Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The failure to separate what the congregation, as such, can do and the individual can do in the service of the Lord is the cause of much misunderstanding in the church today. Two modern theories have been advanced with reference to the relationship between the church and the individual: (1) What the Christian individual can do, the church can do. This belief has resulted in church sponsored recreation, church supported human institutions (orphan homes, colleges, old folks homes, unwed mothers homes and others), and church built family centers. (2) What the church cannot do, the Christian individual cannot do. This belief has resulted in opposition to Bible departments in colleges and individually funded publishing operations.

It is the purpose of this article to emphasize that there are many things which the Christian individual must do in his individual relationship in living the Christian life that the church, as such, cannot engage in scripturally.

Christianity Involves Every Relationship Of Our Lives

Some people among us have a mistaken idea of what Christianity is. They have the idea that Christianity is churchianity, that is, that our service to Christ is exclusively tied to what goes on at the church building. However, Christianity is not merely attending the worship services, although it obviously involves this (Heb. 10:25). Christianity is not merely subscribing to a system of doctrine, although correct belief is essential to salvation from sin (Jn. 8:32; Mk. 16:16). Christianity is not simply believing; faith alone is insufficient to save (Jas. 2:24-26; Gal. 5:6). Christianity is not merely being a member of the church, although church membership is essential to salvation (Acts 2:47).

Christianity is total submission to the will of God; it is obedience to the word of God and conformity to the will of God. James wrote that the one who pleases God is the one who hears the word of God and obeys it, not the one who hears the will of God and does nothing about it (Jas. 1:22-27). The obedient children of God must fashion themselves after holiness in every aspect of life (1 Pet. 1:13-16). Consequently, Christianity embraces every relationship which one has in life. To demonstrate this, let us consider some of the relationships which one has in life to see how Christianity affects it:

1. The home. Christianity should make every man a better husband and father, every woman a better wife and mother, and every child a better, more pleasing child. The word of God governs how the husband-wife relationship should function (Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Cor. 7:1-5). The Bible governs the parent-child relationship as well (Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20). The man who is a Christian is morally obligated to order his life in reference to the home to be like the revealed word of God commands.

2. Business. The Bible regulates one’s conduct in reference to his business affairs. The Christian laborer must be a good worker, not a lazy sloth (Col. 3:22-4:1); the Christian employer must pay his laborers what they are worth, not withholding what they have earned (Jas. 5:3-4). The business in which a man labors must be honorable (Eph. 4:28 -that which is good). The Christian is morally obligated in the sight of God to provide for his family (1 Thess. 4:11-12; 1 Tim. 5:8). Furthermore, the Christian must pay his debts (Rom. 13:8; 1 Thess. 4:12). No man who refuses to live by what God has revealed in these matters is a faithful Christian.

3. Government. The word of God also regulates one’s conduct with reference to his government. The Christian must submit to the laws of his government (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17; Tit. 3:1), so long as those laws do not conflict with what God’s word requires of him (Acts 5:29). The Christian has an obligation to pay his taxes which are imposed on him by civil government (Rom. 13:6-7). The Christian recognizes the legislation of God in these matters and abides by them.

4. The community. A Christian also has obligations to the community in which he lives. He must conduct himself in such a manner before his neighbors that his life is an example to them which would cause them to glorify God (1 Pet. 2:12; Col. 4:5; Matt. 5:13-16). He has an obligation to help the sick and needy of the world, whether they be Christian or not (Gal. 6:10; Lk. 10:25-37).

5. The church. The Christian also has obligations to the church. He must support the church by his attendance at the worship services (Heb. 10:25), his financial support (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 9:6-7), and by his personal labor in whatever scriptural activities the church may chose to be engaged.

Hence, Christianity involves every relationship in one’s life. Christianity makes a man a better citizen, a better family member, a better business man, and a better member of the community because the word of God regulates more than one’s activities at the services of the local church. Every relationship in one’s life is governed by the word of God.

