Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in a preceding article that handling aright the word of truth requires that we recognize the role of examples, it is incumbent that we study the somewhat complicated problem of

When Is An Example Binding?

By the term, binding example, it is understood that such an example would carry all mandatory force of a direct command, and that a failure to follow said example would constitute disobedience as surely as the failure to comply with any given command. There are three conceivable positions that may be occupied in regard to binding examples. They are as follows:

(1) No example is binding.

(2) All examples are binding.

(3) Some examples are binding, while others are not.

Having dealt with the first of these positions in the preceding article, I direct your attention to the second of these positions: all examples are binding.

This would obviously be an untenable position for anyone to occupy. Seventh Day Adventists have long made the argument that Jesus Christ kept the Sabbath, and since Jesus is held up as our example, (1 Peter 2:21) we must therefore keep the Sabbath day if we would follow His example. It is not sufficient for us to point out that Jesus kept the Passover, too, for if all examples are binding then we are under obligation to keep not only the Sabbath and Passover, but the various other feasts that Jesus kept.

In addition to the above observation, there is the fact that we find many examples of apostolic action as well as church action with evident apostolic approval, which we have always regarded as incidental and, therefore, not binding upon us today.

Take, for instance, the manner in which the apostles traveled from place to place. Much of the time they walked. Sometimes they traveled by sailboat (Acts 16:11). One gospel preacher rode in a chariot as he preached Jesus (Acts 8:26-31). While it is agreed that it would be permissible for gospel preachers to use those methods of travel today, I do not suppose that anyone would insist that the above examples are binding, or that the gospel preacher is rebelling against God when he drives an automobile or travels on a DC 8 jet to a preaching appointment.

There is also the example of the Lord’s supper being eaten in an upper room, or on the third floor of a building in Troas, as recorded in the twentieth chapter of Acts. When you emphasize the fact that Acts 20:7 is our authority for eating the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week, you will often meet the objection that the chapter that tells that the Lord’s supper was eaten on the first day of the week also tells us that it was eaten in an upper room, and, thus, if the first day of the week is binding, the upper room is equally so.

Still another example is that of using a personal messenger as the means of sending messages and money from place to place (1 Cor. 16:3). So when we try to point out to people today that in New Testament times when a church sent wages to a preacher (2 Cor. 11:8) or benevolent help to another church (Romans 15:26), the money was sent directly to the preacher or church, we meet the objection that if we insist upon following the example of sending directly to the recipient, then to be consistent we must use the personal messenger.

From what has been said it becomes evident that one is thus, by a process of elimination, forced to take position number three: some examples are binding, while others are not. This implies the need for some reliable criteria whereby we can distinguish between binding examples and such as only relate to incidental matters.

A Suggested Rule

For a fuller discussion of rules whereby we can determine the binding, or non-binding nature of examples, the reader is urged to procure and study brother Roy E. Cogdill’s book,, entitled Walking By Faith. Chapter five contains a splendid treatise on examples. In the remainder of this chapter, however, I propose to pursue a line of thought that appears to me as useful in distinguishing between binding and non-binding examples.

In the many discussions with digressive brethren over the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, it has been pointed out repeatedly that in the apostolic age, and for some time afterward, no instruments of music were used. The force of this argument lies in the fact that they were widely used during the latter half of the previous dispensation. So it therefore cannot be said that there were no instruments in New Testament times, and therefore no opportunity to use them. The opportunity to use them was there. From this we conclude that the Holy Spirit, who guided the apostles in all truth in setting things in order in the churches and establishing their system of worship deliberately excluded instruments of music.

From this fact a principle emerges, which we state in the following words: Whenever we find an example of a practice having been excluded when there was opportunity to include it: or whenever we find an example of something practiced exclusively when other options were available; or wherever we find that a command was consistently carried out in a certain way when other ways of carrying it out were possible, then we may reasonably conclude that the thing excluded, or the thing practiced, or the way in which the command was executed as a part of the truth revealed by, the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and therefore becomes a binding example to us.

This is not to say that other rules suggested by brethren who have written on the subject are not useful. They are useful. But it is my conviction that the above rule will greatly assist in determining whether a given example is of binding force because of its specific nature, or if it relates only to incidental matters. I shall now apply the above rule to some matters that have been the occasion for considerable discussion during the past few years.

