Truth Magazine

By Mike Cox

Isaiah 42:3

With divine foresight, Isaiah foretold of the “servant” who was to come, Jesus. Of Him he said, “A bruised reed shall he not break, and a smoldering flax shall he not quench . . . … What was then a somewhat obscure glimpse, would later become more clearly understood, for he spoke of the compassion of the Savior, which could not be clearly understood until He came.

Jesus came to “seek and save that which was lost” (Lk. 19: 10). The Pharisees, in their own arrogance, saw themselves not as “sheep without a shepherd” (lost), but looked only upon others as such. Jesus spent little thine with those who saw themselves without the need for a Savior, but went to those who would receive him. As He ate and associated Himself with the publicans and sinners (Lk. 5:27-32), the Pharisees murmured, not understanding how someone could bring himself to eat with such people. and especially perhaps He who claimed to be the son of God, for even God knew they were sinners. Jesus replied to their pride, “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” It is with some irony, I suppose, that Jesus should say this, because the Pharisees truly needed a “physician.” The difference is, they did not think so. They “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (cf. Lk. 18:9-14).

The tax-gatherers and the sinners, the drunkards and the harlots might rightly be pictured by the “smoldering flax” and the “bruised reed” of Isaiah’s prophecy. But it might also be said of all who are bruised by sin and of those who see only a glow of hope (us). It is of these Isaiah says, Jesus will not complete the work of ruin and despair, but will lift them up and heal them. He is “a God (savior, mc) ready to pardon, gracious and merciful. . . ” (Neh. 9:17). To the Pharisees, these publicans and sinners were the “lowest” of society, unworthy even of their company, but to Jesus, these were the ones for whom He had come – for the “poor in spirit,” for those who see themselves destitute of the grace of God, lost without His favor. These are the ones who would receive Him!

What is just a little surprising is that things haven’t changed much. I wonder if the “righteous” are still that way? We can take comfort in the fact that Jesus is still “‘full of compassion and is merciful” (Jas. 5:11). The compassion of Jesus toward sinners is clearly seen. He could look beyond the sin to the sinner; to see the person, and the potential for good; to see that they too, regardless of what their life had been, needed to know the love of God and the forgiveness of their sins by obedience to His will. I have often wondered why it is so much easier to see the bad in people, rather than the good. Maybe it is because we are looking for it. Yes, we need to teach people that they might change their evil ways, but unless we see a, potential for good, and are willing to “eat with the tax-gatherers and sinners” we will not have that opportunity.

If we could be more merciful and compassionate, like Jesus. And remember while we are on the mountain, there are still those in the valley. Sinners are sinners, regardless of what sins they commit.

Finally, we might find more people with an honest and good heart, if we just look in the right places. “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, p. 70
February 6, 1986

By Aude McKee

One of the most basic problems in our divided religious world is a lack of appreciation for the authority of Jesus Christ. In some cases there is lip service paid to His authority, but when it comes to actual practice, there is a woeful lack of compliance. In this article we want to look at the extent of the Lord’s authority and the foundation upon which it stands.

His Authority Is Universal

In Matthew’s account of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), Jesus said, “All authority is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.” The words “all,” “heaven,” and “earth” emphasize the universality of that authority. And then the words that follow do the same. What justification could Jesus have for instructing His apostles to “teach all nations” if all nations were not included in the scope of His authority? In a debate between E.C. Fuqua and Thomas B. Warren in 1954, brother Fuqua affirmed the proposition that those in the world were not amenable to the authority of Christ. “While in the world,” Fuqua said, “people cannot be with or without a scriptural cause for anything, seeing they are not under Christian law, but under civil law exclusively.” It seems to this writer that if this were true, we might be able to go to heaven on the basis of works. Observe speed laws, be honest in the payment of taxes, etc., and so having met the requirements of the only law binding on us, we would stand before God free of sin. The truth of the matter is, all of us are duty bound to observe civil law because of the authority of Christ. No one in the world would be duty bound by God to observe civil law were it not for passages like Romans 13.

