Truth Magazine

By Mr. Mike Willis

Dear Mike:

I am in receipt of the November 30, 1978 (Vol. XXII, No. 47) issue of Truth Magazine and have noted your reference to me and the Gospel Anchor, which I edit. I was disappointed to see in these references misrepresentations, guilt by association, and implications, so unworthy of ethical journalism. 1 do marvel at your apparent lack of understanding as to what the issue is.

Though 1 am tempted to reply in detail, to correct the misrepresentations, etc., 1 acquiesce for the time in favor of keeping the situation calm. As I have personally stated to you, this is a time for calm, deliberate study. I know of no one who is desirous of pressing differences to division, except for Mike Willis. The only two points you have tried to establish with me is (1) your argument of justification based on Luke 8:1-3, to which I gave study and responded in my article, “Was Jesus Supported Out of The “Judas Foundation’?” (Gospel Anchor, May 1978, vol. IV, no. 9), and (2) that our difference. will not allow fellowship. This has been your emphasis in writing to others. You seem determined to have an issue to divide over. I cannot concur with your thinking. This is exactly the tactic of the institutionalists in the 1950’s. They wanted to draw lines of fellowship before brethren had time to study. I do not want this to happen again. 1 am confident enough of the truth that I believe that given enough time and calm study brethren will unite on the truth. For that time and study I plead.

1 know that others in association with you have tried to restrain you in this matter. I think you would do well to heed those of more experience and wisdom than your youth permits (I Kings 12:6-11).

Persuaded that most of your readers are unaware of what has been written in the Gospel Anchor on the subject, I am willing to send to all, who want to make a fair study, a copy of the series of articles dealing with privately supported missionary societies (by whatever name they are called), historically and present-day. I would only ask that your readers send postage to help defray my personal expense (since the Gospel Anchor does not accept contributions and does not have the means nor intent to propagate the truth, only to sell a product). The reader may write to me and ask for the booklet, “A Study of Religious Collectivities.”

Meanwhile you might contribute to the study with a positive approach by showing Bible authority for building and maintaining a society (not the church) through which the gospel may be propagated in the form of supporting evangelists, publishing and distributing papers and tracts, conducting radio and television programs, etc., which work is supported through contribution of Christians.

I ask that this letter in its entirety be published in the earliest issue of Truth. Fairness demands it, and 1 pray that your desire to promote unity through calm, deliberate study will promote it.

Sincerely,

Gene Frost

712 Victoria Place

Louisville, KY 40207

Editor’s Reply

Published above is Brother Gene Frost’s letter in reply to my November note in “Quips and Quotes.” In this, he accuses me of “misrepresentations, guilt by association, and implications, so unworthy of ethical journalism” but decides not to enumerate the specifics wherein I committed these offences., I frankly would have preferred to have been proven guilty rather than merely to have assertions with no evidence cited. Likely this will be done in Gospel Anchor at a later date.

In order that our readers might keep this in is perspective, I am going to reproduce the paragraph to which Brother Frost is responding. Read it please.

I have noticed that some of those who teach that the church is the only collectivity which can preach the gospel either endorse or operate a collectivity designed to teach that the church is the only collectivity which can preach the gospel. For example, 1 read in a recent church bulletin edited by a man who opposes the Bible department at Florida College a commendation of Gospel Anchor. Yet, Gospel Anchor is owned and operated by Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated, a religious collectivity with its own board of directors I might add that though the religious collectivity has been propagating the thesis that the church is the only collectivity authorized to preach the gospel, it makes a different application than those who are recommending the paper make. Those who recommend Gospel Anchor in their bulletins (of course, we need to keep in mind that a man would be guilty of mortal sin if he recommended Florida College in his bulletin in the same manner as some recommend Gospel Anchor) believe that collectivities such as Cogdill Foundation, Vanguard and Florida College are sinful whereas the editor of Gospel Anchor does not see anything wrong with the Bible department of Florida College. Their unity is in opposition to such papers as those mentioned above-those published by Vanguard and Cogdill Foundation. Strangely enough, the rules which condemn these two papers do not fit for the paper published by the religious collectivity known as Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated. It is a strange set of rules which only works one way!

