Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

If we do not have a pattern for worship in the New Covenant, how do we know when or how to worship? According to this gentleman the example of those disciples in Troas is not a pattern for us (they were not even a church), nor could they have had a pattern for observing the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week because “they didn’t have the 27 books of the NT!”

It is always good to try to determine where a road is leading before you travel it. Some are impressed with any-thing “new” and which seems to give them more “freedom.” From my correspondence with three of the advocates of this theory, I want to offer these suggestions of why the theory is dangerous.

First, its application to the divorce-remarriage issue. Jim Puterbaugh teaches that what God commanded in Deuteronomy 24 is God’s universal marriage law and has been in effect since creation. (He denies that there is a connection between the “one covenant, no change in the law” theory and his position on divorce and remarriage  because he had come to his position on divorce before he learned the theory on one covenant.) It does not take a Solomon to see that if God’s moral law cannot change, and it was moral under the law of Moses for a woman who had been given a bill of divorcement to marry another, the same is moral today. This is what he believes and teaches. He believes it is a sin to “put away,” but not to “give a bill of divorce.” He said, “Yes, we’re still under Deuteronomy 24, because it’s moral law . . . Morals don’t change. What is moral at any given time is moral at all times.” During an ex-change with him, one of his disciples said, “when I understood Jim’s teaching, what a relief it was!” When the disciples of Christ heard his teaching, they said  Horrors! if there is only one reason for divorce and remarriage “it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:9, 10).

If any divorced person can remarry, regardless of the reason for the divorce, Jesus’ statement “whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” cannot be true. When asked about polygamy and concubines, Jim likened these to slavery, and said they “do not precisely violate moral law as God revealed it,” but disappeared when Christianity came.

If you are willing to accept these consequences, or even like them, the “one covenant/no change in the law” doctrine will appeal to you, but there are also other consequences that you need to consider.

Second, if the old law was not taken away at the cross and the new law given for us, we have problems with how to worship. In response to my article on the law, in which I said “whatever applies to the law applies to the prophets” (Matt. 5:17-19), one replied, “We agree. The law is binding, and so are the prophets.” When I asked him about instrumental music in worship, he said: “This is ceremonial and not valid for covenantors of today, in the sense you use the term `worship.”‘ The Old Covenant says that instruments were used “in the house of the Lord . . . for thus was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets” (2 Chron. 29:25). These brethren say that “the law and the prophets” did not cease when they were fulfilled, but are unwilling, thus far, to accept what the prophets said in the law! In response to my question about Sabbath observance, one respondent, who claims to believe in “one covenant” said that the Sabbath was part of the first covenant, but we should not keep it! (They say that the Sabbath was typical of the rest we enjoy in Christ, but that does not solve their problem! The first covenant taught seventh day observance and those under it had to keep the Sabbath holy. If we are under the same covenant, we must do the same, or be violators of God’s law.) I asked him if he observes the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week, and if so why? He said, “Yes, I do observe the LS on the first day of the week because of 1 Cor. 11:23,24, and the time element is in verse 26. A close examination of Acts 20:7 will show that this `first day of the week’ gathering was not a gathering for collective worship, for the simple fact that no church had been established in Troas at that moment in time (cf. Acts 16:6-10).” He also said, “We are to observe the Lord’s supper `as often as’ and for Christians during the weeks after Pentecost of Acts 2, this might have been daily.”

If we do not have a pattern for worship in the New Covenant, how do we know when or how to worship? According to this gentleman the example of those disciples in Troas is not a pat-tern for us (they were not even a church), nor could they have had a pattern for observing the Lord’s sup-per on the first day of the week because “they didn’t have the 27 books of the NT!” We certainly can-not determine the day or frequency from the precept in 1 Corinthians 11:26, because it gives neither! Our brother said: “None of my theology is derived from necessary inference, no, not even the frequency of my par-taking of the LS.” I suggest that the only way he can apply any Bible teaching (pattern) to himself is by necessary inference! Not one verse was written directly to him. How does he know any of it applies?

