Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Jesus was utterly contemptuous of the efforts of the Jews to please God by form rather than substance, He accused them of rank hypocrisy. “This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mk. %:7, 8). He also accused them of the worst form of legalism: circumventing personal responsibility and calling it “service” given unto God.

Corban

“Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honor thy, father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father and mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do alight for his father and his mother” (Mk. 7:9-12).

The law required that “honor” be given unto the parents. The application that Jesus made is that this honor includes caring for their needs from the substance of the children (cf. Jas. 2:14-17). Yet the religious leaders of the day said that this responsibility can be neglected and overlooked if the support that would ordinarily go to the parents is given away to God’s temple. Here was an effort to circumvent responsibility given by God by offering it up in service in another area. Jesus’ point is that service to God does not conflict with any other responsibility given by God!

The Preacher’s Family

For years the brethren have looked to and admired the fine example set by the pioneer preachers. Buts there is one part of their life and work that is appalling. These men left their homes and family for months at a time to preach the Gospel. The “meeting preachers” who is gone six months and more a year from home is the modern heir of that heritage.

In the book The Life And Times of Elder Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin’s son Joseph wrote of the attitude of his father, and the effect it had upon his family. “He was never at home except in protracted meetings . . . the preacher himself, away from home much of the time, and in the society of brethren ready to make him comfortable, has comparatively an easy time ., . . It sends thrills of distress through his soul as he sits down to a table groaning under all the luxuries of the land to remember the scanty supply on the table spread for his wife and children at home . . .many a woman, under such experience, has either sickened and died prematurely, or living, become pettish and melancholy, so that neither she nor her children could ever be happy. But, Mrs. Franklin, left alone for more than half the time for many years, living often in some out-of-the-way place for economy’s sake, destitute of luxuries, and often poorly supplied with the necessities of life, cut off almost entirely from society, continued patiently, enduring all for husband and children’s sake, for Jesus’ sake, keeping up her spirits and living in hope, until, in God’s good providence a better day should come. Tears she shed-many bitter tears of sorrow and deprivation at her forlorn and almost widowed condition . . . many a time has her eldest son stopped in his childish pursuits and gazed upon her countenance as she sat looking afar through the window, yet evidently seeing nothing with the natural eye, and he wondered what she could be thinking of-why was she so sad? The quick maternal feeling would catch the gaze . . . would bid him go and play again; then, turning her head away, would wipe the unbidden tears from her eyes. The son would sometimes see that too, and go away more bewildered than ever” (pp. 69-71).

The wife of “Taccoon” John Smith died in grief after she lost her children for want of a father. She left her brother as a baby-sitter, as her husband was away as usual in a meeting, and went to a sick neighbor’s home. While she was gone, the house caught fire, and quickly burned to the ground. Two of her children were burned to death.

Brother Smith finally received word of the tragedy and made his way home as quickly as he could. But, his wife would not be comforted, and was buried in the earth beside the ashes of her two children (West, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 1, p. 245).

By what standard do we justify the tears of these wives, and the fears of their children? By what standard do we authorize a man neglecting his wife and family, leaving the burden of child-rearing, provision, and nurture upon a weary and lonely wife? By what eternal pattern do we excuse the hours of loneliness and longing of a faithful wife waiting for her husband to return home to hearth and bed? To what apology of righteousness do we attribute the unfaithfulness and resentment of the preacher’s children as they grow to maturity with only a “sometimes father”? It is corban. “That whereby thou mightest be profited by me is given as a gift unto God. And ye suffer him to do naught for his family . . .”

“His Commandments Are Not Grievous”

Jesus demanded that service truly rendered unto God does not conflict with any other responsibility given by God. The law of Christ says, “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it . . . nourish and cherish (her) . . . if any provide riot for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel . . . Likewise ye husbands dwell with (your wives .according to knowledge . . . that your prayers be not hindered . . . . Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence . . . defraud ye` trot one the other, except it be with consent for a time, a ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Cor. 7:3).

