Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

Mark’s account of the life of Jesus tells of a meeting between Jesus and a young man who was puzzled over one of life’s most difficult questions. He confronted Jesus with these words: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mk. 10:17). It is not Christ’s answer which interests us here, but his response to what He had been called. he said “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Some have been surprised at this reply, thinking that Jesus somehow robs Himself of His dignity. But, if you will read more carefully than they, you will find there is more here then meets the eye. By so answering, He made it clear for all time that Jesus of Nazareth must not be confused with a mere man, not even a good man. This young fellow felt that he was addressing Jesus with a complimentary title, and for most people it would have been such; but for Jesus it was unacceptable. In the first place, the Lord understood that all men fall short of God’s glory on account of sin. All men, that is, except Himself. Too, if we assume that He was much more than an ordinary man, we can understand that he would not appreciate being classified as this and nothing beyond. It was His plan to challenge the rich young ruler, and you, to look more closely at Him and decide whether He was more than a “Good Teacher.”

In the world today, there are many people who look at Him as a great man, a first-rate teacher, a prophet, a “super-star,” etc. But will this do? Let me challenge your thinking in the following paragraphs and you decide for yourself. I will do so by presenting to you five things that I have found to be powerful proofs that He is God’s Son.

Nobody Ever Talked Like That!

When the Jewish ruling counsel, the Sanhedrin, sent officers to arrest Jesus, they returned empty-handed. In dismay, the leadership inquired of them, “Why did you not bring him?” The officers answered, “No man ever spoke like this man!” (Jn. 7:32ff.). What they said was true. No one had ever talked quite the way He did. In this respect, Jesus fits in a category all by Himself! The people were astounded at the way He spoke simply because He spoke as though He possessed authority, resident within himself (Mt. 7:29). All of their scribes and teachers (rabbis) had to cite Sacred Scripture to command the attention and demand the respect of their hearers. Jesus talked as though his words were Scripture. He spoke as God would speak if He were to walk among men.

Furthermore, He made all sorts of claims about Himself, which if true make Him the central figure of the human race, but if false brand Him a liar or a lunatic. For example, He claimed to be the Messiah or Christ which the Old Testament prophets had foretold (Jn. 4:24-26; Mk. 14:61-62); He claimed to be the Son of God – not a son of God, but God’s very own Son (Jn. 10:30-36; Mt. 16:13-17); He asserted His personal equality with God (Jn. 5:17-18); He therefore claimed to be eternal, as only God could be (Jn. 8:56-59) and spoke of Himself as the judge of all mankind (Jn. 8:56-59) and spoke of Himself as the judge of all mankind (Jn. 5:21-27). He also boldly laid claim to the most elusive of all traits for man – perfection! He even charged those who were His examiners to find some sin in Him (Jn. 8:46). That charge applies as much for you today as for them then. All of His most intimate associates and even one of His worst enemies (who became His follower) had to admit that they had not been able to find any fault with Him or taint of sin in Him (1 Pet. 2:19-24; 1 Jn. 3:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15). This alone should be enough to make you take a careful look at Him.

But, whatever you do, don’t be satisfied with “he’s a good man.” Why not? Because, if a man made such claims as did Jesus and they were not true, then you should not consider a fellow like that “good.” He was either a liar or a lunatic, but in neither case was He “good.” If, on the other hand, He was what He claimed to be, then you cannot be satisfied with putting Him there and leaving Him. He must sit upon a throne in your heart and reign as King in your life!

Before we leave this matter of His extraordinary claims, let me make one final point. Jesus sealed His claims with His blood. Now, before you pass that off too lightly, consider another man who made great claims: Savanarola, a reformer of the Catholic church, claimed direct communication with God, and was subsequently tortured to elicit the truth from Him. Under such pressure, he retracted all he had said of himself. In contrast, Jesus was beaten brutally by the authorities, condemned in a public tribunal, and tortured to death, yet He maintained to the end His integrity and His claims!

