Weak Flesh

By William V. Beasley

Before His betrayal Jesus went unto Gesthsemane to pray. He took Peter, James and John aside and asked them to “abide ye .here, and watch’.’ (Mark 14:34). He “went forward a little” and prayed that He might not have to endure the torment of Golgotha. When Jesus returned, the three disciples slept. The Lord lovingly rebuked Peter saying, “Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mark 14:37-38).

The description that Jesus gave of Peter, “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” is, we fear, also true of His disciples today. We are willing to serve, honor, worship and obey the Savior, but are encumbered with weak flesh. Such is not to excuse, or even an attempt to excuse, our lack of faithfulness. Peter could have watched one hour but did not. We today can “watch” (Matt. 25:13; 1 Cor. 16:13), but do we?

Before answering our question it might be well to first note some other things. God knew that we would have fleshly weaknesses and forewarned us to better prepare us to meet the temptations thus presented. For example, Paul warns us, by inspiration, to “flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18) and to “flee youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). The temptation becomes overpowering (seemingly) when we have, in disobedience to such commands, placed ourselves in positions of fulfilling “youthful lusts” and of committing fornication.

We know that it is wrong to forsake “our own assembling together” (Heb. 10:25) and that these periods of social worship are for our good-it is a time for “exhorting one another” (Heb. 10:25) and a time “to provoke unto love and good works” (Heb. 10:24). Yet unnumbered (by man) saints, knowing that they were not strong enough spiritually teach others and ground them in the faith (they had not done it before while in an established congregation), have moved to areas where the Lord’s church was unknown and have returned to the vomit of the world (2 Pet. 2:22).

Back to our question. Do we watch? Well, some do. Some live lives of prayerful watching for the Lord. If we are truly watching for the Lord we will also be praying (Mark 13:13; Luke 21:46; Cola 4:2). We cease to watch because we do not “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). We can watch and pray and be faithful unto the Lord. We know that such is possible because the Lord asked us to. We can because God promises that no temptation will come that is insurmountable or unescapable (1 Cor. 10:13). We can because the Lord warns us that He “will come as a thief” if we do not watch (Rev. 3:3).

We have, like Peter, been encumbered with weak flesh. We, like Paul, must buffet that body of weak flesh and “bring it into bondage” (1 Cor. 9:27) to the will of Christ Jesus lest we be rejected (1 Cor. 9:27). Our weak flesh can, with the strength that the Lord supplies, be overcome and we, with Paul, can say, “I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me” (Phil. 4:13). We can, brethren, but will we?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, p. 178
March 15, 1979

Bible Basics: Is Baptism The Door Into The Church?

By Earl Robertson

Many questions pertaining to things of the Bible go unconsidered by many today because they believe them to be too insignificant. But Bible questions need to have our earnest care. We believe this question is a legitimate one and that there is a Bible answer for it. We furthermore believe this question cannot be rightfully answered without giving it a Bible answer.

Many manuals of denominations discuss this issue. Here is a statement from the Hiscox Standard Manual For Baptist Churches (page 22); “It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but `one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, `baptism was the door into the church.’ Now, it is different; and while the churches are desirous of receiving members, they are wary and cautious that they do not receive unworthy persons.”

This author readily recognizes what the New Testament now says happened in the days of the apostles, but he alleges the practice is now different. This is amazing! The New Testament still says exactly what it was saying when the apostles wrote it, but the practice of the apostolic has changed with the churches today. What makes for this change? If the authority that produced the action of the churches in the days of Peter, James, and John has not changed, how can the action today be changed? Mr. Hiscox says that “baptism was the door into the church” back then, but “now it is different.” Let the preachers and churches who teach and practice this give answer as to how this can be.

Baptism puts one into Christ (Rom. 6:3, 4). All who are baptized into Christ, put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). Baptism puts one into the death of Christ (Rom. 6:3-5) where he can enjoy all that Christ died for him to have. Baptism puts one into the body of Christ, which is the church (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18, 24). Now these passages are the ones which caused Mr. Hiscox to say that baptism was the door into the church in apostolic days. Luke says the Lord “added to the church daily” the ones who thus submitted to Christ’s authority as expressed by the apostles.

