Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

During the work of Jeremiah, God commanded Jeremiah to write his words on a scroll and send them to Jehoiakim. The message was to be read to the people upon the fasting day. When the message was heard, some of the people were terrified. Finally, the book was taken to Jehoiakim. “And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth” (Jer. 36:23). Jehoiakim was somewhat more brazen than many in eliminating from the word of God those parts with which he disagreed but, in principle, very similar to not a few religionists today.

Modernists follow the example of Jehoiakim. With the penknife of higher criticism, they go through the pages of God’s divine word and eliminate the things which they do not want to believe. The record of creation, a universal flood, Jonah and the whale, Daniel in the lion’s den, the miracles performed by Elijah, Joshua’s long day, etc. are all “cut out” of the Old Testament, being treated as Jewish folklore or myth. Form critics of the New Testament eliminate the miracles from its pages in the same way. In their quest for the historical Jesus, they completely eliminate anything supernatural or divine from Him.

The miracles are not the only thing removed by the penknife of modernists. Prophecy is re-interpreted and eliminated. Where re-interpretation is not possible, authors who lived after the prophesied event are imagined so that one has five or six men responsible for the writing of a book such as Isaiah. The result of all of this is an edited Bible-edited in the same fashion as Jehoiakim edited it. Modernists have simply chosen to eliminate everything in the Bible which they do not believe. They undermine the authority of God’s word by making it appear to be self-contradictory.

Modernism has generally been somewhat removed from the churches of Christ. Yet, in recent years, more and more modernists are raising their ugly heads among us. We can no longer pretend that modernism is not a threat to the church. Hence, we have planned and produced this special series on modernism. I think that you will want to lay these special issues aside and keep them for future reference. The material is excellent. But, you do not need me to tell you that; it speaks for itself.

Two Conflicting Religions

The religion of modernism and the religion of Christ are two conflicting religions. The God of Christianity is One who has revealed Himself to man through Jesus Christ and through the Bible. The God of modernism is either dead (cf. the God-Is-Dead Movement of Altizer) or silent, in that He does not reveal Himself. The Christ of Christianity is God manifest in the flesh who died for our sins. The Christ of modernism is a mere man with whom they disagree and correct on a number of occasions and who suffered a death on a cross but not for the sins of mankind. The Bible of Christianity is the revelation of God’s mind to man. The Bible of modernism is the human record of man’s religious experiences. We could continue to contrast the salvation, church, etc. of Christianity with that of modernism but enough has been written to show that modernism and New Testament Christianity are two conflicting religions.

These two religions cannot peaceably co-exist. “In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no `peace without victory’; one side or the other must win” (J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p. 6). So, let the battle rage. Let the presuppositions, the doctrinal assertions, the moral consequences, etc. of the two systems come into conflict and let truth come forth victorious.

About These Issues

The materials presented in these special issues on “An Assault On Modernism” are somewhat more detailed and scholarly than our usual articles are. They become collector’s items and valuable for that very reason. Sometimes the materials presented in subscription papers such as Truth Magazine are excessively top-water. Hence, every so often I request that we give some more detailed study to some special topics of interest pertaining to problems surrounding us. Though these materials will not be of equal interest to all of our readers, we feel that the extensive study in these articles makes them extremely valuable to those more interested in coming to grips with some of the problems in dealing with religious infidels. With this in mind, we commend this material to you and thank our writers for their labors in putting it together.

Truth Magazine XXII: 40, p. 642
October 12, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

When Joshua challenged the people to “Choose you this day whom you will serve,” he punctuated that challenge with a strong declaration of his own determination when he said, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Judging from the response of the people (see Josh. 24:15,16) they obviously recognized that Joshua had the leadership capability to not only lead their armies in battle, but to also lead his own household in devotion to God.

In an altogether different circumstance, we read of a “great woman” who prevailed upon her husband to assist a prophet of God. Wherein her husband did not recognize and appreciate the need, she did not hesitate to plead for cooperation with the servant of the Lord. Her zeal for spiritual matters was such that the very expression “that Shunammite” came to mean devotion to God (see 2 Kings 4:8-25).

Today, even in these modern times, fathers and mothers to that of Joshua an the Shunammite woman. We cannot relinquish our responsibility to the government, the school or even the church. Success in the family cannot be attributed to others, and likewise, failure cannot be blamed upon them.

In leading the family in religious activities, and in producing proper religious attitudes in the whole family, certain very deliberate and definite steps must be taken and some principles must be pursued steadfastly and aggressively.

1. Spiritual values must predominate in the activities of the home. The Bible must be respected. Children must learn to read it, and parents must read it with the children. Their questions should be answered and their inquisitive minds should be encouraged to search for its truth.

2. The Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ must be honored in every family circumstance. Their names must be held in reverence and the parents must demonstrate love for God and for the Savior.

3. Children must learn from the parents to have due respect for the church. (Too many times about all the children hear their parents say about the church is criticism. They hear mothers and fathers say, “The church is unfriendly” or “I don’t like the way they do things,” etc. (And then those same parents wonder why their children do not want to “go to church.”)

4. Attendance at services of the church, and active participation in those activities should be regular and steadfast. Under the best conditions, attendance will become almost habitual. Under ideal circumstances the question, “Are we going today” will not even be asked (when the church is assembling).

Hard Questions

When I am discussing these matters, some parent is sure to ask, “What shall I do if Junior refuses to go to services?” Well, that depends. If Junior is yet a lad, he should be given no choice. But if Junior is almost a man, I do not know how to answer the question. I am sure there must be much prayer, much reasoning with him, patient perseverance and genuine devotion. If he is a reasonable young man, it will probably be wise to confess to him the mistakes you have made and to try to help him see the better judgment you are now expressing.