What Others Said About Him

How did those closest to Jesus react to the fantastic things He said about Himself? Actually, they acted much like we would behave if someone close to us began to say such things. His brothers, for example, at first did not believe Him. They reacted with the same attitude that we would have under similar circumstances (Jn. 7:5). They wanted to see proof! But something truly miraculous happened after the stories of His resurrection from the dead began to circulate: they suddenly became His disciples! How are we to explain the fact that thereafter they followed Him, confessed Him as their Lord, urged others to believe in Him, and finally died as martyrs for His cause. The Bible simply explains that “He appeared to James” (1 Cor. 15:7). Who would have been better qualified to know whether it was really Jesus risen from the tomb, or some imposter, than His own brother (Mt. 13:55; Gal. 1:19)? This powerful evidence apparently swayed all of His brethren (Acts 1:3, 14). Both of His brothers who contributed to the literature of the New Testament later saw themselves as His bond servants (Jas. 1:1; Jude l: l).

His mother never questioned the veracity of His assertions. In fact, she was confident that His power was without limit (Jn. 2:1-11). Unlike His brothers, she never needed to be convinced. She believed Him from the start. Her stonelike silence at His crucifixion will forever remain one of the powerful evidences that her Son was telling the truth. Had He been a pretender, she could have stepped in at any moment and halted the ugly proceedings with: “Son, give this pretension up!” She could have ruined Him. How so? She was the only one who could know beyond the shadow of a doubt that He was born of a virgin, conceived directly by God. Knowing what she did, she could never, ever doubt Him. To her more than to anyone else he was the Son of God! She stood silent as they crucified Him (Jn. 19:25), watched Him as He died, and was numbered among His faithful disciples when He rose again to life (Acts 1:14).

Those who were the closest to Him as He went about His task of teaching and performing signs were also totally convinced of His divinity. This was not a conviction reached out of logic or persuasion, either. It was forced upon them by what they saw, heard, and themselves experienced (1 Jn. 1:1-4). “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” said Peter (Mt. 16:16). John was so thoroughly convinced of this that he wanted to tell the world. He did just that in his record of the gospel, concluding with this impressive thought: “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:30-31). Many of His disciples, most in fact, sealed their faith with their blood. That in itself is impressive, for they lived and died bounded by an ethic of absolute and unequivocal honesty. To die for a lie? For them it was unthinkable!

Objective Facts Of History

Certain objective historical factors, when closely studied, show Jesus was none other than the Christ, the Son of God. First, there is the fact that He was a person in history, not a mythical or legendary character. Pagan writers from the early centuries mention both the man and His movement. Tacitus, Roman orator, public official, and unsympathetic historian, in his Annals 15:44 (dated 56-120 AD) wrote about a certain “Christ,” brought to capital punishment by. the procurator Pontius Pilate. The Jewish historian Josephus (38-100 AD) in his Antiquities 18.3.3; 20.9.1, calls him “Jesus, surnamed Christ.” Suetonius, the Roman biographer and historian (69-122 AD) in his Lives of the Caesars, “Claudius,” 25 refers to him as “Christ” (Chrestus). Pliny, another Roman, in his Letter to Trajan, 96, records that this “Christ” was worshiped by the Christians of Pontus and Bithynia as their God. This early evidence attests that He was a real person, a man of history, not a figment of imagination or a figure from legend or myth.

One of the greatest pieces of historical evidence, though, is seen in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (who came to be called Paul) in about 34-35 AD. Here is a man who at first led in the opposition to Christianity. He killed its adherents and persecuted their cause even beyond the borders of the Jewish homeland. His conversion to Christ is an unexplainable event, unless we accept his own story of how it happened. He relates it on two occasions in the book of Acts (chaps. 22 and 26). Luke the historian recounts it directly in Acts 9. The amazing story he tells is that the resurrected Jesus met him on the road to Damascus, confronted him with the truth of His resurrection, and chided him for his obstinance. Now if this story had been told by some fanatical follower of Jesus, it might be conceivable that it was fabricated to lend some credence to the story of the empty tomb. Instead, it happened to the leader in the opposition, the mortal enemy of Christianity! What he endured on account of this change in his thinking makes us even more sure that he actually did meet the risen Lord on the road to Damascus (2 Cor. 11:22-28). He became a leading figure among Christians, wrote numerous works in defense of his faith, and finally died at the hands of a Roman executioner. He refused to give up this faith in Jesus even when he knew it would cost him his life! He was happy to surrender his life for the one who had died for him (Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:20-21; 2 Tim. 4:6-8), and so became one of the early martyrs of a movement which viewed death a happy alternative to denying that Jesus was the Son of God.

