Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

The Apostle Paul informs us that we are not to be “overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). Within collectives of God’s people, there is always a need for peace and concord, kindness and good will. These are indispensable. When strife enters into a congregation, the possibility and hope of doing good are gone. We are to live in harmony with one another. It was Nelson who, after one of his great victories, sent back a dispatch in which he gave as the reason of it: “I had the happiness to command a band of brothers.” The implications of his success are apparent.

Evil will rear its ugly head from time to time, but we must overcome it with good. We are not to be vanquished or subdued by injury received from others. Our temper must not be allowed to get excited; our principles must not be abandoned; our amiable temper must not be ruffled by opposition. God would have us maintain our Christian principles and show the power of the gospel.

Let it be remembered that we are overcome of evil when we suffer our temper to be excited and become enraged and revengeful by engaging in contention with those who injure us. We must show those with evil dispositions the loveliness of a better spirit. As a Christian, proper deportment is essential.

The following illustration from the Primitive Monitor of 1912 demonstrates what we are saying:

Among the incidents of the Revolutionary War, it is recorded that there lived at Ephratah, Pennsylvania, an old Baptist minister, Peter Miller, who had a very staunch enemy in his community who was also a notorious fighter against Old Baptist. This enemy, during the war, was charged and found guilty of treason, and for this was sentenced to hang. As soon as sentence was passed, Peter Miller set out on foot to visit General Washington at Philadelphia to intercede for the man’s life. George Washington told the minister that he was sorry but his pleading for his friend could not be granted. “My friend!” exclaimed Peter Miller, “I have no worse enemy living than that man.”

“What?” said George Washington, “you have walked sixty miles to plead for the life of your enemy? That in my judgement puts the matter in a different light. I will grant you his pardon.” The pardon was made out and Peter Miller hastened at once towards the place of execution, which was fifteen miles from Philadelphia, and which was to take place in the afternoon of that day. He arrived lust as the man was being carried to the scaffold, and the doomed man, seeing the minister walk up, exclaimed, “there Is old Peter Miller. He has walked all the way from Ephratah to gratify his revenge by seeing me hang!”

The words were scarcely out of his mouth when Peter Miller handed him his pardon and thus his life was spared.

Yes brethren. Overcome evil with good!

Truth Magazine XXII: 36, p. 587
September 14, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Our sights are drawn in on several statements made by Baptist preachers.

” `Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Matt. 3:2) . `He that believeth on him is not condemned’ (John 3:18. `Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shaft be saved’ (Acts 16:31. ‘. . . except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish’ (Lk. 13:3).

“These passages are not contradictory. In each case when belief is mentioned, doubtless repentance is assumed, and so when repentance is commanded, belief is assumed. There is no other explanation. In Mark 1:15 both are specified by Jesus: ‘. . . repent ye and believe the gospel’ ” (L.D. Capell, editor, Missionary Baptist Searchlight, February 10, 1978).

Now, if editor Capell could use the above reasoning to show that repentance and faith are “assumed” even though they are not specifically mentioned, he ought to be able to do the same with respect to baptism. Observe a parallel to Capell’s conclusions:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:3)!. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). “Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).”

These passages are not contradictory. In each case when belief is mentioned, doubtless baptism is assumed, and so when baptism is commanded, belief is assumed. There is no other explanation. In Mark 16:16 both are specified by Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

The comparison is a counterpart to Mr. Capell’s. But there is one further point. The passages which I cited do not mention repentance. Mr. Capell’s do not refer to baptism. The verses I noted do not exclude repentance. The ones quoted by Capell do not exclude baptism. Repentance may be “assumed” in the Scriptures which I gave. Baptism may be “assumed” on the same basis in the ones given by Mr. Capeli. If not, why not?

“Important To Note”

Mr. Capell makes another sensible statement to which one we may effect a parallel. “It is important to note that though a man truly repents and believes, he does not save himself by this means. The repenting and believing merely brings him to the point where God saves him. Salvation is wholly by the grace and work of God. Man’s part is only to submit himself in the position that God can save him.” Aside from a qualification or two, I can accept Mr. Capell’s view.

