Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in a previous article that the concept of universal church action was, in a great degree, responsible for the introduction of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849, with Alexander Campbell as its first president, we now turn our attention to

Modern Cooperative Movements

Some one has said that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Whether it is through ignorance of history, or ignorance of the Bible, or both, the fact is that history is being repeated today in modern cooperative movements, since they are, for the most part, based on the same concept of universal church action as brought the missionary society into existence. Paradoxical as it appears, brethren rejecting the missionary society itself have adopted the premise on which it was founded.

Campbell, as pointed out in the previous article, conceived of the kingdom (church universal) as being composed of all local congregations in the aggregate. Many brethren today, with some variation of terms used, have adopted basically the same argument, Using Paul’s reference to the church as the body of Christ with many members (Rom. 12:4, 5. 1 Cor. 12:12), the argument has been made that the body of Christ which is the church universal is made up of all the local congregations.

Over the years brethren have met and answered the old sectarian argument based on the vine and the branches (John 15:5). The argument made by sectarians is that the vine is the church universal (they call it the invisible church), and the branches are the various denominations. Now we have brethren making basically the same argument in that they tell us that the members of the body are local congregations. So the only difference is that sectarians make denominations the members of the universal church, and brethren make local congregations the members. But neither are right, for the members of the body of Christ (church universal) are neither denominations, nor local congregations, but individual disciples.

Consider these facts. Before Pentecost 33 A. D. the kingdom, or church, was preached as at hand (Matt. 3:1,2. Luke 10:9). But following the first gospel sermon preached on Pentecost we find the church in existence, with people being added to it (Acts 2:47). But on that day, and for some time afterward, there was but one local congregation in existence-the church at Jerusalem. Was the body of Christ (church universal) in existence? Was Christ head over all things to the body (Eph. 1:22,23)? Or was it just a member of the body that was set up that day? Was the body of Christ formed, just one member (local congregation) at a time? And when Paul said to the Corinthians, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and several members thereof” (1 Cor. 12:27), did he mean that they were members of the church universal, or just members of one member of the universal church?

Admissions Of Universal Church Action

That the current cooperative movements, with benevolent institutions operated by boards of directors, through which many churches do their benevolent work, function on the concept of universal church action, has been admitted even by some who are deeply involved in the defense of some of the modern orphan homes. As an example, one writer, who claimed to occupy a middle-of-the-road position on current issues, opposed the building and church support of orphan homes separate and apart from the church, and operated by a board of directors from various parts of the country. His position was, that such homes, to be scriptural, must be under the elders of the church.

That this brother believed that such homes under a board were universal church action is seem in a statement taken from an article in the Firm Foundation of March, 1957.

“But if some say that these homes are avenues through which the universal church takes care of the needy, I ask for the authority to activate the universal church. If it was sinful for the brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why is it now right to activate the universal church in forming a benevolent society?”

It is thus obvious from the foregoing quotation that this brother paralleled the benevolent societies of today with the missionary society of a hundred years ago in that they were both a means of activating the universal church, In this he was correct. Both are human institutions, devised by the wisdom of man. , Both are chartered organizations. Both serve as a means for an unlimited number of churches to function through them in doing work assigned to the church.

The argument of this brother, however, loses much of its force since the homes that he defends also have their boards. The only difference then between the homes he defends and the homes he opposes is that the homes that he defends are under the elders of the church. They are, however, also under a board as is evident from their charters. So if the homes under a board that he opposes constitute universal church action, so do the homes that he defends.

The Sponsoring Church – Universal Church Action

The same principle of universal church action has been followed, though not openly admitted, in the sponsoring church concept of evangelism. Of this, the Herald of Truth is a prime example. Sponsored by the Highland church at Abilene, Texas it has become the central agency through which some two or three thousand congregations function in the field of evangelism by means of radio and television. Highland church claims to have complete control over the program. In a brochure published by Highland church early in the history of the program, they said, “The Herald of Truth program is the work of Fifth and Highland church . . . the elders of this congregation direct and oversee every phase of this work from the preparation of these sermons to mailing copies of these sermons.” In another statement of policy in the same brochure they said, “Questions and criticisms are welcomed, but since this is. a work of Highland congregation, to maintain its autonomy or independence the elders must make the decisions.”

