Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

Most who read this have been exposed to enough truth to know that the focus of our attention should be on spiritual things first, with material considerations taking a subordinate role. The Apostle Paul told us to “seek those things which are above,” setting our affection on heavenly things and not on things on the earth (Col. 3:1-2). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness. . .” (Matt. 6:33).

If we are serving the Lord, implementation of the above instructions will be the primary purpose as we live day by day. This means that every Christian must directly involve himself in that which is spiritual. However, before one can get involved, he must learn the areas of involvement set forth by the Word of God. If he does not know what to do, there is no way that he can do it. A part of the work of the church is the edification of Christians which enables them to apply their efforts in the accomplishment of the overall mission of the kingdom of the Lord (Eph. 4:16). Over the years, I have observed that fewer and fewer Christians have been sufficiently edified to enable them to identify spiritual activities in which to engage themselves. Thus, it is not unusual to hear some Christian say, “I don’t know what I can do.” Our purpose in this brief article is to identify some specific activities in which Christians can involve themselves. Let me credit some of the ideas of this article to some things I read in the Caprock Church Bulletin, Lubbock, Texas.

What can a Christian do? He can spend some time studying the Word of God every day (2 Tim. 3:16-17). God’s Word will enlighten so that we can see others things which we need to do. I am persuaded that the Christian who cannot find anything to do is a Christian who is not studying as he should.

Every day you can pray to God (1 Thess. 5:17). In that prayer you can penitently seek forgiveness of your sins; you can ask God to bless your family; you can pray for the sick, both spiritually and physically; you can pray for civil authorities; for those who mourn; and for the spread of the gospel. Prayers of righteous men accomplish much good (Jas. 5:16).

You can be conscious of the fact that you are an example to someone. With this clearly in your mind, you can be careful to let the “light” of your example shine brightly so that those who learn by what you do, will always do what is right (Matt. 5:16).

If you still can’t find anything to do, you could invite a friend to attend the worship of the church with you. During that worship he would hear the gospel which would save his soul. Everyone needs the gospel, for it is God’s power to save (Rom. 1: 16). During the life of Christ on the earth, one of the things we learn about the gathering of disciples to Him was that those who came brought their relatives and friends to the Lord also (Jn. 1:40-49).

You can give generously into the treasury of the Lord’s church (1 Cor. 16:1-2). In the discharge of the church’s duty, money is essential. Not only must the local work be done, but the entire world is to hear the gospel (Mk. 16:15), and the church is the organization responsible for seeing that it is preached (1 Tim. 3:15). You can become actively involved by personally instructing the lost with the Truth. Or, you can give someone a good tract on Bible themes. Or, you can give them a bulletin which is appropriate for their needs. These things cost money. Or, you can enable the support of preachers in distant places. When you give into the Lord’s treasury, you are aiding the spread of the gospel, and that is spiritual in its nature, not physical.

If you still can’t find anything to do, a great spiritual purpose is accomplished when you take the time to visit those who are sick and/or confined because of failing health (Matt. 25:31-46). In that passage, Jesus said that we are serving Him when we are attending to the needs of those around us. Especially, when a fellow Christian is in distress, you can do what you can to comfort him through an expression of sympathy (1 Thess. 5:11, 14). Some who are sick and some older Christians could be assisted greatly if someone cared enough for them to take them out to cat or to prepare a meal for them. There is always someone who can use our help.

If you are still one of those people who are frequently heard to say, “I don’t know what I can do,” then go back and read this article again and you will find something to do if that is what you are honestly seeking. And old song says, “There is much to do, there’s work on every hand . . . .”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 557
September 19, 1985

By James R. Cope, reprinted from The Preceptor

(Introductory Note: I am indebted to my friend and brother Robert F. Turner for pointing out to me the article on “Majorities and Manners” by James R. Cope, which appeared in his column “Preceptor Perceptions” in The Preceptor, Feb. 1952, p. 4. In the “Dunne-Pickup Debate,” published in the Gospel Guardian beginning 19 Nov. 1953, the Catholic priest Dunne claimed that Cope’s article endorses the concept of a hierarchy. We can understand Dunne grabbing at straws by misusing Cope’s article as well as by misusing Scripture. The Bible pattern for elders to oversee and to shepherd the local church, as defended by Cope, precludes both the extremes of hierarchy and of majority rule. There is a vast difference between one who leads in making decisions of expediency, which by definition admits that the decisions may be revamped when elders and brethren see changing circumstances, and one who makes ecclesiastical law equivalent to the divine revelation ordained in Matthew 16:19, which is precisely what Catholicism claims for its hierarchy.

