Truth Magazine

By Mark Nitz

Introduction:

1. Appreciate presence

a. Hopefully indicates that you have the same mind as Christ in His prayer for unity of the saints.

b. Hard to imagine a Christian who doesn’t have this concern.

2. No secret that there is much division in Lord’s Body

a. In Cincinnati alone there are 7 or 8 “Churches of Christ” all claiming to be the loyal one

3. Naive to think we could solve overnight

a. Reuel Lemmons: “You don’t zap shut a wound, it takes time to heal and it begins at the edges.”

b. Many brethren feel there are too many areas of difference therefore impossible to restore.

c. At least we’re communicating which is the first step.

4. We’ve already had one meeting in which we each discussed what we saw as problems of the Lord’s church in this area.

a. Surprisingly, the entire discussion was on “unity.”

b. Tonight, I want to discuss biblical principles concerning fellowship and unity.

c. Biblical unity is the only kind worth having.

5. The thoughts presented will be nothing new but hopefully will serve as a basis for fellowship.

a. Afterwards the floor will be open for further discussion or questions.

I. The more I study the Restoration Movement the more I realize how far we’ve strayed for their noble ideals and the “restoration spirit.”

A. It was from the beginning a “Unity Movement” sought by restoring the Word of God to its rightful position.

1. Story of Thomas Campbell and African Missionaries

a. “How sad that the conversion of the world must wait for the unity of the Lord’s disciples”

B. Both Campbell and Stone believed the basis of our unity was our relationship in Christ.

1. i.e. We are brothers, not because we see eye-to-eye on everything, but because we have the same Father.

2. Campbell realized there would be differences among Christians due to different levels of maturity and diverse backgrounds.

C. Campbell made a distinction between faith and opinion – a distinction that many have forgotten in our day.

1. Thomas made the distinction based on matters specifically stated in God’s Word and those things deduced or inferred from it.

a. “There is a manifest distinction between an express Scripture declaration, and the conclusion or inference which may be deduced from it.”

b. Alexander Campbell: “It is a concession due to the crisis in which we live . . . to distinguish between the testimony of God and man’s reasonings and philosophies upon it.”

2. Notice what Thomas Campbell stated as one of the primary propositions of his Declarations and Address:

“Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine . . ., yet are they not formally binding upon the conscience of Christians father than they perceive the connection and evidently see that they are so; but their faith must not stand in the, wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion (fellowship), but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church.”

“We dare not therefore patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference – of private opinion; and such we esteem all things not expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God.”

3. I do believe many of our “latter-day” divisions would fall into the category of “opinions” with the Campbells.

II. The Basis of our fellowship with one another is the same as the basis of our fellowship with Christ. (“Wherefore receive ye one another, even as Christ also received you . . .” – Rom. 15:7.)

A. What is the basis of our fellowship with God?

1. Is it not simply our conversion to Christ?

a. “For ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27).

b. It is “in Christ” where there is no condemnation (Rom. 8:1).

2. The fellowship is maintained by my “walking in the light” (1 Jn. 1:7).

3. Our fellowship with God is not based upon:

a. A perfect knowledge of the Bible (else how could I “grow” – 2 Pet. 3:18).

b. A life of sinless perfection (“If we say we have no sin . . .” – 1 Jn. 1:8; “in many things we all stumble” – Jas. 3:2).

c. The ability to comprehend, explain, and expound every doctrine.

4. Rather, it is based upon my being in Christ and walking according to the level of understanding I have attained (Phil. 3:15-16).

5. There is hope in trusting and obeying Jesus, not in being right on every brotherhood issue brethren have concocted.

a. Let me hasten to say that the true believer will try to be right on every point of doctrine, not because their salvation is dependent on it but because they want to please the Lord.

B. If God will accept me with my imperfect life, imperfect understanding and knowledge, surely I ought to accept my brethren with the same.

1. I should make no condition of fellowship that God has not made a condition of salvation.

2. Unity among Christians is not based on unanimity of opinions but on being in Christ (Gal. 3:28 – “Ye are all one man in Christ Jesus”).

a. I can no more think exactly like my spiritual brethren than I can look exactly like my physical brethren.

b. Ironic that on the one hand we encourage independent Bible study and free thinking, yet on the other hand say, “If you do not come to my conclusions I can not have fellowship with you.”

III. Since we are to accept brethren with whom we differ, and we all do, what should we do when differences do arise?

A. Don’t immediately question the motives or sincerity of the one with whom we differ.

1. Paul maintains that two brethren with equally good conscience and desire to please the Lord can come to different conclusions (Rom. 15; 1 Cor. 8).

B. Discussion of differences should take place, but not in the context of drawing lines of fellowship (1 Cor. 5).

1. Should not be a question of fellowship but one within the fellowship.

2. Division never considered as an alternative in N.T.

C. Must respect the conscience of our brother.

1. It is sin to force a brother to violate his honestly held conviction (1 Cor. 8:12).

a. I believe this is why most division has occurred.

2. There are many examples from Restoration History of this taking place (primarily collective action).

a. Christian Church – Instrumental Music.

b. Issue of multiple containers in the L.S.

c. Institutionalism.