From the foregoing quotations it is plainly obvious that Highland church considers the Herald of Truth to be exclusively her own work. In the Tant-Harper debate E.R. Harper said that if you can figure out who is paying for the program you will know whose program it is. The inference was that Highland was paying for the program. But the fact is that Highland was not then and is not now paying for the program. It takes the contributions of those thousands of other congregations, and without which the program could not continue. Does not that make it the work of the supporting congregations as well as Highland’s?

That was the position of Guy N. Woods in the Cogdill Woods Debate. Twice-on pages 194 & 237-he said that the program was the work of all the contributing churches with Highland church having the oversight. This does not help the case one bit, and in fact serves to pin-point the fact that insofar as the Herald of Truth is concerned, Highland elders are functioning as brotherhood elders, and to that degree universal elders. They may deny it, but their denial reminds me of the story of the man who came home one night much the worse for alcohol. When his wife chided him for being drunk, he replied, “I may be a bit under the alfluence of alcohol, but I’m not as think as you drunk I am.” His denial of being drunk was contradicted by his actions. And when elders begin overseeing a brotherhood work they become brotherhood elders in spite of any denials.

Some of the defenders of the Herald of Truth have been able to see the inherent danger in one church or group of elders, becoming the medium for a brotherhood work. Some three or four years ago when the program had fallen on evil days with the control of the program passing into the hands of a committee, one of its former defenders said, “Do you recall just a few years ago, when some of us used to ponder whatever would happen to the churches of Christ if the forces of error should ever get hold of the Herald of Truth? I can just hear the anti-cooperationists rising up as one man to chide ‘I told you so’. However, brethren, it no longer is unthinkable. The unthinkable has happened.”

Congregational Action – The New Testament Pattern

In contrast to the colossal, and sometimes complicated, programs that men have set in motion today, the work that God has assigned to the church was done in New Testament times by local congregations, each under the oversight of its elders. That they cooperated in programs that exceeded the ability of any one congregation is not denied. But it was a cooperation that recognized and honored the independence of each congregation. Two examples will suffice.

1. Churches of Macedonia and Achaia and Galatia cooperated in sending relief to famine-stricken saints at Jerusalem (Romans 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1). No benevolent society was formed through which those congregations functioned. Each church raised its own contribution, and chose its own messengers to carry the relief to its destination (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:23).

2. Churches cooperated in evangelism. A number of churches sent wages to Paul while he labored at Corinth (2 Cor. 10:8). No missionary society was formed, nor did any church act as a “sponsoring church.” Each church sent its contribution by its own messenger (2 Cor. 10:9; Phil. 2:25).

We close this article with a quotation with which we heartily concur. In the Gospel Advocate Annual Lesson Commentary, page 341, Guy N. Woods, in commenting on the Philippian church’s contribution to Paul (Phil. 4:15,16), said,

“Hear too, we see the simple manner in which the church at Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no ‘missionary society’ in evidence, and none was needed. The brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way that it should be done today. No organization was needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized his church to do. When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold of apostasy. Let us be satisfied with the Lord’s manner of doing things.”

To which we say a hearty, Amen.

Truth Magazine XXI: 46, pp. 727-728
November 24, 1977

By Keith Sharp

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

“All a man really has to do to be saved is keep the Ten Commandments.” This was the reply a man once made when I inquired, “Do you know what to do to be saved?” His attitude is common. He, as others, makes a distinction between “ceremonial” law of the Old Testament and “moral” law. He contends that the ceremonial portion of the Old Covenant was removed as law, but the moral part, meaning the Ten Commandments, was retained.,In proof of this contention, people cite Matthew 5:18:

Does this verse teach that the Ten Commandments are still our law?

