Truth Magazine

By S. Leonard Tyler

If one is to be positive about his religious safety without selfish bigotry or self-justification, he must be established in the truth of God as revealed in the Bible. When one hears God’s word, believes its message, and obeys its commands, he can safely trust in its promises – be saved from past sins (Rom. 6:17-18). But what about the church? Is there any sure, positive way by which one can be absolutely confident in his faith? I believe that one can be sure, confident and secure in his faith regarding the church just as he can be regarding the forgiveness of his sins. And it is with this positive approach that one can distinguish the Lord’s church from a demonination. Let us ask:

What Is The Church of Christ

The Bible being God’s Divine standard of measurement by which man it be guided in all things, we must now go to it for our understanding of the church of Christ. What is the church of Christ? “Church of Christ” is a prepositional phrase of possession meaning “church belonging to Christ” or “Christ’s church.” The expression identifies Christ as the possessor of the church (I Pet. 2:9). “Church” is a called-out people. The Greek word ekklesia is a compound word: “Ekklesia, from ek, out of, klesis, a calling” (Vine’s New Testament Words, p. 83.)

The church is “the people belonging to Christ,” called out of the world by the gospel into a saved relationship and into fellowship with God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and all saints (2 Thess. 2:14; Eph. 1:13; Acts 19:1-5; 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 John 1:3-7). These are Christ’s redeemed ones, purchased by His own blood (Acts 20:28), and possessed to serve and glorify God’s world without end (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:21-24; Eph. 3:10-11, 21).

Therefore, true, obedient believers in Christ are the church of Christ in both the universal and local sense of the term. (1) The universal church circumscribes all true, obedient believers in the world. (2) The local church circumscribes all true obedient believers choosing to meet, worship, and work together under Christ’s directions in any given locality. This is the way the word “church” is used in the New Testament when referring to Christians in the collectivity, unless it refers to-a group of local churches as in Romans 16:16 and Revelation 1:11.

The church is autonomous under Christ (Col. 1:18; 2:18-23). A plurality of elders in each local church superintend “the flock of God which is among you” (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-14; 1 Pet. 5:2-4), deacons serve (1 Tim. 3:8-13; Phil. 1:1), and all the saints work together with God (2 Cor. 6:1) under Christ’s headship (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15). This is God’s arrangement, organization, or entity in which Christians function in the aggregate (1 Tim. 3:15). Brother Guy N. Woods aptly expressed it: “The church, with its elders to oversee it, the deacons to serve, and the evangelist to proclaim the word is an independent entity and answerable only to Christ” (Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary on Bible School Lessons, 1946, p. 337). Thus the church of Christ is not a denomination nor any part of one. It is the Lord’s people or church, called by the Lord through the gospel, sustained, judged, and saved by Jesus Christ as His word teaches (1 Cor. 15:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Acts 17:30-31; John 12:48).

What Is A Denomination?

“A denomination is a group of persons adhering to a particular creed under a distinctive name, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians are separate Christian denominations” (Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedic College Dictionary, p. 1136).

“Denominate . . . made up of units of a designated kind . . . Denomination: (1) The act of denominating: specif., the process of embodying and fixing concepts and classes in language; naming . . . (2) A sect or school having united by a common faith and form of worship and discipline; as, the Baptist denomination” (Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language).

Thus a denomination is characterized by its: (1) Name, (2) Creed, (3) Organization, (4) Worship, and (5) Work. The organization consists of a number of congregations of the “same class or kind” with a centralized headquarters binding them together. The ecclesiastical headquarters is the representative authorizing agency, approving, or disapproving, planning and supervising the whole society (within the bounds of their accepted constitution). Each segment or congregation of the denomination submits willingly but must submit to be accepted as a part of the denomination. A sect, faction, or division exists with more or less oral understanding. The more highly the society is developed, the more definite and positive is the creed, discipline, articles of faith or dogma and organization holding them together. However, these terms are used indiscriminately at times to emphasize peculiarities.

Is The Church A Denomination?

