Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

The inspired writer of Hebrews encourages Jewish Christians to be strong in the face of persecution by their own countrymen. Like the Old Testament heroes of chapter 11, “of whom the world was not worthy,” these first century brethren were treated as total outcasts by the society which had once accepted them. In Hebrews 13:11-14 the writer uses a striking figure of speech to make his point:

For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

The camp in this case is the city of Jerusalem, and the gate is the gate of that once holy city. We know that Jesus was not put to death inside the walls of Jerusalem, but, crucifixion itself being regarded as a curse, was led outside the gate to suffer and die on that hill known as Calvary. There between the two malefactors He was suspended between heaven and earth as if rejected by both and fit for neither. Christians are invited to visualize this scene of sorrow and shame and then voluntarily to share the reproach of their Savior. The camp, or the city of Jerusalem, represents the Jewish establishment with its offer of security, respectability, and sense of belonging to the greater community. To be with Christ, Christians had to leave all this behind, accepting the status of social lepers. Their sacrifice was real, for the present time, but we know that Hebrews was composed only a few short years before the terrible destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., at which time the unbelieving Jews suffered “great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world” (Matt. 24:21). Our knowledge of that event adds meaning to the words, “here we have no continuing city.”

The Jewish Christian of the ante-bellum days had a choice: He could continue life as a persecuted outcast, or he could go back inside the gate where he could escape reproach. This was the great temptation that faced the Hebrews. One way to get back inside the gate was outright rejection of Christ, but there was also a halfway measure – to become a Judaized Christian. Much of the reproach of the cross was removed if a Jew agreed to look upon the church as merely another Jewish sect and to bind the Law of Moses, especially circumcision, upon Gentile converts. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and other smaller sects of the Jews enjoyed warring with one another, within recognized bounds, while uniting in their hatred and persecution of faithful Christians. Diversity was allowed, but dedicated Christians were beyond the pale. Their religion admitted of no compromise. Some Jewish leaders in Rome said to Paul about the church: “as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against” (Acts 28:22). We should be reminded that whenever the church is not spoken against by false teachers, Christians are not doing their job.

The early Gentile Christians were also tempted to go back inside their camp and to have fellowship with the religions of the first century Roman world, even though these religions were idolatrous and totally opposed to the way of Christ. Paul found it necessary to exhort the Corinthians to “come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17). He had to emphasize that “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils” (1 Cor. 10:21). These Gentiles had lived all their lives in a culture dominated by heathen religion; they found it difficult to rid themselves of its influence even when they knew it to be false. It was hard for them to remain without the camp. It was hard for Christians of both races to rind themselves, like Paul, “the filth of the world” and “the offscouring of all things” (1 Cor. 4:13).

Some of God’s people under the first covenant grew nostalgic for their previous condition of servitude and “in their hearts turned back again into Egypt” (Acts 7:39). Conditions did not allow them to go back in body, but they went back in spirit. Other children of God in ancient times could have gone back to their camp of origin, but had no desire to do so. Speaking of Abraham and his descendants, the Hebrew writer says that “if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned” (Heb. 11: 15). But the reason that Abraham was not mindful of Ur of the Chaldees was that he desired a “better country” (v. 16) and that he “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (v. 10). Too many, like Lot’s wife, are still mindful of the old earthly city, doomed to destruction, and continually look behind them.

How does this attitude affect God’s people today? We find that a few have actually made the break with their brethren and with Christ in order to join some denomination of human origin. Many more, and these present a greater danger to the welfare of the churches, have gone back only in their hearts. Becoming offended if anyone accuses them of teaching denominational doctrine, they are nevertheless determined to denominationalize the church of Christ. There is little reproach in being a member of a modern, “progressive” Church of Christ. Such a church does not fight the sects as the Jews were commanded to right the nations round about them and “destroy their altars, and break down their images” (Deut. 7:5). It does not lift up its voice to condemn worldliness nor does it practice strict discipline among its own members. It does not seek the status of a “peculiar people,” but rather courts prominence and respectability, desiring to fit into the larger religious community.

