Truth Magazine

By Earl Kimbrough

Each generation of Christians sees the rise of teachers in the church similar to those whom Paul describes as men of “profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Tim. 6:20). Professing superior enlightenment and virtue, they lead astray unwary disciples of the Lord with pretentious discussions and erroneous doctrines that contradict the teaching of Christ. A blight of this kind is now infecting some faithful congregations with discord and rebellion through an attractive bi-monthly journal called The Examiner, published by Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc., of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and edited by Charles A. Holt.

The Examiner is filled with teaching that will disrupt any church where it takes root. Among other things, it claims the churches of Christ are a denomination, denies authority for a church treasury, and views gospel preachers as hirelings. However, its predominant perversions center in the nature of the church, the role of elders, and church membership. In regard to the local church, it teaches that there is no such thing as “the local church,” that the word church (ekkIesia) has no geographic Imitation, that “the local church” is not a functioning unit, and that there can be only one congregation in a city. Look at some of the editor’s assertions.

The Church Local And Universal

“The New Testament never speaks of either ‘the local church’ or ‘the universal church.’ It does speak often of ‘the church’ and that term means the same thing in every instance. It always refers to disciples, saints, believers, God’s people . . . It refers to God’s people, as an assembly or congregation of people under God and Christ” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, p. 25).

The fact that the words local and universal are not found in the New Testament in reference to the church does not mean the ideas are absent. Universal means “of, for, effecting, or including all or the whole of something; not limited or restricted” (New World Dictionary). When Jesus said, “. . on this rock I will build My church” (Matt. 16:18), He included all it embraces, the whole church. In other words, He spoke of the church universally (cf. Eph. 1:22,23). Local means “relating to place, of, characteristic of, or confined to a particular place or district” (NWD). “The church of God at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2) refers to the church that was “of, characteristic of, or confined to” Corinth. When Paul spoke of the church in that city, he spoke of the church in its local sense (cf. Acts 13:1).

Of course, the root meaning of “church” remains the same, but the word is not always used the same way. Basically it denotes “that which is called out,” or a “body of people.” But how is it used?. The Septuagint uses it to translate the Hebrew word quhal, “which . . . comes from a root which means ‘to summon… (William Barclay, New Testament Words). “In the Sept. it is used to designate the gathering of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary). “The Greeks used it to describe a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of state, Acts 19:39” (Ibid.). Stephen applied it to Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38) and Luke to a mob at Ephesus (Acts 19:32,41).

Even in reference to Christians, the word is not always used the same way. “It has two applications to companies of Christians, (a) to the whole company of the redeemed through the present era, the company of which Christ said, “I will build My Church”. . . (b) in the singular number, to a company consisting of professed believers, e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2 . . . and in the plural, with reference to churches in a district” (Vine). So it is proper to speak of the universal church, the whole company of the redeemed, and of the local church, the company of the redeemed at a given place. “Universal” and “local” convey precisely what the New Testament teaches about the church.

No Geographic Limitations

“The word ‘church’ (ecclesia) has no inherent restrictions or limitations relative to geography or place. It refers to the same people, all of them, that Jesus spoke of when He promised, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’ (Matt. 16:18). The meaning is upon this rock I will build, establish, My people” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, p. 25).

“Inherent” signifies the basic nature of a thing, that which is its “natural and inseparable quality” (NWD). The “inherent” meaning of “church” is “a body of people.” This idea belongs to the word regardless of how it is used. But when a noun is modified by a limiting word or phrase, the limitation is not nullified by the fact that the noun itself has no inherent limitation. The purpose of an adjective or an adjective phrase is “to limit or qualify a noun” (NWD). Paul limits the use of “church” in 1 Corinthians 1:2. “Of God” and “those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus” limit the word to Christians. It shows that he is not talking about Israel in the wilderness or a mob at Ephesus. “At Corinth” further limits the word to the saints in that place. It shows that he is not talking about the whole company of the redeemed, nor the church in Jerusalem. The word “church” is limited or qualified by the context of every passage where it refers to a congregation, such as “the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1).