It is a sad commentary upon the Lord and His teaching when those claiming to be “men of faith” cannot distinguish the glorious church of our Blessed Lord from a denomination. In 1965, I was receiving the Winnetka Avenue Church of Christ bulletin, 7054 Winnetka Ave., Canoga Park, California 91306. Brother Roy E. Cogdill edited the bulletin at the time and wrote an excellent series of eleven articles under the title, “Denominationalizing The Church.” Brother Edward Fudge was working with the church that summer at 1212 West Six Avenue, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, while I was away in meetings. In Volume 3, Number 20, Brother Fudge circled denotninationalizing and penciled in the margin, “We are already a denomination according to Webster’s meaning of the word. Since the word is not found in the Bible, Webster’s definition should be sufficient.” Notice the “we,” clearly not a reference to some alien body, and the “already, “not just a trend or development pointing toward some possible danger in the future. But he said in A Journey Toward Jesus (1977) on page 33, “Until recently there was no such thing as a Christian Church denomination, though it was developing for a long time, but now there officially is, and those in it use the name `Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).”‘ Why then did he say in the bulletin notation that the church of Christ is already, according to Webster’s meaning of “Denomination,” a denomination? We discussed this notation and several other subjects in a good way but with persistent differences. (A Journey Toward Jesus by Bruce Edwards and Edward Fudge is the best approach to preparing one for a full reception of denominational philosophy and concepts that I have ever read.) In short, certain self-styled “men of faith” regard the church in our day as a denomination in fact – a denomination lacking the honesty, openness, and integrity to openly admit or officially declare the fact.

The church could be properly denominated with other religious groups as the same “class and kind,” if all religious groups are considered. The church is in the category of religion. But that is like identifying God with idols as was done at Athens (Acts 17). Paul hastened to distinguish between the true and living God in contrast to their dead, false, idol gods. The gospel is considered in a like manner (Gal. 1:6-9). But Paul proclaims the gospel of Christ to be incomparable with a perverted or another gospel and denounced with an “accursed” any man or angel who taught the false doctrine. The gospel is God’s power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16-17).

Thus the church of our Lord being the true body of obedient believers, designed in God’s eternal mind, established by Jesus Christ and directed by His word, is to reflect the manifold wisdom of God and give Him glory upon the earth (Eph. 3:10-11, 21; Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:11). The church is the fulness of Christ in whom “all fulness dwells” (Col. 1:19), and “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). Thus to share in the blessings of God, one must be in Christ (Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:3), who is the fulness of God (John 5:23). Likewise, to enjoy the blessings of Christ one must be in the church – the church is the fulness of Christ (Eph. 1:23). Therefore, the Lord’s church stands as a Divine Establishment in contrast to human denominations. It was established by Divine appointment and is preserved by Divine Directions, laws.

Think of it from this standpoint. “A denomination is a religious organization larger than the local church and smaller than the universal church.” This is an old and limited definition, but expresses an identifying fact. No denomination with all her constituent societies claims to have all the saved in it. They maintain that there are saved people in all denominations. Thus, each denomination is smaller than the universal church – which includes all the saved in all the world. On the other hand, a denomination is composed of all the churches – congregations of the “same class and kind” – and. is not a single local church. This makes it larger than any local church. The New Testament use of the word “church” circumscribes all the saved in the world, the universal church, or else it is the saved choosing to meet, worship, and work together under Christ’s directions in a given location, the local church. So, according to their own contention, the denomination is not the church in any sense of the word as used in the New Testament. It is either too big or too small. It just does not fit God’s requirements for His church, (Observe Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Bulwarks of the Faith, Part One, “Roman Catholicism,” pp. 207, 208).

Signs of Changing

There are definite and characteristic attitudes and doctrines identifying the denominations. This is self-evident; if such did not exist, there could be no distinct, differing denominations. Thus any person leaning toward, in sympathy with, or fellowshipping those practicing such peculiar and characteristic doctrines is certainly turning in that direction. They become easy victims to the proselytizing influences and teachings. Their minds are unsettled, mixed-up, without firm convictions. When they reject the Bible as a true, understandable standard upon which to build, they are “tossed to and fro” with every wind and diverse doctrine.

Doctrines and Concepts Which Point Toward Denominationalism Reject the Bible as the Standard

(1) When man rejects the Bible as an unalterable standard of measurement in matters of religion, regardless of the reasoning, he is left without a positive standard of measurement. This, to me, is the basic reason for denominationalism. Who can repudiate it and be saved eternally? Understanding, believing, and accepting the New Testament (facts and commands as well as the promises) is imperative to reconcilation with God in Christ (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:19-23; 2 Cor. 5:18-21).

