Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

While attending a state university, I took an introductory course in psychology. As the professor gave his first lecture, he said, “If there are any ‘Bible thumpers’ in this class, I would recommend that you drop the class.” Later, I attended a graduate school at a seminary run by the Disciples of Christ. In a class on “Introduction to the New Testament,” the professor said, “About the only thing historical in the gospel record of the life of Christ is ‘Jesus died.”‘ I frequently observe blatant disrespect for the Bible by the news media and in television situation comedies.

There is a need in America for us to restore a wholesome respect for the authority of the Bible in our lives. But some may ask, “Why should I have a respect for the Bible?”

The Bible Is A Revelation From God

There are basically two concepts which man can have of the Bible: (1) the Bible is a record of man’s gropings to find God and (2) the Bible is a revelation from God to man. Those who view the Bible as a record of man’s groping to find God have no qualms in disagreeing with the writings of Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, or Paul. Their thoughts and beliefs are just as worthwhile as are those of the biblical writers. They conceive of the New Testament description of the early church as the historical record of the beginnings of Christianity but think that man must ever work to improve the Christian religion. Others (2) believe that the Bible is a revelation of God’s will to man. It contains the record of God’s work to redeem man from sin, a revelation of the ethics which are acceptable to God, a revelation of the conditions for obtaining forgiveness of sins, and a pattern for congregational worship, work, organization, etc. (a blueprint for the church). To conceive of the church revealed in the Bible as a model to be improved upon is incompatible with the idea of a perfect revelation from God.

Each of us stands at this crossroads and makes a commitment to one of these concepts of the Bible. Those who view the Bible as a record of man’s gropings for God commit themselves, not to following the details of the Bible, but to changing and reshaping Christianity to fit the age in which they live. Those who view the Bible as a divine revelation will commit themselves to following the pattern revealed in the Bible in every respect.

I contend that the Bible is an expression of the authority of God over man. As our Creator, God has supreme authority over us. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4:11). God has given all authority to Jesus (Matt. 28:18). “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” (Rev. 5:12). The apostle Paul said that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:20-22).

The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is the Lord over all things to man (cf. Acts 2:36). How does one learn the mind of Christ in order that he might submit to His authority?

Jesus revealed His will to mankind through the apostles and prophets of the first century. As Jesus prepared to depart from this world, He promised to give the apostles another Comforter, the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit would come, He “will guide you into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). In explaining the Spirit’s work, Jesus said, “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak” (Matt. 10: 19). Hence, the Holy Spirit came to the apostles, revealing to them the words of God.

At first, God’s revelation to man through the apostles was oral. Later, this revelation was committed to writing. This written revelation was just as certainly the voice of God as what was spoken through them orally, as the following Scriptures indicate:

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of God (1 Cor. 14:37).

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thess. 2:13).

He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit (1 Thess. 4:8).

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me (Lk. 10:16; cf. Matt. 10:40; Jn. 13:20).

The same principle is seen in the usage of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers. The New Testament use of the Old Testament Scriptures reveals that the words of the Old Testament were the words of God (Mt. 1:22; 2:15; 22:31; 22:43). That which was spoken by the prophet was considered the word of God (cf. Heb. 3:7; 4:7).

The Holy Spirit did what the Lord sent Him to do. He guided the apostles into all truth. Through His work of revelation, the Lord has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:34) and has given us the inspired Scriptures which thoroughly furnish us unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:17). There is no spiritual blessing available to man but that which comes to us through Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3) and is revealed to us in the Bible. Some men say that we need to exalt the Man and not the Book. However, everything we know about the Man is revealed to us in the Book; hence, one cannot exalt the Man without exalting the Book.

This word of God will be the standard of judgment in the last day (Jn. 12:48; Rev. 20:12). By it mankind will be judged.

Hence, the Bible, far from being a record of man’s fallible searching and groping in an effort to find God, is a divine, infallible revelation of the will of God to man. It is man’s most precious possession, for without it we do not know how to obtain forgiveness of sins and to inherit heaven when we die. In a world of constant flux and change, the Bible reveals to mankind how to live the best life on earth. We need to restore respect for the authority of Jesus as revealed in the Bible.

