Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

“And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (Matt. 11:6). What Jesus said offended others. The multitude had followed Him after the miracles of the loaves and fishes, but many “went back and walked no more with him” when He taught them that He was the spiritual bread of life (John 6:66). The Jews accused Him of being demon-possessed when He taught, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” They thought He was speaking of physical death (John 8:51, 52). They had not forgotten by the crucifixion His comment near the beginning of His ministry concerning “building the temple in three days” (John 2:20; Matt. 26:61). He referred to His body; they had the Jerusalem temple in mind. These sayings offended some.

Men are often offended today by what they think Jesus taught. Denominational divisions keep many away from Christ, but He taught and prayed for unity (John 17:20, 21). The Calvinistic doctrine of personal, unconditional predestination and election to heaven or hell by God has turned many from Christ, but He taught “whosoever will” may be saved (Rev. 22:17). Don’t stumble over the traditions of men by assuming that they are the teachings of Christ.

Many people do read the Bible some. What they read in the Bible does not agree with much they are hearing in the pulpits and classrooms. These obvious contradictions are offensive to sincere people. The common man wants to have respect for and confidence in preachers but, at the same time, he feels the Bible is absolutely correct in its entirety. The man who respects the preacher feels that the preacher, having been “trained” properly, understands the Scriptures and that he himself misunderstands; yet, he has read what God has spoken in His word. He knows that the common man is able to hear and understand God’s word. The person is disillusioned and, consequently, disinclined toward the Lord. “Woe be that man by whom the offence cometh” (Matt. 18:7). Preachers must heed the admonition. `If any man .speak, let him speak as the oracles of God’ (1 Pet. 4:11).

To illustrate the point more we suggest that the Bible says, “Buried with him by baptism (Rom. 6:4), while preachers say “sprinkled.” The offenses come because of man’s false contentions, not because of Christ’s statement. Do not confuse the source of offenses! The sayings of the Lord do indeed offend some. But have you thought about the fact that He might be helped by the misrepresentations of men?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 86
February 3, 1983

By David Holder

Listening to the terminology that some people use when talking about the Lord’s church reveals that either these people do not understand what the church is or that they are not very careful about the language they use. The church is very important in the lives of God’s people and we need to understand what the Bible teaches about this matter. There are some things that need to be clarified regarding the church of Christ.

“Our” Church. Often people say “my church” or “our church.” I think I know what these people mean, but I also know what they said. We need to understand clearly that the church belongs to Christ, not to those who make it up. Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church . . . .” Paul tells us that Jesus purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). In Romans 16:16 we read of “the churches of Christ.” We belong to the Lord’s church, but the church does not belong to us!

The Church Building. We need to learn that the church is not the building. “Church” is from the Greek word ekklesia which means the called out one, in this case those called out of sin to live in righteousness. The church then is made up of people -Christians. The church is a spiritual body. It is degrading to ourselves and demonstrates our lack of carefulness when we say the meeting house is the church.

“Going to church. ” Again, this is another misuse of the word church that is used frequently. On Sundays, Wednesdays, and other special times we come to worship or to Bible study, but we do not “come to church.” The church is not a worship service or a Bible study, the church is Christians who have obeyed Christ. We come to the building to be with the church but we do not “come to church.”

“I am church of Christ. ” This statement portrays that the New Testament church is a denominational body. When someone asks us what we are religiously, it is incorrect to say, “I am church of Christ.” The correct response would be that we are Christians or` members of the church of Christ. The church of Christ revealed in the New Testament is not a denominational body. The New Testament speaks of only one church. This is the church that Jesus established and that wears His name and respects His authority. There is no other. The Bible says nothing about denominations of churches. Hence, when we speak of our membership in the church we need to make it clear that we are Christians, members of the body of Christ, not that we are “church of Christ.”

