Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Charles A. Holt of Chattanooga, Tennessee and J.T. Smith of Lake Jackson, Texas debated the nature of the church and of the eldership for five nights (30 Sept.-4 Oct. 1985) in Lake Jackson. Holt’s moderator was Terry Gardner of Indianapolis, Indiana and Smith’s was Elmer Moore of Lufkin, Texas.

The discussion was. exemplary from several standpoints and proves that debates properly conducted are effective tools for teaching and learning. Visitors came from several states. The demeanor of everyone involved, speakers and audience alike, was dignified and courteous. The disputants presented their views with clarity and pressed them with firmness, effectively using many overhead projector charts. Darrel Rowell of Dumas, Tex. helped with Holt’s charts and Bill Robinson, Jr. of Ft. Worth with Smith’s. This was not just a “Preachers’ debate,” but other men and women including teenagers expressed their delight at being able to understand and learn from the discussion. Many of them made notes from the speeches and charts for further study.

The Issue Stated

Two radically different concepts of the church and its eldership were tested in the crucible of debate. Holt views “the local ecclesia” as nothing more than saints in a given area who act individually or together at times, but who are not “an organized, functional, institutional entity. ” He regards elders as merely the “relatively more mature” members who lead the saints in some sense without formal appointment or authority. Smith taught that the local church is an organized, functional, institutional entity with a revealed work and formal organization, and that God requires Christians to be a part of this body. To show that other men see the same danger in Holt’s views which Smith sees, a chart labeled “Others Get the Point” displayed this statement by F. Furman Kearley (editor of the Gospel Advocate):

The upholding of his (Holt’s) position would basically bring to an end the church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and destroy all of the teaching, role and function of Biblical elders (letter dated 15 July 1985).

Some Terms Defined

In explaining that the ecclesia is nothing more than disciples or saints, Holt objected to making it “something more” by the use of terms such as “local,” “church,” “functional unit,” and “corporate worship.” Holt stressed that all duties are given to individuals (Rom. 14:12), not to the church as an organization or institution. As to terms used, Smith pointed out that the Bible does not use Holt’s words “individually,” “local ecclesia,” “the only functional unit” (the individual), or a number of words in Holt’s propositions. Both men then agreed that we all use such expressions to explain, define, and amplify our points, but we must show that the concept itself is biblical. Smith agreed that we will be judged individually and not collectively, but explained that we are to be judged in part on whether we properly serve God in such organized, functional units as the family (Eph. 6:14), the government (Rom. 13:1-5), and the local church (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

Since Holt claimed to be very concerned about the proper use of words, Smith offered several charts on definitions. The following terms may describe a local church. Organized means a systematic arrangement such as is seen in Titus 1:5 and Philippians 4:14-16; functional, fulfilling a function as in 1 Timothy 3:15; institutional, organized to accomplish charitable and educational activities (1 Cor. 12:28); entity, existing independently (1 Cor. 12:27); and body corporate, a society capable of transacting business as an individual (1 Tim. 5:16).

When Holt kept using “institutional” as a stigma in reference to the idea of a local church, Smith asked on a chart, “Is My Opponent Institutional?” Pete Rose is a baseball institution. The “Jesus Movement” folks would regard Holt’s insistence on an assembly in Hebrews 10:25 as legalism, “the establishment,” and “institutional religion.” The local church organized with elders is an institution. The Catholic hierarchy is an institution. “Institution” like “contend” and many other words may be good or bad according to their use in a given context.

Since Holt strenuously objected to the church as a “body corporate,” that expression was explained on another of Smith’s charts: body, a unit formed of a number of persons; corporate, combined into one body; body corporate in law, a corporation; corporation, a body of associated persons. “Question: What is there about the expression body corporate that has provoked such an onslaught by brother Holt?” A separate chart pointed out that Holt’s “local ecclesia” is an institution in the view of “Jesus People,” and organization because of some systematic arrangement necessary to obey Hebrews 10:25, a corporate entity or a body composed of individuals, and a functional unit if able to perform any regular function as a body.