Disrespect Shown For The Bible

A different type of disrespect for the Bible is shown by various groups. Here are some who are showing disrespect for the authority of God expressed in the Bible.

1. Atheism. Atheists are generally working under the banner of “humanism” today. The Humanists “find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural” and, therefore, believe “that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species” (Humanist Manifesto H). Atheists blaspheme God and deny His word.

2. Modernism. Modernists deny the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible. There is wide divergence among modernists regarding how much of the Bible must be discarded. A group of scholars has recently been in conference to vote on which sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible are authentic. Some reject all of the miracles of the Bible; others reject all but a selected few. Some relegate the doctrine of the atonement to the outmoded past declaring that it is too bloody a religion for today’s age. In the realm of ethics, modernists have accepted and promulgated “situation ethics,” an ethical system in which every man becomes a law to himself. This shows a disrespect for the Bible.

3. Catholicism. Catholics profess to believe in the Bible and even claim that the Bible is a Catholic book. However, the Catholics subordinate the authority of God as revealed in the Bible to their church traditions and the ex cathedra word of the pope. One writes,

Christians agree that God’s revelation is found in the Bible. Catholics claim, however, that the Bible is not the only source of God’s teaching to man (Facts of the Faith, Monsignor J.D. Conway, p. 2).

In listing the other sources, Conway listed (1) the writings of the Church Fathers, (2) decrees and acts of the early church councils, (3) decisions of the popes, (4) their Creeds, (5) books of early prayers, ceremonies, and devotions, and (6) archaeological remains. Conway continued, “We believe that only the Church of Jesus Christ has the right and authority to collect, preserve, and teach the Bible. . . . The Church urges Catholics to read and study it, but she maintainings that we cannot take it as our only rule of faith, or read our own meanings into it. We need a teaching authority to interpret it” (Ibid, p. 10).

Hence, the Catholic Church shows a disrespect for the Bible by submitting the authority of the divinely revealed book to the fallible councils of men, church traditions, and ex cathedra statements of a pope.

4. Fundamental Protestants. Inasmuch as I have included many Protestants under “modernism,” I want to show how those Protestants who claim to be Evangelical and Fundamentalist show a disrespect for the Bible. Here are some of the ways:

(a) They show a disrespect by their creeds. The creeds of the various denominations are rules of faith which have authority over the various denominations. These creeds exclude from the fellowship of the denomination everyone who is unwilling to subscribe to its tenets. If these creeds contain more than the Bible, they contain too much; if they contain less than the Bible, they do not contain enough; if they contain the same thing as the Bible, they are unnecessary. Surely no one would claim that uninspired men can produce a better statement of faith than the Lord God Himself. Hence, the creeds of men show a disrespect for the word of God.

(b) Their practices in religion show disrespect for the Bible. Their “clergy” wears titles which exalt them above the “laymen” in violation of Jesus’ prohibition (Matt. 23:9). Their worship is changed and shaped according to the whims Of men, rather than the revelation of God. The Lord’s supper is served once a year, once every six months, or once a month as men might decide which is best. Funds are raised through bake sales, rummage sales, Las Vegas nights, Bingo, or involvement in secular business as men might judge best. Congregational singing is replaced by choirs, professional singing groups, instrumental music, and anything else they might desire to chose. The work of the church varies according to what men might judge best, ranging from church supported hospitals, orphans homes, colleges and soup lines to recreational activities such as church softball leagues, trips to amusement parks, fellowship halls, church owned gymnasiums, etc. Such activities show disrespect for the authority of God as revealed in the Bible inasmuch as they undermine the concept that the church revealed in the Bible is a pattern for all men of all ages.

(c) Inner illumination shows a disrespect for the authority of God. Many Fundamentalist preachers believe that the Holy Spirit of God gives them revelation separate and apart from the word of God. Anytime such a person has a strong feeling about anything, his subjective feelings become the voice of God in his life. As these preachers are “led by the Spirit,” they teach things contrary to the revelation of God in the Bible. They tell men to speak in tongues, be baptized in the Holy Spirit, and to seek the leadings of God outside of His revelation in the Bible. The doctrine of illumination of the Spirit undermines the authority of God in the Bible and shows a disrespect for the Bible.

