Truth Magazine

By Darrell Haub

There appears to nearly always be apprehension about the spiritual well-being of those who are planning to leave home to attend college. This is particularly pronounced when the college which the student will attend is a state or private institution not operated by our brethren in Christ. Undoubtedly, the concern develops now that the student is leaving his somewhat protected environment and will face temptations without the watchful eye of those who love him most. However, much can be done to help the student spiritually in his college years and a great deal of apprehension can be avoided by making proper preparation for the student’s spiritual needs ahead of his leaving home. This article is going to consider some of the things which can be done by the student, his parents, the elders of the home congregation and the local church near his college in order to provide what is needed for the spiritual well-being of the college student. We shall consider for the parties involved expectations and responsibilities which will help in this critical time in the life of a young person leaving home to attend college.

Expectations

The Lord expects all Christians to be faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10). This requires dedication of us to the point of dying to be faithful to the Lord. Therefore, the student should anticipate some regular minor sacrifice of his time, energy and popularity in order to please the Lord. Very frequently this involves the control of extra-curricular activities to not interfere with spiritual goals.

The student has the right to expect the congregation of the Lord’s Church and her members in his college area to glorify God by remaining true to the purpose of the church (Eph. 3:21). The church has never been authorized to entertain men. Therefore, do not expect congregations faithful to the Lord to do so because you are lonely while away from home and friends. You may well find churches called churches of Christ which will offer you church-sponsored social activities, but they are not faithful churches.

Since the church is charged with the responsibility to teach the word of God for edification (Eph. 4:12), you can expect the local congregation at school to encourage you in spiritual matters. You can expect the members to be friendly and interested in you as they are all souls but remember they also have family responsibilities of their own to discharge which may prevent them from bestowing all of their attention on you. In short, you can expect the faithful church at school to offer you pretty much the same things the faithful church at home offers you. There may be minor differences in procedures such as the order of worship, etc. but do not let such expediencies destroy the benefit of the worship activities for you.

Parents have the right to expect their children who are away from home to be faithful to the Lord and respectful to their parents, not defaming the name of their family. Students may not live the same life-style they did at home due to scheduling and similar things. For example, their hours of sleeping and eating may change but that does not make them wrong. Their dress may change but that does not make them sinful as long as they dress modestly. You should also expect the local church where the student attends while at school to teach the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The church at school will be able to continue the teaching which you and the church at home should have begun. However, if a child has not been faithful in attendance at home, the situation at school will likely be worse, not better. No amount of encouragement from strangers will do what the encouragement from friends and relatives at home could not do.

The elders of the local church which have members who are going to be away at school should expect their charges to be faithful to the Lord, especially in attendance at worship activities of the church (Heb. 10:25). School work is important, but no more so than the work of other members who are employed to support their families. You can expect the church at school to provide scriptural worship services and encouragement for the student to attend because you have referred them to a sound church. Their ability to resist new, as well as stronger older, types of temptations may well depend on the edification and encouragement they receive regularly from other Christians including yourselves, other college students, and the church located near their school. Do not necessarily expect the elders of the church at school to replace your oversight. In many cases, the students attending worship near their college feel themselves visitors while still members at the congregation where you are elders especially when they are home very frequently. Even though you may not see them as often as you once did, the college students may still look to you as their spiritual leaders. Please show concern for their spiritual well-being as often as you can.

The local church near the college should expect the students to be advanced young people reaching for adulthood. They will not be perfect but neither are the local members. They should be expected to serve the Lord reasonably (Ram. 12:1-2), as the Lord expects all members of the his body to serve him sacrificially. Expect many of them to attend worship services when they are in town and to add vigor to the services but to be away frequently on week-ends and holidays. Expect them to have the zeal of youth which does not always display the wisdom of experience. Do not expect them to remain a permanent part of the local church, but expect to send them on in their lives more grounded in the faith.

Responsibilities

We cannot charge the Lord with responsibilities since we are the created and He is the Creator, but we do find in the scriptures that He assumes certain responsibilities. He promises the crown of life to those who will be faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10). He promises to help in our temptations by providing a means of escape with each one (1 Cor. 10:13). In Matthew 28:20), He says that He will be with His people always. Therefore, we see the Lord assuming the responsibility of helping us to do all that He expects us to do.

