Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

Church Organization

The organization of the Mormon Church is not taught in the Bible. They have in their organization: The First Presidency, Apostles, Evangelists, High Priests, Seventies, Ward and Presiding Bishops, Elders, Priests, Teachers, Deacons and the Aaronic Priesthood.

The Bible organization for the church is simple:

1. Jesus Christ serves as head (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23).

2. Each church is independent, having its own elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5).

3. The oversight of the elders is over the local church where they have been appointed to serve (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Mormon Elders

Young, unmarried Mormon men call themselves “elders.” By no stretch of the imagination could they be elders in the Bible sense. A casual reading of the qualification for elders will soon show this to be true. One of the “musts” for a man to be an elder in the church is that he must be married and have children (1 Tim. 3:2-5; Tit. 1:6). They sometimes try to say that there is a difference in an elder and a bishop. The Bible makes no such distinction (Acts 20:17, 28).

Bible elders were to oversee the flock among them (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28). It would be interesting for the Mormon elders to tell us where the flock is that they are. overseeing. How can these young men, who are not qualified and are constantly moving around, oversee the flock of God?

Mormon Deacons

The Mormon Church appoints young boys (age 12) to the office of deacon. The Bible qualifications for a deacon is, among other things, that he must be married and have children (1 Tim. 3:12). Mormon deacons do not meet these qualifications.

Social And Recreational Activities

The Mormon Church sponsors from its treasury, social and recreational activities. This can be observed by the facilities in Mormon meeting places.

1. The work of the Lord’s church is spiritual, not social (Rom. 14:17; Jno. 18:36; 1 Cor. 11:20-34).

2. The Bible teaches that Christians should practice hospitality. (I Pet. 4:9). But these activities are of the home and not of the church.

The Lord’s Supper

Mormons use water in the Lord’s Supper instead of fruit of the vine. Joseph Smith says that it does not make any difference what we take in the communion (D. & C. 27:1-4).

1. The Bible teaches that the two elements to be used in the Lord’s Supper are unleavened bread and fruit of the Vine (Matt. 26:26-28).

2. Where is the authority for using water in the communion? One Mormon told me that it was Indian legend.

The Badge Of Authority

The apostles of Christ in the New Testament performed miracles as a badge of authority for what they taught (Mk. 16:15-20; Heb. 2:1-4). Mormons claim to have apostles who can do just what the apostles did in the New Testament. It would be good for a Mormon to perform a miracle to prove that they are from God, if they really are!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 34, pp. 552-553
August 31, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

The church of Christ existed first as a plan in God’s eternal mind. Then it was a promise in the utterance of the prophets. Next, it was an announcement in the preaching done by Jesus. Finally, it became a reality as people obeyed the first gospel sermon on Pentecost. As men accepted God’s grace in obeying the truth, they were added together – to the same things – to the one body – to the Lord’s church, “which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Eph. 3:10-11; Acts 2:36-47; 20:28).

Human denominations are no part of God’s plan, the prophets’ promises, or Christ’s announcement. They did not exist in the New Testament, and Christ did not shed His blood to bring them into existence. Furthermore, He did not shed one drop of blood to purchase any organizations which His people might create – whether business, political, educational, social, benevolent, or medical institutions.

Individual saints may build such human institutions with the resources which are in their “own power” (Acts 5:4). But Christ did not commission His church to build, maintain, or donate to such institutions. His people constitute in him a sanctified (set-apart) body, a spiritual institution. Each local church preaches the gospel as its assigned purpose and work, with only local organization, and with its own treasury (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Phil 1:1). The Lord’s church is not the auxiliary to anyone else’s institution, nor is anyone else’s institution auxiliary to His church!

It should not be so hard for saints to keep the Lord’s church separate and apart from human institutions, but it is plenty hard. Brethren seem determined to confuse and combine the church with schools, day-care centers, social action groups, orphanages, clinics, printing companies, hospitals, and such like. Brethren have the right to have such organizations, but no more right to latch them onto church treasuries than brethren engaged in other honest and honorable enterprises – groceries, banks, hardwares, drugs, airlines, farms, electrical, plumbing, etc., etc. No matter how honorable, honest, or helpful we may consider such enterprises, let us always remember they are not the church purchased by Christ “with His own blood.”

The history of the Lord’s church shows “that the less devotion men have to Christ the more they stand in need of human organizations” to do the church’s work (Earl West, Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 1, p. 212). True devotion to Christ is declining when men must create a professional clergy to do their studying for them and human institutions auxiliary to the church to do their serving for them. Brethren have been especially vulnerable to the concept that since schools do a good work, the churches of Christ ought to build and maintain there.