D. We must respect the local autonomy of a congregation.

1. Though their forefathers may have “split” congregations over the issue, the present congregations may not be binding it on others. (Ex. – “One Cup” Brethren).

E. A separation can take place without a division occurring so that all can worship with a clear conscience.

1. Though we differ in some areas, fellowship can take place in others.

2. My fellowship in some areas does not mean blanket endorsement.

F. Refrain from Judging (Jas. 4:11-12).

1. Rom. 14:1 (NASV): “Now accept the one who is weak in the faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.”

2. I must conscientiously teach what I believe is right and teach against what I believe to be error, and yet leave the judging to God.

IV. A Practical Approach To Greater Unity Among Us.

A. Fellowship is defined as “joint participation.”

1. There is a sense in which every brother is in fellowship by sharing in the blessings., in Christ (1 Cor. 1:9).

2. However, generally `fellowship” is used in reference to a particular action.

B. Fellowship in the N.T. was always between in dividual not congregations (i.e. brotherhood not church-hood)

1. Though I may differ with a brother in a certain area, and therefore could not have fellowship in that action, I can have fellowship in those activities in which we both agree.

C. Greater unity will take place when we have a right appreciation for our relationship to Christ (if Jew and Gentile could be “one man” in Christ, surely we can).

D. Practical Approach:

1. A practical step to reducing tension is to con tinually emphasize that we are brethren.

a. We are not warring aliens.

b. 28 times in Corinthians Paul reminds them that they are brethren.

c. We cannot disregard our kinship.

d. Christ is not ashamed to call us “brethren” (Heb. 2:11). Why should we?

2. Pray to help keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.

a. Jesus felt strongly enough about it to pray for it (Jn. 17:20-21).

b. When we have the Lord’s passion for unity God will be able to use us in granting our requests.

3. Association makes it difficult to disregard one another.

a. Cannot “quarantine” our brethren.

b. We should not overlook our differences, but must not let them become barriers to fellowship.

(1) We practice this all the time within the local congregation.

4. In whatever meetings we have we must be careful not to ask a brother to violate his conviction, regardless how trivial we may feel it is.

a. It is an act of “brotherly kindness” to forego the exercise of one’s liberty out of concern for the welfare of a brother.

5. In discussion across party lines, try to honestly see things from the other’s point of view.

a. Attribute to them as much sincerity and love the Lord as we want them to give us.

b. I truly believe in the past many have not tried to understand each other’s position.

c. We are presently making efforts to come to a better understanding through the “Cogell-Turner” discussions.

Conclusion:

To summarize, our problem is not the creating of unity, but as brothers maintaining in the bond of peace the unity that we have as brothers.

a. We must make it the sincere desire of our hearts.

b. We must begin association as brothers, instead of isolation as aliens.

c. We must discuss instead of debate.

d. Until proven otherwise, we must not doubt the other’s sincerity and love for the Lord.

If all of this will not obliterate the walls between us, at least we can lower them enough to make it a little easier to shake hands across them.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, pp. 291-293
May 19, 1983

By Mike Willis

The January 1983 issue of Restoration Review, the periodical edited by Leroy Garrett, contained the following letter:

I’m a member of a Church of Christ, non-instrument (a right-wing as you would call it, of the Guardian variety). Having attended Florida College, names like Garrett and Ketcherside were taboo. I had a fairly negative picture of you both, having read only the papers within our party. How surprised I was to find you writing about things I held as deep dark secrets that I dare not express to anyone else. I now read the Bible as if it were for the first time, for no other desire than to find truth, not to prove a predetermined conclusion. – Mark Nitz, Cincinnati, OH.

I read this letter with much sadness and concern because brother Mark Nitz is preaching for the Lockland Church of Christ in Cincinnati, a church which has been known for its stand against liberalism in the Cincinnati area.

Private Efforts To Help Brother Nitz

The published letter did not catch me completely off guard inasmuch as I had participated in at least three private conversations with brother Nitz pertaining to the very issues associated with the grace-unity movement. Several months ago, a young preacher in the Cincinnati area sent me a copy of brother Nitz’s sermon outline entitled “Some Practical Approaches To Greater Unity Among Us” (reproduced elsewhere in this issue) which was delivered before the elders and preachers of the liberal churches in Cincinnati, Ohio. The outline was filled with the standard catch-phrases of those who advocate the grace-unity positions. Upon receiving a copy of this, I made an appointment and talked to brother Nitz privately regarding my concern for what he was teaching.

At that meeting on 25 November 1982, brother Nitz denied having any sympathy with the Ketcherside-Garrett unity movement. I pointed out to brother Nitz several statements in the outline which I believed to be contrary to God’s word, which reflected his sympathy with Ketcherside and Garrett, and which I challenged. I could detect no evidence that he did not believe what I had concluded from the outline.