Among our own brethren, history reveals the working of the destructive demons of radicalism, extremism, digression, and factionalism. During the institutional apostasy which began in 1849 and which recurred after World War 11, some elderships suffered from delusions of grandiose officialdom, used arbitrary and carnal tactics as though the end justifies the means, and ran roughshod over their brethren and the Bible. At the other end of the spectrum, a few men like Charles Holt have denied that the local church is an organized entity or that the Bible provides a pattern for a specially designated eldership which can lead with authority in the sense of making decisions in the realm of expediency. A few brethren have defied elders by resorting to the carnal and political tactics of majority rule-calling for votes and passing petitions. We commend brother Cope’s article as a balanced presentation of the truth.-Ron Halbrook, 1101 Dyson Rd., West Columbia, TX 77486)

I civilized countries recognize the necessity of government. Different forms of government hold sway in various lands but all admit the necessity of some final tribunal and ultimate authority. Chaos and confusion prevail where no rule obtains. Whether we study the civil, domestic, or religious realm authority must be vested and recognized as existing somewhere if peace and order are to be realities.

Authority Of Christ Supreme

In the church of Christ all authority resides in Christ. He is the maker, giver, and judge of his law as well as the discerner of the hearts of his subjects. On earth there is no super-organization of all Christians with authority stemming from some central headquarters. In view of plain Bible teaching one of the simplest and most revealing tests of the scripturalness of any professed religious organization is the question: Does it have some national or international head on earth? If the answer is the affirmative, such within itself shows that religious body not to be the Lord’s spiritual body for his church has no such organizational structure.

The only organization which Christ has on earth is the church in some given locality generally spoken of as a congregation of disciples or baptized believers. The law of Christ governs believers in their congregational relationships just as it governs Christians in their individual relationships. As the individual disciple cannot disregard the will of Christ in his individual activities and remain sinless, so the congregation cannot violate the law of God in its congregational or collective activities and remain sinless.

Bishops And Expediency

In the local church God has made provision for bishops to govern in matters of expediency. These officers are sometimes called elders, overseers, and presbyters. In matters of faith, i.e., where God has definitely spoken, bishops are under exactly the same obligation to obey implicitly the word of God as are all other Christians. They have an additional responsibility of faith not bound upon all saints, viz., they are to “feed the flock.” This is not a matter of judgment but a solemn obligation devolving upon them as a result of the relationship they sustain to those whom they oversee.

In matters of judgment or expediency those meeting the divine qualifications of bishops are supreme and their word is final. The Holy Spirit has appointed them and to resist their authority is to rebel against the Holy Spirit. God knew that the final decisions in the sphere of expediency had to be made by somebody, and divine wisdom has provided for them in the eldership. Regardless of the individual’s judgment, it becomes his solemn obligation to acquiesce in the bishops’ rule when that rule is announced. For all practical purposes their decision is God’s decision, and therefore, must become the disciple’s decision. To do otherwise is to nullify the office of elders and reflect upon God’s purpose in providing them. If their decisions can be disregarded, their office can be ignored. If their office can be ignored, God’s word can be set aside, for it makes provision for bishops in the churches.

The Spirit Of Rebellion

Sad to say, many feel today that God’s word can be set aside. They will not admit it but their actions betray their true sentiment. When rebellion breaks out and the judgment of qualified, God-fearing elders become the target of invectives and harsh criticisms of loose thinking and looser-talking church members, the Lord’s word has been set aside and his own government attacked. Either elders are to rule or they are not to rule. If they are to rule, they must be obeyed. If they are not to rule, divine wisdom was mistaken in commanding that they be obeyed.