Students, your responsibility is to be faithful to the Lord. Paul wrote Timothy as a young man saying “. . . show yourself an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12). In order to do this, you should plan your school activities, as much as you can control them, to not interfere with church activities. You should also be careful to consider your own spiritual well-being when deciding whether some activity should be done. Paul describes the need for planning in our lives as running to win a race or boxing to beat the opponent, not the air (1 Cor. 1:24-27). You should study your Bibles as you have been taught already to study at home. When you need help on a spiritual problem at school, let someone in the church know who can help you. If you need transportation to the services ask for it and if you do not, say so. Members of the church at school are interested in you, but no one can read your mind as to your thinking. The Lord’s people are not plotting to spoil your fun or run your life, but they are interested in helping you into heaven, whether you have a college degree or not. At judgment, only our faithfulness to Christ will be considered.

In the fulfillment of your responsibilities to the Lord you should consider what you should do about congregational membership. It appears that many students think of their stay at school as temporary and that they will always have roots at home. However, is this the best thinking when congregational membership is considered? Might it not be better spiritually to seek to identify with a faithful church near school and become an active part of that church’s membership? You might even adjust travel plans to provide for stable congregational involvement. This also gives the eldership of the church near school a better opportunity to serve you as God expects. These things require us to use wisdom to serve you as God expects. These things require us to use widsom in judgment that our spiritual well-being is enhanced and not threatened by a few years of schooling.

Ephesians 6:4 requires that fathers see to the training of their children in the Lord’s ways. Should this stop when they are away in college? Much help can be given by simply taking the student to visit the worship services of the congregation near school before school begins. Shyness can be expected in a young person away from home for the first time. Therefore, why not make an effort to introduce the student and the congregation before the time for school to begin. Also, this gives the parent a chance to investigate the congregation where his child will be taught. Not all churches are teaching what they should even through they claim to be churches of Christ. Show interest in the student’s spiritual activities at school as you do his academic.

Simple questions asked of the student about the congregation at school and her activities will help show your child that you are interested in his spiritual well-being as well as in his scholastic achievements. Is any effort to help insure that all things are done to help the student spiritually too much to ask of a parent?

Elders of the Lord’s Church which the student calls home should still oversee the well-being of the soul in their charge. Many students become lost in the shuffle between home and school. Do not expect the student and his family to automatically seek out a faithful church near school and attend without your encouragement. Some will do as they should, but some will not. Do not expect the faithful churches near colleges to get information about students from the school. If the information is available at all, it will probably not be available until several weeks after each session of school begins. In many cases, early contact before school routines are set is vital. In some cases, the school will only recognize churches that have on-campus organizations for the students. Churches of Christ which see no error in tampering with the Lord’s organization form these groups and they get the information from the college. The church near the college can help find and encourage a student, if you will see that they make mutual contact. As soon as you can, furnish a faithful church near the college the name, campus and home addresses and phone numbers of the student you would like them to contact. Remember that a college may well be a large institution of several thousand students living in a variety of places; therefore, give as much information as possible. Also, furnish the name, address, and service times for the faithful church or churches near the school to the prospective student.

In some cases elders in the student’s home town congregation should encourage the student to place their membership in a faithful church near school as Paul did when he left Damascus to travel to Jerusalem (Acts 9:19-28). This is true where students travel away to school and stay in that area nearly all the time. However, since many students stay at school only weekdays and travel home nearly every week-end, your oversight of them becomes much more difficult. If, in your judgment, you determine that they should have identified with a sound church near school, do not assume they have automatically done so. Encourage them in this most important action.

The congregation at school is responsible to sound forth the word (1 Thess. 1:8). It is a tremendous responsibility to be entrusted with a new generation of Christians who are embarking on their own for the first time. The way they are taught and encouraged at this time in their lives may well affect the rest of their lives. The great potential which is in them requires the church to be concerned for their spiritual well-being. Classes adapted to their needs and problems will pay a great reward for them and the church of the future. Genuine care and concern for them by the local members will help them adjust to their new freedom with proper perspective. However, none of these things can be done unless the church and the student make contact. Do you really seek students out and encourage them? Do you let people know where you meet, when you meet, and how to contact you? Do you advertise in periodicals such as Truth Magazine or Searching The Scriptures? Every effort should be made on your part to let yourselves be known by advertisements, letters, word of .nouth and any other honorable means. We are discussing the losing and saving of precious soul.

