Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

About the most appropriately two named series of articles written by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett were the series entitled “Twisted Scriptures” and “The Word Abused.” In both of these series, the respective authors abused the word and twisted the Scriptures! The two series of articles were supposed to be detailed studies of texts which brethren have used against false teachers. The major thesis of both series of articles by these false teachers was that these texts cannot be applied to those who have introduced church supported missionary societies, mechanical instruments of music in worship, premillennialism, church sponsored recreation, the sponsoring church arrangement, and church support of benevolent societies and colleges. However, to apply these Scriptures to those who oppose the introduction of these innovations into the worship and work of the church is a legitimate usage of most of these Scriptures, according to Ketcherside and Garrett. A more obvious example of twisting and abusing Scriptures cannot be imagined than that which has been done by Ketcherside and Garrett.

2 John 9-11

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the docrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring you this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

This text has been one of the battlegrounds for tile grace-unity brethren. With all of their energies, they have sought to convince brethren that this text cannot be used to apply to those who have introduced innovations in the work and worship of the church.

The argument with reference to this verse hinges on whether “doctrine of Christ” refers to the doctrine which Christ taught or the doctrine about Christ (the objective or subjective genitive). Ketcherside, Garrett, Fudge, Hardin, and others made the “doctrine of Christ” mean “the thing taught about Jesus.” This limited amount of doctrinal instruction they call “gospel,” extending the right hands of fellowship to everyone who has accepted seven facts of the gospel which they arbitrarily have chosen and has obeyed the one act (baptism). Consequently, they teach that this passage has nothing to do with current doctrinal apostasies in the churches of Christ. Consider these comments.

I have heard the expression “this doctrine” applied to every item of controversy among the various factions calling themselves “The Church of Christ.” Depending upon the particular party whose champion quoted it, the expression has been related to individual cups, Bible classes, colleges, orphan homes, the pastor system, fermenting wine in the Lord’s Supper, a method of breaking the bread, the pre-millennial viewpoint, instrumental music, missionary societies, and a diversified host of motley issues which have made “the restoration robe of righteousness” a Joseph’s coat that puts the rainbow spectrum to shame (Ketcherside, “Receive Him Not,” Mission Messenger, XXXVII, p. 89).

And I was led to muse upon what we have done to 2 John 9-10 all these years, and what we have allowed that intrepretation to do to us. One wonders how the notion ever got started, that we can’t invite a brother into our home and thank God for him if he differs with us on cups, classes, colleges, organs, organizations, or the millennium. Or that we’d have to turn from our door the likes of Keith Miller or Francis Schaeffer. It is complete idiocy (Leroy Garrett, Restoration Review, XVI, p. 230).

Both Garrett and Ketcherside restrict this passage to apply to only those who deny the doctrine about Christ. Hence, if one denies either the humanity or the deity of Christ, 2 John 9-11 applies to him. However, it can never be used to apply to those who introduce instruments of music in worship, take money from the church treasury to support human institutions (missionary societies, orphan homes, or colleges), pervert the organization of the church through the sponsoring church arrangement, or any other division in the body of Christ.

Even this admission however is fatal to their gospeldoctrine distinction. The phrase “doctrine of Christ” is here applied to what the grace-unity movement labels “gospel.” Hence, there is no difference in doctrine and gospel as they assert, if we grant their own usage and definitions of terms. Secondly, assuming that there is a difference in gospel and doctrine, 2 John 9-11 states that the fellowship of the saints should be broken over a doctrinal matter, something which both Garrett and Ketcherside deny.

When one considers the context of 1 John, he will see that those who were teaching their false doctrines which John was opposing, in many respects, resembles that of the modern grace-unity movement. For example, those who John was opposing taught that one could walk in darkness and remain in fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:6). That is exactly what Garrett and Ketcherside teach about those involved in the sins of using mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church organization, or church sponsored recreation. They say that brethren can remain in these sins without breaking their fellowship with God. Hence, John revealed that one cannot continue in sin and remain in fellowship with God; as a matter of fact, the one who continues in sin is not born of God (1 Jn. 3:9). Those who came and brought this doctrine were the ones who went beyond the doctrine of Christ and had not God whom John revealed that we should not fellowship.

One should also see this conclusion by a consideration of 2 John 9-11. Whatever “doctrine of Christ” means in this context, one should notice that the one who abided in the doctrine. of Christ had God. If Garrett and Ketcherside’s definition of “doctrine of Christ” (“doctrine about Christ”) is correct, anyone who believes the right things about Jesus has fellowship with God, regardless of whether or not he has been baptized or faithful in his walk after being baptized. Brethren, are you ready to admit that whoever believes the right facts about Christ is in fellowship with God? If not, you need to consider whether or not “doctrine of Christ” might mean something other than the “doctrine about Christ.”

As a matter of fact, the grammatical construction of this passage is similar to that which appears in Matt. 7:28; 22:33; 16:12; Mk. 1:22; 4:2; 11:18; 12:38; Acts 2:42. Each of these constructions in Greek have “doctrine” (didache) followed by the genitive construction. They never mean “the doctrine about . . . .” They consistently mean “the doctrine taught by” or “originating from” the persons discussed. Similarly, in 2 John 9-11, the “doctrine of Christ” means the doctrine which Christ brought (first in His own persons and later in His followers).

The usage of the personal genitive to qualify the noun (the doctrine of Christ) is used in such a way as to refer to “the doctrine which Christ brought, and which He brought first in His own person, and then through His followers” (see The Doctrine of Christ and Unity of the Saints, Ron Halbrook, pp. 34-36). It refers to the body of doctrine revealed to us by Christ and His apostles. Inasmuch as this is its usage in the context of 2 John 9-11, the teaching of this passage is that anyone who denies the doctrine revealed to us by and through Christ cannot be fellowshipped.

2 John 9-I1 continues to be a roadblock in the path of the grace-unity brethren who would extend the umbrella of fellowship to those who have gone beyond the revealed word of God’s grace. Because it condemns them for doing what God has prohibited, they will continue to try to dismiss its most obvious meaning from the minds of brethren.

Galatians 1:8-9

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The grace-unity brethren leave no doubt that they consider it an abuse of this passage, a twisting of this passage, to apply it to those who are introducing innovations in the worship, work and organization of the church.

