Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

(1) That tuning forks and pitch pipes are mechanical instruments of music, in the same sense that pianos and organs are, will someone please name a band, orchestra or musical group that features tuning fork and pitch pipe players?

(2) That militant, aggressive preaching does not manifest love or the spirit of Christ, what does militant, aggressive preaching against militant, aggressive preaching manifest?

(3) That “doctrine does not matter,” then the doctrine that says, “Doctrine does not matter,” does not matter. Does it?

(4) That any preaching which offends, insults, enrages or shames an audience is not preaching the truth in love, then what was Jesus doing when He offended (Matt. 15:12), enraged (Lk. 6:11), insulted (Lk. 11:45) and shamed (Lk. 13:17) some of His auditors?

(5) That Christians are in no sense under law, then in what sense is Christ our “lawgiver” (Jas. 4:12)?

(6) That being a gospel preacher is an easy living with good pay, can you name any other “easy job” with “good pay” which has as many open positions? And if the work is so simple and the salary so great, why do you not quit your hard, low-paying job and start preaching?

(7) That a man’s good reputation and high esteem establishes his teaching as unimpeachable, were the Jews justified when “the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city” took part in raising “persecution against Paul and Barnabas”? Did the apostle Peter’s life and loyalty to the Lord make him immune to Paul’s rebuke?

(8) That works or any act of obedience nullifies the grace of God in the salvation of the alien sinner, why is it that the Christian’s works of obedience do not nullify God’s grace and mercy?

(9) That papers like this one “air our dirty linen for all the world to see,” what do you do when the world wants to read 1 Corinthians, Galatians and Hebrews? And is it “dirty” or “clean” linen that you airing when you air out the complaint against airing out dirty linen?

(10) That “Alexander Campbell started the ‘Church of Christ,”‘ therefore, it is not the New Testament church, then will you also denounce the Lutheran Church (Martin Luther) and the Methodist Church (John Wesley) on the same basis? If not, why is a church started by Luther or Wesley better than one founded by Campbell?

(11) That the “Church of Christ is just another denomination,” why condemn its alleged errors (music question, baptism, etc.), while ignoring such monstrous errors as Popery, infant baptism and Sabbath keeping in the “other” denominations? Why exorcize “our demons” but not theirs?

(12) That, as some Baptists claim, the deeds of the body, the outer man, do not affect the salvation of the soul, the inner man, why did Peter say, “Abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11)?

(13) That a person who falls away was never truly saved, why did Jude say, “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not” (Jude 5)?

(14) That “residents have as much right to watch sexually explicit movies as they have to watch religious programming” (Cleveland City Council President, George L. Forbes, Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 16, 1985, p. 3-A), is it also true (a) that “residents have as much right to watch child pornography movies as they have to watch religious programming”? (b) That “residents have as much right to watch homosexually explicit movies as they have to watch religious programming”? Really, these questions are raised with fear and trembling. I fear what Mr. Forbes might say!

(15) That (again, according to President Forbes – see above) “It is not right for a certain segment of society to say, ‘We are not going to bring Playboy to a channel,”‘ is it also true (a) that “It is not right for a certain segment of society to say, ‘We are not going to bring Playgay to a channel . . . ? (b) “It is not right for a certain segment of society to say, ‘We are not going to bring Playchild (sex) to a channel”? If by chance, these would not be acceptable to Mr. Forbes, what standard would he use to deny and deprive us of the right to see these things?

Further, is it “right for a certain segment of society to say we are going to bring Playboy to a channel?”

(16) That Ronald Reagan’s efforts to repeal the right to abortion “is a continuation of the Reagan administration’s war on women” (Judy Goldsmith, President of National Organization for Women, Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 16, 1985, p. 6-A), would it be fair to characterize Ms. Goldsmith’s hard labor (pun intended) for abortion as “a continuation of her war on babies”?

(17) That salvation “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8,9) means faith is essential to salvation, then why is it not also true, since the saved are “kept by the power of God through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5), that continuing in faith is necessary to continuing in salvation?

