Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Denominational attitudes tend to creep into the church as members are converted from denominationalism and the influence of the religious world around us spills over into the church. Christians must constantly re-emphasize the fundamentals of the gospel lest a generation arise which cannot distinguish the Lord’s church from those denominations which have been founded by men. Understanding what the church is makes identifying the Lord’s body possible.

When you ask, “What is the church?” men will give you a variety of answers. Some think the church is a building; some think that the church is composed of all of the saved of all denominations; some use the term to refer to a part of the saved who rally around a certain body of doctrines and form of organization. Some view the church as a spiritual option, somewhat like air conditioning on a car. Each of these ideas manifests a misunderstanding of what the church is.

Meaning of “Church”

The English word church is derived from the Greek word kyriakon which meant “belonging to the Lord.” The English word “church” is used to translate the Greek word ekkiesia, a noun derived from the preposition ek (out) and the verb kaleo (to call). Hence, the word ekklesia means “the called out ones.” It can be used in a non-religious sense (cf. Acts 19:32, 41 – “assembly”) to refer to any called out (assembled) body of people. However, it is used in a special sense to refer to those who have been called out by Jesus. When used with reference to those called out by Christ, the word is used in these senses: (a) universal to refer to everyone whom Christ has called out (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 5:23-25); (b) local to refer to those in a given place who have been called out by Christ (1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1).

The Called Out Body

Why are God’s people referred to as a “called out body”? Let us consider the pertinent facts.

1. They have received a divine calling. God Himself has “called us with an holy calling” (2 Tim. 1:9). “God hath called us . . . ” (1 Cor. 7:15; cf. 1 Pet. 5:10). If the President of the United States called together his special friends for a celebration, those gathered would have come as a result of a special invitation issued by the President. Those who gathered together in the Lord’s church have received a higher and more important invitation – they have been called by God.

2. They have been called into fellowship with God. “‘God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9; cf. 1 Jn. 1:14). Even as those invited to the White House have the opportunity to fellowship with the President, those called out by God have been invited into the fellowship of God Almighty, Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy Spirit.

3. They have been called out of darkness into light. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). God’s calling is a call to turn from sin and wickedness to walk in the pathway of righteousness. When Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles, he was sent “to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. . . ” (Acts 26:18). Christians have forsaken the works of the flesh in order to enjoy the fruit of the Spirit.

4. They have been called into the Lord’s kingdom. Paul wrote, “. . . that ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you into the kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2:12). Those who have heard the Lord’s call and answered it are fellow citizens with the saints. They are no longer under the authority and dominion of Satan; they have become citizens of the eternal kingdom and under the authority of Jesus Christ. As citizens of the kingdom, they enjoy all of the joys and privileges of citizens.

5. They have been called to inherit heaven. The hope of our calling is heaven. “. . . knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing” (1 Pet. 3:9). “. . . that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints” (Eph. 1:18; cf. 4:4). Those who have been called by God have a rich and abiding hope that they shall live eternally in the presence and fellowship of God in heaven.

These facts demonstrate for us that the church is composed of those people who have heard the calling of God and answered it. Hence, the church is the saved people of the world. Those who are not part of the church are not part of the saved. A man cannot be saved without becoming a part of the called out body of Christ.

How We Are Called

If a man must be a part of the called-out body of Christ in order to be saved, he needs to learn how to be called of God. Paul wrote,

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 2:13-14).

God calls us through the gospel. This is the same gospel which is to be preached to every creature of every nation of the whole world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16). Those who hear that gospel preached hear the call of God. Those who respond in obedience to the gospel answer the Lord’s invitation.

Hence, God does not call us through some still, small voice in mysterious ways and circumstances. He calls us through the gospel. The invitation is not limited to a few “elect”; the invitation is extended to every man.

While on earth, Jesus called men saying, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30). This invitation to come has been extended to all men in the preaching of the gospel.

The conditions for answering that call are: (a) hearing, for one cannot answer an invitation which he has not heard (Matt. 28:18; Mk. 16:15); (b) belief in the gospel of Christ (Mk. 16:15-16); (c) repentance of sins (Lk. 24:47); (d) confession of faith in Christ (Matt. 10:32-33; Rom. 10:9-10); (e) baptism in water (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16). Those who have done these things have answered heaven’s call and are a part of the called out body of Christ – the church.

