Truth Magazine

By Donald P Ames

For several years I have noted a growing practice that I feel weeds some attention focused on it. We have too many “elders” today who have been appointed to oversee and feed the local flock of God who have absolutely no contact, or very little at best, with the local congregation and thus are totally unable to function as God would desire for them to function. They are often men of ability and influence, and no one doubts but what they may do and have done a lot of good-when they are home. But, they cannot function as true elders because they cannot fulfill the obligations God has placed upon elders. In my opinion, such men ought to be honest with themselves, and if they cannot do the work expected of them, to resign! It would not be a reflection against their ability or teaching or work, but would stand as a tribute to their honest evaluation of their responsibility and ability to function in so important a work as that of an elder over the local flock of God.

“Among Them”

Elders have a responsibility to feed the flock of God “among them” (Acts 14:23, 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). How can they properly determine the quality feed needed or what is being fed the flock when they are not present and have very little contact with the saints themselves? I am not-affirming they must be present locally every Sunday, as they may have close contact and working relations during the week as well. But we do have “elders” who are hardly present any Sunday, and have very little contact with the members during the week either.

We often rebuke the liberals for one set of elders trying to oversee two different congregations, and used to heavily criticize the Herald of Truth for their “traveling elders” who went about the U. S. promoting and begging for their organization. But what is the difference in that and appointing elders who are never home “among” the flock of God anyway? How can one effectively oversee and feed the flock of God among them when they are not among them; when they have virtually no contact with the local church except once a month to be present at he business meeting-and sometimes not even that often? Is there really any difference in effect? Whether it be due to working in another area, preaching, visiting or whatever, absent elders cannot truly oversee and determine the proper feed needed by the local flock of God without being “among” them. Thus the importance of the local situation demands the elders be with those who are present, and “among them.” If an elder finds he cannot be present and has little local contact, he is doing God a disservice in continuing to oversee a flock he is no longer “among.”

“Be Examples”

A second duty of elders is to be examples to the local flock, as seen in 1 Pet. 5:3. Now, obviously, if they are going to serve as examples to the flock, it follows they are going to have to be seen by the flock! They are to be held up as a “model” to the flock, to set the example in teaching, doctrine, living, etc. They are to be known by those in the community in that they portray good influence among them as well (1 Tim. 3:7). Can a “usually absent elder” fulfill these qualifications?

Can weak and unfaithful members be encouraged to faithful attendance by an elder who is not there to encourage and set the example? Are they even aware he is attending when he is normally absent (some do not!)? Does not his absence say other things have a greater priority? Can young people be admonished to look up to elders who are never present or in attendance in Bible classes as truly being leaders in the local congregation? Do they not come to feel other things are allowed to have a priority, and all God requires is that we be sure to be present once a month to make the business meeting? What do they have to show them otherwise?

Not only does the responsibility of being an elder require one to know the flock of God by being “among them,” but to be an example to that flock of what God would have them do. Elders cannot serve as examples of the flock when they cannot be seen by the local flock! Many today are indeed poor “examples” in this point.

“Watch For Souls”

Again, in Heb. 13:17, we are admonished to “obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who would give an account.” To watch over the souls of others is a grave responsibility. Those who do so properly do so as if they “would give an account” – as if they were personally held liable for them! This requires elders who care, who realize the importance of each soul, and who want to do something about wayward souls. Thus, it requires that they be present to “watch” for those souls! Many elders today feel all there is to being elders is attending a business meeting once a month and determine what they are going to spend a little money for. They prefer to “let the preacher do the rest.” I am not excusing the preacher from his responsibility, but likewise, true elders cannot shirk theirs either. This is one reason we have so much problem with “preacheritis” in churches today and a lack of true leadership by the elders within the local congregation. When problems arise, everyone turns to the preacher. Elders have abdicated their responsibility!

If an elder is gone all month pursuing his secular work, gone every week preaching, incapacitated in bed for months on end, or traveling about the nation on a begging campaign for some project or organization, how can he “watch” for souls in need of guidance and strengthening? If he had to actually give an account for each lost soul, would it make any difference in his willingness to serve? (We will you know – Gal. 6:1, Acts 20:26-27, Ezek. 3:16-20, etc.). If a shepherd spends all his time chasing the wolf farther and farther away down the valley and over hills from where the flock is feeding, who is going to tend and shepherd the flock left behind as an easy prey while he is gone? Who will be on hand to stop false men who arise among them, speaking false doctrine to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30)? Who will seek the strays?