This very fact – the acceptance of the Bible as an unalterable standard and infallible guide – gave reason for the restoration movement. It was here that “the Campbells” yielded such a wonderful and weighty influence during the 19th century. Their logical and positive approach to the Bible as God’s complete and understandable will touched the hearts of thousands. Their systematic study of the Bible aided many in understanding God’s word. According to most religious leaders, the Bible could be understood only by the “spiritually” endowed, not by the common man. The Roman Catholic Church expressed this view thusly:

“(26) But is the meaning of the Holy Scripture not clear in itself, and easy to be understood by every one?

“No; for the Holy Scripture is a Divine and mysterious book, ‘in which, ‘ as St. Peter says, speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul, ‘are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction’ (2 Pet. 3:16). . .

“(27) Is it not, then, true that the Bible alone is the only Rule of Faith? Or, in other words: Is not every private individual to search the Bible, and nothing but the Bible, until hefinds out what he has to believe?

“No; for not the Bible alone, but the Bible and Tradition, both infallibly interpreted by the Church, are the right Rule of Faith. ” (A Full Cathechism of The Catholic Religion, Translated From The German of The Rev. Joseph DeHarbe, S.J., by the Rev. John Fander . . . Revised, Enlarged, and Edited by The Right Rev. P.N. Lynch, D.D., Bishop of Charleston, 1891, New York: and has the Imprimatur stamp, pp. 75, 76).

It also states plainly, “Application. In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly submit to the decisions of Holy Church; for when you believe what the Church teaches, you believe the Word of God” p. 77, ibid.). Thus the common man cannot read the Bible and understand it according to Catholic doctrine.

John Calvin propagated the same view in holding to the “Adamic sin” and the necessity of “enabling grace” to give one faith in order to be saved. Against this, Mr. Garrison tells of Sandeman who, back in the latter part of the 18th century, taught “that God had not only revealed his truth in terms intelligible to man and provided the means for salvation through Christ, but had also furnished in Scripture adequate evidence of the truth of his revelation, so that the natural man, just as he is, with all his sins, can weigh the evidence and accept the truth. That acceptance is faith. Saving faith, said Sandeman, is an act of man’s reason, and it differs from any other act of belief only in being belief of a saving fact. ” (An American Religious Movement by Winfred Ernest Garrison, 1945, p. 23).

The Campbell’s concept of the Bible as a real revelation from God, verbally given to be intelligently understood, opened up the way for a systematic study of the Bible. They found that the teachings of the Holy Scriptures could be ascertained not only through “express word” or (A) “Express Precept,” as they put it, but also by (B) “Approved Precedent” and (C) Necessary Inference. Any doctrine to be of God must be proved by a Scriptural passage or tests. Thus the motto: “We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” This not only expressed a positive speaking but also a restricted speaking. It meant then and must mean now: to be of any value, their speaking (even knowledge) began where the Bible began, circumscribed everything within its pages and stopped where it stopped. When the totality of Bible knowledge is learned on any specific subject, one has “the faith” on that subject.

John Locke in 1689 pleaded for the Bible but suggested only that which was “declared, in express words, to be necessary to salvation.” And, according to Mr. Garrison, Mr. Repertius Meldenius stated that same principle when he said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (An American Religious Movement by Winfred Ernest Garrison, pp. 16, 17). This view left out too much the Bible taught – untaught. And in “non-essentials, liberty” filled the hearts of people and “in all things, charity” allowed the opinions, reasonings, doctrines and commandments of men to become the standard. Such attitudes will lead to the same consequence today.

The Campbells’ plea was essentially different. It was for all the Bible; the totality of Scriptural teaching ascertained was the totality of faith, the binding pattern, by which all were to live (Jude 3). Will not the honest, sincere “man of faith” diligently seek, believe, practice and teach this! It is sad to recall that in later years when Alexander Campbell weakened in this positive and logical understanding of the Bible, and the simplicity of God’s Divine arrangement, disaster followed. The results speak for themselves – the Christian Church with all her constituent societies stand as a monument. This should leave a message with us. Let us seek and accept all the Bible teaches, believe it, practice it, and teach it. Then and only then trust in God’s grace and mercy.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, pp. 599-601
September 20, 1979

By Ward Hogland 

1 want to tell you a true story about a liberal church which literally died on the vine. I suppose it shouldn’t bother me, but when I heard of men like Ira North, in the Gospel Advocate, refer to a conservative church in Florida which he claims almost died, I cannot contain myself. The liberal church I want to tell you about was called The Central Church of Christ, of Greenville, Texas. I should know because I lived there for seventeen years and was present on the day of its funeral. The way it all started was back in the early fifties. V.E. Howard was worshiping with the Walnut Street Church of that city. When the “Issues” came into full focus, he wanted the elders to send a contribution to the Boles Home in Quinlan, Texas. They refused, so in turn, he secured a key to the building and started meeting with his small group at a time other than the regular service time. The elders, not desiring to tolerate such foolishness, made it unlawful for him and his followers to enter the premises at any time other than the regular services. He, in turn, filed a law suit trying to take the building from the elders and the church. The judge ruled against V.E. and his group, thus leaving the building to the elders. It was told by some that the elders sued V.E. Howard such was not the case, he brought a suit against the elders and lost!

