Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In the last issue of the paper, I cited several instances in which brethren have capitulated to denominationalism. Their acceptance of denominationalism has not occurred through departing from the Lord’s church to join hands with an already existing denomination (although several have done this, such as Athens Clay Pullias, former head of David Lipscomb College, the instances cited were not of this nature); rather, these persons have accepted denominationalism as an acceptable method of working to serve God without leaving the church of Christ. They have simply admitted that the Lord’s church is no different from human denominations.

As an example of the attitude toward denominations which is becoming more widespread among the liberals, notice the following quotation because it depicts the attitude which is becoming acceptable.

When I say this (i.e., Athen Clay Pullias having left the churches of Christ to become a member of the Presbyterian Church – mw) is no problem to me, I simply mean that I do not conclude that a brother necessarily rejects Christ when he leaves what we call the “Church of Christ.” Going to the Presbyterians might be a matter of conscience, not a lack of it, an act of faith and not faithlessness. Even though I went through the same course of study as their ministers (a classmate of mine at Princeton is now the Stated Clerk!), I could never become a Presbyterian. I prize my heritage as a “Christian Only,” and I cannot be run off, and certainly not bought off. (Note: Garret admits that he stays with the Churches of Christ because of historical heritage; it has nothing to do with the Scriptures as to why he is a member of the Church of Christ rather than a denomination. mw) So I choose to remain among Churches of Christ, where I am not fully accepted, than to go to the Presbyterians, where I would be accepted. But some of my sisters and brothers differ with me, and so some of them become Presbyterians or something else, having had it with the Churches of Christ . . . .

I do not believe, of course, that the United Presbyterian Church is the church of Jesus Christ, but neither do I believe that what we call the Church of Christ is the church of Jesus Christ . . . .

An honest confession might be good for the soul and for the party. Some of our folk, even our leaders might be better off among the Presbyterians. They might actually be closer to Christ than when they are with us, as impossible as that may appear (Leroy Garrett, “What Do You Do When Your Leader Goes To The Presbyterians?”, Restoration Review, Vol. XXI, No. 4, pp. 76-78).

This attitude toward denominationalism is growing. Truly it is sweeping through the ranks of the liberals, but one would be naive to believe that there were none among us with the same attitudes.

What Acceptance of This Attitude Means

There are some logical consequences that follow when one accepts the attitude mentioned above. I would like to enumerate several of those consequences, although this list makes no pretensions at being exhaustive. You will, no doubt, think of many other items which could be added to this list.

1. It means that the wearing of human names is no longer considered sinful. For one to openly accept denominationalists into his fellowship, he must have reached one of the following conclusions: (a) that the wearing of human names is not sinful or (b) that God will go ahead and save the one who is sinning while wearing these names through some gift of His grace over and above that revealed in the gospel. The denominationalists have held this second position for years because many of them believed in “once saved, always saved.” Because God’s grace was somehow going to automatically be applied to the believer, what doctrinal differences they had were unimportant so far as salvation was concerned.

Yet, the Scriptures still condemn the wearing of human names. Paul wrote,

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10-13).

So long as that Scripture remains a part of the New Testament, the Christian is obligated to oppose the wearing of human names. However, those who are willing to accept denominationalists as acceptable children of God must reach the conclusion that the wearing of these names does not separate a person from God’s grace. Hence, he can no longer preach against the wearing of human names. By the way, how long has it been since you read an article in Restoration Review, Mission, Integrity, Ensign Fair, and Outreach on such a subject? For people so interested in unity, they seem so little interested in ridding the world of these sectarian names which divide the religious world.

2. It means that one is no longer opposed to human creeds. When one is willing to accept denominationalists as people standing in an acceptable relationship to Christ, he has reached a position which demands that he believe that allegiance to a human creed does not separate one from God. Let Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside, R.L. Kilpatrick, and others rant and rave all they want to about the unwritten creeds of the churches of Christ; so long as they accept denominationalists as brethren acceptable to God, they are logically compelled to accept the position that allegiance to a human creed, whether written or unwritten, is not wrong in and of itself. Hence, those who are willing to accept denominationalism as acceptable to God must give up their opposition to human creeds.

