Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

This debate occurred largely because of the desire of Kent Bailey, preacher for the institutional church in Lenoir City, Tennessee. Brother Bailey recognizes the need for scriptural authority and recognizes that he is much closer to us than he is to many in the institutional churches. In fact, many institutional churches consider Kent to be an “anti.”

Through Kent’s efforts, the elders in the Lenior City church decided to permit a four-night debate to be held in their building. They are to be commended. They chose Glenn B. Ramsay, vice-president of Tennessee Bible College, Cookeville, Tennessee, to represent their position. The elders of the West Knoxville church asked L.A. Stauffer, preacher for the Kirkwood church in the St. Louis area, to represent their conservative position. Kent Bailey moderated for brother Ramsay; Greg Gwin, preacher for the West Knoxville church, moderated for brother Stauffer.

Propositions For The First Two Nights

On Monday night L.A. Stauffer affirmed and Glenn Ramsay denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, when supporting an evangelist out of its treasury, may only send wages directly to the evangelist.”

On Tuesday night, Glenn Ramsay affirmed and L.A. Stauffer denied: “The Scriptures teach that one New Testament church may financially assist (with money from its treasury) another New Testament church in the preaching of the gospel.”

The point at issue in these propositions is whether one church may oversee a work for many churches. A church which receives funds from other churches so that it can oversee the use of those funds in doing evangelistic work is normally called a “sponsoring church.” Brother Ramsay, however, refused to accept that designation and vigorously protested that he was not defending a sponsoring church.

All of brother Ramsay’s protestations notwithstanding, a church doing what brother Ramsay’s proposition says it may do is what brethren generally call a sponsoring church. Rejecting that designation does not make the arrangement any more scriptural.

Ramsay’s Two Main Arguments

Brother Ramsay used the old argument that the Philippian church was a sponsoring church. He took the untenable position that 2 Corinthians 11:8-9 and Philippians 4:15 refer to the same occasion, and that the churches mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11 (Berea and Thessalonica, he said) sent money to the church at Philippi, which then sent the money to Paul in Corinth.

Brother Stauffer ably showed that these were two different times and situations. He stressed that it would not even make good geographical sense for churches in Berea and Thessalonica, which were closer to Corinth than Philippi was, to send money over a hundred miles up to Philippi, so the church there could send it back down to Corinth. And how ungracious it would have been for Paul to give credit only to the Philippians (Phil. 4) when other churches had actually given the money.

Brother Ramsay’s other main argument was that churches in the New Testament sent benevolence to other churches. He believes that if a church could send benevolence to another church, it could send money for evangelism to another church.

Brother Stauffer pointed out the difference. When churches sent to the church in Jerusalem, it was for “their want” (2 Cor. 8:14); it was to satisfy the particular need of the Jerusalem church. It was not so that the Jerusalem church could oversee a work for the sending churches.

When churches send to another church for evangelism, however, it is not to meet the particular need of that church; rather, that church is overseeing a work which all the sending churches have an obligation to perform. It is, therefore, overseeing a work for all the church.

Propositions for the Last Two Nights

On Thursday night Ulerm Ramsay affirmed and L.A. Stauffer denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, in its benevolent work, may use money from its treasury to support both saints and non-saints.”

On Friday night L.A. Stauffer affirmed and Glenn Ramsay denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, in its benevolent work, may use money from its treasury to support only needy saints.”

Both men agreed that the issue is not what the individual may do, but what the local church may do. Both recognized that there is a distinction.

James 1:27

Brother Ramsay’s discussion of this passage was amazing. Those of us who hold to the position that brother Stauffer does have always pointed out that James 1:27 is discussing individual activity. James is talking to brethren about responsibilities we have as individuals – things we do distributively rather than collectively.

To my astonishment, Glenn Ramsay stood and labored at length proving that very point I He stressed that brethren are addressed (v. 19), showing that the instructions were to the group. Then he forcefully argued that in this passage, the action of the group is distributed to the individual. He talked much about the “distributive principle,” thereby arguing brother Stauffer’s case for him.

An Unscriptural Rule

The brethren represented by brother Ramsay do not believe that the church can do anything an individual can do. Yet, they want the local church to fulfill some responsibilities that the Scriptures have given the individual. This means they must have some way of determining which passages regarding individuals are applicable to the church.

