Truth Magazine

By Dudley Ross Spears

Our millennial and dispensational friends claim to take the Bible literally. They believe that Jesus will come back a second time with the saints from an imaginary “rapture” and will raise the righteous dead. Then Jesus will establish the millennial kingdom and peace and happiness supreme will reign. They imagine lions playing with lambs and children playing with deadly snakes, etc. They also imagine a beautiful body for the saints. Hal Lindsay wrote, “If you’re not too satisfied with the face or body you now have, you will have a glorious new body” (Late Great Planet Earth, p. 130).

A problem arises when one reads the words of Christ and compares them with the above ideas. Jesus said it is better to enter “into life maimed or halt rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8). He also said, “It is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire” (vs. 9). If one takes the Bible literally, one would be forced to actually amputate an offending hand and pluck out an offending eye. But this is done so one can enter into life. The millennialists are forced to equate the “life” here with the “millennial kingdom,” or else give up their order of events in the return of Christ. Do they believe we will have a glorious body, or do they believe that some may be maimed?

The truth is that one cannot take the words of Christ literally here in Matthew 18 any more than he can take the words of Paul literally in Galatians 5:24. Paul said that those who are Christ’s have “crucified the flesh.” Paul also said that our members should be killed (Col. 3:5; Rom. 8:13). Do the millennialists take this literally? I trow not. But they have the puzzle to solve as to how we can have a glorified body that is perfect in every respect and yet some will enter into life maimed because of their dedication to following Christ. How will they solve it? But another thing shows that Jesus did not mean for us to literally pluck out just one eye. John tells us that both eyes are involved in lust (1 John 2:16). How could one literally pluck out one literal eye and remove the problem of lust or offense?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, p. 297
May 19, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: In Matthew 2:16 the King James translators state that Herod slew all the children in the Bethlehem area. Some of the other translations state “male” children. Is there a discrepancy here?

Reply: The consensus of scholarship translates Matthew 2:16 “male” children. I believe this is the correct translation in view of the masculine article in the Greek tous paidas. A.T. Robertson interestingly makes the following comment on the verse: “Herod did not know, of course, how old the child was, but he took no chances and included all the little boys (tous paidas), masculine article” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 20). Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament translates tous paidas “the boys” (p. 4). J.W. McGarvey makes a significant comment on Matthew 2:16. “The Greek word rendered children (tous paidas) is masculine, and means male children. As it was a male child that he was seeking to destroy, he could have no reason for destroying the female infants” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 29). J.A. Alexander also attests to the masculine meaning. “Children, i.e. male children (Geneva), men children (Rheims), the sense being limited to one sex by the masculine adjective and article (pantas tous) and by the usage of the Greek noun (paidas), which is the nearest equivalent to our word boy, and like it, sometimes used for son and servant” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 38). Commenting on “all the children” (KJV), John A. Broadus states: “Properly all the male children, as in Rev. Ver., the original marking the gender” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 23).

Broadus, the author just quoted, throws some important light on why the King James Version has “all children” instead of “male children.” The following is his footnote on the verse: “It is properly rendered in the Syriac and the Vulgate, in the Geneva and the Rheims, and by Beza. But Wyclif, through translating the Vulgate, has simply `children,’ and so Tyndale and Cranmer, and also Luther; and Common Version followed these. It must have been supposed that the masculine expression was meant to comprehend both sexes; but such a use can never be assumed unless the connection requires it” (Ibid., p. 23). Others who testify to the masculine rendering are R.C. H. Lenski (Matthew, p. 80) and A. Lukyn Williams in The Pulpit Commentary (Matthew, p. 35). Williams also notes that in the Revised Version it is male children (tous paidas, not to tekna) [Ibid., p. 35]. These are but a few who support the masculine translation in Matthew 2:16. Others could be cited.

In view of the evidence considered, there is no justification for making a difference between Pharaoh only slaughtering “male children” and Herod “all children” (KJV) as some have supposed. In both instances it was male children concluded. upon the basis of the Greek phrase tous paidas, and in consideration of the fact that Herod was seeking to destroy male infants, not female infants, as J.W. McGarvey has pointed out.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, p. 297
May 19, 1983

By Mark Nitz

I appreciate the opportunity to state what I believe concerning these important matters. This article is not intended to be a point-by-point response to the material by brother Willis. Though he questions my motives and integrity as a Christian, I will not question his. I write this article with a calm, deliberate spirit; simply to set forth clearly what I believe to be the truth. I represent no one but myself, nor have I joined any “movement.” I am simply one man in Christ giving his understanding of these important issues. I realize full well the consequences of my venturing upon such an effort (Jas. 3:1) and, therefore, proceed with great caution, realizing I must one day give an account to our maker for my life and teaching (1 Cor. 4:1-5; 2 Cor. 5:10). Please consider what I say in light of God’s word.