5. Liberal brethren. Our liberal brethren and those in the Christian Church show a disrespect for the Bible in the things which they have introduced into the worship and work of the church. The Christian Church preachers have departed from the word of God, committing themselves to the principle that the “silence of the Bible authorizes.” Hence, they have introduced instrumental music in worship, church supported missionary societies, recreational activities, celebration of unauthorized holy days, and many other things. Our liberal brethren are not far behind. They have perverted the work of the church by involving the church in various works of the social gospel, such as church supported colleges, hospitals, unwed mothers homes, homes for the aged, and orphan homes. They have also involved the church in various recreational activities ranging from “Family Life Centers” (gymnasiums) to “fellowship halls.” They have distorted the organization of the church to funnel funds from thousands of churches through one centralized office in the sponsoring church arrangement. These practices of liberalism opened the floodgates for many other forms of apostasy and are moving the liberal churches of Christ into the mainstream of twentieth century Protestant denominationalism.

How To Restore Respect For The Authority of the Bible

How can men restore respect for the authority of the Bible? The answers are not so complex.

1. Atheism. The atheist must believe in God and accept the Bible as God’s revelation to man.

2. Modernism. The modernist must accept the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible. He must accept the record of the Bible miracles, believe the doctrines taught in the Bible, and submit himself to the ethics demanded in the Bible.

3. Catholicism. The Catholic must dethrone the pope, councils, and Catholic tradition. Then, he must accept the Bible as the only revelation of God to man. He must accept the fact that he can read and understand it for himself (Eph. 3:3-5) and then commit himself to obeying it.

4. Fundamental Protestants. Those who already accept the inspiration of the Scriptures, miracles, and many fundamental doctrines of the Bible must elevate the Bible above their human opinions. ” . . . it belongs to every individual and to every congregation of individuals to discard from their faith and their practice every thing that is not found written in the New Testament of the Lord and Savior, and to believe and practice whatever is their enjoined” (Christian Baptist, abridged ed., D.S. Burnet, editor, p. 133).

They must discard their human creeds and claims to special revelation from God (e.g., illumination of the Spirit), submitting themselves to the word of God.

5. Liberal brethren. Like the other denominations, the Christian Churches and liberal churches of Christ must be willing to discard from their faith and their practice everything that is not found written in the Bible. Giving lip service to the authority of the Scriptures while introducing many unauthorized items into the worship, work, and organization of the church is no different from what the denominations do who pay lip service to the Bible while clinging to their creeds. The authority of the Bible will be respected again when men are willing to make these commitments.

Conclusion

If we truly respect the Bible as the revelation of the mind of God to man, we will read and study it. We will believe it. We will obey it. We will preach it to others. So long as we leave the Bible on our coffee tables to collect dust, we need not preach to others about their need to restore respect for the authority of God as revealed in the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 322, 356-357
June 5, 1986

By James R. Cope

The difference between policy and principle may properly be considered the basic difference between the “Protestant Reformation” begun in the Sixteenth Century and the “Restoration Movement” of the Nineteenth Century. The word policy often conveys the idea of human wisdom, sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs. Whereas the word principle, derives from the Latin princeps, principis, whence come the English word , , prince,” meaning “first” or “chief”; hence, “a fundamental truth; a primary or basic law, doctrine, or the like.” Policy may change when in fact principle is “a settled rule of action; a governing law of conduct” (Webster). Compromise is a way of life with persons who consider truth and right as policies. With men of principle, truth and right are never negotiable!

Following the ascension of Christ except for the direct impartation of miraculous powers by the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (Acts 2:1-4), the first Gentile converts (Acts 10,11), and the apostle Paul (who claimed that he was “not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles,” 2 Cor. 11: 5), we are unaware of anybody, anywhere, at any time receiving the Holy Spirit miraculously apart from the laying on of an apostle’s hands. This being the case, miracles ceased with the death of the last person endowed miraculously through the medium of an apostle’s hands. This, then, is our reason for appealing to the apostles’ teaching rather than post-apostolic creeds and practices of apostate bodies.

Meaning Of “Restoration”

To restore is to give back or bring back to the first or previous state. Abimelech “restored” to Abraham Sarah, his wife (Gen. 20:14); Nehemiah urged his fellow-Jews to “restore” fields and houses to their deprived brethren (Neh. 5:11).