But in trying to wedge Christ’s promise into the idea that the word church always means “the same people, all of them, that Jesus spoke of” in Matthew 16:18, The Examiner says Jesus meant “upon this rock I will build, establish, My people.” If this had been what the Lord meant, He most likely would have used laos instead of ekkiesia. When God spoke of Christians as people, He used the former word: “I will call them My people flaos), who were not My people” (Rom. 9:25). The word church does not mean people as such, but it carries the idea of “a body or company of people.”

Attempting to explain away phrases that limit the church geographically, The Examiner says, “the church in Jerusalem . . . simply means that portion of God’s people in Jerusalem and its environs” (Vol. 1, p. 26). But Luke does not say “God’s people in Jerusalem. ” He says, God’s “church in Jerusalem” (Acts 11:22). In using the word church, both Christ and Luke speak of a body or company of Christians: Christ, the whole company, and Luke, a local company. Calling a local church a “portion of God’s people” does not help because a portion of anything is not all of it. Luke does not use “church” to signify “the same people, all of them” that Christ spoke of in Matthew 16:18. He refers only to “the church in Jerusalem.”

No Local Church Organization “The local ecclesia of Christ has reference to nothing more than disciples or saints … and there is no requirement (pattern) from God that they form or constitute themselves into – an organic institutional body corporate or functional unit for doing any work ordained by God” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, p. 25).

Philippians is addressed, “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). This shows that there is more to the local church than saints or disciples. The saints at Philippi were a body or company of disciples, a church (Phil. 4:15), organized with “bishops and deacons. ” Paul also makes this an example for all churches, saying, “The things which you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you” (Phil. 4:9; 1 Cor. 4:17). Here is apostolic authority (requirement) for the local church, a company of saints overseen by bishops and served by deacons. This is all we contend for by way of organization (cf. 1 Pet. 4:11).

Calling the local church “an organic institutional body corporate or functional unit” does not comport with language commonly used by our brethren, but properly defined, the terms could be correctly applied to the church. However, their use in The Examiner is apparently designed to make “the local church” (“the saints . . . with the bishops and deacons”) seem like something more than that. It labors to define the terms in such a way as to make “the local church” mean an organization separate from its members. It is not, and faithful brethren do not teach that it is. But when men set out to teach false doctrine, they nearly always employ terms that lend themselves to confusion, manipulation, and, where necessary, backtracking.

Only One Church in Each City

“In every place where the word ‘church’ (ecclesia) is used in connection with a city, it is always singular . . . . Let this fact register in your mind. It is a vital point …. God’s people were not divided into independent, autonomous, functional and operational units, such as we have in the ‘local church,’ body corporate today” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, p. 27,28).

The fact that there may have been only one church in a city does not limit a city to one. There was only one congregation in the whole world at one time. The Examiner offers no scriptural basis for its plan of one church per city, except for a gross distortion of 1 Corinthians 1:10- 13. The editor thinks Paul condemns the saints at Corinth for being divided into four different congregations (such as the Northside church and the Eastside church). Even a cursory reading of the text should make it clear that the division at Corinth was within that one church.

While the editor says this is a “vital point,” he admits a touch of scepticism. His says: “This matter requires a lot of careful study. I am not sure that I fully understand (it). ” Some who read his contradictory comments on the church might wonder if he partially understands it. The New Testament places no restriction whatever on the distance between churches and this is the issue that must be addressed here. His doctrine of only one church in a city subjects the church to arbitrary boundaries set by the caprice of civil authorities. Such a limitation would leave room for only one church in New York City.

David Lipscomb asks a question The Examiner should answer: “Why should there be limitation to the number of churches in a city, but none in a country or state?” (Questions Answered, p. 127) There was a church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2) and also a church about five miles down the road in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), Corinth’s port on the Saronic Gulf. Laodicea, Colossae, and Hierapolis were closer than churches in some of our cities. Romans 16 indicates more than one church in Rome. So having several churches in a metropolitan area accords with the New Testament.