Third, there is a rejection of the New Testament as a pattern for anything. Our brother said the church “did not have the 27 books of the NT. Thus, no patterned theology! They did have `the Lord’ and positive authentic traditions about Him as he amplified the moral and ethical teachings of God’s law given in OT times principally (by no means exclusively) to Israel.” In an-other letter he asserted, “Our relationship is with a Person, not a system. And that’s what’s wrong with patternism.” He said that he had received many responses from brethren who appreciate his defense of “freedom” because “Covenant theology leads to life, while legalism only brings forth not righteousness but death.” This is the identical argument made by “new hermeneutics” advocates in Nashville in December 1988. It is the use of the Bible to try to prove that we should not use the Bible as a pattern, and will result in abandoning New Testament Christianity. James Bales wrote: “One of the signs of error and confusion which can lead into modern-ism or other types of error, is the charge of `legalism’ when someone insists on teaching people to do what Jesus commanded. . . . These confused individuals, however, do not abandon law. They firmly believe and may even fiercely proclaim, `Thou shalt not be a legalist. It is wrong to be a Pharisee! … One is not being a legalist in maintaining that we are in some sense under law to Christ. There are commandments which we are to keep (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 9:21; Heb. 8:10)” (Modernism :Trojan Horse in the Church 112).

It is not my purpose in this article to defend precept, example, and necessary inference as God’s way of teaching (which is what my brother and others mean by “legalism” and “patternism”), but brethren need to realize that this new theory is simply a rejection of the New Testament as a pattern  not only for divorce and re-marriage but for everything! Brethren have asked how anyone can read “these are two covenants” (Gal. 4:24), and conclude that there is “one covenant in five phases”? It does seem incredible, but when brethren are enamored with denominational scholarship, sometimes they are influenced without even realizing it. This “covenant theology” is not new. If you are interested in further research, I would suggest beginning with What the Bible Says About God the Redeemer by Jack Cottrell. The chapters on the “Righteousness” and “Holiness” of God present arguments for this theology and respond to them. (Jack Cottrell is a fairly conservative professor in the Christian Church.) I will conclude this with a quotation from pages 269, 270 of this book.

The sinful heart is hostile to-ward law; but even many Christians, as the result of a misunderstanding of the relation between law and grace, are quite indifferent toward law (i.e., God’s commands as they apply today) and do not consider it to be binding upon them. They disdain the so-called “letter of the law” and embrace a false freedom in which the only “imperative” is a nebulous subjectivity euphemistically known as “love.” Such an approach may begin as an honest misunderstanding, but it is always secretly fed by the heart’s sinful tendency toward lawlessness. What must be understood is this: since God’s law is the outward expression of his own holy nature, any rebellion against law is also a rebellion against God personally.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 10-11
December 4, 1997

By Mrs. D. Gibson

Recently we received this flier in the mail from the First Baptist Church of Byron.

Will You Come Back to Church If We Promise

Not to Throw the Book at You?

Under the caption it reads, “In our church we believe in a loving and forgiving God. Come and join us this Sunday when we open up the Good Book and worship.”

“Throwing the book” is generally a legal expression that applies to someone who must appear in court to answer for every minor/major infraction or violation of the law to which they are accused. This usually does not come as good news.

I’m not exactly sure what the author of this flier is promising, but if it is meant that you can come to church with a guarantee of no criticism and only sermons that make you feel good, then there is a problem. Being a member of a religious group and never hearing any of the negative things about responsibility or transgression is what the world wants. It is just not politically correct to “throw the book” at the members.

But what does the Bible say?

Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth (Acts 7:51-54).

Stephen “threw the book” at the High Priest and the Jewish leaders. He knew it wasn’t the popular thing to do. It wasn’t the politically correct philosophy of the day. It was not well received and as a result, Stephen lost his life.