Here is their rule: If an individual has a responsibility which is based on the peculiar grounds that he is a Christian, then that responsibility can be fulfilled by the local church.

I do not know who made up that rule. I do not believe it was the Lord, because I have His Book and it’s not in there. Brother Ramsay did not explain how one decides whether or not a particular individual responsibility is based on the peculiar grounds that one is a Christian. One could be rather arbitrary in that decision. To my surprise, brother Ramsay said that the responsibility to do good to all men (Gal. 6:10) is not based on the peculiar grounds that one is a Christian. Hence, Galatians 6:10 was eliminated as a text to sustain his position.

Conclusion

All involved in this debate are to be commended for their willingness to discuss issues over which we disagree. I believe brother Stauffer ably defended the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 589, 598
October 2, 1986

By Mike Willis

Most people think that being a Christian is difficult. One must admit that the way to salvation is strait and narrow (Matt. 7:13-14), sometimes attended with persecution (2 Tim. 3:12), and requires abstinence from the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). Nevertheless, the yoke of Christ is “easy” and His burden is “light” (Matt. 11:30).

Sometimes Christians see the world enjoying the “pleasures of sin” for their season and envy them. The wise man wrote, “Let not thine heart envy sinners” (Prov. 23:17; cf. 24:1,19). If one envies the sinners of the joy they get from their sin, before long he will be joining them in participating in sin.

Rather than the way of the Christian being hard, the Scriptures teach that “the way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:15). His life is more difficult while on earth than is the life lived in obedience to the Lord.

Obedience Is Best For Man

Most of us quickly admit that obedience is best for man in view of eternity. However, some believe that it is best for man only in view of eternity. This idea needs to be corrected before one will allow the law of the Lord to be written on the tables of his heart (Heb. 8:10).

God gave His commandments to man for his own good. “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always. . . ” (Deut. 6:24; cf. 10:13). The man who obeys the word of God preserves himself from evil (Prov. 16:17; 19:16). Those who disobey the Lord love death. “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate me love death” (Prov. 8:36).

Sin Has Consequences

Sin has its temporal consequences. One cannot sow to the flesh without reaping its harvest of sorrow and woe (cf. Prov. 11:3,5; 13:13; 15:32). For example, the wise man taught that the man who is cruel brings trouble to himself (Prov. 11:17). Sin has its temporal results.

Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner (Prov. 11:31).

He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail (Prov. 22:8).

In Proverbs 1:25-31, Solomon taught that the temporal consequences of sin cannot be averted by godly sorrow that leads to repentance.

Sin includes among its consequences (depending upon the circumstances) the following: (a) civil punishment (Prov. 10:13; 21:7; 29:24). When one violates the law, the judicial system is obligated to administer punishment (cf. Prov. 1:18-19). (b) Shortens life. “The fear of the Lord prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened” (Prov. 10:27). Sin’s temporal consequences have shortened the life of many a man (e.g., a drunkard in an automobile accident, a fornicator contacting a terminal illness, etc.). (c) Creates enslaving habits. “His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins” (Prov. 5:22). Peter described some wicked men who “while they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption” (2 Pet. 2:19). Sin entangles its victim, making him a slave of his own lusts. The man who chooses a life of sin, brings these temporal consequences on his own head.

The Prodigal Son: An Example Of Sin’s Consequences

Luke 15:11-32 contains the parable of the Prodigal Son, one of the Savior’s most hearttouching parables. The young man, not content to await his father’s death before obtaining his inheritance, went to his father and asked for his share of the inheritance. The young man left the father and went into a far country where he wasted his substance on harlots (15:30) and riotous living (15:13). Sin’s temporal pleasures were enjoyed by the young man for a season. Soon his inheritance was gone. His dissolute life brought him poverty (cf. Prov. 21:17). His “friends” forsook him when his money was gone. He was a foreigner in a strange land, broke, hungry, and nearly naked. In his desperate circumstances, he went to work feeding pigs “and he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him” (Lk. 15:16). Here the young man was learning this lesson: “The way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:15). In his desperate circumstances, “he came to himself.” He remembered his condition before leaving his father and decided that kind of life was better than the one he was now living.

Sin’s Consequences

Let us consider some of the consequences which come from a life of sin, using for our examples some of the sins common to our age.

