Truth Magazine

By Tim Mize

In his cross Christ “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26). It is good for us to consider how this death was our offering for sin. The cross, however, is to us even more than a sin offering. We see in it too the sacrifice of our covenant with God.

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” he said (1 Cor. 11:25 ASV). This connection of blood and covenant brings to mind the old sin offerings, but most of all it recalls the offerings made but once at the mountain, the blood that ratified the covenant (Exod. 24:4-8; Heb. 9:18-21).When God created the nation of Israel, he carried them out of slavery “on eagles’ wings,” brought them to Mt. Sinai, and there made a covenant with them (Exod. 19:4-6). Israel became God’s special possession in the earth. Their entering the covenant involved three steps (see Exod. 24:4-8). First, they heard the terms of the covenant. The Lord spoke to them his commandments, and Moses wrote them down in a book (Exod. 24:4). Next, they agreed as one that “all that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exod. 19:8; 24:3,7). Finally, they participated in a ratification ceremony. Sacrifices were offered and the book was read. Moses took some of the blood of these offerings, sprinkled it on the people and said, “Behold, the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you.” The leaders of the people then ascended the mountain, and sitting down in the presence of God ate a meal (Exod. 24:9-11). Through these ceremonies Israel was purified and the covenant was ratified, and they formally entered their covenant with God.

As the years went by, new generations arose in Israel. It was necessary for them too to do as did their ancestors, to learn of this covenant and agree to keep it. Several scriptures tell how the covenant was renewed for the new generations (Deut. 5:1 ff; 27:1-26; 31:9-13; Josh. 8:30-35; 24:1-28; Neh. 8:1-18).

But the rise of new generations offered not the only cause for renewal. There was also the danger of their forgetting the covenant, even after knowing it and agreeing to it. Every so often, therefore, Israel would gather and have it read to them again (Deut. 31:9-13).

If it happened that they forgot the covenant and broke it, God would renew it then as well. The story of the golden calf, when Israel broke God’s covenant the very first time, offers a good example. After Moses interceded on their behalf, God forgave the people and entered afresh his covenant with them, even giving them his law anew (Exod. 32-34).

The sad story of the Old Testament, however, is that of a people who continued to break the covenant of the Lord. The prophets, full of hope, anticipated a new day when God’s people would be known not by their breaking of his covenant, but their keeping it. God was going to start all over with his people. “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah . . .” (Jer. 31:31-34).

When Jesus spoke of “my blood of the new covenant,” he proclaimed the fulfillment of these things. The new covenant has come. Its terms have been proclaimed not by Moses but by Christ, and its blood of ratification is that of Jesus Christ himself.

We who are gathered around this table have entered that very covenant with God. In our eating, in fact, we acknowledge this covenant as our own. We declare that we have gladly agreed to its terms. Just as Israel looked back to the mountain, so we look back to the cross, and remember that there a covenant was ratified with blood.

Furthermore, just as Israel found need to renew their covenant, so do we. This supper is our time to remember and renew our covenant with God. We remember the blood that brought us into it. We remember the commitments that we made in our entering. We seek God’s forgiveness for how we have broken it, knowing that Christ intercedes for us. In short, we renew the covenant, and refresh our dedication to him. Let us each, then, examine ourselves, and so let us eat of the bread and drink of the cup (1 Cor. 11:28).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 11
October 20, 1994

By Mike Willis

The ability to give of our means is a “grace” that God has provided us (2 Cor. 8:7). Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). That is true for several reasons. The person who receives is obviously in need. He has suffered want and need. In contrast, the person who gives has been prospered. Furthermore, the person who receives may feel humiliated by his circumstances, in spite of every effort on the part of those who help him not to make him feel that way. We can easily see the truth in what Jesus spoke. Consequently, to be able to give is a grace to us from God. Let us notice some principles that should govern our giving:

1. We should first give ourselves. The Apostle Paul commended the Macedonians for their generous giving in spite of their deep poverty. He explained why they were so sacrificial in giving by saying, “And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God” (2 Cor. 8:5). Good givers are so generous and charitable because they first commit themselves to the Lord. Men like the Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19:16-22 can never be generous givers because they love their wealth more than they love the Lord.

2. We should give as we are prospered. Paul wrote, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1-2). As my prosperity increases, so should my giving. Some men who receive regular increases in salary never increase their giving. Some couples learned to give $10 a week many years ago, but even though their salary has been increased significantly since then, they still give their $10 a week. As our prosperity increases, so should our giving.