A preacher, like any other parent, has a responsibility to his children that he cannot call “corban” because he would like to hold thirty meetings a year, or so immerse himself in local work that he has no time for his children. The responsibility for raising children is put squarely on the shoulders of ,the father. “Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The “provide” of 1 Tim. 5:8 includes more than putting food on the table. A father can give all the “good things” of life to his children and still fail them by not providing them with the attention and time they need.

A brother in Christ once sought to justify his treatment of his family by saying, “It is not the quantity of the time I spend with them, but the quality.” This is true only to the extent that quantity does not replace quality, but claiming that neglect is justified by the quality and intensity of the time spent when one is at home is wrong. Nothing replaces regular, consistent, repetitive parenthood and loving. Children need the confidence of having a home, consistency of two parents. A wife needs consistent “due benevolence.”

The Conflict

Scriptures deal with the evangelist’s responsibilities. In the “pastoral epistles” to Timothy and Titus, Paul’s instruction was of a local nature to be fulfilled on a continuing bassi in a local congregation. To be sure, Paul made a choice in the kind of “meeting work” he did. He laid the foundation, and left the building to others (1 Cor. 3:10). In doing the kind of work he chose, he willingly sacrificed his right to a family to do his work more effectively (1 Cor. 7:26, 27, 32, 33, 7)., But Paul had a right to have a wife and family, and still do the kind of work he did. But, he told us, by inference, how that kind of work was to be done: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” (1 Cor. 9:5)?

A man can be a preacher and a husband and a father, and not fail in any of his responsibilities. But, to “excel” as a preacher at the expense of one’s family is to incur the wrath of God. “This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 38, pp. 605-606
August 7, 1975

By Jimmy Thomas

Truth Magazine recently made an appeal for “first principle” articles. They reported barely enough on hand for one issue. An associate editor expressed fear that some might consider this request as a sign of their “mellowing” or going “soft.”

For some time I have been concerned about the lack of preaching designed to convert the lost, especially in gospel meetings. I have attended meeting after meeting without hearing one sermon devoted altogether to nonmembers. My book of sermons by preachers from yesteryear show that these men preached much on subjects like “Rightly Dividing the Word,” “Sin,” “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” “Examples of Conversion,” and “The Identity of the Church.” Such teaching challenged sinners and lead many to examine and embrace the truth.

Now-a-days meeting sermons are on “The Home,” “Christian Living,” “Attendance,” “Demonology,” “Archaeology,” etc. I have found that some brethren will really compliment a sermon on “dancing” and “mini-skirts,” but seem to care little for a lesson on “The Blood of Christ.” It also distresses me that preaching on these fundamentals might be mistaken by some as a sign of “softness.”

I have always felt that the “Big Meeting” was a time to bring your neighbors and friends to learn how to be saved. Not that it would not be good for them to hear other sermons, it is just that right now they need “first principles” worse.

Some say,”The church needs to be converted before we try to convert the world.” That may be true, but members can be taught, these things on Sundays throughout the year. Furthermore, most churches have had ample time to be converted if every they will be. I am not saying that sermons to Christians are wrong in a series of meetings, but they should not be the main thrust, unless the meeting is designed and announced for that purpose.

We are not baptizing many during meetings anymore. Few “outsiders” even attend. Members are not working to get them to come. We think that if we have visitors from other congregations, our meetings are successful. I have even noticed that song leaders go through a whole meeting and never lead “Oh, Why Not To-Night” and “Almost Persuaded.” We are just not putting much emphasis on seeking the lost.

The old cliche is, “Well, that has been preached so much that everybody has heard it.” But, that is precisely the point at issue; everybody has not heard it. Those who are not Christians most certainly have not. Our children haven’t. And it is not going to hurt any of us older members to hear it again. I dare say, some couldn’t tell another how to be saved anyway. The old gospel story should always sound sweet to those who are saints.

Brethren, we need more of the old fashioned preaching on “Faith,” “Repentance,” and “Baptism.” If we don’t get to it at once, a greater apostasy than any of us has ever seen may loom upon the horizon.

(from the Bulletin of the Hickory Heights Church of Christ; Lewisburg, Tennessee.)