The Church And The Individual: Distinctive Responsibilities

With reference to the church and the individual, most people recognize that there are distinctive responsibilities given to each in most relationships of life. However, in some areas of activity, some are becoming confused, transferring to the church responsibilities given to the individual. Therefore, let us be careful to distinguish the areas of responsibility of the church and the individual.

1. Business. The individual has a moral obligation to become involved in some kind of gainful occupation in order to provide for his family. Indeed, the man who refuses to provide for his family through some kind of honorable labor stands condemned in the sight of God. However, the church has absolutely no right, there is absolutely no positive divine authority for the church, to be engaged in business for profit. There is no scriptural authority for the church to own and operation businesses designed to make money in order to support the works which it is obligated before God to perform. Hence, the activity of the church and the activity of the individual are distinctive. Sin will have been committed if the church becomes involved in activities given to the individual. It is simply not true that whatever the Christian individual can do the church can do!

2. The home. God gave the individual some obligations to perform that the church was commanded not to perform. In 1 Timothy 5:1-16, Paul charged the Christians to care for their aged parents stating, “But 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). He then stated that the church was to provide for those who were “widows indeed.” He gave the qualifications which a widow must meet before she can become the permanent responsibility of the church (1 Tim. 5:9-10). Finally, he concluded, “if any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed” (1 Tim. 5:16). Paul plainly stated that there were some responsibilities given to the individual which cannot and must not be placed upon the church. If we learn nothing else from this passage, we learn that the thesis “what the individual can do the church can do” is wrong. Furthermore, we see that the establishment and support of old folks homes supported by the church, in which Christians place their aged parents to be supported from the treasuries of the church, is sinful.

There is a movement among many churches to transfer obligations given to the family to the church. For example, the family has obligations to provide recreation for its children. However, many churches are providing recreational activities for its members (teenagers and adults) through church sponsored recreation. There is no Bible authority for this. The church is sinning when it acts in these matters in exactly the same manner as it would sin if it became involved in businesses to support its programs of work. The responsibility of providing recreation was given to the family, not to the church. In the absence of positive divine authority, the church sins when becoming involved in church sponsored recreation.

Many churches are also becoming involved in supporting colleges. I recognize that God has given me a responsibility to provide for the education of my children. However, God has never given the church the responsibility of providing for the education of the children of its members. For the church to become involved in the support of colleges is sinful. There is no Bible authority authorizing it. It is just as sinful for the church to become involved in the support of colleges as it is for the church to be involved in business for profit.

The work which God has given the individual is different from that which he has given the church. The adage, “Whatever the individual can do, the church can do,” is false. The transferral of parental obligations to the church is a violation of God’s will.

3. The government. Whereas we have already shown that the individual has certain obligations to the government, it is not true that individual obligations to the government can be transferred to the church. Although all Christians have a moral obligation to pay taxes, we could not transfer these obligations to the church, let the church transfer these responsibilities to a human institution, and then send a contribution to that institution each month for the payment of individual taxes.

As a citizen, I have an obligation to do everything which I can to influence my government for good. However, God has nowhere given the church the responsibility to become involved in government and politics. I read of denominations passing resolutions designed to influence the decisions of government, ranging from the war in Viet Nam to the situation in Iran. For the church to become involved in such activities is a violation of God’s word, inasmuch as the church has nowhere been commanded to become involved in politics.

4. The community. We have already demonstrated that a Christian has certain obligations to the community in which he lives. Among the obligations to the community in which I live would be the responsibility to provide for the poor in the community. I am to be a “good Samaritan” in reference to helping the poor and those who are suffering. I am to do good to all men (Gal. 6:10). Furthermore, I have the right to cooperate with other individuals in meeting these needs. If I chose to work with others in forming an orphans home or old folks home, that is certainly within the sphere of things which God allows the individual to do in discharging his responsibilities.