In spite of these efforts, Holt continued to assert that no one could “prove that the local ecclesia constitutes ‘something more’ than a group of saints.” But it was shown throughout the debate that the local church is a group of saints formally organized by God with a revealed pattern of work, worship, and organization.

So determined was Holt to stigmatize and eliminate the word “church ” as a translation of ecclesia, as a root of error, and as “a mark of the beast,” that he said it was used by the translators under the threat of death by an “edict of King James.” When documentation was requested for this bizarre claim, none was offered. The American Standard Version (1901) renders ecclesia “church” and was translated by 101 of the world’s ripest Greek scholars, who certainly were not worried over an “edict” from King James!

To show a local ecclesia is not a functional unit, Holt asked regarding the audience gathered in a school cafeteria for the debate, “Is this a body politic here tonight?” Smith countered with the question, “Is it the local church?” He reminded everyone that Holt had commended the Southern Oaks Church of Christ of Lake Jackson for arranging the debate, which proves that he can distinguish a gathering of saints (which may include “relatively more mature” people) from a local church organized with a formal eldership.

1 Timothy 5:16, A Key Passage

Holt stressed very early that a local church is “nothing more than disciples/saints” and challenged Smith to prove it is “something more. ” 1 Timothy 5:16 became a key passage. “If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” The following chart by Smith distinguished action on the part of individuals which is not local church action from the work of the local church:

 

 

Notice that the church is not charged with the relief work performed by certain individuals, in order that “it” may be free to relieve “widows indeed.” The individual action might even include several relatives working together, but the church is something more than several Christians working together. The church is an organized, functional entity including a formal membership and eldership. Its mission in benevolence is clearly defined and limited by passages such as 1 Timothy 5:16, and its formal organization is specified in passages such as 1 Timothy 3.

Individuals serve God in some matters separate from local church action, and God equipped the local church with an all-sufficient organization to fulfill its own work of benevolence and evangelism without giving financial gifts or donations to human institutions such as missionary societies, colleges, orphanages, or the like. It was emphasized that Holt had understood and taught these very principles during the controversies of the 1950’s. But Holt insisted that the “it” or ecclesia in 1 Timothy 5:16 was in no sense a “body corporate or an institution.” “It’s just disciples together.” This he offered to prove on the premise that Christ died for the church, not for an institution (Eph. 5:25).

But as Smith explained, the church for which Christ died involves a relationship which includes responsibilities in the local church. Several times Holt said this interposes a “body politic” between man and the Savior, but Smith argued that it stood between man and God only in the sense that all duties stand between man and God. An obedient faith stands between man and God. Our spiritual relationship with the Lord involves duties and privileges in serving Him, some of which are fulfilled and enjoyed in the local church arrangement. This is seen again in 1 Timothy 5:16 where individuals can function separately from local church work while the church, the “it” in this passage, “can function as an individual.”

After Holt protested that “‘it’ is not an organizational entity that can be sued” except by suing each separate person, Smith later quoted lawyers to confirm that even Holt’s loosely conceived “local ecclesia” could be sued as an “it.” The treasury of 1 Corinthians 16:2 was also used to show how the church could function as a separate entity, distinguishable from one person or even several individuals, but Holt interpreted the passage as purely personal: “Lay up by yourself somewhere.” But that contradicts the provision, “that there be no gatherings when I come.” Acts 6:1-6 was also used to show that the church was organized with special servants, pooled funds, and a work to be done outside the assembly. This proves the local church continues to exist and function through its agents, even when not assembled. Holt would only say the church was “not an organization or body corporate.”

“Something More” In Matthew 18:15-17

Smith early introduced the three stages of action in Matthew 18:15-17 to show that church action is “something more” than individual or even group action. If our brother sins against us, we first go to “him alone,” then take “one or two more,” then “tell it unto the church.” But Holt using his charts 5 and 6 insisted that even when saints function “together with other disciples” or “other members in assemblies,” the assembly is in no way a functional unit. Only “individual Christians are the functional units.” But another chart of Smith’s showed that the “Local Church in Matt. 18:15-17” is a functional unit. At stage two, “individuals act together not as (a) local church,” even though they may function together with other members in study, prayer, and song. Stage three pictures “something more” – take it to the church! What more is there at stage three? Just more witnesses? A local body of saints organized with elders (Tit. 1:5)? Or something else? Holt finally intimated that it was just more witnesses!