1. Immorality. Many have chosen to commit fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. What consequences follow this life? Many are afflicted with diseases of the body (AIDS, venereal disease, sterility, etc.). If married, their sins frequently lead to divorce and always to family conflict. Emotional problems follow which range from guilt to haunting memories. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

2. Drinking. The majority of Americans indulge in drinking intoxicating beverages. Not a few become drunks (alcoholics), totally addicted and enslaved to the bottle. These people lose their jobs, their family, their self-respect, and become dependent on others for their necessities of life. Even those who do not become alcoholics have problems such as increased strife (from arguments to fights). Read Proverbs 23:29-36 for a description of what occurs when one is drinking. Those who engage in social drinking are frequently the cause of wrecks which destroy property, cause bodily injury and death. Some are serving prison sentences for involuntary manslaughter because they chose to drink. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

3. Drugs. A sizeable portion of the American society has chosen to use drugs. What are the consequences of this sin? Many become addicted to drugs. In order to support their habit, they spend all of their money and soon turn to crime to find enough money for the next fix. Young mothers who use drugs are giving birth to children who have an addiction. The way of drugs is a life of addiction, poverty, and physical maladies. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

4. Greed. The lure of materialism promises a happiness which it cannot deliver. “He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house” (Prov. 15:27). Those who chase after riches frequently become dishonest. One Christian who became involved in an embezzling scheme is now serving time in a federal penitentiary. Those who are not dishonest in their greed frequently value things more than people, leading to problems in their family life (divorce, separation from children). “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

5. Laziness. The industriousness commended in the Proverbs (6:6-10) has been rejected by some who think “the world owes them a living.” They are too lazy to work and too proud to beg; consequently, they have chosen to live off welfare or punch a time clock without doing any work. Laziness leads to poverty and want. The children born to welfare families rarely learn enough industriousness to keep them off welfare in the next generation. Perpetuating a welfare state will bring national bankruptcy and the destruction of the nation. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

6. Sins of the tongue. Many Christians never learn to control their tongues. They are guilty of lying, gossip, whispering, flattery, and other sins. After a while, their friends recognize these sins and shun them. Their word is not believed or trusted. Soon they are isolated and lonely, being without friends. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

Conclusion

“Thorns and snares are in the way of the froward” (Prov. 22:5). The Lord told wicked Israel, “Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths” (Hos. 2:6). God has ordained that the “way of the transgressor is hard.”

We should give thanks to Him for this. Those who cannot be reached by the instruction of the word, like the prodigal son, sometimes come to themselves while trying to survive in the pig pen of sin and resolve to return to their Father’s house. Because the temporal consequences of sin lead some lost souls to repentance, more will be saved than might have been saved had God not ordained that “the way of the transgressor is hard.”

The wise person will not have to experience the hard ways of the transgressor to know that is not the path in life to choose. He can learn from the sufferings of others and avoid the path of wickedness in his life. Indeed, he will recognize that obedience to God’s commandments is the best life available to him and will devote himself to following in the footsteps of Jesus.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 578, 599
October 2, 1986

By Mark Mayberry

“As we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7). The biblical emphasis on fellowship is primarily vertical, i.e., it describes the relationship we have with God. Yet, those individuals who have fellowship with God also share a relationship with one another.

We must always remember that fellowship with God is conditional. It is based upon obedience to His word. Rebellion shatters that relationship (Isa. 59:1-2). Horizontal fellowship cannot exist if vertical fellowship has been broken. We cannot jointly participate with those who rebel against God’s will.

Church discipline, or withdrawal of fellowship, is seldom practiced today. The subject is rarely even discussed. Is this because all modem day Christians remain faithful? Obviously not! Instead, churches have failed to demonstrate courage in this area. The Bible has a great deal to say on this subject. If our goal is to follow the apostolic pattern, we must obey the Lord’s teaching in this regard as well.

Does a congregation have the right to withdraw from those who do not remain faithful to the Lord? In this study we shall consider various Scriptures which answer in the affirmative. However, consider for a moment the following point. Almost every organization has certain conditions for membership. Persons who want to be identified with those groups must accept their rules. If those regulations are ignored, the group has every right to remove those individuals as members. This principle applies to community and civic clubs, to sporting organizations, and also to the church of our Lord.