It saddens me to see and hear of cases where young Christians and/or children of Christians are lost to the Lord due to their attending college away from home. This is especially disturbing when we of the older generation due to lack of attention to our responsibilities, contribute to their loss. It is not uncommon to hear criticism by one party in this matter against all or part of the other parties. We have no reason to act in this way about the Lord’s people or His work. Excuses and accusations accomplish little. Therefore, let us as Christians, parents, elders, students, and the Lord’s church near a college expect the right actions from those involved and discharge our own responsibilities that none of these distressing things need happen again. Let us all plan to go to heaven and help everyone else we can influence to go there also no matter what other plans we may be making along the path of this life. No one need lose heaven to gain an education.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 32, pp. 520-522
August 14, 1980

By Mike Willis

The June 1980 issue of Restoration Review contained several articles by its editor Leroy Garrett which demonstrated that the move into full-fledged sectarianism is progressing at an exceedingly rapid pace. Frankly, I can see no difference in the denominationalism being promulgated by Garrett and in that which most other Evangelical denominationalists are stating, except that a good many of them are more firmly committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. In this article, I would like to mention several items in the June issue of Restoration Review to keep you posted with reference to the apostasies of the grace-unity movement.

“The Fallacy of Humpty Dumptyism”

Garrett cited a quotation from Humpty Dumpty, in which Alice is supposed to have said, “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more or less,” to charge that Christians are treating words of the New Testament in exactly that manner, giving them whatever definition they so well please. One such example of giving words whatever meaning pleases the individual which was cited by Garrett was “baptism.” Garrett wrote,

Humpty Dumpty even works havoc with baptism, which, among us at least, is made to mean immersion, which is a very risky definition. To say that baptism in New Testament times was by immersion is one thing, but to say that baptism means immersion is another. It is highly unlikely that when Paul refers to “one baptism” in Eph. 4:5 that he means one immersion. Really, “one Lord, one faith, one immersion” makes little sense. Would anybody ever suppose there could be two or more immersions? Almost certainly the apostle is saying that there is but one initiation or means of induction for all people, Jews and Gentiles alike, which is the point he is making (p. 104).

A finer example of “Humpty Dumptyism” could not have been given than is given in this paragraph! Leroy Garrett, thou art the man. Every Greek lexicon which I have ever consulted defines baptisma and baptiza to refer to an immersion in water or the act of immersing in water respectively. However Garrett comes along and redefines the word to mean “an initiation” or “means of induction.” And just which Greek lexicographer did he quote? None at all! “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more or less!”

Actually, Garrett is moving toward extending the right hands of fellowship to those who have never been immersed in Christ. In order to do this, he must reach the conviction that immersion in water is not essential to salvation. In the May 1980 issue of Restoration Review, he wrote,

This method, which in our shallow sectarianism we have all but ignored, would be almost as startling to us. Just to mention a few assumptions that could be questioned: how strong is the evidence in Scripture that tongues have ceased? or that a collection is to be taken only on the first day of the week? or that money becomes “the Lord’s money” when it is put into “the church treasury”? or that singing can be only acappella? or that there is congregational singing to start with? or that immersion is essential to salvation? or that drinking per se is a sin? (p. 83).

Notice that Garrett was raising the question of whether or not the Scriptures actually teach that immersion is essential to salvation. This is an assumption which those stooped in “church of Christ tradition” make, not what the Scriptures teach, according to Garrett!

Because of this belief, he is willing to state that these in Presbyterian, Methodist, and Catholic churches are his brethren in Christ despite the fact that they have never been immersed in water for the remission of their sins (cf. Restoration Review, Vol. XI, No. 1, p. 2; Vol. XIII, No. 1, pp. 2-3; Vol. XVI, No. 5, p. 291, No. 9, p. 367; Vol. XX, No. 9, p. 168; Vol. XXI, No. 4, p. 77; Vol. XXII, No. 5, p. 83).

A further denial of what the Scriptures teach regarding baptism was evidenced in such statements as the following:

When “remission of sins” is connected to baptism as it is in Acts 2:38, we must be careful to recognize that a term can be used in different senses (“When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less!” -is that what you mean brother Garrett?) in different contexts. Surely “remission of sins” does not relate to baptism the same way it does to the blood of Christ, as in Mt. 26:28 . . . .

Is not remission of sins actually realized through faith in the blood of Christ rather than by any external act? This means that “remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 is in some sense different from the other two references . . . .

The Bible itself makes an effort to distinguish between form and substance in reference to baptism. 1 Pet. 3:21 cautions that baptism does not in itself cleanse, but it is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” The same passage says baptism saves, but again this cannot mean saved (“When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less!”) in the same sense that faith in the blood of Christ saves. Baptism typically or formally saves, or as Peter puts it, it is “the like figure” or it is the “answer” of a good conscience, which shows that a believing obeying conscience in what Christ has done is what really saves.

Frankly, I have never heard a Baptist say anything different from this with reference to the purpose of baptism. Consequently, it is not surprising to read that Garrett thinks that we are making too much of baptism (Restoration Review, Vol. XXI, No. 2, pp. 27-32). Comparing baptism to circumcision, Garrett said, “Baptism is our assurance that such surgery has been performed by the Spirit of Christ in our hearts” (Ibid, p. 31). That sounds a good bit like baptism is an “outward sign of an inward act”!