The Meeting At Troas

Acts 20:7 says: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow . . . .” This example is being repudiated by some as having any authority within itself to bind on us the eating of the Lord’s supper exclusively on the first day of the week. One writer (J. D. Thomas, in his book, We Be Brethren) said: “There is nothing in the context of Acts 20:7 to prove that the first-day-of-the-week-meeting was not just an optional meeting.”

This raises a question implied in the rule I suggested. Was there the opportunity to have met on some other day? Does the context indicate that the fact that they met on the first day of the week, and not the third or fourth day, was only incidental? Or does the context indicate that it was a deliberate act.

I suppose that Brother Thomas would agree that verse 6 is in the context, so let us notice it. “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we tarried seven days.” Notice that expression: “we tarried seven days.” So there were seven days when they had the opportunity to meet to break bread. But it was not until seven days had elapsed that they met together to break bread which was done on the first day of the week. The matter of their tarrying for seven days is all the more significant when compared with another verse, also in the context. Verse 16 says: “For . . . he was hastening if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost.”

Tarrying for seven days on a journey when one is hastening to reach a destination is unusual behavior, and can be accounted for only on the basis that there was sufficient reason for such tarrying. But since they met together to break bread on the first day of the week following the seven days of tarrying and the following day resumed their journey, is it not evident that meeting on the first day of the week was the established practice of the disciples? Can anyone give a more logical reason? And since the meeting on the first day of the week to break bread occurred with the approval of an apostle, would it not fall into the category of an apostolically approved example? Moreover, since it is the only scripture that gives us any information as to when to eat the Lord’s supper, are we not thus limited to that one day?

The point is, it was obviously by design that they met on the first day of the week to break bread when they had the opportunity to meet on any one of seven other days.

Human Organizations And Sponsoring Churches

The same rule concerning opportunity may also be applied with reference to human benevolent societies built and supported by the church and sponsoring churches. While these did not exist in New Testament times, it was not for lack of opportunity. There were the poor who needed to be cared for. There was the never ending need to preach the gospel. Had the disciples of that day been thus minded they could have formed a missionary society, and Paul with his tireless zeal would have made a splendid president. They could also have formed benevolent societies with their boards of directors to care for the poor, and Barnabas, with his concern for the poor would have made a splendid president of such an institution. The church at Thessalonica with its zeal for the spread of the gospel (1 Thess. 1:8) could have promoted itself into a sponsoring church, soliciting and receiving funds from other churches to do “a great work.” Yes, the opportunity for the missionary society, the benevolent society, and the sponsoring church was there. But just as the mechanical instrument is conspicuously absent from the worship of the New Testament church, go also were the institutions and organizations of men conspicuously absent from its work. Instead, we know that, working in their congregational capacity, they cared for the poor, and in a third of a century preached the gospel throughout the whole inhabited world (Col. 1:23).

Methods Of Travel, And Personal Messengers

To the foregoing conclusion the objection is sometimes raised that if we must follow the examples of the New Testament church in the matter of benevolence and evangelism, then we must follow the examples of means of travel and the personal messenger for conveyance of letters and money.

But the cases are not parallel. Think a minute. Why did not Paul drive an automobile, ride a train, or fly in a DC 8 jet? Obviously because there were none and, hence, there was no opportunity. Does anyone believe that Paul would have walked, or even ridden in a chariot of that day if our modern vehicles had been available?

Why do we not use the personal messenger today? Again, think a minute. In New Testament times they did not have our modern postal system. Hence the need for the personal messenger. Does anyone believe that if our modern postal system had been in existence then, that Paul would have used a personal messenger?

I trust that the foregoing thoughts may serve to throw some light on the much-discussed question of when examples become a pattern that must be followed in doing the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 151-153
March 2, 1978

By Lewis Willis

There are 130 million people in this nation who belong to a church or a synagogue. Their backgrounds, convictions and non-convictions are as varied as the multitude of religious orders to which they belong. As the sexual revolution has spread its influence, to the surprise of many these religious organizations have emerged as a new battleground. Few organizations have escaped the clamor and challenge wrought by those who would change the old order on sexual morality. The main reason for involving religion in this on-going debate is that advocates and opponents are both seeking religion’s stamp of approval for their views. The results of this upheaval are only beginning to appear. However, that appearance, to date, is one that produces shock and dismay.