The practice of denominations is a departure from apostolic doctrine. The baptism authorized by Christ puts one into the body of Christ-which is the church of Christ.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 10, p. 173
March 8, 1979

Philippines: Salvation and Economics (4)

By Wallace H. Little

A Potpourri Of Geography, Hygiene And Living Conditions

“How many islands in the Philippine nation?”

“At high or low tide?”

If that conversation has not actually taken place, it surely represents a real situation. Specifically, at low tide, there are approximately 7000 islands. When the tide comes in, about 4000 of them are covered. Of the remainder, about 300 are occupied. The total land areas is 29,000,000 hectares. A Hectare is 100 by 100 meters (10,000 square meters). This is a little larger than a football field in both directions. It includes the islands which are not much more than rocky outcrops, those with no water, the mountain tops, rivers, lakes and the concrete and asphalt jungles called cities, the real jungle as well as the productive farmland. With a total population estimated at 53,000,000, this means each person is “allotted” slightly more than half a hectare to provide sustenance for himself. Actually, it is far less than that, because much of the land is not usable or used in production of food.

In some cities, the density of population is greater than Tokyo. Even in the countryside where this is not so, the conditions of crowding are everywhere present. The Filipino home, regardless of construction materials or where located will usually consist of three rooms. One is essentially a kitchen, where food is both prepared and eaten. The others are bedrooms, with one doing double as duty as sort of a living room. The furnishings will be spare at best. Rather than chairs, most will sit on benches somewhat resembling saw horses, or use the floor. If cooking is done in the house, it will probably be in a metal lined box using wood or charcoal. These are hard to control, and things are lost – such as houses, occasionally including a neighbor’s which was too close. Often the houses are stilts, and in these the cooking is done with the same arrangement under the house. The same danger of burning exists. Running water in houses in the country is rare; a community pump usually serves. Also, there are no bathroom facilities. Latrines are outside the house and many times are common to several houses grouped around them, and often too close to the water supply, contaminating it. The average life-span of the Filipino today is forty-four years.

Rarely will brethren have a refrigerator. Food must be purchased daily, and must be consumed quickly, before it spoils. This is a tropical nation. Preparation o-f a meal is a major household undertaking; it all must be done “from scratch.” Visiting ladies go immediately to the kitchen and lend a hand; they do not wait to be asked, nor do they ask what to do; they just do it.

Filipinos have some very tasty food; but this is not their usual fare, nor is it often that of the brethren. Their main staple is rice. They will eat it three times a day – if they eat three meals. Sometimes there will be something else with it; often it is the only item. Food costs money or must be raised. If they raise it, they eat it; if it takes money and they do not have cash, they get credit if they are able, or if not, go hungry. Some do not get credit.

In the city, a house is apt to be made of hollow block construction, or lacking that, it will probably be of wood. But the basic size will be about the same as in the countryside. Usually the roof is corrugated steel sheets or, lacking these, either nipa palm fonds or cogon grass, tied like wheat sheafs. These are laid on a lattice-like frame, stems toward the ridge pole, and tied into place. Generally a roof like this will last about six months. But they can be replaced in a matter of hours.

The seasons there are really only two: the dry and the wet. During the dry season, there is little if any rain (but the humidity remains very high). During the wet, there is little else but rain. In one month while I was there, it rained 180 inches. Brethren, that is fifteen feet of solid water. And that is a bunch, like getting the Pacific Ocean turned upside down on top of you! Stilts supporting a house keep the water below the floor and the house remains livable.

Typhoons sweep through the Philippines. Sometimes they will do only spot damage, such as the one in November, 1977. At other times, as in 1974, the results can be devastating. Unless you have endured a typhoon (equivalent of our hurricane), they are difficult to describe. But their results are easy to see. Houses flattened; folks drowned; fields flooded and crops ruined; water supplies contaminated; food scarce to non-existent. And in a nation which barely makes it from one meal to the next, there is nothing to “take up the slack.” A real emergency needing benevolence can develop quickly. Some U.S. brethren have been questioning or critical concerning the needs which arise there. Particularly, I am asked why so many appeals are made to the U.S. Christians for help. Undoubtedly some of them are not justified in terms of what Paul wrote on “equality” in 2 Cor 8:14. But it takes little wisdom to understand that a people who are barley making it by the lowest possible standards would have no reserve for an emergency. When we object to helping in a valid need, I am made to wonder where our treasure is (Mt. 6:20, 21).