The institutional complex confuses and combines the church with schools. It departmentalizes and depersonalizes the words of Christ, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Luke 9:23). Lip service is paid to Christ. Consciences are soothed by reducing our responsibility to little more than giving money on the first day of the week, so that the church in turn can parcel out donations to “our” schools and other human institutions which do “our” work for “us.” The church is changing from a group of devoted saints who urgently serve the Lord into a collecting agency for an ever-growing plethora of human enterprises fighting for their financial life!

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. in an article on “The Marked Tendency Toward Institutionalism” urged that human institutions be kept separate from the church. Wallace warned against confusing and combining human organizations with the church, only after commending the good they can do in their own realm. “If individuals wish to operate hospitals, inns, homes, or schools, it is their right to do so but the church cannot operate institutions.” After saying, “There is therefore no such thing as `our institutions,’ if by `our’ you mean the church,” he explained.

Institutionalism was the tap-root of digression. It has always been the fatal blow to congregational independence. It destroys the individuality of both congregation and the Christian as Naziism and Fascism destroy individuality of their citizens in Germany and Italy. Back of institutionalism is party pride. People say: “Your church does not have any great institutions; it is not missionary and benevolent.” We would say, “Oh, yes it does!” and “Yes, we are!” And we would come to love the institutions more than the church. Schools, for instance – and this is the test: Criticize the church, and it brings no rise from these devotees of certain institutions; but criticize their school, and they will have a fit, and your name, thereafter, henceforth, and forever is hiss. But, brother, the college is not the church nor can the church own and operate it. It is private and secular and belongs to the men or group of men to whom it belongs. It is an adjunct to the home, not of the church; auxiliary to the family, not to the congregation; parents and interested individuals, not churches, should sponsor it.

It has been several decades since brother Wallace so aptly described “the tap-root of digression,” with its party spirit and institutional loyalty. The root has become a giant oak!

The evidence of runaway institutionalism is more certain and depressing all the time, as the following sample shows. Organizations are breaking out like the measles, asking for church support, like “Christian Counseling Clinic” (“serving the entire state of Florida”) and AMEN, “American Military Evangelizing Nations” (with all kinds of services for military men), both begun in early 1976. But, in our present article, we are discussing the schools alone, and the evidence of institutional digression in this one area of work is staggering! Howard Winters recently complained that “we do not even hear a faint protest anymore” against colleges in the church budget. What he uttered as a warning is in fact the sad acknowledgment of present reality – history made, not history in the making. Said he, “And unless more of us speak up, the forebodings of the future say, `The “pros” have it”‘ (August 1978, Carolina Christian, p. 14). The apostasy of schools confused and combined with churches, churches working hand-in-glove with schools, schools bedded down in church budgets, is actual and present rather than possible and future. A bare sampling of the evidence follows.

Freed-Hardeman College Campaign Committee

President E.C. Gardner of Freed-Hardeman College has appointed a campaign committee to coordinate the work of the college and of churches in taking the gospel to the whole world. The committee will seek invitations from sponsoring churches (which take money from other churches) for campaigns, and will oversee the selection and assignment of students to work in the campaigns (Gospel Advocate, April 29, 1976). For instance, twenty-six of the college’s students were selected to be part of a “campaign for Christ” in Spain on May 10-24, 1978, sponsored by the Henderson, nnessee Church of Christ (Freed-Hardeman College Today ,September 1978).

Ezell-Harding Christian School Fund Drive

Ezell-Harding Christian School began a fund raising drive in late 1975 to build a high school. The Nashville Tennessean for Sunday, November 2, 1975, relayed this announcement: “Representatives of the school will speak tonight at Otter Creek Church of Christ, Wingate Church of Christ, the Division Street Church of Christ in Smyrna and the Antioch Church of Christ.”

David Lipscomb College In The Budget

David Lipscomb College recently circulated suggestions under the title, “What Can I do?” in promoting the school, including this: “You can encourage congregations to include financial support . . . in the budget each year.” Tradition, not Scripture, is offered to encourage the practice. A letter of April 1976 asks churches to announce “in your bulletin” a High School Choral Festival at the school.

Abilene Christian College And Christian Education Sunday

October 12, 1975, was “Christian Education Sunday” in Fort Worth, Texas, for Abilene Christian College. Abilene Christian College staff members spoke “during regular Sunday evening worship services” at no less than twentysix churches (Phase II Newsletter: Design for Development, Summer 1975). This annual program has continued and serves to draw church and college closer together.