This passage is abused in our day in such a manner that the effect is as much a perversion as it was with the Judaizers in Galatia. One is preaching “another gospel,” we are told, if he holds some doctrinal error, or what is presumed to be an error, such as maintaining a TV program like Herald of Truth or using an instrument in congregational singing. One is not a true gospel preacher if he believes in Sunday Schools or if he uses a plurality of cups at the Supper. Indeed, he comes under the same curse of heaven as would an angel that proclaims a different gospel if he is other than a faithful Church of Christ minister after the Gospel Advocate or Abilene Christian College. If that doesn’t out-Judaize the Judaizers of Galatia, it runs them a close second (Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . If We Or An Angel Preach Any Other Gospel,” Restoration Review, XVII, p. 42).

A quotation of a similar nature could be given from the pen of Carl Ketcherside. Though these brethren believe that applying this passage to those who introduce things not authorized in the worship, work, and organization of the church is an abuse of the passage, they have no hesitation in applying it to those who stand against these innovations, calling for a strict adherence to the old paths. Allusions -to this can be seen in the above quotation; however, Ketcherside wrote as follows:

When brethren make a test of union and communion out of an attitude toward the use of instrumental music in expression of praise to God, their creed is no longer simply Christ but conformity with a factional pattern.

To make one’s right standing with God depend not upon surrender of himself to Jesus, but upon standing right on other things, is dangerously near to perverting the gospel. This was the mistake of the circumcision party in the days of Paul (Another Gospel,” Mission Messenger, XXVII, p. 10).

It is a strange usage of the Scriptures indeed, a twisting of them or an abusing of them, when warnings such as Galatians 1:8-9 cannot be legitimately applied to those who are introducing unauthorized items into the worship,. work and organization of the church but can be applied to those who are faithfully calling for Scriptural authority for the introduction of these things!

The manner in which Garrett and Ketcherside avoid the force of G latians 1:8-9 is by denying that whatever one believes abut the usage of mechanical instruments of music in wo ship, the sponsoring church arrangement, church sponsored recreation, premillennialism, and other doctrinal apostasies are part of the “gospel.” Holding say that these are ma ers of doctrine and have nothing to do with “another gospel” of Galatians 1:8-9.

However, by Garrett and Ketcherside’s definition, not even the Judaizers themselves were preaching “another gospel.” According to these brethren, the “gospel” is confined to the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification of Christ. Yet, the Judaizers did not deny any of these points. Neither did they deny that one had to be baptized in order to be saved. They simply sought to teach that a person had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to go to heaven when he dies. According to Ketcherside and Garrett’s definition, this is “doctrine” and the fellowship of saints should not be broken over doctrine!

However, Paul called this preaching “another gospel.” It was apostasy in full bloom. Consequently, he was willing to resist any person who taught that one had to keep the law of Moses in order to be saved, whether he was a blatant Judaizer, a mixed-up Peter or a carried away Barnabas! The truth of the gospel had to be preserved regardless of who stood in its way.

Let us now examine what the Bible says about the “gospel” and the “doctrine.” Didache, the Greek word which is translated “doctrine,” is defined as follows:

1. teaching, ‘viz. that which is taught . . . one’s doctrine, i.e. what he teaches . . . doctrine, teaching, concerning something . . . 2. (the act of) teaching, instruction . . . . (Thayer, pp. 144-145).

Among the Gks. this is used in the sense of “teaching,” “instruction” . . . with a strong tendency to restrict it to the fact, so that didaskein or didaskesthai can normally be used as an alternative . . . . In the LXX . . . . didache is thus syn, with the Rabbinic talmud, which signifies “teaching” in the sense that it might denote according to context either “teaching” or “being taught” . . . . The New Testament follows this usage fairly closely (Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 2, pp. 163-164).

Euangelion, the Greek word which is translated “gospel,” is defined as follows:

1. a reward for good tidings . . . 2. good tidings . . . . In the N.T. spec. a. the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of the this kingdom . . . After the death of Christ the term to euangelion comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God; so that it may be more briefly defined as the glad tidings of salvation through Christ; the proclamation of the grace of God manifested and pledged in Christ; the gospel (Thayer, p. 257).

Kittle gave the derivation of the thought of euangelion from “besrah” (Heb.) to demonstrate that the primary connotation of the word is “the good news of victory.” When used in the New Testament, the fact that Jesus died for our sins makes the preaching of Jesus a message which is especially one which might be described as “the good news of victory” (Vol. 2, pp. 721-735).

From these definitions, let us draw some conclusions. (a) The basic idea connoted by didache is “to teach;” the basic thought connoted by euangelion is “the good news of victory.” (b) The content of the message cannot be learned from the words themselves. The didache could as easily be that of Balaam as that of Christ; the euangelion could as easily be that of victory over the Persians as victory over sin and death. (c) The content of the message is not necessarily different when both didache and euangelion are used; that which is taught can be the good news. Obviously, this is the case in the New Testament; that which is taught is the good news of Christ’s victory over sin and death.

If our conclusions are true, then the following should be and are found in the New Testament:

(a) The gospel being preached to both saints (Rom. 1:7, 15-16) and aliens (Mk. 16:15-16), the assertions of Ketcherside and Garrett notwithstanding.

(b) The doctrine being preached to both aliens (Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 5:28; 13:5, 7, 8, 10, 12; 17:19) and Christians (1 Cor. 4:17; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 4:2; Acts 2:42).

(c) Things which are called the gospel also referred to as doctrine. That which has freed us from sin is called both doctrine (Rom. 6:17-18).and gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 1:16). That which leads to Christian maturity is called both doctrine (Mt. 28:20; Acts 2:42) and gospel (Gal. 2:14; Eph. 6:15; 1 Tim. 1:10-11).

(d) The “word of truth,” which is identified as the gospel (Col. 1:5; Eph. 1:13), should be applicable to both saints and sinners. In keeping with this, the “truth” is that which frees one from sin (Jn. 8:32; Jas. 1:18) and anyone who does not obey it is lost (Rom. 2:8; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8); it is also that which produces sanctification (Jn. 17:17-19). Thus, one must not only obey the truth, he must also walk in it to keep from being lost (Jas. 5:19; Gal. 2:5, 14; 3:1; 5:7).

