Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

My teachers always told me that a preposition was something you should never end a sentence with. I plead guilty in this narrative, and now that you know it let’s talk about something more profitable.

I remember a time when my wife and I drove 35 miles in a blinding storm to baptize a lady into Christ. It was inconvenient but we were happy to do it. However, that was not the most inconvenient baptism of which I speak.

Another occasion comes to remembrance when I baptized a lady in the hospital. She was dying of cancer. A tub was prepared for the baptizing. It was among the inconvenient baptisms I recall, but not the most inconvenient.

When I was in college the family I lived with showed me an old, worn black and white photograph made on their farm in the wintertime. Ice had to be broken on the pond so a baptism could take place. These incidents tell of the importance these folks attached to baptism. They must have believed it was necessary. Still, none of these is the baptism of which I am thinking.

Acts 16:16-34

The most inconvenient baptism known to me is this one. Paul and Silas had false charges made against them. Their clothes were torn off. They were imprisoned, beaten, and their feet were fastened tight in the stocks. All of these were unjust actions. The Philippian jailer was impressed with the behavior of Paul and Silas. They had been singing hymns instead of complaining. They had a chance to escape but did not. They even saved his life for he almost committed suicide when he thought they had vanished after the earthquake. Having already been mistreated why would they expect justice to prevail by remaining? He represented the government that was responsible for all of this. Here was a crucial moment that became the turning point in his life. Paul and Silas had something he needed and wanted, so he asked the most intelligent question a person can ask “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (v. 30). They said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . .” (v. 31).

Don’t Stop!

Now, most denominational preachers stop right here. These men say the jailer was saved at verse 31 and then don’t bother to tell the rest of the story. They remind me of the atheist who threw his Bible away because the hero got killed right in the middle and he saw no point in finishing the book! The next verse (v. 32) says they “spake unto him the word of the Lord.” In v. 31 they told him to believe and in v. 32 they told him what to believe. By having him “saved” at v. 31 these preachers have him saved before he heard the gospel! If one can be saved before he hears the gospel then Jesus’ death is worthless (Rom. 1: 16; 1 Cor. 15:1-5). It is one thing to tell a person to believe and quite another to tell him what to believe. After speaking “the word of the Lord” to him, he “took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes (indicating his repentance)” and was baptized immediately (v. 33).

Why Baptism?

How did he know to be baptized? It is part of the “word of the Lord.” Jesus had said “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. . . ” (Mk. 16:16). In speaking unto him “the word of the Lord” is it likely that they would not even mention the last thing our Lord said about salvation before he left the earth – never to return again until judgment day? Notice also that the rejoicing came after the baptism (v. 34).

The Inconvenience

They had just been through a severe earthquake; a near suicide, the wounds of Paul and Silas needed attention; it was after midnight; they had to go elsewhere for the baptizing, plus other possible inconveniences regarding safety from the earthquake and the Roman government. They must have taught him and he must have believed baptism to be absolutely necessary. It couldn’t even wait til morning! Why didn’t they stop him? Strange, if baptism is not essential. Some churches store up baptismal candidates for several weeks until they have enough to justify getting the preacher wet. Prior to this point it is “too inconvenient.” The real truth is they don’t believe (Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Which way does your church teach it?

In all of my life this, my friends, is the most inconvenient baptism I ever heard of. And now you know the rest of the story.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 6, pp. 182-183
March 15, 1984

By Ron Halbrook

This is not an article promoting any one gospel paper, but is a discussion of how to make such journals profitable and enjoyable. Two years ago, a couple who were very close to our family told us why they had quit “reading the papers.” We told them why we had not. It was a healthy exchange. They said that our reasons for reading them were better than theirs for not reading, so they began (cautiously) reading again. At the time, they asked us to write an article to help other people who might have the same experience they had. We promised to do so, but got busy. A recent visit confirms that this couple has indeed found gospel papers profitable and enjoyable again. How?

Clear Purposes and Advantages

1. Clarify purposes and advantages. Some people begin taking a paper because a friend – usually a preacher recommended it. They may have no clear concept of why such a paper exists or-what it hopes to accomplish. Above all, a gospel paper should proclaim the gospel and stimulate study of God’s Word. This does not mean a steady diet of milk, a constant repetition on the earthly life of Jesus or the primary steps in conversion. There will be meat-upon which to grow, articles which challenge a person to struggle in thought over unfamiliar topics or points. Expect to put out some mental energy and effort at times. Papers stimulate study just as do commentaries, Bible classes, and personal discussions. By the written word, we have the advantage of studying with men who have spent years meditating on God’s Word, preaching it, and seeing its practical application.

