Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

The subject of the Law and the Gospel encompasses a broad field of study. For the past several weeks we have studied categorical statements of the New Testament that the Old Covenant was taken away in the body of Christ. With the wealth of material in the New Testament on this subject, and the vast multitudes who misunderstand it, I deem it wise that we continue our study of this important theme for a few weeks yet. This week we want to be very specific in our study. We want to study a fundamental error of most Sabbath-keeping religious groups. When we study passages showing that the Law of Moses was done away by the death of Christ, this is enough to persuade most people. But some religious groups have peculiar ideas about the Law, and therefore they construe these New Testament teachings to coincide with their pre-conceived religious views. Therefore it is necessary that we devote some time to these misconceptions of truth.

What Is Meant By “Moral” and “Ceremonial” Laws

First; we need to understand the teaching of most Sabbath-keeping denominational bodies. They teach that the Old Testament Law actually consisted of two laws. Sometimes these are classified as three laws, namely: moral, ceremonial, and civil. But ordinarily they refer to the “double-law” of the Old Testament. They mean by this that this law consists of the moral and ceremonial law. It is rather odd how people can coin terms, and then as freely use them as though the Bible were filled with such expressions. For example, the Modernist dissects the Bible in such a way that he very commonly speaks of the “P” or “J” document, and many other such documents even though there is no hint of such documents existing from the Scriptures. Or they quote as casually from “Second Isaiah” (another Modernistic dissection of God’s Word) as though they were personally acquainted with him. Sabbitarians make the same mistake by persistently referring to the “moral” and “ceremonial” laws; as though such a distinction occurred on every page of the Scriptures.

A deeper explanation of this error is in order, before we begin studying a refutation of this basic error. The “moral” law is synonymous with God’s law. It is said that God’s law is the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue. It consists of the Ten Laws that God delivered to Moses, and that God wrote with His own finger. According to this view the moral law, or the Ten Commandments was never destroyed, but is yet binding upon us today. Since the law to keep the Sabbath was a part of the moral law, and it is perpetuated upon this dispensation, some denominationalists meet on the Sabbath (Saturday) to worship, and say that we are doing wrong when we meet on the First Day of the week. But’ what about all the Scriptures we. have previously studied that show that the Law of Moses was done away? This is precisely where the significance of their error is seen.

The ceremonial law is the Law of Moses. It consists of all the laws given in the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, except the Ten Commandment Law. Remember, the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20; Dent. 5) are, for these people, a part of the moral law, and were never done away. They say the New Testament scriptures which teach that the Law was done away, apply exclusively to the ceremonial law.. So they profess to believe what the New Testament says about the law (which for them means nothing more than the ceremonial law). So for the Sabbath-keepers that might have been studying with us for the past several weeks, our studies have presented no problems. For each time the Word said the Law was done away, they mentally say, “Yes, but that only refers to the ceremonial law. The Law of God, the Ten Commandment Law, is yet binding upon all men.” We want to study what the Bible says concerning such a distinction. In advance we might say that not only does the Bible fail to make such a distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws, but it contradicts the-making of such a man-made distinction.

We are told that each time the words “the Law of Moses” occur, it means the ceremonial law, and that each time “the Law of God” occurs, it refers to the moral law. But the Bible makes no such distinction. In fact, in several instances in the Scriptures these two terms are used interchangeably. But before we study these instances, let us observe one quotation from an outstanding Sabbatarian. In speaking of this “double law,” he says, “No question, therefore, more vital to the interest of Sabbath-keepers can be proposed” (Synopsis of Present Truth, p. 258). He says this is the most important issue for Sabbath-keeping people, and I concur in this statement, for if this distinction will not stand the test of Bible investigation, neither will their entire religious system. For remove this premise, and the entire foundation for Sabbath (Saturday) day religion is destroyed.

The Terms Are Not Used Interchangeably

So we now want to investigate this all-important premise. First of all, let us study a passage in which the so-called distinctive terms are supposedly used interchangeably. The Law of Moses or the ceremonial law, is said to have been given by God, and the Law of God is said to have been given by Moses. This would once for all destroy such a fundamental premise as this one of the Sabbath religion. At the time of the return of the Israelites from Babylonian captivity, a copy of the Law was discovered, and Neh. 8, tells of the public reading of the Law. The distinctive Sabbatarian terms are used interchangeably. Verse 1 says, “And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.” Verse 2 says, “And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation.” Verse 3 says, “And the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.” We read about those that helped in the understanding of “the law” in verse 7, and verse 8 says, “So they read in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” Verse 14 reads, And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month.” Verse 18 reads, “Also day by day, from the first day into the last day, he read in the book of the law of God.”