No one would deny that there is a distinction between becoming a Christian and maturing as a Christian. Undoubtedly, a person must not know every apostolic commandment in order to become a Christian. Therefore, there are some things which are taught before baptism and some things which are taught after baptism (Mt. 28:20). However, to maintain that (1) the former are exclusively called “gospel” and the latter are exclusively called “doctrine” and (2) one can break the fellowship of the saints only over differences pertaining to the “gospel” are false positions nowhere justifiable in the Scriptures.

Hence, the limiting of this passage to applications of the Judaizers alone is an unnecessary limitation to place on the verse. It is contrary to the usage of the word “gospel” in the New Testament. It is limited for a very obvious reason: to restrict the usage of this verse to those who are perverting the work, worship, and organization of the church. This is being done in order to broaden the umbrella of fellowship to those who have departed from the revelation of God in order to walk in the traditions of men.

Romans 16:17-18

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

As is the usual case with any verse warning against doctrinal apostasy, the grace-unity brethren do not believe it can have application to apostasies which are occurring today.

There is no way that this passage can be applied to sincere, wellmeaning, unity-loving brothers who happen to hold to ideas different from what we believe the scriptures to teach. To apply this to those who support Herald of Truth, divide into classes for study, use a plurality of cups, employ a resident pastor, use a piano or organ, interpret a prophecy in terms of a premillennial reign, or do their missionary and educational work through societies is to abuse the scriptures. In fact the one who so twists the scripui es as to impose this kind of oppression upon his brothers is more guilty of the sin involved than the one he is applying it to, and if anyone needs to be Marked it is he (Leroy Garrett, “Mark Them Which Cause Divisions,” Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, p. 23).

Of course, this passage can be legitimately applied, according to Carl Ketcherside, to those of us who are trying to maintain the purity of the church through calling for a “thus saith the Lord” for all that we do and teach (Mission Messenger, Vol. XXVII, pp. 39-40). Let us look at the passage more clearly.

Whatever the situation was in Rome, Paul advised the brethren to guard themselves against men who caused “dissensions and hinderances contrary to the teaching which you learned.” “Dissensions” (dichostasia) “denotes a state of things in which men are divided, in which feuds flourish, and in which unity is destroyed. Dichostasia bears its picture on its face; it literally means `standing apart,’ that is, a state in which all community, all fellowship, and all togetherness are gone” (William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit, pp. 56-57). “Hinderances” (skandalon) is an interesting word; skandalon is properly “the moveable stick or tricker (`trigger’) of a trap, trap-stick; a trap, snare; any impediment placed in the way and causing one to stumble or fall” (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 577).

The ministry of the disciples of Christ was divisive in nature; Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and daugther-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household” (Mt. 10:34-36). Paul added, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may become evident among you” (1 Cor. 11:19-20). With reference to the word skandalon, one needs to notice that it is applied with reference to the Christ on some occasions. With reference to the Jews, Paul said, “They stumbled over the stumbling-stone, just as it is written, `Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense (skandalon), and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed’ ” (Rom. 9:23-33). (See also 1 Pet. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11). “In N.T. skandalon is always used metaphorically, and ordinarily of anything that arouses prejudice, or becomes a hindrance to others, or causes them to fall by the way. Sometimes the hinderance is in itself good, and those stumbled by it are the wicked” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. III, p. 129). Where the gospel, correctly presented, produces divisions, as it always will, the divisions are right. We are not responsible for the legitimate effects of the truth.

Inasmuch as the teaching of truth and Jesus Himself can be the source of division, the phrase “contrary to the teaching which you have learned” (para ten didachen hen humeis emathete) becomes all important. Commentators cannot be sure which teaching Paul is referring to in this passage. Ketcherside and Garrett say that the teaching referred to is “almost certainly . . . the teaching on unity in spite of differences which he had just laid before them in the letter, especially Rom. 14” (Leroy Garrett, Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 2, p. 25). Most commentators are not so certain as are Garrett and Ketcherside. Actually, most commentators which I have read say that the divisive men mentioned here are Judaizers who tried to bind the Mosaical law on Christians and, therefore, make the “teaching which you learned” the teaching concerning the Jew-Gentile relationship and the proper usage of the Mosaical law (which items are among the major threats of the letter), as the following quotations demonstrate:

Probably he refers here to Jewish teachers, or those who insisted strenuously on the observance of the rites of Moses, and who set up a claim for greater purity and orthodoxy than those possessed who receive the Gentile converts as brethren (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Romans, p. 456).

The warning is against a class of persons whose mischievous activity he had had experience of elsewhere, and attempts by some of whom to disturb the peace of the Roman Church he may possibly have heard of. They may have been Judaists, or others who taught views contrary to the received faith, and so caused divisions and offences in the church (J. Barmby, The Pulpit Commentary: Romans, p. 456).

What precisely was the mischief, who precisely were the dangerous teachers, spoken of here so abruptly and so urgently by St. Paul? It is easier to ask the question than to answer it. Some expositors have sought a solution in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, and have found in an extreme school of theoretical `liberty’ these men of `pious’ language and specious pleas. But to us this seems impossible . . . . In our view, the case was one of embryo Gnosticism (Handley C.G. Moule, The Expositor’s Bible: Romans, Vol. V, p. 622).

. . . the most natural way to understand the reference to those who create dissensions and difficulties is as pointing to the Judaizers (John Knox, The lntrepreter’s Bible: Romans, p. 662).

Additional comments from others could be cited but these are sufficient to demonstrate that no one can be certain as to precisely which teaching was being distorted. Therefore, the best explanation appears to me to be one which makes a general application of the passage: whoever causes a division over any teaching not revealed in the scriptures is to be marked and avoided!

Even if the contentions of Ketcherside and Garrett were correct and reference to Rom. 14 is the teaching which Paul had in mind, the case for those who divided the church over instrumental music, benevolent institutions, and the sponsoring church would not be improved. The very best that could be said for the promoters of instrumental music, benevolent institutions and the sponsoring church is that they divided the church over an expediency! We were forced either to conform or to get out! According to 1 Tim. 4:1-3, any person who so binds his opinions is “fallen away from the faith.”