Truth Magazine XIX: 39, p. 604
August 7, 1975

By Mike Willis

In his second article of his series on “The Word Abused . . . ,” Leroy Garrett studied Rom. 16:17-18. The passage reads as follows:

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them: For such men are slaves not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

This is not the first time that Garrett has written on these verses; he treated the passage in an article entitled “How Men Use The Bible To Justify Their Divisions” in an earlier issue of Restoration Review.(1) Too, Carl Ketcherside(2) and Hoy Ledbetter(3) have both written on the subject. Therefore, we are able to check to see how much or how little diversity in doctrinal belief exists among the “unity-in-diversity” brethren.

First of all, let me relate Garrett’s treatment of Rom. 16:17-18 in Restoration Review. Garrett began with a lengthy discussion that sought to show that some divisions are right. Citing examples of justifiable division from Galileo, Reformation leaders, leaders of the American Revolution, etc., he said,

“But this verse, when superficially applied, is made to mean that division is per se wrong. Nobody can really believe that . . . . Not every division is right, but division is a justifiable principle.”(4)

The statement of this principle is exactly the opposite of what Garrett wrote in Thoughts on Unity. Contrast the statement above with what is cited below:

“I. The most serious abuse of this passage is the view that it is all right to cause dissensions and divisions so long as it is done in keeping with `the doctrine which you have been taught.’ There are those who cause divisions over false doctrine or their own opinions or over things that do not matter, and this is wrong. But if one causes division by standing for the truth, this is all right. So they make the passage read this way. ‘Mark them which cause divisions and offences that are contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.’ In other words the division is warranted if it is caused by standing for the truth, each one of course deciding just what determines truth ….

“I cannot believe that Paul is saying that division and dissension are all right if they are the result of being loyal to doctrine. The man who says, ‘I’ll wreck this church for the sake of truth,’ cannot look to Romans 16:17 for his defense. This is a misunderstanding of the phrase ‘contrary to the doctrine which you have learned:

“Paul is simply saying that the spirit that causes divisions and dissension is contrary to the teaching that I have been giving you. He does not mean that some division is caused by error and some by truth, and that division is all right if it is necessary to preserve truth.”(5)

Obviously, the editor of Restoration Review “superficially applied” this passage for a number of years and even charged that any brethren who disagreed with him was guilty of “abusing the scriptures.” What has caused the recent change by the editor of Restoration Review? Noting that he sanctioned the massive walkout of brethren in Dallas one is lead to believe that Garrett now believes it is right for the “free” brethren of the unity cult to create division. In reference to that walkout, he said,

“And exodus can be a glorious thing to folk who have been held down .and fenced up by partyism, and there is no indication that our partyism is any better than the next church’s.”(6)

Whatever might be the explanation of the change, the above quotations demonstrate that Garrett has changed his position about divisions in general.

Proceeding to the latest article, Garrett charged that Rom. 16:18 was written to correct a behavioral problem instead of a doctrinal one (as if deviation from the doctrine of Christ was not a behavioral problem) and that the primary problem was an evil heart rather than wrong doctrine.(7) He then asserted that to “mark” an individual had no reference to disfellowship.(8) Then, he identified the phrase “contrary to the teaching you learned” as follows:

“The phrase ‘contrary to the teaching you received’ almost certainly refers to the teaching on unity In spite of differences which he had just laid before them in the letter, especially Rom. 14.”(9)

(One wonders why Garrett did not use this verse to persuade those who walked out at Dallas that they were creating divisions “contrary to the teaching you learned”-namely, unity in spite of differences.) Having said that, Garrett concluded:

“There is no way that this passage can be applied to sincere, well-meaning, unity-loving brothers who happen to hold to ideas different from what we believe the scriptures to teach. To apply this to those who support Herald of Truth, divide into classes for study, use a plurality of cups, employ a resident pastor, use a piano or organ, interpret a prophecy in terms of a premillennial reign, or do their missionary and educational work through societies is to abuse the scriptures. In fact the one who so twists the scriptures as to impose this kind of oppression upon his brothers is more guilty of the sin involved than the one he is applying it to, and if anyone needs to be Marked! it is he.(10)