Some are trying to transfer their individual obligations to the local church. Apparently, they consider the church to be some kind of sanctified Salvation Army. We see this manifested in the attempts to involve the church in the support of orphan homes, old folks homes, unwed mothers homes, building of hospitals, mental institutions, and camps for children. Each of these activities are perfectly right when provided for by individuals. However, there is no Bible authority for the church to be involved in general benevolence. God has not given the church the responsibility to provide for the benevolent needs of the entire world.

Consequently, for the church to become involved in supporting orphan homes, old folks homes, unwed mothers home, and hospitals is wrong. There is no Bible authority for it; the church which becomes so involved is presuming to-act without divine authority.

Conclusion

Some have been so mistaken with reference to the church and the individual that they have said, “When the individual acts, the church has acted.” This is simply not true! If a member of the church commits fornication, the church has not committed fornication. If a member of the church becomes involved in gainful employment, the church is not involved in gainful employment. If an individual sends a contribution to some benevolent or educational institution, the church is not involved in sending the contribution.

God has given the church certain responsibilities and he has given the individual certain responsibilities. In no instance does the discharge of one’s individual obligations conflict with his duty to the church. In no instance does the discharge of one’s individual obligations relieve him of his obligations to the church, or vice versa.

For the church to be what God wants it to be, it must disentangle itself from many of its unholy alliances. I am speaking of church sponsored recreation, church support of human institutions (colleges, benevolent organizations of every kind, hospitals, etc.), and whatever other activities it might be involved in for which there is no positive divine authority. These alliances have sapped the church’s finances, weakened its freedom and independent existence, and otherwise hindered the church from doing its God given work. Some churchmen have so compromised the faith that the gospel can scarcely be distinguished from a cultural humanism or social improvement group. It has stemmed from the mistaken idea that whatever the individual can do, the church can do. The premise is false and the conclusions drawn therefrom has been destructive to the purity of the church. It is time for those involved in such activities to repent and beg God’s forgiveness in order that the work which God gave the church can receive our full attention.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 11, pp. 163-165
March 12, 1981

By Dudley Ross Spears

The education of children is the chief concern of pareri”. The first consideration in that education is teaching, our young what the will of God is. That is more importai4 than all of the diplomas or educational honors in all the World. Instructing our children in the teaching of the Bible 1$ not optional. Its importance cannot be underestimated. The divine instruction, “bring them (our children, DRS) up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) is as binding on us as is any other command of God.

Secular education, though not as important as biblical learning, is becoming more and more an important ingredient in the lives of our children. Jobs are hard enough to come by in these times with a good education. The individual with neither education nor experience is faced with an almost impossible situation. There was a time when a person served some time as an apprentice and then settled down to a job for life. Later, a high school diploma was required and now a college education is necessary for most jobs. Many of us who did not have the opportunity to get a good college education want better than that for our children. We want to provide them with, at least the opportunity to get, a good education.

Secular education is certainly a deep concern of parents. What kind of education can a Christian provide for his or her son or daughter? Where will they find that type of education? Will they be able to afford the financial burden? These and many more questions come before parents who are faced with sending a son or daughter away to some college or university for formal education.

A few years ago, I felt that the education of my children was a problem I would have to worry about someday but not at the time then. I would wait till they were about ready to graduate from high school – then I would plan. As is always the case, that time came long before I thought it would. Now that time is here. Plans have to become concrete acts now.

What kind of education do I want to provide for my children? Their spiritual life is far more important than anything else. They must have the education that is best suited to the instruction they have already had in the word of the Lord. They need an education in an environment most like what they have learned from the Bible. They need to be in the company of those of “like precious faith.”