Romans 16:17-18 still stands as a bastion against any false teacher who is willing to divide the body of Christ through the introduction of his unauthorized additions to the work, worship and organization of the church, the works of men such as Ketcherside, Garret, Fudge, and Hardin notwithstanding!

Questions

1. Does 2 John 9-11 refer to “the doctrine about Christ” or “the doctrine which Christ taught”?
2. Study 1 John to see the nature of apostasy opposed by John. Describe it to the class.
3. Can this verse be applied to anyone living today? If so, who?
4. Cite some other verses with parallel grammatical constructions to “doctrine of Christ” in 2 John 9-11. What does the phrase mean in those passages?
5. What necessary conclusion with reference to the pious unimmersed follows if one limits “doctrine of Christ” to “doctrine about Christ”? Is he saved or lost, according to 2 John 9-11?
6. Are “gospel” and “doctrine” distinguishable portions of divine revelation?
7. Can the fellowship of the saints be broken solely over gospel matters but not over doctrinal matters?
8. Look up “doctrine” in a concordance to see what kinds of teaching are called “doctrine.”
9. What distinction in meaning exists in “gospel” and “doctrine”? Can both words apply to the some thing?
10. Can Rom. 16:17-18 be applied to those who introduce unauthorized items in the work of the church?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 23, pp. 373-377
June 5, 1980

By Johnny Stringer

For the benefit of readers who might not be acquainted with the new “Grace-Unity Movement,” a brief explanation of that movement is in order. The unity which this movement advocates is not unity achieved through reaching agreement regarding such issues as the work, worship, and organization of the church; rather, it is unity which is attained by overlooking such differences – hence, unity in diversity. This is the only kind of unity which is possible, the proponents of this movement argue, for it is impossible for brethren to reach agreement on these doctrinal issues; such issues are matters of mere human opinion, so that we cannot know for certain the truth about them. Hence, we agree to disagree on such matters.

This concept of unity is based on a perversion of the Biblical doctrine of grace. Since we are under grace, the advocates of this doctrine claim, it is not essential that we be correct regarding all of these issues. Even though one is in error on such matters, God will accept him by grace so long as he holds to certain fundamental truths about Jesus and professes Him to be Lord. Since God will accept all of us by grace, regardless of doctrinal beliefs and practices, they conclude, we should accept each other and overlook doctrinal disagreements.

The unity which is taught in this movement is unity which crosses denominational boundaries. Leroy Garrett one of the most notable advocates of this teaching, after referring to different denominational groups, stated that they could all continue to exist, yet “be as one body in the holy bond of Christian brotherhood, despite external differences and even annoying disagreements,” and “accept each other as brothers and treat each other as children of God in the same heavenly family . . . . They would drop creedal barriers, having fellowship on the Lordship of Christ and nothing else” (Restoration Review, May, 1964).

One cannot help but note the similarity between this brand of unity and that which has for years been taught by denominationalists. In fact, W.Carl Ketcherside, a primary leader of the Grace-Unity Movement, admits the influence which the denominational ecumenical movement has had on him:

We are wholly sympathetic to the “call of renewal” as voiced by our religious neighbors in ecumenical circles. We congratulate and commend them for their recognition that, our present state is abnormal and for their concern which prompts them to want to do something tangible to remedy it. What they have said and written has affected a great many of us who would not like to credit them for an impact upon our thinking, but they have dragged and pulled some of us into the twentieth century quite against our wills (Mission Messenger, July, 1967, p. 98).

A Matter of Opinion

According to this view, therefore, unity exists despite differences over such matters as instrumental music in worship. The question of whether ox not instrumental music should be used in worship is a matter of mere opinion, so that it is impossible for us to agree, on the matter. In discussing the view which he believes he Campbell’s held, and which’ he himself does hold, Edward Fudge said, “Anything specifically stated by God is a matter of faith. . . If you’ve got to put two and two together and get four, theft they called it opinion.” Then he added, “Obviously instrumental music and all kinds of issues are not things, most of the time, that we can just turn and read straight out of the Bible, `do not do it.’ It’s not that simple. It’s a matter that you’ve got to put two and two together” (Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, no. 18, p. 278). Brother Fudge’s view, then, is that since there is no direct command which specifically forbids instrumental music, the question is a matter of opinion.

Their conclusion is that since the issue is a matter of mere opinion, surely we should be tolerant of those whose belief and practice differ from outs. Unity exists between us and them despite our differences. In an article entitled “Fellowship and the Instrument” (Vanguard, Vol. I, no. 13, pp. 390-393), Fudge said, “If a man who has been baptized into Christ in obedience to the gospel loves the Lord with his whole heart and seeks only to serve Him, he and I are `one’ in that allegiance and loyalty, although we differ on the piano in church.” In that same article he said, “As individual Christians, though, brothers who differ on this issue may still have opportunities to be together, and they may then enjoy their onenesses of relationship, of allegiance, and of sentiment and affection.”

Is it true that, since instrumental music in worship is not specifically forbidden, the issue is a matter of opinion, so that we should simply agree to disagree on the question, exercising tolerance toward those who worship with the instrument? Absolutely not! Even though the New Testament does not specifically name instrumental music as a thing forbidden in worship, it does in principle condemn all such innovations (as the other articles by other writers demonstrate); and if the scriptures condemn a thing, it is not a matter of opinion whether that thing is right or wrong. We can have unity on this matter, not by agreeing to disagree, but by a common decision to abide in the teaching of Christ (2 John 9), follow the scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17), cease practicing human traditions (Matt. 15:9, Col. 2:8), and practice the divinely revealed religion rather than a humanly devised one.

Grace and the Instrument

Due to their concept of grace, the advocates of the Grace-Unity Movement maintain that if people are in error on instrumental music, we should overlook it, recognize that God accepts them by grace despite their error. This concept of grace is unscriptural. We must recognize that God’s gracious forgiveness is conditioned on acknowledging our sins, repenting of them, and asking His forgiveness (1 John 1:9, Acts 8:22). God does not promise that He will overlook sins in which we persist; hence, we must urgently call on those who use the instrument in worship to repent of it that they might be forgiven by God’s grace. None of us keep God’s law perfectly; all of us sin, hence, we depend on God’s grace; but we must not persist in our sins, for God’s grace is conditioned on repentance.

