Truth Magazine

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: We have a problem understanding the word “eat” in 1 Corinthians 5:11. Is Paul saying that if a Christian’s son or daughters (after leaving home) becomes unfaithful, we father and mother) that are faithful cannot eat a common meal with them? How far do we carry the “have company with” them?

Reply: Let us first notice the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. “I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.”

One of the sins which existed in the church at Corinth was the sin of incest. Paul dealt with this problem in 1 Corinthians 5. He wrote in verse 1: “It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father’s wife.” The attitude of the brethren at Corinth toward this shameful condition was not only one of indifference but one of arrogance and defiance. “Ye are puffed up, and did not mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken from you” (v. 2). The church was not only instructed to deal with this sin but also how to handle it. The brethren were commanded, “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened” (v. 7). As the Israelites were to remove all leaven from their houses before the Passover (Ex. 12:15,20; 13:7), so these Corinthians were to remove the old leaven of sin that they might become pure. Action was to be taken by these brethren toward the guilty party. He was to be excluded from the fellowship of the church. Immorality must not be tolerated among Christians. We are commanded to withdraw ourselves from the disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6). Personal association that will endorse or encourage those claiming to be Christians, but who -are guilty of sin, is prohibited. “With such a one, no not to eat” (vs. 11). It is obvious that the eating here does not refer to the Lord’s Supper. The phrases “have no company” and “with such a one, no, not to eat,” do not apply to the world but to members of the church. Paul says, “if any man that is named a brother . . . ” (v. 11). So, the eating referred to in the passage is a common meal.

The question asked involves whether or not we may eat a common meal with a member of the family who is unfaithful. The passage cannot be made to apply to members of a family. There is a relationship which we sustain to our physical families which is distinct from our spiritual relationship in the church. We are in no way to act toward the disciplined or unfaithful member of the church that would lend any endorsement or encouragement of his misconduct. In the case of a family member, it should be made clear that any social activity engaged in with him is strictly in the realm of a family relationship and that it by no means sanctions his sin. It would then necessarily follow that husband-wife relations (1 Cor. 7:3-5) and social obligations with relatives do not of themselves condone the guilty.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, pp. 228-229
April 19, 1984

By Dudley Ross Spears

How many times would you say the Bible says that Christians are to put on immortality. Paul wrote, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53). The millennial speculators have a problem here with just how many times this takes place. Hal Lindsay said this is a mystery but takes place at the imaginary “Rapture” (Late Great Planet Earth, p. 130). His theory is that the saints will be in the “Rapture” with Christ in immortal bodies that are spiritual bodies, glorious bodies, not affected by the pain and discomforts of a physical body.

Millennialists can hardly write two paragraphs or speak five minutes without getting themselves into all sorts of difficulties with their speculations. Lindsay also wrote about the return of Christ “with” His saints to set up this also imaginary millennial kingdom. He said, “Third, Christ establishes the millennial kingdom and the surviving believers go into it as mortals and repopulate the earth” (Ibid., p. 167). They were immortal as believers in the “Rapture” and now after the establishment of this alleged “millennium” they go in as mortals. What happens when the millennium ends? Your guess is just as good as Lindsay’s or anyone elses. The fact is that there is no such thing as either “Rapture,” “Armageddon,” or “the Millennium.” It is a grand hoax.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, p. 231
April 19, 1984

By Dick Blackford

The Judgment

“There’s a great day coming … when the saints and the sinners shall be parted right and left . . . . ” The most deadly serious ” and solemn thought that a man can contemplate is that of the final day when this earthly sojourn is over and he must give account to the Great Judge of the universe for the things he did or did not do in this life (2 Cor. 5:10; Mt. 25). We must not speculate on this subject for the fun of it, for the sake of academic or mental exercise, or for the sake of winning an argument. None of those reasons are serious enough. We are talking about the most crucial moment that a man will ever face.

Will There Be Mercy?

“There’s a bright day coming … but its brightness shall only come to them that love the Lord. . . ” Over and over we are told that love and obedience go together (Jn.14:15,21; 15:14; 1 Jn.5:3; 2 Jn. 6; etc.). As others have done, I too have voiced the sentiment that I expect to need God’s mercy on the day of judgment. Most of us find it easier to refrain from sins of commission (overt forbidden acts) than to avoid sins of omission leaving undone things we should do, taking advantage of all opportunities). All of Christ’s judgment parables were in condemnation for sins of omission, not commission.

That Jehovah is a God of mercy no Bible student will deny (Ps. 136; Eph. 2:4). However, some have taught that there will be no mercy on judgment day for we are living in the time of God’s mercy right now. It is true that God is merciful to us daily, sending sunshine, rain, and a host of other blessings on the just and unjust (Mt. 5:45). But it is not true that there will be no mercy at the judgment. “For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment”(Jas. 2:13). The judgment scene of Matthew 25 hinged on whether the person had been merciful in life. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Mt. 5:7). The kind of mercy we extend in life is not one of doctrinal mercy (I am not being merciful to a man when I tell him he can be saved by faith only or can continue to live in adultery). Rather, it has to do with the kindness I show to him as a person. Jesus, James, and Paul gave examples of what they meant (feeding the hungry, hospitality to strangers, not being a respecter of persons regarding the poor, etc., see Mt. 18:21-35; 25:31-46; Jas. 2:1-13; 2 Tim. 1:16-18). These things distinguish whether we are practicing genuine Christianity or whether our religion is an academic pursuit. However, watering down the gospel to make it more palatable is not an act of mercy.

God’s Mercy And Man’s Sins

Let me hasten to say that if the Lord decides to extend mercy to the unbaptized or the person guilty of one sin of ignorance, that will be fine with me. I won’t complain or argue; I will rejoice. But in the meantime, what must I teach on those subjects?

