Truth Magazine

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

By Wayne S. Walker

0n Tuesday night, April 10, 1984, at the building of the Brown Street church of Christ in Akron, Ohio, brother Lewis Willis, preacher for the Brown Street church, and “Elder” Vernon Cayton of the Truth Tabernacle in Niles, Ohio, met to discuss the existence of miracles today. This exchange was brought about as a result of Brown Street’s “Bible Talk” call-in radio program on Sunday mornings. Someone, apparently a member of Truth Tabernacle, called to claim that Mr. Cayton had the power to perform a miracle and urged Lewis to contact him. After several attempts, brother Willis was able to talk with Mr. Cayton and made the arrangements for the discussion.

After an opening prayer, brother George Lemasters, an elder for the Lord’s church in Barberton, Ohio, began the service and announced the mutually-agreed-upon ground rules. Each disputant was to have a 50-minute speech with brother Willis to go first. There were to be no audible or physical demonstrations from the audience. The proposition to be discussed had been dictated to brother Willis by Mr. Cayton over the phone. Mr. Cayton had told brother Willis, “God through Vernon Cayton is going to perform that miracle if Mr. Willis or any of his followers will hear the apostles’ doctrine.” An audience of 585 people were assembled to hear and see this question discussed.

Brother Willis began by defining the proposition and its terms. He said that Cayton needed to perform “a notable miracle that cannot be denied to establish with infallible proof that he can do as he has claimed.” Then he identified the character of New Testament miracles as opposed to modern claims. In dealing with the part of the proposition which read “will hear the apostles’ doctrine,” Lewis predicted that Mr. Cayton would use this as his door of escape, demanding that his idea of “the apostles’ doctrine” be accepted. Of course, those of us in the audience would have been ready to believe Mr. Cayton’s preaching if he were to perform just one true miracle to confirm it.

The next topic brother Willis introduced was Mr. Cayton’s view of one person in the Godhead. After pointing out from Ephesians 3:3-5 that the Bible is written in clear, understandable, definable language, he asked Mr. Cayton to define the meaning of Jesus’ words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and end up with just one person. He also cited John 17:20-21 to show that the oneness of God and Jesus is equivalent to the oneness of believers, that there can be oneness yet separate personalities.

Following this, brother Willis told us several things that Mr. Cayton might do to dodge the issue. He might assert Lewis was blaspheming God. He might appeal to audience or human testimony, as does Ernest Angley, Rex Humbard, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jim Baker. He might resort to ridicule such as calling Lewis a liar or saying how dumb Willis is. He might assert that he, Cayton, is a miracle. He might question the faith of the Brown Street church. Or he might try to prove that Lewis is tempting God.

In fact, brother Willis said that Mr. Cayton had several options. He could totally refuse to honor his promise. He could try to “hide in the woods.” He could blame the audience for his failure. He could admit he was a false teacher. Or he could perform a notable miracle. In closing, brother Willis challenged Mr. Cayton to produce the miracle he claimed he would perform. The ball was now in his court. He must either “put up or shut up.”

When Mr. Cayton arose to speak he said that if we would let the word of God be the final court of authority beyond which there is no appeal, he could “prove in less than 45 minutes everything Mr. Willis said was nothing but a fabrication and a plot of hell.” However, he must not have been satisfied with that because he did just as brother Willis indicated he probably would do. He claimed that God’s promises have always been conditional saying, “You’ll never find one person in the word of God that ever received the Holy Ghost blaspheming it . . . . Not one person has ever been healed that rejected (they might not have had faith) but not one person like Mr. Willis and his condition with his thumb has ever experienced the touch of God standing up in God’s face, ‘God, you do not do this’ . . .”

The only actual argument from scripture that Mr. Cayton made was taken from 1 Corinthians 13:8, upon which, he affirmed, brother Willis based his whole doctrine. Lewis had argued that the miracles were to be done away when that which is perfect, or the completed revelation of the New Testament, had come. Cayton answered that the book of Revelation was written in A.D. 96 while James 1:22-25, written in A.D. 60 says that “the perfect law of liberty” existed then even though there were still New Testament books to be written. Thus, he concluded that “that which is perfect” must refer to the second coming of Christ.

