spirit-guided men. (Note: Translating a manuscript cannot corrupt the manuscript. If the Greek New Testament exists, and it does, it could be translated by anyone and it would not “corrupt the text” from which the translation was made!)

b. The Old Syriac – a language spoken in regions of Syria and Mesopotamia, was found in 1892. It contains manuscripts of the Gospels and is dated back to the second century.

c. The Old Latin Version – about twenty copies exist and it dates back to about 150 A.D.

d. Latin Vulgate – a revision of the Old Latin version, made in 384 (the Gospels) and finished later. “Perhaps 10,000 copies of the New Testament in the Latin Vulgate exist” (Lightfoot, p. 43).

C. Apocryphal Books:

1. Catholics accept the 27 books that we accept in the New Testament plus twelve of fifteen “apocryphal books” in the Old Testament. The Catholic Church has not removed anything from the Bible. In fact, they added twelve books to the Old Testament that should not be there!

2. Simon Greenleaf, lawyer, in Testimony of the Evangelists gave several principles for determining the genuiness of a document.

a. “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.”

b. “In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be coversant, on the

principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.” (Those who multiplied the copies of the New Testament are presumed to know what they were copying.)

c. “A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.”

d . “The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with collateral circumstances.”

3. Why we reject the apocryphal books:

a. They were never included in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament (Jesus and the apostles, as

well as other Jews to whom the law was given, did not accept them).

b. They were not accepted by such Jewish writers as Philo and Josephus (first century), the Jewish

c. They do not show evidence of the qualities of inspiration. Great portions are fictitious and contain historical and geographical errors (see Lightfoot, p. 92).

d. Various books were read in religious meetings, then, as now; but that does not prove that they were inspired.

D. Mormon Testimony:

1. The Book of Mormon says: “For behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts

which are plain and most precous; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. . . . Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God . . . because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, and exceeding great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them” (1 Nephi 13:26,27,30).

2. The “great and abominable church” never had possession of the manuscripts of the Bible, therefore could not have “removed” things. This assertion is plainly contradicted by the facts.

3. The Articles of Faith of the Mormon church contradict the claim:

a. “It is evident, then, that from a time nearly three hundred years before Christ, the Old Testament has been current in both Hebrew and Greek; and this duplication has been an effective means of protection against alterations” (p. 242).

b. “Since the latter part of the fourth century of our current era, there has arisen scarcely a question of importance regarding the authenticity of the books of the New Testament as at present constituted. During these centuries the New Testament has been accepted as a canon of scripture by professed Christians” (p. 245).

c. On page 248 it says: “perhaps, many precious parts have been suppressed or lost, while some corruptions of the texts may have crept in, and errors have been inadvertently introduced through the incapacity of translators, the volume as a whole must be admitted as authentic and credible. . “

E. God’s Testimony:

1. Christ promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would “guide them into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). If He did, then all truth was revealed through the apostles. If He did not, then Jesus did not tell the truth.

2. Paul said that any doctrine other than that delivered through the apostles would bring the curse of God upon its teachers (Gal. 1:8,9).

3. Jesus said the word of God would not pass away (Mk. 13:31).

4. Peter made the same promise, through inspiration of the Spirit (1 Pet. 1:25).

Conclusion:

A. The Roman Catholic did not, and could not have, removed things from the Bible.

B. Some Mormons give a list of books mentioned in the Bible and claim they are “lost.” If the Book of Mormon was to “restore” them – where are they? (Not one of their list is found in the Book of Mormon!)

C. Others claim that some doctrines were removed from the Bible – not whole books. What is the doctrine, and where is it “restored” in the Book of Mormon?

D. Any doctrine in the Book of Mormon that is not in the Bible is wrong (Gal. 1:8,9). Any doctrine in the Book of Mormon that is right is already found in the Bible.

E. Not everything Jesus did was written, but the things written are sufficient to give us life (Jn. 20:30,31).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 200-201
April 2, 1987

By F.G. Allen

Elements of Weakness

While it is important to know our strength, it is equally important to understand our weakness. That we have elements of weakness is a painful fact. These we should study to understand, and labor to correct. Our judgment is, that prominent among the things now constituting our weakness is –

1. The extent to which we are losing sight of our distinctive plea.

Unless we have a distinctive plea we have no right to exist. The day we become like the denominations around us, the day ends our right to exist as a distinct religious people. If we have a distinctive plea, in that consists our strength. I believe that our distinctive principles are made less prominent in our pulpits now than formerly. I do not mean that our preachers should be always on what is called “first principles.” Very far from it. But I do mean that all our members should be deeply indoctrinated in the things that distinguish us from other religious peoples. The people should understand why they occupy the position they do. The better this is understood the more it will be appreciated, and the more firm and consistent will be the Christian life. When people are led to believe that sectarianism is about as good as New Testament Christianity, their influence for the cause we plead is positively hurtful. Whenever we begin to curry favor with the sects and fawn upon them for recognition, we are certain to say but little about a plea that lays the axe at the root of the whole denominational tree. Whenever we begin to curry favor with the world, we are certain to fall in with the world’s notions, and adjust ourselves to the world’s ways. Hence much of that in which churches now indulge in the way of worldly amusements, carnal methods of raising money, the spirit of mere entertainment in the worship, etc., is due to the fact that they copy the sects, rather than the New Testament churches; and are filled with the spirit of the world, instead of the spirit of Christ.

The religion of Christ is a religion of spirituality. When you take the spirituality out of a church, you take the life out of it. You may have members and wealth and culture left, but the power of divine truth and love is gone. There is too much of this spirit pervading our churches. Worldly conformity in spirit, in worship, in life, is the great weakness from which our cause is suffering; and this is largely due, in my judgment, to the want of strict adherence to the fundamental plea that gave us our power in the past. If the restoration of New Testament Christianity, in spirit and in life, as well as in form, had full possession of our hearts, this would never be (from The Old-Path Pulpit, pp. 172-173).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 206
April 2, 1987