By the way, that trial was very interesting. The lawyer for the defense, (the elders), was a Baptist. After being drilled on the organization of the church by Herman Sargent and others, he knew more about the work of the church than most liberals. As a matter of fact, V.E. Howard had secured the services of a lawyer who was a member of a liberal congregation, but knew very little about the Bible. When the Baptist lawyer got V.E. Howard and Gayle Oler in the Witness chair, they almost wore out the seat of their trousers trying to tell him who owned Boles Home! Gayle Oler had testified, under oath, that the Firm Foundation was the largest paper in Texas. Since they had claimed that Walnut Street was out of step with the big churches in Texas, he held up an article written by Reuel Lemmons, saying that Boles Home, under a board, was unscriptural. This had great influence on the judge, since both Howard and Oler had claimed the elders were out of step with the big Texas churches.

After losing the case, Brother Howard and his group left and formed what was known as the Central Church of Christ. They built a large, fine, auditorium on Wesley Street. in Greenville. They seemed to be doing well for a short time and they began to die on the vine. Their membership dwindled smaller and smaller. Finally, about five years before I moved, they threw in the towel, sold the church building to a Holiness group and folded up! Today, that building on Wesley Street stands as a grotesque monomument to the fact that liberalism can die on the vine!

Brother Ira North, said he knew of an “Anti” church in Florida which had dwindled down to a small number. Well, Brother North, I have one better than that, I know of a liberal church that not only dwindled, it gave up the ghost and died! And by the way, they did not go out and start another church, they folded. I understand the few members who were left went to other places. Brother North implied that it was what he called the “Anti” doctrine that caused the church in Florida to become small. Brother North, what caused the liberal church in Greenville to die? Could it be there is a venom within the ranks of liberalism which will stunt and destroy their growth? Brother North said we need to come back to liberalism so we can grow numerically. Brother North, this one folded and died; how can this be?

Gentle friend, I have said all of this to teach a much needed lesson. Numbers have nothing to do with being scriptural. Jesus was very popular at one time during his ministery. He had large numbers following him. According to Brother North, in the Gospel Advocate article, this would make the Lord scriptural and right. However, a little later, many of his disciples went back and walked with him no more (Jno. 6:66). His numbers dwindled down and even his own apostles were apprehensive about following the Lord. If Brother North had been there, since he is so obsessed with Numbers, He would have said, “Now Lord, you seem to be dying on the vine, your numbers are small and that makes your doctrine false, so I will leave also.” How about that Ira? Is that the way it is? Remember your article in the Advocate implied that it is Growth and Numbers that make right.

Friends, large or small numbers have nothing to do with whether one is scriptural. One church in the Bible had a name (reputation) that it was a live wire church but the Lord said it was DEAD (See Rev. 3:1). Many factors other than being unscriptural could cause a declining membership.

I wanted Brother North to know about a liberal church which died to let him and his readers know his argument will not hold water. There is an old cleche in polemics which goes like this, “Any argument which proves too much, proves nothing.”

If what he says is true, then I couldn’t come home to the liberals because I know of one that died. Furthermore, I know of a Baptist church in Dallas where Dr. Criswell preaches, which is so large, it would make Brother North’s Madison Church look like a flea on an elephant’s back! That is, as numbers are concerned. Brother North, is Dr. Criswell’s church right because it has such a large growing membership? Please think it over the next time you are tempted to “brag” about numbers in the Advocate. The article I refer to appeared in the May 10, 1979 issue of the Gospel Advocate.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, p. 598
September 20, 1979

By Irvin Himmel

Following the slaying of his brother Abel, Cain was driven out and became a fugitive and a vagabond. Cain complained that his punishment was too severe and thought that every one who found him would try to slay him. “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him” (Gen. 4:15).