The desire to go back inside the gate explains many things that are going on today in more conservative churches, including preacher professionalism, the use of much liberal and denominational material in our teaching, the retreat from the militant posture of our forefathers, a loose attitude toward attendance and the Lord’s Supper, and a use of guile under the euphemisms of tact and psychology. This problem manifests itself in various external symptoms, but its seat is found in the heart. If we, like the Israelites of old, turn back in our hearts, we shall soon turn back in our practice. If, on the other hand, we focus our attention on the spiritual land of Canaan where the roses bloom forever and the soul never dies, we will no longer be mindful of the carnal voices calling us back to the lost city. Let us cease our drifting back toward Egypt, back toward Ur of the Chaldees, back toward old apostate Jerusalem. Jesus is still outside the gate, without the camp. Let us go to Him there.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 529-530
September 6, 1984

By Don Martin

Our English word autonomy is composed of two Greek words, auto, meaning self (auto is translated “itself” in Romans 8:16); and nomos, meaning law (nomos is translated “law” in John 1:17). Thus, autonomy denotes “self-law, self-rule, or self-governing”. The Random House College Dictionary defines autonomy as, “Independence . . ., The right of self-government . . ., a self governing community” (p.92). The expression “local church” in our title has reference to a local functioning entity of God’s people (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph.5:19; Heb. 10:25; Phil. 1: 1, etc.). The universal church – the totality of the saved in all parts of the world – has no earthly organization and, therefore, no mission to meet or duty to perform as a functional entity. However, the local church has organization (Phil. 1: 1) and work to perform (I Tim.3:15); hence, the local church is a functioning organization.

Establishing the type of government of the local church. Did the church of the apostolic period (first century) consist of human boards, synods, conclaves, and modern denominational machinery? Were there superstructures and auxiliary organizations separate and apart from the local church which had control over the individual local churches? We can determine the kind of government characteristic of the early church by a number of considerations.

Direct statements. “Feed the flock of God,” Peter enjoined elders, “which is among you, taking the oversight thereof . . . ” (1 Pet. 5:2). Ideally, elders are to be appointed in every church (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). They however, have the oversight and are to shepherd the flock “among” them or wherein they serve.

Apostolic example. In examining the duty of the local church, we find activity and performance of responsibility which only autonomy can satisfy (cf. Rev.2-3; Phil.4:15,16; Acts 11:27-30 [explain later]).

Necessary inference. Local churches were independently organized (Acts 14:23); independently directed (1 Pet.5:2); and independently functioned (Acts 11:27-30, Phil. 4:15,16). We, therefore, necessarily infer that autonomy was the kind of government which characterized the first century churches.

“These churches, whenever formed, became separate and independent bodies,” wrote church historian Lyman Coleman, “competent to appoint their own officers, and to administer their own government without reference to subordination to any central authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the history of these primitive churches is more fully established or more generally conceded, so that the discussion of it need not be renewed at this place” (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, p.95).

Law of exclusion. Beloved, if the early church was autonomous in government, then all other types of government are sinful (2 Jn.9).

Autonomy exemplified. Intelligent reader, autonomy is seen in the evangelism executed by the New Testament local churches. Jerusalem was the “center” of Jewish efforts to preach the gospel; however, there is no example, direct statement, or room for necessary inference to indicate the church in Jerusalem exercised any control over other churches in the matter of evangelism (Acts 2). Antioch became the 64 center” for Gentile efforts; yet, there is no intimation of any control (cf. Acts 13:1-3; 14:27-28). Jerusalem and Antioch would have made perfect sponsoring or overseeing churches, if God had wanted such an arrangement! While Paul labored at Thessalonica, Philippi sent support directly to Paul, not to Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15,16). Philippi, Thessalonica, and probably Berea sent to Paul to assist him in his work with the church at Corinth but notice they did not send to Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8,9).

Self-government is also seen in doctrine and conduct. When five out of the seven churches of Asia erred or developed problems, it did not destroy or influence the other two faithful churches in the region (Rev.2;3). Autonomy is also seen in benevolence (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Rom. 15:26).

How to maintain the autonomy of the local church. Conservative churches, churches seeking to abide in the doctrine of Christ, are constantly tempted to depart from congregational independence. Here are some suggestions and rules to help us remain faithful in church government:

Respect God’s word. Respect for Bible authority is a requisite. It is totally inconsistent to maintain respect for Acts 2:38 and reject 1 Peter 5:2!

Each local church needs to manage its own business. There is often too much meddling between churches. I observed the violation of autonomy a few years ago when the church where I was preaching withdrew from some factious members. The withdrawn members started attending at another local church. The other local church took the members in (this was their decision to make – right or wrong). The real problems involving autonomy began when the “elders” of the receiving church began to tell me what to preach on and what not to preach on (they did not want any teaching which might make them look guilty of anything, they said). Efforts were begun by different members at the other church to make us rescind the withdrawal action through “plants,” threats, kindred, and political maneuvers to dominate and control. The disciplining church maintained letting the receiving church alone; but the receiving church continued causing division and discard (admittedly, we also had some who violated the autonomy of the receiving church by trying to force them not to receive the disciplined members). Because of this violation of self-government, there arose a stench from California to Florida (the bossing church felt they had to protect their reputation by circulating their “defense”).