In addition to making us more familiar with biblical material, papers offer many kinds of related information. What are some practical problems, issues, and temptations that brethren are facing in many places? How can we better prepare ourselves and our children to recognize present day dangers? How does modern society hinder the gospel and how can we overcome these hindrances so as to spread the Good News of Christ? What are some good Bible reference books to help in study? Where can we attend debates or find information on specific forms of denominational error which may help us to convert our friends? Where are new churches being formed? Where do special needs exist? What new methods are proving successful? All of these and many more questions are answered in the journals. News columns and reports of many kinds appear regularly. Some brethren read these before anything else because of the encouragement gained from learning about the faithful labors of saints in other places.

Scan And Read

2. Scan and read. None of us should feel enslaved to a page-by-page, line-by-line approach to reading th~ journals. Make the journals a servant, not the master of our limit time. We may not have time to read a single article in some issues – but the same thing happens with the newspaper, too. Even. a minute or two of scanning is profitable. Glancing through an issue of the paper exposes us to titles and headings, to which we may wish to refer later.

For instance, a question or assignment in Bible class can ring a bell, “I remember there was an article on that subject in a recent issue of the paper.” Now that we have a more pressing reason to read that particular article, we can find it and take the time to read it. The point is, we have exposed ourselves to large amounts of resource material on a wide variety of subjects.

More Than One

3. Take more than one paper. Take at least two. This provides exposure to a wider range of writers and subject matter. Some writers prefer to write in only one paper; we may miss the advantage of learning from some excellent student of the Word because the one paper we take is not the one in which he writes. At times, almost every paper publishes a special series of an expanded issue on a given subject. The more papers we take, the more of these concentrated studies we have for resource study.

Taking more than one paper provides a crucial safeguard. Just as with individuals, so with papers there may be a subtle shift from soundness in the faith to softness and compromise. We may fail to notice the shift in a paper if we are reading that one alone, but it is likely that other papers will be sounding a warning. Or, if a paper openly introduces error, it is certain that other papers will present a challenge by giving the other side. Even in matters of judgment that involve no doctrinal error, there is safety in a multitude of counselors. Even two is better than one.

Feedback

4. Offer some feedback. When we feel the urge, we should pick up our pen or phone to register a compliment or a complaint. Writing is one of the most difficult jobs. Some articles represent many hours of research – even days, weeks, months, or years. A writer may spend several minutes trying to decide on just one word! He appreciates someone saying, “That article helped me.” This encourages him to write again.

Our complaint need not be harsh to be helpful. The writer may be able to correct a false impression, retract his error, or improve his word choice because we took time to communicate with him. An editor spends a great deal of time on his work, which is not only writing but also selecting, arranging, and correcting articles. Compliments and complaints help him to improve his work. Whether we submit a positive or negative comment at a given time, understanding the privilege of feedback helps us to enjoy and profit from reading journals.

Keep It Going

5. Two ways to perpetuate profit and enjoyment. If we save each issue of the journals we take, we build a reference library for our own future use or the future use of our children. Do not minimize the influence of journals in the home on children. If they are accustomed to seeing them in the home, they are much more likely to have religious papers in their homes. Selected articles can be pointed out to teenagers for their reading. It is profitable to save papers.

It is profitable to pass them along to other Christians, to people in the world, or to people in foreign lands. Gospel preachers can help us find Christians overseas who have precious little reading material available and who would be thrilled to receive a box full. We often throw away these papers. Some of our brethren in foreign countries pass such literature around until it literally wears out from use!

We at our house enjoy both saving and passing on the papers. We take advantage of reduced rates for multiple subscriptions so as to have papers sent directly into the homes of Christians and other friends. When we find someone taking papers but not wanting them, we obtain the papers to box them up and send them overseas.

Don’t Cancel Because . . .

When tempted to cancel our subscription to a paper, or to let our sub run out rather than renewing it, we should take a close look at the reason (?). Are we acting on impulse? Would the same reason (?) be sufficient for cancelling our sub to a local newspaper or news magazine? Avoid these pitfalls:

1. “My wife (or husband) doesn’t read it.” If either one reads it, even the one who does not should encourage the presence of the paper. It is likely that more men than women use commentaries and read gospel journals (judging from discussions I have had with brethren), but that is a poor reason to quit using either. Even the one who “doesn’t read it” is likely to pick it up occasionally if it keeps coming.