Pepperdine University’s Umbilical Cord

When Pepperdine University put fourteen nonChristians on its Board of Regents for fund raising in late 1975, Ira Rice asked, “Is Pepperdine Cutting Umbilical Cord With The Churches of Christ?” (Contending for the Faith, March 1976). We know those interested in the school may be concerned for its changing character, but when did God ever run an umbilical cord from the church for which His Son died to an institution built by men? The umbilical cord runs rather from the sectariandenominational world directly into the hearts of certain brethren. Thy speech betrayeth thee.

Brotherhood Rally at Freed-Hardeman College

Ira Rice sent a “Brotherhood-Wide Call For Those Who Still Stand For Truth . . . To Rally At Freed-Hardeman Lectureship” in 1975. He called “all those preachers, elders, teachers, and concerned Christians” who “love the truth” to thus rally around a school (Contending For the Faith, November, 1974). Shall we oppose the church-school combination, or shall we only oppose certain church-school combinations by rallying around other church-school combinations? Any program to use a combination of churches with some “safe” school in order to offset a combination of churches with “unsafe” schools is a program which carries the seeds of its own apostasy.

Harding Graduate School of Religion In the Budget

Clifton L. Ganus, Jr., President of Harding College, during the summer of 1978 mailed out promotional material for the Harding Graduate School of Religion. Speaking “as an elder in the Lord’s church” in concern for “the money the church has available to do good works,” he urged that regular donations be made from the church treasury to the college. “I would like to ask you as elders to consider the Harding Graduate School for your budget next year. It is a great work of training gospel preachers,” he said. Whatever happened to the concept that the church is all-sufficient to do its work, and the schools maintain their own existence and programs?

Keep The Issue In Focus

We do not oppose Christians forming a school, teaching at one, and including Bible instruction. But how would it be for the Jones-Smith Plumbing Company to have someone speak at the Otter Creek church to raise money for a plumbing truck, or to ask the church to put John’s Gas Company in the budget, or to plug national Pharmacy week and raise funds for the Corner Drug Store? What about an umbilical cord from the Water Works, New And Used Cars, Computer Center, or Carpet Company to the churches of Christ? How about Christian Electrical Sunday to promote a brother’s Electrical Plant, or a “brotherhood-wide call” for all true saints to gather at brother Dow’s grocery for a rally for the truth?

All those enterprises are fully as honorable and important as a school. “Oh, but the school helps people to learn the truth, which is kind of like the church, so church support of a school is different from support of other organizations,” someone is thinking. Farmers, plumbers, and grocery men are to convert those under their influence as opportunity permits just as teachers are to do. Farms, schools, stores, and other enterprises have an equal right to provide Bible teaching to anyone willing to listen, but no right to request church donations on that basis.

Churches are not to be hand-in-glove with schools, nor schools hand-in-pocket of churches. Both have their own legitimate organizational arrangement, oversight, treasury, and sphere of service. Neither has the Scriptural right to intertwine itself with the other.

Whatever the church, as such is commanded to do can be done only through the church. And the only way to do anything through the church is to do it through the local church, which is the only organization known in the New Testament. The missionary society performs the functions of the church. It stands between the church and the work being done. Its organization supercedes and usurps the organization and work of the church. The missionary society, therefore, supplants – displaces – the local church.

But individuals have certain rights and privileges. Individuals may publish papers or establish schools. They do not have to bar the Bible and religion from such in order to have the right to operate them. But such endeavors thus conducted are private enterprises, and the individuals conducting them have no right to “adjunct” their own enterprises to the church (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “The Home and the School,” Gospel Advocate, July 2, 1931, p. 804).

Papers, schools, and benevolent enterprises can be conducted without attaching themselves to the church and functioning as adjuncts to its organization. Let the church be the church, and schools be schools, without combining the two.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 34, pp. 550-552
August 31, 1979

By Earl Robertson

Denominational preachers who hold the theological position of the perseverance of the saints are ever contending that once one is saved that one can never be lost in hell. Louis Berkhof, in Systematic Theology, (p. 546), defines perseverance: “Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion.” One preacher recently said, “God won’t forsake us and we can’t leave him because we are sealed by the Holy Spirit.” He concluded this from John 6:37, Eph. 1:13 and 4:30.

