Truth Magazine

By Norman E. Fultz

One of the most discouraging things faced by those who are involved in trying to build up the church is facing the problem of backsliding members. It’s not new. It’s an ancient problem as we shall see.

To call one a “backslider” is not the most complimentary thing he could be called. Many folks who are in reality backsliders do not like to be so designated. They choose a milder term to describe themselves or another who has lapsed into sin. “Erring” and “out of fellowship” are frequently substituted, for they do not sound so harsh; but the consequences of the condition are not changed by softer terminology. Webster defines the term “backslider” as “to slide back; to lapse morally or in the practice of religion.” A backslider is a starter who didn’t finish. It means one who reached plateau and slid down. It means one who began but did not continue. It means a failure, or at least about to fail. No, it isn’t complimentary!

Some will jokingly call themselves backsliders, but backsliding is not a laughing matter. It is a serious situation. The kingdom of Judah in Jeremiah’s day is a good illustration. While there are many references in the Old Testament in which God’s people are called backsliders, for now consider just Jeremiah 2. Look at some of the figures God uses to depict the condition.

They had been given a good land, but they defiled it (Jer. 2:6-7). Even their pastors had transgressed, the priests did not know the Lord, and the prophets prophesied by Baal (v. 8). While nations who worshiped idols were not known to change their gods, God’s people “changed their glory for that which does not profit” (v. 11). In short, they had “forsaken” him (v. 19). Yes, truly backsliding is serious.

Backsliding results when the heart is not right (Prov. 14:14). The heart is not fully committed to God and his ways (cf. Matt. 22:38), and the affections are not properly focused (cf. Col.3:1-3). The heart is the seat of action (Prov. 4:23). Thus, when the heart is not right, the actions will reflect it.

Are there present-day backsliders? There were some in the days of the apostles. Peter spoke of some becoming “entangled again” in the rudiments of the world (2 Pet. 2:20). Paul called some by name (2 Tim. 4:10; 2:16-17), and James said Christians could be guilty of spiritual adultery and become enemies of God (Jas. 4:4).

We frequently find those who have “quit the Lord,” turned back to the world, and sold their spiritual birth-right. Many cease assembling with the saints (Heb. 10:25), live unbecomingly (Phil. 1:27), leave their first love (Rev. 2:4), and become lukewarm and indifferent (Rev. 3:15-16). In short, they have lapsed in the practice of the religion of Christ. They are backslidden!

How great is the mercy and longsuffering of God! He appeals to the backslider to return to him. “Return, ye back-sliding children, and I will heal your backslidings” (Jer. 3:22). “0 Israel, return unto the Lord thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. …I will heal their back-sliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him” (Hos. 4:1, 4). And again, “O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved” (Jer. 4:14). And in the New Testament the appeal is,”Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works” (Rev. 2:5). And even to those backslidden into self-satisfied indifference, the Lord pleads, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone will hear my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20).

God’s plan makes a way for all people who would be saved; so, dear backsliding brother or sister, he will save you if you will repent and return unto him. Otherwise you will be lost forever in the devil’s hell.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 1
January 16, 1997

By Bob Dickey

He was young and exuberant, and I immediately admired his apparent zeal. Having just learned that I was a preacher in the Indianapolis area, he said, “I’m a Christian, too, but I guess you guys think of us as digressive.” We exchanged handshakes and pleasantries, then I returned to his opening statement and began to discuss our differences. He was kind, but adamantly bold: “The importance of the church, baptism, and fellowship seem to be the most important things to you,” he charged, “But, to me, it should be love and compassion for our fellowman!” I agreed that love, justice, and mercy were the weightier matters (Matt. 23:23-24), but asked him if he didn’t think that the Catholics (Mother Theresa) and Mormons showed a great deal of that; did that love and compassion make them true to God and his Word? “That’s another thing,” he replied, “I don’t think we’re the only ones who are right, there are certainly Christians in other churches! I long for the day when we won’t just be trying to place people into the church by slamming them under the water!”

I left that young man and our conversations that day and journeyed onward in my work. But I could not leave behind that numbing ache in my stomach and sad realization in my heart, that we were worlds apart. His was a case of zeal without knowledge, I thought. The case of many of our own young (and not so young) is a knowledge without much zeal. Both lead to spiritual disaster. I cannot help but won-der how far some of our own may be from the subjective outlook and indifference to Bible truth that will eventually lead them down the same digressive path.

