Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

No fireworks! No Elvis impersonators! No antique car shows! No gimmicks!

All of these have been sponsored by churches in our area, but the church of Christ at 516 Rocky Point Road just wants to be a church after the New Testament order. All we offer is the gospel, without addition or subtraction. Our goal is to specialize in just being a church, not a club. Sometimes men mix the social gospel with the true, thereby diluting it. There is a difference between the pure gospel and the modern social gospel, which is really another gospel (Gal.1:6-10).

The Lord’s church was given a three-fold work to do. 1. Its primary mission is to evangelize. It is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim.3:15; 1 Thess. 1:8). 2. It also has the responsibility to teach and train its own members so they may grow to maturity (Eph. 4:12). 3. And it was given the work of benevolence (Acts 6:1-6).

Christ’s mission was to save souls for eternity. He made a clear distinction between the sacred (what came from heaven) and the secular (what came from men). If it came from men, it had no heavenly authority (Mark 11:30). The responsibility of recreation and entertainment was never given to the church. Men have so blended the sacred and the secular that it is difficult to distinguish them. Inspiration cautions us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Do you feel insulted if a church thinks the only way they can keep you faithful to God is with food, entertainment and recreation? Do you desire to associate with those who simply want to worship God because they love him and Jesus died for them?

It is refreshing to meet folks who want to go back to the Bible and just be the church Jesus built. That is our goal. We hope you will make it yours! Won’t you come and investigate?

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 12
November 7, 1996

 

Dear Brother Paul,

Greetings from the Roman saints, brother Paul. We have carefully read your epistle to us and have appreciated it greatly. For the most part, we have understood it and have been encouraged by all of it. However, there is one section about which some question has arisen. We are disagreed about its meaning and application. At times our disagreement has become somewhat sharp and severe. I am referring to the section in which you instruct brethren who differ concerning “food” and “days” to receive each other.

I have been asked by the brethren here to write you asking for further clarification. I am doing this by in-forming you how I understand your teaching. If I have misunderstood you, please correct me frankly and plainly.

First, I understand you to mean that the difference between the “weak” and the “strong” brother is that the former is not “fully assured” in his faith and the latter is “fully assured” in his faith. Thus, in each case “faith” is personal  subjective  and does not refer to “the faith”  objective  as our brother Jude teaches in his epistle.

Dealing with “false teachers,” men who make fatal flaws concerning “the faith,” is taught later in this epistle as well as in other epistles. “Mark and turn away” from those who are teaching things “contrary to the doctrine.” We are familiar with brethren Jude and Peter’s instruction concerning such teachers. We have also heard of, though we have not yet seen the epistle, brother John’s instruction “to give no greeting” to a teacher who does not bring “this doctrine.” To the best of our ability we are practicing these instructions from the inspired witnesses.”

Second, I find no evidence in your instructions that you are concerned with which “faith,” “strong or weak,” is correct. Neither are you saying that the “strong brother” has “faith”; the “weak brother” is holding an opinion. Each is acting conscientiously. Your instruction relates to “receiving each other”; the how and why of it.

Third, it appears evident to me, that the matters about which there is a difference in “faith” do not involve the congregation. They involve brethren acting personally and independently of the group.

“Eating or not eating,” “esteeming one day above another” may be done personally and are not of the same classification as singing in the assembly accompanied by lyres and harps; or choosing an “elder” who has two wives.

Here are my reasons from your instruction for drawing these conclusions: (1) You use “faith” four times in this con-text. The last three unquestionably refer to personal faith. It seems highly unlikely that you would use “faith” in the be-ginning “objectively” and then use it “subjectively” in the conclusion. (2) “Receiving” each other is not based upon the correctness or incorrectness of each brother’s faith because: “Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.” “Each of us shall give an account of himself to God.” The “strong brother” is “not to set at naught him that eateth not” and is “to bear the infirmities of the weak.” On the other hand the “weak brother” is not to “judge (condemn) him that eateth.” Therefore, each is to “receive” the other while each holds his own faith. Since each has been “received” by the Lord  when each obeyed the gospel  the future standing of each will be decided by the Lord.

