Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

(1) One may extol the virtues of morality, bravery, kindness, and humility but be possessed of none of them. One may excoriate the vices of intemperance, cowardice, harshness, and arrogance but be polluted with all of them.

(2) Are you familiar with the expression, “Be not deceived?” Even casual students of the Bible recognize it. Wherever and whenever you find the expression, be prepared to confront an absolute truth. When the Spirit says, “Be not deceived,” He is saying, in our language, “Do not make auy mistake about it; here is the way it is; what follows is the truth and any other idea is wrong.” The statement is doctrine’s way of securing rapt attention, for a certain fact is to be set forth. See 1 Cor. 15:33 and Gal. 6:7, 8.

(3) We may also learn from the term, “Beware.” It was a favorite word of the Master—“But beware of men” (Matt. 10:17); “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Saducees” (Matt, 16:6): “Take heed and beware of covetousness” (Lk. 12:15). Where and when do we use the word, “beware?” It is always in the face of crisis and danger. It is never used lightly. One must beware of a Cobra bite not of a mosquito. No one picks up a sign saying, “Beware, Wet Paint!” But we are quick to warn, “Beware of fallen rock.” So, let us not take the term lackadaisicallv when we find it in Scripture. It is a word of exclamation and of extreme peril; so, beware when you see the word, “beware.”

(4) “Blessed is the man that walketb not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners. nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful, But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night’ (Psa. 1:1, 2). Upon what do you meditate in your mind and conversation? Is it sports, soap operas, the stock market, materialistic plans? What? If so, you are not the one who is “blessed,” “O how love I thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psa. 119:97). Is it yours?

Truth Magazine XX: 44, p. 690
November 4, 1976

By Luther Blackmon

I think it likely that few, if any of jis, have the ability to examine our own motives and conduct with absolute fairness and honesty. Burns, the Scotcb poet, recognized this fact when be expressed the desire that we might have the gift to “see ourselves as others see us.” This might not be flattering, but I dare say it would make most of us more humble. However, the important thing is not so much how others see us, but how God sees us. And be sure that God sees us as we really are. A pious air and ontward show may conceal our sins from the multitudes for a time, but they are only a transparent veneer through which God sees a wretched hypocrite.

There are several reasons why it is difficult for us to examine ourselves without partiality. One is our inclination to measure ourselves by others. The man, for example, who lacks the moral courage to turn his back on the world and obey the gospel, can always find a convenient hypocrite to hide behind.

The unfaithful Christian who no longer finds happiness in the fellowship of the saints, and who finds church attendance boresome and tiring, can always find some brotber who beats his debts or takes a few drinks. Then he begins to look at all Christians through this shabby specimen and derides that church attendance can add nothing to his righteous life. If we must compare ourselves with others, why not pick the. best ones? This is seldom, if ever, done for two reasons. (1) It would not serve our purpose. (2) One who is sincere enough to make such a comparison as this would not long be out there with the devil’s goat. They are measuring themselves and comparing themselves among themselves.” and “are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).

Again we hesitate to sound the depths of our own souls because we fear the results. In this we are like the man who refuses to submit to physical examination, because he fears the diagnosis, as if refusing to face the truth could cure the disease. I am, convinced, from my own past experience, tbat many members of the church could not live with their consciences if they should, in all honesty and candor, search their own hearts in the light of truth. Man at his best cuts a sorry figure when measured by God’s standard of righteousness. And man is seldom at his best.

Once more, we shrink back from an impartial self-examination because of our pride in our own strength. Human vanity is a powerful influence. It takes more spiritual and moral courage than some people can ever muster to say, “I was wrong.” However if we but knew it, man is never really strong until his strength gives way to the strength that comes from above . .. . . . for my strepgtb is macle perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Cbrist may rest upon me. Therefore, I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:9-10).

Truth Magazine XX: 44, p. 690
November 4, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From the Republic of the Philippines: First of all let me state the following; Division in the churches of Christ, originated in your country (&.S.A.). The issues are purely American principles. I mean, as far as I know, the churches of Christ in the United States are the only ones who are practicing these issues, the church’s money, how it is to be used. Now, my questions are:

1. Is there a division between the so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ churches of Christ here in the Philippines?

2. Are they who are members of a certain congregation (the so-called liberals) to be condemned in the judgment though they are not practicing and will not be practicing beyond the things which are written (1 Cor. 4:6)?

3. Is there a pattern for us to follow in congregational cooperation in helping the needy and spreading the gospel?”

Reply:

Comment On Opening Remarks

Our brother’s opening remarks need some clarification. Yes, historically, division in churches of Christ “originated” in the United States, but “the issues” are not “purely American principles.” The issues are purely New Testament principles. Anywhere the Lord’s people are located, the use of the church’s money is an issue. There may not be digression and division as there is in America, but it is an issue. “How?” you ask. By the very fact that it is part of New Testament teaching, it is an issue. That Scripture implies “church money” and that it was used and is to be used, makes it an issue wherever and whenever Christians congregate and commune.

