Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

As our readers may know, we have been in controversy with those who declare that they see a danger among us. The danger, they say, is this; we have put our faith in the Bible, in the word, and not in him who is “the Word.” While they agree that we must believe the Bible, they argue that we are trusting in the plan of Scripture more than in “the man” of Scripture. On the liberal fringe of the faith, men like Bill Love and C. Leonard Allen, have made this charge out loud, in print. At least, they have couched their concerns and concepts in an academic robe. Others, like Rubel Shelly, spout out and spit up these charges wherever they go.

Affected and infected by this concept, some among us have picked up the charge, saying that first century disciples did not submit or surrender to a pattern, but to a person. Our judgment is that some who have made similar statements are well meaning. They think they have a thought that will indeed draw us back, closer, to Christ. Of course, everyone is for that. Our fear is that even some good men do not recognize or perceive the dangers inherent in echoing this view (that trust in Christ can be separated from trust in his word). As it is twisted and tortured by liberals, this theme is used as a weapon by those who are bent on making havoc of the church by privily bringing in damnable heresies under the guise of “Christ, not commands; the Savior, not the system; the Person, not the pattern.”

As Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun.” Accordingly, I recently found this article from the pen of Benjamin Franklin. This myth, this so called crisis, this imaginary bogey-man (that we are emphasizing the Bible rather than the Lord), was explored, exposed, and exploded by brother Franklin nearly 140 years ago. Hear him.

Franklin: The Spirit, The Word, The Christ It appears more difficult at the present time to induce men to be content with simple Christianity, in spirit and practice, without any mixture of humanisms, than at any former period. The people have become so accustomed to leaning upon the human that they can scarcely conceive of the possibility of trusting wholly in the Divine. We, as a body of people, have made wonderful strides in showing our neighbors of the sects the schismatical tendency of all their creeds, the necessity of abandoning the whole of them and of committing ourselves wholly to Christ as our leader and instructor. But some of the controversies now going on show a wandering disposition, dissatisfied with the simple belief and practice of Christianity, as inconsistent with the unity of the Spirit and bond of peace as the adoption and maintenance of a human creed.

After preaching the plain gospel of Christ, as the Disciples have done for more than thirty years, gathering some three hundred thousand souls to the fold of Christ, many of them from the contending parties around us, and uniting them in the bond of peace and union, thus making ourselves felt as no other people have done in this century, a brother perceives where a slight mistake may have occurred. He becomes alarmed, looks upon all that has been done as nothing, and declares that nothing great and good will be accomplished till the evil is corrected. He just now perceives that there is danger of men resting their faith in the word, and not in the Divine and glorious per-son revealed through the word. He thinks many are deceived in relying simply upon the word in the place of relying upon Him who gave the word. He now perceives the secret of there not being devotion, piety and zeal. It is found in the stupid mistake of believing the truth, in the place of believing in Him who is revealed through the truth.

This pretty little distinction is elaborated in many sermons, upon many pages, and upon a thousand tongues. The whole phalanx of word-alone men are now called to an account, and shown at great length, with profound learning and philosophy, that their stupid mistake has been that they have believed the word, trusted in the word, relied upon the word, and preached the word, but lost sight of the glorious person of Christ revealed through the word. . . But no change follows all this wonderful discovery and very profound distinction. No increase of piety, zeal, love or good works follow. No conversion of sinners follow any more than before, nor anything different, except contention, strife and confusion.

On the other hand, here come the word-alone men, accusing the former class with infidelity, or at least teaching doctrines tending to a rejection of the word, looking for something beyond and above the word, thus ignoring the word. These, too, now stand in defense of the faith, and suffer for the truth, and sound the warning voice of dangerous doctrine! Some of the Disciples are on one side and some on the other, but the greater portion do not know what the controversy is about, but think there are good brethren on both sides. The only wonder with them is that the parties should manifest so much irritability, use such severe and harsh language and appear so much alarmed. They can perceive no occasion for all this.

Questions To Consider

Where is the necessity of all this? When did an attorney ever find it necessary to inform the jury that the testimony was not the thing to be believed, but that that which was revealed through the testimony was what was to be believed. In what, except in religion, did any man ever think it necessary to caution the people that the truth itself is not what is to be believed, but that which is made known through the truth? . . . Did any man ever believe the truth of the gospel and not believe in him whom the truth of the gospel sets forth? Can any man believe the word and not believe him who uttered it? Can any man have confidence in the word and not have confidence in him who spoke the word? Is there such a thing as trusting in the word and not trusting in the author of the word? Can any man believe the word and not believe that which is revealed in the word? If you believe the testimony of a witness, do you not at the same time believe the witness and that which is communicated through the testimony of the witness?

