Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell Sr.

For indeed, when we came to Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side. Outside were conflicts, inside were fears (2 Cor. 7:5).

Paul admitting to fear? This is the man who had the courage to call one Ananias a “whitewashed wall” – and to apologize upon learning that he was the high priest (Acts 23:3). Paul was set for the defense of the gospel (Phil. 1:17). He defended it even when all forsook him (2 Tim. 4:16). He demonstrated his courage in nearly every city during his travels for the gospel’s sake.

One associates boldness with courage rather than fear. Yet, here and on other occasions Paul freely admits his fears (cf. 1 Cor. 2:3). It is interesting to notice specific fears expressed by Paul in Second Corinthians. They relate to his concern for the spiritual well-being of his brethren – the church. These are the kind of fears shared by every dedicated elder, preacher, teacher – indeed by every Christian who is concerned with the souls of brethren and the progress of the Lord’s church.

Disappointment

Paul had written a pointed rebuke of the Corinthians in his first letter to them. While waiting to hear the results, he says “without were conflict, inside were fears.” He knew they might not have received his rebuke in the spirit that was intended. He suggests that he had some second thoughts about his rebuke – “though I did regret” (7:8). What sincere and sensitive gospel preacher has not felt this conflict between his duty to “rebuke with all authority” (cf. Tit. 2:15) and wanting to spare the feelings of brethren whom he dearly loves? How many brethren have unjustly thought that such preachers were hard and calloused in their attitudes toward people?

What a relief it must have been for Paul to hear that his fears were unfounded! His rebuke had worked! They had sorrowed unto repentance!

I highly suspect that Paul’s words were intended to profit far more than the Corinthians. They tell every advocate of truth for all time that he must not let his fears – even regrets – to keep him from doing his duty before God even at the expense of his personal comfort. This is important at a time when there is a growing obsession with “accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative” in preaching and writing. Unless one is one of those rare birds who enjoys the challenge of conflict, he had much rather always be pleasingly positive. It would mean a whole lot less wear and tear on a sensitive nervous system. It would make it a lot easier for brethren to take his preaching – both public and private. He could learn to live with brethren’s response to this kind of preaching in a hurry!

Though elated by the news of their repentance, Paul expresses other fears about the Corinthians. He was afraid of what could happen when he saw them in person. They might disappoint him and he them (12:20-21).

If he found “contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits” among them, he would be disappointed. If he found those “who have sinned before and have not repented” of things “which they have practiced,” he would be further disappointed. If he did find such, he knew he would likely “be found by (them) such as (they did) not wish.” They would be disappointed with each other!

He was not only concerned with what they presently did, but with what they had previously done (v. 21). Even though it may have been “done already” (KJV), it would still be a problem until they repented of it. Mere quitting is not repenting.

It is so easy to ignore the past sins of brethren – if they no longer practice them. Never mind that they have never repented! Never mind that they never openly repudiate the words or deeds that they openly spoke or did! There is no reason to fear that they would find us “as they did not wish,” for we know full well that we are not going to rock the boat – as long as they are not presently engaged in the evil in question.

Is not the fact that one can say “they have practiced” rather than “they are practicing” evidence enough that they have repented? Apparently not. Paul was still afraid “lest, when I come again, . . . I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of . . . which they have practiced.” Judging from our experience with brethren, Paul had good reason to fear. He not only would be a disappointment to those who had sinned and not repented, but also to other brethren who observed his handling of the matter. They simply would not understand how Paul could still hold those brethren accountable after they had quit their sinful practices. Of course, if Paul found that what they had previously done was not really sinful, then that would be a different matter entirely.

One must not allow his fear, even if realized, to stop him from his duty under God. Nor can he allow disappointment with brethren or their disappointment with him to turn him into a cold, bitter and/or rude person. Paul wrote, “We are pressed on every side, yet not crushed, we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed” (4:8-9).

Deception

But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craltinem, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (11:3).