Let us apply his paragraph to belief and baptism: It is important to note that though a man truly believes and is baptized, he does not save himself by this means. The believing and being baptized merely brings him to the point where God saves him. Salvation is by the grace and work of God. Man’s part is only to submit himself in the position that God can save him.

For years, Baptist preachers have charged that the command to be baptized negates the grace and work of God. They say that if baptism is essential it nullifies the grace of God. However, Mr. Capell shows the issue, the distinction. With faith and repentance, he sees how that obedience to the commands to repent and believe do not do away with God’s grace and work. He believes that one must repent and believe, but “it is important to note” that these two conditions do not reflect of mitigate against the grace of God. Well, that is exactly what a Christian says concerning baptism. Surely, Mr. Capell and the Baptists can see that!

“Whatever Baptism Does It Does It Figuratively”

So says Bedford Andrews in the name issue of the Searchlight. Hear him: “Whatever baptism does it does it figuratively. It is a figure or likeness according to 1 Peter 3:21. We read in Acts 22:16, . . . be baptized and wash away thy sins . . .’ Now if baptism literally washed away sins, we would have two saving elements. Because we have the Bible saying we are `washed from our sins in His blood’ (Rev. 1:5). Do we thus have a choice-water of baptism or the blood of Jesus? No! of course not. We are actually and really cleansed from sin by the blood of Jesus, and figuratively show it in baptism in water. Everyone knows that.”

So, according to Mr. Andrews, baptism does not save us. It only does so figuratively. It does not literally wash away sins. It only does so figuratively. The Bible says we are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Is that only figuratively, Mr. Andrews? Baptists teach that baptism is what puts one into the fellowship of a Baptist Church. Of course, baptism could not really do that. No, we are not “baptized into one body,” because, according to Andrews, “Whatever baptism does it does figuratively.”

The literal blood of Jesus Christ does not literally wash or cleanse us from sin. God cleanses, washes and saves us by the blood of Christ, but the literal blood that literally dropped from the cross does not literally wash the literal soul. The water of baptism does not literally wash or cleanse us. God does that. But when does God do it? He does it when we obey from the heart that form of doctrine that is delivered to us. Then we are made free from sin by the blood of Christ (Rom. 6:17, 18). Acts 22:16 and Revelation 1:5 do not contradict another. God forgives us of sin by the blood of Christ when we are baptized. In the scheme of redemption, the blood of Christ had to be shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Without the shedding of Jesus’ blood, there could be no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). Still, God does the forgiving or remitting. Baptism in water is one of the conditions or terms of pardon; without obedience in baptism, there is no forgiveness (Mk. 16:16; Acts 22:16). But, God does the saving.

Mr. Andrews, where does the Bible say that we figuratively show our salvation in baptism in water? 1 Peter 3:21 does not say it. The water of baptism is a true likeness of the salvation of Noah and his family by water. The salvation and deliverance of Noah is a type of the salvation which we receive in baptism. Baptism is not said to be the likeness or type of our salvation. It is the likeness of Noah’s deliverance from the old world of sin. So, corresponding to Noah’s salvation “by water,” “baptism doth also now save us.”

Acts 2:38 “Because Of”

Again, Andrews avers, “Some think Acts 2:38 teaches baptismal regeneration. There we read, ‘. . . Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .! Mainly the thought is based on the word ‘for’ as employed here. ‘For remission’ should be understood to mean ‘with reference to’ or ‘because of remission let everyone be baptized. Baptism is with reference to sin already forgiven.”

Note a parallel which will show the folly of Mr. Andrews’ reasoning: Some think that Matthew 26:28 teaches blood regeneration. There we read, “”This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Mainly the thought is based on the word “for” as employed here. “For remission” should be understood to mean “with reference to” or “because of” remission Jesus shed His blood. The blood of Christ is with reference to sin already forgiven.

The expression “for the remission of sins” is the same identical phrase in Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38. That being so, let Mr. Andrews try his hand on my parallel to his statement.