Can any man receive the word the Father gave Jesus, the word Jesus gave to the apostles, and the word which the apostles by the Holy Spirit preached to us, and not believe the Father who gave the word to the Son? not believe the Son, who gave the word to the apostles? not believe the apostles who gave the word to us? Can a man confide in the word the Father gave the Son, which the Son gave the apostles and which the apostles have given to us, and not confide in the Father, the Son and the apostles?

Can a man confide in Jesus and not confide in his word? or confide in his word and not confide in him? Can a man confide in the Holy Spirit and not confide in his word? or confide in his word and not confide in him? Can a man receive the word of Jesus and not receive Jesus? Can any person believe the word of the Holy Spirit and not receive the Holy Spirit? Can anyone obey the word and not obey him who uttered the word? Can a man follow the word spoken by the Spirit and not follow the Spirit? Can a man be led by the word spoken by the Spirit and not be led by the Spirit? Are not all those led by the teachings of the Spirit inscribed upon the pages of the Bible, led by the Spirit?

We put it to all those brethren engaged in this controversy, to produce an instance of one human being led by the teachings of the Spirit in the Bible, and not led by the Spirit; or, one led by the Spirit not led by his teachings in the Bible. “These things,” says the Spirit . . . “are written that you might believe.” Believe what? “That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” They are not written that you may have a peculiar view of spiritual influence, but that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, we Son of God. What are we to believe for? “That you might have life through his name.” Here is t h e straight-forward work  no … speculations, but the plain truth to be believed and the object of believing it  that the believer might have life.

The Holy Spirit comes not asking you to believe on himself, or some peculiar mode of his operation; but as a witness bearing testimony of Jesus. Hence Paul says, “The Holy Spirit also is a witness,” and that no man can “call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.” At the Jordan, when the Lord was baptized and introduced to Israel, the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form and rested upon him, thus indicating that all attention should be directed to him. When the Lord ascended to heaven, he sent the Spirit to the apostles, to bring all things to their remembrance, guide them into all truth, . . . and thus through them spread out his entire testimonies upon the sacred pages as left us from the hands of the four evangelists, that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we might have life through his name. All this the Holy Spirit has done that we might believe, or to enable us to believe.

Can we receive his testimony and not receive the glorious person of whom he testifies? or can we reject his testimony without rejecting the glorious person of whom he testifies? Certainly not.

Shall we, then, confide in these Divine testimonies of the Spirit, spread upon the sacred pages of the New Testament, that we might believe, and set them before the world as sufficient to enable all men to believe, or shall we declare these testimonies of the Spirit insufficient, too weak and imperfect to enable the sinner to believe, and maintain that the Spirit must come to the sinner and give him further evidence that his testimony, . . . is true, and thus enable him to believe?

Let any man who wishes to fall, question the all-sufficiency of the testimonies of the Spirit set forth in the New Testament  testimony which we affirm to be complete and perfect  to which the Spirit himself forbids any-thing added or taken from. He who undertakes to depreciate this testimony, whether ignorantly or in unbelief  we care not what his design  weakens the gospel argument precisely to the amount of his influence, apologizes for the unbeliever, excuses him in his infidelity and strength-ens his hands in sin. In the place of his being himself a believer in the testimony of the Spirit, he is trifling with it, creating distrust in the minds of others, and subverting that which all admit to be the testimony of the Spirit of God.

The One Safe Course

There is but one safe course, and that is to follow the apostles, preach the same truth preached by them, relying upon the same testimony upon which they rested as all-sufficient, and maintaining the self-evident truth, that all men can believe it, when it is preached, and that they will be lost if they do not believe it. This we are authorized to do, and this is all we can do. Even this can only be done by believers. Skeptics cannot do it effectually. But men who believe in Jesus with the heart can preach Jesus to others, with full confidence that they can believe in him also. They can bring all the testimony furnished by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament before the mind of the unbeliever. But if these are not sufficient to enable a man to believe, they can do no more.