Prophets Spoke Of Him Long Before

No other religion ever attempted to establish itself on the grounds of miracle or fulfilled prophecy. Yet the religious movement started by Jesus validated itself on both points. You can no doubt see how this could be a most dangerous, even precarious, basis upon which to stand. If. the prophets really did not so speak or if Jesus did not really fulfill them, then His followers would have been vulnerable on this count ever afterward. But the friends of Christ were bold to declare that Jesus had fulfilled the utterances of men who spoke hundreds of years before. In direct prophecies, types and figures, etc., the disciples saw Him not as a mere fulfillment of a few forecasts, but as the personal culmination of all that the Law and Prophets intended to say. God had completed that segment of His dealings with men by speaking through his own Son (Heb. 1:1-3; 8). This bold habit of citing the prophets they borrowed from Jesus Himself (Jn. 5:46; Lk. 24:44).

The amazing fact is that men hundreds of years previous described almost every facet of his life, at times doing so plainly, and on occasion through veiled references. He is to be seen almost at every turn on the pages of the Old Testament, even in the incidents and words which relate to those figures from Israel’s sacred past. Things which seem only to be incidental and of little importance thus come to testify that He is far more than any mere man. Here we will give you a bare outline of the hundreds that we could offer if space would permit: (1) His birthplace to be Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); (2) He was to be Divine (Isa. 7:14; 9:6); (3) A forerunner was to herald His arrival (Mal. 3:1; 4:5); (4) His ministry was to begin in Galilee (Isa. 9:1-2); (5) He was to be a prophet like Moses (Dent. 18:15-19; 34:10-12; Acts 3:22-23); (6) He was to be king like David, but a heavenly king who was also a priest like Melchizedek (2 Sam. 7:16; Psa. 110:1-4); (7) His kingdom was to see its origin in the days of the Roman Empire (Dan. 2:44); (8) He was to bring a new covenant (Jer. 31:31ff.; Heb. 8:8ff.); (9) He was to be betrayed and tried (Zech. 11:12, 13; Isa. 53:7); (10) He was to suffer and die (Isa. 53; Ps. 22:15-18); (11) He was to be raised from the dead (Isa. 53:10-11; Ps. 16:10; 2:6-7); (12) He was to ascend to heaven (Ps. 68:18) and there be glorified (Dan. 7:13-14).

Why prophecy? Because it is an infallible proof of one’s ability to tap the resources of the divine mind. Only God can really know the future, all of the pretensions of modern prognosticators notwithstanding. As Jesus said of His own advance warnings to the disciples: “I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He” (Jn. 13:19; 14:29). The fact that men centuries before told the very details of His life is a tremendous proof that He is indeed the Son of God.

His Miracles

As we earlier said, no religion in the history of the world ever attempted to establish itself on the basis of either prophecy or miracle. Mohammed offered none. Buddha offered none. Krishna offered none. Jesus is absolutely alone in establishing His claim to authority on miracle. What He did was clearly intended to show who and what He was (Mt. 4:3). They were not ends in themselves, but the “signs” of who He was (Jn. 2:11; 3:2). The incredible risk involved in this must not be underestimated. If people could not have remembered the incredible works of Jesus, or if they could not have produced many eye-witnesses to the miracles, Christianity would have never have gotten off the ground. In fact, witnesses were abundant (Acts 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:4-8). That Christianity persisted beyond the first two generations of its history is proof that the miracles actually happened!