Brethren, this is not an indictment against elders. We have many dedicated and faithful elders, and I admire and thank God for every one of them. But, let us be honest in our evaluation of the work God has designed for them and in the men we have selected for that work, that we might have elders who can truly serve as God would have them do. Then we would find the local flock growing, unfaithful members being restored, preachers left free to preach, and elders who are recognized as the spiritual leaders of the flock of God. The church would be stronger, in many cases internal strife would cease, and young people would grow to respect and seek to pattern themselves after those dedicated to the important work of saving souls. Indeed, to seek the office of an elder is a “fine work” (1. Tim. 3:1). Now, let us be sure we fulfill it as God requires of us (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 10-11
January 29, 1976

By David A. Webb

Some time ago I had the privilege of hearing Brother Joe Corley of Dothan, Alabama preaching in a gospel meeting at the Northside Church of Christ in Jonesboro, Arkansas. In the sermon, which dealt with “The Power of the Gospel,” Brother Corley ably illustrated the duel effect that the preaching of the gospel would produce. Some, upon hearing the word, were convicted of their sins and humbly turned in obedience to God (Acts 2). Others, upon hearing the same word, would rebel against the truth, sometimes in a rather violent way (Acts 7). In each case the simple truth was declared. This was the truth that could lead the hearers to salvation.

But why did the same truth receive a variety of reactions? The fault did not lie in the gospel itself nor in the preacher and the manner in which he revealed it. The fault was in the hearts of the hearers themselves. Some hearts were receptive to the gospel. Those hearers would obey whatever was required of them. On the other hand, some hearts were filled with pride, arrogance and a desire to please self. These hearers would obey only that with which they agreed. But let someone expose the sin in their life and they would become rebellious and reject not only the truth but also the one who delivered that truth.

This point in Brother Corley’s sermon caused me to think of the mistakes many of us make in “holding back” certain things our hearers may need to be told. We sometimes feel that by teaching on certain subjects we may alienate certain people from the gospel altogether. So we reason that once these individuals become “grounded,” we will begin to introduce them to other truths which deal with serious problems in their lives. While our reasoning may sound valid, it is not! The apostle Paul would have simply labeled this reasoning as “shunning to declare the whole counsel of God.”

As gospel preachers and teachers, we need to simply preach and teach the gospel, the whole gospel. Some of those in sin will respond by obeying those precepts, and others will rebel and turn away. If any are lost the fault will not lie in the gospel or in us for exposing their sins to them, the fault will lie in their own rebellious hearts.

God has not given us the privilege of selecting which parts of His word we will teach and which parts we will not teach. Since we do not know how anyone will react to truth, God expects us to teach it all. Paul did, and he was able to say, “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you . . . Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:20, 26-27).

Thank you, Brother Corley.

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 9
January 29, 1976

By H. L. Bruce

(Editor’s Note: This is the third of a three-part series on marriage. We suggest you read the articles in our previous issues before proceeding to this one.)

There is a growing tendency among many preachers, elders and other teachers to circumvent marital issues and let people pursue whatever course they desire without reprimand or censure. This is particularly true with regard to the status of the guilty parties in remarriage as discussed in our earlier article, and whether or not there is any such thing as an alien sinner living in adultery. To many these subjects are sort of the “hot potato” type and should be minimized because of their disturbing nature among brethren, and the tendency for lines to be drawn once positions are well defined and known.

Yet there are some who choose the alternate course. Among them someone will contend that God doesn’t take any particular note of the marital status of the alien sinner; that the alien is not under God’s law and is under only civil law. Regardless of what he does, that God does not reckon with other than the fact that he is an alien sinner.

Stating the Issue

Specifically, it is reasoned if he is a habitual drunkard, fornicator, or, if he marries and divorces repetitiously for various causes irrespective of whether or not fornication is involved as a reason for dismissing his companion, that such is not of particular note in God’s sight, and that he being an alien sinner, such specifics are not indictable, as such in God’s mind. According to that line of reasoning one could divorce a companion, without fornication being the reason, and could remarry and adultery would not be chargeable in any event owing to the idea that God does not take note of the specifics on the part of the alien sinner.

Extending the Problem

However, as the theory goes, if such a person obeys the Gospel, he may keep the present companion, be it his first, his fifth or whatever, there is absolutely no need for any companion to be put away. From thence forth he must be exceedingly cautious though, for God then begins to take note of his specifics and if he puts away a companion for other than fornication, and marries another he is guilty of adultery.

There are those who actually argue the above case. Many others believe it sort of “underground” without arguing it. The conclusions and practices of yet others are of such nature, that while disclaiming the view, they could not effectively offer refutable argument against it.

The Basic Fallacy

Now that the case has been stated, is it right? Or, is it wrong? If it is right, where are the scriptures which so teach? If, on the other hand, it is wrong, just where does the basic and fundamental fallacy reside?

My friends, the theory is wrong and the basic fallacy resides in an assumption which has never been proven and which is unprovable-namely: that God does not take note of the specific sins of alien sinners.