Human creeds are unable to be defended. The word of God is sufficient to furnish the man of God unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17); it contains all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4); it is understandable (Eph. 3:3-4). Hence; there is nothing needed in addition to the Bible to lead one to salvation. The human creed which contains more than the Bible is unacceptable because it contains too much; the human creed which contains less than the Bible is unacceptable because it does not contain enough; the human creed which contains the same thing as the Bible is not needed so long as we have the Bible. Surely no man can write better than God! Yet, those who accept denominationalism must be willing to admit that human creeds are acceptable with God; allegiance to human creeds does not separate one from God.

3. It means that one is not opposed to perversions in the organization of the church. If one is going to accept denominationalists as people in fellowship with God and, therefore, with all others who are considered Christians, he must be willing to accept the denominational organizations invented by men. That the denominationalists do not follow the Bible pattern for the organization of the church each of us would admit. Indeed, the denominationalists themselves make no claim to being organized like the New Testament church, Yet, if one is going to accept denominationalists as men acceptable to God, he is going to be forced to admit that being involved in the perversion of the government of the church does not separate a person from God. Hence, he can no longer preach about the perversion of church government as practiced by Catholics, Protestants, or our liberal brethren who have accepted the sponsoring church arrangement.

4. It means that one must consider it possible for a person to be saved in a multitude of fashions. Those who are willing to extend fellowship to Presbyterians, Baptists, and other denominationalists (including Catholics), must be willing to admit that one can be saved without faith, repentance and baptism. Some of these denominations teach that one can be saved through infant sprinkling; hence, a person is saved without faith, repentance, or immersion in water. Others teach that the penitent believer is saved without baptism. The Catholics truly teach a system of salvation by works. Yet, those who teach that good people in all denominations are going to be saved must be willing to admit that there are a multitude of methods of being saved. They cannot teach that faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are essential for salvation so long as they admit that some are going to be saved without having done these things. They can speak of “brethren in prospect” all they please; the truth of the matter is that they believe that there are people saved in all denominations who have not submitted to obedience to the gospel plan of salvation. Hence, they cannot preach on the plan of salvation anymore.

By the way, how long has it been since you read a good lesson in Integrity, Restoration Review, Mission, Ensign Fair, and Outreach which taught the gospel plan of salvation? Do the writers for these journals believe that men can be saved in a multitude of different ways?

5. It means that one must accept the conclusion that perversions of the worship of the church will not separate a person from God. When a man accepts the conclusion that there are saved people worshiping in human-denominations, he is forced to conclude that the perversions in worship practiced by these denominations do not separate that person from God. Hence, any and every item of worship can be perverted and one can still die and go to heaven. The Lord’s Supper can be observed any day of the week and perverted so that it is not observed each Lord’s day, the items on the Table can be changed, and its purpose can be perverted without separating the ones who participate in it from God. The prayers can be offered through the name of Mary without separating the ones who offer them from God. The singing can be taken away from t-he congregation and performed by a choir or special singing group, mechanical instruments of music can be added, and other distortions occur without these changing separating a person from God. Free-will giving ‘can be perverted to tithing without it separating a person from God. Yes, all of these denominational distortions can occur without a person being separated from God if one accepts the conclusion that there are saved people in all denominations.

Conclusion

The conclusion to this is that one gives up the Bible as his objective standard for determining right and wrong when he decides to deviate from the Bible pattern in one point. Those who are presently willing to accept denominationalism as acceptable in the sight of God have departed from the Scriptures. They are a people who are associated with the church of our Lord Jesus Christ only in a historical way; they do not believe the truths taught from the Bible and reached from the pulpits; rather, they are members of the Church of Christ because they were brought up there and they are “proud of their heritage.”

The acceptance of denominationalism is fatal to the, restoration of the New Testament church. Those who are committed to going back to the Bible, practicing the things revealed in the Bible, believing the promises made in the Bible, and obeying the commandments of the Bible have nothing in common doctrinally with those who are willing to accept denominationalism of any form. I hold no animosity toward those with whom I disagree in this -regard; I only recognize that we are walking in different directions. The times in which our paths cross, they cross accidentally. We cannot share those times because we are not going the same direction or crossing the same ground for the same reason. Hence, I see no means of extending fellowship to those who have accepted denominationalism.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 31, pp. 499-501
August 9, 1979

By Irvin Himmel

A responsibility may be both awesome and joyful, at times painful yet rewarding. This is the case with the weighty charge for which overseers in the church are accountable.