Throughout his speech, Mr. Cayton accused brother Willis of mocking as did the scoffers on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, of hypocrisy for expecting a miracle while ordering a “gag rule” on the audience, and of being a false prophet for telling such lies to the people. At one point he quoted Paul’s statement, “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” and said brother Willis was having fellowship with the atheist by asking for a miracle. He affirmed that if one doesn’t believe the “apostles’ doctrine,” he would not receive one thing from God.

Following this, Mr. Cayton began appealing to the testimony of himself and others. He claimed to have experienced healing in his own life and to have seen people touched of God, healed, made whole. He later said that there was a woman present who had been raised in “this kind of church” but had come out from “all these lies and hypocrisy” to receive the Holy Ghost. In fact, he indicated he could speak with hours of testimony. However, he ignored the presence of several individuals with obvious physical handicaps by saying that the greatest miracle that could happen to anyone is to be baptized with the Spirit and speak in tongues.

In an attempt to answer brother Willis’ question about the Godhead, Mr. Cayton cited John 1:1 and 14 and said that since Jesus was both God and man it was the flesh crying out. Unfortunately, he never did tell us to whom the flesh was crying out. He closed by trying to identify brother Willis with Satan who tempted the Lord to turn stones into bread when he challenged Cayton to “grow a leg on that man.” Evidently Mr. Cayton forgot about another situation in 1 Kings 18:20-40 where it was the miracle-working Elijah that issued the challenge and then performed the miracle to confirm his message.

Mr. Cayton had ample opportunity to perform a miracle. Water was provided which he could turn into wine, blood, or Pepsi-Cola. There were two loaves of bread and a can of sardines with which he could feed the entire audience and a basket in which to collect the leftovers. He could walk on the water of the baptistry and, like Jesus did with Peter, invite Lewis to go with him. Brother Willis has a crooked thumb which he would like healed. Three men were sitting on the front row, George Baker and David Kiefer both with legs missing, and Russ Kegg with polio.

For whatever reasons, Mr. Cayton declined to perform his miracle. The best he could do was to aver that miracles have not passed away and that there are no people like the so-called church of Christ that come any closer to blaspheming the Holy Ghost when they speak against the work of the Holy Ghost. There was no attempt at a rebuttal. The audience was left to weigh the evidence for themselves. The conclusion was obvious. It is clear to this reviewer that Mr. Cayton does not possess the powers that he claims. Thus, truth was vindicated by brother Lewis Willis.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 364-365
June 21, 1984

By David McClister

Keeping in mind the facts presented in the two previous articles of this study, we must now undertake to identify the “prophesying” of 1 Corinthians 11:4f. Before this can be done correctly, however, a word must be said concerning the difference between a prophet and a teacher. All prophets taught the people of God, for such was the purpose of their prophesying. God wanted to instruct His people, so He spoke to them through His prophets, and this was accomplished through divine inspiration. God spoke to the prophet, the prophet then spoke to the people. It cannot be said, however, that all teachers were (or are) prophets. While it is true that teachers proclaim God’s will as did the prophets, there is one important element missing in the teacher that was present in the prophet, viz divine inspiration. The teacher only “pounds upon and presents what has already been revealed. Teaching was a part (not the whole) or prophecy, and prophecy is not ordinary teaching. Hence, we find that the prophets are distinguished as a different class of servants in passages such as Acts 13:1; Ephesians 4:11; etc. and are not the same as teachers.

What, then, was the prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:4f? It could be nothing else than true prophesying, which was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The reasons for this statement are as follows:

(1) The Context. Paul, in the passage before us, assumes that his readers arc already familiar with the idea and practice of a woman prophesying. This is perfect harmony with what is said about prophetesses in the New Testament. Philip had four daughters that prophesied (Acts 21:9). It was even foretold in the Old Testament that women would have the ability to prophesy when God would pour His Spirit upon all flesh (Joel 2:28). Peter said on the day of Pentecost that God had poured forth His Spirit and henceforth introduced the age when men and women would be able to prophesy (Acts 2).