The individual Christian loses all personal identity when he becomes a member of the “local church,” Holt often repeated. As a member of the local church, the saint is a “pew sitter” with “no voice or vote,” said Holt, who in derision parroted over and over the line that a saint is told he must “be taught, obey and pay.” This line, Smith answered, ridicules the pattern of teaching in Acts 2:42, just as sectarians ridicule Acts 2:38 or Mark 16:16. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

Godly elders consult other members in the course of their work, Smith noted, but God’s plan of church government is not democracy or counting votes. Contrary to the “pew sitting” charge, Smith’s sermon on Sunday before the debate emphasized personal faith and responsibility. Elmer Moore preaches in Lufkin and said that the Holt doctrine taught there years ago leaves a legacy of “pew sitters” who refuse to accept any active responsibility in the local church!

Legitimate Or Usurped Authority?

Holt pressed hard that Smith’s view of the church puts an eldership between man and God. Elders were constantly compared to the Pope and Holt repeatedly claimed, “You give away all your rights when you submit to elders.” His appeals to throw off this yoke of authority sounded much like people in the woman’s lib movement who say husbands have no authority in the home and like free love advocates who cry they are releasing people from the shackles of marriage. Such deceptive cries of “freedom” defy God’s arrangements for order and government in civil affairs, home life, and the local church. Smith asked if we should tell wives to get back to God and not have husbands over them – husbands standing between the woman and God. Holt’s answer was, “She is under Christ when under her husband.” He sees the principle in the home but not in the local church.

Smith used numerous charts, passages, and definitions from standard Greek dictionaries to show that elders have a legitimate sphere of authority to lead in decision making in judgmental matters in the church, just as husbands do in the home. The term “rule” in that sense is used of elders in the church in 1 Timothy 5:17 and of fathers in the home in 3:4 and 12. Smith made it very clear that the authority of elders is “delegated, not primary,” and that they must use it 4cas exemplary leaders, not harsh and hypocritical dictators” (1 Pet. 5:34). They “rule in judgmental decisions to expedite the local church’s work.”

Holt refused to review these charts, alternately claiming to agree with the definitions and to disprove them by the force of his other arguments. For instance, he claimed the ideal of being not lords but servants in Matthew 20:26 was proof enough, but Smith showed that this ideal excludes the arbitrary, abusive ruling of 1 Peter 5:3 but not the legitimate rule of 1 Timothy 5:17. Also, Jesus excluded one Apostle aspiring to rule over another, but himself delegated a proper rule of the Apostles over local church affairs in Acts 6:1-6.

Holt regards any effort to give God’s people an “organized form” as the “basic fallacy” in false religion. Somehow brethren should assemble as per Hebrews 10:25 for 44 pure unstructured functioning” without forming autonomous congregations in various localities around a city. “Church” should be regarded as “singular” in any given city, “churches” plural only within a country or province. The idea of autonomous Southside and Westside churches in a city was condemned, but Holt said he had not worked out all the implications of this new found truth. Everyone was left wondering where it is all to lead. Smith pointed out that it led Alvin Jennings to propose that all elders in a city may constitute a single board of elders over all groups meeting in a city (How Christianity Grows in the City, p. 64). Since Holt defied anyone to find two churches in a city, Smith gave Romans 16:3-5 to show that a church was meeting in someone’s home, in addition to the church addressed by the Roman letter.

Holt explained that all terms such as “church” in Acts 20:28, “flock” in 1 Peter 5:2, and similar expressions refer to God’s people without limitation “to any segment, ‘local church’ or functional entity.” The church is equally applies to one and all without regard to location.” Any corporate action or local eldership conceived of as separate from other groups meeting in a city are regarded by Holt as sinful, sectarian fragments.

What then are we to make of passages like 1 Peter 5:2, which teaches elders, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof”? Smith said such passages limit each eldership to one local church. This does not put elders over a local church or local unit of any kind, but addresses Christians and elders scattered in every place, Holt said. In his view, when elders are told to feed and oversee the flock “among you, ” it means “any and all you can find” from place to place. Smith observed that Holt was drifting from a city bishopric to a district or regional bishopric, if not to a universal bishopric!

