Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Even- as the people of the Lord are to be separated from the world in the speech which they use, they are also separated from the world in the doctrines which they preach. That has always been the case.

First Century Church Had Unique Doctrine

The doctrine of the church in the first century was unique. The early church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). They realized that God had sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles in all truth (Jn. 14:26; 16:13). Consequently, what was revealed through the apostles was understood to be the word of God (1 Cor. 14:37-38; 1 Thess. 2:13). Hence, the early church followed the revelation which God gave to them through the apostles.

This certainly distinguished them from the Jews in general. The Jewish religion followed the law of Moses; some of them added the traditions which had been handed down by well-known rabbis. However, the Jews stood opposed to apostolic doctrine, challenging the, authority of the apostles (cf. Acts 4:2; 5:28). Even as they opposed the Lord before them, the early Jews opposed the apostles in what they preached and taught. The conflict with the Judaizers over whether or nor the Law of Moses was binding upon Gentiles, reflects the opposition which existed with reference to the authority of the apostles. It also shows how distinctive the message of the apostles was from that which was preached by Jews of the first century.

Even as the message which was preached by first century Christians was clearly distinguishable from that which was preached by Jews, it was also clearly distinguishable from that which was preached by pagan religions. The pagans followed their supposed revelations (e.g., the oracles of Delphi): The revelation which the apostles gave to the early church was easily distinguished from that which pagans followed.

Respect For Apostolic Authority

God’s people today will be unique because of their peculiar respect for apostolic authority. Whereas the world in general has an attitude of a subjective approach toward religion, the church adheres to the principle that one must have positive divine authority for what it preaches and practices: Consider this difference in more detail.

Modern denominationalism is somewhat diverse in its attitude to what is preached. Roman Catholics are, theoretically at least, bound to believe and preach what their church sanctions as true. If the pope makes a pronouncement about birth control, Catholics are supposed to adhere to what he speaks. With continuous revelation, that which is taught by the church is constantly subject to change. Similarly, old-line Protestant denominations were obligated to preach what their creed books taught. When a legislative council met, every member of that denomination was expected to adhere to what came out of it. Two recent examples of this are seen in the following citations:

(1) A Westminster Seminary graduate was denied a Presbyterian Church in Canada pastor’s license, presumably over the women’s ordination issue. Daniel MacDougall, a member of Bridlewood Church, Toronto, had told a committee of the Presbytery of East Toronto that he could not in conscience ordain women ministers or elders. The presbytery voted to reject MacDougall’s application, and after he appealed, the synod upheld the presbytery’s decision. The denomination authorized women’s ordination in 1966 and, responding to recent allegations of discrimination against women clergy candidates, the 1979 General Assembly appointed a task force to probe and correct any such discrimination (Christianity Today, 7 December 1979, p. 52).

(2) An article in Christianity Today (2 November 1979, pp. 58-60) related the conflict among Presbyterians over such things as ordination of homosexuals. Cases have been taken to the court to determine who owns the church property in cases of unresolved differences. The denomination claimed to own the church building in such cases; however, recent court decisions have awarded the property to the local congregation rather than the denomination.

Both of these examples demonstrate the denomination’s attitude that whatever it pronounces is official dogma is to be preached by its “pastors” and believed by its laity.

Recent times have witnessed the demise of a strict doctrinal emphasis by the major denominations. Whereas the former years saw Baptist teaching why they were Baptist and not Methodists, Presbyterians explaining why they were not Episcopalians, and all Protestant denominations stating why they were not Catholics (and vice versa), modern denominationalism has tended to take less interest in the dogmas being taught. The modern denominationalist does not know what their church teaches or does not care to find out. Generally, he believes whatever appeals to his fancy. Like the man who goes through the food line in a smorgasbord cafeteria and picks out whatever food pleases him while leaving the rest, the modern denominationalist believes whatever doctrines appeal to his fancy without regard to consistency in doctrine. Furthermore, modern denominationalists display the attitude that so long as one has a general commitment to Jesus Christ, he can be in the denominational fellowship regardless of what he believes and teaches otherwise. The gospel-doctrine distinction as a basis of fellowship which has been taught among us by Ketcherside, Garrett, Fudge, Hardin and others in recent years has been preached and practiced among denominationalists for years!