Now let us summarize the names by which the Old Covenant is referred to in this chapter. (1) It is called the book of the law of Moses (v. 1); the law, (v. 2); the book of the law (v. 3); the law, (v. 7; the law of God (v. 8); the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses (v. 14); the book of the law of God (v. 18). So the one Law is called both the Law of God, and the Law of Moses. It is the Law of God as given by Moses, and it is he Law of Moses as given by God. No Sabbatarian lives that can harmonize this passage with their so-called “double-law” theory. Remember they say the Law of God refers only to the Ten Commandments, and the Law of Moses refers to the “ceremonial” portions of the old Testament. But in Neh. 8, the Law of God and the Law of Moses are one and the same Law.

The Law Has Been Done Away

The New Testament passages we recently have been studying that state that the Law of Moses was done away, do so by referring to the Law of Moses merely as the Law. For example, in Eph. 2:15, Paul said the Law of commandments was done away in the cross of Christ. In this, he referred to the Old Testament Law. Such is the usage of the word “law” in the book of Romans. But Paul was not using the word “law” to designate either the Law of Moses, nor the Law of God in the nomenclature of denominationalism. He simply is using t to refer to the whole of the Old Covenant.

What does he say about the Old Covenant? We studied last week on the subject of “Spiritual Adultery” as discussed by Paul in Romans 7. The adulterous union was that of trying to be married to the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ at the same time. So he concluded his remarks by saying, “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6). So Paul said that we are no longer under the Law. Notice the usage of the simple expression “the law” in describing our release from it. What is meant by “the law”? Whatever it refers to, it was done away. Not only do we want to learn from this chapter that the law was done away, but we also want to see that “the law” refers to the Ten Commandments.

Paul said, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead” (Rom. 7:7, 8). Paul said that sin was defined by the Law. Later we will study the purpose of the Law, and will learn that one of its purposes was to define adequately the limits of right and wrong. Now the Law, said Paul, states that one is not to covet. Remember it is the Law from which we have been discharged. What is the Law that says one is not to covet? Turn back to the Old Testament and you will find that “Thou shalt not covet” is the tenth commandment in the Ten Commandment Law. So here Paul said that the Ten Commandment Law is called “the law.” Sabbatarians would say that Paul must have used the term “law of God” in order to speak properly of the Ten Commandments. But friend, whose prerogative is it to coin the terms of Scripture? Is it some man’s who has a pet doctrine to defend? Paul knew what he was talking about. He was speaking of the Ten Commandment Law, and he said, from it we have been discharged. There is not a Sabbatarian living that can answer this argument. It is no argument devised by me nor any other man, but it is an argument devised by inspiration by the Apostle Paul. It destroys the only foundation of Sabbatarianism. Paul, in no uncertain terms, said, ‘I am talking about the Ten Commandment Law, and we are now dead to it, or have been discharged from it.’

Conclusion

There is one other misunderstanding that needs to be clarified. Sometimes the people who say the Law of Moses is taken away are called “antinomians,” a term which the people who use it, probably do not understand. It simply means that we are people who are against law, which is a false accusation. We are not against law, but we believe what the Law of Christ says about the Law of Moses being taken out of the way, and nailed to our Savior’s cross. We believe in strict adherence to the Law of Christ, so to apply the term “antinomian” to one who believes thus, is a misnomer. Believing that we are bound by, and will be judged by the Law of Christ, we strive to the extent of our ability to live upright in the sight of God, humbly asking God’s forgiveness when we fall. We exhort people to study and obey the Law of Christ. Believe on Him as the Son of God, repent of your sins, confess your faith in Him, and obey His command to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (This topic will be further discussed in our next article.)

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 3-5
February 19, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question: From Oklahoma: “Des Paul in Acts 20:21 teach the whole plan: of salvation, and do we err in teaching faith must come before repentance?”

Reply: Acts 20:21 is part of Paul’s farewell address to “the elders of the church” in Ephesus (Acts 20:17-38). “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed, you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:20,21).