With the wealth of material already written on these subjects by men of more ability than myself, it is doubtful that I can shed new light on these issues. However, I have observed that much of what is written, as is often the case, seems to advocate extreme positions. Some offer assurance and comfort to those yet outside Christ. Some leave the impression that obedience has no part in one’s salvation. Others leave even the Christian who makes a sincere effort to please God at all times, without hope and assurance, uncertain as to his relationship with God. Some seem to advocate that the Christian must discern all the errors of his life and specifically repent and confess them before forgiveness can be had, leaving the child of God (especially the babe in Christ) in a state of despair. I believe the truth lies between these extremes. It involves no compromise of truth, yet gives the joy and peace of mind the Lord intended as one searches for and meticulously practices God’s will.

“Salvation By Grace Through Faith”

I do believe in salvation by grace, through faith, at baptism and for good works – a summary of Ephesians 2:8-10 and Colossians 2:11-13. Through faith in the sacrifice of Christ, God can declare one who is a sinner to be righteous. God does so by forgiving him of his sins (Rom. 4:7-8; Heb. 8:12). I do not believe that the perfect deeds of Christ’s life are imputed to the believer, but that He bore the punishment for our sins, paying the debt that we owed.

Therefore, just as Abraham’s faith was accounted to him for righteousness (Rom. 4:1-5; Gal. 3:6), those who put their trust in Christ may also be counted righteous (Rom. 4:23-25). This eliminates any ground for boasting on man’s part (Rom. 3:27). This means that “eternal life in Christ Jesus” is a “free gift of God,” not wages earned for a job well done (Rom. 6:23).

Faith and Good Works

Who can deny that faith and good works go hand in hand? One who refuses to obey does not believe and, therefore, cannot remain justified (Jas. 2:14-26). However, the good works for which we have been “created in Christ Jesus” are not to be viewed as earning something we do not already have. They are not adding to the price already paid for our redemption – that is, the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). They are the fruit of faith or what Paul calls “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). One’s faith prompts him to meticulously obey the law of God, not only observing the “weightier matters of the law” but not leaving the other undone (Mt. 23:23-24). Strict observance of law is not legalism. Legalism is making salvation dependent on law and one’s ability to keep it. Legalism is trusting in one’s own performance for salvation. When one begins thinking he is saved because he is right about all questions and issues, his hope is on shaky ground. The “man of faith” who has the “mind of the spirit” strives for perfection, all the while remaining humble, cognizant of his own short comings and, therefore, depending wholly upon the grace of God. He therefore sings with assurance, “Just as I am without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me” and “In my hand no price I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” Men of faith realize that after they have done all they are still “unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Lk. 17:10).

Therefore we conclude that good works are important, yea essential for salvation in Christ (cf. “I by my works will show thee my faith” – Jas. 2:18). Yet, we do not depend on our keeping of them for salvation for we always “fall short of the glory of God,” causing us all the more to trust in the cross of Christ and seek forgiveness through the means He provided.

Repentance And The Christian Walk

After becoming a Christian, “In many things we all stumble” (Jas. 3:2) and “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8). Yet we can stand justified through the forgiveness of our sins by continued faith in Christ. This faith will cause one to repent, confess, and pray for forgiveness as Christ commands (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9). This repentance does not demand a perfect knowledge of God’s law (else how could I grow – 2 Pet. 3:18) or the perfect ability to discern one’s errors (“Who can discern his errors?” – Psa. 19:12). One should confess specifically the sins he is aware of. However, through lack of perfect knowledge and discernment he will not be able to identify all sin in his life. Can these sins of ignorance be forgiven? Are we hopelessly lost, being incapable of perfection and unable to identify all sin in our life? Can we not say as David, “Cleanse thou me from secret faults” (Psa. 19:12) or as the publican, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Lk. 18:13)? The Lord said, “This man went down to his house justified.” I see no reason why the twentieth century Christian cannot pray the same prayer and receive the same forgiveness.

While I believe all sin committed by the child of God leads toward death (separation from God), I do not believe God automatically and immediately cuts off the Christian the moment he sins. Death occurs when sin is “full-grown” – the time of which only God can judge infallibly (Jas. 1:15; Rom. 6:23). There is sin which does not bring death (1 Jn. 5:16-17); that is, sin of which one is willing to repent. The position that some espouse demands that the instant the Christian sins he is “severed from Christ” (Gal. 5:4), “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4), in a state of condemnation (Rom. 8:1), and his name is removed from the “book of life” (Rev..20:15). Some believe that the moment the Christian sins -whether willfully or ignorantly; by commission or omission – he ceases to walk in the light and is, therefore, lost until he recognizes and specifically acknowledges such sin, repents, confesses to God and prays for forgiveness. I believe brother Roy Cogdill stated the truth very clearly in his debate with D.N. Jackson: “It is pertinent to notice that he did not say that we are cut off the instant we commit those sins but that we will be cut off if our attitude is such that we cease to acknowledge our sins and cease to pray to God for forgiveness” (as quoted by Eugene Britnell, The Sower, Vol. 27, No. 1 [January 1982], p. 4).