Sometimes it is argued that God’s grace will cover their sin because it is done in ignorance. In the first place, God makes no such promise in His word. In the second place, the Bible teaches that the ignorant will be punished (Matt. 15:14; Lk. 12:47-48). In the third place, in view of the availability of Bibles and of the prevalence of teaching on the subject, the ignorance is generally willful and inexcusable. It is further argued that such sins will be overlooked because the perfect life of Christ is imputed or credited to the one who is guilty. However, the Bible does not teach this Calvinistic doctrine; it teaches that God justifies His sinning child, not through giving him credit for Christ’s perfect life, but through forgiving him when he meets the divinely ordained conditions (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9). Since God has made no promise that he will forgive sins when these conditions have not been met, we have no right to proceed on the presumption that He will?

Does Romans 14 Apply?

In their plea that we overlook our differences with those who worship with the instrument, the proponents of the Grace-Unity Movement appeal to Romans 14. In that passage, Paul instructed brethren who differed on certain matters to accept one another, not condemn one another. However, the matters over which the Romans differed involved practices which were purely private and individual in nature. One could engage in the practices without involving anyone else. Hence, it was possible to leave the matter between him and God. This is the case with such present-day issues as the covering question and the war question. It is not the case, however, with the matter of using instrumental music in congregational worship. This is not an individual matter which one can leave between the man and his God. Rather, it necessarily involves the whole congregation.

The difference is clear. Those who bring this sin into a congregation bind the evil practice on all who remain in the congregation; a congregation which engages in the practice, binds it on all who would become a part of the congregation. Thus, those who defend and practice this error lead many souls into their evil. If they had their way, all congregations would be corrupted with their sinful deeds and the cause of pure, New Testament Christianity would perish from the earth. There is a vast difference between one who engages in a practice strictly on an individual basis, involving no one but himself, and one who would corrupt the Lord’s church. To corrupt God’s church is indeed a serious matter, and it must be dealt with seriously.

Since Romans 14 deals with private practices of individuals, it is a fallacy to apply it to practices that involve a congregation. Those who do so are applying the passage to situations it was not intended to deal with. The scripture in Romans which applies to those who defend instrumental music in worship is not Romans 14, but Romans 16:17-18. Unlike those who privately practice things which I could not in good conscience practice, they lead others into sin and cause division in the Lord’s church — division between those who want to engage in a form of worship which is clearly unscriptural, and those who insist on practicing only the religion revealed from Heaven. Hence, we must mark and avoid them.

A Doctrine of Compromise

A consideration of their views makes it obvious that the attitude of those involved in this movement is one of compromise. They are certainly not of the disposition to raise their voices in firm opposition to the use of instrumental music in worship, even if they believe it to be wrong. Tolerance must prevail on such “matters of opinion.” Moreover, believing that-hose who use the instrument are going to be saved by grace despite their error, they naturally feel no urgency to lead them out of error. Writing of a meeting between those he ludicrously called “top-level men in the churches of Christ” and a prominent leader in the Christian Church, Carl Ketcherside reported,

It was agreed that these leaders in the non-instrumental ranks would tone down their factional approach in their articles and broadcasts, eliminating such material as would intensify tensions between the two groups . . . the effect has been seen coast to coast (Mission Messenger, Nov., 1969).

This is the attitude we are called on to have. By thus ceasing our strong objections to the instrument, we can have peace with those who use it, and the “unity” advocated by this movement will exist.

The spirit of compromise is manifested in the actions of those involved in the movement. For example, Edward Fudge, who states unequivocally that he does not believe instrumental music in worship to be right, has written a number of articles for The Christian Standard, a Christian Church publication; but his articles have not condemned the errors which that paper upholds, including instrumental music in worship. The only way he could write for that paper is by compromising, not teaching the very truths which are needed by its readers. This does not bother him, however, for he does not believe that being in error on this “matter of opinion” will endanger their souls anyway; God’s grace will cover such things.

Although Brother Fudge says that he teaches against the use of instrumental music in worship, he does not urgently call on people to repent of the sin that their souls might be saved. He would teach against it in the same spirit that he taught against institutionalism in a letter to a digressive church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Here is what happened: That congregation had been opposed to institutionalism; but after hearing Fudge present his views on unity, they had taken on a sweeter, more tolerant attitude toward institutional brethren; then, they themselves had gone into institutionalism. On January 4, 1971, Fudge wrote them a letter sympathizing with them because faithful brethren had attacked them for their digression into liberalism. He told them, “I do not believe it best honors the Lord for congregations to get involved with institutions of any sort.” Then he added these comforting words: “At the same time we are saved ones because of God’s grace to us in His Son, and we are accepted by Him `in the beloved!’ Not because we know it all, or do it all right!” (Truth Magazine, Vol. 17, no. 46, p. 725). Thus, Brother Fudge teaches against such things as instrumental music and institutionalism in that he tells folks that he does not think those practices “best honor the Lord” but he does not call on them to repent lest they be lost; rather, he tells them that even if they are practicing error, their souls will not be lost anyway.

It should also be pointed out that some of those who have accepted the concepts of the Grace-Unity Movement have grown progressively softer and more tolerant in their attitudes toward instrumental music, to the point that they have eventually decided that instrumental music in worship is not really wrong. Once one begins to compromise his convictions, tolerating a sin in others, it is not surprising to see him grow so soft in his attitude toward the sin that he no longer considers it to be wrong. David Tant wrote of visiting a church in Atlanta which had a Christmas program, including religious songs accompanied by the guitar. He told of a conversation with Brother Harold Gooldin, a member of that congregation, in which Harold affirmed that instrumental music was a matter of indifference (Ancient Landmarks, January, 1978).

Brethren, we must not take a soft, compromising attitude toward this sin, Proponents of the Grace-Unity Movement are asking us to abandon our firm stand against the instrument, to practice our convictions but raise no strong objections while those who differ practice theirs. We must not heed this appeal. Rather, we must heed the voice of scripture, which calls on us to reprove and rebuke all sins, earnestly contending for the faith (2 Tim. 4:2; Jude 3). We leave you with the warning of J.W. McGarvey:

You are on the right road, and whatever you do don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinctions between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every young preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of those men who are preaching the truth today. It won’t work.