Conclusion

All of those who have obeyed the gospel are members of the Lord’s called out body – the church. None of those who have not obeyed the gospel are members of the calledout body. The denominations of men do not teach the gospel plan of salvation; they delude men into thinking that they can be saved by “faith onfy,” before and without water baptism. To speak of those who have never obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ as being members of the church deludes people into thinking they are saved when they are lost. Those who have never obeyed the gospel are not members of the Lord’s church, although they may be members of the church established by Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Smyth, Joseph Smith, and other men.

Some have suggested that we ought to fellowship the Christians in all denominations. First of all, we ask how can one become a Christian without obeying the gospel? Hence, are the denominations filled with Christians (men who have obeyed the gospel)? Secondly, if these people are not Christians whose doctrine and practice are pleasing to God, we should not fellowship them (Eph. 5:11). Joining hands in fellowship with them endorses their errors in violation of 2 John 9-11.

The Lord’s church is not made up of the good people of all denominations. It is composed of those who have obeyed the Lord’s gospel in order to become a Christian and who continue to abide in Christ through faithful living. Instead of joining hands with the denominations, we need to be preaching the Lord’s call for men to forsake humanly devised religion in order to become members of His church.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 66, 86
February 6, 1986

By Dale Smelser

Christians who have been involved in new or young works in areas remote from most brethren know how demanding such work can be. Working with babes in Christ in such places can be quite different from working with babes in Christ whose environment and background have always been influenced by the gospel. The demands upon spiritual leaders were surely quite different in Jerusalem from those in Corinth. Compare just the number of things the Corinthians had to unlearn.

In spite of those demands in new and remote works, the responsibility to establish and confirm is often left to one man because of the scarcity of workers. That was the case when Paul sent Timothy back to Thessalonica and had to remain alone in Athens (1 Thess. 3:1-2). But the fact is, Paul felt the need of Timothy and Silas with him in Athens (Acts 17:15), and was greatly helped when they joined him at Corinth (Acts 18:5). Similarly, when Barnabas earlier saw the new work at Antioch, he went to Tarsus to find Saul. The two of them then taught many people in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). Two or more laborers in such places is better than one.

While we see benefit in two men working together in larger well-established groups where there are elders and many mature Christians to help carry the load, if we calculate preacher responsibility by congregational size, we might assume it extravagant for two men to work in places where new or small congregations exist. But the amount of work to be done by an evangelist is not related to the size of the congregation where he is. The principle extra occupation of a preacher in association with a larger congregation is that he will make more hospital calls. (It is good that preachers find time to comfort the afflicted. Some other members could follow their example.) Otherwise, the frequency of training disciples whether few or many can be about the same. And in places with fewer mature Christians the preacher has less help. Likewise, a disproportionate number of congregational responsibilities and burdens of members fall upon preachers where there are not as many to share the work. And there are as many lost souls to evangelize in one place as another. It appears that just as much, and maybe more, might be accomplished by supporting two men in a virgin area as in one where the gospel is well represented.

And while we see it as good training for young preachers to work in established groups with older preachers, and I concur, we not quite accurately cite the work of Paul and Timothy as an example of such a program. Paul trained Timothy and they worked together, but they were out on the spiritual frontier and often separated. And I wonder if some young preachers surrounded by prestige and pleasant association will see going into remote areas as demotion, and rather seek position and recognition comparable to what they have experienced? After such advantage let us hope they seek not merely security. Let those that are capable accept challenge, remembering it was the young, though not inexperienced, Timothy who was sent to help rescue Corinth (1 Cor. 4:16-17).

This is not to question the propriety of good men presently working where there are many brethren. Most of us have been there. But how encouraged I am when someone chooses a place because of the challenge, such as when Lloyd Barker chose to move to Beckley, West Virginia, knowing there would be opposition to him because the institutional question had not been settled there. Preaching the truth in love, long suffering, and much patience turned the tide, and his beginning was continued by Aubrey Belue. Aubrey is back there again. And what a joy it is to visit that active church with 150 attending, and remember it is where it is because someone thought more of the need and challenge and the glory of God than security or proximity to family. Or one can think of great men who moved really far into new cultures to spread the good news.