Matthew 18:15-18

Moreover if thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear then, tell it to the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

This text describes a situation where one Christian wrongs another and then will not repent. The specific transgression is not mentioned, and thus any kind of sin could be described in these verses. How is the injured party to respond? He should go to the offender and try to work things out privately. It that doesn’t work, several other parties should be brought in to act as witnesses (cf. Deut. 19:15) and to lend their influence. If repentance is not evident, then the local congregation should be informed of the matter. Ultimately, if such a person fails to heed the exhortation of concerned Christians, he must be withdrawn from and treated as an outsider.

1 Corinthians 5

(1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

“Fornication” (Greek, porneia) is a general word that includes all forms of sexual immorality, be it adultery, premarital sex, sodomy, etc. In this context, the exact nature of the transgression is not clear, although some form of incest was involved. The man was probably living in sin with his step-mother. The Gentiles had notoriously loose morals, but they were repulsed by this expression of depravity.

(2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

This immoral brother still enjoyed fellowship with the church at Corinth. They permitted the situation to continue, and apparently were proud of their broad-minded attitude. The word “mourned” was also used to describe the bereavement that is expressed at a funeral. Here we learn that discipline is not to be carried out with a spirit of animosity, vengeance or hatefulness. It proceeds from a heart weighed down with sorrow.

(3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed.

This man’s sin was evident unto all and the facts could not be disputed, so the apostle states that he had already passed sentence. The Corinthians had failed in their duty, but now Paul demands that immediate action be taken.

(4-5) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jew Christ to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Christ Jesus reigns as head over the church (Col. 1:18). All who are outside this realm are under the domain of Satan (Eph. 2:12; Col. 1: 13). To be expelled from the fellowship of the saved is to be delivered back to the kingdom of darkness (1 Tim. 1:20).

What does the expression “for the destruction of the flesh” mean? Withdrawal of fellowship is designed to lead one back to the truth. It should cause a man to seriously reflect upon the path he is following. Because of the spiritual understanding gained when we become Christians, we should realize the ultimate tragedy of sin. This man was dominated by his fleshly desires. Paul hoped that he would realize the dire consequences of his actions. From 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, we learn that the Corinthian church did exercise discipline and their action had a very definite effect upon the man. It caused him to realize, “I can’t continue to live in sin and maintain fellowship with other Christians.” He repented!

(6-8) Your glorying Is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Sometimes we think we can ignore a problem and hope it goes away. Yet, Paul says it only takes a small quantity of yeast to leaven a large lump of dough. Leaven, or yeast, often symbolizes evil in the Scriptures (Matt. 16:5-12; Gal. 5:7-9,13). The Corinthians were continuing to fellowship this sinful brother and thus they were retaining a bad influence that could very likely spread and corrupt many. Anytime we tolerate evil, our moral standards are lowered. Sin acts like a cancer that devours the body of Christ. The church cannot tolerate evil within its midst (2 Jn. 9-11).

(9-11) I wrote unto you In an epistle not to company with fornicators. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with Idolaters; for them must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that Is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat.

God’s people cannot move to some mountain top and live in total seclusion. Christianity is to conquer the world for Christ, not to withdraw from it. Remember that Jesus associated with publicans, harlots and sinners in an effort to lead them to salvation. We cannot be a good influence on others if we isolate ourselves.

However, we cannot casually associate with one who claims to be a Christian, but still lives a life of sin. Sitting down to enjoy a common meal with such a one implies all is well. We cannot act like nothing is wrong. A withdrawal of fellowship shows that we disapprove of their actions. It puts the church on record as not condoning sin.

2 Thessalonins 3:6,14-15

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. . . . If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that men, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Some argue that these statements apply only to the exhortations in the immediate context. I disagree. Certainly it would cover the teaching found in 2 Thessalonians, but Paul set forth a broad principle when he stated that we must withdraw from those who “walk disorderly.” As soldiers in the Lord’s army, we must walk according to His commandments. The authority of Christ is absolute (Matt. 28:18-20; Col. 3:17; 1 Cor. 4:6; NASV)! If we deliberately ignore His will, we are guilty of “disorderly” conduct. One who rebels against the teaching of Christ and remains impenitent must be withdrawn from.

