Truth Magazine

By Howard L. Whittlesey

Brethren, we are commanded to commit regularly the five acts of worship on the first day of every week. With that the child of God will not ague. Holy Writ plainly directs us as individuals to participate in an five acts. With that there is no argument. However, there seems to be plenty of argument concerning the quality of performance of the five acts, separately or collectively. Why?

The five acts of worship are: (1) Bible Study; (2) Giving; (3) Lord’s Supper; (4) Praying; (5) Singing. Christians who please the Lord are Christians who not only believe in doing their personal best in these acts of worship, but they contribute all they can to their own personal (and the congregation’s mutual) growth and development in the performance of these acts. The Lord would have it no other way (Eccl. 9:7-10; Matt. 22:37; Matt. 4:10).

Some would place unequal importance on the performance of these acts. Some say that the Lord’s Supper is the most important act of worship. This cannot be proven by Scripture. Some might be impressed with the amount given in the collection by the well-to-do; so much so that he may say that his giving is less significant due to the smaller amount. One may say that his responsibility in Bible study is all but absent since he is neither the teacher nor one of the more knowledgeable of the group. By the same token, a brother might seek to escape his responsibility in prayer with a self-evaluation that indicates low self-esteem. This thought cannot be complete without suggesting that many brethren discard their responsibility of singing by way of claiming that their voices are not pretty, or that they can-not read music. When one looks for an excuse to avoid a responsibility, or an issue, eventually anything sounds good. Be that as it may, the rive acts of worship are equally important, as is the performance by each Christian in any given act.

The balance of this discussion will rest on the act of singing in worship. Our responsibility in any aspect of life is determined by, and according to, our given ability (Luke 12:48). A real sin against which we need to guard is the discounting of our abilities. Just because we have not developed a talent by no means excuses our lackadaisical attitudes and behaviors. A great majority of our brethren in the Lord’s church avert their imperfections in singing by saying that it is not important how you sing. They go on by adding that God gave some the talent to sing, to some He added the ability to lead songs, but to some He did not give the ability to sing. Too many seem to slip whatever ability they have out the back door by underplaying the importance of singing.

Sad but true is the fact that all too seldom do brethren engage in singing outside the church building. It is as though the worship service was such a strain that a release from such hypertensive activity is needed. Singing hymns together in someone’s home does not provide that release for some. Again, the “cop-out” line is “I can’t sing,” or “I don’t have a good voice.” Thus, the “I-can’t-sing” singers and the “I-don’t-have”good-voice”singers are freely spread among the conscientious, improving singers who do care what they sing and also how well they sing. It is conceded that abilities of singers vary vastly. Is that not also true of leaders of prayer, teaches of classes, and servants at the Lord’s table? There ultimately seems to be an entirely too casual approach to performing the acts of worship.

How Important Is Singing?

Singing is done by the only instrument that God made. Paul told Christians in Corinth to glorify God in their bodies (1 Cor. 6:20). If one reads the verse, he will also find that we are to glorify God in our spirit as well. Therefore, our disposition is to be such as would glorify God. Singing with the spirit, as Paul was inspired to suggest (1 Cor. 14:15), requires one’s consistently conscientious effort. Singing with the understanding includes both the text and the melody. If we say that it is not important how we sing, then it stands to reason that we could say it is not important who writes the hymns, or how one writes them. If it is not important what notes or pitches are sung, do we feel the same way about the words of Scripture that are read? Keep in mind that this is not a rebuke to those who ere not perfect singers. Only God can issue such a rebuke. Only God has perfect pitch. A rebuke from God which we should fear is the one which cites the attitude that evokes a somewhat happenstance performance. All the parts of. our bodies are made by Him and are to be used to His glory. Our voices are no exception, especially when we know that we are commanded to sing. The command sounds a clear call from God for us to make melody, and make it right, to the best of our knowledge and ability.

The Text Of The Song

The words we sing are to be understood by all who sing them. They also we to be scriptural in their context and application. With them we teach and admonish one another. Together, these thoughts indicate an absolute importance of text.

The Mechanics Of The Song

Melody, harmony, and rhythm are the integral parts which together give the song its distinct flavor, personality, appeal, and spiritual result. To perform every song flawlessly in every service is not the charge which is herein set forth. The foremost quest of the Christian should be to give God all of His best, as well as to strive for improvement. Anything with which, or by which, we can glorify God is worth improving. How else can we ever say that we are doing our best?