In Brother Frost’s letter, I did not notice a single word denying that Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated is a collectivity which produces Gospel Anchor. Hence, my point stands: Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated is a collectivity designed to teach that collectivities which teach God’s word are violating the Scriptures. Did you see a denial of this by Brother Frost?

In Brother Frost’s second paragraph, he charges me with wanting to press our differences to the point of division. I deny this charge. There is no reason that 1 would have, from my position, for wanting to see a division occur regarding whether or not an individual can make a donation to an organization such as Vanguard or Cogdill Foundation. In my opinion, no sin has been committed should a contribution be given or not given; the Christian is not separated from God whichever he chooses to do. Why should 1 want to see my fellowship withdrawn from that brother who disagrees with me on the matter?

Brother Frost and those who stand identified with him are the brethren who have the fellowship problem. They believe that those who give a donation to an organization such as Cogdill Foundation and Vanguard (and others among them add Florida College) have committed sin. In their writings, they equate the sin with that of taking money from the church treasury to give to a missionary society. They make this a matter of faith, not opinion. Yes, I have raised the fellowship question to these brethren. I have asked them, “Are you not logically bound to extend or withhold the same amount of fellowship to both groups (i.e., those who give money individually to organizations such as Cogdill Foundation and Florida College and those who take money from the church treasury to make donations to human institutions)?” Not one of them has given me a reason for extending fellowship to one group and withholding it from the other.

Brother Frost’s reply shows just how dangerous his position is. He does not say that fellowship should not be broken over this matter. Rather, he replies that the time is not ripe for the fellowship to be broken. Re-read his letter above and see if that is not his implication. Furthermore, he stated to me just as much in a telephone conversation several months before. This thinking shows that problems lie ahead of the same nature as those we have previously faced with those who break the fellowship of God’s people over such things as no Bible classes, no women teachers, the wearing of the covering, and other such like problems. Yes, I am concerned.

Brother Frost, we raise the question regarding fellowship as follows: Some of us have studied the materials which you presented and have reached the conclusion that you are binding over and above what the word of God has bound. Our convictions are such that we feel that we have the liberty in Christ to participate or not participate in such human institutions as Florida College, Cogdill Foundation, Vanguard, etc. We act not out of ignorance, but out of studied conviction. Are you going to continue to extend the “right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) to us or not? Will we continue to be used in prayer when visiting your services? Will we be invited to meetings at places where you might preach? We want to know your position about fellowship with reference to the matter. I have plainly expressed my convictions on this matter as it pertains to fellowship; let us hear yours.

Brother Frost did write an article on Luke 8:1-3 in Gospel Anchor (May, 1978). The article was suppose to be a reply to a position which Brother Frost thinks that 1 hold. He learned my position from a telephone conversation in which 1 asked him to consider what implications Luke 8:1-3 holds for his position. I did not even make an argument on the passage; 1 simply asked him to write on the passage. From those comments, the editor of Gospel Anchor erected his straw man which he proceeded to destroy. Even so, he had a rather difficult time determining which was the best way to destroy his straw man inasmuch as he conceded the very points which he opposes and took some very ridiculous positions in that article. Be sure and re-read that article!

In keeping with Brother Frost’s request, I have prepared a reply to his position on collectivities. In keeping with his admonition regarding wisdom and experience, I have withheld publishing it for several months to give some brethren time to read it and criticize it. As soon as this is completed, I plan to publish the material in booklet form, providing that circumstances are favorable to its publication. What I have to defend, however, is not a society which supports evangelists through individual contributions, inasmuch as 1 am not a member of any such society. What I have to defend is an institution which publishes literature. Brother Frost is a member of one of those kinds of human institutions himself, known as Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated. The same passage which authorizes the human institution of which he is a member will authorize Cogdill Foundation. When this defense is ready, t hope to get it published. Some of this material being discussed is new material which has not been discussed before among brethren, so far as I know. Hence, I want to carefully consider what I say before putting it in print.