Yet, those who administer discipline must strive to maintain the proper attitude: “Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (v. 15). Christians are a close knit group of people. To be cut off from this relationship should have a sobering effect upon an apostate brother. Discipline is designed to restore the offender.

What about those people who drift away and quit? What about those who no longer desire to associate with other Christians? Withdrawal of fellowship may not have much of an effect on such a person. Yet, does this mean that there is nothing we can do? No, because there are other principles involved in church discipline. It has a sobering effect upon all the members. “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). Perhaps certain weak members are beginning to slip. If no disciplinary action is ever taken, they may get the idea that faithfulness is not all that important.

Often, we practice withdrawal by default. Members drift away, but no definitive action is taken. Then after a period of time, their names are deleted from the membership list. Certainly, this is not the most expedient way of handling the problem. The church needs to let it be known that faithfulness is expected of all who would be considered members. People must realize that it is not right for them to simply drift in and out of service. Discipline makes it clear that faithfulness is required of God’s people.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 18, pp. 564-565
September 18, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Does 1 Corinthians 14:34 forbid women speaking out, like on a Wednesday night when the one making the announcements says, “Is there any announcement we failed to make?”

Reply: 1 Corinthians 14:34 does not forbid a woman to speak up in an assembly in such circumstances as referred to in the question. This passage has been misused by those who attempt to prove that a woman cannot ask a question or make a comment in a Bible class conducted by a man.

The setting for the verse under consideration was concerning spiritual gifts that were being exercised in the church at Corinth. There was disorder in the assembly, thus Paul wrote to correct the confusion. There could be no edifying in such a condition, so he urged in verse 26, “Let all be done to edifying.” He wrote in verse 33, “For God is not a God of confusion, but peace.” Then he summed it all up in verse 40, “But let all things be done decently and in order. ” Thus we have the background for verses 34 and 35, “Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” The men who were speaking were inspired. If a man who was speaking in a tongue had no interpreter, he was to keep silence. This is obvious because in such a case there could be no edifying, the very purpose of tongue speaking in this situation (see v. 26 again). The prophets were instructed how to have an orderly service. “And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence” (vv. 29,30). So, certain men in the assembly were to keep silence, and implying that all the women were to do likewise. There is no indication that the women present were inspired or that they were receiving revelations.

The word “women” in verse 34 is from the Greek word gune and can be translated either “women” or “wives.” The context favors “wives.” These women were the wives of the prophets and were evidently uninspired. To avoid interruptions, these wives were to ask their husbands (the prophets) at home for any information they lacked. This consideration makes sense and is in harmony with the context.

Although miraculous tongue speaking has ceased, the principle of women being in subjection remains in force in our assemblies today. Paul wrote, “but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law” (v. 34). They are not allowed to confuse the assembly today any more than they could then. But the stipulation that “if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home” does not apply today, for the obvious reason that she has the same revelation that her husband has – the word of God. In fact, some women’s husbands are not even members of the church. It would be rather absurd for a woman who desires some Bible information to be restricted to ask her non-Christian husband at home.

There is much that a woman can do in the assembly, and yet be in subjection to the man. She can sing in the assembly (Eph. 5:19); she can and should pray in the assembly. There is a vast difference in a woman praying and one leading prayer in the assembly. There is also a vast difference in a woman singing and one directing singing in the assembly where men are present and able to do so.

Neither 1 Corinthians 14:34 nor 1 Timothy 2:11,12 forbids women to participate in a Bible class taught by a man. In so doing she is not usurping the authority of a man, neither is she teaching over a man. Women speak and teach in the assembly when they sing, confess Christ or confess their sins. In these acts she is in submission to man and is not out of place. She can ask questions and make comments in a Bible class taught by a man, and yet at the same time be in submission to the man. Neither is she violating any Scripture if she modestly speaks up in an assembly to remind a man of some missed announcement when the man has made such a request of the audience. How strange it is that some brethren think a woman is keeping “silence” when she sings at the top of voice in the assembly, but that she is not keeping “silence” if she makes a comment or asks a question in a Bible class!

Let us remember that the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34 was to avoid confusion in the assembly at Corinth. While women are prohibited to direct singing, lead in prayer, preach, take a leading part in the assembly where men are present, she nevertheless can fulfill her role of submission by doing much to encourage and strengthen others in the Lord’s work and be instrumental in bringing many precious souls to Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, p. 581
October 2, 1986