3. Our giving should be planned and purposed giving. Paul wrote, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). A person cannot give like the Bible directs if he does not plan his giving. He who waits until the collection basket is being passed to decide how much to give has not “purposed in his heart.”

3. We should give freely, willingly, and cheerfully. Paul continued, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). Bible giving should be done without compulsion and cheerfully, not begrudging the money that one gives.

I once heard a brother say, “If you can’t give but $1 cheerfully, it would be better to give that cheerfully than to give more and begrudge giving it.” His statement surely emphasizes the need for cheerful giving, but there was more that needed to be said. I responded, “That may be so, but someone who is prospered abundantly and can only give $1 cheerfully, needs to work on the attitude of his heart.” Years have passed and I may not have remembered every word perfectly, but this was the gist of our Bible class discussion. We need to be careful not to excuse ourselves from sacrificial giving by an emphasis on cheerful giving. The two are not contradictory to each other. Both are principles about giving that a Christian needs to learn.

4. We should give sacrificially. The poor widow who gave two mites displays the spirit of sacrificial giving. The text records:

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had (Luke 21:1-4).

Most all of us more nearly resemble the rich who gave from their abundance than the poor widow who gave of her necessity.

5. We should give bountifully. Paul wrote, “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully” (2 Cor. 9:6). As Christians we should be trying to give just as much as we can afford. The reason for this is revealed: our giving is compared to planting seed (sowing). The more seed that is planted, the more grain will be harvested. The Indiana farmers do not begrudge planting seed. They plant the seed close together and pour on the fertilize; they know that the more seed that is planted means more bushels of corn that will be reaped.

A tight-fisted giver has lost his perspective of the true values of life. While clinging to his material possessions, he is not generous with the Lord and his work. Therefore, he gives sparingly, using what he has been prospered by the grace of God for his selfish pleasures. By so doing, he values the things that money can provide in this world over the things that our giving provides for us spiritually (here and hereafter).

6. We should give regularly. Paul said, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). As regularly as a man is prospered he should give. The collection is to be taken on the first day of the week. The beauty of the Lord’s plan can be seen in the following examples. Look at the chart below and see the beauty of God’s plan.

Amount Given Amount Given @ 52 weeks

Per Week per year for 50 years

$ 10 $26,000

$ 20 $52,000

$ 30 $78,000

$ 40 $104,000

$ 50 $130,000

$100 $260,000

Few of us would ever be able and willing to write a check for $26,000 to the Lord’s work. By doing the Lord’s will, many of us will give significantly more than that over a lifetime. The next time you read of some benevolent philanthropist who donates $100,000 to higher education, remember that you very well may do that and more by your regular contributions to the Lord’s work. The Lord’s plan will work. Men who turn to bingo, casino nights, church owned businesses, and other forms of generating income to raise funds for the church have lost faith in God’s plan.

Conclusion

Perhaps this is a good time for you to examine how well you are doing in giving to support the Lord’s work. Don’t wait until the collection basket is passed on Lord’s day. If you need to make some changes in how you spend your money in order to support the Lord’s work, begin to make those changes. You will never regret what you contribute to the Lord’s work.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 2
November 3, 1994

By Dick Blackford

There must be a bunch of fellows who are preaching baptism and the church but are not preaching Christ. I would like to know who they are. I will accept a collect call from anyone who will tell me who did it and when and where it was done.

“Preach Christ, not baptism or the church” is the cry and feeling of those who are self-designated as “change agents” in the church, and their sympathizers. This comes from those who don’t want the church or gospel preachers to be militant and have grown soft and apologetic for the truth. It sounds noble”Preach The Man, Not The Plan.” How does any man who claims to be a preacher of the gospel go about preaching baptism or the church without preaching Christ?

“Preach Christ, Not Baptism”

Notice the implication. If you preach baptism you are not preaching Christ; If you preach Christ you do not preach baptism. It is “either/ or.” Is someone’s slip showing? To preach Christ is not merely to stand before an audience and shout the name of Christ. It is to preach what he did and said. The only place we can learn that is from the New Testament which is the sum total of God’s revelation of what Jesus did and said.

To preach Christ without preaching baptism is to leave off both ends of the story. Any man who preaches Christ will have baptism at both the beginning and end of his sermon. Beginning with Christ’s ministry the first public act he did was to be baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt.3:15-17). I could not even be-gin to preach Christ without talking about baptism. The last words re-corded from the lips of Jesus were in the Great Commission. In it he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” and, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Mk.16:16; Matt.28:19). I could not introduce my subject or end my sermon. If I am going to preach Christ I will have baptism at both the beginning and the end!