It is true that sometimes inept men have attempted such admirable endeavors. But is one necessarily so because of his youth? A look at the New Testament says youth can be effective. Of course, let each one who attempts such work make sure he is willing to abide by Paul’s instructions to Timothy (1 Tim. 4:12-16). Those unwilling to do that should not pose as preachers anywhere.

Well, those are reflections about preachers working together, the capability of young preachers, the need for some dispersal. Now for some plans pertinent to them. Jeff and Scott Smelser have for some time discussed going someplace where no congregation exists and together with their families beginning one while evangelizing that area. They ultimately chose Providence, Rhode Island, an hour out of Boston. The nearest churches struggling for the New Testament order are at Sutton and Tyngsboro, Massachusetts. They have chosen a populous area of sparse churches. I don’t know if my enthusiasm about the possibilities in the northeast influenced their decision. But this area of the nation is ripe, especially for young preachers, because it is largely young people who are being converted here. Several works are thriving.

You would rejoice to visit Milton, Vermont where Jeff and Anna Kingry are and see an attendance of 75-80 of mostly young couples and their children, couples young in age and faith. In northern New Jersey the churches at East Orange, Fair Lawn and Succasunna support or help support 18 preachers. Washington’s meeting place is bursting at the seams. And in central New York State the work of Larry and Sharon Bailey causes me to stand in awe, the ever growing congregation in New South Berlin recently having to expand its building and spawning another congregation.

And young preachers, with all the recent immigration from all over the world into the northeast, if you have a second language, you can preach to other nationalities without going overseas, though such work may lead you there for important visits. Gardner and Beverly Hall are valuable here as Gardner works among Hispanics. Through this, doors have been opened in Puerto Rico that he has effectively used.

Yes, the struggle of transforming minds to conform to the gospel here is challenging even after people have been baptized, because such an entirely different way of thinking predominates. I am glad that Jeff and Scott are coming together. They will need one another. I hope more pairs of young preachers will come and that churches will send them.

My response to having sons move to a remote area to begin a work from ground up is mixed, as the response of many of you would be. As a father I see them secure in good works in Akron, Ohio and Decatur, Alabama where they each will have been for the past five and a half years when they move, and where they are known and used by others in their respective areas. It would be a comfort to my mind for them to stay where they are. But as a Christian and as a preacher I applaud their intention. And I surely love and admire their wives who stand with and encourage them.

And as for support given for preachers to work in pairs, the efficiency quotient will likely be more than just double what one could do by himself. So it was with Paul at Corinth. With support sent from Macedonia (2 Cor. 11:8-9), and the added presence of Timothy and Silas (Acts 18:5; 1 Thess. 3:6-8), Paul was strengthened, turned to the Gentiles, and the work at Corinth took off (Acts 18:8). Let us consider more evangelism where teams of workers go.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 46, 55
January 16, 1986

By Weldon E. Warnock

In the past eighteen months, three large unity meetings have been conducted between preachers and elders of the churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches. The meetings were at the Ozark Bible College, Joplin, Missouri, August 7-9, 1984; at the Garnett Road Church of Christ in Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 17-19,1985 and at Pepperdine University, Malibu, California, July 7-9, 1985.

Most of the proposals and propositions that have emerged out of these gatherings will not, and can not, produce the unity for which Jesus prayed and the apostles pleaded. The reason for failure is that their suggestions are pseudo in nature and human in origin. A unity of the Spirit, or a unity of the faith (Eph. 4:3,13), will not be forthcoming because they are trying to attain unity on false premises. Let us look at these premises and observe why they will not produce the unity of which the Bible speaks.

1. Unity in diversity. This is just another way of saying, “You do what you want and we will do what we want and both of us will ignore the difference.” This approach demands acceptance of the Sonship of Jesus, but allows flexibility with the teachings of Jesus. But Jesus said, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things, I say” (Lk. 6:46). The Bible teaches that we must not only believe that Jesus is the Christ (Jn. 8:24), but also do what He says (Jn. 8:31; 12:48; 2 Jn. 9).