According to the Lord in Matthew 5:18, “one jot or one tittle” would not pass from the law until the designated time. The “jot” was the Hebrew letter “yodh,” comparable to the Greek “iota.” Made like an apostrophe, it was the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. A “tittle” was the tiny mark on some Hebrew letters which distinguished them from others. It was similar to the dot of an “i” or cross of a “t.” Jesus was not merely speaking of the Ten Commandments. He was speaking of all the law of Moses, down to the smallest letter and tiniest mark. If this means the law is still in effect, we are duty bound to keep all the law, including the smallest details of animal sacrifice, burning of incense, priestly garments, etc. One cannot simply choose the part of the law he wishes to keep and let the other go. If you keep any of the law of Moses, you are obligated to keep it all (Gal. 5:3). If you violate any part of the law, moral or ceremonial, you have violated the entire law (Jas. 2:10). Thus, since the verse proves too much for those who advocate keeping the Ten Commandments as law, it proves nothing for their position.

In reality, the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments, has been abolished as a law. In Rom. 7:1-7 Paul declares Christians “are become dead” to “the law” which demanded, “Thou shaft not covet.” But this was one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:17). Thus, the Ten Commandments are a part of the law to which we are dead.

Does this mean we are free to covet? No, for Christ said, “beware of covetousness” (Lk. 12:15). How can this be? The laws of Mexico forbid murder. But I am not under the laws of Mexico. Am I therefore free to murder? No, for the law of the State of Texas, under which I am judged, also forbids murder. The law of Moses forbids covetousness. I am not under the law, but I am not free to covet, for the law of Christ, by which I shall be judged (Jn. 12:48), also forbids covetousness. And so it is for all the ten commandments save the Sabbath law.

But, did Christ not say the law was to continue “Till heaven and earth pass away”? No, he added another stipulation. He also said, “till all be fulfilled.” Suppose a worker on strike were to threaten, “Till heaven and earth pass away, I will not go back to work, till I receive a pay raise.” Would you think the man was vowing never to return to work? No, he simply would be declaring he would never return to the job until a condition was met-a pay raise. Even so, Christ revealed that the law would never pass away until a condition was met-“till all be fulfilled.” If the employee received his wage increase, he would return to work. That is the necessary implication of his statement. If all were fulfilled, the law would pass away. This is the necessary implication of the Master’s statement.

Has all been fulfilled? Yes, this was Jesus’ express purpose toward the law (Matt. 5:17). The law, including the Ten Commandments, having fulfilled its purpose by bringing us to Christ, has been abrogated as a law by His death on the Cross (Gal. 3:19-25; Col. 2:14-17). Do not sacrifice your freedom in Christ by returning to the bondage of the law.

Truth Magazine XXI: 46, pp. 726-727
November 24, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, we must “keep the unity of the Spirit . . . even as ye are called in one hope of your calling” (Eph. 4:3f). When men obey the gospel of Christ, they are thus united by Christ in the ONE HOPE of Scripture. At the final resurrection of all the dead, men will be judged according to their lives (Jn. 5:28f; Eccl. 12:13f). The wicked will depart “into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:31ff). Christians are begotten “unto a lively hope,” “to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, RESERVED IN HEAVEN for you” (1 Pet. 1:3ff). This reward by God’s love, mercy, and grace, Christians joyfully anticipate-“for we are saved by hope” (Rom. 8:24). God’s plan for unity includes the ONE HOPE.

A major cause of religious division is the popular fascination with various Millennial speculations. There are as many hopes as there are Millennial theories today, creating confusion, contradiction, and division in the name of religion. False predictions, empty promises, and twisted interpretations of Scripture abound. Souls are subverted. Skepticism is a result. A prime example of such unscriptural speculation is a series of articles entitled “Repent, Repent He Cried,” circulated by one Stephen Tolin of Antioch, Tennessee. We must “search the scriptures” in order to “try the spirits” (Acts 17:11; 1 Jn. 4:lff). The great traditions of freedom of religion and of the press guarantee the reading public the right to examine both sides of any proposition. Intelligent study and debate are essential to informed faith and practice in religion, as in all walks of life.