Compare Ketcherside and Ledbetter To Garrets

The “unity-in-diversity” brethren preach that we must have unity-in-diversity but practice unity-in-doctrine. The doctrine which each of them must believe is that doctrinal conformity is not essential to unity. Nevertheless, on the key passages dealing with fellowship on doctrinal matters, these brethren somehow manage to have doctrinal agreement. Ketcherside agreed that the “teaching you learned” in Rom. 16:18 was the doctrine that God’s family should not be divided.(11) He also believes that the “marking” and “avoiding” do not refer to congregational action.(12) Hoy Ledbetter accepted at least one of the major points of the position held by Garrett. He said that the “marking” and “avoiding” of Rom. 16:17-18 is not excommunication.(13) So, you can see that the “unity-in diversity” brethren exhibit no little amount of doctrinal conformity.

Exegesis

Whatever the situation was in Rome, Paul advised the brethren to guard themselves against men who caused “dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned.” ” Dissensions” (dichostasia) “denotes a state of things in which men are divided, in which feuds flourish, and in which unity is destroyed. Dichostasia bears its picture on its face; it literally means ‘a standing apart,’ that is, a state in which all community, all fellowship, and all togetherness are gone.”(14) “Hindrances” (skandalon) is an interesting word; skandalon is properly “the movable stick or tricker (‘trigger’) of a trap, trap-stick; a trap, snare; any impediment placed in the way and causing one to stumble or fall.”(15)

The ministry of the disciples of Christ was divisive in nature; Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household” (Mt. 10:34-36). Paul added, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may become evident among you” (1 Cor. 11:19-20). With reference to the word skandalon, one needs to notice that it is applied with reference to the Christ on some occasions. With reference to the Jews, Paul said, “They stumbled over the stumbling-stone, just as it is written, ‘Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock- of offense (skandalon), and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed” (Rom. 9:23-33). (See also 1 Pet. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11.) “In N.T. skandalon is always used metaphorically, and ordinarily of anything that arouses prejudice, or becomes a hindrance to others, or causes them to fall by the way. Sometimes the hindrance is in itself good, and those stumbled by it are the wicked.”(16) Where the gospel, correctly presented, produces divisions, as it always will, the divisions are right. We are not responsible for the legitimate effects of the truth.

Inasmuch as the teaching of truth and Jesus Himself can be the source of division, the phrase “contrary to the teaching which you have learned” (para ten didachen hen humeis emathete) becomes all important. Commentators cannot be sure which teaching Paul is referring to in this passage. Ketcherside and Garrett say that the teaching referred to is “almost certainly . . . the teaching on unity in spite of differences which he had just laid before them in the letter, especially Rom. 14.”(17) Most commentators are not so certain as are Garrett and Ketcherside. Actually, most commentators which I have read say that the divisive men mentioned here are Judaizers who tried to bind the Mosaical law on Christians and, therefore, make the “teaching which you learned” the teaching concerning the Jew-Gentile relationship and the proper usage of the Mosaical law (which items are among the major thrusts of the letter), as the following quotations demonstrate:

“Probably he refers here to Jewish teachers, or those who insisted strenuously on the observance of the rites of Moses, and who set up a claim for greater purity and orthodoxy than those possessed who received the Gentile converts as brethren.”(18)

“The warning is against a class of persons whose mischievous activity he had had experience of elsewhere, and attempts by some of whom to disturb the peace of the Roman Church he may possibly have heard of. They may have been Judaists, or others who taught views contrary to the received faith, and so caused divisions and offences ‘in the church.”(19)

“What precisely was the mischief, who precisely were the dangerous teachers, spoken of here so abruptly and so urgently by St. Paul? It is easier to ask the question than to answer it. Some expositors have sought a solution in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, and have found in an extreme school of theoretical ‘liberty’ these men of ‘pious language and specious pleas. But to us this seems impossible. . . In our view, the case was one of embryo Gnosticism.”(20)

. . the most natural way to understand the reference to those who create dissensions and difficulties is as pointing to the Judaizers.”(21)

Additional comments from others could be cited but these are sufficient to demonstrate that no one can be certain as to precisely which teaching was being distorted. Therefore, the best explanation appears to me to be one which makes a general application of the passage: whoever causes a division over any teaching not revealed in the scriptures is to be marked and avoided!