2. “I get behind on my reading. ” This discouragement should not stop the journals. The money is well spent if the papers are there to read when we do get time. Everyone gets behind at times. Do not feel burdened by the necessity to go back and read everything that was missed. Pick up again when time allows.

Don’t Like Controversies?

3. “I don’t like controversies. ” Yes, they are painful, but necessary. They are necessary to open study, to spiritual growth, and to the defense of the truth. The only two excuses for avoiding controversy on a given subject are, “It is not a problem here,” and, “It is a problem here.” In either case, only the Devil can benefit from closing the door to controversy. The person who quits reading papers because of the controversies will have to quit reading the Bible every page contains some point of controversy.

It will not do to plead, “Well, at least I don’t want to read about the persons involved if there must be controversy. ” The inspired writers and the Son of God himself could not meet this test. Controversy has a proper place in all gospel preaching and is profitable. If a paper declares itself opposed to controversy, cancel that paper! Renew every paper that follows the example of Jesus by challenging sin and error of all kinds to a fight to the death!

4. “I saw some things I disagreed with. ” Any responsible, discerning Christian will find things of this kind. He should disagree with some things that uninspired people say. Only the Bible is infallible. Remember the privilege of feedback when tempted over disagreements. Constructive criticism is more likely to bring a change than cancellation.

Can’t Afford It?

5. “I can’t afford it. ” Stop and think! We pay far more for newspapers, magazines, radios, and TVs to hear about things that are mostly degrading and depressing, than we pay for gospel papers that offer spiritual encouragement and strength. No, the Bible does not require us to take a gospel paper to go to heaven. Much less does it require a newspaper. So as a matter of simple choice, which of the two we would prefer in a crunch tells a lot about our sense of values. We can’t afford it? For the price of a newspaper for a year, we could take 10 or 12 gospel papers. For the price of a TV, or even just one payment on a TV, we could take . . . . get the point?

Do cancel if the paper becomes an enemy to the gospel, whether by direct attack upon its facts, commands, and promises, or by compromise with false doctrine. Even in the event of such a tragedy, it may be useful to read the paper to better understand the development of error and how to meet it. Here the safeguard of reading at least two papers is apparent. Read both sides of the question as an aid to searching and guarding the truth.

Ask someone who takes papers to share a few samples. Examine several. Subscribe to at least two. Then, stay with it. Profit and enjoy!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 6, pp. 178-179
March 15, 1984

 

By Leo Rogol

Let The Denominationalist Speak Out Against Them

Introduction

As a former Seventh-day Adventist, I have kept abreast of the chang s, developments, and problems within that denomination. But what has this to do with the above-titled subject? Very much in many respects. I will bear this out during the course of this article. I will deal with sponsoring church arrangements such as Herald of Truth and the World-Wide Radio TV program of the church in Monroe, Louisiana. I will also deal with Campaigns For Christ in connection with this to prove that such arrangements are gross departures from the original New Testament patterns for the organization and work of the church.

I want to approach this subject from an entirely different standpoint. I will use quotations from an Adventist minister and a few other quotations from other sources to prove that what is true among Adventists is true also among liberal churches of Christ. First, I wish to deal with the back-ground of Adventism, its problems, and then apply the same principles to the issues at hand: sponsoring churches and institutionalism. It will be interesting to note that the arguments of many Adventists against their organizational structure and their institutions, strike at the very heart of the principles involved in the current issues among churches of Christ.

Adventism, as a formal denomination, is a little over 125 years old. Its church organization and institutions date back to the late 1860s-70s. The very thing that early Adventists pioneers thought would make them a strong, progressive denomination are now seriously challenged and brought under heavy attack by many of their leading ministers, religious professors, even among their most high-ranking colleges. Their hierarchal system of church government, their great institutions, are under attack because many now see them as a serious threat to the well-being of the denomination and detrimental to the growth and strength of that denomination. As we observe these things, let them be a strong, forceful lesson to liberal churches who are practicing the very things that many Adventists are opposing among themselves.

I have a book entitled Judged By The Gospel by Robert Brinsmead. Many Adventists denounce and disclaim him as a true Adventist because he dares to challenge and criticize the very foundation of Adventism. Doesn’t this sound familiar among liberal churches who strongly denounce those who oppose the hierarchal system which they seek to maintain and expand?