1. Notice that the foundation of all millennial theories (theories of Christ returning for a physical kingdom on earth) is the old Jewish error concerning the nature of the kingdom promised. The Jews wanted Jesus to establish a physical kingdom on earth and would have accepted him on that basis (Jn. 6:15). They rejected him because his message was of spiritual life and not national power (Jn. 6:63). “My kingdom is not of this world’=no political promises, no fleshly armies, no physical battles, no earthly crowns (Jn. 18:36). Christ is NOW sitting on his throne (Acts 2:33-36). His kingdom is a spiritual rule in the hearts and lives of men, in spiritual battle, with spiritual promises (Acts 2:37ff; Rom. 14:17; Eph. 1:3; 2:19; 6:l0ff). When we are buried with him in the waters of baptism because of faith in God, we are delivered “from the power of darkness” and are NOW “translated into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:13; 2:12).

2. Mr. Tolin says Christ announced the kingdom of heaven as “at hand.” It was a promise to the Jews which God would never annul-a promise of the Kingdom to be “set up in Jerusalem” with “Our Lord as King.” Mr. Tolin confuses the physical promises of “a great nation” and “a land” with the ultimate promise of a spiritual kingdom: “In thee (Abraham) shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:lff). The former two were fulfilled in history, as God was preparing a land and people for the appearance of a Savior (Josh. 21:43ff). Nothing remains of those promises yet to be fulfilled, for the ultimate promise has been fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 3:8-29). Christ is NOW king in keeping with the promise (Acts 13:32ff; 2:36). The day when “the Lord shall be king” and “living waters shall go out from Jerusalem” is the same day that a fountain is open “for sin” (Zech. 13:1; 14). `Now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2; Matt. 26:28). We obey the gospel, are washed in his blood, and he rules over us!

3. For denying Christ, the Jews have been in “outer darkness . . . until 1948, a sign of our Lord’s coming,” says Mr. Tolin. Date setting and reading characterize Millennial theories, but modern Israel is not in Luke 21. Christ spoke there of events to happen in the time of his listeners, i.e. Jerusalem’s fall and the end of the Jewish system (v. 32).

4. Mr. Tolin says the Holy Spirit “hinders Satan and His anti-Christ,” so while Christians are on earth (awaiting a theorized “Rapture”) “the Anti-Christ cannot be revealed.” Anti-Christ just means opposed to Christ and his will, hence lawless or sinful. The spirit of lawlessness was working in Paul’s time, though the inspired men labored to restrain it (2 Thess. 2:7). The Apostles warned that this spirit of sin would work even among some of God’s people, and John said in his time, “Even now are there many anti-christs” (1 Jn. 2:18; 2 Jn. 2:7). There still are!

5. The Jews were not forgiven in the Age of Moses nor “In this age of grace” but will be “in the Millenium (Kingdom Age),” claims Mr. Tolin. Christ is on his throne now, the day of salvation or forgiveness is now, and both Jew and Gentile are saved by the gospel of Christ now (Acts 2:33; 2 Cor. 6:2; Rom. 1:16). Tolin’s theory involves a national, physical salvation.

6. The “New Birth” occurs “the second” we believe in Christ, says Mr. Tolin, as with Abraham. The question is, when does faith save? The faith that. saved Abraham “obeyed” God, and our new birth is “of water and of the Spirit” (Heb. 11:8; Ja. 2:21ff; Jn. 3:5). When faith moves us to repent of sin, confess Christ, and be baptized in water, we are born again by faith (Jn. 3:5, 16; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:10; Gal. 3:26f).