Even if the contentions of Ketcherside and Garrett were correct and the reference to Rom. 14 is the teaching which Paul had in mind, the case for those who divided the church over instrumental music, benevolent institutions, and the sponsoring church would not be improved. The very best that could be said for the promoters of instrumental music, benevolent institutions, and the sponsoring church is that (they divided the church over an expediency! We were forced either to conform or to get out! According to 1 Tim. 4:1-3, any person who so binds his opinions is “fallen away from the faith.” On the other hand, it must be admitted, if the scriptures allow each of the above items and we have forbidden their usage, we are “fallen away from the faith” for binding our opinions. That is why the whole issue must be drawn at the following point: “Is the (any innovation) ‘contrary to the teaching which you have learned’ from the apostles?” If the innovation is not allowed by the scriptures, then the ones promoting it fall under the censure of this verse. If it is allowed, then the ones dividing the church by prohibiting it fall under the censure of this verse. Whichever of us is not teaching the doctrine of Christ is the one to be marked and avoided!

Garrett says that he cannot understand how this passage ever came to be applied to unity loving brethren who happened to disagree doctrinally; I shall try to tell him. Once upon a time, the Lord’s body was one, big, happy family. Then, brethren began to bring mechanical instruments of music into worship and missionary societies into church budgets; since they could not find scriptures to justify these practices, the church divided. Having partially overcome the effects of one division, the Lord’s people began to rebuild the Temple of Zion. Then, one day, some more brethren began to try to get churches to put the college in the budget. When they saw that this would’ fail, they resorted to orphan homes in the church budget as a strategical ploy to prepare the churches for colleges in the budget. The sponsoring church concept was pushed as well. The effect was that brethren were forced dither to accept these innovations or to get out. Since they could not give biblical authority for them, the Lord’s church divided. Because brethren could not give scripture for what they were doing, they were causing “dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you have learned.” Therefore, Rom. 16:17 was applied to them. Now is that not easy to understand? So long as brethren are guilty of causing divisions contrary to the gospel, Rom. 16:17 can and must be applied to them.

Mark and Avoid

Another important aspect of any discussion of this verse is a discussion of what is meant by “marking” and “avoiding.” As noted earlier, Garrett does not believe that the idea conveyed in this verse pertains to excommunication; he said,

“The word for ‘mark them’ has no reference to disfellowship, excommunication, or even stigmatization. He is not calling for labels or brands, nor even for discourtesy. The idea is that they are to watch out or keep an eye on such people. They are to be on their guard and not be deceived by their cunning.”(22)

Apparently Garrett understands the Bible to mention various kinds of excommunication; these people were to be “marked” and “avoided” but, he said, this is not “excommunication.” Hoy Ledbetter maintained a similar distinction when he said,

“The avoidance enjoined in Rom. 16 is not excommunication, but the sort of turning away (ekklino: ‘bend away from’) that precludes support or encouragement of the corrupting and divisive practices and doctrines the deviationists brought . . . Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum. There is a form of avoidance short of excommunication which we must employ in some situations.”(23)

These brethren allude to a belief in various levels of fellowship concerning which they need to be more specific. Do you brethren adopt the minor, major and anathema levels of excommunication posited by the Roman Catholic Church?(24) If not, please let us know exactly what you believe about levels of disfellowshipping. Of course, we will want you to document those levels of excommunication with scriptural references!