In a world which displays this attitude toward what is taught from the pulpit and believed by the members, Christians who preach apostolic authority for all that is done and preached is unique. Which other religious group in existence today demands book, chapter and verse for all that is done and said? Which other people claims to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent? So long as God’s people are doing these two things, demanding book, chapter and verse for what is taught and speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent, they will be unique.

The Christian will not blend in with the world and lose his distinctiveness so long as he is asking the religious world where is their Bible authority for wearing such names as Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc. The Christian will be distinctive from the world so long as he requests book, chapter, and verse for church support of hospitals, colleges, and other social activities. The Christian will be distinctive so long as he demands that book, chapter, and verse be given for every item which is practiced in religion. Even as the first century saints were distinctive from the world around them by the fact that they followed apostolic authority, so also twentieth century saints will be distinctive by their appeal to apostolic authority.

Unique Doctrines

Some of the doctrines which have become distinctive because of denominationalism’s apostasy from apostolic doctrines include the following:

1. Salvation by a working faith. Modern Protestant denominationalists are characterized by their belief and acceptance of salvation by “faith only.” The only time that “faith only” occurs in the Authorized Version is in James 2:24 – “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Instead of teaching salvation by faith only, the Scriptures teach salvation by faith (Rom. 5:1) – a faith that is working by love (Gal. 5:6). So long as we teach that faith must be active in order to save a man, we will be easily distinguished from Protestant denominationalism.

2. Water baptism is essential for salvation. The Scriptures clearly indicate that water baptism is essential for salvation (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; and other Scriptures). Denominationalists of every hue deny that water baptism is essential for salvation. Believing that one is saved the very moment that he believes in Jesus Christ, they deny that one must be immersed in water in order to have his sins washed away. So long as one teaches that water baptism is essential to salvation, he will be distinguishable from the religious world around him.

3. The oneness of the church. The Scriptures reveal that Christ built one church (Matt: 16:18). He is the head (Eph: 1:22-23) of only one body (Eph. 4:4). So long as one teaches and believes that there is only one church, he will be distinguishable from the religious world around him. The modern religious world believes that there are good people in every church who will go in heaven; the very idea that there is only one church is considered to be narrowminded and bigoted. Yet, the Scriptures clearly teach the oneness of the church.

This list of peculiar doctrines could be extended; just about everything which is revealed in the Scriptures is denied by someone in the religious world! Consequently, so long as brethren are steadfastly teaching apostolic doctrine, they will be separate from the religious world around them.

Conclusion

In the early years of Gospel Guardian, Yater Tant wrote the following comments about the same trends which we are seeing develop among us:

We keep hearing a great deal of talk about a “new era” in the church. It seems that quite a few people (mostly on the West Coast) are convinced that the church needs to revamp and readjust her whole attitude and outlook to fit her new and improved status economically and socially. Since the church has moved out from “across the tracks,” and has become a large and respected member of the fraternity of churches, she must shed her backwoodsy and provincial mannerisms and accept the obligations of her new position.

For one thing, it is being urged that all this “personalized” preaching be relegated to the past. We cannot hope to command the respect we ought to have from our Methodist and Baptist neighbors, we are told, if we continually call their names from our pulpits and try to show that “they’re wrong, and we’re right.” We must preach a positive gospel, simply emphasizing the truths of the New Testament without any reference whatever to those who differ from us. People will soon enough see the beauty of true Christianity, and will turn from the husks of error to accept it.

Sounds pretty, doesn’t it?

The only trouble is, it simply isn’t so. People will not turn from error till they are convinced that it is error; they will not turn to the truth until they are convinced that it is truth. And the only way under heaven to bring that conviction to their hearts is to let them see the two side by side – error contrasted with truth. Otherwise the churches will become filled up with people who are not converted, not converted t9-the Lord, that is. They will have joined the church (literally) because it is a nice and respectable denomination, and not because of any overwhelming conviction that they are doomed to everlasting hell outside the Lord’s church. They will make little or no effort to win their friends and loved ones away from Lutheran and Presbyterian and Catholic churches. Why should they? For unless they have been taught that these churches are false, they will inevitably hold to the popular idea that “one church is as good as another.”