“Does Acts 20:21 teach the whole plan of: salvation?”

Acts 20:21 says nothing about the divine work which effected the system of salvation. It mentions man’s part, repentance and faith, but it does not allude to God’s love and grace nor to Christ’s selfless sacrifice. Generally speaking, John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world , . .”) comes; nearer to containing “the whole plan of salvation.” It refers to the motivation of God (His love), to the effecting cause of salvation (the gift –death – of Christ), to man’s appropriating response (belief), and to the ultimate reward (everlasting life). It is a spiritual microcosm of the, entire scheme of redemption. Acts 20:21 fails of general consideration in that it does not reckon with the work of God in procuring remission of sins.

No single text lists in detail all the provisions of God or every term of acceptance required of man. This is too obvious to argue. Surely, only a fool would contend that any one passage specifically contains “the whole plan of salvation.” One verse wherein all of God’s acts and the sinner’s requirements are enumerated is not to be found.

Even the Baptists who prompted our inquirer will not say Acts 20:21 specifically includes, “the whole plan of salvation.” What is said of the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart? It is not, in Acts 20:21, but Baptists believe it is as essential to salvation as repentance and faith. So, according to them Acts 20:21 does not incorporate all that is involved in salvation, either generally or specifically. “But,” comes the objection, “repentance and faith assume that the Holy Spirit has done His work in the heart.” True enough, and saving faith assumes obedience (Jas. 2:14-26). Thus, if one can “read” the work of the Holy Spirit into Acts 20:21, he can also “read in” other acts of faith that are necessary to receive remission of sins. See Acts 2:38; 16:30-34; 22:16.

Does Faith Precede Repentance?

From Debate Notes On Baptist Doctrine, by James R. Cope, p. 41, we extract the following comments on Acts 20:21: “If my opponent were preaching to heathen like Paul did in Athens (Acts 17) – heathen who knew not the true God, he would first . . . try to make his listeners believe that there is one true and living God before he began persuading them to repent; so when God alone is mentioned and people who know not God are under consideration they are called upon to believe in God before repenting. On the other hand, where people have known God and sinned against Him they are told to repent toward God for it is literally impossible … for any man who does not believe in God to repent toward God. Likewise when people believe in Jesus Christ as did the Jews on Pentecost as indicated by their question, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ the only sensible reply was the one Peter made when he gave the next step in the gospel order; Repent, and be baptized.’ There is not a passage in the Bible indicating anybody-ever repented or was told to repent toward Jesus Christ before believing in Jesus Christ. In the passages mentioning God and Christ and also repentance and faith, the repentance is always toward one while the faith is toward the other.”

Both Jews and Greeks believed in God, but they had kicked Him out of their lives (Rom. 1:18-32). Paul, therefore, urged repentance toward the God they had disavowed. Then he pressed upon them “faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is logical. Observe the order: (1) Belief in God, but denial of Him; (2) “Repentance toward God” whom they have rejected; (3) “Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Further, the order of appearance does not necessarily indicate the sequence of occurrences. In Romans 10:9, Paul lists confession of Christ before faith in Him. Shall we argue that confession of Jesus precedes faith in Him? In the next verse, Paul reverses the order, placing faith before confession (Rom. 10:10). In Ezekiel 3:10 we find, “Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears.” Is this the order of events? How could he receive words into his heart before he heard them with his ears? Our topic sentence is sustained.

The Order of Baptism And Salvation

Baptists allege that repentance precedes faith because wherever the two are named, repentance is listed first. Take that principle and apply it to baptism and salvation. Wherever baptism and forgiveness of sins or its equivalent are mentioned, baptism always comes before salvation. (1) Mk. 16:16-baptism and salvation. (2) Acts 2:38-baptism and remission of sins. (3) Acts 22:16-Baptism and forgiveness. (4) Rom. 6:3, 4-baptized into Christ, raised to walk in newness of life. (5) Gal. 3:27-baptized into Christ. (6) 1 Pet. 3:21-baptism saves us. Will the Baptists accept their own law, of order? If the reference to repentance before faith proves that’ repentance “comes before” faith, does the mention of baptism before salvation prove that baptism comes before salvation? Why not? It is a poor rule that will not work both ways.

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 2
February 19, 1976

By Mike Willis

When God called us out of darkness and into His marvelous light, He used rewards to give us incentive to leave the darkness and to come to Him. One of the rewards is evident from the following quotation:

“Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate, says the Lord.