The “why” each is “to receive” the other is stated in these words: “Let not then your good be evil spoken of.” “For the kingdom of God is not (about) eating and drinking but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” “Let us follow after things which make for peace . . . and edify each other.” “The strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak” and “please his neighbor . . . unto edifying.”

Some who question my understanding of your instruction warn me  which I do not take lightly  that this interpretation would permit us to “give the right hand of fellowship” to some teachers who have recently come from Africa teaching and practicing “plural wives.” I reply that their concern is unfounded for that problem has been addressed by your later teaching in this epistle as well as in the epistles of Jude and Peter, and what we have heard about brother John’s. These “believers” do not argue their “faith” from the teaching of “the faith.” They “deny” our Master by not “listening to His witnesses.”

Our concern here is not about “eating meats” and “es-teeming days.” It concerns “May-pole dancing,” originally a celebration to a “god” which is not God, as you wrote the Corinthian brethren. Now it is simply a national and recreational holiday. Some of us participate in the game being “fully assured.” Some of us are not “fully assured” and therefore do not participate. Some think that we should study the matter until we are of “one mind and one accord.” Others, such as myself, think that we should “receive” each other in spite of our differences. Each “side” claims your instruction as their authority. My judgment is, as I have tried to explain, that we should maintain fellowshipping each other while permitting each brother to “May-pole dance” or not according to his own “faith.” And, that God will finally decide who “stands or falls.”

Be assured, beloved brother, that each of us is resolved to do God’s will endeavoring to remain a “company of believers.” We eagerly await your further instruction.

Fraternally,

Aristobulus (State Gymnasium Captain)

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 10-11
November 7, 1996

By Irvin Himmel

King Saul was sent by the Lord to utterly destroy the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. He was told plainly to “go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

The haughty Saul spared Agag, the Amalekite king, and the best of the livestock were brought back. When Samuel the prophet rebuked Saul for his disobedience to God, the rebellious king admitted, “I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.”

As the leader of the people, Saul had the responsibility to go before them in the fear of God. No matter what the people desired, God’s will should have been respected by the king. Saul let the people lead him when he should have been leading them.

Elders in the church sometimes cave in to the demands of the people when they should insist on following the New Testament plan for the church. Preachers often are influenced by the voice of the people. They preach what the people want to hear rather than what the people need to hear. Such men ought to read, believe, and obey Paul’s charge in 2 Timothy 4.

Let us always fear God and obey his voice.

 

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 9
November 7, 1996

By Ron Halbrook

During his personal ministry, Jesus had many debates in an ongoing battle between truth and error. A religious lawyer once tried to trap him by asking, “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus answered the question by asking, “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” The lawyer correctly cited two pillars of the law requiring love of God first and then love of neighbor (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). Jesus said, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.”

This answer exposed the lawyer’s lack of love for his neighbor, so he asked a question designed to justify and excuse himself: “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus told the story of a man who was robbed, beaten, and left for dead on the Jerusalem-Jericho road, a route known for its bandits. A priest hurried by without stopping, as did a Levite. These religious leaders thought of themselves and perhaps their duties at the temple. They saw no reason to put themselves in harm’s way.

“But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him.” The Samaritan bound up the man’s wounds and paid the costs for his recovery. Jesus asked, “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among thieves?” The lawyer avoided saying the word “Samaritan” but simply said, “He that showed mercy on him.” Jesus answered, “Go, and do thou likewise.” To be a neighbor is to show love, mercy, and compassion wherever it is needed  to recognize our neighbor’s need and do what we can to help. That is how we fulfill the command to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Good lessons are found in this account. 1. Jesus is the Master Teacher. He taught we will know who our neighbor is if we resolve to be a neighbor, a person of love and mercy (Gal. 6:10; Rom. 13:8-10). Using a man of the despised race of Samaria to teach the lesson was a master stroke. “Never man spake like this man” (John 7:46).