Generally the farmer will plant and harvest three crops a year. If he is a land owner with several hectares, and works hard, he will provide a reasonable living for his family, by standards there. If he rents the land out, and works at another job, he will collect the land-owner’s share (25%), and combined with the income from his other work, enjoy an even better living. But not many brethren own land. Of those who do farming, the majority are tenant farmers and, thus, must pay the land-owner his 25076 share. Working the same number of hectares as a land-owner, his standard of living will be substantially less. Farmers in the lowlands can often depend upon irrigation to insure making three crops. Upland farming is another matter. Rain alone determines their crop. In a season where a drought has seriously damaged or destroyed one crop, the farmer is reduced to a dangerous condition. He has little if any residue from the previous crop to carry him any longer than to the next subsequent harvest. Whatever extra he may have had, he sold and used for other necessities. Brethren in these situations suffer the same want and privation the non-Christian does. Without a harvest and lacking cash, they do without or submit to the food speculators.

On the income th-y have, the Filipinos do as little traveling as possible, and what they do, will be on jeepneys (World War II jeep frames and engines, with an enlarged, hand-wrought body for passengers), Anything else is inordinately expensive by their standards. Thus, places of worship need to be as close as possible to where the brethren live. To attend, they must walk. That results in several small congregations in a relatively small area. Where we might have one larger and more effective congregation, they may have two or three smaller, weaker ones. This arrangement has been criticized by Americans who do not understand why these extra churches exist. I know one family which regularly walked ten miles eacy way to worship on the Lord’s day, and did this for more than a year, but the Filipinos acknowledge this a rare thing. It would be so among us also.

Their professional training in medicine, nursing, and dietary areas is good. Their training standards are high, and after graduation from school, they must spend another long period of cram-training in preparation for extremely tough board examinations. If the training alone determined the quality of medical care available, and the hygenic level of the people, theirs would be high indeed. But once they are licensed, these highly trained professionals are turned out on a society which has few hospitals or other medical facilities we would even care to go into, to say nothing of being treated in them. They do the best they can, but with medical care, as well as all things there, if you have the necessary money, you are treated; if not, you do without. Hard? Then, what is the solution? They would be glad to learn it.

Life in the Philippines is difficult, but since there are so many of these people, it obviously is not impossible. The Filipino has learned an important truth in life – he is happy in whatever state he is. They are a cheerful people, open-hearted and generous, and their hospitality is worldrenouned. But the difference between what we are accustomed to here in the U.S. and what is available there is so great it needs to be experienced to be explained, and then that often leaves the American stunned. I have been asked on a number of occasions when the churches in the Philippines will become self-supporting. My reply: “Probably not in this generation.” Sound pessimistic? Not really. Do we think we have some better use we can put our excess money to than supporting faithful gospel preachers there in their work?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 10, pp. 167-168
March 8, 1979

Ephraim’s Idols: Either There Is A Pattern, Or There Is Not!

By Ron Halbrook

The only sure and safe way to avoid all forms of religious idolatry is to follow the New Testament pattern of faith and practice. Unity blesses those who adhere to that standard. Naturally, they will be separated from all who act upon some other principle. the Holy Spirit admonished first-century Christians to hold fast the form or “pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13). The pattern was binding and exclusive, not optional. Timothy was to charge hearers to “teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3).

The message inspired by the Holy spirit was first proclaimed through apostolic men, then presented in writing. This inspired Word constituted the pattern. “These things write I unto thee . . . that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of god, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14-15). The things proclaimed by apostolic men and presented in writing by them were all-sufficient, and binding for all ages (2 Tim. 3:16-1’7; 2 Pet. 1:12-15). The pattern of sound words revealed the will of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the life and work of Jesus Christ; the scheme of redemption; the conditions of pardon; the graces of godliness to be developed in our lives; the origin, work, worship, organization, doctrine, and discipline of the church; and the hope of eternal life.