I have no desire to be indelicate or indiscreet, but I do want to call to your attention some features of the debate now raging and some of the indefensible actions, statements and positions that are emerging. It would appear to me that a reflection of this sort would be helpful in solidifying our thoughts on this contemporary controversy. This, I am persuaded, is an essential thing for us to do as history records that few, if any, influences in denominationalism totally escape the Lord’s Church. It will be to our sorrow and disgrace if we fail to formulate a solid, scriptural base upon which to meet this obvious rebellion against God and His Word.

Definition of this changing religious posture is not easily discerned. Primarily, most of us move within a limited fellowship and it is hardly possible to identify moors outside of that fellowship. We must, then, rely upon those who study such things to understand these changes in the infancy stages of them. I have before me an article from U.S. News & World Report, September 26, 1977, in which the manifestation of this changing attitude is exposed. So, what upheaval has been caused by the sexual revolution?

To meet the layman’s demand for sanction or aid in sexual concerns, the denominations are turning to “sex seminars” or “Marriage encounters,” so that theologists can prescribe answers for problems in these areas. The Catholic Church has a program involving about 100,000 couples a year. As an indication for the inroads of such among brethren, the liberal Southwest Church of Christ in Amarillo, Texas conducted a “Marriage Enrichment Seminar” not too many months ago. Among the sectarians, the advise these couples receive is sometimes unexpected and shocking. A recent survey of Catholic priests in Chicago shows that 40 to 50 per cent of them no longer oppose homosexuality and premarital sexual relationships. Albert C. Outler of Southern Methodist University School of Theology says, “I can’t imagine anyone leaving this school with a knee-jerk reflex that sex is bad, and excusable only in marriage.” How would you like to hear your preacher tell his audience not to concern itself over homosexuality, premarital and extra-marital sexual relationships? And, with most religionists, the “Pastor’s” word is all that is needed to justify a practice.

This movement to sexual interests prompted Martin E. Marty, professor of church history at the University of Chicago, to observe, “Instead of the language of the cross, love and sacrifice for others, we’re getting the message of the new intimacy-do whatever makes you feel good as long as you don’t hurt anybody else.” Situation Ethics, as defined in 1966 by Episcopal theologian, Joseph Fletcher, has been taught in the seminaries and is now being practically applied by his disciples in their counseling sessions. The sanction of the “Church” is given to almost any form of wickedness that the members and the “clergy” engage in to “feel good.” Preachers are telling members that the “anything goes” philosophy is a valid basis in living one’s life. Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2) is an unintelligible language to the ministers of sociology who are disguised as the champions of Christianity. And, most people could care less!

Thus, this new sexualism prompted the appointment of Beverly Messenger-Harris as first female priest to head an Episcopal parish in the United States. The feminist movement touched the compromising, anti-scriptural hierarchy- . of this denomination and they changed creedal policy to accommodate their demands-a move which has brought a major division in their ranks. The gay rights people, encouraged by the successes of the feminists, have launched their campaign and the Episcopalians have ordained an acknowledged lesbian as one of its new female priests. The United Church of Christ, accepting a report suggesting that the Bible should not be the only guide to morality in sex, ordained an avowed homosexual to its ministry. The sexual revolution is spreading its influence and has now made progress in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). An Amarillo Globe News article, October 25, 1977, reports that the General Assembly of the Christian Church, being moved by discrimination and unfairly and unevenly applied sodomy laws applied against homosexuals, passed by a vote of 2,541 to 1,312, a resolution calling for laws to “end the denial of civil rights and the violation of civil liberties for reasons of sexual orientation or preference.” The body then voted to initiate a study by local congregations to work for human and civil rights for homosexuals. These are the descendants of those modernists who left our ranks about 125 years ago so that they could use a piano in their worship!

Passages like Gen. 19:4ff, dealing with the sins of Sodom, and Rom. 1:26-27, defining the sins of the Gentiles, have been assailed by these religious libertarians. They contend “that these passages must be interpreted more subtly to separate the true religious message from the cultural biases of the Biblical period” (my emphasis; LW). These theologians say that an act is right if it is “self-liberating, other-enriching, honest, faithful, socially responsible, life-serving and joyous.” Basically, they are saying forget the Bible and do whatever you wish-and we will find some means to justify it for you!

Hence, the sexual revolution continues its invasion of religion. And, the leadership is doing nothing to stop it. Instead, they are endorsing the effort. In this, they are like those in Rom. 1:32 “who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 150-151
March 2, 1978

By Earl Robertson

In the synagogue in Thessalonica, Paul and Silas preached “there is another king, one Jesus” (Acts 17:7). It was not then difficult to prove that Jesus was king, but it was difficult to cause men to believe it. The same is true today. Many who claim to be Christians deny the kingship of Jesus! The doctrine of premillennialism denies that Christ is king-and many denominations are, in teaching, premillennial to the core.