Yes, I would have to agree that there is some “Humpty Dumptyism” in the church of Christ and one can get a pretty good dose of it about anytime that he reads a copy of Restoration Review!

Truth Magazine’s Articles On Instrumental Music

Truth Magazine recently ran six special issues discussing instrumental music in worship. When this material was prepared, I did not expect that brethren who have departed from the Scriptures, such as Leroy Garrett, would get much enjoyment from it. Rather, I worked to get this material together for those who were willing to “gladly receive the word” and who would “search the Scriptures to see if the things taught were so.” Consequently, I am not much alarmed at Garrett’s displeasure in this material.

He was particularly alarmed at Joe Neil Clayton’s article, “Instrumental Music And the Silence of the Scriptures” (22 May 1980). He wrote,

There is yet another journal among us that has a series going on instrumental music, Truth Magazine out of Dayton, Ohio, though it is a Texan that authors the lead article, “Instrumental Music and the Silence of the Scriptures” . . . .

In other ways, if there is an organ in the church that shows that the people do not have the right attitude toward the Bible. The Ohio journal says this: “The absence of mechanical devices of music in our meeting houses serves as a witness to our adherence to a respected principle of Bible interpretation, the prohibition of divine silence.” The article closes with this daring judgment: “The Christian who consistently exalts the will of God above man’s through an application of this principle, will never worship God in music, except by singing” . . . .

The music question is not a matter of some of us honoring the authority of Scripture and others not, but a matter of interpreting the Scriptures differently – or a matter of interpreting the silence of Scripture differently, if you like. The brother who referred to the “prohibition of divine silence” as a respected principle of interpretation would favor me with the name of any hermeneutical authority that cites such a principle. This would have to mean that God prohibits anything that the Bible is silent about. If this is true, we are all under condemnation (pp. 106-107).

I can name several hermeneutical authorities which had the same concept toward the prohibition of the silence of the Scriptures as brother Clayton mentioned, such as the following: Moses (Lev. 10:1-2), the author of Hebrews (Heb. 7:14), Peter (1 Pet. 4:11), Paul (1 Cor. 4:6), and John (2 Jn. 9-11). Each of these men, inspired though they were, warned about going beyond that which is authorized of God by condemning the practice of things unauthorized (though not specifically condemned) by God. I doubt that these men are considered “hermeneutical authorities” by our good brother, however; they are merely inspired men, not respected scholars!

Inasmuch as brother Garrett is more than a little enamored with restoration leaders, it might be of interest to him to know that Thomas Campbell was one who expressed this same hermeneutical principle. He said, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” Robert Richardson dates the beginning of the restoration movement with the utterance of this principle of unity (Memoirs of Campbell, Vol. I, pp. 236-237). To demonstrate how this principle was understood, Richardson added, “Thus the silence of the Bible was to be respected equally with its revelations, which were by Divine authority declared to be able to `make the man of God perfect and thoroughly furnished unto every good work’ ” (Ibid, p. 237). This was immediately perceived by some present to exclude infant sprinkling (p. 238).

Later, Campbell wrote, “Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church; or be made a term of communion amongst Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament” (Declaration And Address, Centennial Edition, p. 17). He continued,

Thus have we briefly endeavored to chew our brethren, what evidently appears to us to be the heinous nature and dreadful consequences of that truly latitudinarian principle and practice, which is the bitter root of almost all our divisions, namely, the imposing of our private opinions upon each other, as articles of faith or duty; introducing them into the public profession and practice of the church, and acting upon them, as if they were the express law of Christ, by judging and rejecting our brethren that differ with us in those things; or, at least by so retaining them in our public profession and practice, that our brethren cannot join with us, or we with them, without becoming actually partakers of those things, which they, or we, cannot, in conscience approve; and which the word of God no where expressly enjoins on us. To cease from all such things, by simply returning to the original standard of christianity – the profession and practice of the primitive church, as expressly exhibited upon the sacred page of New Testament scripture, is the only possible way, that we can perceive, to get rid of those evils. And we humbly think that a uniform agreement in that for the preservation of charity would be infinitely preferable to our contention and divisions: nay, that such a uniformity is the very thing that the Lord requires, if the New Testament be a perfect model a sufficient formula for the worship, discipline and government of the christian church. Let us do, as we are there expressly told they did, say as they said: that is, profess and practice as therein expressly enjoined by precept and precedent, in every possible instance, after their approved example; and in so doing we shall realize, and exhibit, all that unity and uniformity, that the primitive church possessed, or that the law of Christ requires (p. 35).