The identifying marks which follow represent a false view of the church, “no matter what it is” called, said Holt. But Smith supplied the passages which show that the New Testament church had these very marks to which Holt objected:

1. You can organize IT or bring IT into corporate existence – Acts 20:28.

2. Give IT distinctive name by which IT is commonly known – Romans 16:16.

3. Join IT – Acts 9:6.

4. Hold membership in IT – 1 Corinthians 12:14,27.

5. Be excluded from IT – 1 Corinthians 5.

6. Install officers to exercise authority over IT and all ITS functions – Titus 1:5.

7. Form a treasury as a part of ITS corporate existence – 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.

8. Make contributions to IT – 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.

9. Be an employee of IT – 2 Corinthians 11:8.

Appointment or Claptrap?

The appointment or installation of elders as officers in the church is regarded as impossible by Holt. Elders are people who reach a relative degree of maturity which automatically qualifies and constitutes them as overseers (in some sense which excludes authority to make decisions for the church). The common appointment idea is “hocuspocus”and “claptrap.” People who are already elders may be reminded or assigned their duties, but Holt claims it is impossible to confer on them any station or position which they do not already have by virtue of their qualifications. This reminded Smith of what denominational people say about the “claptrap” of baptism and what free love advocates say about the “hocus-pocus” of a marriage ceremony – how could such action confer anything on people which they did not already have by virtue of preexisting qualifications?

To show that it is possible to appoint someone to a station or position for which he is qualified already, Smith referred to the appointment of Matthias in Acts 1:15-26 and compared it to the appointment of servants in Acts 6:1-6. “Matthias was not made an apostle” in a true and genuine sense, according to Holt. His argument is that “the Lord did not authorize this action” of replacing Judas with Matthias. Smith asked why no one was rebuked, as in Galatians 2:14. Acts 1:24 points out that God and not man chose Matthias, who was thereafter “numbered with the eleven apostles” (1:26; 2:1,14, etc.).

Elders: Men, Women, Young, and Old?

Smith said the following points “Stand or Fall Together.” If there is no formal eldership, the only qualification is experience, and there is no appointment or authority, then women can be elders, bachelors and old maids can be elders, and one man or woman can serve alone as an elder! Following the logic of his premises, Holt answered, “Paul was an elder-bishop-pastor.” Titus and Timothy were pastors, therefore the letters bearing their names properly may be called “pastoral epistles.” Timothy though young in years (1 Tim. 4:12) was relatively mature. Holt added that this must be true because a new Christian might be 60 years old and a more mature one 20. Smith pointed out that Holt had departed from both Scripture and his proposition’s reference to “the older” and to “age,” and to “experience.”

Also, Holt made it evident from his explanations of maturity in Hebrews 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 that women cannot be excluded in his concept of elders. Smith pointed out that the instructions of Acts 20:28 were given to elders (v. 17), which includes women by Holt’s definitions. This was emphasized by Smith more than once and was never denied by Holt. Galatians 6:1 tells of an elder’s work, Holt said, and, “Who is that? That’s any of you. . . . If you can do that, you had better get up and do it, my brother. Or sister, doesn’t make any difference!”

Holt often indicated that God’s elders “take heed to the flock” while modern elders “take heed to the budget,” but Smith showed that proper oversight includes both. Various instances of arbitrary, abusive rule by elders who failed to consult and communicate with the flock were mentioned. Smith pointed out that abuses of the Lord’s Supper do not nullify proper observance of the Supper. The answer to the extremes of salvation byfaith only and works only is “the obedience of faith” or “faith which worketh by love” (Rom. 16:26; Gal. 5:6). The solution to the extremes of hierarchy and anarchy is scriptural local church organization (Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5). Smith pled for the “truth between extremes.”

