Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Editor Charles A. Holt has a ten-page article in the January issue of his Examiner on “Proof of Confusion: Our Corrupted Speech.” This tirade leads the reader through a maze of word games.

What Not To Preach

“Subjects Not Preached” is one of the sub-headings in Editor Holt’s long article. He declares that the apostles and early disciples never preached nor taught on such subjects as the following:

(1) The identity of the Church

(2) The Marks of the True Church

(3) How to Become a Member of the Church

(4) The Worship of the Church

(5) The Organization of the Church

(6) Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ

(7) How to Grow a Church

(8) How to Start a Church (and they never “started a church”)

(9) Building a Strong Church

(10) The New Testament Church

(11) Church Membership

(12) Church Government

(13) The Authority of the Church

(14) The Mission of the Church

(15) What Church Membership Means

(16) Membership – Its Responsibilities

(17) Salvation and Church Membership

(18) The Undenominational Character of the Church

(19) The Scriptural Name of the Church

(20) Church Finances

(21) The Sufficiency of the Church of Christ

(22) The Autonomy of the Local Church

(23) The Church and the Christian Individual

According to Editor Holt, “To preach on these subjects, the preacher has to do it in piece-meal fashion, a part of a verse here and another verse there. It is to ‘ransack’ the Scriptures, often lifting passages out of context. The basic error is the assumption that such subjects are dealt with at all.”

Example of N.B. Hardeman

After all his castigations and rebukes for our corrupted speech, Holt comes to “The Simple Solution.” He recommends that we “‘preach the word’as it is given in the NT. ” Then he points to the examples of N.B. Hardeman and Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

“N.B. Hardeman was a great preacher in my book,” says Holt. “I thank God that I was able to sit at his feet and listen to him preach and teach the word.” He continues, “Brother Hardeman delivered the message as it is in the Book, simple, yet powerful.”

I, along with hundreds of others still living, sat at the feet of N.B. Hardeman. Frankly, I was never as enamored with Hardeman as were some, and I make no claim of having been one of his better students. But this one thing I know, and Editor Holt knows it too, N.B. Hardeman preached repeatedly on just such subjects as Holt lists as proof of our corrupted speech – subjects which Holt pronounces a “ransacking” of the Scriptures.

In volume 2 of his Tabernacle Sermons, Hardeman preached on subjects such as the following:

The Church – Its Identity

The Church – Its Work

The Church – Its Worship

Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ

In volume 4 of his Tabernacle Sermons, he preached on subjects which Editor Holt lists as “Subjects Not Preached” by the apostles and early disciples, and of which he says, “The basic error is the assumption that such subjects are dealt with at all.” Hardeman had a lesson on “The Blood-Bought Institution of the New Testament” (note that word “institution”). He preached another sermon on “The Church, ” and in it he told his hearers how to become “members” (note the word which he used).

Hardeman On Organization

In volume 5 of his Tabernacle Sermons, Hardeman again preached on such forbidden subjects as:

The Identity of the Church

The Mission and Work of the Church

Church Organization

In discussing “Church Organization,” Hardeman said, “I am assuming, therefore, that you agree that in the New Testament the church was organized and that there were certain qualifications necessary for all officials.” After discussing deacons, he said, “Another class of officials is called elders, bishops, overseers, pastors, or shepherds and teachers. These various names all designate the same class of officers.” Hardeman did not hesitate to use such terms as “officials” and “officers” and to preach that “in the New Testament the church was organized.”

Editor Holt contends that elders have no “authority,” and nowhere does the New Testament tell us “that their word was final in matters of expediency and judgment” (Examiner, Mar., 1986, p. 10). Hardeman said, “The ultimate decision in all matters of expediency must be left, to the elders, but they are unwise if they do not learn what the wish of the congregation is and then they should respect its wishes” (Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 5, p. 133).

Hardeman on the Restoration Movement

We are chided by Editor Holt for speaking of “Movements.” He lists a number of these and includes “The Restoration Movement. ” He comments, “You have heard about this one I am sure. Some preachers specialize as experts concerning this movement. They preach on it, write about it, and feature it as something of vital importance to Christians in their relationship to God” (Examiner, Jan., 1987, pp. 8,9).

What is the solution? We need men like N.B. Hardeman! Yet Hardeman preached on the “Aims and Purposes of the Restoration Movement.” Holt says Thomas and Alexander Campbell “never attempted to ‘restore’ the NT church . . . . Hardeman stated that Thomas and Alexander Campbell “decided to cut loose from everything having a human name or human creed and go back to Jerusalem, not for the purpose of trying to reform anything, but for the definite purpose of trying to restore the church of the New Testament” (Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 5, p. 111).