The Hebrew writers expresses the thought in this way:

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you (13:17).

In the local church, according to the arrangement outlined in the New Testament, elders or bishops are the shepherds that have the rule or oversight of the flock. Paul said, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17). The same apostle admonished the elders of the church at Ephesus, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). The pastors of the flock must not rule in a manner that is dictatorial, domineering, and dogmatic. Peter warned elders not to be “lords over God’s heritage” (1 Pet 5:3). “They watch for your souls” is a statement which needs to be pondered, studied, and put into practice.

1. Watching for souls requires leading people in the way of the truth and right. Elders are not to make laws of their own but are to lead disciples in submitting to God’s will. They are to inform and instruct, applying the word of the Lord to specific cases, and helping the flock to follow Him who is the chief Shepherd. They are to be “ensamples” to the flock (1 Pet. 5:3). Their lives should exemplify humility, sincerity, wisdom, faith, love, and deeds of righteousness.

2. Watching for souls necessitates keen spiritual interest. In some churches of Christ it appears that elders have more interest in watching the finances than in watching for souls. They meet regularly to discuss the contributions, the budget, monetary support for preachers, building costs, etc., but show precious little concern in talking about how to win more souls to the Lord, what to do about sheep that have gone astray or jumped the fence, ways to devote more attention to souls that are in jeopardy, or why discipline is neglected in the church. Elders need to do more than watch the money; they watch for the souls committed to their charge.

3. Watching for souls takes times: Some men are chosen as overseers who either do not have the time or else are unwilling to take the time to do the work for which they are responsible. I am impressed with elders who take time to call on the weak, backsliders, or members who have been overtaken in a fault. Rather than acting disinterested, God-fearing shepherds go after the sheep which axe in trouble. Elders that have time to go to ball games; political rallies, picnics, school programs, etc. but no time to spend warning the unruly, admonishing the weak, and encouraging the fainthearted, should remember that they must give account before God.

4. Watching for souls demands alertness. Shepherds need to know the flock. There needs to be an awareness of the spiritual. condition of the sheep. If a sheep shows signs of spiritual sickness or an inclination to waywardness, the shepherds ought to detect it and work on the problem. If grievous wolves are stalking about, faithful shepherds will demonstrate vigilance over the flock. Paul warned the Ephesian elders about grievous wolves which enter, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29). Wide-awake elders are the kind that really watch for souls.

5. Watching for souls reflects faithfulness. Perhaps some overseers have forgotten that the most serious charge given to elders is to watch for souls. One is not faithful as an elder merely because he attends all the services of the church, or all the business meetings, or all the elders’ meetings. He is not faithful because he is a good husband and father, nor because he makes an honest living, nor because he teaches a Bible class. An elder who is truly faithful in his oversight of the church must watch for souls. H.E. Phillips observes in his book Scriptural Elders And Deacons, “This is the real purpose for which God ordained that elders be in every church: that each member would be watched and matured in such a way as to bring him into the judgment as a faithful child of God” (p. 211).

Elders have a solemn charge. It is no trifling matter to watch over the souls that make up the flock of Christ. One’s soul is his most priceless possession. To lose the soul is to lose everything. Soul-watching sums up the work of spiritual shepherds. No member of the flock should be annoyed if the elders speak to him about his conduct. Good and faithful bishops feel strongly the responsibility that they have to watch for our souls.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 31, p. 498
August 9, 1979

By Evan Blackmore

There is nothing wrong with being a child, when you are the right age to be a child. The Bible never says that children are to be blamed for being children; in fact, it says quite the opposite (Matt. 19:14; Rom. 7:9). But if time passes, and you are no longer a child, but you are still trying to act like a child, then there is something wrong. Just imagine what the assemblies of your congregation would look like, if all the members were crawling along the floor with plastic trucks, or rushing around the building making whirring noises like dilapidated airplanes.

