Truth Magazine

By Robert Wayne LaCoste

Ever heard of the “bad blood” theory? It goes something like this: “If and when there is a seemingly consistent negative behavior in an individual, this is due to a great extent on the biological and genetic background of that person.” Stated bluntly, this theory believes and advocates that evil in a person’s life can be blamed in part to the evil in their parents’ lives that undoubtedly too was “inherited.” In short, good or bad traits are hereditary and not the flaw, per se, of that individual.

This “theory” like many others that men believe and propagate has no biblical basis whatsoever. God’s word does not teach that the evil one commits is the result of “bad genes or blood” or because of other biological factors. Evil is thought and done by people because it is learned and taught to people. The same can be said of good. Righteousness is not inherited. It too is taught and learned. John wrote, “He that doeth righteousness is righteous . . . ” (1 Jn. 3:7). The doing of a thing is the direct result of the learning of that thing. I think most people understand that, as it relates to good. Even those who believe in the back “woodsie” theory that evil is inherited understand full well the import of “bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). If we can see and perceive how good must be taught so it may be learned and practiced, then why can’t we also see that in order for evil to be done, it too must be taught and. learned?

Shades Of Calvinism

John Calvin, the early reformer, believed that men are born “depraved.” That is, men are born in a corrupted and evil condition. Furthermore, Calvin spread this doctrine with the idea that this was so from the very beginning, that men were created good, but then sinned. Because their off-spring then were sinners, it would take God’s Spirit to change such a pitiful state. The idea of “bad blood” is much like Calvin’s suggestion. Calvin insisted that this depravity was “passed on” from generation to generation and that all men were sinful, frail creatures because their parents and all men before them were. The Catholic doctrine of “original sin” is based on this concept. Since Adam and Eve sinned, all men are now destined to “inherit” that sin and begin life in a sinful state.

All of this human wisdom dear reader is just that human thinking. We cannot blame our parents, their parents, or the first man or woman for that matter, for our sin. Our sin is so called that, because it is that – our’s. We can scream loud and long that “the devil made me do it” or I’m just from “bad makings” but in neither instance will we have a leg to stand on. God has written, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezek. 18:20).

Those who subscribe to the idea of “bad blood,” that evil is inherited, rather than learned, have believed Calvinism. And Calvinism is no more the truth today, than when John Calvin first uttered its false notions.

Ahaz, Hezekiah and Mannasseh

Once upon a time, there were three men who reigned and ruled over Judah. These three men were related to each other. As a matter of fact, they were direct descendants, one of the other. Ahaz (2 Kings 16:1-2) was an evil king. He was an idolater and a murderer (2 Chron. 28:3). This man even offered up children as human sacrifices. Not a very nice fellow was he? And who was his son? His son was a man called Hezekiah. Of this man, we read nothing but good. He destroyed the idols of his father, restored the Levitical priesthood to its rightful place of service and brought the people back to the law of God. So good a king was he, the Holy Spirit was compelled to write that he was the greatest king Judah ever had (2 Kings 18:5).

But who was Hezekiah’s son? His son, Manasseh (2 Kings 21) “reared up altars for Baal . . . and worshiped the stars” (2 Kings 21:1-3). Mannasseh also was a shedder of “innocent blood” (v. 16) and he brought the people down with him.

What will the advocates of “evil is inherited” do with this examination of these three men? Perhaps they will say that Hezekiah was good in spite of his father’s “bad genes.” Will they also go out on a limb and say Manasseh got the “bad genes” which caused his bad behavior, from his grandfather, rather than getting the “good genes” from Hezekiah, his father’? The facts are clear and cannot be denied. Hezekiah was righteous because, “He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did” (2 Kings 18:3). These other two men did evil because they were influenced to do so and then chose to do so!

