Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

As a verb, “To consider or examine attentively or deliberately,” is Webster’s definition of “musing.” That is precisely what we wish to do with the subject of fellow-ship; and, this writer wishes to call attention to some practices which he believes to be dangerous and without scriptural warrant.

It will serve our study best if we give some attention, just briefly, to each of several passages of Scripture. We are, prayerfully, trying to do just what was commanded by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” This appears to be an important need everywhere.

Ephesians 5:11

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” “Do not participate” (NAS); “Stop having anything to do with” (Williams translation); “Don’t have anything to do with” (Beck translation).

Read the above translations carefully! “Have no fellow-ship” is an obvious command; but, how have we applied it in practice? In many instances it seems to be applied, “have some fellowship,” or, “have partial fellowship.” To use “joint participation” as the definition of “fellowship” is fine providing we understand the application of those two words. As I observe the practice of some brethren, I feel like asking the question of the Psalmist, “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee…?” (Ps. 94:20).

“Works of darkness” in our text has often been limited to immorality. Neither the context nor the balance of the New Testament will permit such a limitation; though there can be no doubt that immorality is in the picture here.

Take a look at verse 8, and the terms “darkness” and “light.” Does “light” here refer only to morals; or, does it include all facets of their walking in the Lord? If “light” includes all, then “darkness” would include all of the opposite. The term “darkness” is used by our Lord to describe the whole life of some men (John 8:12; 12:35, 36; Eph. 6:12, etc.). Jesus said, “I am the light of the world.” But, how does Jesus shed that light for us? It is by the word(Pss. 27:1; 119:105, 130; John 3:21). Walking by the instructions of the word would be walking in the light.

Now, this question, “If walking in the light” is walking in harmony with the word, what would be “walking in darkness”? It appears obvious to me, then, that “works of darkness” simply refer to works which are not in harmony with the word. Paul makes the same contrast in Romans 13:12, “… let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” What were these people to “cast off “? Was it just immorality?

It seems, then, that Paul merely used an expression in reference to immorality which applies equally to the area of doctrine. Would not this include the false teacher as well as the immoral? To this writer, the answer has to be in the affirmative.

1 Corinthians 5:9 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14

I put these two Scriptures together because of their using the same terminology: The first in reference to the incestuous man; the second in reference to those walking disorderly. Here we find the expressions, “have no company,” “not to company with,” “not to keep company,” and, “not to eat” with.

“Company” (sunanamignumi) is defined by Vine as, “mix, mingle, to have or keep company with.” These pas-sages would, then, forbid any mixing, mingling, or keeping company with the guilty. In practice many have changed the word “no” to “some.”

The word “disorderly” is often limited to an idle per-son, as mentioned in the text, or to a busybody. The definition of the word does not permit such limitation. Originally a military term, the word “disorderly” meant, “not keeping rank, insubordinate.” Is being idle the only way one can be insubordinate? Again Paul was using a term in application to idleness, which applies with equal force to other insubordinate acts. Would not this include the false teacher? Is not the false teacher insubordinate?

One other point, in these verses, needs to be noticed. We cannot post a guard at the church house door and keep such people from the activities inside; it follows that the “no company” and “not to eat” with, would apply to other activities. If those activities are not limited to, they most certainly would include social activities. If not, why not?

Romans 16:17

“… mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” “Mark” (skopeo) is defined as, “to look at, watch.” The NAS puts it, “Keep your eye on.” All of this, of course, is in the form of an urgent warning, as found in Colossians 2:8. Philippians 3:12 uses the word “mark” with a view of following. How closely are we to look at these examples to follow? Then, how closely are we to watch the false teacher in order to avoid him?

Vine defines the word “avoid” (ekklino) as, “turn away from, to turn aside.” For the one that will love life, Peter says, “Let him eschew evil” (1 Pet. 3:11). The word “es-chew” is the same word, with the NAS having “turn away from.” How much of this evil must one turn away from? A little? All? Now apply the same reasoning to the “avoid” of Romans 16:17.

1 Corinthians 15:33

“. . . Bad company corrupts good morals” (NAS). True, this says “morals”; but, to what is Paul applying the principle? He is applying it to doctrine  the resurrection from the dead. If the principle holds true (and it does), keeping company with the false teacher will corrupt; and, this, in spite of what anyone may say to the contrary. With all of this before us, is it any wonder that Paul asks the questions of 2 Corinthians 6:14-16?