Denominations talk about the “church age.” They believe the Old Testament kingdom prophecies were not fulfilled when Jesus came. This, they say, was because the Jews rejected Him. Because of this rejection, He could not then do what He came to do-establish His kingdom; so, as a substitute for the kingdom, He built the church. Some ,. call the church a “contingent” (accident, emergency, liability). The theory of premillennialism makes the church a mere emergency measure resulting from a promissory default and a prophetical fiasco. If Christ now has no kingdom, He is not now king! It is absurd to think of Jesus being king but having no kingdom. The church and the kingdom are one and the same people.

Ezekiel, speaking of the one nation that would be made of all nations under the rule of Jesus, said, “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: They shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them” (Ezek 37:24). Ezekiel was not speaking of David himself, bur of his seed. David was dead when the prophet said this and has remained so. “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day” (Acts 2:29). Ezekiel was restating the same promise regarding David’s posterity that God told David would happen: “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shaft sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam. 7:12, 13). David had to be dead when God would do with his posterity the things promised!

Jesus is king and has a kingdom-His kingdom (Col. 1:13). He went to heaven to receive it (Dan. 7:13, 14; Lk. 19:12-15; Heb. 12:28; Acts 1 and 2). He is king of kings and lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15), premillennialism to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, p. 149
March 2, 1978

By Mike Willis

One of the most offensive things about those who are New Testament Christians in the eyes of the non-Christian world is their belief in the “oneness of the church” or “one way of salvation.” The man who believes that there is just one church is considered an ignorant bigot in the eyes of most people today. A man must learn to be tolerant of another’s religion, we are told. However, one thing which I have observed in my discussions with the “tolerant” is this: it is extremely difficult for the tolerant to tolerate the intolerant. They are perfectly willing to tolerate any religious belief or practice so long as the one involved in that belief or practice does not say that it is the only way to heaven!

Yet, my brethren, one of the very things which offended the religious community of Jesus’ day was His statements about the exclusive nature of the gospel. He said, “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). This statement offended the Jews of Jesus’ day. When Peter said, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), the Jews were offended. When Paul labored to turn away the pagans from their idols to worship Jehovah, the Ephesians were offended (Acts 19:23f). All of the inspired writers believed that there was but one way of salvation, namely, through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The gospel of the first century was intolerant. It would not tolerate the belief that one could be saved through Judaism; it would not tolerate the belief that one could be saved through the various religions of the pagans; it would not tolerate perversions in the gospel from false teachers among the Christians. The first century gospel was intolerant of other religions. Consider with me this passage as an example of the intolerance of the gospel:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9).

Let us examine this passage very carefully as it illustrates the intolerance of the first century gospel.

Paul’s Opponents

A consideration of the heresy with which Paul was confronted will be helpful in understanding this important passage. Paul had gone into Galatia to preach the gospel; he converted many to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Upon his departure to regions which had not heard of the gospel, Judaizers entered the church and made havoc of his work. These men denied Paul’s apostolic authority. Hence, chapters one and two of Galatians are designed to refute their denial of his authority and to show that he had as much apostolic authority as any other apostle. The Judaizers apparently charged that Paul had departed from the old Jerusalem gospel and was a false teacher. The doctrinal point of departure which the Judaizers pressed was this: they taught that a man had to submit to the Mosaical law (and, specifically, to circumcision) in order to be saved.

Here are some of the things which characterized this apostasy:

(1) It was quick. Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you ….” The apostasy did not occur over a long period of years; it occurred almost overnight.

(2) It was to a “different” gospel. Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another . . . . ” The Greek New Testament has a play on words here which is pretty well reproduced in the English by the words “different” and “another” (the KJV has “another” in both places). The Greek word allos refers to “another of the same character” whereas the Greek word heteros refers to “another of a different character.” Paul’s wonder is that they should have so soon accepted a gospel different in character and kind from that which they had already received, which therefore had no right to be called another gospel because it was no gospel at all. The gospel taught salvation through grace by faith; the Judaizers taught salvation through perfect obedience to the Mosaical law. The word “gospel” means “good news.” That man could be saved by perfect obedience to the Mosaical law was not “good news” because no one could obey the law perfectly. Hence, this was a different gospel; a doctrine of salvation which did not deserve to be labeled “gospel.”