Brother Garrett, will you accept the venerated Thomas Campbell, from whose writings you are so wont to quote, as a respected hermeneutical authority for the silence of the Scriptures principle? Will you accept the terms of unity which he laid down in the Declaration and Address rather than those laid down in Restoration Review? Personally, I do not believe that you will do either!

To further demonstrate the manner in which the early restorers understood the prohibition of divine silence, read the following comments from Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell. This section appears immediately following the enunciation of the principle “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

It was some time after Mr. Campbell sat down to afford opportunity to those present to give, as he had requested, a free and candid expression of their views, before any one presumed to break the silence. At length, a shrewd Scotch Seceder, Andrew Munro, who was a bookseller and postmaster at Canonsburg, arose and said: “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.” This remark, and the conviction it seemed to carry with it, produced a profound sensation. “Of course, said Mr. Campbell, in reply, “if infant baptism be not found in Scripture, we can have nothing to do with it” (pp. 237-238).

Campbell and the early restorers understood divine silence in exactly the same manner as we understand it today with reference to using instrumental music in worship. Who has departed from (1) the Scriptures and (2) the plea of the early restorers, brother Garrett?

Yes, there is a difference in attitude toward the authority of the Scriptures as you very well know. The writers of the Christian Standard have accepted the principle that we can do anything in religion except what is expressly prohibited; we take the position that we must have positive divine authority for what we practice and that anything for which there is no positive divine authority is wrong. Many recognized historians of the restoration movement have stated that these different concepts toward authority were responsible for the division, your statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

The “Dirty Dozen” In Anti Country

This third article in the June 1980 issue of Restoration Review related Garrett’s visit with several people who have broken away from the conservative brethren in Clearwater to begin their own “free, open Church of Christ.” These people were former students at Florida College; some are descendants of gospel preachers. All had been attending congregations opposed to the sponsoring church and institutionalism.

The problems in the Northeast Church came to a head when John Foster read an article entitled “The Nature of the Assembly” in a Wednesday Bible study. As the facts were reported to me, another young man had been scheduled to speak. He called on Wednesday morning telling the man in charge of selecting speakers that he would be unable to take his turn. He suggested that John Foster would be willing to speak in his place. The man making the assignments contacted brother Foster and made arrangements for him to speak that night. He requested specifically that brother Foster not deal with anything controversial, since he had already earned some reputation for creating problems over words to no profit. Whether intentional or not, brother Foster arrived at the meeting after the singing of the first song. When he began reading the material, he requested that no one make any comment until he had finished reading the entire article.

Nearly the entire hour was spent in reading the article. After it was finished, brethren began to express disagreement with the material. Someone requested to know the author. Leroy Garrett was identified. The local preacher, in offering the invitation, announced that false doctrine had been taught in the assembly that night and dealt with some of it. The next several months were used to expose some of the heresies taught in the article. The net result was that a group left the church and eventually established another church.

There are several observations which I would like to make regarding this incident and article. They are as follows:

1. The grace-unity movement is not dead. Some would like for us to believe that the issues pertaining to graceunity are behind us. That simply is not true, as this incident very well demonstrates. The doctrines circulated by Garrett and Ketcherside are identical with those presently being circulated by most denominationals. They are the kinds of doctrines which most people want to hear today. Consequently, we are going to be forced to preach on the themes of the grace-unity brethren to keep the church grounded on the subject. The untaught church is in a dangerous, unenviable position.

2. The grace-unity movement is sectarian. While shouting peace and unity out of one side of his mouthi Garrett (and others identified with him) laud and praise the establishment of open, free Churches of Christ. They praise the divisions created by those adhering to their false doctrines. Hence, they are effectively working to divide the church over unity! To be a member of this new sect, there are several specific doctrines which one must believe. He must, for example, agree that doctrinal differences over usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship, the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions, premillennialism, etc. should not be grounds of breaking fellowship. He must believe in a gospel-doctrine distinction. He must not use the pulpit to oppose those who practice any of the above mentioned items. Without accepting these tenets and some others, an individual cannot be a member of the grace-unity sect! Hence, this movement is sectarian to the core.

3. Their concept of worship is ridiculous. The article which brother Foster read by Leroy Garrett was described by Garrett in these words:

. . This is what got all of us into trouble. The “dirty dozen” were still a part of the Northeast Church of Christ, and when it came time for John Foster to give his lesson to the congregation on a Sunday evening, he chose to read this article I had written five years before.