The passage before us commands Christians to “mark” those “causing divisions contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.” Skopeo is defined as follows: “look (out) for, notice, keep one’s eyes on . . .”(25) and “to look at, observe, contemplate . . . to mark . . . to fix one’s eyes upon, direct one’s attention to, anyone.”(26) “The word skopein signifies to observe attentively and diligently, as they do who are placed in a watch-tower to observe the motions of their enemies.”(27) Although skobeb does not carry the idea of withdrawal of fellowship, ekklinti does. Ekklino is defined as follows: “to turn away from, keep aloof from, one’s society; to shun one.”(28) Here are some comments from others about the verse:

“It is worthy of notice, that the apostle desires the faithful to mark them who cause divisions, not for the purpose of disputing with them, and far less for the purpose of apprehending them with fines, imprisonment, torture, and death; but that they might avoid their . company, lest by conversing familarly with such, they might have been infected with their errors and vices.”(29)

“. . . turn away from them; i.e. shun them; have nothing to do with them.”(30)

“Avoid, go out of their way, or eschew them.”(31)

“This turning away amounted to a withdrawal of fellowship; and the withdrawal was to continue, so long as those withdrawn from, continued to produce divisions. It was a separation of true brethren from false; and without a reformation it was final.”(32)

In the article on “Excommunication” in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, Rom. 16:17 was cited to support the practice. The plain statement of this verse is that Christians must avoid those who are causing divisions contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. If that is not commanding a withdrawal of fellowship, I cannot understand the meaning of words. A withdrawal of fellowship is ceasing to have anything to do with a person-avoiding him. The unity cult must either reveal their multi-leveled system of withdrawal of fellowship and give it biblical documentation or admit that this is an allusion to the principle of withdrawing fellowship, a principle discussed more fully in other New Testament passages. Which route will you brethren take?

Heart Sin?

Garrett also charged that Rom. 16:17 dealt primarily with a behavioral problem rather than a doctrinal problem. He said,

“It is clear enough that he is dealing with a behavioral problem more than a doctrinal one . . . . It was their evil heart more than their wrong doctrine that concerned the apostle. Their behavior was causing division, for they sought to form cliques and parties around themselves through flattering and deceitful talk. The key description is that they were insincere. They were deceivers and impostors.

Remember that Garrett has already committed himself to the belief that Rom. 16:17 does not command excommunication. He now admits that the men under discussion here are insincere, false teachers. If admittedly false teachers who are insincere men more interested in self than in Christ are not to be disfellowshipped, just who is to be disfellowshipped?

Too, what difference does it make whether the man was sincere or insincere? If one could prove that the pope of Rome was sincere, would he be under obligation to fellowship him? If one could prove that a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness was sincere, would we be under obligation to fellowship him? If I proved that a Baptist, “faith-only,” preacher was sincere, should I therefore fellowship him? If I could prove that a Jew was sincere, should we therefore fellowship him? If not, then why does the issue of sincerity even enter the picture when discussing benevolent institutions, sponsoring churches, missionary societies, and mechanical instruments of music in worship? Any man, .sincere or insincere, who divides the church of our Lord Jesus Christ “contrary to the teaching” of the apostles must be avoided.

I have no intention of judging the heart of a man (or men) who died over 1900 years ago. This verse does not demand that I know a man’s heart; it demands that I know whether or not he has violated the Scriptures! Those who say that one should withdraw from the insincere but not from the sincere are in the unenviable position of passing judgment on men’s hearts.

Conclusion

Let me remind you why a discussion of Rom. 16:17 is so important. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside are methodically trying to discharge every shot we fire at false teachers. Garrett and Ketcherside do not believe that mechanical instruments of music in worship, missionary societies, benevolent institutions, and sponsoring churches are sinful. Garrett believes that there are Christians in all denominations. Therefore, they are seeking to unite the Christian Churches, liberal churches of Christ, and us by getting all parties to quit calling “sinful” what the others are practicing. The kind of peace they are calling for is one like our government signed in Viet Nam-we quit fighting but they continue their innovations. Since I cannot sit back quietly and allow them to discharge our weapons, I am responding methodically to these articles by Garrett. If Garrett succeeds in accomplishing his goals, the ship of Zion will have no anchor to hold it to the word of God. It will be lose on an uncharted sea without a compass to give it direction.

Endnotes

1. The article is quoted in Thoughts on Unity, Stanley Paregien, editor (St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 1970), pp. 104-119.

2. Carl Ketcherside, “Contrary To The Doctrine,” The Twisted Scriptures: Mission Messenger, 1965 (St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 19(15), pp. 33-40.