But that is not all. If baptism is “because of sins “already forgiven,” then so is repentance. Acts 2:38 joins repentance and baptism. Both are “for the remission of sins.” Let us read a corollary to Mr. Andrews: Some think Acts 2:38 teaches repentance regeneration. There we read, “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Mainly the thought is based on the word “for” as employed here. “For remission” should be understood to mean “with reference to” or “because of remission let everyone repent. Repentance is with reference to sin already forgiven.

We have drawn our bead and pulled the trigger. If Mr. Capell or Mr. Andrews would like to respond, I am certain that Truth Magazine would be happy to carry their replies, provided of course, that we are given equal space in the Searchlight. Will they draw a bead and fire back? Or will they stay behind the cover of silence and hide behind the shield of their paper without opening it to differing views?

Truth Magazine XII: 37, pp. 598-599
September 21, 1978

By Carol R. Lumpkin

The way many people live, I wonder if they ever give serious thought to death and what will follow death. Man’s physical body was made out of dust, and unto dust shall it return (Gen. 3:19). The soul (spirit) of man shall never die. “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Every person who dies shall come forth from the grave. “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (Jn. 5:28-29).

When a person dies, his body is returned to the ground but the soul goes either to “Abraham’s bosom,” a place of paradise, or to “hell,” a place to torment. The place man’s soul goes after death is determined by the kind of life he lived on earth. From the gospel of Luke, we lift the following facts. A beggar, Lazarus, died, and was carried to Abraham’s bosom. A certain rich man died and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment. The rich man cried to Abraham to have mercy on him and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue, for he was tormented in flames. Abraham reminded him that in his life time he had lived in abundance while he refused help to the beggar.

The hadean world (place of departed spirits) is divided into two divisions. Between these divisions is a fixed gulf which permits no one to pass from one division to the other. The rich man further asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to his house on earth to warn his brothers . about “hell.” The rich man did not desire that his brothers come to the place where he was. Abraham informed him that his brothers had Moses and the prophets; to them they should turn to avoid coming to torment. The rich man cried out to Abraham that if one rose from the dead and warned them they would repent. Abraham replied, if they would not hear Moses and the prophets, neither would they alter their lives if one rose from the dead. You may read this in Lk. 16:1931.

Man has no control of his soul once he has died. No power on earth can change or alter the destiny of a departed one. We sometimes hear denominational preachers attempt to preach a soul into heaven. Beware of such preaching for they do not have such power. The person, while he lived on the earth, had to prepare his soul for either “Abraham’s bosom” or else he will not arrive there. This preparation is done through gospel obedience. Hear the words of Jesus as He informs the sinner what is required to be saved from his sins:”Except ye believe that I am he ye shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3). ” Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32). “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16).

After a sinner has obeyed the above commandments of the gospel of Jesus Christ, he then is commanded to remain faithful to the Lord until death (Rev. 2:10). God’s word is to serve as his pattern to govern his life. When this has been done he is prepared for death.

Which division of the hadean world the soul enters after death is based upon the life one lives while on earth. Everyone will receive a just sentence. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:12-15).

Jesus Christ will judge each person on the basis of his own life while on earth. “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (Jno. 5:22). Paul gives us some additional information pertaining to Christians who have died and, also, concerning those who shall have died before His coming in the clouds. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:16-17).

Eternity is divided into two divisions, heaven and hell. Each soul will go to one of these places. Again, the place one goes will be determined upon the kind of life one lives while on earth. Those who obey the gospel of Jesus Christ shall enter heaven; those who disobey the gospel shall enter hell. “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment (the disobedient): but the righteous into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46). “And there shall in no wise enter into it (heaven) any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 21:27).

