Truth Magazine

By Keith Pruitt

From reading the May 25, 1978 edition of Gospel Advocate, it would appear that some brethren (R. Maurice Hood, M.D., was the author of an article entitled “Should We Minister to the Sick?”) are now advocating church supported institutional care in the area of medicine.

First, let it be clearly stated that I am not opposed to hospitals functioning to help the sick. Nor am I opposed to individual Christians operating hospitals, clinics, etc., or being doctors or nurses. I am, however, opposed to any move to get the church into the hospital business. The battle of institutionalism has been fought so many times in the past. During these sometimes bitter debates, the statement has been made that the gate is open; expect the flood. Institutionalism has gone from orphan’s homes to wilder areas of liberalism. We know of “brethren” that accept the instrument, and of others that use bribes to entice children to come to services. The Bible has not only been kicked out of the schools and society in general, but it has also been discarded among some “churches of Christ.”

Just a few short weeks ago, Vultee Church of Christ in Nashville announced plans to build an old-age apartment building. What right does the church have to go into the apartment business, Now Brother Hood suggests indirectly that we get into hospital care if we wish to be “followers of Jesus.”

In the next few pages, I wish to review several statements made by Hood and see if they stack up well beside the Bible. There are no hard feelings between Brother Hood and myself, nor is any attempt in these articles being made to discredit the medical profession nor members of the church that have the ability to help medically with the sick.

Through the years, brethren have emphasized the importance of a “thus saith the Lord” for everything done religiously. The thought of divine approval is found in Paul’s statement, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus . . .” (Col. 3:17). Authority for religious practice is found in Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22-23). The attitude of Christians will be the attitude Mary expressed in John 2:5 whets she said, “And whatsoever he saith unto thee, do it.”

Have we in the Lord’s body become of such an age that we, as rebellious children, no longer seek the approval of those in the position of authority? Very pointedly friends, the truth is simple! For one to do something without divine approval is to forfeit eternal life! Too many times in the old and new covenants, God made it plain that His people must act within the limits He established. John writes along this thought in 2 John 9. There John writes, “whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” It is a terrible thing to be without God.

These articles then shall be based upon divine revelation, not the opinions of men. Paul told Timothy that the scriptures furnish a man “unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In society, we have standards by which we make judgments, viz. yard sticks, liquid measurements, laws. Since God’s ways are higher than our ways (Isa. 55:8-9), and since we are trying to serve the Creator (Acts 5:29), shall we not search His divine ways and do that which He has commanded?

In American society, the acceptance of a national welfare system has for several years been a way of life. I stand firmly opposed to many of these systems for but one reason. Social welfare tends to shift the responsibility of caring for the needy from the God-given role of husbands and children to society. It is my opinion that such a shifting of responsibility has been one factor in the growth of the social gospel among “churches of Christ.” I wish to look at the realm of authority and responsibility in the care of the needy.

Christ told the disciples that all authority was in His control (Matt. 28:18). Paul tells us, “And hath put all things under his feet, and given him to be head over all things to the church . . .” (Eph. 1:22). If we do anything, we must do as His will directs (Col. 3:17). To do otherwise is to disobey the Father (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8-9).

Therefore, in the matter before us, we should ask, “Where is the scriptural authority for the church supported hospitals?” If institutional care incorporated into the church treasury is a “good work,” then it is a work for which scriptural authority must be found (2 Tim. 3:16-17, verse seventeen says “every good work”).

Dr. Hood suggests that since Christ healed the sick, we should then build hospitals for them. He realizes that has not been the case in the past because he opens the article by saying, “The church of Christ has yet to accept the medical missionary.” Let us again point out that we are not discussing the right of an individual. In fact, in a moment we shall show that the care of some needy is the individual’s responsibility. But Dr. Hood is talking about church action.

Let us respond by asking, “Why hasn’t the church of Christ accepted the medical missionary?” If we have been all of these years without accepting something that is a part of the Bible (and if a part of the Bible, then a command of God), then woe be to the children of Israel. But I just have a feeling that the reason Dr. Hood’s hospitals are not towering the skyline of our cities is two-fold. One, the churches plainly cannot afford to build and maintain them, and secondly, to do so would be to violate the Holy word of God! As many brethren have pleaded throughout the last century, so plead I again, where is the scripture? Please, I beg you for just one!