And do not touch what is unclean;

And I will welcome you.

And I will be a Father to you,

And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,

Says the Lord Almighty” (1 Cor. 6:17-18).

The promise of sustaining a Father-child relationship to God is sufficient to motivate us to leave the world and turn to God. Growing out of this relationship to God as children is our relationship to one another as brethren. The term “brethren” is used numerous times in the Scriptures to designate fellow-Christians. Thus, in any study of the descriptive terms applied to Christians, we must consider the terms “children” and “brethren.”

Child: A Vertical Relationship

John said, “See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are” (1 Jn. 3:1). When one considers all of the possible relationships which one could sustain to God (e.g. the relationship of enemies, a relationship similar to that of deistic theology, etc), he should marvel that God has so richly blessed us in allowing us to sustain the intimate relationship of Father-child to Him. Our relationship to Him as His children comes from our new birth. His seed abides in us; we are born of God (1 Jn. 3:9). The words of inspiration use the terms descriptive of physical birth to refer to our spiritual descent from God. The seed which is used to beget us is the word of God (1 Pet. 1:23f; 1 Cor. 4:15). Paul referred to this process when he wrote, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ” (Gal. 3:26,27). Every person who has been born again is a child of God.

There are some important blessings which come from being a child of God. (1) An Intimate Relationship to God. Paul wrote, “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ ” (Gal. 4:6). Again, “For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!'” (Rom. 8:15). The emphasis of these verses is our attitude toward God; we do not approach Him as a slave does his master but as a son does his father. “Abba” is “an Aramaic word. . . . It approximates to a personal name, in contrast to ‘Father,’ with which it is always joined in the N.T. . . . ‘Abba’ is the word framed by the lips of infants, and betokens unreasoning trust; ‘father’ expresses an intelligent apprehension of the relationship. The two together express the love and intelligent confidence of the child” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. I, p. 9). “Abba” corresponds more nearly to “Da-da,” the first word framed by infants in English, than to any other English word. Our relationship to God is described by this intimate human relationship.

(2) His Concern Over Our Prayers. Because of our relationship to God, we can approach Him in prayer as “Our Father who art in heaven” (Mt. 6:9). (This blessing is not available to any non-children.) Because of this relationship, we know that God listens to and answers our prayers. Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one who asks receives; and he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks it shall be opened. Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Mt. 7:7-11). Reflecting this confidence, John wrote, “And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him” (1 Jn. 5:14,15). The spirit of fear is removed because of our new relationship to God.

(3) Our Heirship. As children of God, we are also heirs of God. Paul said, “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow-heirs with Christ . . .” (Rom. 8:16-17). I do not know everything involved in the idea of being an heir of God, but it is certainly a blessing far superior to being the heir of a rich father on earth!

Because we are descendants of God, we should do our best to imitate our Father. Paul said, “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children” (Eph. 5:1). I can remember, as a child, helping my Daddy plant a garden. We always borrowed a mule which was blind in one eye from my Uncle Jim to plow our garden. I used to walk behind my Daddy trying my best to follow in his tracks. I sometimes had to jump from one footprint to the next but I always tried to imitate him. I can also remember the times when I wanted to be a log-hauler just like Daddy. Similarly, we who are children of God ought to imitate our Father. As children, we best imitate God by walking in the light as He is in the light (1 Jn. 3:9-10). The child who imitates God will strive to be as morally pure as is possible.

Brother: A Horizontal Relationship

Whereas the word “child” refers to our relationship to God, “brother” refers to our relationship to each other. Every person who is born of God is my brother or sister; where God has a child, I have a brother. Every person who obeys the Father is a brother or sister of Jesus and of every other obedient person (Mt. 12:46-50). The word “brother” is thrown around so frequently and commonly around the church building that we seldom stop to think what is conveyed by that term. It asserts that we sustain a relationship to one another similar to that which one sustains toward his fleshly siblings. We are brothers and sisters to one another. Regardless of the fact that you were born in the Philippines and I was born in Texas, that you might be black and I am white, that you might speak Italian and I speak English, that you might be rich and I am a middle-income person, we are brothers to one another. We are both descendants of the same Father.