When the spirit of rebellion begins to foment, it generally finds expression in overt acts. Absalom became the victim of his own vain ambition to rule in David’s stead before the people were stirred to help him consummate his evil designs in dethroning his father. His dissatisfaction with the existing order, first, and his conceited notion that he could successfully replace God’s appointed king, next, formed the framework of his scheme to usurp the throne of Israel. His foolish folly is best seen in the overthrow of his plan and the loss of his life.

A disposition to throw out the elders and change the existing order is the thing of the day in some localities. It is the mind of Absalom and the spirit of Korah. When it takes tangible form, it is overt rebellion against God and the gospel. It denies the authority of Christ and brings his body to open shame. Within the last decade churches all over the land have witnessed such heart-rending spectacles, and the cause at large has suffered irreparable damage as a direct result of this spirit.

Majority Manners

Most always the situation resolves itself into majority rule versus elder rule, and eventually into open division of the congregation. Christian principles and decent manners fall prostrate before majority vote. The would-be rulers take over, and the men who only a short while before held the confidence and respect of all are now ambushed by ambition, scourged by scoffing, and crucified by calumny. Majority rule in the church has no manners-decent manners, that is. And those who constitute the majority are so blinded by pride that they can see no sin of their own and so infatuated with their own importance that they do not listen to reason and will not heed revelation.

Where gospel preachers are willing to submit themselves to the judgment of elders when they fire as well as when they hire, the situation will rapidly improve. If preachers and elders will hold faithfully and constantly before the congregation, its responsibility and proper attitude toward the elders the disciples will not likely get out of control. This is one sure way to honor the divine arrangement and preserve the peace of God’s people.

Majority rule is not God’s plan for his church. If it is right part of the time, it is proper all the time. If it is right all the time, there is no room for elder rule. If there is no place for elder rule, there is no place for Christ’s rule. If there is no place for Christ’s rule, there is no place for Christ’s church, and if there is no place for Christ’s church, there is no room for Christ. Beware of the man or men, preachers or otherwise, who will dissipate the divine plan for their own purposes. Such persons are too liberal for the progress and prosperity of the Lord’s people in spiritual affairs.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 558-559
September 19, 1985

By Bill Hall

One will find little joy in any cause for which he has never suffered. A nation that has not had to fight for freedom will hardly appreciate freedom as it ought; but those who have fought, suffered, and risked their lives for freedom know its values and even find joy in their suffering in its behalf. So it is with the cause of Christ. Paul could say to the Philippians — and he obviously saw their condition as a blessed one — “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29).

A major element in the joy of the early Christians was their suffering for righteousness’ sake. They did not rejoice in spite of their suffering, but because of it. Had one taken away their suffering, he would have greatly dampened their joy in the Lord and their enthusiasm for His cause.

The secret of their joy can be seen in the wording of Acts 5:41: “They departed from the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” Counted worthy! They had not always suffered shame for Jesus for they had not always been worthy. There had been times when they had fled in fear and had proven themselves to have been cowards, unworthy to suffer. But now they have been tested again, tested severely, and this time they had passed the test. Their suffering in fact was proof of their loyalty; they were now worthy to suffer shame for His name.

Those early Christians viewed their suffering, then, as an opportunity to demonstrate the reality of their faith; they saw it as a sharing in the suffering of Christ; they recognized it as a trial of their genuineness, and found great joy in the proof of that genuineness. They knew that their suffering was working for them “a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:17); that it was an “evident token . . . of salvation” (Phil. 1:28).

Besides, their suffering no doubt enhanced their anticipation of heaven. Place a man in prison in Philippi, his back beaten and his feet in stocks, and he will view heaven from a different perspective than will that man who is in luxury and ease. That was exactly the position of Paul and Silas when, at midnight, they sang praises unto God. We do not know the songs that they sang while in that prison, but had they had access to today’s songs, one of them might have been:

“O Zion, Zion, I long thy gates to see;

O Zion, Zion, when shall I dwell in thee?”

– L. H. Jameson

and no doubt they could have sung it with real meaning. Whereas, it is entirely possible that in our absence of suffering, we are only giving lip service to such a statement.

