Truth Magazine

By Kenneth D. Sils

Among all the religious confusion and division we see in our country, the true church of our Lord Jesus Christ is alive and can still be found today. Sadly, while pursuing the truth, many sincere people have been so overwhelmed by denominational error that they conclude that one church is just as good as another. Jesus teaches us that we don’t have to give up. In Matthew 7:7, he says, “Seek, and you will find.” Jesus promised, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). If one is searching for the truth about the church Jesus built, he must go back to the Bible and accept its absolute authority. Paul said only the Scriptures are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The foundation of the church of our Lord can be found, understood and built upon. In Ephesians 2:19-22, we learn that the foundation was poured with Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the rest of its foundation was laid by the apostles and prophets of God in the first century. The apostle Peter teaches in 2 Peter 1:3 that our God has delivered to us “all things pertaining to life and godliness.” Surely, the church of our Lord must come under this heading of “godliness.” In the first century men knew all the doctrine of Christ’s church. Christians understood and fully accepted the names given by God in his sacred writings for the church. This is my plea for all people today. It is my duty to persuade men to come back to God’s writing, the New Testament, for within it lies the key for all people to escape man’s divisions and be a part of the church which Jesus built.

Within the doctrine of Christ, the New Testament Scriptures, the names for the church of our Lord can be found. Yes, the names for the church. The New Testament is very clear that Jesus built one church. Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church.” This term is obviously singular and designed to stay that way. In Ephesians 1:22-23, we learn that Jesus has been made head of the church which is his body. Later, in this same letter, Paul tells us there is one body (Eph. 4:4). I do not shrink from, nor apologize for, this truth of God. Our Lord built one body, the church; yet at the same time, we should also recognize andunderstand that God has given many descriptive names for the church of our Lord. Here is a listing of eight prominent names given by God to describe the church our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament:

1. The church (Acts 5:11). This name is most commonly used to describe the people who have been “called out” of darkness and translated in the kingdom of God’s dear son, Jesus Christ. In Acts 2:47, the Scriptures tell us, “God added to the church (called out) daily those who were being saved.” The church is simply the people, not a physical building that man erects. These followers of Jesus in Acts made up the church of our Lord.

2. The churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16; Matt. 16:18). Let’s not forget that Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that he was going to build his church. The church belongs to Jesus, no other. It is totally his possession for he is the head of the body, the church. When Paul was telling the Romans, “the churches of Christ salute you,” he was sending them greetings from congregations all across the world. This does not endorse denominational division. It expresses nothing more than “called out” groups separated by location who assembled with only Jesus as their head and lawgiver.

3. The body of Christ (Coll :18f; Eph. 1:22-23). These terms “church” and “body” are used interchangeably and for good reason; both accurately describe a particular aspect of the members. The body of Christ is the one place where the “called out” contact the life saving blood of Jesus, for his blood is in his body. The body of Christ is not made up of man-made denominations, but only members individually (1 Cor. 12:27).

4. The bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23-32; Rev. 21:9). The Ephesian writer tells us that Christ became “one flesh” with his church. Jesus gave himself for her to wash her of her sins and present to himself a glorious church. In Philippians 1:1, Paul refers to Christians as “saints”  “holy ones” for they were made holy by the love of their husband, Jesus Christ. Paul reminds the body of Christ in Ephesus that they were “members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.” Again, God has chosen another descriptive name for the purpose of expressing his affection, care and love placed upon true disciples in the church of Christ.

5. The church of God (1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 20:28). This term, church of God, is not a denominational title, but a phrase which reveals the truth that Jesus is God, the Son. In Acts, Paul told the Ephesian elders, “to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” Only Jesus, not the Father or the Spirit, purchased the church with blood through his death on the cross. This name, church of God, reveals the eternal truth that the church belongs to none other than God, the Son.

6. The church of the Firstborn (Heb. 12:23). Once again, we have another descriptive term emphasizing that Jesus is the head of his church. In Revelation 1:18, Jesus said, “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.” The church is subject to him as eternal king and priest. All Christians are members of the church of the Firstborn.

7. The house of God (1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:19-20). In both of these passages, Paul referred to the greatest house ever known to man as the church of the living God, Jesus Christ. Throughout the Bible, Christians are known as the children of God. Think about it! It only makes sense that if we are in God’s family, we must be living in his house. In the Ephesians letter, the household of God, the church, was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Peter likened Christians to spiritual stones building up the walls of God’s spiritual house (1 Pet. 2:5). God’s house is still being built.