The division “originated in the United States,” but New Testament teaching and practice regarding the church’s money and how it is to be used did not originate in the United States. Our brother confuses these two items and mixes them as one. Thus, he concludes, “The issues are purely American principles.” Again, division “originated” in this country, but New Testament principles and practices concerning “church money and how it is to be used” was originated by the Lord, revealed by the Spirit and propagated by the apostles.

1. Answer to First Question: Yes, there is division among churches of Christ in the Philippines, Unless our brother is extremely isolated, it is inconceivable that he could ask this question for information’s sake. His other inquiries are evidence that he is aware of division.

2. Answer to Second Question: This question is difficult to answer because it begins with a premise. which is denied in the last segment of the sentence. If a church does not go beyond the things which are written (1 Cor. 4:6), it is not a liberal church.

The judgment will be on an individual basis. Congregations, as such, will not be condemned in the judgment. Individuals will be (Matt. 25; Gal. 6:9; Rev. 2:18-23). Churches are judged by the Lord in this life (Rev. 2:5; 3:1-5), but not all individuals in a “dead” church will be lost (Rev. 3:1-5). The Lord did not tell the saints at Sardis to stay where sin was advanced or where false doctrine could not be exposed. He did not tell them to leave, but other passages require this course (Phil. 3:16, 17; 4:9; Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Jn. 9-1 Eph. 5:11; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 5:20).

Some churches are termed “liberal” even though they do not engage in any open and overt unscriptural action. “We don’t support human organizations; we don’t send money to another church to oversee and do our preaching work; we don’t use the church’s money for entertainment; so, why are we called liberal?” This is their lame lament, their plea for pity. But the question is, do they oppose or applaud the above mentioned practices? Do they preach against institutionalism and the sponsoring church brand of ecclesiasticism? These are crucial, critical questions. Preaching the whole counsel of God, reproving and rebuking error, and exhorting men to walk in the word is a part of soundness. Our querist mentioned “a certain congregation.” Perhaps, he has one in mind. If so, does it actively and aggressively deny liberal doctrine and digression? Does it use liberal preachers or their sympathizers in its evangelistic labors? A church may be liberal or loose because of what it fails to do, by reason of what it refuses to “earnestly contend” against (2 Cor. 10:35-, Jude 3). There is no greater enemy to the cross of Christ than those who refuse to extinguish error and expound truth.

3. Answer to Third Question:

Preliminary Thoughts to Ponder

If there is no pattern to follow in congregational cooperation, how can a church say it is not going beyond that which is written (1 Cor. 4:6)? If there is no pattern in spreading the gospel, how can brethren 11 make all things according to the pattern” (Heb, 8:5)? if there is no pattern, then there is no perversion, no law, no guide. If that is true, men are free to do as they please without fear of divine censure or judgment. Can you name any other areas of work and worship in the church of the Lord where there is no pattern? If what was done in the New Testament does not constitute a pattern in cooperation and preaching the gospel, can we not also say that what they did with respect to giving and taking the Lord’s supper does not comprise a pattern” If you can deny the pattern of evangelism and cooperation in the work of the New Testament church, why cannot I deny the plan for giving and the taking of the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2)?

The New Testament Pattern

The New Testament pattern of congregational cooperation in “helping the needy and spreading the gospel” is a compilation of all that the Bible says about those activities. Accordingly, we shall notice several texts.

1) In Evangelism: The “church of the Thessalonians” “sounded out the word of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:1, 8). The “church which was at Jerusalem . . . sent forth Barnabas” (Acts 11:22). The Philippian church “sent once and again unto my (Paul’s) necessity” (Phil. 4:15,16). This work was that of “giving and receiving.” It was the “care” of the church at Philippi for Paul (Phil. 4:10). In each of these citations, each church acted, but each worked separate and independent of the other.

“Here, too, we see the simple manner in which the church in Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no ‘missionary society’ in evidence, and none was needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized the 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” (Guy N. Woods, Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary, Published by The Gospel Advocate Company, 1946, p. 341).

In 2 Corinthians 11:8, Paul said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” Two or more churches sent “wages” unto Paul. The ending of these churches, so far as each one was concerned was a separate act. Observe that Paul, not a local church. was the recipient of the “wages.” There was no sponsoring church which served as the disbursing and dispensing agent of other churches. In the New Testament, churches were never joined or harnessed as a unit to evangelize.

2) In Helping The Needy: In Acts 6, the Jerusalem church ministered to their neglected widows. In 1 Timothy 5:16, Paul charged the church to “relieve them that are widows indeed.” So, local congregations have benevolent responsibilities.

Acts 11:27-30 describes a need in Judea which arose because of a “great” famine. There were “constant unfruitful seasons” (Life of Claudius, by Seutonius, quoted in New Testament Documents-Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce, p. 119). “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:29,30). The Antioch disciples did not send relief unto a sponsoring, overseeing church, nor to a Judean Relief Organization. What they did we ought to do when similar circumstances arise.