The exact melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic scheme of a song we scientifically arranged according to an intended psychological and spiritual effect. The effect is changed by any alteration of the original scheme. Not every change is necessarily bad. When we misread a Scripture, we alter the thought and we change the effect. How bad the alteration of effect depends on the magnitude we plea on the error in the misreading. Let us strive to perfect our reading of Scripture in order to get God’s message (at its best) across to the hearer. Let us also strive to perfect our singing mechanics in order to get the message of the lyricist and composer across at its best. The message cannot be at its best if we are not.

Musical Frustration Defined

Frustration results from lack of achievement. That achievement may have been denied due to lack of effort or desire, or due to misapplication or misunderstanding of musical principles. Other things may have contributed also. On an individual level, the frustration may best be understood by the realization of the difference between where one is musically and where he wishes to be. Again, the one who says he cannot sing will likely face little frustration unless he determines to emerge from that level and realizes the effort required to rise above. Young or old, it is possible to increase one’s knowledge and skill in singing. So it boils down to one’s desire and determination.

At times we we more easily frustrated. We give up more easily if it is not something we dearly wanted in the first place. Good singing seems to fall in that exact category for many brethren. We do not dearly want to sing well or to improve our singing. So we just pass it off as a simple, tolerable frustration. It is possible to just “get by” with our singing (albeit not to God’s glory) and, granted, it is very much a matter of conscience. However, we do not treat the preacher with the same privilege. If we are frustrated by the preacher due to an unfulfilling sermon, we urge him to get with it and do better. If he tries too often to just get by on what he already knows, it will catch up with him. He may frustrate many of his hearers. On the other hand, how many times has a preacher been frustrated by an uninspiring song service? Probably more often. No one will ever know how many times a given preacher has had to build his own fire for the intensity of his presentation of the gospel. The natural fires inherent in good singing were quenched by unintense, frustrating Christians who say they cannot sing or that they do not have pretty voices.

The Remedy

Of course, the number one remedy is a motivating desire to improve singing, individually and collectively. There are men who are capable and more than willing to assist in this improvement. We place much importance on gospel meetings. Rightfully so. They are to strengthen the members, edify the collective body, and convert sinners to Christ. Why could not the Lord’s church spend a week on improving that most spiritually inflaming activity – singing? It does so many things to unite the brotherhood – more so if it right and beautiful. Then when the singing is better, how much more inspiring the entire service seems to be.

Singers can be taught to read the music in the songbook. Song leaders can be taught the skills, or reinforced. The result is a singing with the spirit and with the understanding also.

“Making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 3:19) is not a substitute for good singing, but it requires good singing (at least the effort for such). “Singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16) is not an escape valve for lack of effort to do one’s best. It rather requires one’s best effort. That best effort includes the determination and desire to improve.

Conclusion

All acts of worship have their justifiable effect – they are equal in importance. Singing is an act of worship and it deserves to be recognized for the effect it can have on all its participants. If brethren replace their excuses for poor singing with their determination to improve their singing, likely more song services will be good and commendable. Abilities of singers an be developed. The Christian must first find in his heart the desire to grow in this regard. The mechanics of singing can be taught, learned, and performed to the glory of God. Frustration is neither desirable nor necessary. The honest heart will seek all means to avoid it reasonably. Congregations of the Lord’s people could put brethren who can and will help. to work with intentions to grow musically. Allow these mm to teach the singers and song leaders what it really means to make melody with grace in your heart.

Let our frustrations be turned into motivations for bet-ter service and for spiritual growth. All acts of worship deserve our best effort. If we give less, we may frustrate God due to failure to bear fruit. Let us glorify God in our bodies and make our singing a true spiritually fulfilling act of worship.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, pp. 464-465
August 4, 1983

By George W. DeHoff

There are always many problems in the Lord’s church. The perfect pattern is the New Testament. Because we me human, we sometimes fail to follow God’s plan. In traveling over the country, here are some of the recent problems I have found among the Lord’s people.

1. A new church has been formed in my home to” calling itself “Christ’s church.” We are informed that it will recognize the “Christians” in “all other”, denominations, use instrumental music “when we want it.” (Nothing is said about how Christians got into these denominations or whether the Lord wants instrumental music.)

2. Speaking in tongues in the Bible was speaking in another language but now some brethren have adopted the “Holy Roller” concept.

3. Baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) is clearly taught in God’s Book. Every person who is saved is added to the church (Acts 2:47). One who makes the wrong confession and is baptized for the wrong purpose needs to be baptized again when he learns the truth (cf. Acts 19). Comes now some brethren with the notion that “sect” baptism will please the Lord and we become sectarian by insisting that people do what the Lord has said. Bible baptism is not Catholic or protestant baptism – it is older than these denominational groups.

4.Inspired Bible. Comes now the notion that our “translations” are not “inspired.” Any correct translation is God’s inspired Word – our King James, for example. Christ and the apostles used the “Septuagint” and called it God’s Word. It was a human translation but God’s Word. There is nothing one can learn from Hebrew and Greek that he cannot also learn from English and we do have God’s inspired Word in our language.

5. At a recent big lectureship a man threw his Bible in the floor, stamped his foot on it and said “It is no more than the Tulsa telephone book unless the Holy Spirit comes to energize it.” (And that is God’s verbally, inspired, immovable Word! Truly we need some sermons on “the power of God’s Word.”)

6. And now we have heard everything: a church in Shawnee, Oklahoma has just had “foot washing” services!

7. And out in the West I ran into a fellow who decided that God does not answer prayer!

8. And I see in a popular Bible study course where it is im-possible to obey all the commandments of God but “God’s umbrella of Grace” will excuse all (How do we tell which commandments to obey and from which we will be excused?)

Brethren, we know nothing about how sinners are saved or what the gram of God will do for us except what is taught. in the written Word. It is high time we quit borrowing from the denominations and get back to preaching what is plainly taught in God’s Word – on baptism, tongue speaking, the times of the church, the Holy Spirit, foot washing, the grace of God and everything else taught in the Bible. (Do not say “It cannot happen to us.” It is already happening all over the brotherhood.)

[Reprint from: “The McLoud Messenger”, McLoud church of Christ, P.O. Box 197, McLoud, Oklahoma 74851]

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, p. 463
August 4, 1983

By Larry Ray Hafley

I. Introduction:

A. The argument for “Limited Atonement” is the doctrine of “Unconditional Election.”

1. If God has unconditionally elected certain ones to salvation, then Christ must have died for them.

2. If Cod has unconditionally excluded some unto damnation, then Christ could not have died for them, hence, limited atonement.

3. “The question which we are to discuss under the subject of ‘Limited Atonement’ is, Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, for every individual without distinction or exception; or did His death have special reference to the elect? In other words, was the sacrifice of Christ merely intended to make the salvation of all men possible, or was it intended to render certain the salvation of those who had been given to Him by the Father? Arminians hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 150).

4. “It will be seen at once that this doctrine necessarily follows from the doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that His work has equal reference to both portions, or that He sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He was sent to die for those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ’s work was to redeem the elect” (Ibid., p. 151).

B. Definition of Limited Atonement:

1. Limited – restricted.

2. Atonement – reconciliation, redemption.

3. “We believe that God has an elect people whom he has chosen unto eternal salvation. We believe that the atonement of Christ was for that chosen number and no one else” (Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Primitive Baptist, in The Christian Baptist, March, 1972).

II. Discussion:

A. Arguments used by Calvinists to prove limited atonement:

1. “Us,” and “our” used to refer to the “elect” and exclude “them,” the non-elect (Isa. 53:4-6; Titus 2:14; 1 Cor. 5:7).

a. “All” equals the “us.” Have not the non-elect “gone astray” (Isa. 53:6)?

b. Grace which brings salvation “hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11).

c. Christ was sacrifice (“lamb”) for the world (1 Cor. 5:7; Jn. 1:29).

d. 1 John 2:2 – “not for ours only, but also, for the sins of the world.”

2. Christ died for “many,” not for “all” (Isa. 53:12; Matt. 20:28; 26:28).

a. Would not “all” represent “many”?

b. “Many” is used, but not always, to signify only a portion and not all (1 Cor. 12:14).

c. “Many” is used to mean “all” (Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 10:17).

d. The “ransom for many” equals the “ransom for ell” (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6).

3. Christ died for His sheep, not for others (John 10:11, 15).

a. Yes, Christ died for the sheep, but this argument assumes He did not die for the goats (non-elect).

b. Goats, non-elect, are not a part of John 10.

c. All men, saved and unsaved, are regard-ed as sheep (Isa. 53:6), but whether they me Christ’s sheep or not is mother ques-tion. If they are not His sheep, they we still sheep, not goats; albeit, lost sheep.

d. Christ appeals to these other sheep.