Those people who know not God and/or refuse to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ will not be permitted to enter “Abraham’s bosom,” nor to enter heaven in the hereafter. “And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

There are many questions of interest concerning death and what follows thereafter. The story of the rich man and Lazarus, recorded in Luke 16, answers many questions that are often asked. The rich man was subject to the law of Moses, as was Lazarus. Though he was God’s child by birth, yet he was spiritually lost. There is no evidence that the rich man was aware of his being lost while he lived. This should prove to all of us that it is possible for a child of God to be lost. Many today believe that once a person is saved he cannot become lost. This surely is not true.

The rich man learned, after it was too late, that God’s word must be obeyed to be saved. We who now live must hear and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ to be saved (Mk. 16:15-16). The Corinthians were saved by obeying the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It will be too late to recognize the need to obey Jesus after one dies. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who will obey Him (Heb. 5:8-9).

The rich man learned too late that his request to Abraham was fruitless. He cried for water to cool his tongue and for Lazarus to be sent to warn his brothers of the torment. It was past time for petitions to be granted. In this life one must bow to God’s will, confess Christ in his daily living, and follow Him as He commands. Those who refuse to do this will find out too late that the Lord blesses only the obedient.

The rich man learned too late that death was not the end of all things. He learned that there really is life beyond the grave. The soul of man does not die. He also learned after death that he was able to recall his life while on earth, and to be concerned about others; yet, he was totally unable to do make any corrections, or to influence others. How much he must have wished his life had been different!

The rich man learned that he could not take his riches with him. The very things which he trusted most in life were left behind. What he would have given for another chance, but it was too late. Some people have the idea that God will grant them a second chance after death. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The rich man learned too late that his sins were the cause of his being in torment. Sin will bar the door of heaven to any man (Isa. 59:2). I believe if you will take the time to read and meditate upon Luke 16:19-31, that you will realize the importance of obeying God while still living. Remember it will be too late after death to reflect upon this. In this life only do we have opportunity to learn and to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul declared: “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, pp. 571-572
September 7, 1978

By Thomas G. O’Neal

The last few years have seen the start of a number of congregations seeking to follow Christ. Some of these have begun where there was none before. Others have started because those that existed departed from New Testament teaching to the point that brethren that wanted to follow the New Testament had to get out and start all over again. Division was not pleasant, yet it was necessary in order to follow the New Testament pattern because those in the older liberal churches were not about to give up their digression. Thus, “liberal” and “conservative” churches of Christ became a reality.

Many young men with faith in God and His word took their stand with truth and against the large, liberal congregations. Men not so young did the same thing. I was among the number. I believe we did right, and would do so again, Out of a need to oppose institutionalism, some evidently got in the opposing mood and some things that should have been studied and discussed within reason were pressed out of hand. Some began to press one matter and others another matter thinking that faithfulness to the Lord depended on their preaching and pressing these matters.

We would do well to look at apostolic preaching. Jesus said go preach the gospel (Mk. 16:15). Paul said to the Corinthians he determined to know nothing among them “save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Philip went to Samaria and preached “Christ” (Acts 8:5) and preached “Jesus” to the eunuch (Acts 8:35).

One needs to learn that there is a great difference in preaching “Christ” and preaching what “his position” is on some question. Brethren, we need to, be. slow to “take a position” but rather “begin at the same scripture and preach unto him Jesus.” One needs to be careful about dividing the church over some matter that affects the activity of the individual. I can work and worship with brethren who may not see things of an individual nature as I do. I should be willing to objectively study such questions, but never divide the church over them. Look at some such questions.

(1) Posture in Prayer. Should some one desire to kneel when they pray, that is fine with me and they will hear nothing from me about such. However, if they press the matter to the point that prayer is not scriptural unless one kneels, they cause trouble over something that affects the individual and not the congregation.

(2) No Women Teachers. There are those that believe that women in a class should not instruct people in the word of God. If they believe such, no one should ask them to violate what they believe the New Testament teaches. Yet, they should not seek to leave the impression those women who teach God’s word, under New Testament restrictions, are great sinners.

(3) No individual cups. Some brethren feel that a plurality of communion cups are contrary to New Testament teaching. Under no circumstances would I want them to violate what they think the Scriptures teach. They should not be out trying to convert people to this way of thinking before they ever obey the gospel. Let them use their cup but let them also count faithful to the Lord those that use a plurality of drinking vessels. The New Testament teaches only one cup; we may drink that one cup out of many drinking vessels.