Be that as it may, what Adventists think about Brinsmead, the significant fact is that many leading Adventists theologians and churches are beginning to join him in voicing the same concern and views which Brinsmead has and for which he is opposed by the hierarchy of Adventism! Of course, it is but little wonder that the main leaders of the General Conference and their institutions oppose these men vigorously. This comes as no surprise because the General Conference is the foundation of Adventism and their institutions are the main pillars of support of that structure.

As I said, I wish, therefore, to take a different approach to the issues involving sponsoring arrangements and institutionalism. I will take quotations from Judged By The Gospel and apply them to our current issues. I will use quotations of others when dealing with institutionalism, but this work will be my main source of information. As I quote from his writings, I will clearly show the exact parallel between what he is opposing among Adventist and what we have been opposing for over thirty years among the liberals. Therefore, as Mr. Brinsmead forcefully and precisely attacks the principles of hierarchism and institutionalism among the Adventists, this will serve as the strongest indictment of these systems among liberal churches because his arguments and principles against Adventism are precisely the same in principle against the practices among the liberals.

Quite naturally, you may understand that I do not believe that Mr. Brinsmead is a sound, scriptural minister. But the fact in my point is, that even a denominationalist, who espouses false doctrines, can see the error of the false system of the Adventist structure. If an Adventist can see these things as being unscriptural, why can’t our liberal brethren, who claim to know the Scriptures, see the very same evils among themselves?

I have several reasons for doing this. First, to show our liberal brethren that if this is wrong among the denominations, then our brethren are borrowing denominational methods and practices which are just as unscriptural.

Furthermore, I am actually more concerned over liberalminded “conservative” brethren caught up in this grace/fellowship/unity idea. This is becoming a plague that is dangerous to the positions we have held, and teachings we have done concerning these issues. Some of our conservative brethren are becoming more sympathetic (even defensive) toward the liberals. In fact, a number of brethren among us are sowing the very seeds of liberalism they have opposed for so many years. They are beginning to practice the same things they claim to oppose.

So I am really more concerned over our conservative brethren who, either are more sympathetic toward the liberals’ views in their grace/fellowship/unity movement, or are in reality practicing the very same thing.

While on this subject of grace/fellowship/unity, let me just make a few brief observations, or ask some simple questions.

1. Just how can they have fellowship or unity with liberals and still claim to be sound?

2. Fellowship is a two-way affair. Will the liberals fellowship them while they oppose them? Then how can the conservatives fellowship them if the liberals will not?

3. In order to prove this grace/fellowship/unity idea as sensible, and make it work, not in theory, but in practice, then they have to face certain conditions.

a. They will have to believe the liberals are wrong, and thus cannot seek to fellowship them.

b. But if they seek fellowship/unity, and since the liberals will not fellowship them if they oppose them, then those of the grace/ fellowship idea will have to relinquish their convictions and defend the liberal views. They can’t “have their cake and eat it too.”

c. Thus they have two choices. Either they have to abandon their grace/fellowship/unity concept to remain sound, or they will have to abandon the truth and join in with them in their unscriptural practices to achieve their aims in their fellowship goals. You simply cannot oppose unscriptural things and have fellowship with those who insist on practicing them. But if our brethren want to have fellowship with the liberals, they will have to “jump the fence” on their side because it is all too obvious that the liberals will not give up their practices and will not fellowship conservative brethren who differ with them, no matter how much conservative brethren want fellowship and unity.

d. Supposing a conservative brother asked for the opportunity to hold a meeting at Highland (Abilene) and preach against sponsoring elders/churches. Would they allow him to do this? The answer is quite obvious. But on the other hand, would any conservative brethren allow the preacher at Highland to come to them for a meeting? In fact, would a conservative church ask any liberal preacher to come for a meeting and preach his liberal views? If any church would, they would be guilty of what John wrote: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deed” (2 Jn. 10-11). “Partaker” means he is in fellowship and is just as guilty by fellowshipping the false teacher as the false teacher is guilty himself.

In reality, our brethren who seek fellowship, or “unity in diversity” not only have an unscriptural position, but an unrealistic, impossible objective, one that simply cannot work – if they truly want to be identified as sound or conservative.