(1) Evidence of John the Baptist, His works, the Father, the Scriptures, particularly Moses’ writings (Jn. 5:32-46; cf. 10:37, 38).

(2) To hear and follow Christ is to be His sheep (Jn. 10:16, 27).

B. Scriptures which refute Calvin’s limited atonement.

1. John 6:51 – He gave His flesh for the life of the world (Jn. 3:16).

2. John 12:32, 33 -How could His death draw all men if it were not for “all men” (John 6:44, 45 tells how the Father draws.)

3. Romms 5:18, 19.

a. How this was accomplished, whether hereditary or unconditional, is not stated, but the fact of it is.

b. Justification brought by Christ just as extensive as condemnation wrought by Adam.

4. 2 Corinthians 5:14 – “if one died for all, then were all dead.”

a. Note that “love of Christ” constrained Paul; thus, if His death was not for all, then it reflects on His love.

b. How many were “dead”? He died for just as many as were dead. Even Calvinist admits that all men are dead in sins.

5. Hebrews 2:9.

a. Note “by the grace of God,” Christ “tasted death for every man”, therefore, if those for whom He died is restricted, so is God’s grace.

b. The grace of God that bringeth salvation “hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11), and it is this grace which sent Christ to die for all.

6. 1 John 2:2; 4:14; 5:19.

a. “Not for ours only” is like Jmnes 2:24, “not by faith only.”

b. That phrase is the nail in the coffin of Calvinism.

III. Conclusion.

A. Consequences of Limited Atonement as taught by Calvinism.

l. It restricts God’s love and grace (2 Cor. 5:14; Heb. 2:9).

2. it negates God’s will to save all men (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9).

3. It assumes and presumes the doctrine of unconditional election to be true. See quote from Boetmer – they “stand or fall together.”

4. It makes a mockery of the great commission (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15, 16). Why preach to “every creature” if all are not subject? See Acts 10:34, 35.

B. The death of Christ was for you.

1. “If my man . . .” (Jn. 6:51).

2. “If we believe on him,” God will justify us through His death (Rom. 3:21-26; 4:24, 25).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, pp. 461-462
August 4, 1983

By R.L. Whiteside (1869-1931)

Things new to me keep coming up. When I was twenty years of age, I heard a Cumberland Presbyterian preacher in debate refer to the fifteenth chapter of Acts to prove the scripturalness of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Some years ago I attended the Mason-White debate in Dallas, Texas, and heard Brother Mason use this same scripture to prove their right to hold conventions. Just recently I heard this same scripture put to a new use – namely, to prove the right of a church to settle a question of doctrine by popular vote. This seems to be a convenient chapter. Will the reader please stop here and carefully read that chapter?

The last preacher referred to was accused of preaching unsound doctrine in that he had preached that the blood of martyrs is the seed of the kingdom, and had challenged my one to show where the Bible says that the word of God is the seed of the kingdom. In a meeting called to consider the matter, the preacher took the position that the whole church should by popular vote settle the matter of his soundness. A visiting preacher argued against such procedure and raised this question: “if a preacher should preach that sprinkling is baptism would you leave it to a popular vote to determine his soundness? Where would such a course and?” In reply, the accused preacher brought up the proceedings of the meeting outlined in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, and argued that the whole church at Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision that was then agitating the churches, which were composed of both Jews and Gentiles. It was later pointed out to him that the decision was inspired, for the document sent out says: “for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,” etc. (verse 28). To this the preacher replied: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit just a it seems good to the Holy Spirit now when we come to conclusions in harmony with Scriptures.” To hear a Christian preacher ague that a church may by popular vote settle matters of doctrine is astonishing enough, but to hear him try to prove his point by the proceedings of that mating is amazing beyond measure. If there is another gospel preacher who would take such a position, 1 would like to hear from him.

What are the facts concerning this meeting? What gave rise to it? How was the matter under consideration settled? In all the churches composed of Jews and Gentiles the question of circumcision was for a while a disturbing question. A certain class of Jews from Jerusalem was very determined to bind the law of Moses on all Gentile con-verts. “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). This was at Antioch in Syria. “The fact that these men came from Judea, where the gospel was first preached, and where the original apostles had been the teachers, gave their utterances much authority from the apostles for their teaching, though it is possible they did . . . . The Phraseology employed shows what is brought out express ly farther on (verse 5), that they insisted on circumcision ‘after the custom of Moses,’ because they held that all the baptized, whether Jews or Gentiles, must keep the law of Moses in order to final salvation …. Paul, who had long ago received by direct revelation from Christ a correct knowledge of the gospel which he preached (Gal. 1:11, 12), knew perfectly that this teaching was erroneous, and Barnabas had learned the same from him, if not from some other source: so the two united with all their might in opposing the Judea teachers …. Paul and Barnabas did not succeed in silencing their opponents, but they so conducted the discussion as to bring about a fortunate decision of a provisional character” (McGarvey).