“It was so clear,” he told me, “and expressed what I had been thinking.” He was confident they would accept it with the enthusiasm he had. But the essay would be disquieting to anyone with such an institutional view of the church as to suppose that “worship” begins and ends within certain prescribed hours at a building and confined to “five acts of worship.” The article notes that all of life is worship for the believer. I even dared to suggest that a woman is worshipping or serving God in the kitchen as much as in “the sanctuary,” and that a Christian is worshipping when playing with the kids at the park. But the most offensive suggestion was that one may be worshipping when she takes her dog walking (p. 111).

This article would be rather repulsive to me, I would have to admit. I too would become alarmed and charge the one presenting this material with teaching false doctrine.

I am not upset with the idea that one’s entire life is a spiritual sacrifice to God (Rom. 12:1-2). No person to my knowledge is denying that. The Christian who approaches his service toward his family with reference to his obligations to God is certainly doing what the Bible teaches. No one would affirm that all worship is confined to the assembly.

However, the main thrust of these comments is not to emphasize the necessity of a person living acceptably before God twenty-four hours a day. The main thrust of these comments is to deny that there is a pattern for worship. The idea that there might be “five acts of worship” is what is being criticized. This is being done in order to set aside the affirmation that there is a pattern for worship. If there is no pattern, there can be no violation of that pattern. Ilenying that there is a pattern for worship, these brethren do not consider instrumental music (for example) to be a violation of that pattern.

The idea that “washing dishes” and “walking a dog” are worship is ridiculous. When Madelyn Murray O’Hair is washing her dishes and walking her dog, is she worshipping? If walking the dog is worship for the one holding the lease, is it worship for the dog on the end of the lease? If an atheist is helping a Christian wash dishes, is the act worship for one and not for the other? When a Muslim washes dishes, is she worshipping Allah or Jehovah? You can see that this position leads to utter chaos!

I would like to propose a discussion, call it dialogue if you prefer, between Garrett and myself or between someone who is a member of this open, free Church of Christ and myself. I will deny the following proposition if anyone of them is willing to affirm it. I think that it correctly represents what they believe: Resolved: There is no revealed pattern of worship in the New Testament. This discussion could be carried simultaneously in Truth Magazine and Restoration Review. If this does not represent what you believe, let us correspond to specify our differences and proceed with the discussion.

The result of the following of Garrett’s material for the brethren in Clearwater has been the establishment of a sect which has its own unique form of worship. It was described as follows:

It is understandable that the new church has no treasury. There is no “offering” on Lord’s day. Having no professional minister to pay and no edifice to maintain, assembling as they do in a home, their concern for money is mostly for the needy. For this purpose they raise money among themselves as the need arises (pp. 112-113).

I wonder if these brethren believe that the matters in which they are unique are binding patterns that all brethren must conform to in order to be saved? That would come with poor grace from those denying that there is a pattern for worship, if it were true.

Conclusion

The movement of the grace-unity brethren toward the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism is going forward at more rapid speed than might be expected. They are compromising on doctrinal items in a matter of months which has taken the Christian Church nearly a hundred years to compromise. They see no difference in the Lord’s body and Protestant and Catholic denominations. They see nothing essential in immersion being the action of baptism, remission of sins being the purpose of baptism, and the penitent believer being the subject of baptism. They see no pattern for the organization and worship of the church. Consequently, they are racing, not just moving, toward the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism.

I ask, “What makes such a person a member of the body of Christ?” The only connection which men such as Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside have with the church of Christ is historical. He claims connection with the church of Christ because he was brought up in it, not because he believes what the Scriptures teach. The truth of the matter is that he lampoons nearly everything which is unique about the Lord’s church.

The direction in which he is leading people is not toward Christ, it is further and further away from the revelation of God as found in the New Testament. Frankly, I intend to give my energies to opposing this movement. How about you?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 32, pp. 515-518
August 14, 1980

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Does salt and shortening, liquid or solid, make the bread of the Lord’s’ Supper unscriptural as adding leavening does?

Reply: Unleavened bread is bread that is baked from unfermented dough. It is without yeast. The term “leaven” is from the Latin “levamen” that is, that which raises. If the bread is not allowed to rise it is unleavened. The addition of such ingredients as salt (for flavor, or to prevent fermentation) and shortening (for texture) does -not change the bread into some other kind of bread than that which the Lord authorizes. The bread remains unleavened bread. It is not another kind of bread.

Question: Can one be baptized scripturally in a bath tub with only the candidate being in the tub?