(4) Limited Song Books. Some brethren have wanted to limit the use brethren can make of song books. Some object to taking song books to individual homes or any place else for the purpose of singing the praise of God. If they so object, then let them refrain from the practice. However, they should respect brethren who want to borrow song books in order to learn how better to worship God. A song book is just a book containing Bible teaching. Would it be wrong to take Bibles from the meeting house in order to teach someone or to better learn how to serve God? If not, what is the difference? Yet, I have known of brethren opposing such who sang out of song books that I have taken from the meeting house to a funeral home. If someone does not think it proper to use song books owned by the church for any purpose other than public, church worship, let them so believe, but do not disturb brethren over such matters.

(5) Chairs Limited. Along with not using song books, some have suggested it is wrong to take chairs from the meeting house to private homes in which people sit while they sing from the song books. Again, if a person so believed, I would not try to get them to take a chair from the meeting house to sit in while singing. If the preacher had a chair from the meeting house in his study at home to sit in while he worked on sermons, would it be sinful for him to sit in it while he prepared his tax returns? In an effort to restore New Testament Christianity, we would do well to stop when we get back to Jerusalem and not destroy our heads on the wall of Jericho.

(6) No public announcements. Sometimes a family will want to invite other Christians in the congregation over to their home after services some evening. I have known of some brethren who would not permit such an announcement to be made. One church would let a woman in the congregation stand at the door and announce it to each family as they were leaving the building, and another church would not let such announcement be made from the pulpit at the close of services, but would let it be placed on the bulletin board at the rear of the building and a public announcement made to the effect that there was an announcement posted on the bulletin board that everyone should see as they were leaving. If some one does not think it proper to make such announcements from the pulpit, do not force them to do so, yet they should not disturb brethren over such.

(7) No Pant Suit. Another issue that seems to some to be more important than the gospel of Jesus Christ is whether a Christian lady may scripturally wear a pant suit. No one favors wearing immodest clothing whether dress or pant suit. Let each lady determine for herself in keeping with New Testament teaching what she will wear. Let preachers cease making “their position” what others should do and thereby disturbing good churches. It would be an assumption to say all dresses are modest and it is just as much an assumption to say all pant suits are immodest. If brethren would stop pushing their view, we would have little difficulty with this matter.

(8) Length of Hair. The term “long” with reference to the length of hair in 1 Cor. 11 is a relative term, not an absolute term. As long as sex distinction is maintained the teaching of 1 Cor. 11 has been observed. However, in the last several years we have seen a change in hair styles, not all of which violate New Testament teaching. We have come from the “flat-top” for men being in style to the “dry look.” When men had the “flat-top” I heard no one commend them for following New Testament teaching. But when men went to the “dry look” some began to preach against long hair on men. One preacher said that if hair was long enough to hang down over a. man’s ears, partially covering them, such was unscriptural, but if the same length of hair was combed back over the ears so as to expose the whole ear such was scriptural. Who said so? He did, not the word of God. Another preacher said if a woman ever put the shears to her hair, she did not have long hair. If this is so, then the same would also apply to men. Admittedly, some men wear their hair different to what I want mine, but such is no reason to disturb good brethren over such a matter. No Christian favors the “hippy cult” but every Christian with hair touching his ears is not ungodly. If so, then gospel preachers a generation ago were ungodly for most of them had hair longer than the average today. It has not been brethren discussing this matter that has caused problems, it is a few wanting to push their views upon the consciences of good brethren. Discussing the scriptures will not cause problems; pushing your view upon another will.