It seems to me that Hardeman offers little comfort to the positions of Editor Holt, and if the solution to our confusion is to preach like Hardeman, Holt is the fellow who is the most confused of all!

The “Editor” (that word is not found in God’s word) voices opposition to our using the word “Christianity.” He says, “Christianity is not a Bible thing and it is not a Bible name. It is loose talk and gives a very confusing message.” Will he next throw out the word “Bible” on that same basis? It is not used in the Holy Scriptures, and many others books are described by it, such as the Fisherman’s Bible.

By the way, Hardeman freely used that word “Christianity” Which Holt finds objectionable. One of his well-known sermons was entitled, “Christianity – A New Religion” (Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 5, pp. 71-79).

Hardeman on Examples

Editor Holt offers further proof of our confusion and impure speech that we teach approved examples to be authoritative. His rather pontifical ruling is, “An Apostolic example is never binding! Never! Nowhere in the NT is there the slightest evidence that one is binding” (Examiner, Jan., 1987, p. 14). He wants us to conclude that our preaching and writing about examples, when they are binding and when they are not, only creates confusion. If we only had preachers like N.B. Hardeman, we would solve this whole mess!

But N.B. Hardeman preached that “if you can find an example approved and inspired of God, that concrete example comes to us with all the power and force of divine authority. That is God’s way of teaching.” Hardeman reasoned, “How does God teach us? First, by a direct statement. Second, by approved example. Third, by a necessary inference.” Hardeman went on to explain why we should follow the example of partaking of the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week and why the example of the washing of feet is not to be followed (Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 4, pp. 52-54). If Holt would study Hardeman’s sermon on “Teaching the Word of God,” he would learn why the Thursday night example of the Lord’s supper is rejected as authoritative for the practice of the church. That example, like the washing of feet, wag given before the church was organized; after the church was established, there is no example of partaking of the Lord’s supper on Thursday night.

If preaching the word as N.B. Hardeman preached it is indeed the solution to confusion, will Editor Holt use his Examiner to declare those great themes on which Hardeman could wax eloquent? If he does, his paper will change directions completely.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 172-173
March 19, 1987

By Cecil Willis

As readers of this journal know, on July 23, 1986 1 made a public confession of sin in my life before the church at Groveton, Texas, including all of the sins related to my second marriage. The Editor of this journal then asked my permission to publish the statement in this paper, along with some comments about me by O.C. Birdwell. Included in those comments was the suggestion that brethren who had known me write a few words of encouragement.

About three hundred brethren (mostly preachers) wrote me nice letters affirming their brotherly love. Since then I have written about 300 letters in reply, but have not yet answered all of those who wrote me. Literally hundreds of other brethren have spoken similar words of encouragement to me face to face. I want all brethren to know how much their support and forgiveness meant to me.

Every word spoken or written to me has been positive in its nature, except for one document which has been circulated in an effort to destroy my preaching opportunities which affirms that I have taken the Lovelady position on marriage. If that had been true, I would have seen no need to make a public confession of sin in my life. It was alleged that I had read the Smith-Lovelady Debate, and had accepted the position advocated by Brother Lovelady. Such is not the case. The fact is, I have never read the Smith-Lovelady Debate, and certainly do not hold the position defined in the proposition which Brother Lovelady defended. Any representation to the contrary is a misrepresentation.

It is my desire to get back into full-time preaching. I have three gospel meetings scheduled in 1987. 1 may decide to go back into work full-time with some congregation, if the opportunity to do so arises. But be that as it may, I intend to be a full-time Christian.

Thanks again brethren for your many kind, generous, magnanimous and loving remarks which you conveyed to me both orally and through letters, and in the two articles that appeared regarding my restoration to the Lord. I know my heart, and I know that God knows my heart, and hence I stand with the normal amount of fear and trembling before His judgment.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, p. 179
March 19, 1987

By Jady W. Copeland

In this the last of these articles on the subject, we want to discuss the condition of the fallen, actually what has happened, and what he must do to be saved. We have noted the symptoms, causes and prevention of failing away from God, and it must be noted that there are two who have a responsibility in restoring the erring: (1) the fallen brother, and (2) the faithful brother who knows it. I am afraid that we have too often neglected our responsibility in restoring “such a one” in the proper spirit, taking the attitude that we didn’t push him into the ditch and have no responsibility in saving him. Such was not the attitude of Christ.