It is true that there are some characteristics of childhood, such as humility (Matt. 18:3-4) and innocence (1 Cor. 14:20), which every adult should strive to possess. But there are other characteristics, like childish ways of thinking (1 Cor. 14:20) and gullibility (Eph. 4:14), which should be left behind, when people become adults; and if they are not left behind, then something has gone wrong. God does not blame children for thinking like children; but if people have grown up and become adult, and if they are still thinking like children, then something has gone wrong. Every child needs to grow up.

Being a Christian is much the same. God’s people need to grow up spiritually, just as all people need to grow up physically; and if we are still acting like spiritual children when God expects us to be grown up, then there is something wrong.

Consider three ways in which God expects us to grow up.

(1) Growing Up from the Law of Moses. The law of Moses was given, in a sense, for the “childhood” of mankind; but now, mankind has grown up and become adult, and God expects us to act like adults, instead of trying to return to the law of Moses.

In Galatians 4, Paul talks about God’s people, who were the heirs of the promises. “So long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bond servant, though he is lord of all: but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father” (Gal. 4:1-2). Somebody who inherits a fortune while he is a child, is still under the rule of guardians until he becomes an adult; until that time, he has to abide by the commands and decisions of his guardians, just as a slave would do.

“So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world” (Gal. 4:3). “Before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:23-24). Under the old covenant (“when we were children”), people had to abide by the commands of the law (and the law that Paul is talking about is the law of Moses, Gal. 3:17), just as a child has to abide by the commands of his tutor or guardian.

“But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:25-26). “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4-5).

Now that Jesus has died to redeem people by faith, “the fullness of time” has come. People are no longer children, under the law of Moses, and therefore people should not behave like children any more.

Before Jesus came, God’s people were “children,” held in bondage under the law of Moses, and they were expected to behave like children, by obeying the law of Moses. But now that Jesus has come, God’s people have grown up; and if we are still trying to behave like children, if we are still trying to keep parts of the law of Moses, such as circumcision, or special days and seasons, then something has gone wrong; we “are severed from Christ,” we “are fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). The person who is still trying to keep the law of Moses, now that Jesus has come, needs to be told to grow up.

(2) Growing Up from Miraculous Gifts. The miraculous spiritual gifts which some Christians possessed in the first century – gifts of healing, and prophecy, and speaking in tongues, and so on – were given for the “childhood” of Christianity; but now, Christianity has grown up and become adult, and God expects us to behave like adults, instead of trying to return to miraculous gifts which we no longer possess anyway.

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul writes, from the viewpoint of the first century: “Whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three: and the greatest of these is love” (I Cor. 13:8-13).

At the time when Paul was writing, Christians were like children, knowing in part, and prophesying in part; but now that the perfect, or complete, knowledge and prophecy contained in the completed New Testament has arrived, Christianity has grown up; and if we have not “put away childish things,” then something has gone wrong. The person who is still trying to exercise miraculous spiritual gifts, now that perfect knowledge has come, needs to be told to grow up.

(3) Growing Up from the First Principles. When we have just become Christians, and are “babes in Christ,” God expects us to be nourished by the milk of His word; but when we grow up and become “mature,” God expects us to behave like adults, instead of trying to be nourished exclusively by milk.

The writer of Hebrews had “many things to say” to his readers about the fact that Christ was “a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” But he told his readers that these things were “hard of interpretation, seeing that ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that someone teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For everyone that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; or he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil” (Heb.5:11-14).

And such “solid food” was precisely what his readers ought to have been consuming. “Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation- of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit” (Heb. 6:1-3).

When the readers of Hebrews had first become Christians, they were babes, and needed to be nourished by “milk” -that is, by “the doctrine of the first principles of Christ,” such as repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, the resurrection and eternal judgment. But now that they were “fullgrown men,”they should have left the first principles and pressed on “unto perfection,” being nourished by solid food, and “not laying again a foundation of” first principles.

The person who is still trying to feed on the first principles alone when he has been a Christian for a while and ought to be pressing on to solid food, needs to be told to grow up.