Preaching Christ would involve telling of some incidents that occurred in his life. One of the most significant ones was when he was approached by a ruler of the Jews. He told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” (Jn.3:3-5). Scholars from varied denominational backgrounds have agreed that Jesus had reference to baptism. So, once begun, I would not be able to continue my sermon for long without talking about baptism.

Since baptism is an act of obedience that comes as a result of loving Christ (Jn.14:15; 15:14; 1 Jn.5:3), isn’t it important to preach what it means to love Christ? Demanding that we “preach Christ, not baptism” would be similar to saying “preach Christ, not obedience.” However, Christ is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him” (Heb.5:9). Imagine not preaching that! Further, Christ is going to “render vengeance on those who obey not the gospel” (2 Thess. 1 :7-9). What will happen to the man whose preacher would not preach this message? And what will happen to the preacher? “Both (the leader and the follower) shall fall into the ditch” (Matt.15:14).

There is something about the gospel that requires obedience to keep from going to hell. To preach Christ without telling what he did and said about man’s salvation is to take the power out of the gospel (Rom.1:16). To preach Christ without preaching his plan of salvation is to refuse to tell a lost soul the very thing that will determine his eternal destiny. Why would anyone want to do that?

Do not misunderstand. Preaching Christ is not merely preaching on one thing he did or said. It involves preaching his love, grace, sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension. It is preaching on heaven and hell. It includes teaching what he and his apostles taught about how to live. It means to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We should not be telling anyone not to preach anything taught by Christ and the apostles. Whenever we are preaching to lost people why should we not also preach baptism? It doesn’t make sense to tell people to “accept Christ,” but then not tell them what is involved in doing that.

Preach Christ, Not The Church

Some belittle the church by saying such things as, “the church doesn’t save you”; “you can be just as good a Christian out of the church as you can in it”; “you don’t have to go to church,” etc. Christ loved the church enough to die for her!! Be careful that you don’t insult him by what you say about his bride, the church!

Some are saying, “Tell us about the blood he shed but don’t tell us what he purchased with it”  the church (Acts 20:28).

They are saying, “Preach Christ as Savior but don’t tell us what he is going to save”  the church (Eph.1:22,23; 5:23).

They are saying, “Tell us about the bridegroom, but don’t tell us about his bride” the church (Eph.5:22-33).

They are saying, “Tell us about the king but don’t tell us about his kingdom over which he reigns”  the church (Matt.16:18,19; Con :13; Mk.9:1). How does one do this?

They are saying, “Tell us about the Captain of our salvation” (Heb.2: 10) but don’t tell us about his army  the church.

They are saying, “Tell us about his being the Head, never mind what he is Head of “ the church (Eph.1:22,23).

They are saying, “Tell us about his Father, but we don’t want to hear about his family”  the church (Eph.3:15; 1 Tim.3: 15).

A Necessary Inference

When Philip “preached Jesus” to the eunuch, he asked to be baptized (Acts 8:35,36). What is there about “preaching Jesus” that would make him want to be baptized? He had been to Jerusalem to worship, but there was nothing in Judaism that would cause him to ask this question. He was reading from Isaiah 53, but there is nothing there about baptism. Are we to believe he randomly picked a question out of the air that had nothing to do with what Philip was preaching? Could it involve preaching what Jesus did and said about baptism? This is nothing short of a necessary implication in the Scriptures.

In the Philippian jailer’s case Paul “spake the word of the Lord unto him” (Acts 16:32). In the next verse he was baptized. Was there anything in his pagan background that would motivate him to do such a thing in the middle of the night  or at all? No. We have to make another necessary inference. When we use the word “necessary” that means it could not have been any other way. Do you see why some who advocate “preach Jesus, not baptism or the church” also object to necessary inference as a means of ascertaining the meaning of Scripture?! They don’t like what it proves. Again, their slip is showing. It is hard not to say they have a motive. In fact, I am going to say it. These men have admitted they are “change agents” out to change the church. To preach Christ without preaching baptism or the church is to preach “another gospel” (Gal :6-9).

The reason we necessarily infer is because the Scriptures necessarily imply.