Whenever God wants us to make an exception to any of His requirements, He has told us what the exception is. For example, we are to obey the laws of the civil government (Rom. 13:11; 1 Pet. 2:13-15). However, He has given us an exception. When there is a conflict between the laws of men and the law of God then “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Another example: God’s law from the beginning is that marriage is for life (Rom. 7:1-3). But Jesus gave an exception (fornication) whereby one may put away his mate (Mt. 19:9).

Does the Bible give any exceptions to baptism for accountable people? Does it teach that God’s mercy will cover sins of ignorance or unconfessed sins? No, and we have no right to teach otherwise though we might long for God’s pardon on our loved ones who fall into these categories. We must not put a premium on ignorance (Acts 17:30). To teach that God will overlook ignorance encourages ignorance and nullifies all exhortations to study, learn, and grow. Exceptions have a tendency to become the rule – with a little help from their friends. Sprinkling was introduced as “baptism” when it was thought that a man was too sick to be immersed. It eventually became the rule for many mainline denominations. Divorce has almost become the rule of the day. If God intends for His mercy to cover any degree of ignorance, it was in His wisdom not to tell us ahead of time, lest we conclude that “ignorance is bliss” or “what you don’t know won’t hurt you.”

On the other hand, while God has told us some of the conditions of mercy (Mt. 18:21-35; 25:31f; Jas. 2:13), he has not told us exactly how it will be applied. No man on earth knows how it will be applied or at exactly what point He will place limitations. This is a secret area over which Christians should not speculate (Duet. 29:29). “How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor? (Rom. 11:33,34).

Leave Judgment To God

“There’s a sad day coming … when the sinner shall hear his doom ‘Depart, I know ye not’. . . . ” God hasn’t asked us to determine the judgment beforehand. Our primary mission is to teach the message. If there are exceptions, teach them. If there are none, omit them. Doing otherwise can cause eternal consequences for the very ones for which we desire salvation. Likewise, let us not hem God into a corner with no room to change His mind. He is a just God. His judgments will be tempered with whatever mercy He thinks we deserve. Only He can determine that. Let us make haste and be busy teaching the gospel. This is urgent, for we each have only a limited amount of time.

Are you ready for that day to come?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, pp. 227-228
April 19, 1984

By Lewis Willis

I do not mean to imply that there is some kind of Indian uprising or anything of that nature at all. Such would be serious. But that to which I refer has all the markings of being tragic! This modern day crisis is of such magnitude that meetings are being held with leadership to defuse the problem before it explodes. If the concerned organization only had an army as it has had in the past, troops could be dispatched and the dissidents could be captured and punished so harshly as to discourage any such actions in the future. Such cannot be done, so from the hallowed halls of headquarters can come only appeals and warnings.

The “nation” experiencing this Western problem is the nation called Roman Catholicism. The President and his advisors see a mushrooming problem developing in the Western end of the empire called “American Catholicism.” Steps are now being taken to put down the insurrection before it gets out of hands.

A New York 77mes article, appearing in the Akron Beacon Journal (10/31/83) outlines the Pope’s concerns. Democracy is giving him trouble. “John Paul, like some Popes before him, has worried about the impact of a democratic society on a church that claims hierarchical authority.” The attitudes of American Catholics “have become the testing ground for a struggle by the Pope to keep the country’s 50 million lay persons firmly in the fold.” The fear is that a failure to do so will cause the operation of the boys out West to “attain even more of a character of its own, becoming semi-autonomous.” The situation has revealed “heightened strain between the Vatican and a vigorous American Catholicism that has shown growing signs of dissent.” Catholicism, from past experiences, knows that authority challenged, results – is strained relations, and strained relations are one step away from open division.

The nature of this growing cloud of unrest is disagreement – disagreement regarding the teachings of the church. The edicts of the commander-in-chief coming from the Vatican Pentagon regarding moral issues from birth control to ordaining women to the priesthood, are largely rejected by the surrogates who are supposed to be enforcing the infallible edicts of the Czar. It appears that 50 million people who are accustomed to the privileges of democracy are finding it difficult to accept the “demands for conformity” that the self-proclaimed dictator seeks to impose upon them. The representatives (bishops) of the masses are being brought before the boss to be reminded of “how the cookie crumbles” and “how the ball bounces” within the framework of this religio-political organization called Catholicism.

To solve the problem, the king is calling the slaves in and lecturing them on the requirements of their servitude. The American Catholic church “must proclaim more effectively” the boss’ teachings on this subject. They must submit themselves to the Pope and act to bring the American church into submission so that it becomes a “model of fidelity to authority” as exercised by the man in charge. There seems to be a basic lack of trust about the loyalties of those who lead the masses, so the Vatican has announced its plans to get to the source of the insurrection being taught. “American seminaries and religious orders” will “be examined to determine their soundness.” American Catholics regard this “as corrective and possibly punitive.” They seem to realize that they are about to be kicked out of the empire unless they line up, and they don’t like it a bit. They apparently remember that they helped elect this modern-day Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) to his seat of power.

They live in a climate where those elected are theoretically answerable to the electors. Unlike those of past ages who have blindly submitted to his arrogance, the 1983 Catholic model is asking, “Just who does John Paul II think he is?” Those who are familiar with the Scriptures have recognized for centuries that he was the “man of sin . . ., the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:34). Those who so regard him, only feel sympathy for those whose heads are being pounded and whose necks are on the chopping block. I was just thinkin’, his continued arrogance might yet offer hope that this human, unscriptural, ungodly dynasty will collapse.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, p. 233
April 19, 1984