Through His miracles He demonstrated that He was divine; no one except God could possess power so absolute. In turning water to wine (Jn. 2:1-11), He showed His authority over the normal processes of nature: The same may be said of many of His miracles: (1) Multiplying the loaves and fishes (Mt. 14:15-21; 15:32-39); (2) Walking on water (Mt. 14:22-33); (3) The draughts of fishes (Lk. 5:1-11; Jn. 21:6); (4) Tribute taken from-the mouth of a fish (Mt. 17:24-27); (5) Healing birth defects (Jn. 9:lff.) and all forms of disease (Mt. 4:24); (6) Demon possession, a temporary manifestation of the power of evil, He also thwarted.

The greatest of all his feats of power, though, was certainly His control over death. He was its master when others were taken by it (Lk. 7:11-16; Mt. 9:18; Jn. 11:1-46), but just as much so when it cast its dark shadow over Him. His own resurrection from death was His most important miracle of all (Jn. 20:24-29; Mk. 16:1-14; 1 Cor., 15:3-8). It convinced His disciples of His divinity to the point they were happy to lay down their lives for Him, although they were at first as skeptical as you and I would have been about such a thing (Mt. 16; Jn. 20:24-29). The empty tomb which He left behind remains the most powerful proof that He was and is the Son of God. As Paul wrote: “(He was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:4).

Conclusion

These five proofs lead me to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth is the very Son of God. The more I read and study about Him, the more I am convinced of His divinity. On that account, I have placed the present and future in His hands. He is worthy of it. Let me encourage you to take a long and searching look at Him and then at yourself. I think you will find in Him all that you should be, the epitome of humanity, man made in the very image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), in every respect without fault or taint of sin. He is, thus, God’s final message of love to man, written on a tablet of human flesh, illustrated in a human life, sacrificed for human sin (Jn. 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8), and glorified as Lord and Savior of all men. “Wherefore God highly exalted him, and gave him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow. . . and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-11).

Why not make Him your Lord also, by belief, repentance, confession, baptism, and heeding His every command (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 22:16; Rom. 10:10; Rev. 2:10)?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 417, 440-441
July 21, 1983

By Daniel H. King

I was saddened by a phone call this morning, informing me of the death last night (June 5, 1983) of brother Herbert E. Winkler, aged gospel preacher. He left his mortal frame just over a month away from his ninety-fourth birthday. This obituary is being written prior to the funeral, but it is to be held in Nashville on Wednesday, June 8, 1983, with brother Ronnie Webb (preacher for the Hillview church of Christ in Nashville) presiding at the services. His body is to be laid to rest in the Spring Hill Cemetery in Nashville.

My wife Donna and I first became acquainted with brother Winkler in the fall of 1968 when we moved to Nashville, Tennessee and placed our membership with the Franklin Road church of Christ in that city. I was a junior in college at Lipscomb at the time, and soon became acquainted with brother and sister Winkler at worship. They were what we considered a very old couple even back then. But they were so friendly and outgoing that Donna and I came to love them dearly. They were always smiling and cheerful, unlike so many that we have known who have grown bitter with life and with their fellow men in their old age. Because they knew that I aspired to preach the gospel of Christ, they quickly befriended us. When we moved to work with the Hillview church in July of 1975, we were delighted to find that in our absence from Nashville they had placed membership at Hillview in order to avoid a long drive to worship. He and sister Winkler were always present at services and made it a regular practice to visit the sick in the hospitals up until the time of her death in 1979.1 shall always remember the prayers that he led in the public assemblies. I have often thought as he prayed that these were the prayers of a man who had lived in close communion with God for nearly a century and who had obviously talked with Him often.

We moved from Nashville in December of 1977, but we kept in contact. Many is the time since then that my wife and I have stopped in (most often unannounced) at his big white house atop the hill on Charlotte Pike in West Nashville and enjoyed his amenity and geniality. We shall miss him. But we thank God for his life of faith and for the scores of pleasant memories of happy times together and conversations about the Lord’s church in Nashville. To hear him speak, as he so often did, of the giants of yesteryear – about whom I had read so much in books was an educational experience I would not trade for anything.