The truth of the matter is that God, through the Holy Spirit has assured us that He does take note of the specific sins of the alien sinner. This assurance is clearly revealed in the scripture and not only indicates that the alien specifically sins, but that his sins will be a factor in his eternal destiny.

Scriptural Facts

First let us note what Paul indicated about specific guilt at Corinth among those who were then disciples, but with regard to their condition before they obeyed the Gospel: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

According to this some of the Corinthians were not only guilty before their having obeyed the Gospel, but certain specific sins were noted of which they had been charged. Among the specific sins of which they were guilty before their having been washed, sanctified and justified, one will observe the particular mention of adultery. This being true the possibility is sustained of one being specifically charged with such guilt before he obeys the gospel.

But please note again, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupesence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: for which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in the which ye also walked sometime when you lived in them” (Col. 3:5-7). Indicated in this scripture . is the fact that the Colossians had previously been guilty of these specifics and that contemporary children of disobedience then were, and because of these very things God would execute his wrath upon them. My friends, in view of this, answer for yourself: does this sound as if God does not take note of specific sins of alien sinners?

Adulterers Recourse

At this point many become concerned about another angle of the subject at hand. If it is true that aliens are amenable to God’s law on marriage, and there is such a thing as an alien sinner living in adultery, what recourse would he have upon his obedience to the Gospel. Some reason that among the converts of the First Century there surely must have been just such individuals who were living with companions far removed from the first and that it was quite likely that the first companion was discharged for reasons other than fornication. Now that being assumed, “Just where is the example of any such, said, person being told that he, or, she must separate from his, or, her present companion?” we are asked! From this line of thought the conclusion is sometimes reached that since we have no example of such person being told to break-up an adulterous relationship that such admonition should not be given today.

While we are on the examples let us not let this fact escape us: while it is true that we have no examples of any inspired man specifically admonishing any one to break-up an adulterous relationship upon his obedience to the gospel, it is also true that there is no specific example of such problem being recorded. Consequently in the example-family there is more than one member absent!

Example vs. Consequences

As many have argued all along, there is far more involved in any taught topic than what is learned from “example.” Let us consider “consequences” for just a moment! If the fact be sustained that an adulterous relationship exists before obedience to the Gospel and that obedience does not sanctify an otherwise sinful marriage the question is still extant as to what recourse does the adulterer have remaining? It is not merely a question of whether or not we find an example of adulterers being told to separate, but what are the consequences of the their abiding in adultery and thus facing God in the Judgment? What are their alternatives? The Bible teaches that adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal. 5:19-21). This being true, their alternatives are quite clear: they either repent of and discontinue their sin according to the will of God; or they continue in their adultery and face God in the Judgment and not go to Heaven. Obviously this point turns upon something other than what was exemplified; namely, the consequence of abiding in a sinful state until the Judgment.

Significance of Taking a Stand

This subject is too important to be ignored. If people are given the wrong information and are led to believe that they are alright without correcting their sinful condition and thus face God in the Judgment their souls will be doomed to a Devil’s Hell. Also, if the subject is avoided in favor of a more popularity enhancing variety, many will no doubt, err through a lack of being properly grounded. The only other alternative is that the truth be studied, loved and taught, that dangers may be avoided, souls restored and heaven gained. “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, nor whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 21:27).

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 7-8
January 29, 1976

By John McCort

(All of the material in this series of articles has been gleaned by researching materials compiled by other authors. I make no claim to originality. Some of the material in this opening article is taken from Homer Hailey’s published notes on Mormonism. Much of the material in later articles came from outlines and original source materials supplied by Bro. Bob West of St. Petersburg, Florida. This material was compiled during my study for a debate with the Mormons which was cancelled shortly before it was to take place.)

Every false system of religion is based upon some fundamental error that church tradition carries equal authority with the Bible in matters of religion. Calvinism is based upon the false concept of predestination; Likewise, Mormonism is built upon the sandy foundation of latter day revelation. The uniqueness of the Mormon claim is based upon the assumption that God continues to reveal saving truth through modern day prophets. Modern day revelations of truth from God are the taproot of the whole Mormon system. If this concept can be destroyed the whole system of Mormon theology will collapse.

The New Covenant

The Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is the new covenant. “And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them” (Doctrines And Covenants, 84:57). “Behold I say unto you, that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing, and this is a new and everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning . . . . For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this covenant and this church to be built up unto me” (Doctrines And Covenants, 22:1, 3).

This teaching contradicts what the New Testament claims for itself. The writer of Hebrews states that the New Testament is the new covenant (Heb. 8:6-13). When Jesus died the new covenant was instituted with his blood (Heb. 9:16-22; Matt. 26:28). If the Book of Mormon is the new covenant, and all old covenants were done away with, that means that the New Testament was done away with. Heb. 13:20 states that the new covenant is an eternal covenant. Since the new covenant is eternal then it could not be done away with.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second . . . . In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxed old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:6, 7, 13). The writer argues that if the first covenant had been perfect there would have been no need for a second covenant. Since the new covenant is eternal (Hob. 13:20), it must be perfect. Using the logic of the writer of Hebrews, “If the second covenant were faultless there would be no need for a third covenant.” The Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon is a new and eternal covenant would render the Bible imperfect.