Unity-In-Diversity

Although Holt opposed Smith’s views on the church and the eldership, he advocated unity-in-diversity and said Smith was not a false teacher (2 Pet. 2:1). Holt was asked how far we could go on that premise. Should we apply the principles of 2 John 9-11 or those of Romans 14 to differences over instrumental music – the idea that people unscripturally divorced and remarried may keep their new mate – premillennialism – churches building kitchens and gyms – the sponsoring church concept in the Herald of Truth – churches giving financial gifts or donations to human organizations such as missionary societies, colleges, orphanages, etc.?

Holt’s answer was,

If we are going to split up and begin to brand everybody because they teach something on divorce or remarriage or on the church or on any conceivable thing, you can imagine, as a false teacher, no wonder we are in the mess we are in.

When Smith later put the above quotation on a chart, Holt said as to whether he believes in “unity-indiversity,” “I sure do. . . . That’s what Romans 14 is all about.” It was very evident that he wanted everyone to know that he applies Romans 14 rather than 2 John 9-11 to the issues noted above. This is the approach advocated by Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, Edward Fudge, and Rubel Shelly, not by Christ and the Apostles. Will Holt join these men in applying unity-in-diversity to baptism? That remains to be seen, but Holt has been in tune with much of the unity-in-diversity doctrine and practice for the past 15 years.

For audio cassette tapes ($10.00), contact J.T. Smith, P.O. Box 698, Lake Jackson, Texas 77566. For video tapes ($40.00), contact Chuck Ainsworth, 114 S. Magnolia, Lake Jackson, Texas 77W. The charts are available from the disputants (Holt, P.O. Box 21584, Chattanooga, TN 37421). This debate had been scheduled originally for 1969 in Chattanooga, Tennessee, but Holt backed out. For the benefit of brethren east of the Mississippi River, he has agreed to repeat the debate during 3-7 March 1986 at the North Hixon Church of Christ in Chattanooga.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 40-41, 52-53
January 16, 1986

By Tommy L. McClure

Widely held in the religious world is the idea that God’s word is so obscure and complicated that the common people cannot understand it. Many are led to believe they have to depend upon their priest, rabbi, or pastor to tell them what to do in religious matters. Therefore, they have little use for the Bible, and their faith stands in the wisdom of men rather than in the wisdom and power of God (see 1 Cor. 2:1-5).

That some parts of the Bible are difficult to understand is readily admitted. Peter declared this to be true (2 Pet. 3:16,17). Some things mentioned in the Bible may never be fully understood because God has not seen fit to fully reveal them to man. Secret things belong unto the Lord; the revealed belong unto man (Deut. 29:29). Many waste their time wondering and worrying about parts of the Bible which have not been fully revealed and questions upon which God has not spoken. When asked, “Don’t the passages which you do not understand worry you?” one man wisely and tersely replied, “Not nearly as much as those I do understand!”

This lesson is designed to show that God’s will for man – what God expects man to do in this world – is plain and understandable. When men are turned from it by concerning themselves with unrevealed matters, thereby wasting the time which should be devoted to doing the plainly revealed will of God, and stand before God’s judgment in an unprepared condition, surely the devil will laugh with satanic glee! This lesson is designed to prevent that.

The Gospel Is For Every Creature In All The World

To His apostles, Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). They were told to teach all nations (Matt. 28:19). By the commandment of the everlasting God, the gospel was to be made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom. 16:25,26). According to Paul, this was accomplished in the first century (Col. 1:23).

Thus, it is evident that the gospel is not intended for a select few, but for all responsible beings of earth educated or uneducated, wise or unwise, Ph.D. or grade school dropout, sophisticated or simple. This being true, the gospel must be simple, easy of comprehension, and applicable to the masses!

Can any thinking, God-respecting person believe that God gave all what only a few can understand? If God’s message to man, the gospel, is so complicated that the common man cannot understand it, “Yes, ” is the only answer possible to the question here posed, That would put God on the level of an idiot! Consider: If a publishing company were to print and distribute to the masses a message which only a few can understand, would not that be idiotic? Certainly so! That is the very position to which those who occupy the position opposed by this article are driven!

All Who Obey Not The Gospel Are To Be Punished

Paul speaks of this fact by saying, “. . . the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Surely all will agree that understanding is necessary to obedience. A son cannot obey his father’s instructions unless he understands that instruction; a contractor cannot build according to the blueprint unless he understands the blueprint; the druggist cannot fill the prescription according to the doctor’s orders unless he understands the orders; just so, man cannot obey God unless he understands God’s requirements!