In Acts 2, Peter preached to Jewish people. After a number of arguments relative to Jesus’ Sonship, death, etc., he said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (v. 37). Many in the audience then cried, “What shall we do?” Their response to the sermon had to come as a result of a recognition of Jesus’ authority and the reply Peter gave to their question had to be obeyed for the same reason. Acts 2 shows clearly that Jews were subject to the law of Christ.

Then in Acts 10, the same preacher went to the house of Cornelius and delivered a message that resulted in salvation for those who obeyed it. These people were not Jews, they were Gentiles. But as you read the account of their conversion, you have to be impressed with the fact that their obedience sprang from a recognition of the authority of Christ over their lives and destiny. In fact, one of the first things Peter told them was that “God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.”

In Romans 14:9, Paul wrote, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.” With this passage before us, we have added another dimension to our outlook. Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth, He has authority over both Jew and Gentile, and now His authority extends to both the dead and the living!

Writing to the Colossian Christians (3:17), they were told that “whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God and the Father by Him.” “In the name of” means that all our words and deeds must have the Lord’s approval. “Words and deeds” cover a lot of ground, but if someone should think that our thoughts are not governed by the Lord’s authority, attention should be given to Matthew 5:27-28. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. ” Jesus Christ has the right (authority) to look into the recesses of a person’s heart and judge those desires that might never come to light in overt action.

Perhaps Moses reduced this matter of Jesus’ authority and the extent of it to the simplest form possible in Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Peter quotes this passage in Acts 3:22-23: “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall you hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” The words “all things whatsoever He shall say” and “every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed,” are too clear to be misunderstood.

The Lordship Of Jesus

When the subject of authority is under consideration, attention needs to be given to the word “Lord.” The Greek word means “master, ruler; one in possession of absolute power and authority. ” Jesus, in Luke 6:46, asked the question, “Why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” In John 13:13, “You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. ” In Matthew 22:41-46, we learn that David called Jesus “Lord,” and this really caused the Jews a problem. Jesus wanted to know if the Christ was the son of David, then how could David call Him “Lord”? He was indeed David’s son (in the flesh), but He was at the same time David’s Lord because He is the Son of God. Then in Philippians 2:5-11, there is a passage that deals both with the humiliation of Jesus and His authority. In verses 5-8, we are told of His becoming man and of His obedience even unto death. The following verses (9-11), tell of His exaltation and the authority He now possesses. As a result of the fact that He has been given a name that’s above every name, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The Expression Of Christ’s Authority

The metropolitan government of Nashville has authority over all of Davidson County. There are hundreds of intersections where thousands of automobiles converge every day. If the government had no visible way of expressing its authority at those intersections, Nashville would be a mess. So stop lights are installed and traffic moves pretty well as long as people understand and respect those signs. In religion, Heaven must command and man must obey or chaos will reign. We have learned that Jesus is Lord, but the question facing us just now is how does the Lord express His authority to man? In Hebrews 1:1-2, we are told that “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in the times past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son . . .” God’s written expression of authority in the past was made known by the Old Testament Scriptures. However, in this passage we are told that now it is different. God’s spokesman in our time is Jesus Christ. When we turn to Hebrews 9:15, we are told that Jesus “is the mediator of the New Testament. . . .” The Old Testament is God’s Word, but the laws of that document have been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). As we learned a moment ago, Moses (the one through whom God gave the Ten Commandments) himself said that Christ was to be heard in all things, and anyone who would not listen to Him would be destroyed. We need to recognize that the New Testament is Heaven’s way of guiding all who live on this earth, and none can ignore it and at the same time show respect for the authority of Christ. Indeed, Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, He has the right to command both Jew and Gentile, all our words, deeds and thoughts must be brought into harmony with His Will, and not only the living but also the dead are subject to His authority. Jesus’ authority is expressed in the New Testament and to that book we must turn, believe it, love it, and obey it in order to go to heaven when we die.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 75, 77
February 6, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

In his book, How Christianity Grows in the City, Alvin Jennings says the first century saints of a city met for worship in small “house churches,” and all such churches of a city were under one group of elders. If this plan is followed he says, “The church, the treasury and elders will be one in the urban area.” Further, “Congregational autonomy will begin to fade within the city and individual congregational growth consciousness will give way to the overall growth of the urban church with all its congregations regardless of their place of assembly.” In a previous article we discussed “One Eldership Over Many ‘House Churches,”‘ and in this article we examine scriptural uses of the word “church,” and what is meant by such expressions as “the church in their house” (Rom. 16:5).