8. The churches of the Gentiles ( Rom. 16:4). This descriptive name for the church demonstrates to the world that Gentiles, as well as Jews, were meant to be a part of Christ’s church. Jesus told his apostles to, “go out into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:16). This phrase does not provide ownership to the Gen-tiles, but demonstrates God’s universal love and plea for all men to come to him and be saved from their sin. This plea still stands for all people today.

Friends, in conclusion, we’ve observed that our God has chosen descriptive names for his “called out” group, the church. These descriptive expressions present for us one glorified body, washed in the blood of Jesus. Can you find the name of the church you belong to in this list? We should oppose all organizations who have rejected God’s inspired names for his church. Man’s denominationally created names are foreign to the pattern given us in the New Testament Scriptures. Let’s be determined to let his church be his. Investigate (Acts 17:11), for the truth has no fear of investigation. Search the Scriptures for within lies the true names of the church of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 14-15
October 19, 1995

By John R. Hurt

In the changing of every season we see powerful convincing testimony to the truthfulness of the Word of God. Note the reading of Genesis 8:22.

“While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, And cold and heat, and summer and winter, And day and night, shall not cease,”

As we see the splendor of spring, the burgeoning flowers, the green sprouts and the whole of nature come alive again, we know that God’s Word is true. Just as surely as the green sprouts grow into summer’s lush growth and each tender bud blooms into summertime’s radiant blossoms, we can rest confidently in the unshakable fact that the Bible speaks the truth. With the coming of fall and all the beautiful colors that make the hues of the greatest Italian artists pale in significance, the Word of God is authenticated. Then with the arriving of the harsh cold, the falling leaves, and the stark brown bareness of winter’s landscape, you may be assured of the indisputable fact that countless centuries shout and proclaim. While the earth remains it shall ever be so! The word of God is true!

In this tribute to the veracity of God, this miracle of his creation, do we not also see the answer to Job’s ancient question, “if a man dies will he yet live again?” (Job 14: 14) Each year we witness God take the seemingly dead lifeless plants and revive again the germ of life within them. In the explosion of new life that follows, all nature is robed in the brilliant splendor of the season. Surely then, it is but a small thing, for the Creator of this vast universe to reach down to our narrow house beneath the earth and revive again the germ of life within the soul of man. Ah, the changing of the seasons attests to the irrefutable truth of God!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 15
October 19, 1995

By Jim McDonald

An attempt to stereotype the Philippine preacher would be as foolish as to try the same with his American counterpart. It is true that he is greatly influenced by his culture; yet it is true his American brother-preacher is influenced by his society. The Filipino preacher is a distinct individual with his own special needs, idiosyncrasies, strengths, and weaknesses. He cannot be cast into a mold so that we know he needs “X” amount for support and that he will behave in a certain way. His needs are as diverse as are the needs of preachers here. Much misunderstanding about the Philippine preacher results because the particular one we are acquainted with does not seem to “fit” what we have heard about the preachers there.

Filipino preachers are impoverished, to be sure, but they are not ignorant. Education is greatly emphasized in the island nation and most attain high school educations and many go on to graduate from college. Philippine preachers are familiar with premillennialism, Calvinism, as well as most of the other “isms” of our time. In addition ;o this, he is familiar with the errors of the cults and denominations that are peculiar to his own nation. There are some eminently qualified men in almost every region one visits. There is a thirst for knowledge by Filipinos and this spills over to a thirst for knowledge of spiritual things emphasized in preachers among brethren there. Tracts, periodicals, and books all are avidly sought and hungrily devoured by them. Preachers or brethren here in the States who have books, especially debates on Calvinism, Pentacostalism, premil- lennialism, or Sabbatarianism and who would rather that those books be read and studied than to gather dust, would do well to seek out some “hungry-for-knowledge” brother there and send such books to him. The church in the Philippines is in an age of “inquiry,” of “zeal,” of “set for the defense of the gospel” much as characterized brethren in the early years of the restoration movement here in the States. Postage is expensive but books, Bibles, and tracts can be sent fairly reasonably by M-Bag (79″ per pound)  slow to be sure, but one of the Filipinos’ qualities is patience  they will wait.