Cain marked himelf with disgrace and shame when he murdered his brother. It appears that God set a mark or sign upon him to prevent his being slain in vengeance. What that mark was we do not know. It served as a token of God’s pity and mercy.

The great apostle Paul was also a marked man. He wrote in Gal. 6:17, “1 bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” This probably refers to the scars, bruises, wounds, and fleshly signs of persecutions and hardships which he suffered for serving the Lord. Many of the Jews gloried in circumcision, a fleshly token of nationality, but Paul gloried in that which branded him as a servant of Jesus Christ.

Paul also was marked as belonging to Christ by holy living, keeping his body in subjection, and by the image of Christ that shone in his words and deeds. In this sense, every child of God should be clearly branded.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, p. 597
September 20, 1979

By Mike Willis

One of the doctrines taught by denominationalists for years is this: “It makes no difference what you believe, just so long as you are sincere.” Or, again, “Let us not argue about religious matters, for it makes no difference anyway because each is entitled to his own belief.” In early restoration writings, gospel preachers answered this false doctrine frequently. It is surprising to me to see it resurface among brethren in this decade. Yet, it has done just that.

In the recent exchange between Billy Williams and Weldon Warnock which was carried in Truth Magazine, Billy Williams made the following rather significant statement:

To answer his questions: If one deliberately and wilfully disobeys God’s law or does presumptuous sin (presuming to change or act in defiance of God’s laws), he is surely condemned as long as he continues in that sin (Num. 15:22-30; Heb. 10:26ff). But if he, in ignorance, transgresses God’s law while earnestly desiring to serve Him faithfully, I do not find any passage that allows the to condemn him. He is not more a sinner than I am . . . .

Some have turned the Lord’s church into a business or social club to satisfy their own lusts; some seek to be entertained by their instruments of music and know nothing of worshiping God in song; others dethrone the Christ and say He died because He failed. These all stand self-condemned! But there are faithful brethren who honestly believe they can use institutions in the church, worship with instruments, or that Christ will return and reign over an earthly kingdom. Are they condemned because they do not understand these things as I do? I do not presume to do so judge them (“Answer to Warnock (2),” Truth Magazine, Vol. XXIII, No. 19, p. 6).

Brother Williams has in essence taught exactly what the denominationalists have been teaching for years, namely, that it makes no difference what you believe or practice so long as you are honest and sincere. This is the doctrine which I want us to consider in this article today.

Will It Work In Any Other Field Of Study?

I have always thought it strange that principles which are so obviously false with reference -to every other realm are somehow thought to have validity when we turn to religion. Does any scientist think that it matters not what two elements a person mixes and in what proportions he mixes them, just so long as he is honest and sincere he will come up with the exact chemical that he desires? Of course not! Do our astronauts think that it makes no difference what direction their rockets are fired that they will end up where they want them to go, just because the men are honest and sincere? Of course not! We recognize that honesty and sincerity are no guarantees of success in these areas. The pages of history could literally be filled with the names of men who were honest and sincere but mistaken. Many of them lost their lives tragically because they were wrong, although both honest and sincere.

Despite the fact that all will admit that honesty and sincerity are not adequate replacements for the truth in secular matters, some still cling to and teach the idea that it matters not what the truth may be in religion so long as one is honest and sincere. What saith the Scriptures?

Plain Statements In Scripture Reveal That This Is Wrong

There are a number of plain statements in God’s divine revelation which show beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that those who are honestly in error in religion are not thereby saved. Rather, there is an objective standard of truth revealed in God’s word which men are responsible for knowing and obeying. Honest and sincere sin is still sin – sin which will damn a soul in hell. That this is true, please examine the following passages of Scripture:

1. Lev. 5:17. “And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.” The Mosaical law declared that sins committed in ignorance separated a man from God and would cause him to lose his soul.

2. Ezek. 3:17-21. In this significant passage, the Lord appointed Ezekiel to be a watchman to Israel. His obligation was to warn Israel of the sins she was guilty of committing. Jehovah said, “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” Notice that the wicked man would die in his iniquity; ignorance did not excuse him. The twentieth verse of the same chapter applies the same principle to the righteous man who departs from his righteousness to the commission of wickedness as it applies to the one who had never been righteous.

3. Matt. 7:21-23. This familiar passage relates that calling on the name of the Lord while doing works of iniquity does not result in salvation, but damnation. There is no indication in these verses that those guilty of these sins were guilty of presumptuous and defiantly rebellious conduct; rather, these men were calling Jesus “Lord,” prophesying in His name, casting out devils in His name, and doing many wonderful works in His name. Yet, because they were guilty of sin, they lost their souls. Apparently these men were not saved just because they were honest and sincere.