(9) Covering. The covering of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 has been discussed by brethren through the years. Brethren should study this passage from the word of God in an objective manner. However, the application of the passage affects the individual woman and should be left there. Elders would do well not to make it a test of fellowship, saying if one did not agree with their view on this question that they had gone beyond the “doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9-11). They would do well not to determine if they would have fellowship with a gospel preacher based on whether he agreed with them on this or not. Preachers could find plenty to preach on without having to get “their position” on the matter before the congregation within a matter of a few weeks of their moving to a place to work. Study of scripture will not affect the unity of a congregation but a preacher trying to force his thinking on all the ladies within a congregation will. Do not make your conscience on this the guide for another.

(10) No Funeral. Some have taken the position that funerals cannot be conducted in the meeting house. A gospel preacher can preach for a number of years the teaching of the scriptures on life, death and the judgment, but when he dies there are those that think it improper to assemble in the same building for others to preach and teach the same scriptural lessons he taught. Sometimes trouble can be talked up when and where none exist. I know of at least one place when the length of years I have known the town it was the custom to have funerals in the funeral homes. I never knew of the faithful having a funeral in any of their meeting houses, but not because they considered it wrong. Yet a few brethren have done a good job talking this problem into the front of the brethren’s attention. Why would brethren create a problem over that which they are not and have never practiced? If it is scriptural to “comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:13-18), what scripture is violated if a casket is in the same room?

(11) No Wedding. Some have raised objection to having a wedding ceremony in the meeting house. Again, when most gospel preachers read wedding vows for a couple, they are just doing some Bible teaching. No one would object to a gospel preacher teaching what Jesus and the apostles taught on marriage and related matters. If during the teaching done by a gospel preacher, a couple wants to get married, a thing the Lord taught could be done, what scripture is violated? If it is wrong for one person to get married in the meeting house, it is wrong for any person to get married in the meeting house. I have known of brethren forbidding one person to get married in the meeting house, yet because of “position” let another get married in the meeting house. I have known of those that are opposed to having weddings in the meeting houses of brethren yet they would go to a building owned by a denominational body. If such is sin in one place, it is sin in both places. Instrumental music in worship is sinful in the meeting houses of brethren and it is also in denominational buildings. Who would have thought brethren would ever oppose gathering to hear God’s word preached on death and marriage? If there are brethren who really are opposed to such, let them both refrain from attending such and making their conscience the guide for another.

(12) No Invitation Song. Some have disturbed brethren over the matter of having an invitation song at the close of a gospel lesson-a song designed to encourage people to obey the gospel. One church I know of was about completely destroyed by a preacher advocating the view. One of the designs of singing is “teaching” (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). What makes it right to teach in spoken word but not in words sung? The “bride” says “come” (Rev. 22:17) and the bride of Christ is His church (Eph. 5:22-33). What is wrong with the church saying to sinners “come” to Christ?

(13) No Evening Lord’s Supper. Others have opposed having the Lord’s Supper on Sunday evening. The Lord placed his supper in the kingdom on the Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7). Any time on the Lord’s Day saints may eat the Lord’s Supper. The supper on Sunday evening no more constitutes a “second supper” or “a second serving” than preaching on Sunday evening constitutes a “second gospel” or a plurality of containers constitutes a plurality of cups. There is one Lord’s Supper just as there is one cup. We may drink of “the cup” out of different containers and we may eat the Lord’s Supper at different times but it is still just the “cup” of the supper of the Lord. It is the Lord’s Supper. I do not have the right to refuse brethren the right to do what the Lord said they should do on the Lord’s Day. When the younger divide the body of Christ over such, let not the older condemn them so severely for they are just putting into practice what the older have taught. The root of the problem is what they have been taught.

Other such matters could be mentioned. However, these should suffice to show how some want to make matters of individual understanding and practice a matter that they want to line everyone up with “their position.” I know of no one who holds all of these positions. Those holding one or more of these positions will think someone holding some of the others are extreme in the views and vice versa. Brethren would have little difficulty with such matters if a few didn’t seek to set forth “their position” on such matter. Let each study the New Testament and practice what he concludes he should. These matters do not affect the worship, function, organization and work of the church. Pressing these matters does not build up the work of the Lord.

Truth Magazine XXII: 36, pp. 584-586
September 14, 1978