Most Philippine preachers are first-generation Christians although there are many who come from second-generation families. These brethren come from Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Iglesia Ni Christo, and Pentecostals who have proven to be an exceptionally fertile soil for converts. Oft times the preacher was formerly a denominational preacher who, with his conversion, was able to convert most of his “old” congregation withhim. Elpidio Ascuncion and Martin Ibus, his father-in-law, were converted from Pentecostalism in Sinait, Ilocos Sur. Actually brother Ibus was restored. He had been baptized some years earlier. At their conversion almost the whole congregation followed with them. The work of our Lord has just been opened in northern Samar, the result of a Seventh Day Adventist preacher being converted by Ben Cruz of Manila, who was also able to bring most of that former Seventh Day Adventist church with him. Such stories as this are reported all over the Philippines. It is true that many of these preachers find it difficult to rid themselves immediately of all their denominational thinking, but it is also true they have learned the truth and were willing to surrender denominationalism to have it. To such folks the charge: “Buy the truth and sell it not” has special meaning.

The needs of the Philippine preacher are as different as there are different preachers. Perhaps he is single, as are many with whom I am familiar. Or, he may be a young married man with just a child or two; or he may have been married many years and have 6-7 children. Perhaps he or his family have health problems. Obviously, in each of these situations financial needs to sustain him are going to differ radically. Additionally, there is the “extended-family” of that preacher. Perhaps it is his aged parents, an afflicted brother or sister; perhaps it is an uncle, aunt, or grandmother. Maybe it’s nieces and nephews he’s called upon to help. Perhaps it’s the needs of brethren in the congregation. He grieves for the needs of his fellow-brethren often literally dividing the two coats, shirts, or pants he has with another who has none. Almost never does he have insurance for his family. He has no social security, no savings. Some-times he and his family will only eat twice or sometimes even just once a day  not to diet but simply because he does not have the finances to buy a supply of rice for his family to eat. He may make appeals to American brethren for his personal needs but that does not mean he is preaching for money. More often than not he has been preaching for several years having had no recompense for what he did. I have seen dozens of brethren who have never received anything for their preaching, not even for transportation. He writes to American brethren to help alleviate his need, that is true, but remember the plight he describes to you is generally true: he is in need, his family often does without the necessities of life, and we in America do live in the lap of luxury. Just one visit to the Philippines would open our eyes to their poverty and to the realization of how blessed we are. He asks because he has no one else to turn to.

There are unworthy Filipino preachers to be sure. Some are dishonest and lazy, viewing preaching the gospel as simply a “way of gain.” There are American preachers who fall into that same category. By far, however, the vast majority of preachers we found love the truth, are willing to preach intwo or three different places (without help, if necessary), share with their brethren what meager provisions they have themselves, have no real hope of ever escaping from the poverty they know but have a sincere desire and hope for a better land. When he writes you, read what he has to say. His is not just another “begging letter” but a letter from one who is your brother in Christ and who very likely is notexaggerating the condition he describes to you. Answer him. Thank God your life is not as hard as is his and just know that for all the misunderstanding some have of the work in the Philippines, that work is genuine, is growing, and it is still true that the American dollar going there for support will produce, in terms of conversion of souls, as many converts as can be seen in any place on this planet we call earth and in most instances far more! They call, as in Paul’s vision in Troas: “Come over into the Philippines and help us” and they are indeed (admittedly not exclusively so) included in Jesus’s command: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. “Next Article: Personal glimpses.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 12-13
October 19, 1995

By Mark A. Cascairo

I wish to respond to an article which appeared in the July 20, 1995, Guardian of Truth written by Michael W. Green of Orange, Texas. The article began with a reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution and ended with the statement, “If you do your job properly, you have nothing to fear with respect to the teaching in public schools.”

The intervening lines of the article point out two examples of religious activities in public school settings which caused controversy, and the court decisions, in each case, prohibiting the activities. The argument is made that the decisions were based on the Constitution’s directive to “protect religion from government interference.” The conclusion was that, when decisions are made based on the First Amendment which prevent the state (schools) from “proscribing” religious expression, these same court decisions also protect our religious freedom, and therefore, we should not be alarmed. We should let the state do its job (secular education), and Christian parents should do their job (religious training, Eph. 6:4). Then came the ending statement cited in the previous paragraph.

This article raised concerns for a number of reasons. First, brother Green has attempted to prove too much with his evidence. The article revolves around the “separation of church and state” issue and the constitutionality of religious activities n public schools. Then, the conclusion suggests that the “teaching” in public schools is not to be feared. These are two very broad and different issues, and the article left many stones unturned, prior to its confident conclusion. I can appreciate brother Green’s main point, that Christians must assume diligently the responsibility to provide the religious training for their children. I believe, however, that his confidence in the state to “do its job” is somewhat misplaced.