Brother Frost seems rather irate that I mention his position in two paragraphs in Truth Magazine. Indeed, he cannot quietly endure what 1 had to say in those two paragraphs. He wrote demanding an opportunity to reply. Has he forgotten that he wrote on this subject for four years? We who disagreed with him patiently bore with his teaching of his opinions without so much as causing him one bit of trouble. It seems, however, that he will not tolerate the presentation of the other side without charging those of us who disagree with apostatizing.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, pp. 125-126
February 15, 1979

By Harold Hancock

Most of us do some good works, but how many of us are good work conscious? To be good work conscious is to be aware of the many opportunities about us to do good. The Old Testament speaks of some who would lie upon their beds at night and think of evil to do. We need to think of good to do.

Good works are to characterize God’s people. Jesus “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:14). “Zealous” means “eager interest and enthusiasm.” God’s people should be looking for good to do, not just waiting for it. Who is known for good works in your town?

Good works are our purpose for existing in Christ Jesus. “For by grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10). Goodness does not save; we are saved to do good! This is our purpose of life as a Christian. This is what we need to be doing the most of. A machine that does not do what it is suppose to do is not any good. Salt that loses its savor is to be cast out.

Good works are a part of pure religion undefiled. “Pure religion and undefiled before the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27). All would admit that visiting the fatherless and widows are good works, would they not? The point of James is doing. The person who has pure religion is a Christian doing good works. Good works also shows our faith. Jas. 2:14-18 speaks of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. He speaks of faith and works. James was not trying to persuade someone to be baptized. James was writing to Christians. His point was that by doing these good works, and not just talking about them, we show our faith. Faith without works is dead. Have you a faith that is alive and that can be seen?

We glorify God with good works. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify the Father” (Mt. 5:16). Ben Franklin persuaded the city of Philadelphia to install street lights by first letting them see the warm, friendly glow in his own yard. We can get people to listen to the Gospel by letting them see a warmth of good radiating from us. Here we are face to face with the real reason for good works on the part of Christians – to honor God and to further His cause.

Some would do good works, but they have no time. Their time is consumed by other things. They are choked by the riches and cares and pleasures of this world. They bring forth no fruit unto perfection (Lk. 8:7, 14). Could it be that many need to weed their gardens? Others begin but grow slack. I remember how one young lady would sometimes call our home looking for something to do in, the name of the Lord, but she soon lost her zeal. “Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).

The Lord’s church needs some good Samaritans to turn aside and show interest in others (Lk. 10:30-37). It needs some who are like Dorcas (Acts 9). It needs men full of exhortation and forgiveness like Barnabas. There is plenty of room for some mothers like the mother of Mark, who opened her home unto prayer (Acts 12). We need some couples like Aquila and Priscilla who will teach others (Acts 18).

Jesus stands at the end of life to say, “I know thy works.” He will know if they be few or many. He will not forget what good we do (Heb. 6:10). Someone said, “My religion is to do good.” Goodness alone cannot save (Eph. 2:8); but for the Christian the statement may be nearer right than some suspect. Join the brigade of do-gooders. Be good work conscious.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, p. 124
February 15, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

Not much of a bead needs to be drawn on the letter from Bib Rigdon which appears below. It looks like a clear case of a self inflicted bullet wound. However, there is no use in watching the wounded suffer. Therefore, after the letter is read,- a quick shot or two may put the error out of its misery. If not, perhaps some misery can be given to the error.

“Dear Christian Friends:

“To my dismay, on August 17, I was suddenly notified that the unoccupied minister’s house in Cherokee, NC, had burned during the night . . . .

“This tragedy occurred while plans were underway for the arrival of a new minister . . . .

“The elders of the Concord Road Church of Christ, Brentwood, TN, have the oversight of this mission congregation, and they have requested that I look after the work since I am located only 13 miles from the Reservation . . . .

“The replacement cost is $38,000. The Indian members are barely able to meet the operating expenses of the church. We need your help. If every congregation contacted will give something, we can rebuild this house, which is a vital facility for effectively carrying on the Cherokee work . . . .”

Of course, no one is opposed to a preacher’s home. Every preacher should have one. Obviously, everyone is sorry for the tragic fire. If someone is mean enough to believe that we are not in sympathy regarding the situation, they need more help than we can provide.