Reply: Yes. The candidate must be immersed in water for the remission of his sins. Whether or not someone is in the tub with the candidate is incidental. “Both” went down into water (Acts 8:38) because the circumstances of the water (pool, stream, or whatever) required it. They had to reach a sufficient depth of water in order for immersion to be possible. The same circumstances would require it today if it were necessary to reach the proper depth of water. The person doing the baptizing accompanies, carries or assists in carrying the candidate to the proper depth of water for immersion to take place. Whether a person is carried to a proper depth of water (such as in a tub), or whether a person walks with the candidate into a baptistry (or some other body of water) are incidentals. They are just as incidental as a tub, a pool, a stream, lake or ocean, in the first place. A person would not have to be in the tub with the person in order to baptize him. If it is contended that he would, then we would have to rule out a tub as a place to baptize because in most cases, if not all, a person could not walk into the tub with the candidate because the tub would be too small for two people. The New Testament does not place emphasis upon the person doing the baptizing, but upon the candidate. Whether the person doing the baptizing is in the tub or out of the tub makes no difference. This is incidental to baptism.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 32, p. 514
August 14, 1980

By Greg Litmer

The single, most powerful and influential person in the religious world today is the Pope. He reigns as head over the largest denomination in the world that worships Jesus. Catholics look to him as the infallible guide in all matters of religion. He claims to be “The Vicar of Jesus Christ” and the successor to Peter, the first Pope. In order to prove the authority of the pope, three things must be shown, essentially. Number one is that there was a papal office in the New Testament. Number two is that Peter was the first pope, and number three is that Peter had successors in that office. I do not believe that any of these can be proven; the Bible teaches that these things are not so, and that Jesus said they would not be so even before the church was established.

In Matthew 20, the mother of Zebedee’s children came to Jesus asking that her sons be given positions of authority and power in His kingdom. Jesus said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (vs. 25-27). However, by believing in the pope, Catholics deny the very words of Jesus in the attempt to exalt Peter. They claim for Peter the position and the preeminence which Jesus said “shall not be” among His apostles and disciples. This passage shows that the office of the pope, the exaltation of one human being above others, is something neither taught nor intended by the Lord.

Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope, and that the office has been handed down by right of succession from his days to the present. They will usually base this assertion on three passages of scripture. We must note, however, that their main contentions are not based on the scriptures, but rather on secular history and tradition. The reason for this will be obvious after we view the scriptures.

The first is in Matthew 16:18, but let us begin with verse 13. There we read.

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 1 say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind pn earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. “

Paying particularly close attention to verse 18, let us ask ourselves whether or not that passage teaches that Peter was first among the apostles, whether or not he was to be lord and ruler over the others, and whether or not he was the very foundation of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ? That is what the Catholic position says.

When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church, “He simply was not talking about Peter. The word “Petros,” referring to Peter, simply means “a pebble or a stone, a small rock.” The word “Petra” was the word Jesus used referring to rock and it has a different meaning and a different gender altogether. Petra means “a solid mass of stone.” Vine explains it this way. He says that petros means a stone that might easily be moved, while petra shows a sure foundation, We can illustrate in this way:

 

 

The large granite mountain is the petra – a solid mass, immovable. The small rocks along the base of the mountain are the petros, easily picked up and carried.

The apostle Peter is like one of these little rocks at the foot of the mountain, but the “petra” or rock, on which Christ built the church was like that huge mass of granite. The rock on which the church was built was the truth that Peter had confessed back in verse 16, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.

That it was upon Christ Himself, and not Peter, that the church was built is clearly seen from Paul’s reference to the matter. He said in 1 Cor. 3:11, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ” Peter, himself, said that we are like living stones built upon Christ as the chief cornerstone in 1 Pet. 2:4-8.

The second passage often referred to by Catholics as they attempt to prove the supremacy of Peter is Luke 22:31-34. There we read.

“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. “

In this passage, Christ said to Peter “to strengthen thy brethren” and this is taken to mean that Peter was to be the strongest and most established on the group. But I think that it is clear that if the other apostles had been about to do the same thing that Peter was about to do, the Lord would have prayed for them in the same way that He prayed for Peter. Certainly, Jesus placed an obligation upon Peter, that he was to “strengthen thy brethren, ” but that is an obligation that rests upon every single Christian. Hebrews 10:24 tells us that we are to “consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works. ” Surely we have the same obligation to consider and strengthen our brethren. No special significance can be placed upon the instruction that the Lord gave Peter at that time as pertaining strictly to Peter in some special way, for it is demanded of all Christians in other places.