The old expressions, “a stream cannot rise higher than its source,” or “you cannot make a silk purse out of a cow’s ear” are derived from these ideas of human “reasoning.” While genes and other biological factors are responsible for how we look and perhaps even how we feel from a health consideration; God’s word is plain they have nothing to do with whether we commit evil or do good. We are what we are and do what we do, because it is our decision to be that way or do that certain thing. Each can be happy or sad, good or bad, saved or lost, upon their own volition. When we stand before God, we will be judged by what we were by our own making and doing (2 Cor. 5:10) in this life. Where we spend eternity will depend upon how we reacted to Divine directives. If one is lost eternally, he or she will be able to blame only themselves.

Therefore, “choose you this day whom ye shall serve . . . ” (Josh. 24:15).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, p. 363
June 21, 1984

By Steve Bobbitt

Ira North. is dead. And the accolades have poured in. Brother North was the long-time preacher for the church at Madison, Tennessee, near Nashville, often touted as the largest church of Christ in the world. During his 30 years there, the membership grew from 400 to more than 5,000.

This critical note of his passing is not intended to judge him unfairly. Rather I wish to evaluate his significance to the churches. It is safe to say that many of our churches will never be the same because of his influence.

Brother North excelled in turning churches aside toward the social gospel. That simply means that he embraced the philosophy that a church has a social duty as great as, if not greater than, its spiritual responsibility.

North came to Madison in 1952. Prior to that time, few churches of Christ had social programs on their congregation agenda. Most churches devoted their efforts and funds to supporting preaching brethren out in the field and to training their own members to grow spiritually. Some city churches were quite large, but the general attitude prevailed among brethren that a larger number of small churches was better than a smaller number of large churches.

In the aftermath of the war, new winds began to blow among the churches. In the zeal to take the gospel to foreign countries, a few large churches put themselves forward to organize and oversee great teams of smaller churches. These multi-church teams were overseen by a “sponsoring church.” This church would be responsible for selection and maintenance of the preachers in various countries. The smaller churches would provide the funds.

At the same time, influential preachers began to advocate vast relief programs for survivors in the war-striken countries. The idea was that great brotherhood-wide benevolent programs would win the favor and gain the ear of the people. Thus benevolence would prepare the people for evangelism.

And it worked. Glowing reports came back about incredible interest and amazing results due to these great giveaways. The same approach began to be used at home. Churches which had once relied only on the gospel to attract members began to initiate all sorts of social programs designed to win the favor and gain the car of their neighbors. And it worked. Small churches became large; large churches became huge.

The results were too good to be true. The brethren found that the old-style preaching was not acceptable to the new. style members. Sermons on the identity of the Lord’s church and the authority of the Scriptures began to disappear. Debates came to be viewed as an embarrassment. Influential churches and popular preachers were busy forging a new image for the churches of Christ.

The April, 1977 issue of Nashville! magazine featured North on the cover identified as “Nashville’s Most Powerful Preacher.” But the article demonstrated that Brother North’s power lay not in preaching, but in promoting the various social programs. A few of them were mentioned: a church-operated summer camp, Meals on Wheels, Saturday Samaritans, furniture warehouse, and sewing and clothing rooms. North was quoted: “Beautiful, mysterious, wonderful and glorious things happen to the church of Christ in our day and age that gets involved up to its neck in a great program for the poor, the lowly and the downtrodden . . . It seems the more we give ourselves and our money and our hearts to help the poor, the lowly, the homeless, the retarded and those in need, the more the good Lord blesses us with new people, new resources, new financial strength and a depth of love for our Lord and for our fellow man.”

Just as Ira North came to typify the new-style preacher among the churches so Madison came to typify the new-style church. In 1968 Norman Vincent Peale’s magazine Guideposts gave its annual Church Award to Madison, citing the church’s childcare programs and hat-making classes.