Where can parents who are Christians find a college or university where their children can have this kind of atmosphere? State universities and colleges are available and the tuition and fees are usually more reasonable than privately endowed schools. State universities and colleges have, however, many undesirable features. The university in the town I live in is considered a lot more conservative than most such institutions, but the moral problems have greatly increased. Formerly men could not visit women in the dormitories in the private rooms with the door shut but this year that rule went by the boards. The use of narcotics is also a problem in state schools. A poll taken last year revealed that well over 50% of enrolling freshman across the country blatantly admitted to the smoking of marijuana and taking of “hard” drugs. Sixty per cent of the coeds said they saw nothing wrong with pre-marital sex if the partners really loved each other. If Christians can find an option where their children can receive a quality education and avoid such influences and forces while having the Bible taught and being with other young Christians, it is far better to take that option and thank God for it.

If I have the choice of sending my children to a school, operated by faithful Christians, where the Bible is taught and where a good moral climate is encouraged, that is the choice I must make. If it costs me more money, I will just have to make a special effort and drive an old bucket of bolts a little longer. No value can be placed on good character, strong convictions and a faith deeply rooted in the word of God. Thank God that some brethren are willing to provide a school like this, even at personal sacrifice to themselves.

For a century the right of brethren to build and operate such a school has been questioned. The objection is not to building and operating a school, but to the addition of a Bible department, or requiring each student to study the Bible or having a special “student preacher” department. It has been contended that when a school incorporates the teaching of the Bible into its curriculum they are “doing the work God gave exclusively to His church.” It is not a question of churches contributing to such colleges, but their right even to exist if they teach the Bible as a course of study. As an adjunct to the home, is it scriptural for brethren to operate a school that will endeavor to continue what parents have begun – bringing up children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord?

The local church is the only organization authorized by the Lord to do the work He wants the church to do. Any other organized effort exists without scriptural authority, when it does the work God gave the church to do. That work is to cause the gospel to be preached (1 Tim. 3:15), relieve the needy for whom it is responsible (1 Tim. 5:16) and edify itself in love (Eph. 4:15). The discipline and instruction of our children is our duty as parents, not the duty of the church.

Because God has restricted and limited the church in the realm of organization through which work of the church may be accomplished does not argue that God has so restricted parents. The church and the home are both self-perpetuating but there is a difference. Local churches are completely independent and autonomous in their work and worship (1 Pet. 5:1-4). Is this true of families? When a son marries and has his own family, are his parents to simply recognize his existence as a separate family and no more? It is obvious that we cannot apply the rules of God’s word to families that are applied to local churches. Therefore, when a school operates only as an adjunct to the home and not a church school or institution, there is no breach of scriptural precedent.

As long as schools stay schools and exist to provide Christians the opportunity to educate their children in the right kind of environment they deserve our support and encouragement. May God bless parents in doing all they can, “bringing up their children in the instruction of the Lord,” and may God also bless those who operate good schools that do what we as parents cannot do.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 11, pp. 162, 172
March 12, 1981

By Lynn Trapp

Recently, some preachers have tried to develop a system of justification in which faith is given preeminence over obedience to God’s revealed plan of salvation. Were these ideas coming from a Baptist or a Methodist preacher we would have no great cause for alarm. However, I am referring to men who call themselves gospel preachers, some who have been faithful preachers in years gone by.(1) Thus, brethren have reason to be concerned that souls will be deceived into believing error.

This new system is not entirely unique. It relies upon the rhetoric and vocabulary of Reformed Theologians such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Arthur W. Pink, and others.(2) Yet, many of these words and phrases are unique in that they are nothing more than borrowed terminology which have no basis in a correct understanding of their use in Reformed Doctrine. This is simply to say that these modern Reformers are not “classical” Calvinists or Lutherans, but accept the conclusions (faith only and imputed righteousness) without accepting the premises (unconditional election and imputed sin). Another unique feature of this new system is the attempt to include repentance, confession, and baptism in “faith” and to exclude them from “works.” This is done because these men cannot seem to understand how Paul could say that man is not “justified by the works of the law” and also say that a man must “do” something in order to be saved. Instead of the one offered by the New-Reformers, the solution to the supposed problem lies in a proper understanding of Bible language.