(18) That the Bible is full of fictions and fabrications and that infidel scholars must free us from its superstitious shackles, why do they not also feel compelled to debunk the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and “other” works of darkness? If the Bible is so transparently false and fallible and totally unreliable, why consume so much time and energy fighting it while leaving “other” religious myths and legends alone?

(19) That the present Pope’s teachings are alive and powerful, why is it not true that the doctrines of the “first Pope, the apostle Peter, are not also living and active? How can the words of a man twenty centuries from Christ be given more credence and credibility than the words of one who was a contemporary or our Lord, especially since that one was an “eye witness of His majesty”?

(20) That Jesus has not yet set up His kingdom, how can people be “born again,” since it is the new birth that allow some to enter the kingdom (Jn. 3:3,5)?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 582, 598
October 2, 1986

By Irvin Himmel

Hearing Ears and Seeing Eyes

The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them (Prov. 20:12).

Physically, the ear is the organ of hearing and the eye is the organ of sight. Through the sense of hearing and the sense of seeing impressions are received in the mind. To fully appreciate this proverb we need to go beyond the physical senses to the spiritual listening and looking which God requires.

The Hearing Ear

Jesus said in Mk. 4:23, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” The hearing ear is the “obedient ear” (Prov. 25:12). It is the ear that hearkens and heeds (1 Sam. 15:22).

(1) It hears God’s word. Many people who have excellent physical hearing never hearken to the voice of God. Through Isaiah, Jehovah threatened judgment against the Israelites “because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear” (Isa. 65:12). God approached His people through works, i.e. by revelation, but they declined to hearken. They turned a deaf ear to His will. They were like a child who ignores his parents when they speak.

The salvation of the soul depends on our willingness to hear. Jesus said, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:45). In the examples of conversion in the book of Acts, each case began with the hearing of the gospel. For instance, it is said of Lydia that she “heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul” (Acts 16:14). “. . . And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). It is through hearing that faith is produced: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

It is not mere physical hearing of the gospel that brings a blessing. The hearing which results in submission to the Lord is that which blesses. Jesus compared the one who hears His sayings and does them to a wise man who builds his house on a rock. The hearer who does not obey is compared to a foolish man who builds his house on the sand (Matt. 7:24-27).

(2) It hears when challenges call. The Bible tells of the progress of the gospel in Antioch of Syria, and how “the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned to the Lord.” When “tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was at Jerusalem,” they sent Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:21,22). The Jerusalem brethren heard the challenge to broaden the influence of the gospel by sending a qualified teacher to a field that needed such a man. Today, our ears should listen when such challenges come.

(3) It hears the cries of the poor. “Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble” (Psa. 41:1). Paul and Barnabas were admonished by James, Cephas, and John to “remember the poor” as they preached among the Gentiles (Gal. 2: 10). Paul did in fact hearken to the cries of the poor, urging help for needy saints (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8; 9; Rom. 15:25,26). Dorcas’ ear was open to the cries of the poor. When she died all the widows gathered around weeping and showing the coats and garments which she had made (Acts 9:39).

The Seeing Eye

The eye which sees in the profitable and spiritual sense is the eye which perceives, understands, regards, and ascertains.

(1) It sees opportunities for helping others. In relation to helping the poor, it is a “bountiful eye.” “He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor” (Prov. 22:9). It is the eye of compassion. When the Samaritan came to the man who had been robbed and wounded, “he saw him” and “had compassion on him” (Lk. 10:33). The priest and the Levite had seen the man, but they lacked eyes of compassion. Jesus said to the disciples, “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white unto harvest” (John 4:35). All around us today there are opportunities for harvesting souls for the Lord. Too often our eyes are dim and we do not see those opportunities until it is too late.

(2) It sees Him who is invisible. The physical eye cannot see God (John 1:18), for He is spirit (John 4:24). Moses saw only a manifestation of the glory of God, described figuratively as His “back parts” (Ex. 33:17-23). But notice Hebrews 11:27 which says, speaking of Moses at an earlier period, “By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.” Robert Milligan puts it this way: “By the eye of faith he saw the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, standing by him, ready to fulfill at the proper time all the promises that he had made to his chosen people.”