We do not court persecution. In fact, we readily confess our thankfulness for the peaceful conditions in which we serve the Lord. But we make a mistake if we try to “offer unto the Lord that which costs us nothing.” Only when we learn true devotion and sacrifice in the Lord’s cause will we come to appreciate the true value of the cause and its ultimate reward. We will not likely see a restoration of the joy and spirit of early Christians until we see a restoration of the sacrifice and suffering that characterized them.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 553
September 19, 1985

By Robert F. Turner

The current discussion on “walking in light” has produced more than its. share of ambiguities and contradictions, with some unethical treatment of brethren. These have, however, been thankfully offset by some fair treatment and open study. But the total picture has also revealed our weakness in dealing with basic theological concepts, and that should concern us greatly. We are not theologians-nor do I fault us for that. For the most part, we have been content to dwell on the surface: seeking practical, simple ways of teaching the commands of the gospel, and giving but cursory attention to more basic concepts. But this does not feed with “meat,” nor prepare us to discuss revealed principles that require critical analysis and exegesis. We trip over our own terminology, and contradict principles we would never violate in another context. I freely acknowledge my own inadequacies in these matters, but ask you to carefully consider this effort to improve our study “tools.”

We must seek common ground for a beginning, and “we hold these truths to be self-evident” among the believing students of the New Testament who will likely read this article.

(1) All have sinned, and do “come short,” i.e. continue to sin (Rom. 3:23). The first phrase “gathers up the whole race into one statement (a timeless aorist)”; “and come short. . . ” is “continued action, still fall short” says Robertson (Word Pictures). Aliens sin; and people who have obeyed the gospel also sin; surely there are none who doubt it.

(2) All would be lost save for the grace of God, who forgives sins on the basis of the substitutionary offering of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24f). Aliens would be lost without forgiveness; people who have been baptized would be lost without further forgiveness. Does not everyone agree to this? I believe they do.

(3) God has stipulated conditions upon which an alien’s sins will be remitted (faith, repentance, confession, baptism; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38); and He has given conditions whereby His children will be forgiven (repent, confess and pray; Acts 8:22, Jas. 5:16). Obviously, I am giving abbreviated statements and references, but my readers surely understand, and agree with these basics.

(4) I am persuaded most of my readers will also agree that the citing of unusual or hypothetical cases (a crocodile got him as he was about to be baptized, or before he could say “I have sinned”) do not change these basics. We believe our job is to preach the revealed pattern; and leave “what if” contingencies in His hands.

Now, having these basics in common, how can we have such differing concepts about “forgiveness” and “walking in light” of 1 John 1? I believe the “bottom line” is (1) mechanical exegesis, ignoring contextual effects upon words and phrases; and (2) failure to recognize the grammatical and contextual meaning and use of “walking. ” These errors get us into doctrinal trouble. Then we speculate or invent new “rules” to get out-and only make matters worse. Here we will consider some errors that get us into this mess.

I.B. Grubbs, in Exegetical Analysis, p. 4, says:

The carnal man, as described in Rom. 8:5-8, is the godless man, as standing in full contrast with children of God; but this term is applied with less meaning, of course, to believing “babes in Christ” in 1 Cor. 3:1. And the word is still further contracted in force when applied to Paul by himself, Rom. 7:14, under a comparison with the faultless law of God. It is one of the chief sources of erroneous exegesis that men adopt a sort of arithmetical method of interpretation, and deal with words as if they were numerals, in overlooking the obvious contextual import which they often acquire.

In Romans 6:23 “the wages of sin” is contrasted with “the gift of God,” and “death” is contrasted with “eternal life.” Paul’s sins, and Peter’s, and those of babes in Corinth (1 Cor. 3:3), had not yet reached their eternal conclusion. This does not mean they could not produce such a conclusion. Any sin, unforgiven, will condemn eternally. That is why sinners are warned about all sin. We must “buffet” our body (1 Cor. 9:27); repent, confess, and pray for forgiveness, lest our sins produce the final death. But “a sin” is not 44apostasy” in any and every context. (Apostasy means “abandonment, total desertion of principles or faith.”) Basic error: the mechanical use of terms.