The book places great emphasis upon the vast number of saints in Jerusalem, and the physical problems of getting such a number together for worship. The author is a bit careless with his statistics: p. 31 says 50/100,000 saints before the close of the first century; p. 50, 100,000 by 50 A.D.; and p. 74, 50/100,000 by the time of the dispersion (surely meaning the destruction of Jerusalem). (1) We do not believe the validity of worship depends upon all saints of a local church being assembled at the same time or place. (2) The early multiplication of saints at the beginning of the church was a special situation; and there is no reason to suppose they suddenly formed independent congregations, and by the Lord’s Day following Pentecost were “gathered about the Table” Texas style. (3) The “all things common” (Acts 4:32) and treasury “at the apostles’ feet” (v. 37) were not patterns for all time, as is apparent from later information. It was some time after Pentecost before deacons were appointed (6:1f); and we first read of elders ca. 45 A.D. (11:30).

We believe the practice of the first saints was consistent with truth as a whole, but those who cite the early Jerusalem situation to further their special cause may find they have bitten off more than they can chew. Since the first converts made up the universal body of Christ, how about a universal treasury? Truth is, we do not know many details about the worship and work of early saints in Jerusalem. Jennings says “the patterns given to us through Jesus Christ and His special spokesman, the apostles, (must) be followed explicitly.” But patterns are not established by assumptions concerning some portion of revelation. We must search the total record for a pattern.

The “house churches” of How Christianity Grows . . . are sometimes churches, sometimes not churches. The author equates them with “groups” and “assemblies”; and says in large cities of the first century many such groups made up each city church. He says each church should be independent and autonomous, but his drawing of the “Urban Church of Tomorrow” (p. 64), shows churches with elders (no treasury), plus a panel of city elders who control the total city treasury. Independence and autonomy become empty words under such circumstances. Clearly, we must determine the use of “church” as it is applied to what the author calls “house churches.”

In the New Testament ekklesia is usually translated “church.” This collective noun groups its objects, the people of God, and treats them as one. “On this rock I will build my church,” i.e., my people, those who rest upon the divine foundation. Christ bought the church (Acts 20:28) when He died for all who will obey Him (Heb. 5:9). So, “the church” in its universal sense consists of the Lord’s people, metaphorically assembled in this term. The “grouping” does not necessitate their being physically assembled. They are “the general assembly and church of the firstborn (ones) who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). God “established” and “instituted” this church like He “instituted” marriage, or civil government. He made plans and gave instructions for this relationship. He also gave plans for brethren to act collectively, with overseers, servants, and a treasury (see previous article); and “church” in this sense is an organized body politic, which we usually call a “local church.”

But there are other scriptural uses of the term. Faithfulness is the essential ingredient for coming to Christ, and for remaining in His fellowship; hence “church” has a qualitative sense, referring to a certain kind of people. In Acts 5:11 “the church” is distinguished from “as many as heard these things”: viz., from some other than the saints. And the word may also be used in a distributive sense. In Acts 9:31 “The church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” refers not to some tri-state institution, but to saints in these three territories. (See ASV, and proper textual studies. Nestle’s text shows all verbs in this verse are singular.) One may speak of “the church in Texas” without implying there is an organized statewide institution. We have been slow to recognize the distributive use of “church,” but I am persuaded it is far more common than supposed. Try reading through Acts and think distributively (saints) when you see the word “church.”

There are four passages that speak of “the church in house” (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phil. 2). This could mean “saints in – house,” in the same way we might write to a church, and make particular mention of close friends and brethren in their household. Nothing in this would imply they worshiped separately or were units of some metropolitan system. But “church in house” could refer to a local organized church, meeting in a private home. In this case Acts 14:23 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 would authorize oversight and a treasury there. Twice in my life as a preacher I have done resident work for such churches, meeting in a private dwelling places. Of course some early saints met in private houses; but it will take more than a string of Scriptures which use the word “house” to prove one group of elders should control all the money and direct activities of all the churches in a city. Remove assumptions, while keeping scriptural principles, and “church in their house” poses no problem.