3. Hoy Ledbetter, “Christian Discipline (2),” Integrity, V, No. 11 (May, 1974), pp. 162-167.

4. Leroy Garrett, “Mark Them Which Cause Divisions,” Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (February, 1975), p. 23.

5. Leroy Garrett, Thoughts on Unity, op. cit., pp. 106-107.

6. Leroy Garrett, “A Massive Walkout in Dallas,” Restoration Review, Vol. XVI, No. 10 (December, 1974), p. 385.

7. Ibid., XVII, No. 2 (February, 1975), p. 24.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 25.

10. Ibid.

11. Carl Ketcherside, op. cit., p, 35.

12. Ibid., pp. 36, 37.

13. Hoy Ledbetter, op. cit., p. 163.

14. William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 56-57.

15. Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), p. 577.

16. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell, Co., 1966), Vol. III, p. 129.

17. Leroy Garrett, op. cit., XVII, No. 2, p. 25.

18. Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), p. 336.

19. J. Barmby, The Pulpit Commentary: Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 456.

20. Handley C. G. Moule, The Expositor’s Bible: Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1943), Vol. V, p. 622.

21. John Knox, The Interpreter’s Bible: Romans (New York: Abingdon, Cokesbury Press, 1954), p. 662.

22. Leroy Garrett, op. cit,, XVII, No. 2, pp. 24-25.

23. Hoy Ledbetter, op, cit., pp. 164, 167.

24. John McClintock and James Strong, “Excommunication,” Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper and Bros. Publishers, 1891), Vol. III, p. 388.

25. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 764.

26. Thayer, op. cit., p. 579.

27. James Macknight, Macknight on the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969), Vol. I, pp. 504-505.

28. Thayer, op. cit., p. 196.

29. Macknight, op. cit., p. 505.

30. Barmby, op. cit., p. 456.

31. Wm. S. Plumer, Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (New York: Anson B. F. Randolph and Company, 1870), p. 641.

32. Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Romans (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1875), p. 463.

Truth Magazine XIX: 38, pp. 600-603
August 7, 1975

By 0. C. Birdwell

Several months back two articles by this writer were published in which the Holy Spirit was discussed (See Truth Magazine, Vol. XVII, No. 43 and 44). One article dealt with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the house of Cornelius; and other discussed the Holy Spirit as a pledge. If you have access to this material, please go back and read the latter article in connection with what is to be said here. Should you not have the article maybe enough of the material will be repeated for you to understand what is being discussed.

In the article, “The Holy Spirit as a Pledge,” Ephesians 1:13, 14 was shown as referring to the receiving of the word by the Gentiles and their being “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession, unto the praise of his glory.” The Holy Spirit was presented as being poured out (Acts 10:44, 45) as a surety or pledge that the Gentiles have also been made a heritage and are heirs of God. The coming of the Holy Spirit, then, upon the Jews (Acts 2) and upon the Gentiles (Acts 10) would be the “earnest,” pledge, or assurance of the salvation of both.

“Earnest”

Since the above mentioned article was published a great deal of favorable comment has been received. Along with this comment some questions have been asked that should be answered and discussed in order to clear up some possible misunderstanding on the subject. Most of the questions center around the word “earnest” or phrases “earnest of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:14), “earnest of the Spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:22), and “earnest of the Spirit” .(2 Cor. 5:5). According to Young’s Concordance these three places record the only use of the word “earnest” in the New Testament. Receiving the “earnest of the Spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:22) seems to be difficult for some to harmonize with the conclusion of the previous article that the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles (at the house of Cornelius) as an earnest (surety, pledge) of our inheritance and that Paul is not talking about a personal indwelling of the body as commonly believed. So the question, “Do you believe in the earnest of the Spirit in the heart?”