The preacher may turn and preach to the sinner that these testimonies are not sufficient, and (that) he must have assistance from some other source; but he cannot give that assistance, and preaching does not make it come. If it does not come, who is to blame? Not the sinner; for he could not bring it. Not the preacher; for he could not bring it. Where lies the blame, then? The testimony the Spirit has given is not sufficient to enable the sinner to believe. He cannot obtain power to believe. The preacher has preached Christ and presented the testimonies of the Spirit as found in the Scripture. But the sinner cannot believe till the Spirit comes and gives his testimony efficiency. The Spirit does not come. The man not only does not believe, but he can-not believe. Who is to blame? The Spirit, according to this very pious and spiritual theory, is to blame, because he did not come and do what he left undone when he gave his testimony, what neither the preacher nor the sinner could do was give his testimony efficiency.

The difficulty in these times is not that the testimony of the Spirit, inscribed upon the pages of the New Testament, lacks efficiency, nor does the Spirit himself lack efficiency, nor does the Lord lack efficiency. The Lord, the Spirit and the testimony are efficient, and do their work.

The lack of efficiency is on the part of weak-minded and unbelieving, or skeptical preachers and church members. Let them become efficient, strong in faith, giving glory to God, and preach Jesus with great power, present the Divine testimonies with full assurance of faith, and the work will go on. The Lord will do his work. The Spirit will do his work, and do it right. The testimony will do its work, and sinners will be saved. The trouble is to get the preachers to do their work, do it right, and thus operate rightly upon the world. Let us turn our attention more especially to men, and try and induce them to operate right, and all the balance will operate infallibly right. (Paragraphs, subheadings inserted. Biographical Sketch And Writings of Elder Benjamin Franklin, 338-343.)

Guardian of Truth XL: 2 p. 11-12
January 18, 1996

By Steve Willis

Limits for Some Kinds of Abortions

There has been a legislative effort going on in the States to limit certain types of abortions, even though the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973. Notice the efforts by the House and the Senate to limit “partial-birth” abortions:

“The U.S. House of Representatives last week [week of Nov. 6spw] passed a bill banning the practice of ‘partial-birth’ abortions. The technique, used in late-term pregnancy abortions to collect brains for scientific experiments, involves pulling the baby partly out of the uterus so that its skull is exposed. The abortionist then punctures the skull, inserts a catheter and sucks out the baby’s brain tissue. The bill passed by a margin of 288 to 139. Pro-life groups in the United States hailed the vote as the first step to rolling back the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortions in America.” (Alberta Report, Nov. 13, 1995, “One less stomach-turning option,” p. 44).

Further, on December 7, 1995, Sue Kirchhoff reported for Reuter’s new service: “The U.S. Senate on Thursday approved landmark legislation to outlaw a rarely-used, late-term abortion technique after narrowly defeating an amendment allowing its continued use to protect a woman’s health.” The same article went on to say, “The abortion technique in question, medically known as intact dilation and extraction, is used in second and third trimester abortions. Under the procedure, a fetus is partially delivered feet first until just the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted and the brains suctioned out…. The National Abortion Federation estimates about 450 abortions are performed each year using the contested technique. About 90 percent of the 1.5 million abortions performed annually occur in the first trimester of pregnancy and fewer than 600 in the third trimester ….The legislation would impose up to two years in jail and a possible fine for doctors who perform the contested abortions. The grandparents or father of the child, if married to the mother, could sue the doctor if the abortion were per-formed.”

The question now is whether President Clinton will sign the bill into law. On December 14, according to PR Newswire, Focus on the Family president, James Dobson, has issued a press release indicating that the White House is not interested in hearing from the public. It said, in part, “Today Dr. James Dobson charged the White House with `flagrantly abandoning its responsibility to serve the American people’ in its mistreatment of concerned Americans who have made phone calls to the White House this week.” Dobson had requested people call the White House encouraging them to sign the bill in to law, but “Focus on the Family has received numerous complaints from people who have tried to call the White House on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, but were either rudely treated by White House phone operators or could not even get past White House phone recordings.”

“Gary Bauer, president of Family Research Council, gave numerous examples of telephone mistreatment of White House callers on the December 13 Focus on the Family broadcast.” Mr. Bauer then said, “This kind of White House mistreatment is unprecedented,” said Bauer. “On all the occasions when controversial issues occurred in the past  whether during the Carter, Reagan, or Bush Ad-ministrations  this is the first time the White House has taken steps to distance itself from the American people.” “Unbelievably, the White House has cut itself off from the people it was elected to serve,” said Dr. Dobson.