This fact should effect our relationship to one another. Brethren are expected to conduct themselves differently toward each other than unrelated persons do (cf. 1 Cor. 6:8; 1 Tim. 6:2). Because we are brethren, we ought to come to the assistance of each other whenever help is needed. John wrote, “Every one who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 Jn. 3:15-17). Sometimes, the assistance we give is in time of a spiritual, rather than a financial, crisis. Paul admonished, “Brethren, even if a man ii caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

These facts are so frequently overlooked by Christians that it is not unusual to hear someone referring to “Brother ___________” while he figuratively is knifing him in the back. We must treat one another as brethren. A little less referring to one another as “brother” and a little more treating one another as brethren would not hurt the body of Christ.

Conclusion

Are you a child of the Father? If you have never been born again, you are not a child of God and do not enjoy the benefits pertaining thereto. You do not even have the right to petition God as your “Father who is in heaven.” If you are a child of God, do you treat His other children as your brethren? Do you conduct yourself as brothers and sisters should? If not, you may fancy yourself to be a Christian but you are not worthy to wear that precious name because all Christians are brethren. If you do not act as a child, in imitating your Father, and as a brother, in your conduct toward His other children, you are not a faithful Christian.

Truth Magzine, XX:7, p. 12-14
February 12, 1976

By Mike T. Rogacs

The following is a letter recently received commenting on an article I submitted to Truth Magazine and which was printed in the October 16, 1975 issue of the Magazine. You might wish to refer to the article entitled “Comments On Teaching.” The brother who made the following comments remains anonymous unless in the future he wishes to be known. His letter was as follows:

Dear Brother Rogacs:

I appreciated your article in Truth Magazine “Comments On Teaching”. But I am afraid you are fighting a lost cause.

We have been conditioned down thru the years to have some one do our thinking for us in the church. We are spectators and do not really participate.

People are not allowed to develop their talents in the church today – as they were years ago. They don’t feel a part of the Body as they used to.

How long has it been where you worship since some (layman)? was asked to prepare a lesson and present it to the family? Today we have 1 salesman, 1 problem solver, 1 man – “the” minister as if the Lord had only ONE minister in the body. You just can’t have only one minister and expect the people to take an interest unless they are encouraged or motivated by the Rulers – (they have to, have a change of mind or attitude) or you will always be doing the work of the whole church (I am assuming you are “the minister” since as far as I know only “the ministers” are the only ones who write in Truth Magazine.)

Respectfully;

As follows, I wrote this reply to the letter, and I submit both for the edification of you the reader:

Dear Brother

I thank you for your kind comment of appreciation of my article in Truth about teaching. But I do believe that you have assumed too much and do indeed show the very reason why I wrote that article.

First of all, I refer to your asking how long it has been since some LAYMAN preached here. I do not like the term layman. It is denominational. It begs the question and demands the presence of a preacher – layman distinction. I hope you used it in jest – or something of the like – and that you do realize that ALL Christians are ministers of the gospel. I am not “THE” in here. I am an evangelist, yes. If you will study the scriptures more closely, you will understand that an evangelist is a man who has the desire to devote his FULL TIME to ministering the gospel to the world. As far as I am concerned, if such was possible, there could be several full time ministers of the gospel in one congregation. But always remember that EVERY Christian is a minister of the gospel though he may devote the major portion of his earthly time to seeking sustenance for his family needs.

But I will agree with you, too many members have conditioned THEMSELVES to believe that there is only one minister to a congregation. This is the need I have seen and of which I have written. And so I have always encouraged the brethren of the congregation (ministers of the gospel who work at other jobs) to do all the teaching they possibly can in assembly. You asked when did they last preach? Well, here at the Capps Road congregation in Harrison, Arkansas; two brethren preached the two Lord’s Day lessons just two weeks ago (this is in November). Also, we devote one Wednesday night a month for preaching by the members. We always ask two of the men (young or older) to prepare a lesson and give it on that evening. So, in November, four different men (two young and two older) chose to speak. This shows both my desire and the desire of this church to give all men the opportunity to teach publicly. (And again you are incorrect if you feel that evangelists are the only ones who write for Truth Magazine.)