In the July 22, 1975 Nashville Banner columnist Teddy Bart wrote, “Let’s open the churches. Let’s use them. Not to preach and berate those unfortunate victims of modern society like drug users and alcoholics, but to kindly and compassionately help them. In a non-proselyting manner the churches could do what the Great Society tried to do and couldn’t . . . Under the direction of Dr. Ira North, the Madison Church of Christ has been a remarkable effective social action institution for years. Hot meals for the shut-ins, help for the aged, day-care for children of working mothers are but some of the services this church has provided. We need more full-time churches like that.”

A church which envisions its mission in terms of social programs cannot long maintain doctrinal identity. Compromises are inevitable. In 1971 Brother North was a featured speaker at the North American Christian Convention of the independent Christian Churches. He spoke on the Madison story, giving their secrets to denominationals. [I wonder why Ira Rice did not write North up the way he has pursued Chuck Lucas, Lynn Anderson and others.] In 1978 he was co-chairman of a committee organized to create an inter-faith memorial in Nashville. Brother North later resigned, but the spirit of compromise was manifest.

The life of this brother helps explain why the churches of Christ are divided today. Brethren may talk of the specific issues of church-supported childcare institutions, sponsoring churches and the like, but the basic reason that the churches are divided is that some accepted the image made popular by Ira North while others did not. I mark his passing with sadness.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, p. 360
June 21, 1984

By Johnie Edwards

Most of us who preach could profit in our preaching by learning some lessons from the preaching of the Apostle Paul. Let’s notice some things about Paul’s preaching that we would do well to emulate.

Paul Was Consistent In His Preaching

It is difficult to always be consistent in preaching. Often times preachers will preach one thing in one place and, if conditions are not favorable to that kind of preaching, will preach something else at another place. Paul was consistent in his preaching. “For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways, which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17). Sometimes preachers have been known to favor some in their hearing audience, because of friendships, and avoid preaching on needed subjects lest some be offended! Again Paul said, “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches” (1 Cor. 7:17). Let’s learn to: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).

Paul Was Not Ashamed Of The Gospel of Christ

Many today seem to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ as seen by so little of it being used in their sermons. Paul recognized that the gospel saves (1 Cor. 15:2), that the gospel is the only power God uses in saving men, and in the gospel is God’s righteousness revealed. By understanding that, Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ . . .” (Rom. 1: 16-17). We need to remember that Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38). Preachers must not be ashamed to preach the gospel.

Paul’s Preaching Was With Simplicity

Folks may not have always obeyed the preaching of Paul, but it was not because they did not understand it. His preaching was characterized by simplicity. He wrote the Corinthians, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). Lest people’s faith stand in the wisdom of men, Paul wrote, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing, among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified . . . And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor. 2:14).

Too many preachers preach over the heads of the common man in the pew, trying to appeal to the highly intellectual. I have just never understood that, for if preaching is where the young and the less educated can understand it, those with more education will have no problem of getting a handle on it as well.

Paul Was Humble

A lot of preachers have difficulty in being humble. One preacher said, “When you are as smart and great as I am, it is hard to be humble.” A member of the church said, “If you don’t believe that our preacher can really preach, just ask him.” Look at Paul’s attitude as he addressed the Ephesian elders: “Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews” (Acts 20:19). It is hard to get some preachers to realize, “For I know nothing by myself . . .” (1 Cor. 4:4). The lack of humility causes a lot of preachers to talk down to folks, and nobody wants to be talked down to!

Paul Believed And Practiced What He Preached

Many want to question everything God has said. Not the Apostle Paul! As Paul and his company found themselves in a storm, but being assured by an angel of God that no harm would come to them, said, “Wherefore sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me” (Acts 27:25). Young preachers, middle-aged and old preachers as well need to learn to have the attitude Paul had when he said, “For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day . . .” (2 Tim. 1:12).

As a result of believing God and displaying the attitude Paul did, he practiced what he preached. There is a great demand among preachers today to practice what they preach. Paul said, “And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house” (Acts 20:20). Paul not only taught but showed men by practicing what he preached. Many preachers are long on preaching but short on practice.? We must not be as the scribes and the Pharisees “for they say, and do not” (Matt. 23:1-3). Paul wrote the Romans, “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself: thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” (Rom. 2:21).