A few weeks later, I received a copy of brother Nitz’s correspondence with Ben Vick, Jr., a liberal preacher in Indianapolis. Brother Vick followed W.L. Totty at the Shelbyville Road church in Indianapolis and holds the same convictions as brother Totty held. This correspondence was tangible evidence that brother Nitz was willing to place into the category of Romans 14 such issues as instrumental music in worship, church support of human institutions (missionary societies, orphan homes, old folks’ homes, hospitals, colleges, etc.), church sponsored recreation, and other things in which liberal brethren have become involved. Consequently, I again made contact with brother Nitz, this time approaching him in the presence of Weldon Warnock and another preacher. Though his letters were not directly discussed, the fellowshipping of false teachers on the basis of Romans 14 was discussed.

During the lectures at Florida College, I had a third opportunity to talk to brother Mark Nitz, this time in the presence of Ron Halbrook and one of my nephews. For a third time, we discussed the issues pertaining to the Ketcherside approach to unity. Upon concluding that discussion, I remained unconvinced that brother Nitz was making any changes in his position.

Then, I began to see the public declarations that caused me and others to conclude that brother Nitz stood identified with the grace-unity brethren. His letter to Leroy Garrett appeared in the January issue of Restoration Review. An article entitled “Paul and James On Faith and Works” was published in the 8 February 1983 issue of Firm Foundation, another liberal paper. Based on these public documents, I became convinced that something needed to be said regarding brother Nitz.

Doctrinal Convictions Held By Brother Nitz

Here are some things held as doctrinal beliefs by brother Nitz which I consider to be deviations from God’s word:

1. The conviction that things which are taught by example and necessary inference should not be made tests of fellowship (see Roman numeral I, sub-point C of his outline). Here are some things which we have learned by example and necessary inference to which this might apply: (a) partaking of the Lord’s supper on the first day of every week; (b) the items to be used on the Lord’s table; (c) that instrumental music in worship is sinful; (d) that church sponsored recreation is sinful; (e) that church support of human institutions (missionary societies, hospitals, orphan homes, colleges, etc.) is sinful; (f) that the sponsoring church form of organization is sinful. Brother Nitz believes that only those things which are taught by an express statement of Scripture should be treated on the basis of 2 John 9-11 and that those matters taught by inference and deduction should be treated on the basis of Romans 14. In his view, passages such as Matthew 15:8-9 (“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”) should not be preached in such a way as to imply that those who are involved in the above mentioned things are necessarily separated from God thereby. Whether he realizes it or not, he is taking the well-worn path of several young apostates of the past decade who took the liberal position that apostolic examples and necessary implications of Scripture have no binding authority. We have privately pled with him about the dangers to biblical faith in such a path, to no avail.

2. A Christian is not separated from God by his sins of ignorance or by the weakness of his flesh. Brother Nitz used Philippians 3:15-16 and I John 1:6-10 to argue that so long as a Christian was walking according to the level of knowledge to which he had attained and was sincerely trying to do right, he is not separated from God by his sins of ignorance and the weaknesses of his flesh. He makes application of this to all baptized believers, including those who are in the Christian Church and the liberal churches of Christ. Hence, he believes that so long as a Christian does not know that using mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, old folks’ homes, hospital, etc.), church sponsored recreation, and other such sins are sinful, he will not be separated from God thereby. He said, “If God will accept me with my imperfect life, imperfect understanding and knowledge, surely I ought to accept my brethren with the same” (sermon outline, Roman numeral 11, sub-point B).

The Lord applied His teaching in Matthew 15:14 to the situation of men being involved in offering worship based on the traditions and commandments of men. He said, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:13-14). The Lord did not say that the blind follower would not be lost because he was blind; rather, He said that both would fall into a ditch. It seems inconsistent to hold the alien sinner responsible for his ignorance (Acts 17:30-31) but not to hold the Christian responsible for his ignorance. Brother Nitz is reading his opinions into Philippians 3 and 1 John 1, which teach the necessity of adhering to apostolic doctrine and say nothing about special categories of sin (i. e., sins of ignorance, presumptuous sins).

3. In principle, he makes the “gospel-doctrine” distinction common to denominationalism and to Ketcherside and Garrett, though he will deny using all of the terminology usually associated with that distinction. Modern denominationalists hold that there is a core of teaching which everyone must believe in order to be saved; this is usually called “gospel.” Another body of teaching usually called “doctrine” is not essential to a right relation with God or to our final salvation in heaven; Christians may differ on these doctrinal matters through a lifetime and still be regarded as growing in Christ. The denominationals are able to fellowship each other because they all believe in Jesus (the gospel) in spite of their. denominational differences (doctrine). Ketcherside and Garrett applied this principle to the “heirs of the restoration movement.” The core body of teaching they label “gospel” and there could be no differences allowed in this area. It included several basic facts about Jesus and one act – baptism. (As Garrett and Ketcherside have progressed in their apostasy, they logically have begun to find room for disagreement regarding baptism. Now they recognize anyone who believes in Christ as a Christian regardless of whether or not he obeyed the gospel in baptism.) The areas in which we are disagreed were labeled “doctrine” – usage of instrumental music in worship, premillennialism, church support of recreation, church support of human institutions such as missionary societies, colleges, orphan homes, hospitals, old folks’ homes, etc. Unity could be had so long as everyone held to the “gospel” in spite of his “doctrinal” differences.