7. Mr. Tolin offers two distinct hopes, but the Bible requires “one Hope.” The Jew has the hope of remission of sins in Christ (“Heavenly things,” “spiritual seed”), but, again, he can hope to “inherit the Land of Palestine” (“Earthly things,” “carnal seed”). Tolin identifies the latter with prophetic statements about the blessings of David’s rule, but Peter said that is fulfilled in Christ’s present rule (Acts 13:32-38).

8. Mr. Tolin claims the testing of 1 Cor. 3:9-15 means in our final reward, “All Christians won’t be happy over there.” Final Judgment-a test “as by fire”-will reveal whether one’s converts to Christ have continued faithful. In any case, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes,” so that the bliss of the righteous in eternal fellowship with God will be complete!

Rather than dividing over many speculative hopes, believers in Christ can unite upon the one Hope revealed in scripture (Eph. 4:4; 2 Jn. 9).

Truth Magazine XXI: 46, pp. 725-726
November 24, 1977

By Mike Willis

There are many characters who appear on the pages of the Bible of whom we know very little. Some of them appear so briefly that we know little more than their names and not even that much about many others. Yet, a study of the characters of the Bible is a very profitable study inasmuch as one can learn from the positive and negative attributes of others. I would like to consider the character of Eli for this week’s editorial.

Eli was the next-to-last judge of Israel. He followed Samson as judge over Israel and was confronted with the same Philistine oppression which Samson faced. In addition to being a judge, Eli was also the high priest over Israel; he was the first to hold both of these offices at the same time. Because of these positions which he held, he was a very influential man. Yet, he was not without fault.

Eli’s Conduct Toward His Sons

One of the most notable things recorded in connection with Eli is with reference to his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas. These two men served as priests, although they were very worthless men (1 Sam. 2:12). When they offered the sacrifices to God, rather than taking their authorized share of the offering, they took as much as they wanted (1 Sam. 2:13-14; Lev. 7:29-34). In addition to that, they took this portion before the fat had been burnt as a sweet odor to God (1 Sam. 2:15; Lev. 3:3-5,16). Consequently, the people despised the offerings which they made to God (1 Sam. 2:17). The conduct of these men brought the worship of the Lord into disrespect among the people. These two sons also committed fornication with the women who were assigned to serve in the Temple (1 Sam. 2:22).

Eli was very much aware of his sons’ sins. The report of their conduct circulated among the people (1 Sam. 2:23-24) and he knew of it (1 Sam. 3:13). Indeed, he even administered a mild admonition to his children to persuade them not to sin before God (1 Sam. 2:23-24). Yet, that was not enough. Eli was high priest and judge over Israel. He was in a position of authority and responsible for the worship which was offered to God. Whereas he should have dismissed his sons as priests, he continued to let them serve.

God looked down on this sorry scene and sent a “man of God” to Eli. He told Eli that he had honored his sons above the Lord (1 Sam. 2:29) because he did not rebuke them (1 Sam. 3:13). Inasmuch as Eli was in a position to remove his sons from serving as priests, he committed sin because he would not stand up against them and demand that they quit serving as priests while guilty of so much sin. He lacked the righteous indignation which Jesus manifested when He cleansed the Temple (Jn. 2:13-17). Writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, A. C. Grant said, “The character of Eli, while sincere and devout, seems to have been entirely lacking in firmness. He appears from the history to have been a good man, full of humility and gentleness, but weak and indulgent. He is not a strong personality; he is always overshadowed by some more commanding or interesting figure” (Vol. II, p. 928).