We should remember to pray for all in authority as they consider such laws that “we may lead a quiet and peace-able life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:2).

Are Abortions Medically Necessary?

Canadian Province Alberta, which is trying to limit its health care expenses, has stopped funding a few procedures. So far abortion is still funded by the health care system, but the argument has been made that if they can’t cover adult eye-examinations, why can Health Care still fund abortions? This has brought the debate down to whether abortions are “medically necessary.” Premier Klein would like to drop abortion-funding decisions into the doctor’s lap by having them determine which are medically necessary. They don’t want to define it. In fact, some wish to keep it federally and provincially funded; see this quote by the Canadian doctor who has led the fight to make abortions legal, Dr. Henry Morgentaler: homosexual, “speculated that biological factors . . . cause the brains of homosexuals to become `feminized.’

“All abortions are medically necessary in the sense that they have to be done by a doctor.”

I guess I wonder if cosmetic surgery is “medically necessary” using the same logic?

Listen to the Public When They Are Right

Daniel Yankelovich, of the “think-tank” Yankelovich, Skelly and White, has written a “four-step strategy to re-gain liberalism’s moral authority.” I’ll not go into all four steps, but there is one that addressed moral positions: “Internalizing the Public’s Point of View” listening to the concerns of the voting public.

Yankelovich said, “From the point of view of moral leadership, the worst thing liberal leaders can do is promote government policies that the public sees as encouraging immoral behavior, giving the opposition the opportunity to attack liberal doctrine.” As applied to dealing with the present welfare system, he said, “In making reforms, voters have two concerns: cost and moral rightness. Of the two, research shows the public is turning away from the moral relativism that took hold in the 1960s toward more strict, absolute forms of social morality. The public increasingly supports a moral principle of reciprocity rather than entitlement  that is, when people receive a public benefit they should give something back unless they are too aged or infirm to do so.”

Yankelovich also said that if liberals wanted “the nation to bear the costs of a strong safety net for those in need, they can persuade the public to support it financially only if they are willing to change its moral underpinnings. This includes obliging fathers to be more responsible, discouraging teenage out-of-wedlock births,” among other things.

What are some of the indirect costs of current welfare legislation? “A culture of drugs, crime, violence, and dependency.” As it stands now, he said that the system “frustrates the majority of Americans: People feel they are being obliged, through their taxes, to pay for the very violence that threatens their security (Mother Jones, December 1995, “Restoring Public Trust”).

“Facts” on Homosexuality Called Into Question

The November 1995 Scientific American reported that recent claims of a biological basis for homosexuality are flawed and perhaps even fraudulent. John Horgan writes that Simon Le Vay of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego “asserted that a minute region of the hypothalamus called the interstitial nucleus was smaller in male homosexuals than in straight men and similar in size to the nucleus of females.” Dr. Le Vay, who is himself John Hogan, writing in “Gay Genes, Revisited” said, recent attempts to replicate Dr. Le Vay’s research have failed, perhaps because the brains he studied may have been damaged by storage.

In 1993, “a group led by Dean H. Hamer of the National Cancer Institute linked male homosexuality to a gene on the X chromosome, which is inherited exclusively from the mother.” But, Mr. Horgan revealed, “one study has contradicted his results [and] more disturbingly, he has been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 2 p. 14-15
January 18, 1996

By Jim McDonald

The Filipino child with his large brown eyes and usually small stature is a lovely child. He is reticent and shy, often afraid of foreigners and strangers. But he quickly “warms up” to Americans who come to preach in his village. One of my most unforgettable pictures (etched forever into my mind) is that of a long line of these beautiful children frantically waving goodbye to us after we had spent two to three hours in their midst. In that particularly poverty stricken area where even the children are aware of how hard life is, our hearts were wrenched within us when several of these begged us to carry them home with us to America.

Still there are happier, cheerier thoughts. On one of our journeys Ken Marrs brought large bags of candy, and in these remote villages with all the children gathered around him, he threw the contents of the bag into the air and all those present laughed with delight to see the children (and sometimes their mothers!) scrambling to snatch the coveted candy. From personal experience I learned that dozens of children can materialize from nowhere. Once when I paused to purchase a soft drink from a “side-store,” I also bought a few pieces of candy to give to the two or three children standing there. Almost instantly, two or three dozen other children were ready for their piece of candy too!