No Justification By Works Of The Law

When we read Paul’s statement “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight” (Rom. 3:20), several facts ought to be kept in mind. (1) He is dealing with the fact of sin in all men (v. 10). (2) The law under consideration is the law of Moses.(3) (3) He is establishing the validity of a system of justification which has the “obedience of faith” as the means of procuring the benefits of the death of Christ, which is the ground of our justification. The apostle further establishes that justification by the Law of Moses would demand sinlessness (Gal. 3:10). Yet, “all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;” therefore, that law which brought the knowledge of sin could do nothing for the sinner but establish his sinful condition before God. (4) When Paul mentions faith in this passage he is not talking about “faith only” or what one chose to call the “principle of faith alone.”(4) A careful examination of Rom. 3 should show the reader that Paul is teaching that the sinner cannot be pronounced righteous by a law which demands sinlessness, but that we now have a law, “a law of faith,” which provides for the forgiveness of the obedient.

Not Of Works

In Eph. 2:8-9, the sugar-stick of Baptist preachers, Paul said, “for by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man would glory.” This passage has been worked and overworked in an attempt to prove that we are saved by faith only. One even went so far as to suggest that the punctuation might be wrong in verse 9.(5) Examining the passage, the reader finds that Paul is dealing with a special kind of works, i.e., works about which one boasts or glories. In true obedience to the word of God there is no such glorying. The plan of salvation is God’s plan (1 Cor. 1:26-29) and by the good works contained therein we are made the “workmanship” of God (Eph. 2:10).(6) This is the same point as is made in Tit. 3:5 where man is taught to rely on the grace and mercy of the Lord and not his own plans and schemes.(7)

Repentance, Confession, And Baptism – Works

The effort to remove repentance, confession, and baptism from the realm of works in ludicrous at the very best and laughable at the very worst. It is somewhat like a math saying he is going to lift a box with his arms but he is not going to use his muscles. The concept is based on a purely subjective and arbitrary definition of the word works. It claims, in essence, that work must always be referring to the same thing and can never refer to repentance, confession, and baptism. Such reasoning could be used to show that no command of God, i.e. Lord’s Supper and attendance, is a work, thus reducing the entire system to the absurdity of saying, “You must obey God’s commands, just do not call it that. Call it faith.” The end result would be the same except that those who continue to refer to Bible things with Bible words would be called cold and unfeeling.

Someone might ask, then, “Is this all a battle of semantics?” The answer is a resounding, “No!” The concept I have exposed here is just the tip of the ice-berg. This is a whole new concept; not Calvinistic and not Biblical; but borrowing rhetoric from both, making it a hodge-podge of platitudes which are meaningless and, most importantly, unscriptural.

The Relationship Of Faith And Works

The relationship between faith and works is very important. Faith is the principle of the heart which produces proper action on the part of the believer.(8) The faith of the ancients, Heb. 11, is set forth as the basis of their doing. Any other kind of doing would be useless, nonetheless, the doing was an integral part of their obtaining the reward. To have faith without works is as useless as an impoverished man trying to consume the oral blessings of his friends. He is just as hungry as before. Specifically, James said, “Faith apart from works is dead” (Jas. 2:26).(9) There are multitudes of passages which establish the need for obedience (Mt. 7:21; Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:13; Heb. 5:8-9; etc.), but our point is that obedience must proceed from faith in order to be of any value. “Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to Him” (Heb. 11:6). Cold, unfeeling ceremonialism will not save anyone.

Conclusion

In closing we want to emphasize that the problem of ceremonialism will not be solved by telling people that baptism is not a work but is a natural part of faith. Formalism does not relate to doctrines, but to attitudes. The Baptists and Methodists have taught faith only for hundreds of years and, yet, many of their churches are as cold and formalistic as any Catholic church on earth. Only by instilling true faith in God based upon the true revelation of the scriptures can we turn men into vibrant and active servants of the Lord.