“And when Paul and Barnabas has no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Bunnies, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (verse 2). These Judaizers did not recognize the authority of Paul as an apostle; if so, his word would have settled the matter. And had it been proper for a church, by popular vote, to what matters of doctrine disturbing it, why did not the church at Antioch take a vote to see which set of teachers was teaching sound doctrine? Why send them to Jerusalem at all? The question was not disturbing the Jerusalem church, but only those churches composed of Jews and Gentiles, or of Gentiles only. If the church at Jerusalem had the right to determine by popular vote what other churches should believe and practice, would not another church have the right to reverse by popular vote the decision of the Jerusalem church, and thus bind circumcision on all? Is not such an idea absurd in the extreme? Is it not absurd that a Christian preacher should argue that the Jerusalem church, by agreement and without the aid of direct inspiration, should settle a great question for all churches for all time. But the other apostles approved Paul’s course, and indicated their approval by giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

When Paul and his company reached Jerusalem, “they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them” (verse 4). It seems that they did not mention the question of circumcision, leaving that for the Judaizers to bring up. “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses” (verse 5). After the Pharisees had stated their position, the assembly, so it seems, adjourned. Perhaps so much time had been consumed that they had no time at this meeting to go further into the matter. Another meeting was held. “And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter” (Verse 6). At both meetings the church was present. (See verses 4, 22.) “There was, however, between these two public meetings a private mating of Paul and Barnabas with the three apostles who were then in the city” (see Gal. 2:1-10). Paul sought this interview with the old apostles that he might know, before proceeding further, how they stood on the question; for he knew that if he found them on the side of the Pharisees, their influence would outweigh his, and his life work would be destroyed by his converts among the Gentiles being brought under the bondage of the law, and his work would be in vain. But the other apostles approved Paul’s course, and indicated their approval by giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Concerning this, McGarvey remarks: “With this information as to the perfect understanding and agreement between the inspired apostles before us, we can plainly see that the second public meeting of the whole church was called, not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement between the apostles, but for the purpose of enabling the apostles to bring the whole church into agreement with themselves. In this light we must study the proceedings, or we shall totally misconstrue them.”

In this second meeting the Judaizers were allowed to fully argue their case before any reply was made. “Then, when they had completely emptied themselves, the apostles, one by one, and in a succession apparently prearranged, gave utterance to the facts and judgments which compelled assent.” The speeches of these inspired men overcame all opposition, so that the whole church concurred in selecting men to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. A document was prepared, which these men carried with them and which is referred to in Acts 16:4 as the “decrees which had been ordained by the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem.” It is absurd in the extreme to think Luke would have referred to this document as “decrees” had it embodied only the conclusions of a body of uninspired men; neither, in that case, could he have said that these “decrees” had been ordained by the apostles and elders. Besides, if these “decrees were only the uninspired conclusions of the church at Jerusalem, what right did they have to impose them on other churches, and why should other churches be under obligations to regard them? McGarvey says of this document; ‘It makes a for-mal claim of inspiration by the words, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us.” No uninspired men could dare to use such language; and this circumstance differentiates it from all the decrees and deliverances from that day to this . . . Furthermore, it decided, on the authority of inspired men who directed its decision, a question of doctrine affecting the salvation of souls; and this no set of men except the apostles have ever had the right to do. In no sense, then, can its action be pleaded as a precedent for the existence of any ecclesiastical court whatever outside of the individual congregation, or for the purpose of settling by authority any question of doctrine.”

“It seemed good that the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” What right did the Jerusalem church as a body of uninspired men have to lay any burdens upon any other church? They did not do it. The document sent out was inspired by the Holy Spirit; in such, it was binding on all churches in all countries and for all time. (From Whiteside’s Doctrinal Discourses [Denton, TX: Inys Whiteside, 1955, reprint 19771, pp. 29-34.)

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, pp. 460-461
August 4, 1983