And when their masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they caught Paul and Silas and drew them into the market place unto the rulers, and brought them to the magistrates saying, These men being Jews do exceedingly trouble our city, And teach customs which are not lawful for us to receive, neither observe, being Romans. And the multitude rose up together against them and the magistrates rent off their clothes and commanded to beat them. And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely, who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison and made their feet fast in the stocks (Acts 16:19-24).

Well, Paul and Silas “threw the book” at the Macedonians. But it wasn’t so much the doctrine they taught but the greed that upset them. The doctrine became a legal loop-hole to accomplish their purpose. Again these preachers of righteousness suffered greatly for their dedication to the truth.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the re-mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls (Acts 2:36-38, 41).

On the day of Pentecost, Peter and the apostles told their audience that they had put to death the Son of God. They really “threw the book” at them. But this time it had a positive result. They repented and responded to the message.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers, Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matt.23:27-33).

This public discourse by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees fills the entire chapter of Matthew 23. It is probably the strongest condemnation of any group by anyone in the Bible. Jesus calls them fools, hypocrites, blind guides, children of hell, sepulchers full of dead men’s bones, serpents and vipers. Yes, I would say that he was really “throwing the book” at them. That kind of preaching would surely not be politically correct today. These Jewish leaders were instrumental in putting Christ to death for this was his last day of public teaching and in less than a week he was dead. “Throwing the Book” or rather preaching the truth is not always the popular thing to do. It may be a good thing to consider when we might hear a lesson that we particularly do not like. It may be a chance to self-evaluate.

And I saw the dead small and great stand before God and the books were opened and another book which is the book of life and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works (Rev.20:12).

Yes, some day we will all get the “book thrown at us” and this time it will be God doing the throwing. That day is already circled on the calendar. It’s a date we won’t miss. Until then we have the time to prepare. Do we respond to the messages we hear like the ones who heard Stephen and stopped their ears, or like the ones on the day of Pentecost who repented and made the necessary changes in their lives while opportunity was still available? The clock is ticking.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 16-17
December 4, 1997

By Eric Norford

The above question is an interesting one to ponder. It would receive various responses from people in denominationalism and even from members in the body of Christ. Our assembling refers to worship of God. At the same time worship to God is an individual matter. Each individual is to determine in his heart that he will worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). At the same time the church is to come together to worship God (Heb. 10:25; 12:23; Acts 2:42). The two terms go together. We cannot separate them. This means I cannot worship God under a tree, a street light, in the back of my car, or in my home, absent of the church. It would be worship that is vain before God (Matt. 7:21-23; 15:9).

The word assembling or assembly is used in the Old Testament 24 times: Exodus 12:6; 16:3; Leviticus 4:13; Numbers 10:2; 20:6; Deuteronomy 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; Judges 21:8; 1 Samuel 17:47; 2 Chronicles 30:23; Nehemiah 5:7; Psalm 22:16; 89:7;107:32;111:1; Proverbs 15:4; Jeremiah 6:11; 9:2; 15:17; Lamentations 2:6 and Ezekiel 13:9; 23:24. Each of these passages refers to the word assembly as a gathering together of people. It often refers to the whole camp or nation of Israel assembling to observe God’s special commands. It is in that sense that God refers to the gathering as a solemn assembly (Lev. 23:26; Num. 29:35, Deut. 16:8; 2 Kings 10:20; 2 Chron. 7:9).

In the New Testament the word is used six times: Acts 19:32, 41, 49; Hebrews 10:25; 12:23; James 2:2. The pas-sage in Acts 19 calls that assembly a riotous mob, which is not a description of the church gathering together for worship. James 2:2 calls it the church coming into assembly. Hebrews 12:23 uses both terms “general assembly and church,” which Vine’s Expository Dictionary says that the word assembly “coupled with the word church, as applied to all believers who form the body of Christ (the church  EN).”

The King James Version says in Hebrews 2:12, “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the church will I sing praise unto thee.” The word church here refers to the assembly. The New King James translates that word that way. When is the church in assembly? When it comes together to worship God.