Brother Nitz does not use the precise “gospel-doctrine” terminology of Garrett and Ketcherside, but he accepts the basic ideas of the gospel-doctrine distinction. For instance, he believes that singing is authorized and that instrumental music in worship is not authorized. Yet he believes the Christian who in ignorance uses instruments in worship may be faithfully growing in Christ, may enjoy a right relationship with God and may possess the biblical hope of heaven, although brother Nitz’s conscience would not permit him to worship with him. (This sentence was worded with brother Nitz’s help and approval.) This is precisely what Ketcherside and Garrett mean by “doctrine.” Sharing such a basic principle with them, Mark could well write, “How surprised, I was to find you writing about things I held as deep dark secrets . . . . “

I have not read of any such distinction in my Bible. I have not found a hermeneutical rule which helps me to go through my Bible to separate “gospel” from “doctrine.” Furthermore, I have not found anything which implies that “doctrinal” departures from God’s word do not separate a person from God. I cannot find any reason for concluding why one can be wrong about “doctrine” and still be in fellowship with God but cannot be wrong about “gospel” and still be in fellowship with God. The same principles which will allow one to be in fellowship with God while practicing sin in reference to “doctrine” will allow that same person to be in fellowship with God while practicing sin with reference to “gospel.”

4. Brother Nitz does not consider as “enemies of the cross” (Phil. 3:18) those who embrace, practice and propagate usage of instrumental music in worship, church support of human institutions, and the sponsoring church arrangement. In his 28 December 1982 letter to brother Ben Vick, brother Nitz called into question brother Vick’s criticism of John Clayton for preaching in a Christian Church without rebuking them for their sins. He wrote,

You spoke of the Christian Church as our “enemy” and Clayton as a “traitor.” Are these people really “enemies of the cross of Christ” because of what we believe to be their wrong conclusion concerning the interpretation of the silence of the scriptures? I believe you and I would differ on the right of the church to support orphan homes (I am persuaded that the church can not fulfill its benevolent obligations by supporting another institution). However I would not consider you an enemy of the cross.

Anyone who embraces, practices and propagates apostasy from the doctrine of Christ necessarily brings separation from God and division among brethren. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 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 deeds” (2 John 9-11).

Those who introduced instrumental music in worship, church support of human institutions (missionary societies, colleges, orphan homes, hospitals, etc.), church sponsored recreation, and other such items into the worship and work of the church, divided the church! The unity of God’s people was destroyed by these men who introduced unauthorized additions to the worship and work of God’s people. People who continue to embrace such things perpetuate apostasy and division. These brethren cause divisions contrary to the word of God (Rom. 16:17-18), they teach doctrines which are not “of Christ” (2 John 9-11), and they introduce the doctrines and commandments of men into the worship and work of the church (Matt. 15:8-9). But, brother Nitz assures us that these kinds of men are not “enemies of the cross of Christ.” Are they faithful servants of Christ? If so, we must quit trying to destroy the apostate influence of these men, agree to disagree, use them in our meetings, and join them in evangelistic efforts.

5. An erroneous position on fellowship. In the 12 September 1982 issue of Armor of God, the local bulletin published by the Lockland church, brother Nitz wrote on “Fellowship With God.” He said, “Therefore it is important to determine the basis of my being received by Christ and continued fellowship with Him. In other words, we should not make conditions of fellowship that God has not made conditions of salvation.” Later, he made application of this saying, “We therefore conclude that one may be wrong about many of our `latter-day’ issues and yet have done what the Bible says to become a Christian. God accepts us on the basis of who we know, not how much we know. Of course our faith prompts us to study God’s word, diligently, pressing on to perfection, striving to better please the Lord in all areas.” In the 8 February 1983 issue of Firm Foundation, brother Nitz said, “We work (obey God) because we are saved, not in order to get saved.”

Notice the logical conclusions from these two statements. First, brother Nitz does not believe that anything should be made a condition of fellowship which is not a condition of primary salvation. Secondly, he does not believe the works which a Christian does are conditions of salvation, i.e. they are not conditions to continuing a right relationship with God or to the final hope of heaven. The conclusion seems inescapable, holding these two premises, that brother Nitz should be compelled to recognize as in fellowship every baptized believer. This he is willing to do, except in cases where he decides that presumptuous sin has been committed. Brother Nitz needs to realize that the New Testament dealt with baptized believer who departed from sound doctrine in various ways by showing that they had separated themselves from God and faithful saints (“some among you,” 1 Cor. 15:12-34; “men crept in,” Jude 3; “say that we have fellowship,” 1, 2, 3 Jn.). They were told, “Repent. . . of this thy wickedness” (Acts 8:22), rather than being assured of fellowship with God and the saints on the basis of being a Christian.