The Examiner’s peculiar ideas about the local church are untrue. They are also apparently impractical. After a score of years in which its editor has been teaching and honing his theories, neither he nor his followers can point to a single congregation that conforms to them. If so where is it? Trot it out and let us have a look at a non-church “portion of God’s people” in operation. The failure here is not surprising for The Examiner’s teaching is not calculated to build churches. The editor says he cannot find anything in the Bible about “starting a church,’ ‘building up a church,’ or ‘growing a church.”‘ Maybe he can’t, but if he looked closely enough I’m sure he would find something about teaching false doctrine and sowing discord among brethren.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 20, pp. 609, 630-631
October 16, 1986

By Johnie Edwards

From time to time God has entrusted men with various responsibilities known as trusts. Most banks have a trust department which takes care of the property of others and is held responsible for the use of such. Let’s take a look at some sacred trusts.

The Gospel of Christ

God expects men to teach men. So Paul told the Thessalonians, “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts” (1 Thess. 2:4). No doubt this is the reason, soon after Paul was converted, that 49 straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Often we sing, “Into our hands the gospel is given” and as we sing this song we need to be impressed with the responsibility of “adorning the doctrine of God” (Tit. 2: 10) in our own lives. We are “stewards of the mysteries of God” and we must remember that “it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:1-2). We betray the trust when we fail to teach others the pure gospel of our Lord.

Our Talents

We all have talents and God expects us to use what we have to their fullest extent! It has been suggested that most folks use less than three percent of their abilities. Suppose we doubled that and used six percent! Look what we could accomplish. The parable of the talents recorded in Matthew 25:14-30 indicates that our talents become sacred trusts for which we are responsible.

Elders Watching For Souls

Most elders spend too much time being concerned about physical things to the neglect of the spiritual. God placed elders in the position of “oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2) with the responsibility of “watching for souls” (Heb. 13:17) and that’s a sacred trust. One reason a lot of churches get in such bad shape is a failure on the part of the elders to realize the gravity of their work. Like it or not, elders “must give account” of their rule (Heb. 13:17). The story of the lost sheep of Luke 15 demonstrates the care and concern a shepherd must exercise in regard to this sacred trust. A lot of elders are not even aware that some sheep, for which they are responsible, are lost. A real conviction concerning this sacred trust will cause elders to “go after that which is lost, until he find it” (Lk. 15:4).

Our Children

“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord. (Psa. 127:3). Have you, as a parent, realized that your children are a sacred trust? Your children are valuable and you are responsible for their upbringing. Paul said, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Our children are like putty in our hands to mold as God would have them, “but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” (Prov. 29:15). By realizing that our children are a sacred trust, we will “Train up a child in the way that he should go” (Prov. 22:6) which includes teaching him, showing him what and how to do it and see that he does it!

Marriage

Marriage is a sacred trust. When you say, “I take thee this day to be my husband or wife, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish as long as we both shall live” you need to know that’s the way it must be! To illustrate that a person cannot be under two laws at the same time, like the law of Moses and the law of Christ, Paul said, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Rom. 7:2-3). A failure on the part of either marriage partner to “render due benevolence” (1 Cor. 7:2) is a major cause of marriages not holding together and the result, many times, is the betraying of that sacred trust.

Time

Time is a sacred trust. A failure to use time properly is a problem of many. Time is of essence. The Psalmist said, in light of the brevity of life, “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psa. 90:12). The time we have on this earth has been given to us of God and we are responsible for how we use it. “Redeeming the time” (Eph. 5:16) is required of all and there is no telling what we could accomplish if we would but use our time wisely. Have you ever considered how much time you really waste?

Our Souls

“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:20). God ” formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1). Our spirit is a sacred trust and God will hold us responsible for how we take care of it. You do know that “the dust shall return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). Our most valuable possession is our spirit and it is no wonder that Jesus said, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul: or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:26)

Guardian of Truth XXX: 20, p. 616
October 16, 1986

By Don Willis

“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible” (Hebrews 11:24-27).