Now, we are ready to go back to those “dangerous” practices mentioned in our introductory remarks. I refer to gatherings of various kinds, for social reasons, which bring together those in error with those not in error. Let it be understood that I am not referring to those incidental and chance meetings of the false teacher; though I some-times am made to wonder at the judgment used even here. Nor am I speaking of those situations into which we walk ignorantly, though a case might be made here also.

I have in mind, in this article, those gatherings into which we walk with open eyes. We know that the false teacher(s) will be there. We know that it is not scheduled to array truth against error on some Bible subject. We know that it is basically a social gathering. Whether we call it a jubilee, a camp, a seminar, or some other designation, the nature of it is still the same  we have planned to spend social activities with the teachers of error. We know that we are not there to discuss truth in contrast with error.

Some questions are, I think, in order: How can we have “no fellowship” by having “some fellowship”? How can we stop having anything to do with, by having some-thing to do with? (See our discussion of Ephesians 5:11.) How can we “have no company with” by having some company with? How can we keep from mixing and mingling by mixing and mingling? How can we avoid eating with by eating with? (See our discussion of 1 Cor. 5:9 and 2 Thess. 3:6, 14.) Looking, again, at our discussion of Romans 16:17, how can we avoid anyone by being with them? How can we avoid encouraging the false teacher by encouraging them (2 John 9-11)?

If I have missed something in these passages, what is it that I have missed? If I have misapplied these passages, wherein have I done so? Some suggest that they want to break down the barriers or open channels of communications. Perhaps a noble thought, but what barrier was broken down? Between truth and error? Between those who espouse truth and those who espouse error? The only barrier of which I am aware that exists between me and the false teacher is the error he teaches. When that error is removed, regardless of what his mannerisms may be, I am obligated to accept him, and will do so  in both word and deed.

Brethren, is this conclusion wrong? You may be able to point out inconsistencies in efforts to respect the teaching of these passages; but, that does not change the passages one bit. They teach what they teach, and it is our job to conform to them.

There is the practice of some in condemning the error of the false teacher; then, turning around and using the false teacher in the services of the assembly. A declaration that such practice has nothing to do with these passages, simply does not make it so. Whatever happened to a “thus saith the Lord” for all that we do? What Scripture do we use to justify such? Or, have we reached the point at which we conclude we do not need Scripture for what we practice? The barrier that is being broken down, I fear, is the barrier between truth and error; and, wherever this attitude prevails there will be apostasy. Brethren, these things merit our most serious attention.

These thoughts may not be too popular in some quarters. It may be as Peter said, “And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you” (1 Pet. 4:4, NAS). Nevertheless, our goal, our aim, must be to please him in all things (1 Cor. 5:9; Gal. 1:10). I solicit your prayerful consideration of these matters.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 14, p. 4-5
July 18, 1996

By Donald P. Ames

In Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9 is re-corded the account of a woman who poured an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard on the head of Jesus. This brought a quick reaction from Jesus’ disciples, who pointed out it could instead have been sold and given to the poor. The oil amounted to about 300 denarii (the denarii was usually pay for a day’s work, hence this amounted to almost a year’s income). Matthew simply says they were “indignant,” but Mark goes on to say “they criticized her sharply.” Surely such a stinging rebuke must have hurt deeply for one who had simply acted out of love and devotion. However, Jesus quickly came to her defense and added, “Wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her” (Mark 14:9).

Isn’t it a great thing.that God does not judge as man does, by appearance? Instead, he looks at the heart, sees the real motive, and responds accordingly. Men may be impressed, and praise a hypocrite (Matt. 6:5, Luke 6:26). God will not make that mistake! Men may belittle someone for a great sacrifice of love, not understanding his true motives. Jesus did not make that mistake! And even though the apostles wrote the record, the Holy Spirit saw it was written as a rebuke to their thoughtlessness, and as a praise to her love and devotion.

Someday Jesus will judge all of us  not by human standards, but in righteousness (Acts 17:31). He will reward those who may have gone unnoticed, such as the beggar Lazarus (Luke 16) or the woman who quietly dropped her two small copper coins in amongst the other much larger contributions (Mark 12:41-44). He will also disregard those who have only sought to be seen by men (Matt. 6:1) and rebuke their hypocrisy. Truly, “the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matt. 20:16).