6. The Calvinist doctrine of works. The article “Paul and James on Faith And Works” (Firm Foundation, 8 February 1983, p. 6) espouses the Calvinist doctrine of works. The Calvinist doctrine of works, which also has been espoused by Baptists, is reflected in The Second Helvetic Confession. Here is how this confession reads:

We Are Not Saved By Good Works. Nevertheless, as was said above, we do not think that we are saved by good works, and that they are so necessary for salvation that no one was ever saved without them. For we are saved by grace and the favor of Christ alone. Works necessarily proceed from faith. And salvation is improperly attributed to them, but is most properly ascribed to grace. The apostle’s sentence is well known: “If it is by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. But if it is of works, then it is no longer grace, because otherwise work is no longer work” (Rom. 11:6).

Each of us who has tried to teach a Baptist that water baptism is a condition of salvation has heard their standard reply, “A person is not baptized in order to be saved but because he is saved.” Baptists put water baptism in the area of “works” and this expresses their doctrine of works. Brother Nitz does not put water baptism in the same category as they do. Yet, a reading of his article in the Firm Foundation caused me to conclude that he holds the same doctrine of works as the Baptists hold except that they make application before baptism and Mark makes it after baptism. Brother Nitz’s article claims that the obedience rendered to God after baptism is only “the byproduct of salvation, not the basis of it . . . . We work (obey God) because we are saved, not in order to get saved.” No Baptist preacher could have said it better!

If one takes the position that the obedience of faith which a man continues to render to God after being saved by the blood of Christ is not in order to our final salvation, but because one is saved and secure, I do not see how he is going to avoid the conclusion of Sam Morris in his infamous statement:

“We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul . . . .

. . . All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger” (Rev. Sam Morris, “Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?”)

I am aware that brother Nitz will repudiate any agreement with the Baptist Sam Morris but it appears to me that he is logically compelled to agree with this conclusion. The only alteration needed to fit Mark’s present position is this: We take the position that a Christian’s non presumptuous, non-divisive, weakness-of-the-flesh, ignorant sins do not damn his soul . . . . all the sins of this category he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger.

Some Explanation Is Needed

There have been several things occur in this matter which need some explanation in order to continue to attribute moral integrity to brother Nitz. Here are several of them:

1. A denial of being sympathetic with the grace-unity movement. The first time that I approached brother Nitz, I told him that, if I correctly understood the thrust of his sermon before the liberal preachers and elders in Cincinnati, he was teaching the tenets of the grace-unity movement as espoused by Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside. He denied that he was in sympathy with them. Ben Vick accused brother Nitz of being in sympathy with Carl Ketcherside and brother Nitz responded, “I have read but little of Ketcherside or Garrett. What I have read was judged solely on the merit of the article alone. I do not agree with their rigid distinction between the gospel and doctrine” (letter dated 7 January 1983). I do not know the date of brother Nitz’s letter to Leroy Garrett, but I received the material in print on 8 February 1983. (I usually run 4-6 weeks lag time in printing of Guardian of Truth.) However, when he wrote to brother Garrett, he said, “How surprised I was to find you writing about things I held as deep dark secrets that I dare not express to anyone else. I now read the Bible as if it were for the first time, for no other desire than to find the truth, not to prove a predetermined conclusion.” I can not understand how brother Nitz could be telling me that he disagrees with the grace-unity movement and express appreciation for brother Garrett’s material in Restoration Review. It would be helpful for brother Nitz to spell out his areas of agreement and disagreement with brother Garrett.

2. His attachment to a sectarian party. The letter to Leroy Garrett also demonstrated that brother Nitz believes that those of us who stand opposed to instrumental music in worship, church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church arrangement of church organization, and church sponsored recreation are nothing but a factional sect. He speaks of himself as a “member of a Church of Christ, non-instrument (a right-wing as you would call it, of the Guardian variety).” He had only read “the papers within our party.” Hence, he believes that we are nothing but a sectarian party. Brethren, if I were convinced that I was a part of a factional, sectarian group of people, I would get out and become a part of the Lord’s church. Yet, brother Nitz stays within the “party” holding his personal convictions as “deep dark secrets that I dare not express to anyone else” (but which he has expressed both publicly and privately when he thought the timing right – to the preachers group, to Garrett, to Ben Vick and to others!). This does not reflect moral integrity. Brother Nitz condemns factional sectarianism and admits being in a sectarian party. Some explanation is needed.

3. Brother Nitz recently sent out “An Open Letter to Brethren of the church of Christ” which falls far below the standard of ethics. Rather than mentioning any of the evidence of wavering discussed here, he presents himself as the victim of “fraudulent,” “deceptive,” “fabricated,” and “reckless accusations.” The letter is for the consumption of gullible brethren who want to hear brother Nitz say that everything is fine and it ends with, “I do not intend to respond further . . . .” This was the familiar path of Ed Fudge, Gordon Wilson, Randall Trainer, and Bruce Edwards as they wobbled off into liberalism and tried to cover their tracks. No amount of crocodile tears can suffice to answer the hard evidence of compromise we have presented here. Nothing will suffice short of a total, unequivocal repudiation of the error we have recounted.