Again I notice that you commented that we evangelists (or as you say “THE” minister) “do the thinking” for the membership. I realize that there would be a tendency for such to develop, and this is yet another reason for that article. I have always insisted that the people listening to my lessons study the topic on their own. I insist, but few do so. But if few do so, this does not make the practice of using an evangelist unscriptural. It only shows that individual Christians are too often lazy with their faith. (On the subject of evangelists, notice that God ordained that such should exist – Eph. 4:11. All Christians minister, but God chose to have evangelists, elders and teachers. Not included in this list is the duty of the deacon. Notice then that Philip and Timothy are two famous evangelists-men who devoted their full efforts to preaching and ministering the gospel – Acts 21:8; 2 Tim. 4:5. Be also aware that even elders can be full time workers in the Lord’s vineyard – 1 Tim. 5:17-18.)

Your attitude on this matter also shows a fearful misunderstanding of another point: that teaching is not to be limited to the assembly! Your attitude expresses the belief of too many people (again they have conditioned themselves to take this attitude) that teaching is only to be done in assembly. In my article I was hoping to express the thought that teaching outside of assembly to the lost of the world is too often neglected by the members of the congregation. Again too many people think that a chosen few should be the “personal workers” of the church and the preacher and the elders end up doing most of the outside teaching. It is my firm conviction that the scriptures press for preaching and teaching to the lost by every single Christian. This, has to be outside of assembly. The lost who need salvation are usually outside of assembly and will never attend an assembly of God’s people unless and until they are approached by and taught by one of God’s children. This is what I mean when I say that the scriptures teach that every Christian is a minister of the gospel unto the lost and unto fellow brethren.

Where will the Christian who is a woman teach if teaching be only in assembly? 1 Cor. 14:34 instructs that women should be kept silent in the assemblies. Yet women are to teach others. I submit that the Bible is clear in teaching that all women should teach when they can outside of the assembly of the church. Look at the following examples-Acts 18:24-28; Phil. 4:2-3; Titus 2:3-5. No, indeed! Teaching and the necessity of all Christians to teach has not become a “lost cause” because evangelists do most of the teaching in assemblies. Even if there existed no evangelists; there would hardly be enough time for all Christian men to get the necessary amount of teaching (which they should do) done by preaching in the assembly! Some are too shy to do public teaching, but all can teach from house to house. And congregations are often too large to afford the opportunity for many to teach. We in Harrison afford the opportunities to preach to the men NOT so that they can say “I have done my teaching for the year” but so they can get a taste of the teaching they should be doing at all possible times! Take for instance the church in Jerusalem. From the first the congregation was at least 2,000 people strong. As it continued to grow, think of the size! Could the men do all the teaching a Christian SHOULD do in the public assemblies only? No, indeed. So we come to the purpose of evangelists and other public teachers as did the apostles in Jerusalem and all teachers everywhere, public teachers teach the gospel so that Christians can learn what and how to teach on their own! Very few people are converted in assemblies. Assemblies are for the worship of God, for the building up of the body of Christ AND for the instruction on how to take the gospel to the world. (That is the work of the church in assemblies and out of assemblies – Eph. 4:11-15; 3:8-10; 2 Tim. 2:2; etc.)

Again I state that the work of an evangelist in a congregation is scriptural. Any ills that some have imposed upon themselves and others by assuming that the preacher is the only minister in the church and is the only one who is supposed to teach and do other aspects of personal work (visiting the sick and spiritually weak, etc.) come from their own lazy approach to Christianity and not from the existence and work of an evangelist. I do hope that you are not one of my brethren who believe that there should not exist any located or full time preachers. If indeed you do believe such, please consider the following passages: I Cor. 9:6-16, especially verses 11 and 14; 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Timothy, Philip, Titus, Stephen, Barnabas and several other evangelists listed in the scriptures could not possibly have served the gospel as they were required unless they were indeed rewarded with carnal blessings for their spiritual work. Remember, even elders can be full time laborers in the kingdom (1 Tim. 5:17-18).

I hope that these comments will be taken in the spirit of love in which they were given, and that they will benefit your study on this matter. I wish to send these comments along with your letter (minus your name) to Truth Magazine. I do not usually do such, but I believe that your comments and my reply might be of benefit to others. Again, thank you for your comments and interest in this subject. Continue to study.

In Christ,

Mike T. Rogacs, your brother in the Lord and an evangelist for Him.

The letter is finished. I have presented the two for your benefit. I pray that the intended purpose is clear. I must add that I made slight corrections to the wording and spelling in both letters. The changes were not substantial.

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 11-12
February 12, 1976