“Walk” is used of one’s continued course of action and life: i.e., the habitual habit and manner of life” (Bullinger, Figures of Speech, p. 832). “Walk” (peri + patomen) is literally “walk about,” “indicating the habitual course of the life” says Vincent. In 1 John 1 it is present, active, subjunctive — ” keep on walking.” Robertson and Davis’ Greek Grammar says present subjunctive”denotes continued or repeated action, ” and “the idea is always linear with no reference to time,” i.e., it is not punctiliar (point action).

B.F. Westcott (on 1 Jn. 1) says, “The whole description refers to the general character and tendency of life, and not to the absolute fulfillment of the character in detail.” Westcott further comments on “walking” when discussing the walk in darkness: saying it means to “choose and use the darkness as our sphere of action. The question is not directly of the specific acts, but of the whole region of life outward and inward. . . . To choose this as our sphere of movement is necessarily to shun fellowship with God.”

To maintain the metonymy, . we could call “a sin” on the part of a Christian a “step” in darkness. It is incompatible with God’s nature. Unrepented of and unfortunate, it can condemn to Hell. But a “step” is not walking-whether It is a right or wrong step, It is not “walking. ” And if we are to clearly establish the proper meaning and use of 1 John 1:6-7, we must refrain from reading into the passage something that is not there. According to our text, we neither maintain fellowship with God by “a step,” nor do we break fellowship with God by “a step.” We do it by “walking” in light or darkness. Can we not leave this teaching as God put it?

But someone says, “How could even a ‘step’ in darkness be acceptable to our God who is light?” It is not acceptable. That is why we are told we must confess our sins (repentance and prayer are understood) to be forgiven. God loved us, and gave His Son to die for us, “while we were sinners” (Rom. 5:8). Does that mean God approved of the alien’s sin? Of course not. Neither does He approve of His child’s sin, but calls on the child to use the blood of Christ for further forgiveness. In 1 John 1 access to the blood of Christ, and His advocacy, are stated benefits of “walking. in the light.” If our brethren could look at the above, free of prejudices and reactions gendered by real or imagined “errors” they have heard, it is difficult to believe they would deny any thing written here.

“Walking in the light” is the equivalent of “fellowship with God,” being “in grace,” “in Christ” “in His body,” “knowing, and being known” of God, “begotten of God,” “children of God,” and many like phrases. All of these states or conditions hinge upon our doing God’s will, but I know of no passage of Scripture that teaches such people achieve sinless perfection. Many of these descriptive phrases vary in their application from context to context, and all of them must be understood in the light of grammar and context (cf. 1 Jn. 3:9). God is absolute light, “in Him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5). But He is also absolute love (4:16), purity (3:3), holiness (1 Pet. 1:16), and mercy (Lk. 6:36); and in all these passages we are called upon to be like God. Surely it is clear that we can but poorly and relatively measure up to this ideal. Even in seemingly overt service (singing, etc.) the heart as well as the deed is involved, and only God knows if our heart is acceptable (cf. 1 Jn. 3:20f). That is why we must seek mercy in Jesus Christ.

But someone gets the idea that God forgives those who “walk in light” even as they sin. That is not in the text. And another counters with the idea that one who “walks in light” does not sin. The very opposite is in the text. Another says only certain kinds of sins are “in the light.” (The plot is thickening!) And he is countered by one who says “a sin” of any kind takes us out of the light. (Out of grace, Christ, etc.? How can a wholesale apostate get back? [Isa. 59:2; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26]) It seems once we have gone beyond the limits of the writer’s purpose, there is no stopping.

Prayerfully, fearfully, we suggest: (1) Quit the use of “continuous” or docontinual cleansing,” and say instead, “continually available.” (2) Cease to speculate on hypothetical cases-to usurp God’s place as final judge. (3) Learn that grace was expressed in Christ “before the world began” (1 Tim. 1:9), and profits us only through the gospel. It is not a “Watkins liniment” to be sprayed on in emergencies. (4) Avoid mechanical interpretation of Scriptures, knowing words and phrases vary according to context. And, (5) Become aware that 1 John 1:6-7 is not discussing “a sin” on the part of a Christian. It is contrasting two conflicting ethical realms-the regions of darkness and light.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 550-551
September 19, 1985