Questions

1. According to the Grace-Unity Movement, what is the only kind of unity possible?
2. Is the unity advocated by that movement the same kind of unity advocated in 1 Cor. 1:10?
3. According to this movement, why is it not essential that we be correct on issues such as instrumental music in worship?
4. What is the reason given by Brother Fudge for saying that the instrumental music question is a matter of opinion?
5. Since they think the question is a matter of opinion, what do they say our attitude should be toward those who differ with us and use the instrument?
6. Since we are under grace, those who persist in a sin (such as worshipping with the instrument) will not be lost. True or False. (Give a reason for your answer.)
7. Rom. 14 discusses practices over which brethren differed, and teaches tolerance of one another when such differences exist. In what way do the practices discussed in that chapter differ from the use of instrumental music in congregational worship?
8. Which passage in Romans does apply to those who defend the use of the instrument in worship?
9. Ketcherside tells of a meeting between certain non-instrumentalists and someone in the Christian Church and reports that there was an agreement to compromise for the sake of peace. According to that agreement, who was to do the compromising?
10. What has Ed Fudge had to do to have articles published in the Christian Standard?
11. Give a scripture which is contrary to the compromising spirit of the Grace-Unity Movement.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 23, pp. 370-373
June 5, 1980

By Bill Cavender

A century and three decades ago, our brethren began discussing in earnest the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. Most of the “reformers” of those days were brethren who had come out of denominationalism, especially the Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist denominations. Presbyterians had used mechanical instruments in their services throughout their early history in this new country, bringing the practice with them from Europe. The Methodists and Baptists had gradually incorporated the use of the mechanical instruments into their worship services as they grew in numbers and in congregations in the “new world.”

The pioneer preachers, editors and brethren in general who discussed this issue and left us a legacy of their discussions in print, mostly in religious papers of those times and in a few debates, were themselves newly converted from denominationalism or were the children of parents who had been. As they searched for truth, desiring to restore all things religious according to the pattern in the New Testament, wanting to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and to walk in “the old paths,” it was inevitable that there would be questions, problems and discussions. The nature of the problems and discussions of their times reflect their background.

Some of these problems were: the manner, subjects and design of baptism; whether people must be “re-baptized” when leaving denominationalism to join hands and hearts with the disciples in churches of our Lord; worship every Lord’s Day and especially the taking of the Lord’s Supper each Sunday; the Christian and his relationship to civil government and the bearing of arms in defense of one’s country (this problem being precipitated by the approach of the War Between The States, 1861-1865); the issue of “church cooperation” and how brethren and churches could cooperate to preach the gospel to the lost; and the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship services of the church. These, and other vexing problems reflect the times, the people, and their religious history and background.

Mention of mechanical instruments of music in worship was made among the restorers even prior to 1851 but the subject began to be discussed in earnest in that year. The discussions continued until the beginning of the Civil War. Brethren who could publish papers in the war years were more intent upon trying to teach the disciples proper attitudes and relationships toward one another, to encourage brethren to continue to meet and worship, and to encourage brethren not to bear arms in the conflict (the majority of brethren then believed it wrong for Christians to engage in carnal warfare; there were some brethren who thought it was not wrong). In the years after the war, from about 1865 to 1890, congregations began to generally endorse the mechanical instruments in worship and bring them into their buildings. Mainly through the influence of David Lipscomb and his paper, The Gospel Advocate, and the men who wrote with him in the paper, churches in the south were slower to accept the instrument. The majority of churches did not do so in the south; the majority in the north did. Most of the churches, both north and south which embraced the instrument, were the larger city congregations at the first, then it was more gradually accepted by smaller, more rural churches.

By 1908, when the debate between brethren W.W. Otey and J.B. Briney on “Instrumental Music” and the “Missionary Societies” was held in Louisville, Kentucky, brethren generally were firmly established and divided in attitude and practice regarding the subject. Division among the brethren was about completed. Those practices of “missionary societies” and “mechanical instruments of music in worship” so propagated, pushed, endorsed and defended under the arguments of mere opinions, expedients, and later as the actual teaching of the scriptures, had, like the tidal wave, rolled over and engulfed the cause of Christ. It is not necessary here to detail the history of the “Disciples Movement,” called “The Christian Church,” and its continued departures from truth from those days until now. They have lost their identity as anything closely akin to the New Testament congregations of Christ. Their history is a continual one of doctrinal and organizational changes and innovations, into liberalism and complete denominationalism.

In brother Otey’s first speech in the Otey-Briney debate, he said;

The wedge of division began to be driven about the year 1849. From 1890 to 1900 the lines of separation were rapidly drawn. Today the lines are about as clearly drawn between the two bodies of disciples – one known as the Church of Christ and the other as the Christian Church – as the lines between any two Protestant bodies. The greatest brotherhood of believers in Christ since the apostolic days has been rent asunder. The heaven-born plea for unity has been rendered ineffective. The answer to the prayer of Jesus has been deferred.. Is this division well-pleasing to God? As certain as Paul was inspired when he wrote, “There is one body,” as certain as the Holy Spirit guided his pen when he condemned division and commanded unity, as certain as Jesus prayed the prayer recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John, just so certain it is that an awful sin has been, and still is, being committed in this division.

Who is responsible for this division? The Church of Christ? Or the Christian Church? The answer to that question is found in the answer to this question, “What has caused the division?” The answer is, “The use of instrumental music in the worship and the use of various religious organizations in the work and worship to supplant the church. ” These things constitute the wedge of division. Till they were introduced, unity prevailed. When this wedge was driven, the church was split. Who splits the log? The man who drives the wedge splits the log, and not the man who protests against its being driven.

Elder Briney and his brethren drove the wedge that split the church. Who did right in splitting the log, the man who drove the wedge or the man who protested? That depends upon whether or not the log ought to be split. If it was right to split the log, the wedge-driver did right. Follows it not, then, as clear as demonstration itself, that Elder Briney and his brethren have split the church? Till they drove the wedge the church was united. We protested against that wedge being driven, and warned them that it would split the church. Had they refrained from driving this wedge into the work and worship of the church, we would today be a united people. The hour that they will remove this wedge we will again be a united people.