. . . by so much He is also the Mediator of a better covenant which was built on better promises” (Heb. 8:6). Since the New Testament is built upon better promises than the Old Testament, that would mean that the Book of Mormon is built upon better promises than the New Testament. I wonder what better promises it could be built upon? What better promise is there than the prospect of eternal salvation in heaven?

“For the priesthood being changed, a change of law must also come about” (Heb. 7:12). The law cannot be changed without a corresponding change in the priesthood and vice-versa. The Levitical priesthood was abolished (Heb. 7:11). The new priesthood of Christ is unchangeable (Heb. 7:24) and eternal (Heb. 5:6). The Book of Mormon and other latter day revelations represent a change in law, especially in light of the claim that the Book of Mormon is the new and everlasting covenant. Thus, a change in the law would make necessary a change in the priesthood which is now unchangeable and eternal. Therefore the law of Christ contained in the New Testament is eternal and unchangeable.

“Who also made us able ministers of the new covenant … ” (2 Cor. 3:6). “. . . by so much He is also the Mediator of a better covenant . . .” (Heb. 8:6). The apostles were able ministers of the new covenant. The apostles were not ministers of the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Book of Mormon is not the new covenant. Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant of which the apostles were able ministers. The Book of Mormon is not the new covenant of which the apostles were able ministers. Thus, Jesus is not the mediator of the Book of Mormon.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). All Scripture, both. the Old and New Testament, is inspired. Peter said that Paul’s epistles were inspired Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). If the Scriptures make a man perfect (complete) there is no need for the Book of .Mormon. How can perfection be improved upon?

The Things Of God .

“Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me . . .” (John 17:7). All things from the Father were delivered unto the Son. The Son delivered all things to the apostles. The Book of Mormon was not given to the apostles. Therefore the Book of Mormon is not from the Father. If the apostles were given all things they needed nothing more.

“But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to you remembrance all things, whatsoever I have said unto you …. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come” (John 14:26; 16:13). Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. The Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles into the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Book of Mormon is not truth inspired by the Holy Spirit.

“According to his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet. 1:3). All things have been given unto us that pertains to life and godliness. God did not give New Testament Christians the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Book of Mormon is not, necessary to life or godliness. If we have all things that pertain to life and godliness then what could the Book of Mormon possibly have that the Christian would need?

“Though we or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let-him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). The angel Moroni supposedly appeared to Joseph Smith and told him where he could find the Book of Mormon written on some golden plates which would contain new truth. Anything which is essential to salvation is gospel. The apostle Paul stated that the curse of God rests upon him who preaches another gospel. The Book of Mormon is “.another gospel”, a new covenant. The “gospel of Mormonism” was not preached by the apostles. Thus, he who preaches “Mormonism” is under a curse.

Essential to Salvation?

There is one question that is devastating to the whole concept of latter day revelation. Does the Book of Mormon (or any other inspired Mormon literature) contain anything essential to salvation that I cannot find in the Bible? Could one follow the New Testament today, obey its commands, and go to heaven without the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon contains anything essential to salvation then it is “another gospel.” Paul said that anybody who preached another gospel was under a curse. If the Book of Mormon contains nothing that is essential to salvation, then what useful purpose could the Book of Mormon serve to a Christian?

“For the married woman is bound by law to the living husband. But if the husband dies, she is freed from the law of her husband. So, then, while the husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. So that, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of Christ, in order for you to become Another’s (who was raised from among the dead so that we could bear fruit to God” (Rom. 7:2-4). When Christ instituted the new covenant with his blood he also abolished the old covenant. Paul argues in this passage that Christians cannot be under two covenants (laws) at the same time without committing spiritual adultery. The New Testament claims to be the new covenant. The Book of Mormon claims to be the new and everlasting covenant. We cannot be under both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon since both claim to be the new covenant.

“and exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). “The faith” signifies that body of doctrine which is believed. “The faith” was delivered by God and was not discovered. “Once for all” signifies that the faith was once and for all time delivered unto the saints. Heb. 10:10 states that Jesus was crucified “once for all.” If the faith delivered unto the saints was not a final and complete revelation then the sacrifice of Christ was not a final and complete sacrifice. Both were “once for all.”

The whole system of Mormon theology completely unwinds when deprived of the latter day revelation concept. In dealing with Mormonism, all other issues are subsidiary to the latter day revelation issue. Thus, the Scriptures strike a death blow to the very heart of Mormonism.

(Continued next week)

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 5-7
January 29, 1976