About two years ago I stopped in one afternoon, notepad in hand, and talked with him about his life. As best his memory could serve to accomplish the task (and that of his daughter Carrie), he supplied me with the following account.

Brother Winkler was born on July 15, 1889 at Goodlettsville, Tennessee. His parents, Payton Herbert Winkler and the former Caroline Alice Lassiter, were originally from Pleasant Shade, Tennessee. He was baptized around 1908 by brother L.M. Jackson at the Spruce Street church of Christ. His parents were originally Methodists, but were themselves converted in Cheatham County.

He attended the Nashville Bible School around 1912 for one school year. During that year he studied under such noteworthies as David Lipscomb, S.P. Pittman, H. Leo Boles, and brother Sewell. He started preaching around 1909. His first sermon was preached at the North Spruce St. church at the insistence of L.M. Jackson. For a number of years he worked as a carpenter, spending a considerable amount of time on the buildings of David Lipscomb College. He began regular preaching through Eastern Kentucky after a time, spending his summers in meeting work and winters in carpentry. Most of his labor was concentrated around Glasgow, Bowling Green and Tompkinsville.

He did some writing for the Gospel Advocate during the period when H. Leo Boles served as editor for the paper. He produced two books: The Eldership (1950), and Congregational Cooperation of the Churches of Christ (1958; revised editions in 1961 and 1972). His work on the eldership proved very controversial, in that he took the position that Philemon 9 afforded an unmarried man the opportunity to serve as an elder in the church. Although he entertained this notion (which has been rightly rejected by almost all), yet he did so with grace and latitude toward those with whom he disagreed. On one occasion the two of us discussed it and I discovered that even his wife (Eula Boyles) disagreed with him. She blurted out with a laugh, “Why he believes an old bachelor can be an elder!”

His work on congregational cooperation actually involved a study of more than just that topic. He analyzed “church sponsorships, centralized power and control, orphan homes, and Herald of Truth.” He stated as his reason for producing such a work, “The fact that the religious journals, the Chrisian schools and most of the churches in middle Tennessee have closed the door to information and refuse to let our side of the issues be presented therein” (p. 2). He further decried the state of things with this explanation of his motivation: “hundreds of congregations have become the prey of various religious enterprises parading under the Banner inscribed `GOOD WORKS’ and thereby many unsuspecting and unedified members have been ingeniously deceived into following the trail of this `GOOD WORKS’ monster . . . . Brethren, if you are interested in the Glorious Church of the Lord and your own peace with God and want to know what all this alarm is over, then, please read this pamphlet” (p. 3). The amount of good accomplished by this booklet, written, financed, and largely circulated by Herbert E. Winkler is known only by the Lord and those brethren helped by it in the Middle Tennessee area.

Brother Winkler conducted several public debates during his preaching years. He debated three Baptist preachers and one Methodist that he could remember. One meeting at Glasgow resulted in two debates with Baptist preachers. He also debated Richard Pigg in Hillham in East Tennessee. The debate was held in a grove. During the course of the discussion someone in the audience squeezed a pig that had been brought in for the purpose; its piercing squeel brought the house down with laughter. J.W. Shepherd traveled from Detroit to moderate for brother Winkler in this debate. A gospel meeting held after the discussion saw many sectarians converted.

At the time of the Hardeman Tabernacle Meetings, brother Winkler was serving as an elder of the Charlotte Ave. church of Christ. It was he that suggested the name of N.B. Hardeman to do- the preaching for the series. Some had opted for T.B. Larimore, but brother Winkler had not been that impressed with Larimore, and besides, Larimore himself had confided to brother Winkler that none in the brotherhood could hold a candle to Hardeman as a public speaker. The ultimate decision, of course, is a matter of history.

Perhaps the saddest episode in his life was his resignation as elder at Charlotte Ave. The pain of those days yet lingered when we spoke of them. The problem was with a new generation of men who had come to have control of David Lipscomb College. As he put it in his own words to me: “They were dictating to the churches; and the churches were letting them have too much control.” His resignation at Charlotte Ave. led him to distribute to Christians throughout the area (from funds out of his own pocket) copies of his book on congregational cooperation.