Illustrative of the “restoration principle” as applied to rule or government was the apostles’ question to Jesus following His resurrection, viz., “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:1-6) Obviously the apostles were thinking about a return of the power and prominence fleshly Israel had exercised over other nations in the glorious days of David and Solomon and also fleshly Israel’s escape from the Roman domination of Israel in their own time. It is in this sense that we use the words “restore” and “restoration” in this treatise regarding the “bringing back” of “spiritual Israel” in its faith, practice, attitude toward and respect for the form of government, revealed in Christ’s apostles and their contemporaries as they were directed by the Holy Spirit in their oral and written communication. They used the words with which the Holy Spirit supplied them to convey whatever idea God wanted taught.

Biblical Basis of Restoration

Apostle Paul makes the foregoing observations unmistakably clear when he says, “We received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:12,13). Since words are vehicles upon which thoughts ride by reading what men inspired by the Holy Spirit in the First Century wrote, we of the Twentieth Century can understand the mind and will of God now. Every written communication argues the factuality of one person’s mental ability to understand the thoughts of another. Unless, therefore, it can be -established that God has changed His will since the completion of the New Testament we necessarily conclude that whatever God willed for man to believe and practice from the apostolic writings then the same God wills nowl If not, why not? Jesus declared, “Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my word shall not pass away” (Mk. 13:31).

In the “Parable of the Sower” Jesus said, “Now the seed is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). It follows, therefore, that there never has been or ever will be any person converted to Christ or developed In the image of Christ apart from the pure word of God, the gospel of Christ, described by the apostle Paul as “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). The gospel, preached by the apostles, produced new persons identified as “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). Those converts to Christ were Christians only and only “Christians” with no sectarian or denominational designations characterizing much of the present religious world professing allegiance to the Bible as God’s word. Those non-denominational Christians constituted the only “assemblies” or “churches” ever originating from the apostles’ teaching and were identified by apostles as “the churches of Christ” or “the church of God” (Rom. 16:16), also called “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:29).

Restoration Practices

The collective (congregational) activities of these Christians were exceedingly simple. These “saints” called such by the apostles, and also described as “sanctified” in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:1,2) — as a result of the apostles’ teaching, assembled on the first day of the week to break bread (observe the Lord’s Supper, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20-33), not to “socialize.” In this assembly, each disciple according to his financial ability, contributed cheerfully of this material means toward relief of the poor saints and the support of gospel works (1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 8,9; Phil. 1:3-5; 4:14-18). Assemblies also were edified through their mutual study of the Scriptures and by singing and praying and exhorting to love and good works (Acts 2:42; Eph. 5:18,19; Col. 3:16,17; 1 Cor. 14:15; .Heb. 10:21-25).

Each assembly had its own overseers (bishops), also known as pastors (shepherds) and elders and deacons (servants) (Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:17-35; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Pet. 5:14).

There is no reason to think that there was any earthly super-structure of government, or even association restricting any two or all of these congregations under one human head or group to be or do anything collectively! Some 153 years ago, well did Alexander Campbell, a preacher of great influence in the religious world, observe,

The societies called churches, constituted and set in order by those ministers of the New Testament, were of such as received and acknowledged Jesus as Lord Messiah, the Savior of the World, and had put themselves under his guidance. The ONLY BOND OF UNION among them was faith in him and submission to his will. No subscription to abstract propositions framed by synods; no decrees of councils sanctioned by kings; no rules of practice commanded by ecclesiastical courts were imposed on them as terms of admission into, or of continuance in this holy brotherhood. In the “apostles doctrine” and in the “apostles’ commandments” they steadfastly continued. Their fraternity was a fraternity of love, peace, gratitude, cheerfulness, joy, charity, and universal benevolence. Their religion did not manifest itself in public fasts nor carnivals. They had no festivals – no great and solemn meetings. Their meeting on the first day of the week was at all times alike solemn, joyful and interesting. Their religion was not of that elastic and porous kind, which at one time is compressed into some cold formalities, and at another expanded into prodigious zeal and warmth.