(2) Prophesying by Women. Prophesying, by its very nature, was done publicly. The Bible picture of prophecy is one that shows the prophet speaking openly and publicly to God’s people. A necessary question then arises in the apparent conflict of this passage with 1 Corinthians 14:34. Why would Paul allow the women in 1 Corinthians 11 to prophesy (which obviously involves speaking) if they were veiled, and not allow them to speak at all in 1 Corinthians 14, whether veiled or unveiled? The answer is that the prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 was that which was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and was necessarily proclaimed publicly to the church. Since the women could divinely prophesy as could men, the veil was introduced as a symbol of the women’s (continued) subjection to the men. Paul forbids uninspired speech in 1 Corinthians 14, and allows inspired speech by women in 1 Corinthians 11 if the women wear the veil as they speak in the Spirit.

(3) The Combination of Prayer and Spiritual Gifts. In 1 Corinthians 14:14 Paul simply proposes the idea, “if I pray in a tongue.” Now Paul does not go into any detail to explain what he means in saying this. Obviously he did not need to explain it because the recipients of the epistle knew what he was talking about. The Corinthians apparently knew that it was entirely possible to pray to God while speaking in a tongue. Paul would not have said it and would not have made a point about prayer with his statement if it were impossible to combine the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues with prayer. Meyer concedes, “speaking in tongues may have occurred in connection with public prayer by women.”(1) If it was possible to pray in a tongue, then there was inspired prayer, exercised in connection with spiritual gifts.

(4) Prophecy was, in New Testament Times, A Miraculous Gift of the Holy Spirit. The evidence for this is found, as already noted, in 1 Corinthians 12:10. Before anyone contends that the covering must still be worn by women today, he should realize that such a contention implies that he believes the gift of prophecy, which was done only under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and was the occasion for Paul’s writing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, has not ceased. Yet 1 Corinthians 13:8 states that the spiritual gifts would indeed come to an end, prophesying being one of those gifts. As stated earlier, the prophesying of 1 Corinthians 11 could not be ordinary teaching, for this would not agree with the true significance of biblical prophecy, i.e. its divinely inspired character.

(5) Paul, as an Inspired Apostle of God (1 Cor. 2:10), Would Not Have Condoned False Prophecy. The true prophets spoke by the direct inspiration of God; the false prophets spoke their own will (recall the chart from the previous article). From this fact comes the conclusion that the prophesying in I Corinthians I I must be true prophecy, for Paul would not, yea could not, have given them instructions for carrying out something contrary to God’s will, viz false prophecy.

Conclusion

The ideas of prophecy and inspiration are inseparable. Inspiration is one of the things that makes a prophet a prophet. This concept was understood even by the ancient pagan Greeks. The difference between a true prophet and a false prophet lies in their respective sources of inspiration: the true prophet is inspired of God, the false prophet is “inspired” (stimulated) of human emotion. Because of this connection between prophecy and inspiration, prophecy entails more than ordinary teaching – it is inspired teaching, and more. The prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11, therefore, can only be the true prophecy which was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If it were anything else Paul would neither have condoned it nor would he have contradicted his own writings in teaching about it. Since the prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11 is of the true, inspired-of-God type, it came to an eventual end, as evidenced by 1 Corinthians 13:8. If it has ended, then regulations concerning its exercise and use are no longer binding.

Again I wish to state that these articles have not been written in any sort of attempt to settle once and for all the controversy between some brethren that has arisen over the interpretation and proper application of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The purpose of these articles is to present some facts, and some conclusions that may be drawn from them, which should be taken into consideration in the study of this passage of Scripture. It is my sincere hope that brethren will always consider the meanings, usages, and significances of the individual words of the New Testament before the attempt is made to discern its thought in any portion of Scripture.

Endnotes

1. H.A.W. Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. VI, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, trans. D.D. Bannerman, rev. W.P. Dickson (Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, 1979), p. 248.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 361, 372
June 21, 1984