Moses is God’s chosen servant under the Old Testament era to bring His law to His people. God called Moses from the burning bush. Previously, God’s providential care had been exercised in Moses’ life. Consider these seven outstanding traits in the life of Moses . . . and see if they would not be good in our own lives!

1. Moses rejected earthly glory. He refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Possibly, even the highest ruling office could have been his. Position often rules people. An office title can fill one with conceit. Not for Moses! Some failed to acknowledge Christ because of the loss of their position (John 12:42-43).

2. Moses made a wise choice. He chose to suffer affliction with the people of God. Often, trials come upon those who belong to God. Joshua encouraged people to “. . . choose ye this day whom ye will serve” (24:15). When the Jews failed to honor Christ, Paul turned even to the Gentiles. We need to make our choice for God today!

3. Moses correctly appraised riches. He esteemed the reproaches of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt. The lust for money is contrary to Christian principles. Jesus said, “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:19-20).

4. Moses lived a separated life. Moses forsook Egypt. He went to Midian and served as a servant to Reuel, God’s priest. It is difficult to tear one away from his homeland. Moses made the proper choice. God commands His children to “come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17). Evil friendships will corrupt the Christian (1 Cor. 15:33).

5. Moses feared God rather than man. The Hebrew writer said Moses did not fear the wrath of the king. God is and must continue to be first in our lives! One must love God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength. We must be ready to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29), even if persecution and jail awaits.

6. Moses persevered. He endured. The secret to success in any of life’s endeavors is simply, “don’t quit.” One must endure to the end to be saved. John said, “Be thou faithful unto death” (Rev. 2:10). Many fail to make this enduring life commitment in their life. Every little obstacle is a faith-destroying incident. Much effort is expended in keeping people saved. Elders must watch for souls. People need, also, to watch for their own souls. Little difficulties ought not to cause them to quit the Lord. Paul said, “Be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). Keep on keeping on!

7. Moses was able to see the unseen. He saw Him who is invisible. He served God and not man. Jesus is our hope, not man. Our commitment is to Him. One can endure all kinds of difficulties, as long has he keeps his eye on his goal, Him who is invisible. Paul said, “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2).

Moses is a wonderful example of fidelity. We need to emulate his action in our own lives. Living as a Christian is not necessarily an easy thing to do, but the rewards are so wonderful. Don’t quit!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, p. 596
October 2, 1986

By Bob F. Owen, President Of Florida College

In our society, few people question the value of formal education. Those who continue beyond high school commonly have careers in n-dnd as they enroll. Some seem to be motivated solely by monetary considerations – costs of attendance and/or prospects for good paying jobs. Financial considerations are obviously valid, but Christians should not let these be the sole or even the primary considerations in life-goals.

Having spent thirty-nine years as either a student or an employee in colleges operated by Christians, I’m sure my views reflect some biases. On the other hand, these years afford some insight and multiple examples as to the values of “Christian Education.” Admitting these biases and not devoting much space to perennial doctrinal questions about schools operated by Christians, I would like to note some values I have found through my experiences.

Most, if not all, of the special values of this type of education stem from the basic education purpose of the institution. In the Charter of Florida College, the founders stated the object is, “To establish and maintain a college wherein the arts, sciences and languages shall be taught and also to provide opportunity for young men and young women to study the Bible as the revealed will of God to man and the only sufficient rule of faith and practice, while they are educated in the liberal arts. . . . ” With this as the governing philosophy for the institution, it really matters what courses and programs are offered and who will teach them. Rules and regulations, both academic and social, are developed in light of this purpose which becomes primary in the school’s appeal for students. When these factors combine, they make a unique educational program and provide an uncommon opportunity for students.

Sometimes critics discount the value of this type of education because the lofty goals are not achieved without exception. Faculty members sometimes make shipwreck of the faith or show human frailties of anger or prejudice. Students violate regulations or demonstrate behavior that is unbecoming. “If students there cheat in class or if a student there uses drugs, I could just as well attend a state school,” some have reasoned. This overlooks a very important factor called to my attention many years ago.