But we must remember that once a twig is bent it may be very difficult to straighten it. This is not written as a mere criticism of those who have failed, but it is intended as a constructive suggestion to those who still have opportunity. Undoubtedly the only real cure for rebellion is to prevent it. By that I mean, bend that twig in the proper way to begin with — do not let it get bent in the wrong way.

It has always been true that we cannot force religion upon anyone. There is no way you can force your children to love God or to obey His Word. Success is accomplished, not by force, but by teaching, by example, by guiding, by leading. And success is assured when parents begin to train and guide that tender plant even the very first day you take it home from the hospital. If you wait one week the child may be a spoiled baby and become a spoiled brat! If you wait a year you have imposed a much more difficult task upon yourself. If you wait five years, you have probably lost the fight already.

Character is formed and life-long attitudes are developed very early in life. A few exceptional people voluntarily make a radical change in their character and their attitude in later life, but most people become and remain basically what they have been trained to be in childhood (as far as character and attitude is concerned).

I would like to make a fervent appeal to parents, especially to young parents. You are naturally careful that you do not neglect your children in physical things, because you love them and even because you know that child neglect is a violation of the law of the land. But, with even much greater care you should make sure you do-not neglect the spiritual welfare of your children because you love them so much and because you know that such neglect is a violation of the law of Christ (Eph. 6:4).

If your baby is old enough to be taken to the doctor’s office it is old enough to be taken to church services. Do not fail to take it then, and take it every time the church meets through all those formative years. You say you have a headache, a stomach ache, a toothache? Go anyway, and take the child! For your own good, and for his good, go, and never excuse yourself from going if you can possibly go, for the child will remember your excuses and imitate them. If you will go, and go joyfully, and if you will go regularly through those impressionable years, and then if you will practice the same fidelity in daily life, your child will not refuse to go in later life. “When he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6).

Truth Magazine XXII: 39, pp. 631-632
October 5, 1978

By Earl Robertson

In the parable of the sower, Jesus said, “The seed is the word of God” (Luke 8:11). In this parable, Jesus was teaching some essentials of the kingdom of God, and they could be illustrated with no greater force than with the elementary lesson of seed sown and its results. God’s order has always been harvest after seed sowing; and seed produces after its kind (Gen. 1:12; Gal. 6:6-10). This rule of God does not change. Corn seed produces corn; wheat seed produces wheat. This unvarying rule was understood by the people of Jesus’ day, He could, therefore, apply it in his teaching the disciples about a harvest of souls the kingdom of God.

The great commission given by Jesus stresses this same fact (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15, 16). Every case of conversion in the book of Acts also shows the necessity of the seed (word of God) being sown in the hearts of people before their conversion to Christ. Some have the idea that Christians are made without the gospel being preached, but such is not true. The power to deliver sinners from darkness is the gospel (Col. 1:13; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:21). You cannot make Christians without sowing the seed! Jesus further said, “Come . . , learn of me” (Matt. 11:28-30). The same is taught in John 6:4345. God does not operate directly upon sinners in converting them; but rather, He uses His word-the seed-in the accomplishing of it.

The seed produces after its kind! The word of God only is the medium used by God to make Christians. No other cause will effect such an accomplishment. The words of men have never been able to make saints out of sinners. The doctrines of men in Jesus’ day only made the religion of men vain. It can do no better today. The disciplines, manuals, articles of faith, confessions, and catechisms, have men as their authors and do not have within them the power to unerringly guide one soul out of darkness and lead that one to the Lamb of God! The word of God and only the word of God makes Christians. The word of God will make only a Christian-and there are no kinds of Christians-no human adjectives attached to the noun Christian either! Are you what you are because of the word of God and only the word of God?

Truth Magazine XXII: 38, p. 619
September 28, 1978

By S. Leonard Tyler

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

What is the Church of Christ?

The Bible being God’s Divine standard of measurement by which man is to be guided in all things, we must now go to it for our understanding of the church of Christ. What is the church of Christ? “Church of Christ” is a prepositional phrase of possession meaning “church belonging to Christ” or “Christ’s church.” The expression identifies Christ as the possessor of the church (1 Pet. 2:9). “Church” is a called-out people. The Greek word ekklesia is a compound word: “Ekklesia, from ek, out of, klesis, a calling” (Vine’s New Testament Words, p. 83).

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

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

The church is autonomous under Christ (Col. 1:18; 2:18-23). A plurality of elders in each local church superintend “the flock of God which is among you” (i Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-14i 1 Pet. 5:2-4), deacons serve (1 Tim. 3:8-13; Phil l:l), and all the saints work together with God (2 Cor. 5.1) under Christ’s headship (Eph. 1:22-23: 4:15). This is God’s arrangement, organization, or entity in which Christians function in the aggregate (1 Tim. 3:15). Brother Guy N. Woods aptly expressed it: “The church, with its elders to oversee it, the deacons to serve, and the evangelist to proclaim the word is an independent entity and answerable only to Christ” (Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary on Bible School Lessons, 1946, p. 337). Thus the church of Christ is not a denomination nor any part of one. It is the Lords people or church, called by the Lord through the gospel, sustained, judged, and saved by Jesus Christ as His word teaches (1 Cor. 15:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Acts 17:30-31; John 12:48).

What Is A Denomination?

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

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

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

Is The Church A Denomination?

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

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

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

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

Signs of Changing

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

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

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

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

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

“No; for the Holy Scripture is a Divine and mysterious book, `in which,’ as St. Peter says, speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul, `are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction’ (2 Pet. 111:16). . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth Magazine XXII: 39, pp. 633-635
October 5, 1978