But are they sinfully responsible for this division? That all depends upon by whose authority this wedge was driven. Who authorized the splitting of the log – the church? Was it right that it should be split? Did God want it split? By whose authority, then, are these things used in the work and worship of the church God’s or man’s? This is the pivotal point in this controversy. If God authorized the wedge to be driven and the log to be split, it must be done; it matters not who protests. But if God has not authorized the wedge to be driven, then those who protest against its being driven stand upon the side of God (Otey-Briney Debate, pp. 16-17).

Who drove the wedge of missionary societies and instrumental music in worship among our brethren? Those who advocated and defended them; those who fallaciously argued from and twisted the scriptures to try to make the scriptures uphold their innovations; and those who finally pushed the societies and instruments into congregations and meethinghouses over the protests, consciences and convictions of sincere and faithful brethren; these are the ones who drove the wedge, divided the body of Christ, alienated the brethren, and departed from the faith. Thus has it ever been true in religious innovations, whether in the firt century or in the nineteenth century, or in the twentieth century with our human institutional-centralized cooperation brethren. The infant steps of error and innovation, posing as opinions and expedients, become giant steps of destruction and departure from truth when the innovator and false teacher feels he has amassed the power and influence necessary to force the issue and to oust the faithful from their rightful place. Time and again those who love God and stand for His truth have had to begin again to build again that which error and humanism have swept away. I suppose it shall ever be this way. It is always, in every generation and place, that faithful “remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:4-5) who have not and will not “bow the knee to Baal,” whatever form Baal may take, who shall be eternally and everlastingly saved in that eternal kingdom of our God and Father.

It would do all of us good to read again such books as Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, by Robert Richardson; Lard’s Quarterly, by Moses E. Lard and other able writers of that day; The Search for the Ancient Order, and The Life and Times of David Lipscomb, by Earl Irvin West; Attitudes and Consequences in the Restoration Movement, by Homer Hailey; the Otey-Briney Debate, of 1908; and any or all of old books and papers written and published by our brethren in the years between 1800 and 1910. The above books should be in the library of every preacher, elder, teacher and brother in Christ, and should be used. Had brethren been acutely aware of these controversies, arguments and innovations of several generations ago, I personally believe the more immediate problems of our generation -centralized cooperation and oversight, church subsidization of human institutions, churchsponsored recreation and entertainment, and now the Ketcherside grace-faith-fellowshipping denominationalism theory – would not have been so readily embraced by so many. Incidentally, brother Bob Tuten of Huntsville, Ala., had three excellent, concise articles in Truth Magazine (Nov. 29, Dec. 6 and 13, 1979), entitled “Historical Study of Controversy Over Instrumental Music in Worship,” which would be well for all to read.

Who drove the wedge? Who always drives the wedge? Those who introduce into the worship, work and organization of the Lord’s churches in any generation that which is contrary to sound doctrine, that which is the doctrine and commandment of men, these are the wedge-drivers. Such ones are present in every generation and in most every congregation and place. Given the right circumstances and opportunities, they will teach their errors and divide the body of Christ. We should ever be on guard. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom in Christ and in the truth of God.

Questions

1. What was the religious background of brethren who both endorsed and opposed instruments of music in worship?
2. What were some of the many problems and con troversites our brethren discussed in the 1800’s
3. What great event in the history of our country diminished this controversy over instrumental music for several years?
4. What were the crucial years of debate and division among brethren?
5. Who was a great preacher and editor in the south who firmly opposed instrumental music in worship?
6. What was one of the great debates held on this subject after the division over the societies and the instrument was about complete?
7. What were brother Otey’s words regarding who splits the log and who drives the wedge, and who brought division into the church?
8. What are some of the innovations in our generation which have followed the same principles and practices of those of the 1800’s?
9. What are some of the books which still should be read regarding the division over the societies and the instrument in worship?
10. What should be our attitude today toward error and innovation? What is the price of freedom?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 22, pp. 362-363
May 29, 1980

By Irven Lee

“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” (Ps. 133:1). This is a clear statement of fact, for it is a very pleasant thing for brethren to work where unity and good will abound. David was not, and we are not, speaking of some sort of peace that is based on a lack of conviction that would allow for any type of innovation because none cares what is done or not done. We are referring to a group which is definitely dedicated to the effort of walking by faith so that each can find authority in the Scriptures for the things that are done.

Brethren who seek to please God in their worship and service to Him can work together in unity, and it will be both good and pleasant for all concerned in such cases. It is also possible for people to teach for doctrine the precepts of men and to have a type of pleasant fellowship in their activities. Having a “thus saith the Lord” for each and everything they do is not essential to their peace of mind. Some do many things for which they have no scripture and they freely admit that such is true in their worship.

Those who seek for a commandment, an approved apostolic- example, or a necessary inference for each doctrine or practice among them are restricted to much more narrow limits than are those who would direct their own steps. People who choose to limit themselves to things which clearly have heaven’s approval are those who are impressed by our Lord’s statement about the narrow way which leads to life and the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13, 14). Those who are thus impressed are eager to walk in the way that leads to the proper destination. They are afraid to take liberties which would lead them out into the realm of God’s silence. (Please read Heb. 7:11-14 carefully. Also 2 John 9-11.)

Man is capable of many inconsistencies of his life. He can profess with his mouth that he walks by faith when, in reality, he is more impressed by the popular practices of religious people about him than he is by the limits of God’s plan. In a few decades a congregation of people can make several changes in their practices while they still claim special regard for Bible authority. It is a matter of drifting much like the contented fisherman in his little boat which has no anchor on a quiet afternoon when he is watching for the cork on his line to indicate that a fish has taken the bait. He may be surprised after a while when he notices how far he is from the place where he left his car. If he would fish near the car he must have a good anchor that will hold, or he will have to row back into position often.