My older brother did not attend college but he has keen insights and extremely good judgment. When I was leaving home to attend Freed-Hardeman he told me I would probably find students who would not live up to the ideals of the school but this would not negate the influence of the school on me. There’s a difference, he pointed out, between students doing questionable (or wrong) things without the sanction of the school than in doing them with sanction.

He was right. The fact that the school stands for those things that are wholesome and good and that it adopts rules and regulations toward this end does have a bearing on the students – even if they do not observe all these rules. The student knows that this behavior is not condoned – that his action is disapproved by this teachers and counselors.

My recognition and appreciation of this principle has grown through the years. In the school where I work (Florida College) we have had staff members and students who have not lived up to the standards we espouse. The influence of the school is damaged by such behavior, and this is regrettable. However, because the groups (administration, faculty and the students) advocate wholesome standards and because these standards are generally practiced by the group and because violations are not condoned but, when possible, are disciplined, there is a positive influence for good on the campus.

I remember my own experiences on the campus of Freed-Hardeman College in the late ’40’s. These same factors existed, and I certainly knew of violations of the standards espoused by the school. These violations did not prevent a strong and positive influence on me that came from the large group of teachers and students. I’m still indebted to these people for this help in my life.

Through the years I have seen similar experiences in the lives of hundreds of young people. I feel my own two children have benefitted in this same way. Many students and parents of many have expressed this same feeling.

Hurriedly let me say that I do not believe a person must attend Florida College to be faithful to God. Neither do I believe that all who attend this school will reap the same or even similar benefits. I am convinced, however, that the overall impact of two years in this kind of environment will be beneficial to most young people, particularly those who already have high ideals and who enjoy wholesome things. Frequently, students who have little interest in spiritual things are stimulated toward these higher values, but the greater appreciation probably rests with those who already are more spiritually minded.

What then are the values of this type of school? There are many. Academic standards are high but not extraordinary. Classes are usually small and teachers care about the work of their students. Varied extracurricular activities give opportunities for all in sports and social activities. Along with these regular college activities each student has a class in Bible each day – taught by able and qualified men who care for them as fellow creatures of God.

The greatest value, however, is the fact that respect for God and His Word is publically advocated and commonly demonstrated throughout the institution. Teachers are not cursing in the classroom or endorsing immoralities in order to seem “cool” to the younger generation. Belief in God is supported in all the courses – not just in Bible classes. Students are able to be with these same teachers on the ball field and in the local churches. They see them as practicing Christians and not just professors. Commonly, warm friendships develop with teachers and their families that continue through the years.

The rearing of children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” is a vital task. All of us recognize that it is a difficult task. We have long known that it takes more than just “taking the kids to church” or “sending them to Sunday school” to develop in them spiritual values by which they will chart their life’s course. Training and guidance must begin in the earliest days. Children need to be shown a proper respect for spiritual values in every day life. Their parents and other Christian friends must exhibit a devotion to God and an appreciation for the higher and nobler things in daily activities as well as in public worship. Parents who are truly concerned about the spiritual welfare of their children will seek positive means by which their children can be instructed and guided in the way of the Lord. Personal Bible studies, family prayers, associations with other Christians, and congregational Bible classes are some of the means for this kind of influence. Florida College supports parents by offering another avenue of similar help for young Christians. Being in an environment where most of the other students are Christians and where the Bible is taught and respected does not guarantee proper behavior by an individual: neither does it assure a life-time commitment to God, but it does provide a rich opportunity for spiritual growth.

For most students, going away to college is the first step in their break from home and parents. During these years, life-long friendships are often formed. Experience shows that high school associations are not as permanent as those from the college years, probably because the college years are the early years of real maturing. What a good time this is for young Christians to be in association with other young Christians and in an environment built upon a respect for God and His Word! These are the factors that have meant much to me personally and have prompted me to spend as much of my life as I have working with other Christians in college education. Unhesitatingly, I encourage Christian young people and their parents to seek and to benefit by these same opportunities.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 592-593
October 2, 1986