Granted, the Bible provides room for diversity in the individual’s conscience, such as eating of meat or herbs, or keeping of days (Rom. 14), but these are individual actions that do not involve the participation of others. Too, it is immaterial with God whether I eat pork or vegetables. To equate these indifferent matters with premillennialism, women preachers and instrumental music in worship is a total misunderstanding of Romans 14 and 15, and the issues involved. Premillennialism is blatant error, making Jesus a liar, the church a substitute and the New Testament temporary codicil for the “church-age. ” Women are forbidden to preach (1 Tim. 2:12) and instrumental music corrupts the worship of the church because God never authorized it in the New Testament.

Yet, we are asked to cease our opposition to these gospel perverters and innovators for the sake of a feigned unity so we can appear to the world as being one. The world is not that naive and I am more interested in what God thinks about our “unity” than the world, anyway.

I would also concede that a brother may believe some types of error, keep his views to himself, and walk in truth. But this is altogether different from one who believes error, preaches it and practices it. We can fellowship the former but not the latter.

2. Silence of the Scriptures. One digressive brother wrote, 6 41be Scriptures are silent on any given subject means only the Scripture are silent on the subject, and no other conclusion can be drawn. Silence neither approves nor disapproves anything. ” Wonder why the Holy Spirit did not have this profound insight when He said through the inspired writer, “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood” (Heb. 7:14)? Based on the silence of the Scriptures, no one from the tribe of Judah (or any other tribe besides Levi) could serve as priest. Now you can quibble, equivocate, vacillate, fluctuate and oscillate, but the text to-aches disapproval by silence.

Men who espouse a position that permits, in consequence, donuts and coffee on the Lord’s table, sprinkling for baptism, burning of incense, praying to Mary, holy dances, instrumental music in worship, and a multitude of other things that the Bible is silent about, have no business trying to preach. They ought to get out of the pulpit and get into some kind of business that requires not too much common sense.

Through the years we have been asked, “Where does the Bible state not to have instrumental music in worship?” The same passage that says, “Do not have donuts and coffee on the Lord’s table.” If you can see the principle that eliminates other elements than bread and the fruit of the vine for the Lord’s Supper, then you can see, I guarantee, the principle that eliminates instrumental music in worship. If you cannot understand this simple point, then be good to your wife or husband and neighbors, and you will make it to heaven with the other unaccountable folks.

3. Ignorance. We are told, “If we can baptize those who don’t agree with us on everything, then we can fellowship them after baptism in spite of their differing comprehensions. ” This statement was made to try6 to show that we can fellowship those who use the instrument. I admit that people must be taught after baptism (Matt. 28:19), and grounded and rooted (Eph. 4:13-14; Col. 2:7), but since when are we to baptize people who make it plain they do not intend to change their sinful practices after they are baptized, or since when should we fellowship those who insist on living in sin after baptism? Because they do not perceive their actions as sinful, alters nothing.

To jump from misconceptions that people have at baptism to walking and living in religious error is too big a jump for anybody. Wonder how this new-found method of fellowship and unity is supposed to work toward homosexuals, polygamists, idolaters and denominationalists who want to continue in their practices? If it allows baptized believers to keep their instruments of music in worship, then it allows any other person, or persons, to do as they please, as long as they are ignorant. No, my friends, to embrace all of the ignorant brethren regardless of their practice, is not a biblical premise for unity.

4. Non-essentials. The way to have unity, we are told, is to agree on the essentials, and be tolerant toward one another on the non-essentials. Of course, those who tell us this want to decide what is essential and what is nonessential. Generally, instrumental music is classified as a non-essential. But what if somebody wanted to have monthly observance of the Lord’s Supper, have women elders, wear religious titles, such as “Reverend,” adopt majority rule, work through a missionary society, and claim an of these were “non-essentials,” what should we do? Accept them as non-essentials because somebody says so? Absolutely not! Go to the Bible and see what the Book says.

Now, brethren, learning the Word of God is not as complicated as some would have us to believe. We can know what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17), and we can differentiate between essentials and non-essentials. Yea, we can determine what is scriptural and unscriptural (Heb. 5:12-14).