Have you checked your preaching lately?

Guardian of Truth XXIII: 12, p. 366
June 21, 1984

By Philip A. Owens

One church is as good as another” and “one doesn’t have to be a member of the church to be saved” are statements made by good, honest, sincere people. If indeed these statements be true, there is little need in preaching and writing about the church, for it becomes immaterial to the salvation of our souls. On the other hand, if the Bible discusses that relationship the matter is settled, whether we believe it or not.

The first mention of the word “church” is found in Matthew 16:18. Jesus Christ said, “And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Therefore, the church Jesus said He would build was not in existence at that time, but He called His disciples’ attention to the fact that He would build it and that Hades (death and the grave) would not prevent Him from so doing. If I did not believe anything else in God’s Word, I would know from this Scripture that there is something special and sacred about the church.

As we continue to read the New Testament, we find that after Christ died, was buried, then raised from the dead, the apostles were gathered in the city of Jerusalem as Christ had commanded. The second of three annual Jewish feasts was being observed. Upon this occasion, Christ sent the Holy Spirit upon the apostles as He previously said He would (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 24:4). By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the apostles preached the gospel for the first time in its fulness. Peter, being the chief spokesman as he convinced those gathered that they had crucified the Son of God instead of an imposture, called on the people to know assuredly that God had “made Him both Lord and Christ.” When they believed this great fact, they were “pricked in their hearts” just as honest people are when they believe the gospel. They then “said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:37,38). What was the result? Those who “gladly received the word were baptized” (v. 41). What happened? “The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (v. 47). From this we learn that gospel preaching, salvation, and the church are related.

Questions Considered

You may read your Bible from cover to cover and you will never read where anyone “joined” any church. The truth is that, when a person is saved, the Lord automatically “adds” him to His church. I have never joined any church and do not plan on it. But someone says, “I don’t believe you have to be a member of a church to be saved.” If such a person means one doesn’t have to be a member of a denomination to be saved, I would agree. God Almighty did not send His Son to earth to suffer, agonize, sorrow, bleed, and die for something that did not matter if one joined or not, that originated with men, and taught and practiced different things. But God did send Him to earth and Christ died for the church, and there is a vast difference between the church of the New Testament and denominations.

Some say, “One church is as good as another.” Again, if such a person means a denomination, he is right. One denomination is just as good as another because none of them has anything to do with our salvation. But when a person believes and is baptized he is saved (Mark 16:16) and the Lord adds such a person to the church, not a denomination.

One asks, “If you didn’t join the church, how did you become a member?” In the same manner I became a member of my earthly family. When you understand how I became a member of my earthly family without joining it, then you will understand how I became a member of the church without joining it. “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). When a person believes the teaching of the Spirit the facts of the gospel – and obeys through being baptized in water, he enters the kingdom of family of God. He becomes an “addition” to God’s family – a member of the Lord’s church.

“But I believe one can be saved outside the church,” says one. You can then be saved without the blood of Christ, because the only institution that touches His blood is the church (Acts 20:28). But it is impossible to have remission of sins except by Christ’s blood (Heb. 9:22; 10:4-10). Therefore, it is impossible to be saved except by being in that which has been cleansed by blood – the church. “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). If Christ saves the body and the body is the church (Col. 1:18), and the Lord adds those who are saved to the church, what can you deduce about those outside the church? The church and eternal salvation are inseparable!

Conclusion

The church of the New Testament is simply the group of baptized believers who have been called by the gospel out of the world of sin and who work and worship together according to the words of its head – Jesus Christ. Have you obeyed the gospel and thereby become a member of the church Christ purchased with His blood? Or are you in something completely foreign to the New Testament? “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, p. 357
June 21, 1984