Church headquarters. Some people ask where is our “church headquarters.” Nowhere in the Bible do we find the church organized with a central rule-making body. The church has only one head – Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:22, 23). Christians, wherever they might be, make up the body of Christ with Christ as the head over the body. Then according to the New Testament, the church is organized on the local level, i.e. Christians meeting together in a particular locality, thus “the church of Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). Each local congregation is to have its own elders (Acts 14:23) and deacons (Phil. 1:1). Each local congregation is independent of any other local church in work and worship, and independent of any governing body or centralized control. This is the New Testament pattern for church organization. We must let the church be what God designed it to be – nothing more or less.

It is sad that the word “church” has been misused. This misuse has caused many people to misunderstand what the church is. We need to be careful when talking about the church of our Lord. The church is a precious institution and our language should reflect that we understand how important the church is.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 84
February 3, 1983

By Carl McMurray

The phrase used above was used recently by an elder in the Lord’s church to describe some practices that are becoming all too common in various congregations. His statement during the course of our conversation surprised me for a moment because we were not speaking of centralization and the sponsoring church arrangement. neither were we discussing institutionalism, a socialized gospel, the limited authority of elders nor any other error commonly associated with the term “liberalism”.

The word “liberal” can be defined as an attitude of freedom from authority and, in dealing with the written word, it describes a way of handling Scripture wherein one is not restricted to the literal meaning (definition applied from Funk And Wagnalls).Judging from the arguments put forth by those who have embraced the aforementioned false teaching we can see that the term, used as an adjective describing one’s attitude toward the Scriptures, is an accurate one. While we note those who play fast and loose with God’s word, however, we should give care that the term does not become a label (to prejudice minds as surely as the term “anti”) that is associated only with the above issues. There are things being practiced on a regular basis by some so=called “conservative” or “faithful” churches that would also fall under the definition of liberalism. Calling for authority for centralization or institutionalism does not release one from the authority of other Scriptures.

When a congregation appoints men as overseers who are flatly unqualified upon the assumption, “that it’s better to have them than nobody,” are we not freeing ourselves from God’s authority? On the other hand, when a church exists in a given community for 20 to 30 years, grows to 100 to 200 members, expands or replaces their meeting place, supports several preachers in other places as well as a man full-time in their own locale, etc., and never appoints men as elders, are we not also ignoring God’s divine organization for the church? Are we to believe that in that length of time and with so many Christians there are not two mature, spiritually guided men who meet the qualifications? Or is it that too many Indians want to be chief (officially or unofficially) so no chief will ever be? What of the congregation that has appointed qualified men but some members will not submit to their decisions? Perhaps some even go so far as to criticize and accuse the men or their work, heedless of what God has to say about the matter (note Heb: 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 5:19). We have even witnessed preachers in one congregation using their bulletin to publicly criticized the decisions made by the elders of another congregation on a matter well within their Scriptural authority to decide upon. When such things go on and may even go uncensored because the guilty ones in the above situations have a “reputation” of faithfulness, what right have we to criticize another’s lack of application of Bible teaching? Are we not ignoring the plain, literal meaning of God’s word as we are engaged in such? This is not said to justify or compare sins, but simply to show that neither sin is any less or greater than the other.

Many congregations are in the habit of not disciplining unruly and disorderly members. Whatever excuses are put forth, it makes one wonder why these instructions were given if God did not intend for us to follow them. What is sad though is that while we reject God’s authority in this, our ignoring of sin, we have the gall to demand authority of others in their error. Beware of hypocrisy (Matt. 7:1-5). This is not to say that we should quit demanding authority. It is to say that we should also “examine ourselves.” From the teenager to the elderly, in some places it seems that if one will attend a majority of the worship services anything (and I do mean anything) will be tolerated. As the good brother said, “Now that’s liberalism.”

And what of the congregation that just does nothing. The preacher is well known, elders are appointed, 2-3 meetings are held per year. They have a name for being alive but the truth is that members don’t care about one another or associate with one another; salvation’s work in the community is almost non-existent. The group pats themselves on the back when their children are the only ones baptized and precious few of them are actually converted to the Lord. Are we not ignoring all the admonitions to diligence, and working, and a rest in the future (not now)? We point out the error of loving passages on faith and ignoring teaching on baptism. Should we not also point out the error of loving the passages on baptism and ignoring teaching on growth, maturity, perfection, and running our race completely? Should we not more seriously consider what it means to put His kingdom and His righteousness first?