Each church plans and executes its own work. Church A needs to take care of the work of church A. Sometimes, however, church A becomes interested in the work of church B. Church A innocently invites church B to tell them how to do the work. The next thing you have is a violation of self-rule by church B, in their enthusiasm, assigning and overseeing the work of church A!

There are a number of actions to shun in practicing congregational independence. Individual churches should first take care of their own needy members (Acts 2;4); each church should independently spend its own resources; and elders oversee only the flock in which they serve. Let us ever continue to practice congregational autonomy and completely avoid any semblance of a threat to self-rule.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 525-526
September 6, 1984

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Waters thinks my “YO-YO Syndrome” article was all wet. Perhaps, though, a few remarks will put a bridge over troubled waters.

(1) The YO-YO reference was not mine. I borrowed it from brother Cargile who lamented the fact that some preachers make Christians into yo-yos by telling them that sin separates them from God. See the June 7, 1984, issue of Guardian Of Truth.

Before we disparage and discard the yo-yo imagery, brother Waters may wish to examine the examples I used to illustrate and demonstrate the yo-yo concept. (A) Was Simon the sorcerer saved as per Acts 8:12,13? Yes, Mark 16:16. After his sin which put him in the “gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity,” was he still saved? No, Matthew 7:23. After repentance, confession and prayer, would he have been restored to a saved state? Yes, I John 1:9. So, Simon was lost, saved, lost, saved. (B) Was the brother in 1 Corinthians 5 lost because of his sin of fornication? Yes, Galatians 5:19-21. When he repented, was he returned to a saved condition? Yes, 1 John 1:9. So, he was lost; he obeyed the gospel and was saved; he committed sin; he was lost; he was restored. If that is not like a yo-yo, in the figurative sense of brother Cargile’s initial article, than I am unable to make an analogy or manufacture a metaphor. (C) Not to worry, though, for brother Waters himself says,

“I believe children of God can and do fall Fall from what and to where? From the light into darkness? See the Galatians (Gal. 1:6-8; 5:1-7). When he says children of God can and do fall, he is treading on the ups and downs of yo-yo ground, for they, too, rise and fall.

(2) In the Garden of Eden, both Adam and Eve sinned. Eve was deceived. Adam was not (1 Tim.2:14). Eve was not presumptuous; Adam was. Yet, both suffered spiritual death. Both fell from God’s grace and favor. Both were driven from the garden. There was no distinction of penalty, except in certain physical ways, though the nature of the sin differed.

Remember this – 1 John 1:6-9 makes no distinction between sins of ignorance and presumption, between being deceived and highhanded rebellion. Both types of sins must meet the terms of pardon. Old Testament sins of ignorance still had to be atoned by blood before they were forgiven. Nothing states that continued ignorance and sin were blessed if no offering was made (Heb.2:2).

The apostle Peter cursed and denied the Lord, not as an act of high-handed rebellion, but in the weakness of the flesh. Later, he played the hypocrite regarding association with the Gentiles (Gal.2:11-14). As such, he “stood condemned,” and “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Was Peter forgiven and cleansed of hypocrisy without confession and prayer? Did the blood cleanse him even as he sinned and walked not uprightly? No, it did not, for Peter needed to be “converted” (cf. Lk,22:32; Jas.5:19,20).

The weak brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 is a classic example of a brother who sins in ignorance. He is misled and caused to error by the strong brother. What is his state? Does the blood of Christ cleanse him of his sin of eating with offence because he is sincerely, conscientiously mistaken in the matter (Rom. 14:15, 21-23; 1 Cor.8:11-13)? Do “destroyed,” “dammed,” and “perish” in these passages indicate salvation?

(3) Perhaps our readers would like to know what sins they can commit that do not lead to death. Brother Waters says there are such sins. I would like to know what standard or guideline that I may use to determine which sins condemn and which sins do not. What sins may we commit without fear of divine judgment and what should be our attitude or disposition when we commit them? Brother Waters, if he is a “veteran Bible student,” had better re-study 1 John 5:17. If he does not, he may become a disabled veteran. The sin “not unto death” is the sin one confesses and forsakes.