The third passage that is used in support of Peter’s papacy is found in John 21:15-17. After the resurrection of Jesus, some of the apostles and disciples had gone fishing, Peter included. They had worked all night and had not caught a thing. Then Jesus came and told them to cast the net on the right side of the boat. They did, and they caught so many fish that they were not able to pull them in. So they came into shore and began to eat. We pick up now in verse 15: “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.” The Catholic position is that Jesus was saying, Peter, do you love me more than these other disciples love me? Others think that he was saying, Peter, do you love me more than the nets and the boats and the fish and the sea? I do not really think that it makes that much of a difference how you view that passage. Even if Jesus is saying, Peter, “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” it still does not give Peter a superior position, as far as authority is concerned.

Three times the Lord asked Peter the question concerning his love for Him. And in verse 17 we see, “Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. ” After the questions, the Lord instructed Peter to feed His lambs, feed His sheep, and again, feed His sheep. Now the Catholic position is that those instructions the Lord gave Peter implies the primacy of Peter, that he, above all others, was given the task of “feeding” the flock. But when we read the New Testament, we find in Acts 20:28 that the elders were given the task of “feeding” the flock, as well as Peter was. Now Catholics will try to make a distinction between the feeding of the lambs and the feeding of the sheep. They will say that the “lambs” designate the flock (or the laity), while “sheep” designates bishops (they do not mean bishops as the Bible uses the term). But Jesus did not tell Peter to “feed the bishops” or to “feed the clergy.” He commanded him to feed the sheep, using the same terms that He used in John 10, and it is really the same commandment that Paul gave the Ephesian elders when he instructed them to take the oversight of the church, the flock.

Brethren and friends, the whole New Testament is filled with passages which contradict the idea that Peter was the pope. Cornelius, for example, in Acts 10, was told to stand up when he had fallen down at the feet of Peter. Peter said, “Stand up: I myself also am a man. ” Do the popes of today practice such? Not on your life. You come into the presence of the pope on bended knee in an attitude of worship. When I was a child being confirmed into the Catholic church, the confirmation was performed by a bishop, not even the pope. And we were told that if the bishop came up to us and extended his hand, we were to kneel and kiss the ring on his finger. Is this the attitude that Peter exhibited? No! The whole thing, including the office itself, was conceived in the minds of men. To Peter, the idea of one worshipping before him was repulsive.

There is another passage in the Bible which contradicts the idea of the popism of Peter. Turn to Gal. 2:11-14. There we read,

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

Now, if Peter was the pope, why was it necessary for Paul to withstand him to his face, and rebuke him for- his wrongful attitude toward the Gentiles? This was not merely some slip on Peter’s part; this involved the position of the Gentiles as far as the Gospel of Christ was concerned. Peter made a mistake, he was wrong. Will it be admitted by the Catholics that an infallible pope could have erred like this in a matter concerning doctrine?

Friends and brethren, the Bible simply does not teach us that there was to be an office of the pope. But, as we said in the beginning, the main Catholic position concerning the pope is not really biblically based; rather, it depends on tradition. The Catholics assume that the church in Rome was the center of Christianity and that it was such because Peter established the church there and made the headquarters of all Christianity there. The Catholics say that Peter sat as universal bishop of the church, in his headquarters in Rome, beginning in 43 A.D. They say that he continued there for 25 years in all, and that he was martyred by being crucified upside down in 68 A.D.

But there is nothing on which to base this claim. In fact, it is made with much evidence to the contrary:

(1) It is not stated anywhere in the scriptures that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. For that matter, it is not stated that he ever even set foot in Rome.

(2) In approximately 58 A.D., Paul wrote the epistle to the Roman congregation. In that letter, he sent salutations to 27 people in the congregation, whom he named by name. But Peter was neither named or greeted. He simply was not there.

(3) Around the same time, 58 – 65 A.D., Peter wrote his first epistle. No mention is made of Rome in this epistle, and Peter claims no superiority for himself or for the church at Rome. Is this characteristic of one who was recognized as the universal head of the church? Certainly not!

(4) Paul wrote many letters from his prison in Rome Philemon, Phillippians, Ephesians, and Colossians. He named many people in these letters, but not Peter! If Peter was in Rome, if he was indeed the pope at this very time, why did Paul completely ignore him in all of his references to the congregation in Rome.

(5) In the last days of his life, Paul wrote to Timothy saying, “only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. 4:11). Where was Peter? Did the Universal Bishop of the church, the Vicar of God on earth, the supreme and holy Father of the faithful, desert the aged Paul as his noble life began to come to a close? According to the Catholic position, he would have been in Rome at the time as the pope. Where was he?

Conclusion

Friends and brethren, the Catholic position concerning Peter being in Rome is not based on fact; it is pure conjecture. It is assumed in the face of much evidence to the contrary. The claim for the office of a pope simply has nothing upon which to rest.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, pp. 505-507
August 7, 1980