The order of their assemblies was uniformly the same. It did not vary with moons and seasons. It did not change as dress nor fluctuate as the manners of the times. Their devotion did not diversify itself into the endless forms of modern times. They had no monthly concerts for prayer; no solemn convocations, no great fasts, nor preparations, nor thanksgiving days. Their churches were not fractured into missionary societies, bible societies, education societies; nor did they dream of organizing such in the world. They knew nothing of the hobbies of modern times. In their church capacity alone they moved. They neither transformed themselves into any other kind of association, nor did they fracture and sever themselves into divers societies. They viewed the church of Jesus Christ as the scheme of Heaven to ameliorate the world,- as members of it, they considered themselves bound to do all they could for the glory of God and the good of men. They dare not transfer to a missionary society, or bible society, or education society, a cent or a prayer, lest in so doing they should rob the church of its glory, and exalt the inventions of men above the wisdom of God. In their church capacity alone they moved (Christian Baptist, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7).

The foregoing represents “The Restoration Principle.” “The seed is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). The pattern for the formation of New Testament churches and the power to restore them to the same order of government, work, and worship that existed in the First Century is found in the New Testament. The only obstacle presently preventing such d6restoration” is the application of the apostolic principle of “seed sowing” “in good and honest hearts!” Such a procedure in reality is more than restoration. It is a reproduction of the New Testament order! If not, why not?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 321, 358
June 5, 1986

By Randy Harshbarger

As our Savior came to the end of His ministry on earth, He gathered with His disciples in the city of Jerusalem to observe the Passover Feast. This feast was a reminder to the Jews of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, under the mighty arm of God. Moses instructed the people to kill a lamb and apply the blood to the doorposts of their houses, thus averting the death of the first-born as the Lord passed through the land of Egypt. Jesus chose bread and fruit of the vine as memorials of His body and blood. Matthew’s account says: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28). The bread Jesus used was unleavened. For seven days leaven was removed from the house, with strong warning to the Jew who contaminated himself or his house with it (Ex. 12:15, 19,20). Jesus, of course, did not break the Law (Heb. 4:14-16; 1 Pet. 2:21). The fruit of the vine was simply the product of the grape.(1) The slain lamb of the Passover Feast was typical of the salvation made possible by Jesus’ death or as He said, “. . . this is my blood. . . which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Paul later told the Corinthians: “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” (1 Cor. 5:7).

New Testament Christians partook of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2). The day for eating the Supper was bound, but the time of day was not. The eating of the Lord’s Supper was one reason for their coming together. In the midst of Paul’s warnings regarding abuses of the Supper he said: “When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). They were supposed to be partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but were doing something else.

Paul gives strong admonitions relating to the manner in which Christians should eat the Lord’s Supper. A great danger is in partaking but missing the true significance of the Supper. Paul said: “For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body” (1 Cor. 11:29). Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is more than just eating and drinking, which was something the Corinthians evidently did not properly understand; they did not receive Paul’s praise or approval (1 Cor. 11:17).

Christians must partake of the Lord’s Supper, remembering Christ (1 Cor. 11:24,25). We remember when Christ instituted the Supper. We remember His great sacrifice on the cross. We discern or make a distinction between the Supper and a common meal. A “communion” (1 Cor. 10: 16), involves motive, intent, mind, will, heart, and intellect. Our minds must go back to the time Jesus instituted the Supper, with its intended purpose and great significance for us as Christians.

In 1 Corinthians 11:28 Paul said: “But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.” The Christian must examine himself before and while he partakes. We must not treat the Supper in a light hearted or trivial manner. We must look within and approach the Lord’s Supper with the proper mind with regard to the Lord, His death, and the accruing benefits that belong to Christians. The Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the Lord’s death; it is a reminder that the Lord died, but is coming back some day (1 Cor. 11:26; Acts 1:11; 2 Pet. 3:12). In loving memory of our Savior, with great hope and fervency of heart, we focus on the One who died for all!

False Views Regarding The Lord’s Supper

Luke 22:19 says: “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” Matthew 26:28 says: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” Roman Catholicism abuses what is obviously figurative language on Christ’s part, and suggests that the bread and fruit of the vine literally become the flesh and blood of Christ. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Jesus employed the figure of speech known as a metaphor. A metaphor is “a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.”(2) For example, in Matthew 16:6, Jesus said, “. . . beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples, after Jesus’ explanation, understood that they should beware of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, with its leavening effect. Just so, when Jesus took the bread and the fruit of the vine, and said “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” He said these are representative of my body and blood. Roman Catholicism asserts that when the priest says the mass over the bread and wine, they literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus. It is important to understand what Jesus said and meant, but we must be careful not to find more than was intended.