Many young people have been raised in churches of Christ under the influence and teaching of preachers who defend the centralizations, institutions, and social gospel practices of more recent time. We should not be surprised to learn that this lack of sound teaching has produced some deplorable conditions among a second generation. They neither know nor care about the purity of the Lord’s church. They have few convictions about the fundamentals of the faith, and seemingly know nothing about the historical issues and battles of the past. A “return to the old paths” concept seems totally foreign to them. I know that for a fact, for the young man I spoke with stopped me in the middle of our conversation and asked, “What do you mean about this `ancient order’ thing?”

Somehow, I knew, in spite of a patient explanation, that he could not appreciate the historical ideals that characterized those who made their departure from denominationalism to New Testament Christianity years ago. His is a generation raised on philosophical preaching and social consciousness. His generation has not been taught to follow only the Scriptures. Few of his age seem to understand the commitment or responsibility to demand a “thus saith the Lord,” nor the necessity of being simply Christians in a uniquely undenominational sense.

Denominational Influences

Popular preachers of national TV and radio prominence continually minimize the importance of the church, convincing the multitudes that church membership is unnecessary, or that it may be a choice based purely on whim. They have led them to believe that there is nothing to the church which belongs to Christ.

We have long since passed the time when denominational preachers would vilify the Lord’s church or debate the fundamental teachings of what makes the Lord’s church unique. We live in a time when religious people are unwilling to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered.” They know nothing of the call to “fight the good fight of faith.” Debating, contending, rebuking, and correcting error has become distasteful, not only in mainstream religious circles, but increasingly among our own brethren.

Some Are Not Far Behind

If what I read means anything, I am persuaded that some present-day preachers of the Lord’s church are not far be-hind in their attitude toward the church Some cannot say that the church of which they are members contains all of the saved. Equating their churches, by their various activities and actions, with the modern churches of men, they no longer preach a distinctive New Testament message. Practicing practically all that sectarian bodies do, they have given up Bible authority for human reasoning, pragmatism, and mere expediency.

What About Us?

Closer to home, there are even dangerous tendencies being followed by so called “conservative” churches today. We have not been left unaffected by the march of denominationalism and modem liberalism. We must continue to restore the New Testament order. The trends of many of these churches must be opposed. We must help our brethren to learn to oppose denominational concepts especially when they are creeping into local congregations of the Lord’s church.

Certainly one of the causes for alarm among us concerns the failure to preach the distinctive message of Christ and his church. And, while we might well address the many reasons for digression and dangerous trends among us, the scope of this article is limited to our preaching on the church of God. Many of our brethren, young and old, are not being impressed today with the solid Bible teaching and plain preaching that they so desperately need to keep them grounded and true to Christ. They are not always being given the kind of preaching that will help them appreciate that the nature and character of the church is foreign to the structures and purposes of denominationalism.

Our preaching on the church must:

1. Correct some common misconceptions. Many look upon the church as a multiplicity of denominations grouped together (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). Some, by their thoughtless remarks, see the church as nothing more than a physical building instead of a spiritual body (1 Cor. 3:9; Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:5). Others think of the church as a mere social club  a sort of religious society or fraternity where various social activities are held (Rom. 14:17). Premillennialists conceive of it as a temporary expediency substituted for God’s original plan (Eph. 3:10-11).

2. Expose modern false teaching. We must dispel and root out the arrogant claims of those who have long ago left the Bible behind. We must deny the claims of those who feel that each man can have his own religion “at home.” We must show the impossibility of those who clamor for us to “just preach Christ and not the church.” We must patiently ground our people and answer the false claim of those who say “doctrine doesn’t matter or relate to our modern needs.” We must continue to slay the ridiculous notion that “the church of Christ is just another human denomination.”

3. Protect against that which would weaken the church. There are many things that weaken the church: false teaching (Gal. I:6ff,1 John 4:1), ignoring the Bible pattern (Col.3:17), speaking differently than God (I Pet. 4:11), failing to practice discipline (Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 5), emphasizing social instead of spiritual needs (Rom. 14:15-17; 1 Cor. 11:20-24), neglecting the mission of the church (1 Tim. 3:15; Matt. 28:18-20), failing to give as prospered (1 Cor. 16:1-2), indifference and apathy (Heb. 5:11-14; 10:24-25), complaint and criticism (Phil 2:14), promotion of factions and party spirit (1 Cor. 1:10ff; Jas. 3:14-16), pessimism and despair (Heb. 12:12; 1 Thess 5:11). These are a few, among other factors, and not all of them weaken in the same way, but they all are a threat to the strength and ongoing work of the Lord’s local church. We must preach and protect against them.