H.E. Winkler was married three times. He married Roberta Pearl Goodman on December 23, 1909; she passed away January 5, 1952. Seven children were born to this union: Francis, Earnest, Wilmont, Carrie, Dora, Roberta, and Charles. Hazel Ruby Johnson became his wife on March 12, 1954, but died in January of 1962. His last wife was Eula Boyles, whom he married July 15, 1962. She died tragically on June 18, 1979. After the death of his last. companion, brother Winkler’s health failed steadily until his own death last night.

Our condolences are extended to the Winkler family. My family and I will carry memories of him and Eula always, and pray that we can be together once more in a land where death is fittingly and finally robbed of its awful power.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 13, pp. 407-408
July 7, 1983

By Vernon Love

The title of this article is taken from an article in the Jehovah’s Witness’ Watchtower.(1) It discussed the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. They reveal some very enlightening attitudes which the Jehovah’s Witnesses have toward the Bible and baptism.

If you read the biblical account and then compare it with what the Jehovah’s Witnesses say happened, you will wonder if they are reading from another Bible. In the article, they can tell the story accurately up until the eunuch is to be baptized. However, verse 37 is left out completely in their Bible. Then in the article, they conclude the account with the following statement: “The chariot was halted; they went into the water together and Philip baptized him on the basis of his accepting Jesus’ sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. – Acts 8:36-39.”(2)

If a Jehovah’s Witness tells you they baptize “for the remission of sins” don’t you believe it! They teach in this article and other sources that one must “dedicate his life” to Jehovah. This is done by going to Jehovah “in prayer through Jesus Christ and express your desire to be one of his servants, walking in the footsteps of his Son. It is appropriate that you tell Jehovah that you want to belong to him and that you want to do his will both now and for all time to come. In this way you dedicate yourself to God. This is a personal, private matter. No one else can do it for you.”‘(3)

After one has “dedicated his life to Jehovah,” then they are to “symbolize their dedication to Jehovah” by being baptized. You are to go to the “overseer” of the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and make this known.

It is very obvious to one who knows the truth that this is not scriptural baptism. It is also obvious that they do not believe one has to be baptized when they say the following:

What, then, does Christian baptism signify? It is not a washing away of one’s sins, because cleansing from sin comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. Rather, it is a public demonstration that one has made a solemn dedication to Jehovah God and is presenting himself to do His will. Thus, Baptism is not to be viewed as of little importance. It is a requirement for all who obediently walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.(4)

Isn’t this amazing that they can read the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch and come up with all this jargon? We wonder where it says that the eunuch went to Jehovah in “prayer” to “dedicate” his life? Then we wonder where the Bible says he went to the “overseer” and made it known that he wanted to be baptized. Then we want the Scripture that tells us when the “overseer” told Philip to go ahead and baptize the eunuch. I suspect we will be waiting for a long time if we want the Jehovah’s Witnesses to give us the answers from Scripture.

To further prove they do not believe that one has to be “baptized to be saved” we quote the following:

Associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world today are many who have not as yet been baptized in symbolism of their dedication to Jehovah. The worldwide peak number of those sharing in preaching the “good news” in 1981 was 2,361,896 (of whom about 25 percent are not baptized as yet). But at the Lord’s Evening Meal in 1981, the combined worldwide attendance was 5,987,893. This means that over one half of those attending some meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses are not as yet baptized. Is this cause for alarm? No, but it is a cause for loving concern. Some of these have been associated for more than a few months.(5)

Can you imagine such a thing in the Lord’s church? They admit that over one-half of those assembling for the Lord’s Evening meal have not yet been baptized! They also, admit that twenty-five percent of their members who are teaching have not been baptized. It is very obvious that they do not believe one must be baptized to be saved.