The Septuagint translation de-fines the word assembly this way, “a gathering of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose.” We are the Israel of today and we have been called by the word of God for a definite purpose in serving our Lord, which is by worship.

Another way the New Testament uses the word assembly is by using the term “congregation” as in Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; and 1 Timothy 3:15.

The Greek word for assembly is sunago. According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon the word means “to gather together, to come together, to meet. ” It refers to believers, the church.

Brethren, the word assembly clearly refers to the church coming together. The Bible mentions no where of one person being an assembly outside the church and the Scriptures.

Knowing this someone invariably says, “You don’t have to assemble in a central location, I and my family assemble every Sunday and Wednesday, we can do that under a tree or in our homes, therefore we are worshiping God.” They may not go to church, but they “assemble.” They often do it in their own homes or in the home of their leader. Some circumstances give credence to meeting in the home. For example, when the weather prevents us from assembling. Another would be when members move to an area where no church exists and they start the work by meeting in their homes (Rom. 16:5). Another would be if the brethren can-not afford to build a building or there are no buildings to meet in then the church meets in a home or several homes (Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 16:19; Philem. 2).

Nevertheless, the idea of meeting in the home when brethren assemble in a central location is not necessary when these above conditions do not exist. We must meet collectively to worship God, partake of the Lord’s supper, give, and have fellowship with one another (John 4:24; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor.16:2; 11:23-27). When we fail to meet faithfully with the church, we forsake the gathering together, the assembly (Heb.10:25), thus we cannot provoke one another to love and good works (Heb.10:24). Brethren, even people in the denominations understand what meeting together means and they are all following man’s wisdom.

If brethren feel that meeting in the home is an assembly because there are two or three people gathered and feel that God is in their midst, then we might as well eliminate the local church. This is a dangerous belief to have, because it upholds the false theory held by brother Charles Holt. Brother Holt has been teaching for years that there is no such thing as a local church. This is utterly false. There are too many passages of Scripture that justify the use of the term local church. Notice the Scriptures where phrases like “the church at . . . ” and “the church of. . . ” and “the brethren which are at . . .” are mentioned (Acts 9:26; 11:26; 18:1-3; 28:16; Rom.16:1; 1 Cor.1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1: 1; Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:13; Rev. 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). The God of heaven wanted elders in every church in those cities (Acts 14:23). If there are no local congregations then why place elders overseeing the work of a local church?

There are brethren that just uproot themselves and their families from the local church because they feel they can-not conscientiously worship with the brethren in the area in which they live because of problems. Often these problems are figments of their imaginations. Many times the problems have been simply in the area of personal conscience or judgment where brethren do not agree with them on a particular point. Instead of trying to allow that brother the liberty of disagreeing and having fellowship, they act like a child and go home. Then they try to make things look right when they “assemble” in their homes. Then they attempt to persuade others and sow discord among the brethren. They deceive the stronger brethren to think that it is perfectly all right to meet in the home when the church of Christ is just two miles from where they live. They disguise that under the heading, “We assemble, therefore we are not wrong.” Brethren, if every member “withdrew” from the church be-cause they didn’t have their way, there would be no church.

When we fail to assemble with the brethren who share the same faith, we fail to obey Hebrews 10:25. As a result we stand in contempt and rebellion against the God of heaven. The Hebrew writer said, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31). When brethren persuade other brethren that their actions are right and bring division into the church, they have sown discord among the brethren. God considers that an abomination, “These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him . . . he that sows discord among the brethren” (Prov. 6:16, 19).

God also views them in contempt because they are a Diotrephes (3 John 9-10). They bring division into the church (Rom. 16:17). They create seditions or dissension among the brethren (Rom. 16: 17; 1 Cor. 3:3). They produce heresies where people take sides (1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Pet. 2:1).