4. Set forth its distinctive character. We must show to all that it is “the called out” (1 Pet. 2:9-11; Eph. 5:8; 2 Thess. 2:14). We must plainly declare that it has no denominational name, creed, organization, worship, work, or requirement for membership. We must help all men learn about the church in its prophecy, establishment, and history. We must help them to become familiar with true Bible designations that identify it. We must show them the Bible pattern established by the Lord and help them to distinguish it from the innovations of man. We must teach them that it is sufficient to accomplish what God assigned it to do. We must help them to see that it is a kingdom that can-not be shaken (Heb. 12:8-29).

5. Help all to appreciate its importance. Finally, we must fight against all that would devalue the importance of the Lord’s church. Much modern preaching is leaving doubts about the significance of the church and its relationship to the Father, thereby leaving doubts about its importance to the individual believer. But when we preach what the Bible shows it to be; when we call upon all to comprehend what it cost to purchase, when we come to see what it really is, certainly we will be moved to appreciate its great value. If we come to be ashamed of the church of our Lord, we will be ashamed of God’s wisdom which designed it (Eph. 3:10) and ashamed of Christ’s blood which purchased it (Acts 20:28).

Let us not be ashamed to preach about the church of our Lord! When we speak about love, commitment to Christ, and dedication to his cause, let’s not divorce it from our duties and privileges of the local church. When we preach about loyalty to Jesus, let’s make certain that our hearers know that this involves them in pure and simple undenominational Christianity!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 28-29
January 2, 1997

By Tom M. Roberts

The apostle John envisioned two kinds of fellowship when he wrote his epistles. When he spoke of having “fellowship with us” and “fellowship with one with another,” John had reference to the kind of fellowship between brethren in Christ (1 John 1:3, 7). But he also spoke of “fellowship with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ” (vv. 3, 6). Ideally, fellowship includes both the “horizontal” as well as the “vertical” kinds, but not always. It is possible to have fellowship with brethren and not have fellowship with Christ; it is also possible to have fellowship with Christ and not have fellowship with some brethren.

Fellowship and Ancient Heresies

John noted that he had fellowship with both the Father and the Son and he wrote that others might share in that fellowship. However, Diotrephes refused to have fellow-ship with John and he “cast out of the church” those who would receive John (3 John 9-10). Hence, John and “the castouts” were in fellowship with God while Diotrephes and the local church had their own “communion, sharing in common” (Vine, p. 90) in which Christ had no part (2 John 9-11). It is a mistake to assume fellowship with God simply because of membership in a local church. Much less can we assume fellowship with the Lord simply because we hold membership in the “Church of Christ.” Heresy may control the “mainstream,” wear a scriptural name and hold title to church buildings, but all this has no connection to fellowship with God.

Throughout his epistle, John emphasized that fellowship with God is predicated on “walking in the light” (1 John 1:7), “confessing our sins” (1:9), “keeping his commandments” (2:3), “keeping the word” (2:5), “doing righteousness” (2:29), etc. God is pure; therefore we must be pure (3:3). Those who refused to submit to the Spirit of God (4:1) “went out from us, but they were not of us” (2:19). Those who depart from the pathway of truth have a certain fellowship, but not with God or with those whom God includes in his communion. It is a fellowship of iniquity, a communion with darkness, a concord with unbelievers. From these, we are to be separate, having come out from among them (2 Cor. 6:11-14; Rom. 16:17). Breaks in fellowship are inevitable; divisions must come (Matt. 18:7); otherwise, those “who are approved” would not be made manifest (I Cot 11:19).

God Will Not Fellowship Sin

Throughout Scripture, the holiness of God is emphasized and John clearly conditions our fellowship with God on holiness, both his and ours (22:3; 99:5; Ps. 145:17; Isa. 6:3; Rom. 7:2; 12:1; 1 John 1:7). We have communion with God only through sanctification, not through the practice of sin (Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 2:21). Yet the Gnostic philosophy demanded the right to practice sin even while claiming fellowship with God. Sad to say, some still propose the Gnostic error as though John never ad-dressed it, teaching a “unity in diversity” that would embrace moral and doctrinal error. Are we to suppose that God has changed his nature and is now more amenable to sin?