They also admit another problem that is very enlightening. They explain that God has been “harvesting” the anointed ones to be a part of the 144,000 who will live in heaven. They also tell that there may be a few of the “anointed ones” that will forfeit their heavenly calling by becoming unfaithful. So, they are urging all their “dedicated members” who have not “symbolized” their baptism to do so. Then when Jehovah picks a replacement, they can be picked. If what they say is true, what difference does it make whether you live in heaven or here on earth?

“What prevents me from getting baptized” can be answered very easily if we go to the Bible. Philip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37). It’s that simple; if you “preach Jesus” (Acts 8:35), you will have this kind of response. He stopped the chariot, they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. “What prevents me from getting baptized” will never be answered by the Jehovah’s Witness because they will not baptize as Jehovah commands.

Endnotes

1. Watchtower, February 15, 1982; pp. 27-31.

2. Ibid., p. 28.

3. The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life, p. 182.

4. Ibid., p. 183-184.

5. Watchtower, February 15, 1982; p. 28.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 13, p. 405
July 7, 1983

By Herschel Patton

Brethren who feel that it is the mission of the church to relieve the whole world and to provide social benefits in the form of banqueting and recreation have often charged those of us who object with believing the church building is sacred. They have said, “If an accident happened in front of the church building, you would let an injured person die because the church phone couldn’t be used for calling an ambulance, water for relief provided, or the building for shelter from the elements.” Since the church pays the phone and water bill, they say, “If the church provided these, then the church is doing something that we say is not its mission.”

This actually happened while I was preaching during 1973 with the Jordan Park congregation in Huntsville, Alabama, right in front of the Jordan Park church building – a three car accident. No one died, but a man was injured – severely cut. It was raining, and the church building (porch) was used for shelter. The phone in the church building was used for reporting the accident, and water from the church building was used for the bleeding man. Now, I preach, and the Jordan Park church believes that it is not the mission of the church to serve as a welfare agency for the world – that the church is not to support and provide that which is not its mission. So, did the Jordan Park church, in the above case, contribute to an unbeliever and use its facilities for an unauthorized thing?

Expediencies-Incidentals

This matter involves the using of an expediency. The church building is an expediency, authorized by the command to “assemble.” Who has the right to make laws regarding an expediency – e.g. “It must be rented” “of brick” – “of wood” -“painted white” – “have a steeple,” etc.? Here is a place where good judgment and charity must be employed, not a Scripture. To force on others an opinion, as if it were Scripture, to the disturbance of peace, would be sinful (Rom. 14:15).

Churches often use expediencies to expedite work, such as the church building, and then there are “incidental” uses of an expediency which do not involve the church in its mission.

The church parking lot is often used by people who live nearby, are visiting, have business at an adjoining place, but this is not in the purpose and plans of the church, and the church, having neither purposed nor planned this, is not engaged in providing parking for the general public. If the church purposed a parking lot for public parking, it would then become a function of the church – an unscriptural function.

I recently visited a neighboring congregation during a meeting, and during the prayer there was suddenly the strains of instrumental music flowing from the public address system (an expediency provided by the church for more effective teaching). The system was picking up signals from the local radio station. Was that church providing instrumental music with the service? Of course, the church was not providing that, though it owned and had installed the system bringing it in. There was no purpose and plans for this on the part of the church. It was just something incidental. Likewise, the Jordan Park church did not purpose its building, with the plumbing and phone, as a first aid station. These facilities were used for this, all right, on the occasion mentioned, and may, sometime, be so used again. But it was not a case of the church purposefully engaging in something that is not its mission.

I have preached in meetings where the brethren habitually had “dinner on the ground” on the beginning day of the meeting, and a few times, when it started raining, everyone went into the meeting house, turned some of the benches around, facing each other, spread the dinner and ate – in the dry. Was some scriptural precept violated? I think not. That church building and the benches were not purposed and planned by the church as a place of eating together, and the church was not providing for “eating together” as part of its program of work. Such action was nothing more than an incidental use of an expedient, not at all involving the mission and work of the church. This is all together different from a church purposing and providing proper facilities for banqueting, recreation, a kindergarten, or anything else not in the prescribed mission of the church.