One more suggestion. If you have the book How Christianity Grows in the City, try reading every Scripture citation given, and compare what you find in the Bible with its usage in the book. You will be amazed at where the author finds “house churches,” overseen by city elders. Our “church building” mentality could do with some revision, and more home prayer and Bible studies are certainly in order; but city elders are not the scriptural solution.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 71, 79
February 6, 1986

By Ron Halbrook

Among trends found in conservative denominational or “evangelical” circles during recent years is something called the “discipleship” movement. It is an effort to infuse a spirit of zeal, dedication, and discipline into denominational religion which has grown lax, lazy, and limber. This movement, also called “shepherding,” mixes well-known Bible principles emphasizing personal study, submission, and sacrifice with various techniques of psychological manipulation, self-hypnosis, and small group therapy. If this movement stopped with Bible principles and left off the pop psychology, it would be a healthy trend. As with denominationalism generally, there is poison and death in the pot (2 Kgs. 4:40).

Such trends often have a trickle-down effect among the people of God, some of whom drink too long and too deeply from the wells of denominational theology and literature. The Crossroads movement centered in Gainesville, Florida at the Crossroads Church of Christ reflects some characteristics of the so-called discipleship or shepherding idea. Faithful brethren have emphasized the need for personal evangelism on the part of all Christians (Acts 8:3-4). But some who are enamored of the discipleship shepherding concept speak of converting Christians into “disciples” and turning believers into “witnesses,” citing and perverting Acts 1:8. The idea of assigning someone to monitor every step of a new convert and instructing the new convert to “report in” to his “teacher” in a “teacher-to-disciple” relationship is not biblical, but is a phase of the new crusade.

The end product is a shallow, unbiblical faith in men above God, and loyalty to men above Christ. Some are attracted to the campaign because of its apparent “success” rate, but true success recognizes first the standard of God’s Word and then our responsibility to faithfully proclaim it. The results in terms of the number of people reached is in the hands of God through the means which God provided – the power of the pure, unadulterated gospel of Christ (Rom, 1:16; 1 Cor. 3:6-15). The glow of zeal lures some brethren into the “discipleship” campaign – “they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). For further study, read the following article by Hugo McCord from the Gospel Advocate, 19 Dec. 1985, pp. 753, 756.

Discipleship

Hugo McCord
Midwest City, OK

Primarily a disciple is a learner. Biblically, a disciple is more than a learner; he is a follower and an adherent of his teacher. One reads of the disciples of Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist and Jesus (Isaiah 8:16; Matthew 15:1; John 3:25; 9:28).

Jesus explained the process of making disciples, “They shall be taught of God. Every one that has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me” (John 6:45). His final directions (Matthew 28:19,20) were for His apostles in going to all nations to do three things: (1) make disciples, (2) baptizing them and (3) teaching them.

The book of Acts tells how the apostles followed the Lord’s instructions: (1) disciples were made, (2) were baptized and (3) were taught in Jerusalem, Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Corinth and Ephesus (Acts 2:36-42; 14:21, 22; 18:4, 8, 27; 19:5; 20:28).

Notwithstanding the clarity of the Lord’s commands and of the apostles’ examples, a movement has arisen among us changing the terminology and order of the three specifications in this way: (1) make converts, (2) baptize them and (3) disciple them. A leader writes that Jesus’ order “was not to ‘make converts’ . . . but to ‘make disciples.”‘ Thus he is saying that making converts is one thing while making disciples is something else. Where Jesus listed ‘make disciples” as item (1), some are now listing it as item (3).

In the new movement a convert is placed under the supervision of a mature Christian, called a “discipler,” who is to guide and nurture the new Christian until he himself becomes a discipler, and so reproduces himself. “All of” a new convert’s “mind, words and actions” must be conformed “to that of his teacher” (the discipler).

The word Jesus used for item (1), matheteuo, make disciples, never appears in the New Testament for, item (3), where the movement places it. The form (active) in which the word appears in Jesus’ command occurs only one other time in the New Testament where it corresponds to item (1) of Jesus’ words: “And when they had preached the gospel to that city (Derbe), and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch” (Acts 14:21).