Conclusion

Brethren, this battle with the grace-unity issue is not over. Other preachers have been espousing these doctrines recently. I want to close by calling your attention to one of the things giving support to these men. Several have written articles which have explicitly stated or implied that the sins which a Christian commits in ignorance or through weakness of the flesh do not separate a person from God. Men such as brother Nitz are taking these statements and applying them to those who are in the Christian Church and liberal churches of Christ. They are using the respected names of these brethren to defend themselves. I would like to call upon the men who have written articles of this nature to show men such as brother Nitz the logical reason why those in the Christian Church and liberal churches of Christ are separated from God by their sins of ignorance or weaknesses of the flesh but those in the faithful churches are not separated from God by the same sins.

I am thankful for the number of brethren who are encouraging us in the exposure of men such as brother Nitz. In every section of the country in which I have traveled, brethren express thanks to the staff of Truth Magazine/Guardian of Truth for the work which we have done in exposing the grace-unity movement and the -men promoting it. We are encouraged by the numbers of solid brethren, both young and old, who are joining with us in opposing the grace-unity movement.

I have done everything I know how to do to prevent brother Nitz from going with the grace-unity brethren and all has been unsuccessful. I pray that the efforts of others might accomplish what I have failed to do. Brother Nitz needs to recognize his sin, repent of it, and publicly repudiate it. It is my desire that this might be accomplished.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, pp. 290, 310-313
May 19, 1983

By Irven Lee

Several years ago I saw a comic strip in which a little boy was asking his mother, “Why did we get daddy?” Some little people even if they had the mature intellect of adults, might feel like asking a similar question because they are ignored by their father. He does not, in some cases seem to be a working member of the team. His time is dedicated to his business, his recreation, and only to those things that interest him. This is unfortunate. He could and should be a very precious and much loved member of the family.

“If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). A man who adequately provides the things that money can buy for his wife and children must work with diligence. This is no easy task. Food, clothing, shelter, medical needs, and reasonable social affairs are expensive. The able bodied man who is not willing to toil to provide for these things has revolted against God’s law and is worse than an infidel. Some seem to prefer to beg or steal rather than to earn these necessary things. There are a few drones that seem not to know what is going on about them. They can have large families, but the wives and children must provide for themselves. This is a repulsive sight.

Some men in our generation amass fortunes and seek to buy the loyalty of their children. They allow them to have and spend great sums of money. This extreme is dangerous. Such children may develop such drug habits and life styles that even their large money supply is not adequate to fulfill their demands. Crime, immorality, and dishonesty may cause them to become a curse to their families and to society in general.

A Gift of Time

There is great need for a father’s wisdom in providing for the necessities of his children and also providing the love, counsel, and oversight that will help them to learn to properly use what they have. Time is one of the greatest gifts a man could have for his children. A father should be a very good friend to each of his children. Each will delight in early childhood to have his attention as evidence of his love. If he listens to his child and talks to his child of things that interest the little one, a close tie between the two is developed. This close contact can be maintained by the wise father so that the older son or daughter will see no communication or generation gap later. This is the id-al and it is well worth the effort and the cost in time. Children need to be fed and clothed, but they also need to be trained. “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). Example is an essential element in the training process. We actually show them how they ought to live. We cannot send our influence the right way while we go the wrong way in our own lives.

A Good Example

The alcoholic’s family often suffers much because of the irritable nature of the slave of alcohol. Some who drink become very irritable while under the influence. Their children are also sometimes made to suffer for lack of food, clothing, and other things that money can buy because the bread winner buys liquor first and then does not have enough left to provide for those who have a right to look to him for support.

It is difficult for me to understand why a son or daughter of an alcoholic father or of alcoholic parents will follow in the steps of these slaves, but many of them do follow the unfortunate example of their parents. Why do they form the habit that will cause their children to suffer as they have had to do? Example is a powerful force. Fathers should take more thought to the examples they are setting before their families.

The unholy family environment may be such that the only contact the children may have with others will be with the wrong kind of companions. Their associates may tend to be those that tolerate the liquor habit. Each child may start the habit by taking the first drinks with the full confidence that he will not continue in that way. The alcoholic tends to bring forth children after his kind. This is true of addicts of all harmful drugs.

Parents who are vulgar blasphemers may see their children become just as vulgar and irreverent as they are. Dishonest parents are likely to have dishonest children. This is true so often that the public may penalize worthy sons of an unworthy father. The family name may carry a certain stigma with it. We should all be watchful and ready to encourage that young man who is worthy of a good name.

We have taken several words to say that a father should leave a good example and, therefore, a good name for his children. Money cannot replace that precious right. Some unholy fathers do provide money but not the good example. They are not able to give good, meaningful advice. Good advice is in harmony with the conduct of the one who gives it. We cannot send our influence one way while we go another.

Teaching God’s Word

The tongue is a little member, but it boasts great things. The teaching is not only by example. Many things need to be said in teaching the basic principles or righteousness so that the young can learn to make their own decisions. The gospel is taught by word of mouth. The love of God, the message and example of Christ, the word of the Spirit, and the hope of heaven are taught by word of mouth. Very many fathers fail miserably to bring their children “up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Comparatively few have the great advantage that Timothy had in being associated with his wonderful mother and grandmother (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14, 15). Nothing is said of his father to indicate that he took his part in the training of the child. Too many fathers leave the spiritual training to the mothers, and that is not what the Lord intended. The father is to take his place as head of the home and guide in the training in spiritual things as well as in physical things. Why are there not more ,fathers who will do so?