Radicalism

Because liberal brethren who do purpose and provide things not in the divinely revealed mission of the church, in an effort to justify themselves, often point to some of these “incidentals” on our part, some brethren have backed into radicalism and absurdness with reference to the use of church buildings. Some are saying that church buildings cannot be used for a wedding, funeral, or even an announcement concerning some activity that is not a work of every New Testament church. I have already mentioned “incidental” uses of an expedient where churches are not the participant. Concerning weddings and funerals in the church building, I believe these can be justified either as the church using an expedient in its work or as incidentals not involving the work and mission of the church.

True, you do not read of weddings or funerals in church buildings in the New Testament. But teaching is one of the things to be done that involves “place.” What would afford a more effective time for impressive teaching on the sacredness, sanctity, and permanency of marriage than a wedding? The “wedding” could serve as an object lesson, like the little child Jesus one time used to enforce His teaching on humility. And, when would more impressive teaching concerning the certainty of death, eternity, and the need for preparedness, be done that at a funeral? The church building is not expected to be a funeral parlor or wedding chapel, but for actions involving an assembly for teaching and edifying. The wedding or funeral is simply an occasion for teaching. The church may not be obligated to furnish you a place to get married in, but your marriage can be an instrument for some very effective teaching which should be the chief objective of those charged with using judgment about incidentals.

On the other hand, weddings and funerals may be looked upon as incidental uses of the church building, granted to others. The activity is purely a family affair – planned and arranged by them – apart from the church’s program of work. The church would no more be involved in this than it would in secular education if the school building burned down and the elders granted permission for classes to be conducted in the church building for a temporary time, with the school paying for the utilities and incidentals used. Granting permission for such uses of the church building would involve discernment concerning who, what, and how.

The church is not engaged in the work of social and secular activities when announcements are made about these things in the church building or church bulletin. The church building public address system, and bulletin are for teaching and edifying, which would involve teaching and admonishing people about important actions in their personal lives. If it is important for parents to “nurture” their children “in the Lord,” it is proper for preachers, elders, or teachers to tell them so, warning of the dangers of infidelity and immorality in schools of learning and even identifying and recommending places where these dangers are at a minimum.

If the Bible teaches that Christians should seek out, and provide for their children wholesome social and recreational activities, it is proper for spiritual teachers to announce, identify, and encourage such, even in the church building while the saints are assembled. The church is neither contributing to nor furnishing secular education, or social endeavors, when parents are instructed and informed of where and how they may discharge their duties in this realm. In fact, there is Bible precedent for using the time and place of assembly for informing saints of personal duties. Paul wrote letters to the Colossians and Laodiceans and said for the letters to be read at each place and then exchange the letters and read (Col. 4:16), which letters contained numerous instructions to be followed by various individuals in their personal activities. For instance, the Colossian church was not contributing to or doing the work of Masters when these were instructed, at the reading of Paul’s letter, to “give unto your servants that which is just and equal” (Col. 4:1).

Instruction may be given saints at the church building, or in church bulletins, about Catholic aims and the dangers of one with these aims standing in the room of highest authority in the land, as was often done a few years back during an election campaign, but this is not comparable to the church building being used as a campaign headquarters. This would be putting the church, with its building, into the work of conducting an election campaign, which is not its mission.

A church is not making a contribution to, or helping do the work of a hospital or clinic when announcements are made in the church building about a need for blood donors and instruction about where and how to make the donation.

It is radicalism, indeed, for brethren to conclude that the church has engaged in something not its work when announcement and instruction is given in the church building, or bulletin, about an educational, medical, or social need wherein Christians have a responsibility, or to look upon some incidental action, not purposed or planned by the church, and say “the church has apostatized from its mission.” It is good to carefully weigh all matters and always follow the prescribed path, but let us not try to make laws regarding expedients and incidentals and read into certain actions what is not there. Such action leads to strife and indicates we are the “nuts” that many charge us with being.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 13, pp. 403-404
July 7, 1983