Shall We Fellowship Sin?

Some brethren today are debating the conditions and circumstances under which they may claim fellowship with God even while continuing in sinful beliefs and practices. However bizarre it may seem to us, some reputable brethren (preachers, editors, college professors, educators, etc.) continue to press for the very situation that the holiness of God prohibits. We seem to have forgotten Paul’s admonition: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid” (Rom. 6:1).

Though protests are constantly made by some that “we don’t engage in sinful beliefs and practices ourselves,” they are quite comfortable fellowshipping those who do. For example, adulterous marriages are deplored by some who claim to be “conservative” on the “divorce issue.” They teach that the put-away fornicator has no authority from God to remany. Some even go so far as to question whether anyone has a right to remarry after a divorce at all. Yet they do not hesitate to receive into their fellowship, encourage and support those who advocate, believe in, and practice adulterous marriages. Naturally, their arguments against adulterous marriages fall on deaf ears among those to whom fellowship is extended. Arguments against sin are impotent when one is willing to fellowship sin! Our influence will go in the direction of our fellowship, not in the direction of our teaching.

The Bible is crystal clear on this aspect of fellowship. Not only can we not personally engage in sin and expect God to be in fellowship with us, we cannot have fellowship with those who have fellowship with sinners! “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). Again, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hathnot God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11).

Note that God condemned not only those who lived an ungodly lifestyle but also their sympathizers: “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have plea-sure in them that do them” (Rom. 1:32). It is a violation of the principles of fellowship with God to encourage, sup-port, and promote fellowship with those who advocate sinful beliefs and practices. History is full of examples of those who lost the battle for truth by attempting to fellowship brethren who believed and practiced error.

Restoration Unity Not the Same as Unity in Diversity

The Restoration pioneers were guided in their studies of God’s word by concluding: “In matters of doctrine, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, charity.” This worthy principle has been sadly re-worked by some today to teach: “In matters of doctrine, liberty; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, liberty.” We are told that there is only one kind of unity: unity in diversity of moral and doctrinal error. Under this banner, people from every corner of the religious spectrum are rallying to extend fellowship to one another.

Gnostic Fellowship Excludes Only One “Evil”

The only unforgivable sin, for which no fellowship is allowed, is the militancy by which objections are raised to this neo-Gnosticism. The meek and quiet spirit of compromise which is tolerant enough and broad enough to fellowship those who advocate gambling, social drinking, instrumental music, premillennialism, the use of women in public worship, the guilty fornicator and, yes, even homosexual alliances (according to one editor) becomes instantly hostile to those who call these practices into question. Venom, name-calling, and the worst kind of yellow-rag journalism becomes acceptable in isolating those who object to fellowship with sinful beliefs and practices. Epithets as widely diverse as “brotherhood watchdogs” and “scavengers of carrion” are hurled at anyone bold enough to question fellowship with sinful practices.

Those who wish to have fellowship with moral and doctrinal error today are pikers compared with Diotrephes. He boldly opposed John the apostle! There are not any apostles to cast out of the church today, and there is little glory to be found in calling one of the “Guardian boys” a dog or a buzzard. Be careful, though! Jesus still controls fellowship in his church and Gnostics of any age who fellowship sin “have not God.” Just how close to Diotrephes are you willing to stand on the Judgment Day?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 26-27
January 2, 1997

By Harry R. Osborne

In Nehemiah 8, the people of Israel who had returned from the captivity assembled to hear the law. They were not reluctant hearers, but attentive recipients of the word. In-deed, the text says that “the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law” as Ezra spoke from the pulpit “from early morning until midday” (v. 3). Extended periods of listening to God’s will has never been boring to those who love the Lord and his truth  it is a thrilling opportunity!

Their exemplary response to God’s law began in reverence when they stood as the book of the law was opened and concluded with the people voicing, “Amen, Amen,” to the teaching as they worshiped God. The day ended with the people being joyful “because they had understood the words that were declared unto them” (v. 12). Though the day began with many being ignorant of the law’s teaching, they understood and rejoiced by day’s end.