Many churches of Christ are slipping away from the New Testament pattern and separating themselves from the Lord (Rev. 2:5). An excellent tract by Cecil Willis identifies “The Taproot of Digression: No-Pattern-Ism.”

The history of man is the history of his digressions from God’s divine will. Man has, at one time or another, perverted and polluted every divine provision of God. He has corrupted the sacred worship, distorted the organization of the church, and perverted the divine mission of the church. Again and again, man has changed the unchangeable. Herein has been the source of a multitude of digressions.

Brother Willis then explained, “The basic assumption of the digressive is that there is no New Testament binding pattern.” The question of “freedom” and “unity” are always raised by the digressive. He wants “freedom” to change the New Testament pattern, and considers those who deny this freedom as disturbers of the peace. Faithful men recognize that in adhering to the pattern there is freedom from the chaos of idolatry. Either there is a pattern of there is not; here are two irreconcilable concepts of what it means to serve God.

Leroy Garrett argues, “Those who look for a `fixed pattern’ might well give up their search. There is no pattern of Christian worship in the Scriptures.” There being no pattern of what must be done, none of the following can be excluded: “coffee and doughnut session” as part of “social or corporate worship,” “children’s church,” “a symbolic candle-lighting to enhance the Supper,” “choirs,” “counseling and group therapy,” and, of course, instrumental music (Restoration Review, October, 1978, pp. 142-46). Garrett thrilled to report, “A Church of Christ in the Dallas area recently had a candle lighting as part of its worship and edification” (p. 160). It is not deviation from the pattern which causes division, he says; rather, the “fatal error” is “restoration ism,” the idea that “the New Testament constitutes a fixed pattern,” also called “legalism” (p. 148). Carl Ketcherside reports that he had a private, true conversion experience 27 March, 1951, escaping “legalism and tradition,” while Robert Meyers explained that he only gradually reached “the wisdom of uncertainty,” “Christian” agnosticism, the concept that “one can never know very much for sure” (pp. 152-58). These men have tested the heady wine of no pattern-ism and gotten gloriously drunk on it.

In discussing “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things,” a young preacher named Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) wrote in 1825 that before inquiring “what was the ancient order of worship . . . . it may be expedient to consider whether there be any divinely authorized worship in the assembly of the saints.” He saw two irreconcilable answers: “Either there is a divinely authorized order of Christian worship in Christian assemblies, or there is not.” Campbell then reduced no-pattern-ism to its logical absurdity, as follows.

On the supposition that there is not, then the following absurdities are inevitable. There can be no disorder in the Christian assembly, there can be no error in the acts of social worship; there can be no innovation in the department of observances; there can be no transgression of the laws of the King. For these reasons, viz. Where there is no order established there can be no disorder, for disorder is acting contrary to established order; where there is no standard there can be no error, for error is a departure or a wandering from a standard; where there is nothing fixed there can be no innovation, for to innovate is to introduce new things amongst those already fixed and established; and where there is no law there can be no transgression, for a transgression is a leaping over or a violating of legal restraints. Those, then, who contend that there is no divinely authorized order of Christian worship in Christian assemblies, do at the same time, and must inevitably maintain, that there is no disorder, no error, no innovation, no transgression in the worship of the Christian Church – no, nor ever can be. This is reducing one side of the dilemma to what may be called a perfect absurdity (Christian Baptist, Vol. 2, pp. 239-43).

If there is no pattern, Campbell pointed out, that various assemblies of worship could be devoted to nothing but dancing, singing, shouting, running, lying prostrate on the ground, reading, listening to a speaker, sitting silently, waving palm branches, crying, or playing an organ. To exclude any act from worship, a person must refer to some fixed standard.

Ephraim’s idols originated in a spirit that refused to be restrainted by a set pattern of teaching. The same spirit is producing the same results today. Ultimately, nothing revealed in the New Testament can escape the destructive hand directed by the spirit of no-patternism. The only way to avoid the total destruction of New Testameqt faith and practice is to hold fast the pattern of sound words.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 10, pp. 165-166
March 8, 1979