At the same time, he also challenges us to “do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). He also warns us to beware, because “with what judgment you judge, you will be judged” (Matt. 7:2). Let us take a lesson from the pages of God’s word and carefully consider all the facts before reaching any conclusions. Let us also rejoice  and take warning  that we have a God who will judge in true righteousness, seeing all that is done, and will reward the righteous  even if no one else ever notices or appreciates their efforts, Truly that ought to make all of us love him even more!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 14, p. 2
July 18, 1996

By Mike Willis

One of the older hymns that we sing is “Worthy of Praise.” The thought for the song is taken from Revelation 5. In the fifth chapter, a glimpse into heaven is shown to man. There John saw a book that was written inside and out, sealed with seven seals. An angel asked, “Who is worthy to open the book and loose its seals?” John cried because no one was worthy to loose the seals and open the book. One of the 24 elders told him not to cry because the “lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David” was worthy to loose the seals and open the book.

John looked again and saw the “Lamb” having seven horns (his omnipotent power) and seven eyes (his omniscience) come to the throne of God and take the book from his hand. When he took the book the heavenly hosts sang,

Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hest redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (Rev. 5:9).

Many angels joined the chorus and sang,

Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing (Rev. 5:12).

Surely you recognize from these texts the familiar words to our hymn “Worthy Art Thou” by Tillit S. Teddlie. Jesus truly is worthy of our praise and for the reasons assigned to him in the text in Revelation.

Worthy of praise is Christ our Redeemer,

Worthy of glory, honor and pow’r!

Worthy of all our souls adoration,

Worthy art Thou! Worthy art Thou!

Life up the voice in praise and devotion,

Saints of earth before Him should bow;

Angels in heaven worship Him saying,

Worthy art Thou! Worthy art Thou!

Lord, may we come before Thee with singing,

Filled with Thy spirit, wisdom and pow’r’

May we ascribe Thee glory and honor,

Worthy art Thou! Worthy art Thou!

Worthy of riches, blessings and honor,

Worthy of wisdom glory and pow’r!

Worthy of earth and heaven’s thanksgiving

Worthy art Thou! Worthy art Thou!

1. He has redeemed us. He redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13). He has redeemed us from all iniquity (Tit. 2:14). He redeemed us, not with corruptible things like silver and gold, but with his precious blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19). Thayer defines the word agorazo which is translated “redeem” as follows: “Christ is said to have purchased his disciples i.e. made them, as it were, his private property…. He is said to have bought them for God … by shedding his blood” (8). When we think of our salvation being purchased by God the Son taking upon himself human flesh, sacrificing his life to the miserable death of Calvary, indeed we can exclaim that Jesus is “worthy of praise.”

2. He has redeemed men of every nation under heaven. Salvation is not limited to the Jews. Salvation is available to men of every race. The gospel was sent toevery creature of every nation under heaven (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). “Whosoever will” may participate in its salvation (Rev. 22:17).

3. He has made us to be a kings and priests. He has exalted those whom he has redeemed to reign with him and to have access to God with him. We have not been consigned to the lowest positions. We have been elevated to be kings and priests.

He is Worthy To Receive

The text tells us that Jesus is worthy to receive “power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” If he is worthy to receive these things, let us bring them to him. Let us bring our power, riches, strength, honor, glory and blessing to him. As we offer our worship each day, let us remember that Jesus is worthy of it.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 14, p. 2
July 18, 1996

By James W. Hester

Under this caption we shall attempt to plead the cause of righteousness and show what abortion really is. Abortion is an outgrowth of immorality, a blight on society, and an octopus of evils encompassing the earth. Abortion is the taking of human life  it is murder. An older dictionary defines an “abortionist” as one who practices the crime of producing abortion. Like-wise, the Hippocratic Oath that has governed the medical profession says in part, “I will give no deadly drug to any . . . and especially, I will not aid a woman to procure abortion” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971). This oath given to young doctors was honorable. They would not commit the crime of abortion. Now, however, some medical schools have dropped this part of the oath, replacing it with, “I will do nothing that is illegal.” Yes, it is sad that doctors would abandon such a noble oath to embrace barbarity.

This change followed the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision to overturn a Texas law, in Roe versus Wade, where they determined that abortion was not a crime. The Supreme Court, who are interpreters of the law under the Constitution of the U.S., usurped the work of Congress by assuming the role of lawmaker. 1.5 million babies have died yearly since doctors have had the protection of this law. The abortionist is no longer considered a criminal, yet people have gone to jail for as little as killing a rat. If abortion was a crime before 1973, then it is still a crime, a crime against God and the nation.