Instrumental music is not a “non-essential,” but it is an unscriptural act in worship that came from the wisdom of men. Read the New Testament and find it in worship, either by generic authority or by specific authority. It is not there! You know it is not there; I know it is not there and everybody else knows it is not there if he has read the Bible. We talk about the New Testament being our pattern (which it is, 2 Tim. 1: 13) and then go off in all directions. If some preachers worked in a shirt factor they would windup with breeches.

5. Unsolvable by the Scriptures. “We may contend until the ‘cows come home’ about authority of the Scriptures or respecting the silence of the Scriptures, and we will still be divided when the Lord makes His second advent. . . . for love is the ingredient that will bind us together in perfect harmony?” There you have it from a loose brother who sees no solution in the Scriptures for unity – only love. Since when did love circumvent the Word of God? How would we know how to love, other than through the Scriptures?

“We can’t understand the Scriptures so we can agree?” someone says. Who said so? If you can’t, that is your problem that you need to work on. Those who believe the truth, love the truth and have honest hearts, can understand the truth (cf. Psa. 119:104-105; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; Lk. 8:15; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17). To blame the Word of God for our failure to be one in Christ is utter nonsense.

Our liberal and digressive brethren have the same disease that denominational churches have and that is a lack of respect for a “thus saith the Lord.” Oh, they (denominations) won’t admit their disrespect for the Word of God, and they make plausible arguments (to themselves) for their beliefs and practices, but they are wrong, nevertheless. Reckon we ought to quit contending with them about the authority of the Scriptures and just “love them”? After all, I think we will still be divided when the Lord makes His second advent.

Brethren, there is a cure for division. It is not found in sweet-sounding epithets or calling our differences petty and childish matters, but rather the solution for division is to seek and pursue unity with a fervor for Bible authority in all we do. This is the only basis for peace and all other endeavors are for nought. This whole contrived, compromising strategy of these unity “summits” is characteristic of the days of Jeremiah when the false prophets said, “Peace, peace; when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14; 8:11).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 65, 87
February 6, 1986

By Austin Mobley

Faith in God, and all involved in it, is indispensable to pleasing him (Heb. 11:6). Its importance can be seen in the fact that it is the means by which the grace of God is appropriated (Eph. 2:8-9); it is the principle by which the Christian lives (Gal. 2:20); it governs the manner of our daily walk in life (2 Cor. 5:17); and it is an integral part of the armor of the Christian (Eph. 6:16).

There is much confusion among religions as to what faith is and how it is obtained. Many think faith comes through feelings, some unusual emotional experience, or even a dream. Others have the false concept that faith comes through prayer. At least four views of faith are much in evidence today.

First is the rationalistic view of faith – the assent of the mind to a demonstrated truth. “The practice of guiding one’s opinions and actions solely by what is considered reasonable” (Webster). This false view of faith demands that a thing be demonstrated before accepted. If it is not “reasonable” to the human mind, then it must be rejected. The rationalist would reject every miracle because he has not seen one. True faith cannot be put into a test tube; it has to do with “unseen things” (Heb. 11:1, 3).

Second is the legalistic view of faith. This conceives a system of good works devised by man which induces God to supply the faith that is lacking. “Conforming to a code of deeds and observances as a means of justification” (Webster). The reasoning is this: if I just do the best I can, God will make up the difference. This false concept has resulted in the counting of beads, offering human sacrifices, forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats, etc. At the judgment, Jesus will say to those who devise their own works, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (without law or faith) (Matt. 7:21-23).

Third is the fatalistic view of faith. This false view regards faith as a grace imparted by God and, if faith is withheld, it is not the fault of the sinner who refuses to believe. The fatalist leaves faith entirely up to the Lord who either bestows or denies it. There is no individual responsibility involved, but all events are determined by fate.

Fourth is the realistic view of faith. Webster defines reality as, “the character of being true to life or to fact; someone or something real; an actual person, event, situation, or the like.” The realist believes that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). He believes that God has presented in His word the record concerning His Son, and men must believe that record. He places the most favorable construction upon what the Bible teaches and anticipates the best possible outcome if he accepts and obeys (Mk. 16:15-16; Rev. 2: 10). His faith is real! What is your view of faith?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, p. 42
January 16, 1986