This “new” liberalism in the church, which seems strongest on the West Coast, but is by no means confined to that area, is neither new nor liberal. It is the old, old heresy that the apostate Disciples’ church fell into when they abandoned the militant aggressiveness of the early restoration years. The result was that the digressive church became honey-combed with unconverted people. It is made up of people largely without religious conviction, people who have married out of their own church, and have compromised on the Christian church. Because of this general absence of doctrinal depth the digressives have hit the toboggan slide toward total and irretrievable apostacy. Isaac Errett himself would be shocked and horrified into speechlessness (and that would be some shock for Errett!) if he knew of the present day practices of his followers. The idea of a distinctive gospel has long since disappeared from the pulpits of the Disciples’ churches.

Let the exponents of the “new era” in the church just remember that for the most part the very churches in which they preach and of which they are members were hewn out of denominational strongholds by uncompromising men who believed that the church of Christ is the true and only church, and that every other church on this earth is false and counterfeit. Not only did they believe this, but they boldly proclaimed it – from the pulpit as well as in their daily conversation. They loved their sectarian neighbors, loved them so earnestly and. sincerely that they dared not let them go complacently unwarned into the final judgment (“Dawn of a New Era,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. I, No. 15, p. 2).

I can only add a hearty amen to these fine comments. The only change which needs to be made is to update the article to the liberal church what brother Tant then applied to the Disciples of Christ.

Let us unabashedly proclaim Christ as the only hope of glory, the church as the blood-bought body of Christ, the only body of which He is the Savior. Strong doctrinal preaching might be out of style in the twentieth century among half-converted people and denominationalists; it will never be out of style to those dedicated saints who are serving the Lord all over this country.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, pp. 547-549
August 28, 1980

By Steve Willis

As remarkable as it may sound, the sun is indeed shrinking, according to the studies of two scientists. “John A. Eddy (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and. High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boomazian (a mathmetician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1 % per century . . . corresponding to a shrinkage of about 5 feet per hour” (statement by Gloria B. Lubkin in Physics Today, V. 32, No. 17, 1979; quoted in Impact, No. 82, a publication of the Institute for Creation Research).

Is this important information to have? We at least do not need to worry about our sun shrinking down to nothing very soon. But this information is important when we study the origin of the universe. If the sun is getting smaller, then in the past it must have been bigger. The creationist, who believes that the universe was created about six to ten thousand years ago, need not worry about the sun’s being larger in the past. The sun would have only been six to ten per cent larger at creation than it is now.

The evolutionist needs to be concerned about the sun’s being larger in the past, for in order’ to have enough time for his theory of evolution to take place, he must have over four billion years of history. How far back into the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface is too close to the earth making the earth’s surface too hot to sustain life.

Assuming the rate of shrinkage has been constant – and if anything, it would have been slower for a larger body scientists have calculated that the sun would have been touching the earth at approximately 20 million years B.C. Any time before that date, the earth would have been inside the sun’s diameter. The evolutionists claim that organic evolution needs 500 to 2,000 million years to take place. This means that if evolution did occur, all but the last 20 million years took place inside the sun.

There is another thing to consider, though: 20 million years ago is when the surface of the sun would have been touching the earth (i.e., the earth emerged from the sun). Certainly life could not have been forming under these scorchingly hot conditions! Conditions would have been better at 100 thousand years B.C. – though this is not enough time for evolution to occur according to the present theories. It is also thought by scientists that the shrinkage rate would have been slower for a larger body, which would push all of these dates back further for the time of the earth’s emergence from the sun, giving the evolutionist even less time to develop his theory.

What all this means is this: The earth can be no more than 20 million years old. All life on earth must be less than 100 thousand-years old. These dates are not consistant with the evolutionary models of the origins of earth and its life. The tiny change that would have occurred in the sun during Biblical time (since creation) would go virtually unnoticed. Thus, the changes in the sun are consistent with a recent creation; one described by Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, p. 546
August 28, 1980

By Johnie Edwards

According to the January 1980 issue of The General Baptist Messenger, Baptist Church doctrine is something more than the Bible. In an article on the traits of a good Bible teacher, it is stated, “Traits of a good Bible teacher are that a teacher have a good knowledge of the Bible and General Baptist Doctrine.”