Another term for all of this is factionalism. Brother Mike Willis said in the Guardian of Truth, September 2, 1982, on the subject of factionalism:

What generally occurs is something like this: an is-sue focuses in a local church, parties form within the local congregation centered around prominent men, heated exchanges occur, the church divides, and information is circulated condemning each other. Information is frequently sent to the periodicals to announce the joyous news that a new congregation was formed in that locality. The truth is that the devil infiltrated the Lord’s kingdom and caused factious men to split the church. Men who should have been the subjects of church discipline because of their factious spirit in dividing the kingdom of God are exalted to leading roles in the church.

It is no wonder that God said we are to “mark them or withdraw from them” that do such things (Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Thess. 3:6-7). We are to “reject them” (Tit. 3:10) be-cause they are heretics.

Is assembling individual or collective? According to the Scriptures it is both. However, both words are used in the same setting as when the church, the family of God, gathers together in worship. We cannot have one without the other. There are brethren in who want to leave one of these out and justify their actions. But if we want to be pleasing to God, we must worship him individually in the collective body of Christ (John 4:24; Acts 2:42). Then we can provoke one another to love and good works (Heb. 10:22-24).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 12-13
December 4, 1997

By Dickey Howard

During the 50s the Lord’s church divided over institutionalism, and there was a clear line drawn between truth and error. Many of God’s people stood for the truth, and continue not to support institutionalism, but one battle does not win the war. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). The devil must be very pleased so many are living in the past, and think the war has been won. Yes, the lines were clearly drawn in the past, but today those lines have become fuzzy and gray, because of soft preaching in some pulpits and dusty Bibles in the home.

The church today is in trouble because it is uninformed. How many know anything about the issues that are dividing the church today? How many even know there is a division taking place in the church? Soft preaching has left the church uninformed and has tickled folk’s ears. When error is clearly taught, it is called false teaching by those who will stand for the truth, and is easy to recognize. Soft preaching is not error, but it does not teach the whole counsel of God, and is not as easy for many folks to see. It is dangerous because it allows the church to ease into apostasy. It doesn’t point out sin in the congregation, nor expose error or the names of those teaching it, as did Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:2. Soft preaching is for those with itching ears (2 Tim. 4:3).

Many will say we are not in trouble. Let us look at this honestly. Are we not in trouble when there are those, in the Lord’s church, who will condemn a gospel preacher be-cause he exposes error and calls the names of those who teach it. Some may say he doesn’t have the right personality, or his sermons are a little too long. No one would dare say he taught any error, in fact everyone would say he taught the truth right down the line.

There are those who would say such a gospel preacher would cause dissension in the congregation where they preach, and also the surrounding congregations. God’s word has always caused division, because the word clearly separates truth from error. The truth turned the world upside down in Acts 17:6. “Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truths” (Gal. 4:10).

Soft preachers are not the only ones to blame for the softness in the church today. Hebrews 13:17 tells elders they will give an account of how they watched for souls. God will not overlook elders who do not have the backbone to stand for the truth, and to see to the feeding of the flock that is among them (Acts 28:28). Be vigilant, which means to be alert or watchful (1 Pet. 5:8). Reactive preaching is like closing the gate after the mule is out. Elders and preachers must be watchful and listen to what is being taught and supported. God’s people must be warned of the dangers that face the church.

There are those who want to hear hard or plain gospel preaching like Paul and the other apostles did. It was preaching that exposed error and called the names of those who did it. It was preaching that encouraged the brethren to love God and their brothers and sisters in Christ and to have unity according to the word. It was not unity in diversity by fellowship of any and everything for the sake of peace.

We must remember, no one can go to heaven on the group plan. Each of us will stand before God in judgment and give an account of himself. Matthew 12:37 says, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Let us not let friendship or kinship cause us to say or do things that will cause us to lose our soul in eternity. I long for the day when folks will come to the elders and preachers and say, “Give us the truth and nothing but the truth.” God told the Laodiceans that he would spew them from his mouth because they were lukewarm, and we had better check our temperature before it is too late.

(Reprinted from The East Florence Contender, Florence, Alabama, September 1997. Dickey Howard is an elder in the East Florence Church of Christ, Box 915, Florence, Alabama 35631-0915 )

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 24-25
December 4, 1997