The book of Nehemiah goes on to record the people’s confession of sin and their vowing together “to do all the commandments of Jehovah our Lord” (Neh. 10:29). How was this great change in understanding of God’s will and the consequent uplifting of the people accomplished? What kind of teaching aided this much needed transformation of will and action? Our questions are answered as the following is revealed about the teaching of Ezra and his fellow teachers, “And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading” (Neh. 8:8).

This was a case of distinctive preaching which should serve as an example to us. The same things that made this distinctive preaching acceptable to God and effective in reaching honest hearts can do the same in our time. Notice the elements of this distinctive preaching: (1) It was preaching founded upon the word of God. (2) It was preaching which examined and applied the principles of truth. (3) It was preaching designed to be understood by all hearers.

Brethren, it is incumbent upon God’s people to examine the preaching of our day to see if it meets the divine criteria of such distinctiveness. Those of us who preach must honestly measure our teaching by the divine standard, not the standard of popular appeal or cultural correctness. Those of us who listen must demand distinctive preaching which fosters an understanding of truth and a proper application of its principles as we commit ourselves to total faithfulness.

Preaching the Book

Ezra preached what is sometimes called an expository sermon for half of one day. His teaching was not based on a joke or a story of what happened to him while out fishing. Those listening to Ezra went away with the words of God upon their hearts. Divinely approved, distinctive preaching has always been “book, chapter and verse” preaching.

New Testament preachers did the same. Paul said that the Scripture was given “that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Peter referred again and again to Scripture as the proof in his sermons. The Hebrew writer used Scripture to prove each point he made. Thus, Paul gave the simple instruction for all preachers of all time: “Preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).

In our time, many denominational preachers and “televangelists” have blazed the trail of minimizing the use of the Scriptures. Sadly, too many of our brethren seem to be following their lead. Sermons with three, two, or just one Bible passage cited during the entire sermon are be-coming far too common among us.

As the volume of cited Scripture diminishes, the dependence upon uninspired poetry, jokes, stories, and literature has increased. Though such material is sometimes good to illustrate a Bible truth, let us always show our emphasis upon the word of God by appealing predominantly to it.

Examination and Application of Bible Principles

Ezra did not merely read the law and leave the people to interpret it in any fashion they desired. He correctly recognized that a divinely inspired message instructed a right path of faith and conduct. Thus, the text says he “gave the sense” of God’s instruction. This was done as each principle was examined and applied so that the hearers might comprehend both the truth taught and how that truth had practical application in their lives.

It was this process that helped the people understand that they were not living as God had prescribed within his law. Their initial examination of that law caused the people grief as they faced the fact of their unwitting disobedience. Their past failure to keep the Feast of Tabernacles as ordained by God was then corrected as they understood “the sense” of God’s commands and applied themselves to obey the law in this matter. Distinctive preaching made this progress possible.

The New Testament requires the same kind of distinctive preaching which examines “the sense” of truth in propositional terms and shows the practical applications of that truth by calling upon the hearers to correct their actions in obedience. Whether those preaching in the first century affirmed the proposition that Jesus was the Christ, that salvation was by grace through faith, or that Christians have an obligation to holiness, they examined the doctrine of Christ to ascertain the truth and gave “the sense” of that teaching.

Such preaching demanded that they oppose false concepts which would lead people away from God and his truth. While affirming that the crucified Jesus was the Christ, they exposed and opposed the Jews and Greeks who denied that propositional truth (1 Cor. 1:18-25). While affirming that salvation was by grace through faith, they had to expose and oppose the Judiazing teachers who taught otherwise (see the book of Galatians as an example). While affirming the necessity for holiness in the life of Christians, it was also necessary to expose and oppose those who would turn the grace of God into a license to sin more abundantly (Rom. 6:1-11; 1 John 1:6; 1 Cor. 5). Preaching which accentuates the positive and eliminates the negative may please the ears of the world, but it does not please God by following his plan for distinctive preaching.

The hearers of the first century were also given responsibilities to insure that such preaching would continue in their presence. John told the hearers to “believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; be-cause many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). John then gave propositional truths to test for false teachers. When the hearers questioned a teacher regarding such specific points of truth and compared the teacher’s words to the word of God, false teachers could be identified, exposed and avoided.

It is a sad fact in our day that some label as “creedal” the attempts to so identify false teachers of today. The charge is exactly opposite of the truth. Opponents of such examination are the real perpetrators of a “creedal” mentality as they demand the acceptance of some teachers of error based upon past history of how brethren have traditionally handled such differences. That, brethren, is creedal thinking at its worst!