Paul knew how deceptive false teachers could be: “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light * Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works” (11: 13-15). He knew about the “smooth words and flattering speeches” of those causing divisions contrary to the doctrine of Christ (Rom. 16:18). He knew how false teachers “zealously court” (cf. Gal. 4:17) good brethren with their “swelling words of emptiness” (cf. 2 Pet. 2:18-19) – sweet nothings.

Paul also knew how gullible good brethren can be. They can be easily swayed by a powerful and pleasing personality. Paul asks, “Do you look at things according to the outward appearance?” (10:7) He knew how easily brethren can be taken in by oratorical skill (see chapters 10:10; 11:6). A skilled practitioner of sophistry, flattery, or emotionalism can find among brethren an ample supply of itching ears ready to be scratched (1 Cor. 2:4,5; 1 Thess. 2:5; 2 Tim. 4:2ff).

Defilement

Paul was afraid that the Corinthians would be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (11:4). Simplicity, in this case, does not mean the easy to understand. It means the opposite of duplicity and/or multiplicity (simplex is one fold, duplex is twofold and multiplex is manyfold). Paul was concerned that their faith in Christ should not be mixed with some other system like that taught by Judaizing teachers. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a stand-alone system. Its value lies in maintaining its purity unmixed with any other element. Once it is mixed with other systems or schools of thought, like Judaism, worldly philosophy, paganism, etc., it ceases to be simple. It is now a mixture of two or more elements. It becomes a compound solution rather than a Simple one. Its value and power is weakened or destroyed by the additional elements. It becomes a modified version, a watered down and weakened gospel. It is the result of blending the truth of the gospel with other religious and/or philosophical systems. It retains enough of the truth to allow the naive to drink freely of it without suspecting that it is mixture rather than the truth alone. It would be less dangerous if it were an entirely different system. Such mix. ing results in another system with a strong Christian flavor – strong enough to convince many good people that it is the real thing. The preaching of such a mixture is in effect preaching another Jesus, another gospel, and/or another spirit. Paul chided the Corinthians for “put(ting) up with” or “bear(ing) with” (KJV) such preaching (11:4).

Much that is passed off as being “of Christ” is in reality a mixture of the gospel of Christ with other schools of thought. We are to bring “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (10:5). Rather than hunting some way to harmonize the religious and/or philosophical thinking of our neighbors with the gospel, we must use the gospel to defeat such thinking. The truth must be used “for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God . . . ” (10:4,5). “Indeed, let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Brethren sometimes make a spectacle of themselves by trying to ride two horses running in opposite directions – the truth of the gospel and the conventional wisdom of this world. It may be an effort to accommodate faith in God to the philosophical theory of evolution resulting in “Theistic evolution.” It may be to attempt to accommodate the kospel of Christ to the hedonistic whims and temporal needs of society resulting in the “social gospel.” It may be an effort to accommodate the gospel of Christ to the religious realities of this age, resulting in “ecumenism” or “unity in diversity.”

It is truly amazing how tolerant brethren can be toward those who corrupt the truth and how intolerant they can be toward those who, like Paul, oppose their compromises (cf. 11:1,4,19-20).

Brethren, if Paul were present today, would we give him reason to fear? Or would we give him reason to rejoice?

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 3, pp. 76-77
February 5, 1987

By Frank Jamerson

In Romans 6:11 the apostle Paul discusses the death to sin and the resurrection to a new life. We will quote the entire passage and emphasize certain words for your special consideration.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus.”

The likeness between Christ’s physical death, burial and resurrection and the burial and resurrection of one who is dead in sin is the point of the passage. When a person reaches the age of accountability and commits sin, he then becomes the slave of sin, or “dead in sin.” He is separated from God’s favor because of his sins. Just as Christ was dead when He was buried, so a person is spiritually dead when he is buried in baptism.

The question we want to address is: When does one die to sin? Some say that he dies to sin When he repents, or turns from sin. The Bible certainly teaches that one must repent before he can be scripturally baptized, but is that the “death to sin” of this passage? If so, then a person is “free from sin” before he is baptized! Verse seven says, “He that hath died is justified from sin.” Verse eleven says those “dead unto sin” are “alive unto God.”