4. Acts 17:29-30. Paul told the Athenians that God does not wink at ignorance but commands all men everywhere to repent. These very religious people in Athens who were ignorantly worshiping God were found to be in sin and in need of salvation. Ignorance was inexcusable even when proceeding from an honest and sincere heart.

5. Matt. 15:13-14. Jesus is recorded to have said, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Both the blind leader and the blind follower will be destroyed. Honesty and sincerity would not save a person in these circumstances.

All of these passages reveal that honesty and sincerity are no guarantee of salvation. Rather, the Lord expects obedience. This leads us to the following divine truth: when God gives a man a revelation, that man is responsible for learning and obeying, that revelation. In connection with this, consider 2 chess. 2:10-12. Paul wrote of the coming of the Wicked One

. . . whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Arid for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Notice that this passage plainly stated that those who believe a lie shall be damned! I do not know how the Lord could have stated the matter more plainly. These people (a) ceased to have the love of the truth, (b) received a strong delusion, (c) believed a lie, (d) had pleasure in unrighteousness, and (e) eventually will perish or be damned.

Learning From Divine Examples

Even as we can learn the truth of God through express revelation, we can also learn God’s divine will through the inspired examples recorded in the Bible. The following examples of conduct recorded in the Bible demonstrate that God will condemn those who, despite their honesty and sincerity, disobey the Lord. Consider them with me:

(1) The young prophet (1 Kgs. 13). After Jeroboam had led the rebellion against Rehoboam which resulted in the establishment of the kingdom of Israel and left only the tribes of Benjamin and Judah loyal to the Davidic dynasty he established an apostate system of worship in Bethel and Dan. He removed the worship from Jerusalem which was God’s holy hill, appointed priests from men of every tribe, erected images contrary to the Ten Commandments, and established unauthorized holy days. Because of these apostasies, God sent an unnamed young prophet to prophesy against this apostate worship. When He sent him, He instructed him, “Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest.” The young prophet went to Bethel and spoke the message of the Lord. Then, he began his return journey to Jerusalem. An old prophet residing in Bethel heard of what had happened and quickly saddled his ass in order to catch up with the young prophet and talk with him. When he caught up with him, he invited the young prophet to eat with him. The young prophet related how God had forbidden him to eat in that place: Nevertheless, the older prophet related, “I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spoke unto me by the word of the Lord saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.” Then, the historian adds, “But he lied unto him. ” The young prophet believed the lie and went home with the older prophet for dinner. While there, the word of the Lord did actually come on the older prophet; the older prophet spoke God’s condemnation for the younger prophet’s disobedience of God’s commandments, despite the fact that the disobedience was done in ignorance from an honest and sincere heart. Consequently, on his journey home, the young prophet was slain by a lion because he had disobeyed the Lord. This young man’s death is proof that an honest and sincere heart is not accepted by God in the place of obedience.

2. Saul of Tarsus. Who among us is not familiar with the conversion and life of Saul of Tarsus? Though Paul was guilty of blasphemy, and was an injurious and violent man (1 Tim. 1:13) during the time that he was persecuting Christians, he did it ignorantly in unbelief. Yet, during that time, he was considered the very chiefest of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). Despite the fact that he testified to have sincerity of his conscience (Acts 23:1; 24:16), Paul recognized that he would have gone to hell had he died in the condition of believing a lie.

We could add to these examples many other occasions when men believed a lie and disobeyed God, such as the belief of the Israelites under Joshua of the Gibeonites’ lie (Josh. 9:1-27) and the Jewish disbelief in the Christ (Rom. 10:1-3; 11:20). Despite the fact that these persons were honest and sincere, they were believing what was false, obeying what was false, and damned to suffer the consequences of their error.

Conclusion

Men and brethren, let no one deceive you! The doctrine that one can be saved while practicing sin so long as he has a good, honest, sincere heart is one of the biggest lies that the Devil ever invented. There be some who clothe themselves as ministers of light who go about this land circulating that lie. Do not believe it and preach it! You will delude others and cause both of you to be damned thereby. Rather, “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). Realize that the truth and it alone can make you free from sin (John 8:32). A lie, though sincerely believed, can never do for a man what the truth can!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, pp. 595-597
September 20, 1979