Consubstantiation, while closely akin to transubstantiation, argues that there is a real physical presence of Christ in the bread and wine.(3) “The idea is that Christ’s body and blood flow or mingle together with the bread and fruit of the vine. This is a slight difference from transubstantiation, but for all practical purposes is essentially the same and is met with the same arguments.”(4) The doctrine of consubstantiation is often traced to Luther, and while it was a major emphasis in his “reformation,” both consubstantiation and transubstantiation can be traced beyond Luther to Cyprian.(5)

Catholicism also says that when one partakes of the “eucharist” (their term for the Lord’s Supper), if he has a penitent attitude, his venial sins can be remitted.(6) But, Jesus said that His blood was shed “unto remission of sins.” We are redeemed by His blood, and we partake of the Lord’s supper remembering that great sacrifice on the cross. We are saved by His blood, not by His Supper.

Edward T. Hiscox, in his manual for Baptist churches said: “As to the time, place, and frequency of the ordinances, no Scriptural directions are given. These are left optional with the churches. They are usually observed on Sundays, but not necessarily. As to the Supper, our churches have very generally come to observe it on the first Sunday of each month.”(7) New Testament Christians came together every first day of the week to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Their purpose for coming together was to break bread! Baptists use 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to justify taking a collection every week but will not follow Acts 20:7 in regard to the Supper. In recent years, discussion as to the binding authority of New Testament examples has lead some to the conclusion that the Lord’s Supper may be eaten on the Lord’s Day, but Acts 20:7 does not require Christians to do so, nor does it limit the day Christians may eat to the first day of the week.(8) It is easy to see that the controversies surrounding the Lord’s Supper are many. It is also sad that so much trouble and heartache has occurred among God’s people over this great memorial.

Conclusion

Let us as God’s people, appreciate the importance and privilege of observing the Lord’s Supper. On the first day of the week, let us be thankful, as we remember the Lord’s death, proclaiming the Lord’s great sacrifice on the cross. With great anticipation let us look to that future reward of heaven. Let us remember the seriousness of the Supper as we keep alive the great, precious memory of our Savior. Let us worship God “in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24).

Oft we come together, Oft we sing and pray

Here we bring our off’ring On his holy day.

May we keep in mem’ry, All that Thou hast said,

May we truly worship As we eat the bread,

May we all in spirit All with one accord,

Take this cup of blessing, Given by the Lord.

Help us Lord, Thy love to see, May we all in truth and spirit worship Thee.

Endnotes

1. Dick Blackford, The Lord’s Supper: A Study Guide for all Christians (Owensboro, KY: Life Line Lessons, 1979), p. 10.

2. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 722.

3. (NOTE: No corresponding reference documentation included in original document.)

4. Blackford, op cit., pp. 33-34.

5. Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972), pp. 75-76; Hubert Cunliffe-Jones, A History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1978), pp. 176-178.

6. Blackford, op cit., p. 45.

7. Edward T. Hiscox, The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1903) p. 20.

8. M.R. Hadwin, The Role of New Testament Examples as related to Biblical Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1974), pp. 46-53.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 341-342
June 5, 1986

By Jimmy Tuten

Introduction:

A. The “way of salvation” is a two-part series showing what one must do to be saved.

B. The Bible teaches that there is one way of salvation and that one way is Christ, the church (Jn. 14:1-6; Col. 1:18,24). It is called:

1. The “way of holiness” (Isa. 35:8).

2. The straight gate, narrow way (Matt. 7:13-14).

3. A race (Heb. 12:1).

4. A walk (Eph. 4:1, in love; 5:2, in light; 8, 16, circumspectly).

C. In the last lesson we learned the how of getting into the “way of holiness,” and found that certain things are necessary to lead us unto Christ, but only one act can put into Christ (Baptism).

1. To become a Christian one must believe, repent of his sins, confess his faith in Christ and be baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:37).