It is true that one coming to Christ will be welcomed by him – not rejected or cast out; however, it must be understood that any who come to Christ are doing so on scriptural grounds. They come on the Lord’s terms. Why should it be thought that the Lord would reject such an one? Indeed, he welcomes all who thus come to him. Just as he receives on scriptural basis and no other way, he likewise keeps. If one must respect the word of Christ to be received by the Lord, why does one not have to continue to keep His word to remain with Him (John 8:51, 52; 14:21)? We would have to accept the idea that all Jesus says to be saved from alien sin must be obeyed, but what He teaches the Christian to do is purely optional! Their idea of being “sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise” is like sealing fruit in a jar. The fruit can not get out of the jar because it is sealed in! What an abuse of the word “seal.” The word is here used “in order to mark a person or thing; hence to set a mark upon by the impress of a seal, to stamp . . . metaphorically, respecting God, who by the gift of the Holy Spirit indicated who are his, pass., Eph. 1:13; 4:30” (Thayer, p. 609). It is a matter of identifying and not an arbitrary act of God in holding an individual against his will, refusing to obey the Lord. The Lord welcomes all who scripturally come to Him, and He keeps all who love Him and manifests it by keeping His word. These conditions are actions man respects in order for the Lord to approve him; therefore, man is active in both his conversion to Christ and his daily living as a Christian. The other doctrine makes man passive in both. These two differing contentions can not both be right. The gospel of Jesus must be both believed and obeyed (Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 34, p. 549
August 31, 1979

By Mike Willis

In two previous articles, I have surveyed the manner in which denominationalists have handled the problem of daily sins. The Wesleyans hold to the doctrine of perfection; they believe that a second work of grace occurs which makes it possible for a Christian to live above sin. Hence, they deny that a Christian has .any sins after he receives sanctification. The Calvinist handles the problem of day-by-day sins through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the believer’s account. He believes that God sees the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ instead of the imperfect obedience of the believer. Consequently, the believer is secure from apostasy because of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to his account. Both of these methods of handling the problem of day-by-day sin have been rejected as unscriptural. Although they are attractive in that they give the believer a certain amount of security from apostatizing, they are unscriptural concepts.

In this article, I would like to consider another method of handling the problem of sin in the life of the Christian. Although a few among us have handled the problem of day-by-day sins through the doctrine of imputed righteousness, the greater portion of brethren have rejected this as a false idea. However, some of these brethren are not comfortable with a position which teaches that a Christian is separated from God every time he commits a sin. Consequently, they have accepted a position which I label as “automatic grace.”

The Automatic Grace Position

Let me try to state this position as best as I can. I shall try not to misrepresent the belief of these brethren, although I am positive that those who accept this position could do a better job of explaining it than I can. However, here is my understanding of the position.

The “man of faith” is a man who is generally doing his best to walk within the commandments of God. Nevertheless, the “man of faith” will, on occasions, commit sins. Because this man is generally “walking in the light,” the sins which he commits (in ignorance or through a weakness of the flesh, rather than in open rebellion) are automatically forgiven by Jesus Christ because he is a “man of faith.” The consequence of this position is that such sins can be forgiven without repentance, confession, or prayer.

The ones who have taken this position sometimes describe those who believe that every sin separates one from Christ as “yo-yo Christians” and “jack-in-the-box Christians.” They belittle the idea of one stepping in and out or grace with every sin that he commits.

There are, indeed, certain advantages to holding this position. The security which a believer is given is at the top of the list. This man does not have to go through life worried about having committed some sin in ignorance which has separated him from God. He does not have to worry about some sin which he might have committed in some weakness of the flesh; the grace of God was automatically applied to this individual so that his sins have already been forgiven prior to his confession.

The disadvantages of folding -this position far outweigh whatever advantages might be cited in its favor, in my opinion. Consistency demands that the following positions be taken by those who hold this position, as best as I can tell:

(1) Sins of immorality, as well as doctrine, are automatically forgiven. Those who have accepted this position have used it to teach that a good, honest-hearted person among the liberals or the Christian Church can be saved while working with these groups. However, if the argument is worth anything, it will also apply to a good, honest-hearted person who is either caught up in an ethical violation through ignorance or the weakness of the flesh. For example, suppose that a Christian became involved in a compromising situation which led him to commit adultery. The husband of the adulteress came in, saw what was happening, and killed the Christian committing adultery with his wife. What will be the eternal destiny of that individual? If the argument that God’s grace is automatically extended to the Christian to cover sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh is accepted, the conclusion is that this man is going to be saved! Brethren, I am personally not willing to accept that conclusion. It is direct violation to the Scriptures (Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

(2) The separation from God comes, not at the moment sin is committed, but at the moment the sin is pointed out to the individual. In discussions with those who hold this position of automatic grace, it has become clear to me that separation from God comes at the moment that the individual is informed of his sin and refuses to repent of it. So long as the sin is committed in ignorance, the grace of the Lord is automatically extended to cover it. However, when the person is confronted with his sin, he must decide whether to follow Christ or Satan. If he chooses to follow Satan, he is at that moment separated from Christ. However, notice that his transgression of the law is not what separated him from God; rather, it was his choice to continue knowingly the sin once practiced ignorantly.