Some would have us believe that the “man of faith” who has the “mind of the Spirit” and who “presses on” toward perfection, yet sins through ignorance, is in the same condition as the alien sinner. Actually with this position he is in a worse condition for, in keeping with their theory, since he is ignorant of his sin he is unable to specifically confess and repent of it in order to be forgiven. No wonder so many live daily with fear and doubt as to their relationship with God. With this position, assurance (which is promised to the faithful child of God – 1 Jn. 5:13) could only be attained when one reaches the state of perfect knowledge (both of God’s law and one’s own life) – a position some are already teaching.

Of course, the man of faith presses on toward perfection (Phil. 3:12-16), following the example of Christ (1 Pet. 2:21-22). He gives himself whole-heartedly and without reservation to the Lord, earnestly striving to do all He commands. His faith prompts a meticulous study and application of the Scripture to every aspect of the Christian life, but not with the horrifying fear that would accompany the concept of being justified by works. Rather, he has a peace of mind and joy of heart as he studies carefully and open-mindedly, being always penitent and adjusting his life to walk in the light, realizing that the faith that prompts this kind of obedience to God is the basis of forgiveness. Such a one is saved, not because God unjustly overlooks his sins, but because of the forgiveness of those sins through Jesus Christ.

What is the responsibility and condition of one who presses on and yet falls far short of perfection? Is he lost until he reaches the level of knowledge whereby he can identify all sin in his life? Must he have everything figured out before he has any assurance of salvation? To the Christian Paul says, “Only whereunto we have attained, by that same rule let us walk” (Phil. 3:16). The New English Bible translates this, “Only let our conduct be consistent with the level we have already reached.” God does not expect the impossible out of us. He tells us to grow, study and mature, all the while keeping the “mind of the Spirit.” One “walks in the light” by his walking “whereunto he has attained,” thus being conditionally cleansed from all sin by the blood of Christ. If he did not walk according to the level he had reached he would have ceased walking in the light, thus breaking fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:6-9). This does not minimize points of doctrine. Neither does it lead to doing as did the Pharisees in making some commandments “great” and others “least” and by our distinction emphasize some and disregard or minimize others. Instead, such an understanding should cause one to study and carefully apply completely, for walking by faith demands it.

Fellowship Among Those In Christ

Fellowship (“joint participation”) may be viewed from two standpoints. One may be said to have fellowship with every brother on the face of the earth in receiving the blessing of Christ, having common an acceptable relationship with God. However, in another sense fellowship involves doing things together and in this sense restrictions will come. It is an error to assume that because we may have fellowship with all Christians in the first sense that we unreservedly have fellowship with all Christians in the latter sense. We must refuse to jointly participate with anyone in anything we believe to be wrong. We must never do anything that violates our conscience for to do so constitutes sin (Rom. 14:23). Since membership in a local church involves participation in collective activities, one could only hold membership where the collective activities are things he could do with full assurance they are right.

All truth, even that derived by means of New Testament examples and necessary inferences, must be followed meticulously. Since I believe it is wrong for the church to support human institutions and to sing praises to God with an instrument (1 Jn. 3:4), I could not be a member where either of these practices were engaged in. However, I do not categorically say that all in such churches are going to hell. I am not the lawgiver and judge. It is not my place to decide the eternal destiny of people. My obligation is to be a doer and teacher of the law of Christ, not the judge (Jas. 4:11-12; 1 Cor. 9:21). I will leave that to the only one who can do it infallibly, to the only One Who knows the hidden things and the hearts of men – God Himself. I preach specifically and pointedly that the aforementioned practices are wrong, being without authority. I believe unforgiven sin will cause people to be lost. However, I believe it is possible that some in these churches are asking for and receiving forgiveness of these sins. If one is truly in Christ and is striving to please the Lord in all things (and I recognize that the number in these churches may be diminishing), he receives the same benefits of Christ’s blood as do all Christians.

When one becomes a Christian, he may be involved in many things that need correcting (cf. dressing immodestly, dancing, mixed swimming, smoking, membership in a Masonic lodge, religious observance of Christmas, etc.). I do not necessarily judge that the babe in Christ who has not yet studied the applicable verses is bound for hell. He has the responsibility to study, to grow in knowledge, and to learn, walking “whereunto he has attained.” As he does this he must be penitent toward all sin, including that of which he is unaware. God does not simply overlook his sins but as he walks by faith, penitently asking forgiveness, God promises forgiveness. Of course, this does not apply to those who do not “press on,” those who sin willfully or those who are not studying to permit opportunity to learn. One who has stopped growing or is not walking consistent with the level he has already reached is not the true man of faith and, therefore, has no basis for forgiveness.