Those who constantly examine themselves to see that they are in the faith constantly renew their minds by a careful study of the Bible (2 Cor. 13:5). They are aware of the tendency in man to conform to outside pressures so they “give diligence to make their calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10; Heb. 2:1; Phil. 2:12; 2 Tim. 2:15). They are very different in attitude from those who are contented to drift and who assume that if a thing is a common practice it must be right (see Rom. 12:2). If the strict and the careless meet as one body in the same house regularly, it would not take much to bring their differences into the light.

Many times churches have been started after the pattern that is clearly revealed in the New Testament. All members believe and teach the same thing concerning the terms of entrance into the church, acceptable worship, proper church government, work of the church, and the standard of life by which the members should live. As the years pass the church grows, gets a larger building on a bigger lot, and comes to be respected by more people who have observed their dedicated lives and their respect for the Bible. By this time some who are not converted to the idea of walking by faith may literally “join” the church. Children of church members may not have been grounded in the truth, so they are influenced by the denomination about them and they are not so careful to contend for the faith. The situation becomes ripe for division even though things may be quiet and orderly and the danger may not be realized.

When a church comes to have a sizeable number of lukewarm members as well as a solid group of devout members, the devil can strike the match that will bring an explosion that will divide the church and cause some to blaspheme the holy name of God. Insistence upon using an instrument of music can be that match. Each member immediately takes his place with those who would abide in the narrow way or with those who would like to be more acceptable to the religious community about them.

The instrument of music in worship is condemned by the silence of the Scriptures. The Lord said nothing about it, so it is unscriptural or unauthorized. The master Teacher said nothing about using holy water, or the counting of beads in worship, neither did He say anything about sprinkling babies (please read Heb. 7:11-14). All of these things were left out of God’s perfect law of liberty and can be added only by human wisdom. Man is not to go beyond that which is written (Rev. 22:18, 19; 2 John 9; 2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

It is amazing how bitter former friends and brethren can become in a short time after something for which there is no scriptural authority is suggested and accepted by a large element in the church. Those who had been rather lukewarm now become very zealous for the innovation. They now see a vision of a very great church which will be free of the influence of the “anti’s,” the “mossback’s,” the “non-progressives,” who they say are “legalistic fanatics.” The strict and those who would take liberties in going beyond the doctrine of Christ accuse each other of bringing about the division. It would be a new thing under the sun for those who bring in the innovative practice to admit that they caused the division. Those who continue in the old paths, where is the safe way, could not with a clear conscience admit the guilt.

If an instrument of music is added where the devout and the lukewarm have been meeting together there will be two groups meeting. If some outsider in the community should ask what the difference is, he would be told that one group favors the instrument and the other does not. That answer would not be complete. There is a fundamental difference in attitude toward the Bible and the absolute authority of Christ. The one group would be ready to put the church into the field of recreation and other “good works,” as well as accept various inter-church and intra-church organizations. The other body would continue in the scriptural path which was diligently sought out by those who started the work years before the division.

When the instrument of music is added, causing a division in the church, the group with the instrument will be more acceptable to the denominations in the community. It will follow as night the day that a truce will be called and the preachers of the new group will no longer contend earnestly for the faith but will fraternize with the “clergy” in ministerial associations, Easter services, etc. This will not happen the day the instrument is added, but it will come in due process of time.

I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I can read history and observe current events. The instrument was added in the last hundred years in almost every county in America where the church which is described in the New Testament existed and, in each such community, there came to be two groups. The group with the instrument added the kitchen and other facilities for recreation and entertainment as well as the unscriptural local and area wide church organizations. The church without the instrument added no such unscriptural practices, but it grew from the smaller group to become the larger and to multiply the number of such churches. This growing conservative group finally reached the point when it came to have an influential number among its members who wanted to copy the denominational practices that appealed to them most. This time the church supported institutions and sponsoring churches came before the instrument. Recreation at church expense and church support of colleges, camps, the bus ministry, etc., followed. If I may be allowed to get out of my field and act as a prophet, I will say that the more liberal churches in the recent division between the liberal and conservative elements in the church will add the instrument before the end of the century. It belongs among people that freely admit that they do many things for which there is no scripture.

The instrument was definitely involved in the division that came more or less one hundred years ago. In many localities the separation came the day the instrument was brought into the building. It was the key in those days that opened the flood gap for the flood of innovations that came in rapid succession. It was the thermometer that indicated that the church was too sick and weak to discern between the scriptural and the unscriptural.

Individuals will cross the line of separation in each direction, but the two groups will remain and the differences will become more conspicuous over the decades. There could be a sort of unity if the faithful brethren would give up their convictions and join in copying the churches based on human wisdom. There could be precious unity of the Spirit if those who have gone beyond scriptural authority would give up all the unauthorized practices and come back to the narrow way that leads unto life. The instrument and other items that have been borrowed from decadent Protestantism would have to be returned to those who teach for doctrines the precepts of men for the unity of the Spirit to return.

Questions

1. Mention and discuss two words that may be used to describe unity among brethren.
2. Is it possible for a pleasant unity to prevail among those whose doctrine and practice are unscriptural?
3. List three ways the Lord may indicate His approval of a practice so that we may be confident in accepting the things under consideration.
4. Moses said nothing in the law about one of the tribes of Judah serving as priest. Did that mean that one of the tribes of Judah could or could not be a priest?
5. Christ said nothing about the use of an instrument of music in worship to God. Does that mean that we may or may not use the instrument with the approval of Christ?
6. The instrument was added in a great number of churches of Christ in the last half of the last century bringing division when it was added. Describe further changes that came and identify the group that mode these changes.
7. Did the group that added the instrument cause the division or was it caused by those who refused it? Which will bear the guilt before God?
8. Does the division over the bringing in of unscriptural innovations tend soon to be healed and unity restored, or do the differences between the two groups tend to become more pronounced as time passes?
9. What will be the results in the lives of the children and grandchildren when a family decides to “go along” with some innovation rather than face the social pressure from those who promote it?
10. Is it fair to charge those who add church support of recreation, the instrument, the inter-church and intro-church organizations of copying the denominations about them rather than walking by faith?
11. Who among church people have used the word “anti”? What did they mean and to whom did they refer?
12. Is “anti” a prefix for a word or is it a word in itself? Explain.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 22, pp. 360-361
May 29, 1980