If you look carefully at verses four and eight the picture becomes clear. In verse four: “We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death”; verse eight, “if” died with Christ . . . .” We died with Christ when we were “buried with him through baptism.” The “death” of verse four seems to be our own death to sin. We were buried in order to die to sin. Albert Barnes, a Methodist commentator who did not believe in the necessity of being buried in baptism, made this statement about verse four: “Unto death; i.e. with a solemn purpose to be dead to sin and to the world.”

A penitent believer is still in sin, but when he is baptized “into Christ’s death,” he dies to sin and arises to walk in newness of life. He is “dead in sin,” and is baptized into Christ’s death and into his own “death to sin.” The “old man is crucified with him,” or “the body. of sin is done away” when the person dead in sin is buried by baptism into Christ. When he died to sin He is “justified from sin” (v. 7); he is “alive unto God in Christ Jesus” (v. 11).

Death “to sin” in Romans six takes place when one is baptized into Christ!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 3, p. 79
February 5, 1987

By Norman Midgette

The Bible teaches that each congregation is independent and separate in organization, work, responsibility and judgment from all other congregations. There is no exception to this in the New Testament. By example this is what we see when we read the different letters written to the various churches in the first century.

Over each congregation God placed elders, when there were men qualified, to oversee His work, worship and people in that church. God addressed elders through Peter in these words:

The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who also am a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint but willingly, according to the will of God . . (1 Pet. 5:1,2).

The scope of the authority of elders is either limited or unlimited. They can oversee any Christians or churches any place or they are limited with a boundary placed on their oversight. This statement by God in I Peter limits their work to one flock, “the flock of God which is among you.”

This means that no eldership can oversee any church nor any work of any church outside the border or boundary of their “flock.” It would not matter whether they overstepped this divine boundary by force or were asked by another church to oversee their work voluntarily, or asked another church to let them oversee all or part of their work, it would still be sin and a violation of the above Scripture.

As long as brethren believed this and functioned within the framework given by God we never had a “sponsoring church” or “sponsoring eldership” pushing such programs as the Herald Of Truth, World Radio and World Bible Schools. Today elderships have sprung up over the brotherhood taking the oversight of millions of dollars from thousands of elderships over the world and admitting they are overseeing works for the “Churches of Christ.”

Some years ago the wind shifted and a new interpretation was put on 1 Peter 5:1-2 and church autonomy or self rule. Here is how the elders at the Highland Church in Abilene, Texas, who oversee the Herald of Truth, justify their world wide oversight of part of the work and money of every church in the brotherhood who will send to them.

In their publication, Decade of Development, they raised this question: “How can congregations cooperate and still maintain their autonomy?” Here is their answer.

Autonomy briefly means, that the Highland church should not tell other congregations what to do; neither is the Highland church under the authority of any other congregation. Any evangelism, any benevolence or worship that we can do as individual congregations, we can do together, as long as such cooperation is voluntary.

This may seem a small change to some but what it really does is totally abandon the teaching of 1 Peter 5:1,2 as to the limits of oversight God gave each eldership. By this definition, if all elderships in the brotherhood voluntarily agreed they could make one eldership the overseer of all the worship, work, discipline and money of all the churches in the world.

You either accept the stipulation of God or your next step is the approval of an organizational structure that rivals that of Rome or any other church with a single world headquarters.

The major apostasies that have occurred over organization in the past five decades in the church have come about as a result of brethren gullibly accepting this perverted interpretation of what God said. They totally ignore the limitation placed on an eldership by the Lord. As a result, every division in the body of Christ that has taken place, and there have been many, over projects like the Herald of Truth and similar sponsoring church programs, is the fault of these men who have changed what God said. They have perverted the truth, divided the body of Christ, and continued today in their self-appointed pattern for the organization of the churches. Any church or individual supporting the Herald of Truth is backing an apostate organization of the first order.

When the wind shifted in the minds of brethren on 1 Peter 5:1,2, it shifted 180 degrees. They totally negated this passage by adding one word, “voluntary,” and by this they voluntarily abandoned the truth on the organization of the churches. This is one example of how brethren will twist the Scriptures to justify their projects and the damage that results seems to them of little concern.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 3, p. 85
February 5, 1987

By Irvin Himmel

A Nagging Woman

A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike. Whosoever hideth her bideth the wind, and the ointment of his right hand, which betrayeth itself (Prov. 27:15,16).