Before I continue with the issue of hierarchism and institutionalism, I want to point out a very important and significant point. Both, hierarchism, or sponsoring elders/churches and institutionalism are of Catholic origin. Mr. Brinsmead points this out very emphastically in his book. Are we aware of the fact, as pointed out in Brinsmead’s charges against Adventism that the very same is true among churches of Christ? The fact that liberals teach “the plan of salvation” (baptism, etc.) has no bearing upon the fact that these two points of issue, i.e., sponsoring churches and institutionalism are of Catholic origin, therefore Roman Catholic in nature, structure and function. According to James 2: 10, it does no good to teach scriptural baptism, vocal music in worship, etc. if the church itself has borrowed the Catholic form of structure in organization and work. This being so, they may as well abandon their beliefs about salvation, the work of the church, for these are meaningless because of their Catholic structure.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 6, pp. 177, 183
March 15, 1984

By Bill Cavender

In conversation a few days ago with a young man who is a member of an institutional church of Christ (a congregation which supports human institutions from its collective, congregation treasury), we began discussing local congregational support of (sending funds to) so-called “Christian Colleges. ” This young man is of a newer generation in Christ and in the church, one who is not familiar with the controversies of the forties, fifties and sixties, and the strife, divisions and alienations which were caused by human institutions and their advocates insisting that these agencies be subsidized and maintained by monetary contributions from congregational treasuries. Some of the matters I tried to teach him were these:First of all, there is no such thing as a “Christian” College! The word “Christian” is a proper noun, a name, given by God to His redeemed children in Christ. The name identifies one who is a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, one obedient by faith to the will of our Heavenly Father (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:15-16). It is a God-given name, the whole family of God being thus identified with Jesus Christ (Isa. 62:2; Eph. 3:15). It is not scriptural to take this name, a noun, and use it as an adjective, a modifier, descriptive of something a Christian (or Christians) may do or own. To speak of a “Christian” home, “Christian” man, “Christian” nation, “Christian” college, etc., is incorrect – an unscriptural usage of the word which is the distinctive, proper name of a child of God.

Secondly, Christians may engage in any gainful work, job or profession which is in itself “good” and “.honest,” and in which one can do his work in quietness, dignity, and in all godliness and honesty (Eph. 4:28; Rom. 12:9-18; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; 1 Tim. 2:1-3). Teaching in schools and operating schools, to instruct all who will learn of God’s wisdom and man’s wisdom, are such works. Secular education devoid of the knowledge of God and His wisdom and ways and will, is no real education at all. A person can only be an educated fool who knows not God and/or who would deny the existence of the Almighty (Psa. 14:1-3; 15:1-3; 10:1-18). In any work we do, in any employment or occupation we may have, we are to teach by word and precept, and by a godly life, the word of the Lord. If a Christian owns and operates a farm, a hardware store, a hamburger haven, or drives a truck, he is still to teach the Bible as he has opportunity or can make an opportunity. A Christian is not separated from God and His word and work when he goes to work or when on a vacation. Wherever we are, whatever we are doing, we are to have God, His word, His work and His way uppermost in our hearts and mind, words and deeds. We do not turn God and His word and His influence in us off and on as we do a water faucet.

Schools and colleges owned and operated by brethren are not “Christian” colleges and schools, nor are they “church” schools. They are fundamentally and essentially human agencies and institutions, operating in secular, human affairs. They exist by and are regulated by civil laws and authorities. They are governed by boards of directors who are authorized under terms and conditions of civil statutes. Such schools and colleges have no legitimate and scriptural financial, legal or organizational ties with true churches of the Lord. True churches of Christ will not cultivate or permit any such relationships with any human, secular institution, whether it be a school, college, childrens’ home, hospital, aged home, youth camp, etc. Into this area of unscriptural relationships many churches have digressed from the New Testament pattern of the local congregation and its independent, autonomous and self-sufficient nature.

Jesus built only the church, not any school, children’s home, unwed mothers’ home, camp, etc. God is glorified in Jesus Christ and in the church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:18-22; 1:22-23; 3:20-21). The church, God’s saved and redeemed children, exists as evidence of the eternal purpose of God having been accomplished, completed for the redemption of lost souls (Eph. 3:8-12). Only the church of our Lord exists by Divine purpose, planning, and perfection. All other agencies and institutions are human in purpose and organization. We must keep the divine and the human separated. To think that the local congregation, conceived in the mind of God, purchased by the blood of Christ, and regulated by Divine will and authority, is to be subservient to, and the maintainer and subsidizer of the human agencies of men, no matter what their function, is absurd.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 7, pp. 193, 212
April 5, 1984