Question: How can God consistently punish man for not obeying the gospel if God Himself made the gospel so complicated that man cannot understand it? How?

Paul Plainly Says We Can Understand

He told the Ephesians, “. . . by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:3-5). The “mystery” was not something mysterious in the sense of being beyond man’s capability of understanding it; rather, it was God’s plan which had not been revealed in ages past, but “is now” revealed unto the apostles and prophets, “Now” refers to the time Paul was writing. Note carefully the parenthetical expression above – in it Paul was telling the Ephesians that when they read what he wrote they could understand what he knew! They did not have to depend on an educated priest, rabbi, pastor or reverend to explain it to them – they could understand by reading! Hence, what Paul wrote must have been understandable. Question: Did Paul, guided in his teaching by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12,13; Gal. 1:11, 12), lie or tell the truth in Ephesians 3:3-5? Answer that question and the matter is settled. He told the truth, therefore the word of God is understandable!

Paul Commanded The Ephesians To Understand

“Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). That is a command, if one ever existed! Would a Spirit guided apostle give such a command if the will of the Lord is incomprehensible! No! John tells us, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 Jn. 5:3). “Grievous” here is from the Greek barus which “. . . denotes heavy, burdensome. . . of God’s commandments, 1 Jn. 5:3 (causing a burden on him who fulfills them). . . ” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary Of N. T. Words, Vol. 2, p. 179). But, if the gospel is incomprehensible so that man cannot understand his obligations to God, the command of Ephesians 5:17 is grievous! It demands man to do what he cannot do, if the theory under consideration is correct! That theory is surely wrong. Let it not keep you from a diligent study of God’s word any longer!

Shall We Impugn God’s Intelligence Or His Goodness?

If God gave to the world the gospel requirements in incomprehensible language, one of two possible conclusions must be reached: (1) Either God would have made it clear but couldn’t, which impugns His intelligence and ability; or (2) God could have made it clear but wouldn’t, which impugns His goodness. Face it! ye who have glibly mouthed the idea that the Bible is not understandable and have discouraged men from reading it! Tell us what you think of God! in light of your theory about His word. Is He so unintelligent and verbally weak that He cannot speak clearly? Is this your position? If you are unsatisfied with this conclusion, try the second, the only alternative: Will you say God could have made His will clear but wouldn’t? If so, God was mean not good at all! Is this what you think of God? Reader, men should hang their heads in shame for taking a position which drives them to either of the above conclusions. The only way out of the predicament is the way of repudiation!

If they will repudiate their false position as did those of Ephesus (Acts 19:18,19); hate every false way as did the Psalmist (Psa. 119:128; cf. Rom. 12:9); encourage the reading and study of God’s word as did Bible writers (Isa. 34:6; Psa. 1:1,2; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27; Acts 20:32); respect and speak well of it as did holy men of God (Job 23:12; Psa. 119; Prov. 30:5; Isa. 8:20; Jer. 15:16; Acts 11:13,14; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1: 22-25); if they will encourage men to obey it as Bible writers repeatedly did (Deut. 28:1-45; Matt. 7:21; 28:20; Jn. 14:23,24; 15:14; Rom. 6:17,18; Acts 10:34,35; Heb. 5:8,9; Rev. 22:14); defend it against the onslaughts of Satan and his ministers as did Stephen, Paul, Jude and others (Acts 6:9,10; 15:1,2; 17:16,17; 19:9,10; Phil. 1:15-17; Jude 3,4); if they will fear God and keep His commandments which is the whole duty of man (Eccl. 12:13,14); then, the world will be a better place, more people will turn to God, escape the horrors of hell, and enjoy the bliss of heaven eternally!

Objections Considered

“If the gospel is so simple, why all the conflicting preachers, doctrines and churches?”

Whatever might be said for or against the validity (?) of this objection, it does not nullify the arguments just made. Read those arguments again at this point so they will be firmly fixed in your mind.