For a life to be exemplary the good pattern must be continuing action. There is to be that day by day pattern before the growing children. The instruction is also to be on a continuing basis. Repetition is one of the laws of learning. A point of precious truth should be mentioned over and over on different occasions. By this means, and only by this means, can it be deeply implanted into the mind of the child. Let every father who is a Christian understand that training his child by word and by example is a very important part of his responsibility. It is also his wonderful privilege.

Let every non-Christian father realize that he is standing in the way of his children’s obedience to God. “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30). It seems that some fathers who golf on Sunday or do other things that satisfy themselves have convinced themselves that they can turn all of the religious training of the children over to their wives. They do not forbid their worshiping and they make their transportation available, and then they feel that they have fulfilled their responsibility to the family. Have they forgotten the power of their example? The small children may gladly go with their mother, but as young adults they may demonstrate the power of a father’s example. A man should obey God because of his love for God and for his own salvation. As an added motive he should obey God in every way as a proper pattern for his children.

The devout father who spends much time working to provide for the needs of his family and in training his children by word and example is a great man who can and will be happy in the results of his labors. Whether or not he prospers financially or is prominent in the affairs of this life, he can be great in the eyes of God and in the eyes of his children, if he is successful in being a good father and a worthy Christian. The requirements for these things are not fame nor fortune. These things require faithful dedication to the ideals that are most important.

Ruling His House

Evidently a man is not a good example as a father if he is not willing to work to provide for his own. (See 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Thess. 4:11, 12; 2 Thess. 3:8-12.) It is also evident that he needs to provide the proper guidance and discipline for his children. (Read Heb. 12:5-11; Prov. 13:24;, 22:6, 15; 29:15-17.) It is true that there is some “know how” involved in fulfilling these responsibilities. In giving the qualifications of elders Paul listed: “One who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity: (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:4, 5).

Do you know how to rule your own house? If not, you need to learn because there is great need that the job be accomplished. “Correct thy son, and he will give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto they soul” (Prov. 29:17). It is possible to discourage and frustrate a child rather than discipline. Discipline is not child abuse, but some fathers do become abusive in what they call discipline. “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged” (Col. 3:21). Of course, a child may cry when properly disciplined, but he is not to be harassed, frustrated, and made sullen by the actions of a tyrant who is called a father. Too much money and discipline that is too harsh and unreasonable may do much harm. Use all the wisdom you have in your effort to be a good and worthy father who will succeed in this very great undertaking.

The Christ taught His disciples to think of God as Father. His disciples are children of God. The father and child relationship is expected to be very close. It is a very unnatural and repulsive thing to learn of men who not only neglect but even abuse their children. We learn of very small children who have broken bones and other serious injuries received from men who should be worthy to be called fathers. Alcohol and other drugs may be the most common cause of this cruelty from people who were created to be in the image of God. Men who have so completely ignored their role as fathers are more like unreasonable beasts who shall utterly perish in their own corruption. In their destroying they shall surely be destroyed. The role of the father is to provide for, protect, train, and love their children. They are the people to whom the children may turn for security and other special needs.

Very dedicated parents often wonder how they should answer and what they should do on various occasions as their little ones come with their questions and problems. Being filled with a great love for the children and with a great respect for and knowledge of the Bible will help them find the proper answers and make their right decisions in matters that involve these dependent souls. Each has a soul worth more than the world itself, because the spirit goes back to God in death and will not be destroyed when the elements are melted with fervent heat.

Our materialistic America is very well acquainted with the idea of a return on an investment. The matter of sowing and reaping is involved in our relationships in the home and with our neighbors and brethren. “Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40). “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, end that he be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6). Physical death is not as bad as that which is to come to a father who is the real stumbling stone of his own children. He must give account for his behavior in his own family, as well as in other aspects of life.

“Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again” (Luke 6:38). This great principle of sowing and reaping certainly applies to a father and his children. The man who has won the respect and love of his children has insurance for times of sickness and in his old age that no insurance company has to offer. He gives when they need him, and they give when he needs them.

Some parents who seem to have tried hard to be what they should be to their children have their hearts broken by the ungodliness and immorality of their children. All of us should try to help them bear their sorrow. There are many influences that are brought to bear on children other than the wholesome influence of parents who are Christians. As children grow up they come to have responsibilities, too. Sin that destroys them also harms those who have loved them and sacrificed for them. Our unbelieving and ungodly world has many broken hearts.

Conclusion

The right kind of a father is a good husband, a good neighbor, a good, citizen, and a good member of the church. In his being a good example to his children he proves or demonstrates “that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” in all these relationships. If a man mistreats his wife or is unfaithful to her he is certainly not a good father. Neither he, his wife, nor his children has a good home if he is not a good husband and father.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, pp. 289, 308-309
May 19, 1983

By C. G. “Colly”Caldwell

One of the most basic and fundamental doctrines of the New Testament is the fact that Jesus Christ was more than man. The Truth proclaims that He is in fact Divine, God the Son (John 1:1; Heb. 1:6-8). So important is it to believe in His Deity that Jesus said, “Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). You will notice that the word “he” is italicized indicating that it was supplied by the translators. In fact Jesus is using the Divine designation which was given to Moses when he asked God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Ex. 3:13-14). Again, the point must be made that belief in the Deity of Christ is essential to salvation! On earth He was “God with us,” God and man (Matt. 1:23; John 1:14).