The wise man wrote: “Lo, children are an inheritance from the Lord and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” He also said, “Train up a child in the way he should go and even when he is old he will not depart there from.” Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” As parents we are commanded to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Children are our heritage; the future of the church lies in their hands and in ours who either teach or fail to about the unsearchable riches of Christ.

The teaching of children is neglected in some of the places we visited in the Philippines. The children could be seen playing about, even when we were in the period called “class.” Still, most Filipino churches do have classes although few buildings have separate rooms for these classes. I can remember only two different buildings where separate rooms were provided for children’s classes. The usual “classroom” will be under a nearby shade tree or perhaps a porch of a dwelling close at hand.

Classes are not as “sophisticated” as are ours. Besides the adult class, there will likely be two others, one for the young people; the other for the children. This means that the teacher will have to cope with several different ages in either of these latter two classes. When we preached at Escoda, Marcos, Ilocos Norte (one of the largest of the Filipino churches we saw upwards to 175 worship there each Lord’s Day), we arrived late and classes were in progress. We could hear the happy voices of children in a nearby building, and out of curiosity walked over to survey the class in progress. There were nearly 100 children in that class room that day!

We were impressed with the knowledge and effectiveness of the women who teach these classes. Nieves Sibayan (wife of Materno Sibayan, Sr.) is a very quiet woman who is excellently trained in music and her students sing with enthusiasm and gusto. These children learn far more than “songs,” however. This past September about twelve of sister Sibayan’s students were baptized into Christ.

Another effective teacher is Magdalena (?) who was a Pentecostal preacher before her conversion to Christ some years ago. Her desire to teach the word was not frustrated, however. She simply changed her role in teaching and began training children. Today there are a dozen or more young preachers in Ilocos Norte whose faith in God and in the Bible was planted and nourished by Magdalena. An-other teacher worthy of mention is Conchita Yoro. Her love for the word and for children make her a very effective teacher. The list could be expanded to include dozens of worthy Filipino women.

These women need help in their efforts to instill faith in God and respect for the Scriptures in the hearts of these children. Since class procedures and methods are unlike those in the States, the most practical help to be rendered is providing good Bible story books. Flannel graph material also is helpful. And, since these women frequently travel along with the men that they might teach the children, financial help for transportation is in order. How good it would be for American sisters to write Filipino counterparts, for these women long to hear from American sisters with whom they may share not only ideas of their mutual interest in teaching children, but forge friendships and become a living link across the sea. Benefit from such correspondence would not be one sided: sisters here would gain an invaluable insight of our Lord’s people in the Philippines they did not previously possess. They also would be enriched by the unashamed declaration of faith and hope these sisters express. Names and addresses of some of these women will be supplied upon request to interested sisters here who wish such.

Guardian of Truth XL: 2 p. 8-9
January 18, 1996

By Gary C. Kerr

“And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28-29).

“All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:19).

Brethren have come to understand down through the years that Bible authority, or a lack of it, is at the root of most every religious question. As Christians, we understand that the Bible is our only authority in religion. We challenge those we believe to be in error to produce Bible authority for their practice. However, what do we mean by “Bible authority”?

“Authority” (exousia) is “the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)” (Thayer, 225). Concerning the word “authority,” we also find this: “As regards the church, this derives its authority from Christ. Believers receive their right as such from him (Jn. 1:12; Rev. 22:14). The Lord gives the apostles their authority (2 Cor. 10:8); hence they must use it responsibly (cf. Mk. 13:34; 1 Cor. 9:4ff)” (Kittel, TDNT, Abridged In One Volume 239). Thus, by claiming to have “all authority,” Jesus was claiming the right to rule; the right to command and expect our submission and obedience. When we talk about “Bible authority,” we are really talking about the authority of Christ.

Did Jesus Come to Have All Authority?

Based on the definition of the word, the authority that Jesus claimed was absolute, that which belonged to God alone. Christ received this authority from the Father, and the Father confirmed it by raising him from the dead (Eph. 1:20-23).

The authority of Jesus was different from that of the prophets, or the scribes. They were restricted to a “thus saith the Lord.” Christ’s teaching was authoritative because he said it. This is a part of what amazed the listeners at the Sermon on the Mount. Throughout he said, “You have heard that it was said,” and contrasted that with “But I say to you.” It is not surprising then to find the officers who had been sent to arrest Jesus returning empty-handed and saying, “No man ever spoke like this man!” (John 7:46)

Therefore, we need to acknowledge the authority of Jesus Christ in everything that pertains to our lives as Christians. Paul admonished the saints at Colosse, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (3:17). To do something “in the name of’ Jesus is to do it by his authority. And, since Jesus claimed “all authority,” there is none left for men.