First, the objection places the blame for religious division on the wrong doorstep. It implies that religious division is the fault of the Lord — He gave a complicated message, men could not understand it, so division exists. The objection was spawned in the infernal regions and is trumpeted by Satan’s ministers. They have called upon us to answer their wording of the matter, and we have answered it hundreds of times and will continue to do so. But, it is time for us to do some wording, as follows: If man has been following the plainly revealed will of God with no deviations, why so much division? Ah! Now, in which direction does the arrow of blame fly? Answer it! ye religionists who have tried to lay the blame at the feet of the Lord! Man, not the Lord, is the culprit in this case! The Lord prayed for unity (Jn. 17:20, 21), and I have enough faith in my Lord and Master to reject, denounce and abhor the idea that He nullified that prayer by giving a message so complicated the common man cannot understand it, thereby creating all the religious division which plagues this sin-cursed earth! And, if your religious leader priest, pastor, reverend, elder or whatever – does not have that kind of faith, he is leading you to Hell! You should cease following him and retrace your steps.

It would be as sensible to argue that the rotation of the earth around the sun is out of kilter, thereby creating all the “divisions” between timepieces in a given time zone, as to argue that the Bible is responsible for our religious divisions! Actually, both arguments are nonsensical and idiotic!

Men have said, “We can’t understand the Bible alike,” then preached doctrines not in the Bible! It is about these doctrines that we are divided. Example: We are not divided on salvation by faith and the Bible so teaches (Jn. 3:16; Mk. 16:16; Gal. 3:26,27; Eph. 2:8,9); we are divided on salvation by faith only, a doctrine of man not taught by the Bible! Multiply that by hundreds of other unscriptural and anti-scriptural doctrines, and the cause of division is as easy to see as the largest billboard on earth.

The word of God (the seed) is what is to be preached (Acts 8:4, 2 Tim. 4:1,2; Lk. 8:11). If all had done so the last 100 years we would now be united; division shows some have sown tares (cf. Matt. 13:24-30).

“What about Peter’s statement of Paul’s writings (2 Pet. 3:15,16)?”

Occasionally one will use this passage to try to convince some that the Bible is beyond human comprehension. When we see what the passage actually says in contrast to what they try to make it say, their effort collapses under its own weight!

Peter referred to “some things” in Paul’s writing that were hard to understand; he did not make that statement about all things Paul wrote. Note also the words “hard to be understood”; he didn’t say they were impossible to understand. Further, Peter said the wresting is done by the “unlearned and unstable” – not by everybody. I can well see how one who is so ignorant of God’s word as to think the epistles were the wives of the Apostles or that Dan and Beersheba were husband and wife “like Sodom and Gomorrah” might misunderstand and pervert some of Paul’s writings. Some try “strong meat” before they are ready for it (Heb. 5:12-14), before they have received the nourishment of “the sincere milk of the word” (1 Pet. 2:1,2). If an infant cannot digest meat, this does not prove meat cannot be digested at all, is bad for everyone, and is not needed by anyone!

Peter gives no indication in the passage that the Scriptures should be withheld from the masses, the we need an infallible interpreter, that Bible study is unprofitable or injurious (see 2 Pet. 3:18), nor that belief and teaching are matters of indifference (see vv. 16,17).

Every Step The Sinner Must Take Is Plain

(1) Faith. What he is to believe is made plain (Jn. 20:30,3 1). The necessity of faith is given in understandable terms (Jn. 8:24; Heb. 11:6). How faith is produced is given in terms that any fourth-grader can understand (Rom. 10: 17; Acts 14:1; 18:8). What makes faith avail is clearly stated (Gal. 5:6; cf. Jn. 14:23).

(2) Repentance. Its meaning (Jonah 3:10 with Matt. 12:41; Matt. 21:28,29; Rev. 9:20,21), and its necessity (Acts 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9) are given in terms any accountable person can understand.

(3) Confession. What is to be confessed (Matt. 10:32,33; Rom. 10:9; cf. Acts 8:37), and how and why confession is to be made (Rom. 10:9, 10) are as easy to understand as the most simple column in the daily newspaper.