With that aside, how can any Christian, even one with just a smattering of knowledge about the work and organization of the local congregation, fail to be shocked and appalled by the statement: “The elders of the Concord Road Church of Christ, Brentwood, Tennessee, have the oversight of this mission congregation?” The worst thing I could do with a statement like that is to quote Acts 20:28; 14:23; and 1 Peter 5:2. Reading those verses would be cruel, if not brutal. Imagine talking about “elders in every church” “taking the oversight” of “the flock of God which is among you” after Brother Rigdon has said that the “elders of the Concord Road Church . . . have the oversight of this mission congregation.” It would be just too unkind to bring up those Scriptures in view of his remarks, so, I shall not even so much as mention them.

What are the scriptural qualifications of a “mission congregation”? Who determines which church shall assume the oversight of “mission” congregations? What happens when a “mission congregation” decides that it does not desire the “oversight” of another church? Is there an example of a “mission congregation” in the New Testament; if so, what church had “the oversight” of it?

The denominations, especially the Baptists, have for years talked about “mission points,” or groups that are too small to be fully organized as churches. But anyone who claims to be a member of the church of the Lord and speaks of such things is a “mission point” in and of himself.

In the last paragraph quoted above, Rigdon realizes that the “Indian members” constitute the church, for he says they “are barely able to meet the operating expenses of the church.” Thus, the “elders of the Concord Road Church of Christ . . . have the oversight” of another “church.” Really, if I were not in such a good mood, I would be sorely and severely tempted to quote every word in Acts 14:23; 20:28; and 1 Peter 5:2.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, p. 123
February 15, 1979

By Bill Imrisek

We continue our investigation into various elements of the Roman Catholic religion to learn upon which foundation it is built, the apostolic foundation or another.

Pouring of Water for Baptist Not Apostolic

Let’s attempt to understand what “baptism” consists of from the viewpoint of Catholicism.

In Roman Catholicism, baptism is administered by the pouring of water on the head and the use of the formula, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (The Roman Catholic Church, John L. McKenzie, p. 176).

Once again, though, McKenzie shows that the apostolic practice differed considerably from their present practice.

The rite of infusion does not enjoy the same antiquity; and the Roman Catholics here find themselves confronted by several Protestant churches which maintain that immersion, the only rite attested for early Christian centuries, is the only valid rite. The Roman Church has certainly modified the rite in this respect (McKenzie, p. 176).

And who gave them the right to change this element of the apostolic foundation? Again, we have a case of man substituting his will for the will of God.

The truth that baptism is immersion is partially obscured by the fact that the word “baptism,” as it appears in the translations of our Bible, is not an actual translation of the Greek text, but rather a transliteration (a carry over, letter for letter) of a Greek word into the English language. As such, it is meaningless except as defined by usage.

The Greek word, baptisma, is defined as “consisting of the process of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, to dip)” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, p. 96). However it is not necessary to obtain a knowledge of the Greek language in order to learn what baptism actually is. This knowledge can be gleaned by observing its usage in the scriptures. By such a method we can learn the following.

(1)Baptism is necessary in order to be saved (to obtain the remission of sins) – Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21.

(2)Baptism requires the presence of “much water” (John 3:23).

(3)Baptism involves going down into the water and coming up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39).

(4)Baptism is described as a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).

The only action which can meet all these requirements is immersion. This was the practice of the apostles, and such is admitted by the Catholic Church. Thus, pouring of water for baptism is not apostolic.

Infant Baptism Is Not Apostolic

It is the practice of Roman Catholicism to “baptize” children in infancy. But again this is admitted by them to be a post-apostolic development.

The Roman practice of infant baptism has been a point of contention between Romans and some Protestants since the Reformation. Here also the Protestants seem to have antiquity on their side; not only the New Testament but also the catechetical homilies of the fathers of the church presuppose adult candidates (McKenzie, p. 177).

And so another stone in the foundation or Roman Catholicism is found displaced.

Infant baptism was not the practice in New Testament times for a very good reason – they did not believe the doctrine which teaches that a child is born with the guilt of sin. Since an infant does not have sins to be washed away, he does not have to be baptized. The doctrine of original sin is another invention of the Catholic Church, and one which contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture, “The son shall not be charged with guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of the son. The virtuous man’s virtue shall be his own, as the wicked man’s wickedness shall be his” (Ezek. 18:20). If the guilt of a father’s transgression cannot be transferred to his son, then neither can the guilt of Adam’s sin be transferred to his posterity.