Dr. Hood says the authority is found in the example of Christ. But I remind one that such rationalization can only prove folly. Christ fed the five thousand (Matt. 14). Shall we then build “church of Christ” hamburger joints? Christ raised the dead. Well, then let us build a mortuary and grave year! We want to be Christ-like, don’t we?

Yes friend, it is but folly to follow into this entanglement of ignorance. There is a clear distinction between an individual action and a church (group) action. It is high time that the liberals awaken to the reality that I am not the. church! Christ was not / is not the church, and I am not Christ! I cannot perform his miracles, and He was not acting as example to the church (group action) but to principles of Christian living.

But Who Shall Do The Work?

As has already been stated, the “welfare organization” centered society in which we live has caused many to neglect their duties. Husbands (the head of the home) have the responsibility to take care of their households. Paul told Timothy, “But if any provide not for his own and specially for those of his own house (kindred-those under one’s roof) he has denied the faith, and is worse than an. infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). Now, I tell you friends, I do not want to be, I have absolutely no desire to be, do not even offer me, to be an infidel! But to be worse than an infidel is to be pretty bad off. If husbands took care of the families (when physically possible), a large amount of welfare (in government and in congregations) would be cut down. Mismanagement and the assigning of roles to the wrong people have contributed greatly to the fall of the home. In some areas of society and in some congregations, it has now become popular to pay women benefits and provide homes for women that become pregnant out of wedlock. Is there any such thing as sin and shame anymore?

In 1 Timothy 5:3-4, Paul told Timothy, “Honor widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.” Continuing in verse 16, Paul says, “If any man or women that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed. ” Here Paul deals with widows (those that have lost the provider of the home) that have children, and he says the church is not to care for these! But brethren today say not so. If not, when did the change come? Can we now take care of those that Paul said we could not care for then?

“But James said . . . .” Over and over brethren show their ignorance of the scriptures by using such verses as James 1:27; Galatians 6:10 and others to try to show a responsibility of the church that Paul gave to the individual. Brethren, I am tired of such deception and downright ignorance. The only way we can “speak where the Bible speaks” is to study its content and then rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Let brethren study up or shut up! Hosea said it right when he said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Dr. Hood continues in his article with this statement on page 327, “This study of the miracles of Christ should establish two principles: (1) that Christ had compassion for the poor, the sick, the maimed and the spiritually sick,” this being something all of us as individuals can likewise do in following Christ, “(2) that the love He had caused Him to minister to them by miracles, by forgiveness of sins and by teaching the eternal truths which would save their souls.” The last statement (2) is suppose to be proof positive that the churches of Christ must recognize the medical ministry. But the only thing it does is tell us of the reaction Christ had to these people. But notice, however, that when Christ gave the “great commission” (which is the spiritual aspect of the commission originally given, and this being the only part that applies to the church today . . . . 1 Cor. 13) that He told them to go and preach the gospel (Matt. 28:18; Mk. 16:16; Lk. 24:47). The apostles said in their actions and writings that the only matter the church had benevolent duty was in saints of their number and in help to the saints in desperate situations elsewhere. (I ask you to read the book of Acts and First Corinthians and find even one exception.)

Dear friend, when the church operates in the manner described in this article, and when the individual realizes his duty and does it, a change will sweep over the church and the nation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 39, pp. 629-631
October 5, 1978

By Irvin Himmel

Some religious people think that sinners are saved by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. According to their theory God saves whom He will, the actions and attitudes of men having no bearing on God’s acts of grace, and the gospel is to be preached only to the saved to explain what God has already done for them. This theory makes the gospel food for the saved but not the means of imparting life. The theory denies all human agency in saving sinners.

Primitive Baptists cherish this view as one of the cardinal principles of their faith. In the Christian Baptist, January, 1978, Elder S.T. Tolley, Editor, states, “Primitive Baptists have always believed that it was unnecessary for the gospel of Christ to be preached in order that sinners be saved from hell.”

It is perfectly obvious that Jesus Christ did not start the Primitive Baptist Church, for Jesus taught that the gospel is to be preached to the end that the lost might be saved. The Lord said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15,16).

Paul was not of the Primitive Baptist persuasion, for he taught that belief is essential to salvation and one cannot believe except he hear the word. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? . . . So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:13-17).