This is rather interesting. If the Bible teaches the doctrine of the General Baptist Church, why would the author say that a teacher needs to have a good knowledge of the Bible and General Baptist Doctrine? Does not the statement imply that one would have to have more than just the Bible to know about the doctrine of the Baptist church?

I read in the New Testament about doctrine. In fact I read about:

(1) The Apostles’ Doctrine. It is said of the early Christians, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). The doctrine of the apostles was the teaching they did.

(2) The Doctrine of Christ. John said, “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” (2 John 9). The doctrine of Christ refers simply to what Jesus taught and, to please God, must abide in that doctrine!

(3) Sound Doctrine. Paul charged Titus, “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Our teaching must be sound to please God.

(4) Doctrines of men. Jesus charged some with worshiping in vain. “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines of the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). The teachings of men are foreign to the doctrine of Christ and such teachings will render ones worship vain.

(5) Doctrine is to be obeyed. Paul was thankful that the Romans had obeyed the form of doctrine. “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye become the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18).

When one obeys the doctrine of the New Testament he becomes just a Christian. It takes more than the Bible to make one a Baptist. Could this be the reason the General Baptist Messenger said that one needs to have a good knowledge of the Bible and General Baptist Doctrine?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, p. 545
August 28, 1980

By Greg Litmer

One of the doctrines of Catholicism that we must thoroughly investigate is the doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper, or as they term it, the Holy Eucharist. In this lesson, we intend to examine this practice of the Catholics in depth. Allow me to say at this point that these lessons are not being given out of any animosity toward Catholics, because that simply is not the case. The scriptures teach us that we are to “hate every false way” (Psa. 119:104), however, and Catholicism is certainly that.

As a starting point for our lesson, let us determine just exactly what the Holy Eucharist is. According to the Baltimore Catechism (p. 273), “The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received. (a) The whole Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words `really, truly and substantially’ to describe Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish Our Lord’s teaching from that of mere men who falsely teach that the Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, or that He is present only by His power” Later, on the same page, we are informed that the word “Eucharist” means “Thanksgiving.”

The Catholics teach that the Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist on the night before He died. I agree that on that night Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, but certainly did not institute what has grown in Catholic doctrine into the Holy Eucharist. The Biblical texts that they use to support this are Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; and 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Let us look at 1 Cor. 11:23-29. There we read,

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood.- this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; not discerning the Lord’s body.”

Now before we begin to examine their texts and see whether or not they really teach what they say they teach, let us turn once again to the Baltimore Catechism to have their position a little more fully explained. In answer to the question, “How did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist?” the Catechism says, “Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist in this way: He took bread, blessed and broke it, and giving it to His apostles, said: `Take and eat; this is My body;’ then He took a cup of wine, blessed it, and giving it to them, said: `All of you drink of this; for this is my blood of the new covenant which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins;’ finally, He gave His apostles the commission: `Do this in remembrance of Me.’

Please pay careful attention to the next quote. In answer to the question, “What happened when our Lord said: `This is My body . . . this is My blood?”‘, the Catechism says, “When Our Lord said, `This is My body,’ the entire substance of the bread changed to His body; and when He said, `This is my blood,’ the entire substance of the wine was changed into His blood. (a) Christ could not have used clearer more explicit words than `This is My Body.’ He did not say, `This is a sign of My body,’ or `This represents My body,’ but; “This is My body.’ Catholics take Christ at His word because He is the omnipotent God. On His word, they know that the Holy Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.”

We are now going to look at the points that have been made from the Catechism thus far. Before we do, however, allow me to wander off of the subject a little because I cannot allow that last statement to go by unnoticed. In an obvious statement toward those who believe that the Lord’s Supper is a representation of the death of Jesus, they said that they take Christ at His word. Nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics take Christ at His word when His word suits their purposes and that is the only time. The same Jesus said in Matt. 23:8-10, “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” Jesus, whom the Catechism claims that Catholics take at His word, declared that we are not to use exalting titles for men, particularly religiously. The next time you run into a priest, see if he does not introduce himself as Father So-And-So, and expect to be called the same. Accepting part of what Jesus says is just like accepting none of it.