(4) That Baptist preacher I debated said that a child of God while walking in the light could commit every sin from adultery to murder and the blood of Christ would automatically cleanse him. He cited 1 John 1:7. He said that if a Christian got drunk through weakness of the flesh and committed adultery and murder and died in that condition he would be saved because “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Well, if brother Waters can convert such men to the truth, without becoming an up and down yo-yo, he is a better man than I am, and I will call him the next time I need help on the apostasy issue.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 519
September 6, 1984

By Roy E. Cogdill

A long time ago there was a play written and given the same title of this article. About it I have often wondered, and frequently the thought has come to me that people in general are pretty much disposed to make much ado about things of little consequence, while neglecting and overlooking things of paramount value.

We see this demonstrated in general life, but nowhere is it more clearly evidenced than in religious activity. Denominationalists at large have the pharisaical fault of placing the emphasis on trifles and neglecting “the weightier matters of the law.” Sometimes even some of us become guilty of such misconduct. This is being particularly demonstrated in a certain religious body just now, and it has caught the attention and recognition of some who have refused to yield certain other points which are, it seems to me, no more incontrovertible than this one.

The movement among the Disciples of Christ, or the “Christian Churches,” sometimes called our “digressive brethren,” to celebrate Pentecost, is the current demonstration of which I am speaking.

Since their digression from the “old paths,” they have gone farther and farther from those things which were preached on the first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection. One departure has truly called for another until today they have become a denomination among denominations. They are observing the Lord’s Supper on week days; they are accepting sprinkling for baptism; they are fellowshipping “theologians” among them who do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ; they are becoming so entwined in denominational organizations that their own members will agree that the church makes no difference, anyhow; they are doing anything that other denominations are doing, and think it is all right.

I know that a few of them still preach faith, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins as the primary conditions of salvation, but very few will refuse to compromise even that at the expense of popularity. They do it by going into “union meetings,” holding them, and inviting, urging, and praying for people to join other churches. In all of these respects and many more they have departed from Pentecost and now differ from the true church of God.

Instead of patting them on the back for what little truth they do preach, I believe they should have their hearts pricked about much truth that they are willing to either compromise or will not preach at all. For one, I have never been able to win a man to the truth by showing him where he was right instead of pointing out his error. In spite of these many practices that make them more like a denomination and less like the church of the New Testament, they are constantly preaching that there is no difference between the two bodies. They can better hold their own members by doing this, and at the same time sidetrack many of the weak-willed members of the body of Christ into digression. Many honest people in sectarian bodies have heard that there is no difference, and, when disposed to seek the truth, can sometimes easily be persuaded to accept a substitute. Instead of emphasizing the points of agreement and similarity between the digression and the New Testament teaching, it is my earnest conviction that we should emphasize to them and everybody else the points of difference. I believe it will mean a more successful effort toward winning them from their digression and preventing others from getting mixed up in the deception; that is, if those who oppose digression are sure of their ground in believing that they have the truth, otherwise it might pay them to investigate their own position.

Their movement is an “on-to-Pentecost” movement, when what they need to inaugurate is a “back-to-Pentecost” movement. I should be glad to join with them in helping them get back to Pentecost and the truth they deserted, as well as to lay aside the error they have adopted; but to cooperate with them in anything as long as they hold these errors and compromise these truths would, to me, be wrong. I cannot even take a favorable attitude toward them without being afraid of encouraging them in their error (2 John 9-11). Much less could I join with them in another departure from the truth, and this I believe their Pentecostal movement to be. I am of the opinion that it would be wrong to attach any significance whatever to Pentecost today. I could have no part in urging a single Christian to be present on that day at the assembly of the saints any more than any other Lord’s day. Pentecost as a day of religious significance has the same authority as Christmas and Easter-Catholic. They have observed it for years as “Whitsunday.” I think we will do well to “hands off.”

I will know that anything granted will be capitalized by the “digressives.” On a recent Lord’s day, in our city, the pastor of the Central Christian Church preached on this movement, and he announced in his sermon that the editor of a certain religious weekly among the churches of Christ had appeared before the evangelistic conference of his church in Dallas and that the churches of Christ were joining with the Christian Churches in this Pentecostal movement. In his own words: “The two religious bodies have set as their goal on Pentecost, June 8, 1930, two million communicants at the Lord’s table.” That this is untrue, and that the editor of the paper mentioned intended to leave no such impression either by his attendance at the meeting or by what he said, is all unquestionable. But I am wondering if it would not be wiser and safer to stay out of anything where we are likely to leave such an impression.

But for fear that I be guilty of making “much ado about nothing, ” I am through. At any rate, I would like to hear from others on this question. What attitude shall we take? (This article originally appeared in the Gospel Advocate, LXII [20 Feb. 1930]:171.)

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 517
September 6, 1984