(3) It perverted the true gospel. Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” These Judaizers did not deny the virgin birth, death, burial, or resurrection of Christ. They did not deny that baptism was essential for salvation. Indeed, they did not deny any of the facts or the one act which those who distinguish between gospel and doctrine label as “gospel.” Rather, they bound the Mosical law upon those Gentiles who wanted to follow Christ. To bind the Mosaical law upon Gentiles was to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(4) It disturbed churches. Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” Those who teach their opinions (such as whether or not God will save the pious unimmersed, overlook sins of ignorance, etc.) disturb churches.

To tamper with the gospel is to trouble the Church . . . .Indeed, the Church’s greatest troublemakers (now as then) are not those outside who oppose, ridicule and persecute it, but those inside who try to change the gospel . . . Conversely, the only way to be a good churchman is to be a good gospel-man. The best way to serve the Church is to believe and to preach the gospel (John R. W. Stott as quoted by James Montgomery Bolce, “Galatians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. X, p. 428).

My brethren, you think of the good men whom you know as faithful gospel preachers. Ask yourself how many of them have divided churches, caused problems among the saints, etc. Even experience itself confirms that those who are faithful to the gospel do not trouble the churches and that those who try to improve the gospel are the real troublers of the church.

(5) It brought damnation. Paul said, “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” The heresy which Paul was fighting would cause a man to lose his soul! When Peter became involved in it, “he stood condemned” (2:11). Because this

heresy was, and any heresy is, damning, Paul withstood it; he had to demolish this departure from the true gospel. He could not tolerate it; he had to eradicate it.

The Duty of Intolerance

Our society has reached the state where it is critical of intolerance. The man who will not tolerate another’s religion is considered narrow-minded and bigoted. Tolerance of all religions is considered charitable and extolled by most people. Yet, Paul was a most intolerant person as he wrote Gal. 1:6-9.

The grounds of Christian intolerance is the exclusive claims of the gospel. Jesus taught that there is but one way of salvation; He said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (Jn. 14:6). The gospel is not a way of salvation; it is the way of salvation. The gospel is not a life for men; it is the life unto men. The gospel is not a truth; it is the truth. The grounds of intolerance of the gospel is that it is the only means of salvation!

The Limits of Intolerance

Though intolerance is a virtue, there are some very real limits to intolerance. When John Calvin condoned the execution of Servetus for his heretical doctrine, he had certainly violated the limits of intolerance. Intolerance does not give the right to exterminate those who teach false doctrines.

Intolerance must be limited to the rights of the gospel, not the claims of the preacher. Intolerance commonly springs from personal jealously or party spirit. Our intolerance is not toward men who preach the same gospel in other terms than we use. It is against those who teach another gospel. And, my brethren, the gospel of gimmicks as manifested by those involved in the bus ministry, the gospel of recreation as manifested by those involved in church sponsored recreation. and the gospel which tolerates practically any religious belief as manifested by the unity-in-diversion faction are not the gospel of the first century! If these were being opposed simply because someone used other terms than did I in preaching the same gospel, they should be tolerated. That is not the case, however; those involved in these movements have perverted or distorted the old Jerusalem gospel! Consequently, these perversions cannot be tolerated.

Our intolerance must, therefore, be limited to perversions of the gospel. Matters pertaining to personalities, which scriptural methods are used, individual consciences, etc. must be tolerated. The Christian must be tolerant of anything which does not pervert the gospel of Christ or destroy the unity of the saints.

Conclusion

The average fellow seems to think more of tolerance than he does of truth. Indeed, this spirit has invaded the church. Apparently, those propagating this spirit of tolerance have forgotten that heresy is damning. The Pulpit Commentary contained these important remarks on this passage:

There is a spirit abroad that leads men to think that everybody is right, that nobody Is wrong, that nothing but an evil life will bring retribution hereafter. By men of this spirit the apostle would be regarded as cruelly illiberal and narrow (p. 47).

The lessons revealed in Gal. 1:8-9 need to be preached anew to every generation that men everywhere might learn that the gospel cannot tolerate perversions of it. There is but one way of salvation-through the gospel of Jesus Christ. One who perverts that gospel destroys the one way of salvation. Consequently, the Christian cannot ignore even the smallest perversion of the gospel. He cannot tolerate heresy.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 147-149
March 2, 1978