Sometimes this proverb brings a smile. In 19:13 and 21:9,19 there are similar statements. Laying all humor aside, we need to see the seriousness in the comparison.

Continual Vexation

Have you ever lived in an old house with a leaky roof? On a day when there is heavy rain you set buckets and pans under the leaks. Drip! Drip! Drip! After a time this continual dripping becomes highly annoying. You empty a bucket and put it back under one of the leaks. Plink! Plink! Plink! Plunk! Plunk! The dripping never lets up. Soon it’s time to empty another container. You long for the rain to stop.

A comparison is drawn between the dripping rain and a contentious woman. In each case one is made uncomfortable by the unbroken continuity of something irritating. Delitzsch remarks, “An Arab proverb which I once heard from Wetzstein, says that there are three things which make our house intolerable . . . the trickling through of rain the contention of the wife and . . . bugs.”

Some women complain constantly. They persistently find fault with their husbands. They are belligerent in their attitude. They scold and chide, bicker and quarrel. A man who is married to a nagging woman has torment rather than joy.

This is one of many reasons for choosing carefully in the selection of a companion for life. The one thing that most courting couples do not want is advice. But a young man may avoid a long life of misery by heeding the counsel of a friend who cautions, him not to marry a girl who constantly nags. (And a girl invites a- life of trouble by marrying the wrong kind of boy.)

How to Avoid Nagging

Here are some suggestions to help a wife avoid being one who nags:

(1) Realize that nagging has a negative influence. Any member of the family – husband, wife, son,, daughter, grandparent, or in-laws who nags continually becomes a nuisance to others in the family. Everyone should strive for peace and harmony in the home. Each family member should pray:

Lord, this humble house we’d keep

Sweet with love and calm with peace.

Help us so that we may give

Beauty to the lives we live.

Let thy love and let thy grace

Shine upon our dwelling place.

(2) Contribute ideas in a logical way. A good husband wants to share his wife’s thoughts. He needs to know her feelings, wishes, and preferences. Her ideas will carry more influence with him when offered in a logical manner rather than by persistent scolding and urging.

(3) Learn contentment. Paul learned that in whatsoever circumstance he was, therewith to be content (Phil. 4:11). Godliness accompanied by contentment is great gain (1 Tim. 6:6). This includes learning to live within one’s financial means. “Many women have not been able to live within the means provided by their husbands. They have been extravagant and selfish, and they have lost the love and respect of their husband. . . While these wives have been dependent on their husbands’ salaries and have driven them relentlessly to earn more than they were capable, they have added to the unhappiness by constant complaining and comparisons of their lot with others around whom they considered,. more fortunate. Many homes have thus been torn with strife until they end in divorce” (Irven Lee, Good Homes In A Wicked World, p. 113).

(4) Be thankful. Gratitude deters discontentment. When tempted to fuss at your husband, pause to thank God that you have a husband. Before cutting him down by reminding him of his faults, be grateful that he has some good qualities.

(5) Radiate joy and love. “Marriage is a lifetime union of a man and a woman. This idea is widely derided today by those who point out that it is better to live in love, unshackled by vows, than to live in hatred because of vows that have ceased to be meaningful. If that is the alternative, one could scarcely argue. But there is another possibility: live in love that grows with the years” (Andrew W. Blackwood, Jr.). Resolve to be a loving wife, not a nagging wife.

(6) Show meekness with subjection. This was the recommendation of Peter to women whose husbands were not Christians (1 Pet. 3:1-5). A meek and quiet spirit is much to be preferred over a quarrelsome spirit.

No Hiding Nor Restraining

The man who is married to a contentious woman can no more conceal her than he could hide the effects of the wind. And restraining her is out of the question. “He who would restrain her restrains the wind, And grasps oil with his right hand” (NASB).

Mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam’

Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home”

Unless a nagging woman puts leaks in the dome!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 3, p. 73
February 5, 1987