Let us not allow the term “liberal” to become a label only applied to the so-called issues. Rejecting Bible authority and ignoring plain Bible teaching is a danger that any one of us can fall prey to. Let us allow our contributions to the Lord’s cause to the only realm in which it can be said that we are “liberal.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 83
February 3, 1983

By Burton G. Lockwood

During a recent, highly publicized decision, the U.S. District Court of Arkansas, knocked down a law designed to give “scientific creationism” equal time with evolution to the public schools. In justifying his ruling, Judge Overton stated that a good solid fence must be erected and maintained between the domains of State and Church. He reasoned that since “scientific creationism” is an approach to origins based on the biblical account rather than on observing nature, it is religion, not science. To allow religion to be taught in the public schools would violate the freedom of religion of some students.

The impact of this ruling is that, in Arkansas, the State will not allow the Bible to be considered when pondering origins. The State will only allow study of the philosophy that matter somehow evolved into life through natural occurrence. This position ignores the possibility that mind created matter and it orients young minds away from giving even passing thought to their Creator.

Despite the unfavorable ruling dealt creationists in Arkansas, evolutionists are alarmed at the inroads made by the creationist lobby. Evolutionists are encouraging scientists to form groups and go on the offensive against the “unscientific notions” of creationists. Evolution propagandists warn scientists not to engage in debate (for they are often made to look foolish when they do) but to use every opportunity to ridicule and undermine creationist efforts. Emporia State University scientists formed such a group and circulated a demand that textbooks be altered to render 3.0 as God’s value for Pi. They are referring to the dimensions of a large molten sea laver described by the Bible (1 Kings 7:23) as being 10 cubits from brim to brim and 30 cubits round about. By their reasoning, their ratio is inaccurate – the circumference of a circle 10 cubits in diameter should be 31.4 cubits. In their eagerness to poke fun and ridicule, the ESU boys fail to take into account the possibility that 10 and 30 may be round numbers.

The sad side of all this furor is that a great many scientists and scholars are so dedicated to defending Darwin’s theory that they have closed their minds to a great mass of evidence. The young and naive are taught that evolution is a proven fact. The claim is made that evolutionary notions are scientific even though science allegedly deals only in observable, repeatable evidence. The simple truth is that the conjecture that life evolved on this planet from random interactions of matter over billions of years is beyond observation. Attempts to coax out life from matter have met only with failure. A theory that cannot be tested or proven through observation and repetition is beyond science. Evolution is as much religion as the biblical creation account.

Today evolutionists offer the fossil record as proof positive that Darwin’s theory is correct and yet, Darwin himself believed that it would require the discovery of transitional forms (fossil evidence of one kind of creature developing into another kind) in order to verify his speculations. After a hundred years of extensive search, transitional forms are yet to be uncovered. What a person can observe is that living creatures reproduce after their own kind. Fossils are best formed by rapid and impact burial, such as caused by a mudslide or flood, and every form of life now extant is found in the fossil record. It appears that life comes from life, not from random interactions of matter.

When creationists discover evidence damaging to evolutionary notions, their findings are generally ignored, down-played or rejected. Anyone interested in observing first hand a death blow to evolutionary thinking should visit Glen Rose, Texas, in late summer. Several miles out of town (local residents can tell you where to look) in the Paluxy River bed are footprints in stone. There are huge dinosaur tracks. Tracks of the great Brontosaurus and the terrible Tyrannus Rex abound. Mixed in with the~tracks of these monsters are the tracks of human beings. According to evolutionists, man was not on the scene when the giant lizards ruled the earth 70 to 200 million years ago. How then is the track of man found in the same rock strata as the track of dinosaur? One “scientific” explanation was that it must have been a dinosaur with a human foot! “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. . .” (Exodus 20:11).

Creationists are able to make evolutionists look ridiculous in debate because they have the truth and tangible evidence of the truth of their side. Do not be deceived into believing that science has proven anything contrary to the Word of God. As Paul wrote, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen” (1 Tim. 6:20-21).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 82
February 3, 1983