Please note that while I do not judge these individuals as going to hell, I do not judge them to be going to heaven. Only God can judge such matters. I am simply saying that I believe all of us are in the category of having imperfect knowledge and, therefore, at times sin, being ignorant of so doing. We are all in the category of Paul, “Delighting in the law of God after the inward man; but seeing a different law in our members, warring against the law of the mind.” We can rejoice with Paul as he says, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25). If confessing the sins we are aware of, coupled with a general repentance of the things we are not aware of (such as in Acts 2:38 and Lk. 18:13) and always keeping a penitent heart (Psa. 51:16-17), will not meet the requirements of repentance, who then can be saved and how?

For the individual, every issue is important. While issues involving the “work and worship of the church” may disrupt fellowship to a greater degree, they are of no more importance than private issues over which a Christian struggles to find the truth. Whether it has to do with membership in a church supporting an institution, singing praises with an instrument, praying with a covering, participating in carnal warfare, smoking, use of the Bible class arrangement, use of individual communion cups, etc., regardless of the issue, the individual must study God’s word and conscientiously apply it to his own life. Walking by faith will not permit him to participate in anything he believes to be wrong. When he sees specific sin in his life, he specifically repents of it. Yet he realizes that there are many other sins he has not yet become aware of and with a penitent heart towards God asks forgiveness toward all.

We must guard against the attitude that would have us cut off all association with all except those who agree with us wholly for we will finally have fellowship with no one. A limited fellowship is possible with many. We should do all possible to keep lines of communication open with brethren. We should cultivate brotherly feelings that will be conducive to opportunities to teach one another where some are undoubtedly wrong. However, we must not gloss over, but rather recognize our differences, and guard against, compromising or minimizing the differences, realizing every point of the teaching of Christ is important.

Concerning Restoration Review And Firm Foundation

I have always been taught that truth is truth regardless of who teaches it. I do not believe we have a “corner” on all truth. I actually read books that have not been published .by the Guardian of Truth Foundation. I have commentaries in my library other than E.M. Zerr published by Cogdill Foundation (this is not to belittle his excellent work; see his outstanding comments on 1 John 1:6-10). When Albert Barnes, the renowned Presbyterian scholar, teaches the truth on some point, I rejoice and accept it, not because he said it, but because the Bible teaches it.

My letter to brother Garrett (an excerpt of which was published) was not intended to identify myself with him, Ketcherside, or any movement they may have started. I realize I could have better expressed myself in portions of it and am sorry for any wrong impressions it has left. I was simply expressing appreciation for some truth they have accurately stated and have helped me to see. I happen to disagree with their ecumenical approach to unity, their “gospel-doctrine” distinction, the implications of the “brother-in-prospect” concept, and the tendency to overlook real differences among brethren. As already stated, I do not accept the Calvinistic view of imputation. I have explained this thoroughly to brother Willis yet he insists that my letter has “identified” me with the “grace-unity movement.”

Concerning my article which appeared in Firm Foundation, having spent much time in researching and writing what I believed to be the truth, I wanted as many people as possible to read it. Am I limited as to whom I may teach? The same article was sent to and printed in “conservative” papers. I would have sent it to the local newspaper or even Christianity Today if I thought they would print it. I will continue, as I am sure is the case with most gospel preachers, teaching the truth through any means available to me. Brethren who read Firm Foundation need to know the truth on faith and works as do “conservative” brethren. Is it not somewhat sectarian or Pharisaical (Lk. 15:1-2) for brother Willis to insist that my teaching be confined to one of “our” papers?

Many faithful brethren have read the article and have found it to express the truth as they have understood it. In any other context I doubt that the article would have attracted such a negative reaction. I am sure that brother Willis means well. However, in his well-intended search for “Neo-Calvinists” he feels he has found the proof of one in my article. Possibly “Calvinism” is in the eye of the beholder.

Conclusion

Brethren, this is but a brief description of what I believe to be the truth one these important questions. I certainly do not claim to have all knowledge and look daily for further enlightenment from God’s word.

Now is not the time for radical and reactionary extremes. The legalistic view of repentance as espoused by some, focusing salvation upon man’s own ability and performance, strikes at the very core of the gospel. On the other hand, some seem to compromise the truth we do have. Love for brethren does not produce compromise. Indifference produces compromise. True love will respect God’s truth and work to another’s good.

Let us keep open minds, teach with longsuffering, reprove, rebuke and exhort. Let us, “Grow in the grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” all the while serving with joy and peace of mind, not trusting in human merit but in the grace and mercy of God. “Blessed is the man who trusteth in the Lord and whose hoe the Lord is” (Jer. 17:7).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, pp. 294-296, 305
May 19, 1983

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