What the Abortion Controversy is About and Not About

It is not about choice, not about rights, and not about a mother having control over her body; it is about what is right and what is wrong. Those who believe in the woman’s right to choose do not know the difference. If they believe it is alright to kill an unborn baby, would they condone killing a three-month son or daughter? They talk about the welfare of the mother in connection with abortion. What a lie. There is nothing about abortion that brings welfare to a mother. To the contrary, it is devastating to both body and mind. Many have been coerced into abortion and made to believe it is a way out, a solution to the problem. It is, in fact, the beginning of sorrows that are well documented. Consider these few excerpts:

“I was told by Planned Parenthood that this little `blob of tissue’ would be as easily removed as a wart. I was never told that I would have nightmares about babies crying in the night. Neither was it explained previous to the abortion that I would experience severe depressions in which I would contemplate suicide” (Congressional Record on p.S.10651).

Further, numerous studies reveal that women who have had an abortion experience a high incidence of depression, stress, low self-esteem, suicidal feelings and substance abuse (Report on the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law, 321. Ottawa, 1977).

“After 5-10 years, 54 percent of mothers choosing abortion had night-mares and 96 percent felt they had taken a human life.”  from a study done by Anne Speckhard, University of Minnesota

Fetal Development

“By the end of the second week of pregnancy, there is a distinct embryo present. The fetus has a developing brain and a rudimentary heart. By the end of the third week of pregnancy, the fetus has the beginning of vertebrae, developing eyes and ears, a closed circulatory system (separate from the mother’s), a working heart, the beginnings of lungs, and budding limbs. By the end of the fourth week of pregnancy, the fetus has the beginnings of vertebrae, developing eyes and ears, a closed circulatory, a working heart, lungs, a developing nose, and a pancreas” (Gray’s Anatomy).

This is the beginning of a human being. Yet those who believe in the woman’s right to choose disregard the fact that after only nine weeks, unborn babies can feel pain; yet 48 percent of all abortions are done after this point (U.S. Department of Health and Hu-man Services).

Concerning a scientific point of view, Dr. Matthews-Roth of Harvard University says, “It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception.” Addition-ally, from a respected source of information, “a new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile egg” (from an article on Pregnancy in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Vol. 14 968, 1974).

The Forming of an Infant is the Work of God

David tells us in Psalm 139:13-16: “Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb … I am fearfully and wonder-fully made . . . My frame was not hidden from thee . . . Thine eyes did see my unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, even thedays that were ordained for me. When as yet there was none of them.” God told Jeremiah “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I ordained you” (1:5). But an an-gel told Zacharias that Elizabeth would bear a son that would be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). Now was the Holy Spirit to dwell in a lifeless being, or a living being? Verse 17 says “the babe leaped in the womb.” A lifeless being cannot leap. Matthew 1:18 declares that Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the child and he was alive. In Romans 9:11 Paul speaks of Jacob and Esau as the children being not yet born. Before birth, they were called “children.” As David reminds us: “It is He that made us and not we ourselves” (Psa. 100:3). For we are also his off-spring (Acts 17:28). Then we read the beautiful words of David in Psalm 127:3, “Lo children are an heritage of the Lord; and the fruit of the womb is His reward.” Yet in open rebellion against our God and Father, this great truth is denied.

What Happens to Aborted Babies?

Unborn babies are alive, before and after birth. Thus, when the abortionist commits his crime of killing an unborn baby, the soul or spirit goes back to God, just the same as if he, or she, were of school age. Note what the Bible says:

There is a spirit within man … (Job 32:8);

The Lord God formed the spirit within man (Zech. 12:1);

God is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9);

And James tells us that the body apart from the spirit is dead (James 2:26);

The soul (spirit) is the only thing that man cannot kill (Matt. 10:28);

And just as John saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus (Rev. 20:4), having been killed after they lived and walked on the earth.

The aborted infants are killed not having walked on the earth. So, the soul being the part of man that does not die, the murdered infants are alive forevermore, being in a blessed state with the Lord!

Abortion is the largest uncontrolled industry in our nation. Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable. They are funded by big industry, welfare, and Medicaid pro-grams and so forth.

Sincere thanks to the Oregon Citizen ‘s Alliance for their large packet on abortion and also to Frieda Vanover for her computer research on the Internet.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 13, p. 14-15
July 4, 1996