Furthermore, some would follow this matter ever further. If the individual sincerely could not see that what he was doing was wrong and still chose the way of Satan rather than that of Christ, he would still stand justified in God’s sight, according to these people. After all, imbecility of intellect cannot separate one from God, they say.

(3) The attitude and intention are accepted in place of obedience. With this position, the “man of faith” who is involved in sin is acceptable before God because his general desire to please God is accepted in place of his act of disobedience. The man, for example, who is sincere and honest but who is using mechanical instruments of music in worship is accepted before God in spite of his sin because he is a “man of faith.” At this point, the many passages which show that sincerity does not replace obedience need to be studied (Acts 26:9; 1 Sam. 15:22-23; 1 Kgs. 13; etc.).

(4) It removes the urgency of gospel preaching. I must frankly confess that if I believed this idea of “automatic grace,” I would be less motivated to reach those involved in sin to call them to repentence. When I am convinced that an individual is going to lose his soul because of the sin which he is practicing, I am going to be rather urgent about taking a message to a man who is involved in sin but, nevertheless, saved.

(5) It virtually assumes that truth and error are indistinguishable. In conversation with some of those who take this position of “automatic grace,” I have asked them whether or not their sincere “man of faith” could worship with a Christian Church with all of its sinful practices for 25-30 years without being able to detect that something was different between it and the New Testament church. They have stated that they could imagine that this could happen. Frankly, I have never doubted that some in the Christian Church and among the liberals were sincere and honest people. Nevertheless, I believe that they are involved in sin and separated from God.

To think that a “man of faith” who studies his Bible regularly could not recognize anything sinful in these bodies during a course of a lifetime virtually makes one take the position that truth and error are indistinguishable. If they were easily distinguishable, this man would see the error of his ways, repent of them, and forsake the apostate body of which he was a member. Yet, these brethren think that he can be saved while still belonging to such organizations.

Furthermore, this position is going to have to grapple with the problem of how a holy God can ignore transgressions in His people. If I extend the right hand of fellowship to one who is walking outside the doctrine of Christ, I am guilty of participating in that sin (2 John 9-11). If the holy God of heaven maintains fellowship with those who are walking in sin, is He not tainted thereby? If not, why not?

The suggestion has been made that God has made provisions for forgiving His people and, therefore, can fellowship sinners without being tainted by their sin because they are forgiven. Admittedly, this is true. This grace is extended to mankind in the gospel. It is granted to the alien sinner upon the conditions that he believe, repent, confess faith in Christ, and be baptized; it is granted to the erring child of God on the conditions that he repent and pray. However, does God’s grace make provisions for forgiving the man who defends a sinful practice, refuses to repent of it, and continues in that sin, as is the case with those who use mechanical instruments of music in worship, support human institutions from the church treasury, distort church government with the sponsoring church arrangement, pervert the mission of the church, and other such sinful practices? Where is the Scripture that indicates that He grants forgiveness to such men? If there is no Scripture to indicate that they stand forgiven, they are yet in their sins. If they are yet in their sins and God maintains fellowship with them, God’s holiness has been tainted by fellowshipping those who are in sin.

Conclusion

Before concluding this treatment of the automatic grace position which is held by some brethren among us, I need to add that a good number of brethren who accept this automatic grace concept are men of strong conviction. They would no more think of fellowshipping brethren among the liberals than they would those in the Catholic Church. The stance which they have taken against institutionalism is well-known; their faithfulness is appreciated and respected.

However, I think that in this respect these brethren have accepted a position not very well thought out. These brethren would generaly repudiate every disadvantage which I. have listed to the position of automatic grace, although I do not personally know what logical or biblical argument they could make against these conclusions, given that one accepts their premises. Hence, I would like to appeal for brethren to study this position with me. Let us reason together. (Continued next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIII: 34, pp. 547-549
August 31, 1979