(4) Baptism. The element (Acts 8:36-38; 10:47), the scriptural subjects (Mk. 16:16; Acts 3:38; 8:12), the action (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; cf. Acts 8:36-38), as well its design or purpose (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:26,27) are all given in simple words.

Duties Of God’s Children Are Plain

Characteristics which are to be added after conversion (2 Pet. 1:5-11), life (Tit. 2:11,12), relation to the world (2 Cor. 6:17-7:1; 1 Jn. 2:15-17), worship (Jn. 4:24), service (Heb. 12:28; Col. 3:16), assembling with the saints (Heb. 10:24,25; Matt. 18:20) are clearly stated. At the judgment, no child of God can honestly say, “Lord, thy will was so difficult I could not, after hours of sincere study, understand what thou wanted me to be and do.” Saying that would be the lie of the ages!

Conclusion

We of the religious world are not divided over nor confused about what the Bible plainly authorizes! The ground of strife, confusion and division is unauthorized doctrines, practices, organizations, names, etc. The serpent beguiled Eve (Gen. 3:1-6; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14), causing her to believe what God had not said (Gen. 3:4) and disbelieve what God had said! She understood the command (Gen. 3:2,3), but the serpent told her something else which she liked better! The same is true today – men are led to believe what God has not said which often necessitates disbelief of what He has said! As Peter of old, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said, “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Pet.3:17).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 48-50
January 16, 1986

By Nina R. Helterbrand

According to Webster’s Dictionary, humanism is “a doctrine, attitude, or way of life, centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that asserts the dignity and worth of man and his capacity for self-realization through reason and that often rejects supernaturalism.” As a teacher in the public school system, as well as a Christian, I agree that this doctrine is untrue and has no place in the belief system of a Christian. Nevertheless, I am very disturbed at the “near panic” that prevails in the minds of some, concerning our public schools and humanism.

Our educational system is an institution of society, designed to teach children to be successful as a member of that society. This includes the mastery of the basis laws and values of the society. At this point in time, Americans believe that teachers in the public school system should not be religious instructors or influence children in respect to a particular religious philosophy; yet, teachers must correct and advise the typical human being in his first experiences with society and basic human relationships outside the family. When a kindergartner takes another child’s crayons, the teacher cannot say, “We must not take Johnny’s things because that is stealing and Jesus said it is wrong to steal.” Instead, the teacher must explain why the child should not take these things by talking about the feelings of others, and the consequences of such an act. On this level, one could say that the kindergarten teachers begins to teach humanism. The laws of our land, fearing interference with the parents’ right to teach their child religious beliefs and/or values, forbids the teaching of moral decisions based on God or the Bible, so the teacher must teach these decisions based on man and his limits and consequences, in relation to other members of society.

Most humanism taught in school is this – choices of behavior and values based upon man and his environment, the society in which he lives.

Parents who are teaching their children to make moral decisions based upon God and His Word, should be aware of the use of humanism in our schools; but they should have no unreasonable fear of it. Humanism is used to teach children the choices allowed them within their society. One of those choices is that of religion. We need to be sure we are teaching our children at home, to make moral decisions and value judgments based on the Scriptures and then we can send them to school to learn that Christians, a “peculiar people,” must live in this world while not being of this world. Children who are being taught these things within the home, are not easily led astray by humanism. While humanism cannot cover a spiritual aspect, the Scriptures can and do cover the human aspect, teaching us to obey the laws of our government (Rom. 13), and various admonitions concerning human relationships. Thus, our children, if they are being taught at home (as they should be), will be well equipped to meet the challenges of role playing, values clarification sessions, situation ethics, and other methods implemented in teaching humanism. Open lines of communication between parents and children at home will insure that these experiences become an opportunity for the parent to see how much the child does understand concerning Scripture and to expand on that understanding.

Let us devote time and energy to the flip-side of this issue – teaching our children and helping them to teach others in their peer group, the necessity and wisdom in loving God and keeping His commandments.

This article has not been written in defense of humanism; but to put it into perspective as a part of our society, that we cannot run away from, or hide our children from. Like all other worldly philosophies, we must stand and fight with our knowledge, clothed in the whole armor of God.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, p. 47
January 16, 1986

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