(3) It sees light through God’s word. Paul referred to the ‘eyes of your understanding being enlightened” (Eph. 1:18). It is said in Psalm 119:130, “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” God provides the light to lead us out of darkness. The eye that sees is enlightened by His word.

God Made Both of Them

God is the designer of the human body and has equipped it with its component parts. When Moses complained of being slow of speech and of a slow tongue, God answered, “Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or blind? have not I the Lord” (Ex. 4:10,11).

It is God who has given us faculties for learning and doing His will. He has provided us ears for hearing and eyes for seeing. But too many people are like those to whom Jesus spoke and applied the words of Isaiah the prophet: “By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart. . . ” (Matt. 13:14,15).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 585, 598
October 2, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

Our “Getting to the Bottom Line” series has taken us through a consideration of How We Know Things of God, Grace, and Faith; all very basic subjects. Members of the church of the Lord need these fundamental studies, and yet, strange as it may seem, there is probably more need for a basic understanding of the Nature of the Church than for any other one subject. The reason is obvious to all who give reflective thought to the study of church history. Within the first one hundred years of the church there is evidence that the concept of its nature was being corrupted. Nearly one thousand, nine hundred years have passed, during which that corrupted concept has maintained a predominate position among historic “Christians.” Despite manful efforts for “restoration,” we live among and draw converts from people who have accepted the corrupted concept. What could we rightfully expect but that our small minority of people will be affected by this overwhelming burden?

Recently I was told of two preachers who tried to discuss product of truth, some points of difference. After three or four matters were measured by the Scriptures and not the mother it became apparent they were poles apart in understanding, one remarked, “You know, I don’t believe you are a member of the Church of Christ. I have never met a Church of Christer who believed as you do.” It was a clear case of “you don’t believe as we do, so you are not ‘Church of Christ.”‘ Reminded me of a statement from Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) about the church at Rome: “. . which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. . .”(Against Heresies, Bk.III, Ch.3, par.2; subject to various translations of the Latin). This tells us how early the nature of the church was corrupted, and the direction that corruption took.

The concept puts “Church authority” in the hands of a body politic, whose true core consists of its administrators. Perhaps this strikes a familiar note to those who read some recent literature, but do not let that turn you off. If the current examination of local church “entity” and elders succeeds in raising another divisive “issue” it will be because we have too few truly taught in the nature of the N.T. church — not because the Examiner was logical or understood that nature correctly. It is a shameful state that should enlist careful study on the part of us all.

Catholicism sees the church as “the society founded by our Lord Jesus Christ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, V. III, p. 744). It is defined as “a body of en united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors . . .” (Ibid, p. 745). Look carefully for the nature of the church in any reliable Catholic source. It is a society (a body politic), having lawful pastors (administrators), who dispense grace (blessings of the sacraments), bought by the blood of Christ. (See Understanding the Catholic Faith, John O’Brien, 1955.)

Allow me to put this pragmatically. (1) Such a church must perpetuate itself, sanctioning and authorizing additional churches. Mormons, accepting this concept in principle, conclude that since the church had been “lost” the original “authority” had to be restored – hence, Peter, James and John appeared to Smith and others, laying hands on them (?). Baptists, accepting this concept in principle, conclude they must “rattle the chain” of succession back to the original “church” – to prove validity. (2) “The church” (via bishops) baptizes, validates public worship, etc. The Great Commission was given to “the church,” hence none but the institution is authorized to go, teach, baptize. Growth of this idea can be traced through Ante-Nicene writings (cf. Constitution of the Holy Apostles, Bk. III, Ch. 10, ca. 120 A.D.). However, as late as 193 A.D., one writer says in special cases “other disciples are called i.e., to the work” (On Baptism, ch. 17). The concept that the institution was the authority, the validator, and the testing stone for heaven, was developed at a very early date. Little wonder, when the institution apostatized it took “Christianity” with it.