2. Jesus appealed to the Bible as God’s Word. “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” The Bible can be understood and has the right answer to every question (Matt. 4:1-11; 19:4; 22:29-31).

3. Religious debates are effective. This account teaches us to answer a question with a question at times. Jesus did not subscribe to Satan’s proverb, “I never discuss religion; I do not believe in debates.” We are not to engage in malicious quarrels, or to endlessly rehash the truth with people whose hearts are hardened (Rom. 1:29; Matt. 7:6; 10:14). Good de-bates can be traced from Elijah to Jesus to Paul to our time.

4. People who do not know the truth may do better at times on a given point than some who know the truth. Jeroboam led ten tribes of Israel to separate from Judah and to worship golden calves. When Israel went into Assyrian captivity, Assyria moved Gentiles into the land of Israel. The few Israelites left intermarried with Gentiles and their religions intermingled (2 Kings 17). Thus, the Samaritans arose with their false religion. Yet, in the story Jesus told, the Samaritan outshone two of God’s people. When the church at Corinth tolerated extreme immorality, God said the Gentiles do better than that (1 Cor. 5). Our proverb, “There is honor among thieves,” makes a similar point today.

5. Human sophistry cannot excuse sin. We cannot fool God by asking one question after another designed to get around his law and to justify ourselves. The lawyer knew the truth but his heart was not in it, just like the priest and the Levite.

The Good Samaritan Misused

Every gift and revelation from God has been twisted, perverted, and misused by Satan (2 Cor. 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:16). He twisted and tortured God’s law in the Garden of Eden to make evil appear harmless and good evil (Gen. 3:4-6). In tempting Christ, Satan perverted Psalm 91:11-12 to say God promises security to his children even when they disobey him; the passage promises God’s care when his children trust in him (Matt. 4:5-7). Jesus said men would destroy the temple of his body and, “In three days I will raise it up,” but at his trial false witnesses said he proposed to destroy the literal temple and rebuild it in three days (John 2:18-22; Matt. 26:59-61).

Satan’s ministers have perverted and misused the story of the good Samaritan to teach the following errors. 1. God does not care what our religion is, just so we are good neighbors and help people. This misses the lesson. Jesus shows that people who do not know the truth may do better on a given point at times than those who know the truth. He rebuked the spirit of the priest and the Levite another time, asking, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). The Bible speaks of some “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof’ (2 Tim. 3:5).

This is far different from teaching that people can be saved in ignorance and false religion. The Samaritan religion was a mixture of truth and error, an attempt to mix the worship of God with false gods. “They feared the Lord, and served their graven images, both their children, and their children’s children” (2 Kings 17:24-41). Jesus told the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well that her religion was false and devoid of salvation (John 4:22). She had to give up that religion to follow Christ.

Christ’s use of the good Samaritan to rebuke the Jews did not mean we can be saved by philanthropy without the gospel. Christ died on the cross because we cannot save ourselves by such deeds (Eph. 2:8-9). Salvation is only in Christ and is received by faith, repentance, confessing him, and immersion in water (Acts 2:36-38; 8:37).agencies, colleges, vocational training, entertainment activities, and legal and financial services.

2. The church is to be a good Samaritan by functioning as a social welfare institution. This very popular and widespread idea is utterly false. Jesus used the good Samaritan to teach that it is not enough to profess the truth  we must put it into practice in daily life. Each of us is personally responsible to help others as we have the ability and opportunity (Gal. 6:10; James 1:27). The church is a soul-saving institution, not a social welfare institution designed to provide hospitals, retirement centers, child care.

3. The church is to provide financial aid to anyone and everyone who asks without exception. No, the story of the good Samaritan is not discussing the use of a local church’s treasury, but emphasizes our personal, individual duty to our fellowman. The benevolent responsibility of a local church is limited to meeting the needs of faithful Christians on an emergency basis, except that qualified widows may be enrolled for constant care (Acts 6:1; 2 Cor. 9:1; 1 Tim. 5:4-16). A man who will not work should not be given aid at all (2 Thess. 3:10).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 8-9
November 7, 1996