We Must Recognize the Authority of Christ

Concerning the Plan of Salvation

The “authority” of man admits to many ways to come to God. In fact, since “all roads lead to Heaven” (according to man’s reasoning), any way that you choose to come to God would be allowable. However, if we accept the authority of Christ, we will recognize that Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Christ taught that to be saved, we must “believe and be baptized” (Mark 16:16). If we truly respect the authority of Christ, we will not tamper with his will in this matter.

We Must Recognize the Authority of Christ

In Our Everyday Lives as Christians

Paul said that when we were baptized, we arose from the water to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). He goes on in that same chapter to describe our new relationship to Christ as one of a bond servant or a slave (vv, 18-22). That means that we have agreed to submit ourselves totally to the authority of Christ. A slave is not free to make his own decisions regarding how he conducts himself in his daily life. The authority of the world says that immodest clothing is acceptable, especially under certain circumstances. If we accept the authority of Christ, we will obey his will regarding the kind of clothes we wear (1 Tim. 2:9-10). The world says that it is all right to cheat, or to be dishonest from time to time. The authority of Christ says, “having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles” (1 Pet. 2:12). The world says that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. The authority of Christ still calls it “uncleanness,” “vile passion,” and “shameful” (Rom. 1:24-27). The world says that you may divorce your mate for any reason. The authority of Christ says, “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and who-ever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). As we live our lives from day to day as Christians, possessions of Christ, we must always remember that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

We Must Recognize the Authority of Christ

In the Work and Worship of the Local Church

Most denominations abandoned the authority of Christ concerning the church a long time ago. Men decided that we could change the worship, alter the work, and completely revamp the organization of the church to suit our own wants and needs. Faithful Christians have always opposed this departure as a violation of the authority of Christ, and rightly so. Thus, it is distressing to find brethren, those who profess to have respect for the authority of Christ, altering the work and worship of the church in the same way.

The Authority of Christ Provides

For the Organization of the Local Church

The largest working body or organization that we read about in Christ’s word is the local church. It is to have its own elders and deacons (cf. Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). The New Testament knows nothing of synods, councils, or popes exercising authority over the local church. The authority of Christ does not authorize the elders of one local church to oversee the work of another local church (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-2). Nor does the New Testament permit women to serve as elders in local churches. According to men, this may be politically correct, but it is a violation of the authority of Christ.

By the Authority of Christ

The Local Church Offers Worship

That worship includes partaking of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26); giving of our means (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:12; 9:6-7); singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16); teaching (Acts 2:47); and prayer (Acts 2:42; 12:5; Eph.6:18). The Lord’s supper consists of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:26-29), and we observe it each first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

The authority of man says that we may change this worship by adding to or taking away from the things prescribed by Jesus. We can add playing on musical instruments to the singing; we can take the Lord’s supper on any day of the week, and substitute other elements in place of the ones authorized by Christ; “passing the hat” on any day the church assembles; we can raise money for the work of the church by conducting fairs, rummage sales, and other social activities; and on and on it goes. If we really respect the authority of Christ, we will offer only the worship that he as required in his word.

The Authority of Christ Dictates

The Work of the Local Church

According to man, the work of the church is to meet the social and recreational needs of people. However, if we respect the authority of Christ, we will understand that the work of the church involves something entirely different. Christ’s authority decrees that the church preach the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:14-18; 1 Thess. 1:8). Christ also instructs the church through his word to provide for its own needy (Acts 4:34-35; 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 5:16). Christ has taught his church to edify itself (Eph. 4:11-16). This is all that the authority of Christ allows for in the work of the local church. To change this in any way, either by adding to it or taking away from it, is to show contempt for the authority of Christ through his word.

Conclusion

Christ claimed all authority. We are taught to do every-thing in the name of (i.e., by the authority of) Christ. Do you submit to the authority of Christ on the plan of salvation? In your daily lives as Christians? In the worship and work of the local church? Those who respect and obey the authority of Christ are promised every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:3). Remember the admonition of James, when he said, “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” To fail or refuse to submit to the authority of Christ in all things will cost us our souls in eternity. Are you willing to pay that price?

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 15-16
January 4, 1996