I believe the Scriptures teach a much different nature of the church. The word itself is a collective noun, and refers to saints metaphorically assembled. We have put far too much emphasis upon the establishment of the Church, when we should be emphasizing the establishment of the rule of Christ (Study Isa. 2; Acts 2 objectively). It has caused us to think of an institution, when we should have been thinking of a certain kind or quality of people – the saints. Christ rules His people via His word, and even the Apostles were not “the authority,” but were the king’s Ambassadors, who delivered the authoritative word. They have no successors – need none, being still active via their inspired message. I am not arguing the case here, for I believe my readers who will take time to think, will agree with what I am saying. The church (visible) is the product of truth, not the mother of it. Take the word to people, cause them to believe and obey it, and they become Christ’s church.

Putting that pragmatically, we would say a New Testament could be tossed from a boat to an island where people never heard of Christ’s church, and if translated, studied, believed and obeyed, the “church” would exist on that island. (Consider: put sheep on that island, and a “flock” exists there.) This concept says anyone can teach the word, and if it is taught accurately, and obeyed, it produces the same thing every time. Succession is in the seed, not in the sower. Baptism is not “administered” by some “office,” nor is public worship validated by such administrators. Saints assemble and worship because they want to follow the Lord’s instructions, and have a perfect right to do so, without some “mother church” giving them this right. The “nature” of the church in this sense, is the character of its units, the saints. We speak of the “body” of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23), the whole family of God in heaven and earth (3:15, KJ), the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven (Heb. 12:22-23).

We are aware some seem to think this is the only possible use of “church,” and that every passage which speaks of “the church” doing something simply means that “saints” did something. Well, saints did it all right, but not always individually or distributively. Such limitations are inexcusable. They sometimes did something as a team, or collectively; and that team has “entity” and is called a “church.” “Churches” paid wages to Paul (2 Cor. 11:8). This can be broken down to no smaller unit than “church.” “Let not the church be burdened” (1 Tim. 5:16) can not refer to saints individually, because of the contrast in the context. Saints (distributively) have an obligation, and are to perform it and not let saints (collectively) be charged with that obligation. The saints at Philippi, with their overseers and servants (1:1), were called “church” in chapter 4:15, and here “church” is the subject of a singular verb – indicating the saints are not being considered distributively.

There is nothing unusual about a term having more than one application. The word “elder” means older, and sometimes refers only to age. But it is not so limited. Presbuteriou (1 Tim. 4:14) “is a late word (ecclesiastical use also), first for the Jewish Sanhedrin (Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5), then (here only in N.T.) of Christian elders. . . ” (Word Pictures, Robertson). In “The high priest . . . and all the estate of the elders” (22:5) the high priest was also “elder” but has a separate designation. Adolf Deissmann (Light from Ancient East) confirms the ecclesiastical and official use of “elder” in the N.T., and even mentions a scholar who has written a “history of the title ‘presbyteros. “‘ The dual use of “church” is so commonly confirmed it is foolish to ignore it. All of which brings us to consider “church” when it refers to a group of saints who have covenanted together to act as one – to “organize” if you please. Our study on the nature of the church is incomplete without much more consideration of the nature of the local church, so we promise that in our next article.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 583-584
October 2, 1986

By David J. Halter

I. Introduction:

A. What is a profession?

1. Webster: “a vocation or occupation requiring advanced training in some liberal art or science, and usually involving mental rather than manual work, as teaching, engineering, writing, etc.; especially, medicine, law or theology.”

2. Webster: “the body of persons in a particular calling or occupation.”

B. Is the Lord’s church a profession?

1. It is a vocation as evidenced by our text (Eph. 4:1).

2. The Christian is called into the church or kingdom by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14; Acts 2:47).