I am afraid that many of us are going to be guilty, as was Eli, of lacking the moral fiber to withstand sin. Here are some areas in which we commit a sin similar to that which Eli committed:

a. Lacking righteous indignation. We have become a gutless people-men with rubber backbones. We had rather bend to accept any doctrinal departure from the truth rather than to fight it. Indeed, about the only sin which some men in this country know is the “sin” of withstanding sin. Look around you! The American people can tolerate the Gay Rights Movement but are indignant toward people such as Anita Bryant who oppose it. Americans can tolerate the endorsement of lesbians as priests but will not tolerate the men who oppose it. In the church, brethren can tolerate men who preach another gospel and introduce Calvinism to the churches but they cannot tolerate the men who stand opposed to these false teachers. We need to wake up to the fact that we are becoming more and more susceptible to a “peace-at-any-price” approach toward doctrine. We lack backbone to withstand the advances of sin.

b. Honoring our children above the Lord. Eli also sinned in that he did not remove his sons as priests before God; he honored them above God. In a similar fashion, some parents honor their children above God. I have seen cases in which the church was forced to withdraw from some ungodly children. The reaction of the parents was that they bad-mouthed the elders or quit attending services. Parents are willing to defend their children above the god-fearing elders even though they admit that their children are guilty of sin.

c. Failing to restrain our children. Some of us are tainted with the philosophy of modern psychiatry which teaches that children should not be restrained lest they grow up inhibited. Consequently, we see children of Christians who sass their parents or otherwise act anyway they so please. Parents who so conduct themselves toward their children are guilty of sin before God.

God’s Judgment Against Eli’s House

Because of Eli’s sins with reference to his sons, God brought judgment against Eli’s house. He sent a “man of God” to foretell God’s judgment. He foretold (1) that the descendents of Eli would die at an early age, (2) that Hophni and Phinehas would die on the same day, and (3) that another family of Aaron would be given the office of high priest. Shortly thereafter, the word of the Lord came to Samuel in the night. This revelation from God stated virtually the same thing: God’s judgment against the house of Eli. The next morning, Eli demanded that Samuel tell him the message from the Lord (1 Sam. 3:17). (Notice Eli’s burning desire to know the will of God. His example deserves imitation today.) When Samuel related the word of the Lord to Eli, the aged high priest said, “It is the Lord; let him do what seems good to him” (1 Sam. 3:18).

Eli’s submission to the will of the Lord reminds us of the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. He prayed, “. . . let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt” (Mt. 26:39). Eli quietly submitted to the will of the Lord. He was not like so many who become bitter toward the Lord and complain about their lot in life. Instead, Eli submitted to the Lord’s will, even though he did not like it.

Eli’s Love For The Lord

Sometime after this prophecy, the Israelites engaged the Philistines in battle. At the first encounter, 4000 Israelites died on the battlefield (1 Sam. 4:2). In desperation, the people had Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, to bring the ark of the covenant to lead the children of Israel into battle. In the following battle, 30,000 Israelites died, Hophni and Phinehas were killed (in fulfillment of the prophecy that both of Eli’s sons would die in one day), and the ark of the covenant was captured by the Philistines.

The aged Eli sat by the gate at the tent of meeting to await news of the battle. His heart trembled for the ark of God (1 Sam. 4:13). Finally, a messenger came to report the news of the battle. When Eli heard that the ark of the Lord was captured, he fell over backward, broke his neck, and died. The Scriptures specifically state that Eli did not die when he heard of the defeat of Israel or when he was told that both of his sons had died. Rather, Eli died when he was told that the ark of the covenant was taken by the Philistines. (Perhaps he had learned to honor God above his sons at this time in his life.) Eli’s concern for the ark manifests his love for the Lord.

Too many of us today fail to manifest this kind of concern over matters pertaining to the Lord and His church. We fret more about a scratch on our new car than over internal problems in the church. We stay at home from worship for any earthly reason. We could care less when we hear that false teachers are ravaging the flock. We need more of Eli’s concern for matters pertaining to God. We need’ men who love the Lord enough to shed tears over matters pertaining to His church. We need men who love the Lord enough to prepare themselves to serve in His church. We need men who are concerned for the lost and are willing to work to lead them to salvation. We need men like Eli who truly love the Lord.

Conclusion

Let us learn lessons from Eli. Let us not make the same mistakes which he made but let us emulate his positive attributes. “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).

Truth Magazine XXI: 46, pp. 723-724
November 24, 1977