What follows items (1) and (2) (making disciples, and baptism understood) is not a discipling process (which the new movement teaches), but a guiding process by teaching (Acts 14:22) corresponding to Jesus’ item (3): “Confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. Thus according to Luke the new converts of Acts 14:22 had already been discipled, and now were to be guided and nurtured.

Illustrative of the new movement’s altering Jesus’ order is the example of an Abilene Christian University coed. She had become a Christian at age 12, and now, eight years later, was in Scotland doing missionary work for a three-month period. She much appreciated a missionary wife there, and reported, “Sister has lovingly discipled me all summer.”

The necessary work of guiding a new convert is very important, but the ACU coed was not a new convert. The two Christian ladies in Scotland strengthened each other, but properly speaking neither discipled the other. All Christians are to “exhort one another, and build each other up” (1 Thessalonians 5:11), but the idea of assigning a supervisor, a discipler, on whom the new convert is to be dependent, is not a New Testament teaching.

The Lord’s wisdom did not entrust the holy work of supervising, shepherding Christians as sheep, and watching for their souls to a discipler, but to the elders (1 Pet. 5:1-5; Acts 20:28). Actually the new movement effectively supplants the eldership, for it is contructed in a oneunder-one relation, not on a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23).

Further, the new movement says a discipler must limit his work “to a few individuals,” for “discipling can only take place with a few people.” On the contrary, biblical discipling Jesus directed “to all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The apostles’ discipling on the day of Pentecost converted 3,000 (Acts 2:41). An exponent of the new system was asked, “Where does pulpit preaching fit into your plan?” He gave an honest answer: “It doesn’t.” This is contradictory to 1 Corinthians 1:21.

If only a few can be discipled, who decides who is to be selected? Who decides when the process is completed? What is done for the non-discipled? Can a non-discipled Christian be saved? One Christian, hearing of the new system, inquired, “What shall I do? I have been a member of the church for 30 years, and a class teacher for 21, and I have never been discipled.”

The new system holds that discipling is not advised “between people of the opposite sex.” On the other hand, biblical discipling had no gender barrier (“both men and women,” Acts 8:12).

Under the new system “witnessing describes a way of life,” whereas under the New Testament, witnesses “were chosen before God. . . who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 10:41). The new plan wrongly applies Acts 1:8 to Christians today: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and to the ends of the earth.” This was addressed directly to the apostles. The new plan puts a weak Christian in “direct dependence” on his discipler who becomes his “closest brother.” These two “pray together and share their insights of God’s word.” They enter a “prayer covenant.” Then (in a class situation) one is to “tell who (sic) you prayed with and share one of your prayer requests that the rest of the class can pray about.”

The new system transforms Paul’s words, “The things thou hast heard of me . . . commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others” (2 Tim. 2:2) to mean a discipler “instructs that close brother whom he had discipled to disciple others.”

The new system affirms that not many Christians are worthy to be “disciples.” However, in the inspired writings, no difference can be found between a disciple and a Christian (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 6:1; 11:26). They are synonymous terms. One could as erroneously say that not many disciples are worthy to be called Christians.

Actually, if one can find a biblical emphasis of one term above the other, it would be that “Christian” is more meaningful than “disciple.” After the book of Acts, God’s people are not called disciples. A misplaced emphasis on the word “disciple” calls to mind Alexander Campbell’s mistake. He held that since God’s people were called disciples before they were called Christians the former term is preferable. Campbell’s mistake lives on today in the “Disciples Church.”

Another error stemming from the new movement is the setting of a probation period for discipled Christians until they may be appointed evangelists. A congregation of 1,000 members in 43 house churches reported their evangelist had “baptized and discipled to Christ for three years” five brothers before their “being appointed evangelists.” Moreover, a gospel preacher of more than 30 years experience all over the world with hundreds of conversions to his credit, placing membership with the congregation, was asked to be an apprentice before he could be appointed an evangelist.

The new movement emanates from deep devotion and is characterized by fervent work. Actually, however, it crystallizes itself into a church within a church, stirring friction. The dedication of the disciplers executing their new plan is wholly to be admired and praised. May those not espousing their errors pray sincerely for them and emulate their enthusiasm, bearing “them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 80-81
February 6, 1986