As discussed already, one must understand what the word “earnest” means and also along with this know the meaning of the word “heart.” We have shown that “earnest” means “surety,” or “pledge.” Also, Peter said that God “bare them witness giving them (the Gentiles) the Holy Spirit even as he did unto us (the Jews)” (Acts 15:8). Hence, the word “earnest” must stand for the assurance or witness made by God in sending the Holy Spirit. The word, also, means “down payment” or “partial payment.” But if this meaning is stressed one might conclude, and, I believe, falsely so, that the Holy Spirit is given to personally indwell each individual as a down payment on his inheritance, the rest of which is to be ultimately delivered. One might reason that such an indwelling would be the only possible way the Holy Spirit could be an assurance of our salvation in any way that would be meaningful to us. Such is not the case and a little thought will reveal this. According to the “personal indwelling as an earnest” position, the Spirit is not felt; he does not speak to man; nor does he guide apart from the written word. The only way one could know of the indwelling would be by the written promise. We are right back, therefore, to the testimony of Scripture. There could be no more personal assurance in this position than in the one affirmed above that the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles is the pledge of our inheritance.

“in our hearts”

But we still have not seen what is involved in receiving the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. If we properly understand “earnest” as used here to mean assurance, pledge, or witness, our problem is pretty well resolved if we understand the nature of the Bible heart. Many sermons have been preached showing the Bible heart to be the intellect, will, or emotion of man. We have shown that the word “heart” as used in the New Testament does not ordinarily refer to the fleshly lobe. But all of a sudden someone comes along and infers that “heart” in 2 Cor. 1:22 means the fleshly heart, and more than that it is made to stand for the entire physical body. The “heart” here is the same as the one “pricked” in Acts 2:37. It is the intellect or mind of man. The Holy Spirit came as a witness or pledge of our redemption. We hold this in our intellect or heart. It is held through witness and testimony. This is in complete harmony with what Paul said in 2 Cor. 1:22.

Ordinary or Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit?

Another question that has been asked is as follows: “Was the earnest that which is usually referred to as the `ordinary gift of the Spirit,’ or the ‘miraculous gifts of the Spirit’?”

To answer this question it will be needful to restate some of the material already presented. If the usual meaning of “ordinary gift” and “miraculous gifts” be understood, my answer would be “neither.” The coming of the Holy Spirit, or the outpouring of the Spirit from the Father, is in itself, the earnest or assurance of our inheritance (both Jew and Gentile). As shown above, “earnest” means pledge, assurance, or witness (see Vine’s Expository Dictionary). Paul said, “ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:13, 14). The “Ye” are the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit’s coming is the pledge, assurance, or witness. He came on the Gentiles as a witness of their inheritance in keeping with the promise of God (see Acts 15:8).

Let us now turn our attention to another matter that needs to be clear if we are to properly understand this subject. It seems that some material has been used on this subject that has not been made as clear in its meaning as it should have been. The idea of some seems to be that the “miraculous gifts” are made up of Christ’s having the Spirit without measure, the apostles and Cornelius receiving the “baptismal measure,” and the disciples receiving a “measure by the laying on of the apostles’ hands.” Then, the “ordinary gift” is described as the coming of the Holy Spirit into our body to personally indwell in what is called a “non-miraculous” fashion. It is supposed by some that the latter is the meaning of “and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

“Measure” of the Spirit

It needs to be understood that when the word “measure” is used to describe the Holy Spirit, the word would have to apply to the extent of the work done by the power of the Spirit and not to the Spirit Himself. The disciple who had only the gift of prophecy by the Spirit had no less of the Holy Spirit in what he did than did the apostles: He simply was not enabled by the Holy Spirit to do anything else. And it was not because he had just received a fragment of the Spirit. It would take the fullness of the Holy Spirit for one to exercise any one of the gifts. So the idea that the Spirit is fragmented and the apostles received one measure by baptism, and the disciples received another measure by the laying on of the apostles’ hands will not stand serious investigation. This is clear in 1 Cor. 12:4 where Paul said, “Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.” Here the gifts are different but there is no indication that one had the Holy Spirit to a lesser degree, or that the Spirit was possessed in a fragmented or small measure. Consider also the twelve at Ephesus who had received only John’s baptism. After their baptism “into the name of the Lord Jesus, the account says, “When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied” (Acts 19:6). These people did not receive a “measure” of the Spirit but rather the Spirit came on them! They obviously were limited in what they could do and this is the only way in which the word “measure” could be intelligently used.

Truth Magazine XIX: 38, pp. 598-599
August 14, 1975