Stop and think of the amount of space the Bible gives in the Old Testament to the prophets who were trying to warn the people of apostasy. Note for example the pleading of Jeremiah in his prophecy (Jer. 2:19ff; 3:12; etc.). In the New Testament we take particular note of Hebrews 3. The admonition is addressed to “holy brethren’! (v. 1). They were partakers of his “heavenly calling” and were to consider the High Priest, Jesus Christ. In verse 12 he says, “Take heed, brethren lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God: but exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called To-day; lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” Losing our faith is a major problem among God’s people, and the “faithful” have a grave responsibility.

A Sad Condition

In noticing the prodigal (Lk. 15) we note that he made a foolish mistake in leaving home too early, and the mistakes that followed. Too often, we get ourselves into trouble because of stupid mistakes. Yet these mistakes don’t keep the Father from accepting us back when we repent. In this story, there was the son of Abraham who found himself in the pig pen of a pagan. As someone said, we have “Abraham’s son feeding Caesar’s hogs.” What a plight; what a humiliating situation! Some one has said, “The man who yields himself to the power of sin loses all joy in God, all relish for spiritual enjoyments . . . all capacity for appreciating the fellowship of the good and great, all sense of sacredness and spiritual worth of life.” This pretty well expresses the plight of a Christian who finds himself falling away from the fellowship of God, after once having known the way of righteousness. And the “faithful” brother need not feel good about a brother who has decided to turn his back on God. Neglect of this fallen brother is sin.

What Has Happened To Him?

He has “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4; Rev. 2:5). Can you think of anything as bad as having known and been in the grace of God and now to fall away from Him? Besides that, he has lost his power to save others (Matt. 5:13). Furthermore he presents himself as a servant of the devil (Rom. 6:16). He fails to grow in the grace of God (2 Pet. 3:18). Like the “non-Christian,” he often relies on his moral goodness for salvation, when in reality he knows it will not work. In short he has chosen to serve the devil rather than to serve God. He has erred from the truth (Jas. 5:19) and it makes no difference if he has been baptized into Christ, he is still a sinner. Before he obeyed the gospel he was a sinner, and sin condemns; and after becoming a Christian if he sins, he is a sinner, and stands condemned. We need not talk of an “erring child of God” because he is still a sinner. And the only way he can come back to God is by repentance and praying for forgiveness. If I understand Peter, he has become entangled again in the “defilements” of the world, and is in worse condition than before (2 Pet. 2:20). No, he does not need to be baptized again, but he must turn to God, just as he did before he became a Christian. The reason we stress this point is because we have used the figure of the family so much (making the wrong application perhaps) in speaking of the “child of God” and when we say this person is an “erring child of God” we may just leave the impression that this condition is not so serious. Indeed it is more serious, since he has once “known the way of righteousness. “

What Must He Do To Be Saved?

First it would do well for him to remember his former life in Christ (Rev. 2:4-5). Remembering the blessings in that blessed relationship with Christ and the saints can have a strong influence and power in his life. It seems that the memory of the father’s house was one factor in bringing back the prodigal. Like the sinner before baptism, he must realize he is lost. The prodigal certainly realized his grave mistakes. I have an idea that the memory of a good home has been instrumental in bringing many a boy or girl back to their senses and returning to God. Sure, underlying all that is the power of the word, but the prodigal remembered “back home in his father’s house.”

But this memory is not sufficient. The prodigal not only changed his mind, but this led to action; he went! God does not forgive those who refuse to repent. The saints at Ephesus first had to “remember therefore whence thou art fallen” and then “repent and do the first works.” The prodigal saw how foolish his decision was and when he remember his father’s house, he acted. He saw his folly and infatuation with the world and how utterly foolish it was. Then he turned back to his father.

Then John says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins. . . ” (1 Jn. 1:9). Sure God knows our thoughts (or could know them) but how much good confessing sins doesl Like the prodigal we are saying, “I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight.” Does not God want us to fully realize our mistakes – what they are, and what can be done to correct them? He is the only one who can forgive, but we must meet his requirements here as before we were converted to Christ. And then, we pray to God and ask his forgiveness. Simon was told to “repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.” Sins must always be repented of and confessed to the Lord. They do not always have to be confessed to the brethren. I believe that depends on the situation. When I sin without anyone knowing it, what would teach me that I had to “take it to the church”? Surely if one’s sins are of a public nature, the brethren should know that the sinner is repenting of his sins, and making all right with God. And if he directly sins against a brother, then this must be confessed to the brother (Matt. 18:15-17). Thus in turning back to God, as with our initial obedience to the gospel, let us impress on the mind of the sinner that he must realize his sin and remember the One who can, and is anxious, to forgive his sin.