Elder J.D. Holder, a Primitive Baptist, writing in his book Principles and Practices of the Church, says the gospel “must be that which nourishes or sustains life and not a means to give life” (p. 99). In that statement he flatly contradicts Paul who wrote that Christ hath abolished death “and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10).

Elder Holder says Paul “was saved before he heard the gospel preached by Ananias” (p. 101). If that were the case, Paul’s sins were washed away before Ananias was sent to him, yet the Bible informs us that Ananias told him to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Paul understood that sinners are made free from sin when they obey from the heart the form of doctrine delivered (Rom. 6:17,18). The role of Ananias was to deliver that form of doctrine to Paul by commanding him to be baptized.

Elder Holder argues that “Cornelius was saved before he heard the gospel by Peter at the house of Cornelius” (p. 101). This is absolutely untrue. In Acts 11:14 it is stated that Cornelius was told to send for Peter, “Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” Peter said later, “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7). The hearing of the gospel was the means of producing belief. Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48).

In every case of conversion in the book of Acts the gospel was preached for the purpose of turning the lost from sin to salvation. Take, for example, the people on Pentecost. The gospel was preached to the multitudes `to make believers out of them. They did not believe that Jesus is Lord and Christ until the gospel was preached. Then, being cut to their heart, they said to Peter and the other apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37,38).

God designed the gospel to be the power unto salvation. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). It is by the gospel that people are begotten (1 Cor. 4:15). God will take vengeance on all who know Him not and obey not the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8).

God wants us to employ the gospel to reach the lost. It is through the gospel that the Holy Spirit operates to save sinners. Christ did not equip the apostles with an unnecessary message of glad tidings. Primitive Baptists misunderstand the gospel, therefore they misapply passages which discuss the purpose of the gospel. Primitive Christians (the ones who lived in the apostolic age) were eager to preach the gospel to the lost so they could be saved, but Primitive Baptists are not that primitive!

Truth Magazine XXII: 39, p. 626
October 5, 1978

By Pat Higgins

Do you know haw to be angry? Most folks do not, you know. Or, more specifically, we do not know how to be angry and “sin not.” Anger, as an emotion, is as much a part of man as is love and fear. It is unrestrained, uncontrolled anger that becomes sinful. Too often we allow anger to control our minds and tongues, and we wind up doing and saying things that are hurtful and unkind.

Sometimes the occasion of the anger and the victim of the vituperative tongue are far removed. For example, Jane has been wrestling with the children all day, the washing machine overflowed, the dog dug holes in the front yard, and she is angry with the world. Enter the unsuspecting husband at 5:30 p.m. Before he can get the door closed, she hits him with every exaggerated “you always” and “you never” that could possibly be exhumed and brought to mind, with a few “don’t you ever’s” thrown in for good measure. He just happened to be in the right place at the wrong time.

Unfortunately, it is those we love the most upon whom we feel free to vent our anger by an out-of-control barrage of lethal verbiage. We do maintain enough clarity to know we could not as easily get by with it elsewhere; e.g., would you as readily tell your boss off as you would your wife? Probably not. Which seems to indicate the possibility of control or restraint when there is reasonable cause.

Words picked at random and hurled with anger are usually unreasonable and unfair. They are indicative of an emotion that is overflowing from an individual who maintains no rule over his own spirit (Prov. 27:4; 25:28).

As mentioned, we more often take advantage of loved ones, but occasionally this anger is exposed to brethren, and worse yet, to unbelievers. Such is damaging to a Christian’s influence; he who cannot control his anger and his tongue cannot present a picture of temperance and godly living to the world.

The Apostle Paul wrote that anger is a work of the flesh and should be laid aside, cast off, as you would remove and throw away an old filthy garment (Gal. 5:20; Col. 3:8). Anger is classed along with doubting as that which will interfere with a man’s prayers (Jas. 1:6) 1 Tim. 2:8).

Uncontrolled anger always has a negative effect on people, even when the angry one is correct in his position. Solomon knew this and said, “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Prov. 15:1). What is he saying? The import is this: To a great extent we can manipulate (I use this word in the sense of “managing or utilizing skillfully”-Webster) or influence the response of a person in a given situation. Is this not a great power within our hands? Is this not a great responsibility? Think about it. . . the manner in which I address a man can help determine his response to the truth. It is a sobering thought.