There are many in our country who are appalled at the state’s lack of success in even providing the basics of a “secular education.” This is enough to make a parent fearful, or at least a little concerned. But more importantly, the values often taught (yes, taught, both actively and indirectly) are to be feared. From evolution (taught as fact, not theory), to values clarification (home of situational ethics), to health curricula depicting premarital intercourse, homosexuality, and abortion as popular and potentially “healthy” choices, the teaching in public schools is not benign.

Secondly, who relinquished the responsibility to provide a “secular education” for our children to the state? It is my opinion that Ephesians 6:4 must include proper “secular” training in a father’s responsibility to his child. “Secular education,” itself, is a myth. Learning skills to function in society so as not to be a burden, to provide for one’s own family, to be respectable husbands, wives, mothers and fathers, and to be able to share with those less fortunate, are all part of the Lord’s admonition or instruction (2 Thess. 3:11, 12; 1 Tim. 5:8, 16; Titus 2:1-8).

In most cases this part of the parent’s responsibility is delegated as regards the details of the training, but I believe parents are accountable ultimately. Public school is a relatively new invention, and it has served a useful purpose in our nation’s history. Many alternatives exist, however  parochial schools, home school, private schools, and education co-ops. A parent who blindly entrusts his child to the “teaching” in the public schools is similar to a parent who gives his child a remote control to a cable television and then leaves the room. Nobody would suggest, “Let the entertainment industry do its job. You have nothing to fear if you’re doing your job properly as a parent.” Likewise, the responsibility of appropriately educating our children is not to be “rendered unto Caesar.”

A third concern returns us to the “separation of church and state” issue. May it be noted at the outset that the phrase, “separation of church and state,” is not even to be found in the Constitution. The authors of the First Amendment did not view religious activity in a state institution as a violation of this amendment. The Founding Fathers were highly religious men who included God and the principles of the Bible in framing the Constitution and in conducting governmental business. Their intent was to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination as the state church (like the Church of England) with emphasis on allowing the free exercise of any religion. Separation of church and state, as an idea, is a recent invention of the courts, as they inappropriately interpret the intent of the First Amendment. Though the courts may claim to rule based on a desire to protect religion from government interference, the tragic effect is often government interference.

The two examples of the graduation ceremony prayer and required Bible reading in school, given by brother Green, were cases in point. The court decisions to prohibit these religious activities were violations of the First Amendment clause regarding “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Countless other cases could be cited in which courts have interfered with religious activities in public schools, even if the entire district, classroom, or graduating class were in favor of the activity. This is not the effect of the First Amendment the Founding Fathers had in mind. Yes, we must submit to the laws of the land, including these court decisions which misinterpret the First Amendment, but we need not happily agree with the misinterpretations. We have a right and a responsibility as citizens to strive for more accurate and equitable decisions by the court. If these efforts are unsuccessful, then appropriate action to protect our children from the resultant ill effects of such decisions (e.g., removing our children from the public school) need not be regarded as a lack of submission to the governing authorities.

In addition, many local school officials and administrators of public schools have been influenced by such misinterpretations of the First Amendment. In many in-stances, the officials have concluded that the proper adherence to the “separation of church and state” mandate prohibits all activities which mention God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. These are activities in which the courts have not been directly involved. Here are some absurd examples: a Christmas bulletin board (which featured a snowy landscape and a church building) was disallowed in a classroom, though witches and goblins were allowed at Halloween; an after school Bible study club was banned, even though it was conducted off campus; lettering forming the Ten Commandments was ordered to be removed from a school hallway wall, while elsewhere, rock and roll music with explicit profanity was allowed in a physical education class.

Many would argue that the decisions that are rendered are purposely aimed at removing God and the Judeo-Christian influence from the public arena especially since other types of religious expression are not prohibited in the schools (for example, transcendental meditation is actually taught). Even a goal of promoting secular humanism has been attributed to the educational elite, and this with a large amount of supporting evidence. John Dunphy expressed this goal in a 1983 edition of The Humanist: “The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new  the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”

Truly, as brother Green has stated, one cannot expect the state to provide religious training for our children. That is our job as parents. On the other hand, we are commanded to “walk circumspectly” (Eph. 5:15), and our attitude to-ward our children’s training in the public schools should be one of sober vigilance, both in regard to the content and quality of the “teaching,” and in regard to the free exercise of their religious expression. It is our parental responsibility to see that the religious training we diligently provide is not undermined by any influence, including those that may emanate from the public schools.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 20-21
October 19, 1995