Conclusion

Many of the difficulties which arise in the religious world today, occur because people are still trying to behave like children when they ought to be fullgrown. Nobody today should be trying to return to the law of Moses or the miraculous spiritual gifts; all of these things were outgrown nearly two thousand years ago. And nobody who has been a Christian for a while should be trying to return to the first principles alone. If we are adults, let us act like adults.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 30, pp. 491-492
August 2, 1979

By Earl E. Robertson

The apostle Peter wrote, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God . . .” (1 Pet. 4:11). There is no divine directive more needed today than this one in the midst of denominational jargon and theological palaver of preachers and elders. One church recently advertised in the Firm Foundation, “Youth Evangelist applications being accepted by progressive, spiritually minded fellowship. Send resume of experience, references and salary needs to Roswell, NM. Note: no legalist need apply. Also send statement of personal beliefs re: grace, faith, Holy Spirit. A grace-oriented church.” Now that language truly reflects the attitude of the so-called liberated church. Liberated, yes, freed from the shackles of scripture so they can both say and do what they want.

The word of God says our speech must be as the oracles of God and our doing must be in the name of Christ (by His authority) (Col. 3:17). Any person with reverent familiarity with the New Testament knows nothing of the above language describing that New Mexico church. Yet, many people now want this kind of “fellowship” and will argue loud and long that it is all right, while at the same time designate all who would object as legalists. They would feign make us think that they believe the Bible to be the word of God and that they believe they must obey it. Yet, our very efforts to cause men to obey the Bible are declared by them as the actions of a legalist. They are “grace-oriented” and those demanding Bible for religious practices are, by them, legalists. We know the voice of the Savior (John 10) and we also know the voice of the modernist!

The loose attitudes presently being formed (some all ready formed and being pushed) lead to modernism. The path many preachers and churches are now walking will take them to a position where they can stand with men like Harry E. Fosdick. Deny this if you will, but if you continue to teach and practice what you now are one generation (your children) -will prove that I am correct. We remember the modernism of the past generation: Wilburn, Box, Sanders, Warren, and Roy Key. We remember what they said about the Bible being a “blueprint” for the legalists, and that they wanted freedom. When these men were identified and exposed they left their former hiding and went fully into denominational churches. Little things lead to big ones!

Our speech reveals the heart with all its attitudes (Prov. 4:23, 23:7) What we say and the way we say it determines whether we are safe or unsafe teachers. Much around us sets the pattern for religious behavior. Influence of our teachers is overwhelming. As Guy N. Woods recently editorialized in the Gospel Advocate, expressing his appreciation for having had the privilege to sit often at the feet of men like Hardeman: “It is for me most fortunate that the concept of the Junior Church was yet with the denominations when I was young because it is most likely that were such the practice then I would not today be attempting the work they did . . . . Suppose we had been shuttled to a `junior auditorium’ where we were amused by puppetry while N.B. Hardeman or some other great gospel preacher spoke only to adults!” This “Junior Church” concept is, as Guy stated, from the denominations and it is a tiger around the neck of the liberal churches of Christ. But it came into existence by men who did not “speak as the oracles of God.” Any departure in practice from apostolic doctrine is usually attributable to the fact that the teacher has ceased to speak apostolic doctrine.

The cry of legalism heard in some cities today is the same cry heard in the past generation. It will not take much more time to see the same end-results. When men grow tired of doing what God’s word says, they begin to take liberties with that word. Men of this attitude desist from speaking as the oracles of God, castigate all others who do “tell it like it is” as legalists while insisting that certain heretics are faithful gospel preachers! As one modernist, flying under the flag of being “grace-oriented,” wrote, “The church of Christ holds to a Pharaisaic Biblical literalism that blinds its members to their mission in today’s world and makes it impossible for them to meet modern problems in an effective way. The Bible becomes a blueprint with exact details for all work and procedures. Nothing can be done and no procedure used for which the `blueprint’ does not give example to command. Such literalism not only stymies the activity of the church but leads to endless and futile quarrels about insignificant details and methods. The non-instrumental aspect of worship is one such result, but hundreds, just as unimportant and irrelevant to the world’s needs, could be listed. I am changing to the Disciples of Christ to find more freedom of life and work and to find more spiritual compatibility in Christian service.”

That is the only direction loose speech leads. Reread Col. 3:17 and 1 Pet. 4:11.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 30, p. 490
August 2, 1979