The Responsibility of the Righteous As noted above, the faithful Christian must realize his responsibility toward the erring. God is willing and able to forgive (1 Jn. 1:9; Isa. 1:18) and the faithful brother must be willing and able to help. Surely there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents (Lk. 15:7, 32). We are hearing more and more about children being abducted. Sometimes they are reunited with their parents, and I can think of no happier scene than to watch the cries and laughter of joy, both in the parent and the child when they are again united in the family circle. Such can be a picture of the fallen child who has been “abducted” by Satan, and then claimed again by the Lord. “But it was meet to make merry and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found” (Lk. 15:32).

And what can I do to save the brother? “And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all” (1 Thess. 5:14). It is much better to prevent one’s falling away (see the former article) than it is to reclaim him. This is true for several reasons. First he may never come home, or he may die in that condition before any effort is made to save him. Second of all, he has missed the joys of service while away, and the potential for saving others during that period of time.

Let me close these thoughts with this admonition to the faithful in Christ. I am afraid it is far too common among brethren to think that the restoration of the erring is exclusively the responsibility of the elders. Without trying to say that the elders have no responsibility here they surely do – we want to emphasize that all spiritually-minded brethren can do a good work there. “Ye which are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of gentleness. . . ” (Gal. 6:1). Souls are precious. Satan never sleeps. We have an interest in the welfare and burdens of our fellow-saints. Too long we have hired preachers to do this work, and relied on the elders to do this type of work and have the sectarian idea that our duty is fulfilled when we “warm a pew” and give a little into the Lord’s treasury. It magnifies the dangerous idea that the Lord’s church is becoming just another denomination. May it never be. If we love our brethren, let’s save them and do what we can to reclaim them for the Lord who died for them.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 168-169
March 19, 1987

By Larry Houchen

The father and mother painfully realized that they had made a mistake. Though some “sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow” (Isa. 1:18), there are some sins which carry with them severer consequences than do others. That time in life when the father and mother could have had a great impact for further good upon the lives of their children is now gone; their attempts to now remedy the sad condition will be meager. The father and mother are Christians, they attend services, they instilled within their children a belief in God and godly principles. They had and continue to have a healthy relationship with their children. The father and mother are not alcoholics nor burdened with any other such vice. What, then, is the problem and what caused them to realize their mistake? The problem is recognizing for possibly their lifetime that their once faithful children are no longer faithful to God. Their remembrance that they only attended Sunday morning worship services until their youngest child was eighteen years old is a brutal awakening that they must share much of the blame. What a price to pay!

The aforementioned story is not about any specific parents; it is, however, the story of literally thousands of Christians. Sadly, in just about every congregation of God’s people, there are those members who only attend on Sunday morning. The Sunday morning Bible classes, evening and midweek services are nonexistent insofar as they are concerned. They are oblivious to the fact that their neglect is having a tremendous negative impact upon their children.

There is a principle of degeneration which states that a weakness in any given generation tends to become more pronounced in the succeeding generations. One of the reasons why there is a law in many states which prohibits the marriage of cousins to each other is because of the high risk of deformity. in the offspring of that marriage. The physical weakness in a family becomes more pronounced when it is added to itself within the same family. Biblically speaking, a weakness passed to the next generation often worsens. In the book of Judges is the revealing statement, “And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers, and there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel” (2:10). The primary generation could not escape from the inevitable conclusion as evident in the degeneration of the secondary generation; they had been neglectful. The apostle Paul writes, “But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness” (2 Tim. 2:16). While the sins mentioned in that verse are not under consideration in this article, the principle that sin leads to further sin is evident. It is further affirmed when Paul says, “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Sin yields further sin.

Our role as parents is a tremendous responsibility. Such admonitions as “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” (Matt. 6:33) which plead for our dedication, affect our children based upon the degree we accept the challenge. The parental responsibility to bring up our children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4), will greatly affect our children depending on how we perceive the passage. The Hebrew writer states, “Not forsaking our own assembling together . . . ” (10:25). Negligence in attendance has always been only a symptom of a more far-reaching problem: attitude. In other words, if our dedication is not as it should be and our parental example of what God means to us is lacking, our children may adopt even lesser degrees of these vital essentials.

The influence which grandparents and other relatives wield is also a major contributing force to the offspring of a marriage. Moses, in exhorting Israel to teach their succeeding generations, said to “make them (the things that they had seen – LRH) known to your sons and grandsons.” Yes, grandparents, uncles and aunts, and other relatives greatly influence their next generation in the family.

The evangelism of the world is often stressed; but what about our own children? What about those with 1whom we have the greatest influence? It is true that many have risen above the lesser example for good of their parents, but many others constitute that sad statistic of degenerating from a weak influence for good. Think about that the next time there is a worship service or scheduled class instruction.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, p. 170
March 17, 1987