Through the centuries, challenges have arisen to this great Truth. We should be aware of some of the major controversies:

The Sabellians (ca A.D. 215)

Sabellius was a teacher at Rome and a leader of the “modalistic monarchian” school of thought regarding divinity (“monarchy” suggesting the primacy of the Father). He was excommunicated by Callistus, bishop of Rome between A.D. 217 and 222. Sabellius argued that God is one “Person” who projects Himself in three “modes” (filling three roles):

a. Seen as “Father,” He creates and gives law;

b. Seen as “Son,” He .redeems and saves; and

c. Seen as “the Spirit,” He sanctifies giving spiritual life.

Modern forms of Sabellianism are held by the Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals.

The Arians (ca A.D. 318-381)

Arius was an Alexandrian theologian who died in A.D. 336. Alexander (also of Alexandria) responded to his views before the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Athanasius disputed with him afterwards. Arius argued that Jesus was a created being and not eternal. Jesus was an intermediate being between deity and humanity, he said. The Father alone is true God. The Son is called “God” only in a metaphorical sense and, therefore, is not of the same essence (not homoousion, the same substance) as the Father. A modern form of this false position is held by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Apolliuarlans (ca A.D. 361-381)

The bishop of Laodicea, Apollinarius, was an aggressive polemicist of the fourth century. He claimed that Jesus was Divine to the point that He could not be truly human at the same time. The only life principle in Christ was the Logos, he said, and therefore all human involvement in Jesus was “passively” observed but not really experienced. Jesus consequently did not have a human will and did not participate in human thought processes (learning, etc.). Neither was he really tempted. This position led to the worship of Jesus’ flesh in the transubstantiation view of the Lord’s Supper.

The Nestorians (ca A.D. 428-451)

Originally a monk at Antioch, Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople. He taught that Jesus was actually two distinct persons, one human and one divine. The divine Christ was not involved in suffering, temptation, growth, death, etc. The human part only was borne by Mary. Mary was not, therefore, a God-bearer (theotokos).

The Monophysites (began ca A.D. 440)

In the beginning this movement was led by Eutyches, head of a monastery in Constantinople. Another important advocate of the position was Cyril of Alexandria. These men refused to accept that Jesus had two natures (human and divine) and believed that His divine Logos absorbed His humanity. Jesus, they said, did not have true human nature after His birth. The human was deified in Him so that His body was not of the same substance as ours. The deity in Him was capable of suffering and death, however.

The Monothelites (ca A.D. 580)

This position was thought to have been launched by the emperor Heraclius. The doctrine essentially sanctioned monophysitism and complemented it. It held that the human and divine wills of Jesus were fused into one will. It went on to raise the issue of whether Jesus truly had human personality. “Orthodox” theologians responded that the union of the divine and human did not deprive Jesus of any element of humanity but rather perfected it.

The Adoptionists (ca A.D. 780)

The Adoptionist controversy arises from the teachings of Elipandus of Spain. It had been hinted at in some of the earlier literature of those taking positions already described. Basically Elipandus held that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption at His baptism (some say at His resurrection). Jesus was in nature simply a man endowed with divinity as a result of His strong desire for union with God and His good life.

The Socinians (ca 1525-1600)

The Socinian movement was led by two Italian theologians, Lelio and Fausto Sozzini. They accepted the Adoptionist position but affirmed that Jesus was supernaturally conceived and resurrected. They denied the preexistence of Christ.

The Mormons (1820- )

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints traces itself to founder Joseph Smith and promoter Brigham Young. They claim that Jesus was the first born (or first created) spirit. Although they do not often have the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing it on national radio or television, they claim that Jesus is a god in the same sense that others of us can attain unto godhood. Other men’s spirits which were created before the world hold the same position as Jesus; that is, incarnated on this earth or on another planet. Mormons have a full “pantheon” of gods and Jesus is one of them. Adam was also one, as was Joseph Smith.

The Christian Scientists (1875- )

Founded by Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy, the Christian Scientists have claimed that Jesus was the supreme manifestation of a divine ideal or principle which exists inherently within every man. Mrs. Eddy denied the true existence of the physical universe; therefore, she claimed that Jesus was an illusion of the mortal mind. He was an idea, not God in the flesh.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses (1879- )

The Jehovah’s Witnesses were established by Pastor Charles Taze Russell and promoted by Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford. The movement resulted from Adventist influences. The Witnesses contend that Jesus is a mighty god but not the Almighty God. He is the first creation of Jehovah God. He is “a god” but not the Son. This position is similar to the Arian position and uses much the same argumentation on Biblical passages such as John 1:1-3.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 9, pp. 274-275
May 5, 1983