As McKenzie, the Roman Catholic authority whom we have been quoting, states, the Bible presupposes adult candidates for baptism. Baptism is a command to be obeyed, not merely a ceremony to undergo, by those who are capable of being taught and capable of expressing faith in God and repentance for their sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Heb. 11:6). The conclusion of all this is that those who were simply “baptized” as infants have not been scripturally baptized. If they have not been immersed into Jesus Christ, after having believed in Him, they have not been baptized and are still in their sins. They still need to make themselves right with God.

By their own admission, the Catholic Church has changed the form of doctrine delivered to us by Jesus and his apostles. Let us not be guilty of transgressing the commandments of God for the sake of man-made doctrines and traditions (Matt. 15:9).

Instrumental Music in Worship Is Not Apostolic

A practice introduced by Roman Catholics and adopted later by most Protestant churches is the use of instruments of music in the worship of the church. But this practice cannot be traced back to apostolic origins. A cathechism of the Catholic Church tells us the following.

For the earthly-minded Jews instrumental music was necessary on account of their weakness; for only through the pleasures of their senses could they be stimulated to strive after nobler aims. In the early days of Christianity no instrumental music was heard at the time of divine worship, for the Christians would not have their prayers mingle with the notes of instruments which were associated with pagan dances and idolatrous ceremonies. Organs were first used in churches in the eighth century (The Catechism Explained, Spirago & Clarke, p. 568).

It takes very little reasoning to realize that what began eight centuries after Christ cannot be considered apostolic.

Indeed, New Testament Christians lifted their voices in praise to God, making melody in their hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). But their voices were not mingled with the sound of musical instruments. It was not that such instruments were not available to them, but that such had not been commanded of them by the Lord. And so Christians today who worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24) refuse to transgress what has been revealed in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 4:6) by going beyond those things taught to us by Jesus and his apostles. “Anyone who advances and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God” (2 John 9). The use of instrumental music in worship is an addition to the divine foundation, and thus is not apostolic. Once again the Roman Catholic Church confesses that it is built upon a different foundation.

Deny the Apostolic Belief in the Completeness of Scripture

Paul expresses for us the apostolic belief in the completeness of scripture. He says, “Thou hast known the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15-17). One would expect that a church that claims to be apostolic would concur with what is here stated by an apostle of the Lord, that through the Scriptures we may be “perfect, equipped for every good work.” But the Catholic Church denies the completeness of the Scriptures.

A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice (The Faith of our Fathers, James Gibbons, p. 72).

And so, although Paul says that the Scriptures are “able to instruct you to salvation,” the Catholic Church says the Scriptures “do not contain all the truths” and fail to be a “competent guide to heaven.” And although Paul says that the Scriptures will equip one for “every good work,” the Catholic Church says, “Nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice.”

McKenzie expresses the Catholic view that truth is to be found not only in the Scriptures, but also in Roman tradition.

The Council of Trent admitted frankly that the Roman tradition contains propositions which cannot be found in the Bible. It countered the Protestant charge by asserting itself, so to speak; it denied that either in the Bible or in its own traditions is there any affirmation that the Bible is the sole source of revealed truth. It appealed to the historic behavior of the Roman Church from apostolic times and equivalently said that the Roman Church confirmed itself by its very reality. The divine truths are contained in scripture and tradition, and they have always been found there (McKenzie, p. 266).

To sum it up, he says,

The Bible is superior in dignity, but tradition is superior in completeness (McKenzie, p. 266)

And just what is “tradition”?

Tradition, as content, then, is simply the body of Roman Catholic belief taught by the teaching authority (McKenzie, p. 266).

Thus, whatever the Catholic Church has taught in the past or chooses to teach in the future becomes part of its “tradition.”

And just how “complete” is the tradition of the Catholic Church? Well, evidently not complete enough to be free from error.

In general Roman Catholics are expected to accept the teaching authority of the Roman Church because it is a safe guide, even if it is not perfectly free from error and because in the critical areas of faith and morals it will not fail them. There is no other guide to whom they can turn, and they are not personally responsible if they submit to the church, even when in a particular case the position of the church could change (McKenzie, p. 261).