Shall I lose my inheritance in the kingdom of God because of my anger? Shall I contribute to the loss of someone else’s soul because of my angry words? God forbid.

Truth Magazine XXII: 37, p. 603
September 21, 1978

By George T. Eldridge

Authority means “the power or right to give commands, enforce obedience, take action, or make final decisions; jurisdiction.” Who has “the power or right to give commands”? Who can “make final decisions”? Who has “jurisdiction”?

Answers to all three questions reside in Jesus Christ! “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28) and “is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31). He has “the power or right to give commands, enforce obedience, take action, or make final decisions; jurisdiction.”

False Sources of Authority

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. The common name is Catholic Church. When you consider the religious complexion of the United States, the Catholic Church has a membership of 42.1 million (1960 census). All the members of the Catholic Church acknowledge (1) authority of papal acts, (2) authority of tradition, and (3) authority of the Catholic Church as sources of authority. Though the inspired word of God and the authority of that word does not approve of any of those three avenues of authority, let us define the first two.

Authority of papal acts means “decrees and decisions of the Holy See, whether of the pope in person or of the Roman congregations, tribunals and offices . . . .” They “are to be accepted and obeyed by those for whom they are intended and to whom they are promulgated.”

The apostles of Jesus Christ never taught “authority of papal acts.” The Christians of the New Testament never accepted “authority of papal acts.” Therefore, reject “authority of papal acts.”

Authority of tradition “is an article of faith from a decree of the Vatican Council that tradition . . . is a source of theological teaching distinct from Scripture, and that it is infallible. It is therefore to be received with the same internal assent as Scripture, for it is the word of God.” How must a Catholic view tradition? “An article of faith, distinct from Scripture, is infallible,” and “is the word of God” is the answer. How does Jesus view tradition?

What Jesus says to the scribes and Pharisees is what He speaks to Catholics. “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me” (Matt. 15:6-8).

Examples Show Need for Authority

Cain and Abel. Those individuals were sons of Adam and Eve. Many people assume that Cain was the firstborn of Adam and Eve, but nobody knows this as a biblical fact. God blessed Adam and Eve. “And God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon earth” (Gen. 1:28). Adam and Eve were healthy, vigorous, and prolific. How many years they remained in the Garden of Eden, the Bible does not say. Children may have been born to Adam and Eve in Eden. God had spoken to this husband and wife and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it.” There is no evidence that Cain was the firstborn of Adam and Eve or that Abel was the second born of this couple.

“And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect” (Gen. 4:3-5).

Why did God respect Abel and his offering? Why did God reject Cain and his offering? God’s rejection was not based on feelings, education, color of skin, and other human standards! Read the Bible. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb. 11:4).

“By faith” means God has spoken and we are to obey that which God spoke. “So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). God spoke as to the offering He wanted as a sacrifice. Abel had faith in God and in what God spoke. Abel showed faith by doing what God spoke.

What about Cain? Cain did not have faith in God and in what He spoke. Cain showed his lack of faith in God by bringing “the fruit of the ground” as “an offering unto Jehovah.” God, therefore, rejected Cain because he did not act “by faith.” Will God reject you?

“By faith” teaches us! Will we be like Abel or will we be like Cain? All of our offerings unto Jehovah must be “by faith.” Can we supply from God’s spoken word, the Bible, the verse or verses where Jesus gives authority for all activities of the church we are a member of? Can we “by faith” tell why we are what we are religiously?

Remember! “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). “By faith” means we are obeying Jesus who has “the power or right to give commands.” Jesus can “enforce obedience, take action, or make final decisions.” Jesus has “jurisdiction” over our lives, even our very thoughts. Are we “by faith” obeying Jesus?

Final Word

Do we need authority for our beliefs and practices?

Yes. Without authority, Jesus will speak to us at the great judgment day “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23). Iniquity is the Greek work anomia which literally means lawlessness. Without authority for our beliefs and practices, Jesus says we are lawless individuals-individuals without authority. We, therefore, will depart from Jesus for all eternity and spend all eternity in Hell. Why? Our beliefs and practices were not sanctioned by the authority of Jesus! Are we lawless individuals? Are our beliefs and practices without Jesus’ authority?

Truth Magazine XXII: 37, pp. 605-606
September 21, 1978