2. In this lesson we learn what happens when one is baptized.

Body:

I. One is baptized into Christ, the way, the Church (see chart below).

A. Baptism is into Christ (Rom. 6:3), and into the Body, the Church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18,24). Therefore one is added to the Church when he is baptized (Acts 2:38,47; 1 Cor. 12:18).

B. The Church is a company of baptized believers. (There is no such thing as getting into a so-called “visible” church one way and then into an “invisible” church another way. The only thing invisible about the church is its head [Christ], and that because He is in heaven sitting at the right hand of God [Acts 2:30-33]. The concept held by many is that by “faith only” one gets into an invisible Church, but must comply with terms not found in the Bible in order to “join” a church of your choice. But whatever Christ is the head of that is what you are baptized into [Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:18, 13].)

C. One publication of “Articles of Faith” (Baptist publication) says: “It is most likely that in the apostolic age when there was but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and no differing denominations existed (italics mine, jt), the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the Church, and at once endowed him with all rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, baptism was the door into the Church. Now it is different; while the churches are desirous of receiving members, they are cautious that they do not receive unworthy persons. The churches therefore, have the candidates come before them, give their experiences, and then their reception is decided by a vote of the members” (Hiscox’s Manual, p. 22).

D. Look at the things that are admitted.

1 . That what made one a member of the Lord’s Church in New Testament times, will not make one now.

2. What the Baptist Church does in receiving membership is different from that of the New Testament Church.

3. Membership is decided by a vote of the members rather than the Bible way of obedience to the gospel adding one to the church.

4. The truth is that since the Baptist Church teaches salvation by “faith only” and membership into the Baptist Church by a vote of its people, they take a person who is already a member of the Lord’s church (i.e., if “faith only” saves, for the saved are added to the Church, Acts 2:47) and place him in a denominational church. They take him from the Lord’s Church and put him in the Baptist Church! One is saved by faith and baptism (Mk. 16:16), and as such is placed in the body by the Lord (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:13,18).

E. Being a member of the Lord’s Church means that one is in the way that leads to life eternal:

1. The Church is the body and all Christians are members of that body (1 Cor. 12:20,27).

2. The Church is the household of God and Christians are children in that family (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 2:19).

3. The Church is the Kingdom of God and Christians are citizens in it (Jn. 3:5; Eph. 2:19).

4. The Church is the Temple of God and Christians are living stones therein (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:5).

II. Reaching our destination as strangers and pilgrims is conditional (Heb. 11:13; 1 Pet. 2:11).

A. Read and study carefully Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Pet. 2:2; Heb. 6: 1; 12:1-3. Observe that having come into the Way of Salvation one must continue therein faithful even unto death (Rev. 2:10). We have the power of God to help (Phil. 1:6).

1. We hope for eternal life (Rom. 8:23-25). This is the receiving of the “end of your faith” (1 Pet. 1:9).

2. The doctrine of “one cannot fall after becoming a Christian” is the doctrine of eternal security of the believer. The Bible does not teach this (1 Cor. 9:27; Gal. 5:14; Heb. 4:1).

B. Look at what can happen as you travel the spiritual highway that leads to heaven:

1. You can neglect the great salvation and be lost eternally (Heb. 2:1-2).

2. You can become unfaithful and go to hell (Rev. 2: 10).

3. Worldliness can overtake you and cause you to go back into the world (1 Jn. 2:15-17; 2 Tim. 4:10).

4. You can backslide (2 Pet. 2:20-22).

5. You can become fruitless (Jn. 15:1-8).

C. Should you fallfrom the Way you cannot be saved in that condition and must repent and confess your sins in order that the blood of Christ would remove your sin (1 Jn. 1:7-9; Acts 8:20-24). There is no forgiveness “even as you sin.” You must cease sin and repent of it (Rev. 2:5,16,25, etc.). Salvation is conditional!

Conclusion:

1. Thus the way of Salvation is demonstrated. We are drifting to eternity’s shore on the sea of time. Our hearts “like muffled drums are beating funeral marches to the grave.” There is no more solemn truth than “no sooner does man begin to live that he does not begin to die.”

2. The body decays day by day, but the Lord stands ready to prepare the soul. By grace are we saved by faith (Eph. 2:8).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 298-299
May 15, 1986