Can you hear that? The church can propagate error, but you will;not be damned for believing it because “they are not personally responsible if they submit to the church.” Jesus may as well step down. He did not have to suffer and die. Jesus is no longer the Saviour of the church; the church is its own saviour. Who can believe it? Jesus said, “If a blind man guide a blind man, both fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14). Can we follow one who teaches error and still be saved? The Catholic Church occupies totally different ground than the apostles concerning the completeness of the Scriptures. They are built upon another foundation.

Roman Catholic Church Built on Human Institutions and Pagan Traditions

Despite their claim to be apostolic and of divine origin, they admit that their church is built upon something other than a divine foundation.

Our Church is a spiritual kingdom, indeed, but it is a human society as well. Even considered as a mere worldly institution, it is a truly remarkable example of efficiency and orderly development. No other society on earth is so well organized – so well adapted to its work. Some of the parts of the governmental system of the Catholic Church are of Divine origin; many of them are human institutions (The Externals of the Catholic Church, John F. Sullivan, pp. 18-19).

And yet they claim to be the church of God. They believe that they have arrived at the perfect institution by mingling the divine with the human, the sacred with the profane. Their admission that parts of their system are divine (which they would be hard pressed to prove) and parts are human is a tacit acknowledgement that they are not the church of Christ. “For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 3:11).

Likewise, the Catholic Church has derived many of her practices and ceremonies, not from the book of God, but from the rites of paganism.

And because a religious practice happened to be of Jewish origin or had been used in the rites of paganism, the Church does not look upon it as something to be necessarily condemned or forbidden. She has taken some of the details of her liturgy not only from the ceremonial law of Moses, but even from pagan worship (Sullivan, p. 211).

How different are the teachings of the apostle Paul from the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. He says, “Do not bear the yoke with unbelievers. For what has justice in common with iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what part has the believer with the unbeliever?

And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God . . . . Wherefore, come out from among them and being separated, the Catholic Church has walked into the pagan temples, sat down next to them, accepted their worship, and now is trying to pass this off on the world as being the truth of God.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church cannot support its, own claim of being an apostolic church. By its own admission, it is built upon a foundation mixed with human wisdom, pagan tradition, departures from the divine foundation, and beliefs formulated centuries after the foundation was first laid by the apostles. They claim to be apostolic, bur their claim is a fraud, their own testimony bearing witness.

The claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one church founded by Jesus Christ have been tested and have been found wanting. This is not to deny that Jesus has only one church. But it is to deny that the Catholic Church is that one church. The origins of Catholicism are found among post-apostolic departures from the faith, manmade creeds, doctrines and traditions, Jewish ceremonialism, and pagan worship. But the origins of Christ’s church are found in the word of God, the Holy Scriptures.

The church of Christ is built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2;2o, Christ alone is its head (Eph. 1:22-23), His word alone its rule of faith (Rom. 10:17). Jesus founded only one, church. We can learn about it in the Holy Scriptures, and understand what Jesus desires His church to be like. The church of Christ follows this pattern. It is His church because it follows what He teaches.

We do not encourage you to become a Catholic, because Jesus never instituted the Catholic Church. But neither do we suggest that you become a Protestant, because Jesus also never instituted a Protestant church. Every Protestant denomination has had its beginning in the past 500 years. But the church of Christ began over 1900 years ago. Thus, we urge you to become neither a Protestant nor a Catholic, but to become a Christian, and in so doing become a member of Christ’s one church. As you repent and are baptized God will forgive you of your sins and add you to His church (Acts 2:38, 47). Come out of the realm of darkness and into the light of God’s kingdom.

Bibliography

St. Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible (Confraternity Version). New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1963.

John Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers. New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1917.

John L. McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church. Garden City: Image Books (A Division of Doubleday & Co. Inc.), 1971.

Hugh J. O’Connell, ed., What Every Catholic Should Know. Ligouri, Missouri: Redemptorist Fathers, 1961.

Francis Spirago (Richard F. Clarke, ed.), The Catechism Explained. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1927.

Maxwell Stanishforth, trans., Early Christian Writings. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1972.

John F. Sullivan, The Externals of the Catholic Church. New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1942.

W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1966.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, pp. 120-122
February 15, 1979