3. Hence, yes the Lord’s church is a profession and its members are professionals.

C. Recognized professions of mankind:

1. Teaching.

2. Engineering.

3. Writing.

4. Medicine.

5. Law.

6. Theology.

D. Criteria for occupations, vocations seeking professional status:

1. The occupation must “render a unique and essential service.”

2. The occupation must have “selective, high standards of membership.”

3. The occupation must have “rigorous training for members.”

4. The occupation must be “self-regulatory in nature.”

II. Discussion-Question: Does the Lord’s church meet these criteria?

A. The Lord’s church offers this unique and essential service.

1. This means that the Lord’s church can do for mankind something that no other institution can – save his soul (Acts 2:47).

2. This unique service is the salvation of the world (Mt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15,16).

a. The church (called out) must go into the world and preach the gospel.

b. The fields are white with harvest (Jn. 4:35).

3. We must pray that God will send the necessary laborers to reap this harvest (Mt. 9:37; Lk. 10:2).

4. This service cannot be performed by any other organization (Acts 2:47).

a. Salvation is to be found only in Christ (Acts 4:12).

b. No human organization (denominations, Masonry, etc.) can do this.

5. The church provides an essential service (Rom. 2:16,17).

a. Why? Because all will be judged one day (1 Tim. 1:11).

b. All will be judged out of the same book (Rev. 20:12; Acts 17:30,31).

B. The Lord’s church has high, selective standards of membership.

1. It is the strait and narrow (Mt. 7:13,14).

a. Just as certain honorary groups take in only a certain type of man or woman (Phi Beta Kappa) and restrict their membership.

b. Many seek, but few attain (Lk. 13:24).

2. God has set high standards for membership in His profession (Heb. 3:1).

a. Faith or belief (Jn. 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 Jn. 2:2; Heb. 11:6).

b. Repentance from sin (Lk. 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; 8:22; Rev. 2:21).

c. Confession of faith (Acts 8:36,37; Mt. 10:32; Jn. 12:42; Rom. 10:10).

d. Baptism by immersion (Rom. 6:3,4; Jn. 3:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:20,21).

e. Then and only then, are we added (Acts 2:47).

f. Furthermore, a faithful life is then required (Rev. 2:10).

C. The Lord’s church provides a rigorous training program for its membership.

1. We are commanded to study (2 Tim. 2:15).

a. In order to rightly divide the word.

b. In order to put off fleshly appetites (Gal. 6:16).

2. Seek the kingdom first (Mt. 6:33).

a. Pray for enemies (Mt. 5:43-48).

b. Shine as lights (Mt. 5:13-16).

3. We must seek to add to our faith (2 Pet. 1:1-9).

a. We must continue to desire to grow (1 Pet. 2:2).

b. We must continue to grow (1 Pet. 3:18).

D. The Lord’s church is a self-regulatory body.

1. We must keep tradition out of it (Mt. 15:1-14).

a. Going back to the elements of the law (Col. 2:14-16).

b. Philosophy of man, vain deceit (Col. 2:8).

2. Personal pride will be kept out of the church (3 Jn. 5-12).

a. Elders must not lord it over the flock (1 Pet. 5:2).

b. No one person is more important than the total body.

3. False doctrine must be kept out (1 Jn. 4:1-6).

a The word of God is our measuring stick.

b. If true, it will shine forth (Psa. 12:6).

4. Unholy brethren must be dealt with (Gal. 6:1; 2 Thess. 3:6; Rom. 16:16,17).

a. First they must be restored if possible.

b. If not, then the purity of the church must be maintained (1 Cor. 5:6,7).

E. Conclusion

1. Only the Lord’s church offers the unique and essential service of saving souls (Acts 2:47; 4:12).

2. For one to be in it, he must meet high standards (Mt. 7:13,14).

3. Each member must study and prepare for judgment on his own (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 3:15).

4. The Lord’s church must be self-regulatory to maintain its professional status (Mt. 18:15-18).

F. Exhortation

1. The Marines advertise: “The Marines Are Looking For a Few Good Men.”

2. Their slogan: “The Few, The Proud, The Marines.”

3. Are you willing to pay the price? (Acts 20:28; Mt. 11:28-30)

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 590-591
October 2, 1986