“The relief was sent, we are told, ‘to the elders . . .’ We might call them pastors. They had charge of the congregations in all their church affairs and attended to the services, the teaching, and the spiritual oversight . . . Here Luke speaks of the elders in Judea” (Lenski, ‘comments on Acts 11:27-30, pp. 462, 463). “Unto the elders, either those at Jerusalem, who could easily forward the supplies to the destitute elsewhere, or those in Judea at large, whom the messengers visited in person, The latter idea presents itself very readily from Judea, just before . . .” (Hackett, comments on Acts 11:30, p. 142). The relief was sent to the brethren in Judea, i.e., unto the elders of the brethren in Judea. Each church had elders, so the relief was sent to the elders of the respective churches in the province of Judea.

Romans 15:25-27,31; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, tell of the “contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.” At least five churches assembled their “alms” and “offerings” (Acts 24:17). This was by “order” of the apostle Paul and was performed with “zeal” (1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 9:2). Each church chose its own messengers who brought the gift of that church unto Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:19-23). There was no intermediary, sponsoring church or agent to oversee the work. Churches simply laid aside a contribution for the needy saints in Jerusalem, selected men to take the contribution, and sent them to Jerusalem with the gift.

Guy N. Woods’ Comments On 2 Cor. 8:18-21

“In line with the fact that our lesson today deals with the autonomy of the church, we point out that the contribution here alluded to was raised wholly without the high pressure organizational methods characteristic of today. There was no organization at all; the churches, in their own capacity, raised the funds, and they were gathered by brethren specially appointed for the purpose. This is the Lord’s method of raising money, and it will suffice in any case. There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people today to do. Two practical lessons follow from this section: (1) The simple means used to raise these funds; (2) honest measures followed to avoid suspicion” (Guy N. Woods, Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary, Published by The Gospel Advocate Company, 1946, pp. 340, 341),

Truth Magazine XX: 43, pp. 684-685
October 28, 1976

By O. C. Birdwell

Some time back I was asked to discuss the following question: “Does John 10:28, where Jesus says ‘and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand,’ not teach that a child of God can never be lost?”

In dealing with this question, let us notice the context of the verse upon which the question under consideration is asked. The verse quoted above is 28. The one just before it in the passage says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:” (v. 27). Then after the verse in question we read, “My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (v. 29).

Is the phrase “and they shall never perish,” contained in verse 28, conditional or unconditional? Please read the context again. Notice that Jesus said that they hear His voice and follow Him. The eternal life promised is based on the conditions given. The inference by some is that sheep cannot be led astray or caught. If this be true, why is there need for a shepherd? Paul said, “I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29). Will such drawn away disciples be lost? Obviously so, or else Paul would not have been so concerned, Hence, the sheep must continue to hear His voice, and continue to follow Him in order to receive the reward.

Does the statement “No one shall snatch them out of my hand” mean that ‘ man cannot separate himself from the salvation that is in Christ? Jesus does not say this. He says, “no one shall snatch them out of my hand.” There is a big difference.

Another favorite proof text of those who teach the impossibility of apostasy is Romans 8:35. This passage asks, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” Paul continues and says, “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” It is quite clear, therefore, that nothing can separate us from the love of God. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. His love, and the love of God (John 3:16), was shown before, and apart from, any response of our own. Hence, His love toward us is not dependent on our action in any sense. But will man be saved solely through the love of God and Christ? If so, there will be universal salvation, because God’s love is for all men. If anyone is lost, he will be one whom God loves, for He loves all the world.

From these passages it is seen that nothing can separate us from the love of God and Christ, and that no one can snatch us from the hand of God. But does this teach unconditional salvation and the impossibility of apostasy? It does not. Read the following scripture: “Behold Jehovah’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save: neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1,2). Now hear the New Testament writer James: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: but each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death” (James 1:13,15). Notice the order: (1) drawn away by own lust; (2) lust bringeth forth sin; (3) sin bringeth forth death. Our own sin and iniquity can separate us from God and Christ, and bring forth death.

But one may respond by saying, “I thought we were kept by the mercy and loving-kindness of Jehovah.” Yes, but such is to those who “fear him,” and “such as keep his covenant” and “remember his precepts to do them” (Ps. 103:17, 18). Again, another objection goes something like this: “What about the power of God? Are we not kept by His power?” Surely, but the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and the gospel must be obeyed (2 Thess. 1:8). Also, one may turn from “the gospel” unto a different gospel (Gal. 1:6). When such is done the benefits of the gospel are forfeited.

Many claim that man cannot fall, that there is no danger; but in trying to prove it they always quote passages about the promises of God, every one of which are based upon the condition that one hear the voice of the Shepherd, obey Him, and abide in His teaching. Such is the case with the passage in John 10:28.

Truth Magazine XX: 43, p. 683
October 28, 1976