Let us look at their points now. It is true that Jesus said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” He said this as He was there bodily in the midst of the apostles. It is truly a beautiful example of figurative language, and considering what He was about to undergo, His death and resurrection, it takes on an even greater significance. But the fact remains that it was an example of figurative language. The very fact that He was standing there saying these words to His apostles and handing them the bread and fruit of the vine illustrates this point. Another example of this type of language occurs in John 10. Turn there and read the first ten verses. There the Bible says,

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 1 am the door. by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have, life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

Twice in that passage Jesus said, “1 am the door,” but did He mean a literal door, one that you can open and walk through? Did he mean a door like the ones you have on your house? No, that was figurative language, meant to convey a message. Standing there as He was, it is obvious that He did not mean that He was a literal door, the kind that you can turn the knob and open.

So it was with the words He used when He instituted the Lord’s Supper. Just as Jesus did not become a literal door right before their eyes, neither did the bread and wine become His actual body and blood.

In the Catholic practice of Holy Eucharist, what happens to the bread and wine once this change is supposed to have taken place? Once again we turn to the Baltimore Catechism. In answer to the question. “Did anything of the bread and wine remain after their substance had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood?”, the Catechism says, “After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood, there remained only the appearance of bread and wine. (a) Because the appearance of bread and wine remain in the Holy Eucharist, we cannot see Christ with our bodily eyes in this sacrament. We see Him, however, with the eyes of faith. Our bodily eyes, moreover, do not deceive us when they see the appearances of bread and wine, for these appearances really remain after the Consecration of the Mass.” In other words, no physical change takes place whatsoever. There is proof once again that the language that Jesus used was figurative.

In answer to the question, “What do we mean by the appearances of bread and wine?”, the Catechism says, “By the appearances of bread and wine we mean their color, taste, weight, shape, and whatever else appears to the senses.” That just about covers it, doesn’t it? What they are saying is that there is no evidence at all that a change has taken place. There is absolutely no evidence of a miracle. Interestingly enough, the .purpose of miracles in the New Testament was to confirm the word, to show that the Lord was working with them (Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:4). With no evidence of a miracle having taken place, it could hardly fulfill that purpose, could it?

In all fairness though, let us allow the Catechism to explain how this change, which is called “Transubstantiation” takes place. In answer to the question, “How was Our Lord able to change bread and wine into His body and blood?”, it says, “Our Lord was able to change bread and wine into His body and blood by His almighty power. (a) God, who created all things from nothing, who- fed the five thousand with five loaves, who changed water into wine instantaneously, who raised the dead to life, can change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Although the Holy Eucharist is a great mystery; and consequently beyond human understanding, (I think this is the key -gl) the principles of sound reason can show that this great gift is not impossible by the power of God.

I think that the principles of sound reasoning will show us that no change takes place at all. Using the miracles that they used in their defense, when God created the earth and all things in it, there was abundant evidence that He had done it. All we have to do is look around us. When the 5,000 were fed, the evidence was clear. All had eaten and were full, and there were 12 baskets of fragments left. When the water was changed to wine at Cana, it did not retain the physical qualities of water, it became wine physically, “really, truly, and substantially,” if I may borrow a term. Also, when the dead were raised to life, they walked and talked and were seen by the people. Miracles were faith-producing, not faith-dependent. Truly closer examination shows that the Lord’s Supper was meant to be a remembrance of our Lord’s death and the bread and fruit of the vine representatives of Jesus’ body and blood. It was never meant to be this doctrine called “Transubstantion,” and the Bible does not support it in any way.

According to the Baltimore Catechism, “Only ordained priests have the power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. When they consecrate, they act in the person of Christ, through the power received in the sacrament of Holy Orders.” According to the Catechism, the apostles were made priests at the Last Supper with the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” In our next lesson, we will be dealing with the topic of the priesthood and all of the special powers that are supposed to go with it.

We have shown in this discussion that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of Holy Eucharist and Transubstantiation. To the contrary, the words of Our Lord were a beautiful example of figurative language meant to convey the fact that the bread and wine were representatives of His body and blood which were soon to be offered, once and for all, for the salvtion of all who will avail themselves of it.

Friends and brethren, we do not belittle the Lord’s Supper by making these statements. What we are doing is practicing it in the way it was intended to be practiced.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, pp. 536-538
August 21, 1980