We face an urgent need for distinctive preaching on numerous issues of our day. The following are but a few examples: (1) “The sense” of commands regarding godliness need to be examined clearly and application made in our preaching. Among Christians, the prevalence of immodest dress, the justification of social drinking, and the incidence of immorality have risen to alarming rates. Why? In part, it is because we have failed to preach the distinctive truth on such matters without compromise. When churches hear preaching which excuses apparel revealing more of the body than it covers, justifies drinking intoxicants at so called “moderate” levels, and tolerates unlawful marriages or at least the defenders thereof, is it any wonder that more of this behavior is the result? Distinctive preaching will point people towards holiness and godliness rather than seeking tolerance for worldliness (2 Cor. 6:14-18;1 Pet. 4:1-6; 1 Tim. 2:9-10; Matt. 19:3-12).

(2) “The sense” of passages distinguishing between the Mosaic law and the gospel of Christ need to be distinctly taught in our time. There are brethren teaching that we are now under the same law as those in Old Testament times. They contend that Colossians 2:14 only affirms that sin, not the old law, was nailed to the cross. They further argue that Jeremiah 31:31-34 does not speak of a change in law, but a renewal of the old law upon Israel’s return from captivity. No, a change of law is the subject of those passages as well as every epistle written to oppose Judiazing teachers and a host of passages too plain to overlook (Heb. 7:12; 8:6; 10:1-10; Eph. 2:14-15; 2 Cor. 3:7-14). It is indeed ironic that those teaching this doctrine affirm we are under the same law to which the Hebrews wrongly sought return and were rebuked with these words, “For when by the reason of time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food” (Heb. 5:12).

(3) “The sense” of passages declaring the conditions for salvation need to be examined and applied in clear terms which show the distinctive nature of Christ’s doctrine in contrast to denominationalism. Denominationalists are called out of their error and into God’s truth by preaching which exposes the error of false doctrines such as salvation by faith only, once saved always saved, infant baptism and the like. At a time when the distinctive nature of gospel preaching needs to be heard more than ever, too many are preaching sermons which could be as easily preached in a Baptist church without a dissenting word. Some have grown weary of meetings wherein the gospel plan of salvation is explained and an invitation is extended urging hearers to obey the Lord by meeting those conditions for pardon. Such preaching is replaced by sermons on “inter-personal relationships,” “self esteem” and other topics of discussion in psychology circles.

Do we really believe this change from a distinctive message to one which copies denominational jargon will help bring those in error to the truth? Some of the strongest Christians I know were converted from denominations, my own mother among that number. Without exception, each of them have told me that distinctive preaching which drew a clear contrast between the error they believed and the truth regarding salvation was instrumental in their conversion. All have said it was difficult to hear at fast, but necessary to motivate an examination of Bible teaching to find the truth. The book of Acts confirms the need for and effectiveness of such preaching.

Passages showing that the faith which saves is the faith that obeys need to be preached with clarity and force (Jas. 2:14-26). Passages showing the demands of repentance must be examined and applied (2 Cor. 7:10-11). Passages stating the necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins must be affirmed and defended against the devil’s error which denies the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-11; 1 Pet. 3:21).

Preaching To Be Understood

Finally, Ezra preached “so that they understood the reading.” New Testament preachers did the same (Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17). Distinctive preaching seeks to be understood by all hearers (Isa. 35:8). Distinctive preaching does not gain itsdistinctive nature from the advanced vocabulary or oratorical ability of the preacher (1 Cor. 2:1-5). The servant of God does not seek to be remembered for his unique delivery and style, but seeks for the audience to understand and re-member the truth of God’s word.

One of the common characteristics present in false teachers is their repeated claim to have been misunderstood. When accused of teaching error, they often shift the blame to the defender of truth by saying it is all just a confusion over terminology. If these teachers truly find it too difficult to speak so that they are understood, they need to reevaluate their usefulness as gospel preachers. When someone starts to question the clarity of truth, it should serve as a warning that the “truth” they teach is not the truth of God. Those who preach the distinctive message of truth will be under-stood because that message was designed by God to be understood by hearers who could then apply the principles into a life of service to God as he clearly commands in his word. Let us unashamedly preach the distinctive truth of God so as to be understood.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 24-26
January 2, 1997