Endnotes:

1. Arnold Hardin, “It said we get wisdom through our own efforts in study and learning. The point being that since we obtain wisdom that way then we must obtain righteousness by our own efforts as well. These characteristics are not imputed to us! Such is absolutely nothing short of works righteousness by law-keeping instead of faith righteousness in Christ” (The Persuader, Vol. XIII, No. 4, Sept. 17, 1978, emphasis Hardin’s, LT). Billy Williams, “We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-10)., any work” (Truth Magazine, May 3, 1979, p. 9).

2. Brethren Hardin and Williams constantly use such unbiblical terms as “faith alone,” “imputed righteousness,” “forensic justification,” etc. These are Reformed concepts based upon an unscriptural doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

3. Some try to say that the absence of the definite article before the word “law” means that he is referring to any law. If there is any merit to the point, then the presence of the definite article in v. 19 shows that he has a specific law in mind, the Law of Moses. Also, if any law is under consideration then the law of Christ could justify no man. See also Gal. 3:11.

4. Billy Williams, Ibid., p. 10.

5. Bobby Sparks, a Baptist preacher, said, “. . . not of works period” (Trapp-Sparks Debate, 1975).

6. The word translated “unto” (KJV) and “for” (ASV) in Eph. 2:10 – “unto good works” – is from epi which means “that upon which any action, effect, condition, rests as a basis or support; -prop. upon the ground of (Thayer, p. 232). Hence, it is possible that the apostle is establishing good works as the basis of our being made the workmanship of God.

7. The contrast between “works of righteousness” and the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” ought to show the reader that the works of righteousness are not works of obedience to God.

8. K.C. Moser has chided this concept of faith, yet his own explanations of what faith is contradicts himself and leaves him guilty of the same position. See The Gist of Romans, pp. viii, 3, 24.

9. That there is no contradiction between James and Paul can be seen when we understand that they were dealing with the same thing from a different standpoint. Paul is emphasizing what God has done for man in giving the plan of salvation. James is emphasizing what man must do in order to receive the benefits of the plan of salvation.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 11, pp. 161, 171
March 12, 1981

By Luther Bolenbarker

Jesus said, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62). One of the saddest truths we must face is that some Christians will be lost eternally. This truth is not because God wills it, but rather because they (unfaithful Christians) will it to be so by ceasing to do God’s will for one reason or another. These developed reasons (weak excuses) when used often enough will cause “an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God” (Heb. 3:12).

Putting our hands to the plow is of the utmost importance to our becoming a Christian and working in the Lord’s vineyard. Some will quit working while others look back to the old ways of sin. Jesus said these were not fit for the kingdom any longer. Not fit equals lost!

This truth is hard to face, so hard in fact many refuse to face it or accept it. Some denominations have come up with the “impossibility of apostasy,” saying “God’s children cannot fall,” or “Once saved, always saved,” or “if they fall, they really weren’t Christians anyway.” All of these slogans are made in spite of the numerous examples to be found in the Bible showing children of God falling in all dispensations of time (i.e. Adam and Eve fell, King Saul fell, David fell, children of Israel fell, Ananias and Sapphira fell, Hymenaeus and Alexander fell, Demas fell). On and on the list could go. Perhaps you could add a name to the list: “___________ is an unfaithful Christian. I’m going to do what I can to bring them back and if I am successful and convert ____________ from the error of his/her way, then I shall have a part in saving a soul from death” (James 5:19, 20).

Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8) was a Christian (Mk. 16:15, 16, Acts 8:13); however, he erred from the truth through sin. Peter told him to repent and pray for forgiveness (Acts 8:22).

If your name could be written in the space above, will you not do as Simon: repent and become a “faithful child of God, with the hope of heaven?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 10, p. 157
March 5, 1981