Conclusion

What would be the point and purpose of preaching Christ but omitting what Christ and the apostles taught about baptism and the church? Could the devil be any happier with such a message? It sounds like a sinister plot to overthrow the salvation of men (2 Tim.2:17,18). My friend, if you are one who has advocated this, or are practicing this, or has felt this is what we should do, then please, quickly, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee” (Act 8:22).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 1
November 3, 1994

By Dennis L. Scroggins

A lecture series dealing with the subject of the Bible Fellowship (Do Not Remove the Ancient Landmark, Proverbs 22:28), was held on August 25-27, 1994, in Austin, Texas at the faithful church meeting in South Austin.

We are pleased to report the positive way in which the subject matter was presented by each scheduled speaker, their apt handling of the assigned lessons, and the good response by the large number of people who attended each session was uplifting to all. The comments by visitors ranged from. “Why hasn’t anyone put together anything like this before?” to “I really didn’t understand the magnitude of the problems facing local churches in regard to this subject until I heard all the different facets summed up in one lecture series.”

A Methodist was invited to come and hear the series on fellowship. He responded with the comment that if the lessons were just going to be another series on the wonderful attributes of the “Social Gospel” he wasn’t interested in coming. He was assured that the lessons would be Bible centered in every aspect. He came to the Thursday night lesson and stayed to hear the panel discussion that followed which dealt with questions and answers from the audience. Several members of liberal churches of Christ in the Austin area came to each session. We sent an invitation to every kind of religious group throughout the Austin area in the hope of reaching them through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Our intent in holding this type of lecture series with a concentration on the Bible subject of Fellowship was initiated for three reasons:

1. The church meeting in South Austin had come under attack by members of other so-called faithful churches of Christ in our area in which the false doctrine of “Receive ye . . . on the basis of the individual’s conscience, regard-less of their repentance or not!” was being taught privately through phone calls and letters.

2. Different religious groups in the Austin area were being torn apart by the “message of tolerance” which was being preached in connection with the receiving of homosexuals into the local fellowship of their churches. We viewed this as a great opportunity to reach those in the different religious groups who stand opposed to the unrepentant homosexual being accepted into the fellow-ship of their local churches.

3. We believe that the Bible topic of Fellowship affects every aspect of the local church both in its purity and in its faithfulness to Jesus Christ the Head (Eph. 5:23-27). It was our intent to ground the members of the church meeting in South Austin in the truth of God’s word concerning the Bible subject of Fellowship.

Tom Roberts began the series with a clear and precise lesson dealing first with the world’s concept of fellowship (let us go along to get along), secondly the denominational concept of fellowship (fun and frolic, social gospel), and concluded with some of the concepts of our own. Brethren have accepted into the fellowship of a local church all kinds of unrepented sinners based on their misguided conclusions (drawn from Romans the fourteenth chapter).

Larry Hafley continued the next night with the subject of “Romans 14: Fellowship Redefined?” He was straight forward in reinforcing the biblical principle of fellowship based on objective truth found in God’s word.

Larry presented the “Elastic Gospel” concept which he pointed out to have been embraced by our own brethren who are calling for more tolerance in regard to those who continue in sin. Larry pointed out the destructive force of this “attitude of compromise” connected with the twisting of the Scriptures in Romans 14. He pressed the point of its “leavening power” which was led to the ruin and loss of many souls.

On Saturday morning, August 27th, Harry Osborne dealt with the false arguments advanced by some brethren who condemn exposing error that has been advanced by individuals outside the local church. Harry’s lesson was entitled “Fellowship, Is It Decided by the Local Church?” No doubt was left in the minds of those who were listening to this lesson that Harry was deeply concerned about any local church that would allow false teachers and their teachings to go unchallenged. He dealt with the false premise that the marking of a false teacher (who is not a member at that local church) in accordance with Romans 16:17,18; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Timothy 4:1-4, would some-how violate the local autonomy of that church.

Ron Halbrook continued that morning with “Fellow-ship, As Defined by God.” Ron outlined from 1 John 1:1-7, the elements of fellowship as prescribed by the word of God. Ron’s lesson exemplified the attitudes Paul spoke of in 2 Corinthians 11:3. Ron spoke in the “simplicity of truth” so all would realize that the subject of fellowship with all its elements can be clearly known, understood, and widely accepted even if certain ones charge that the subject of Fellowship is too controversial to be addressed in an effective manner.

Jerry Fite concluded the lecture series that afternoon with the timely lesson. “Fellowship: Who shall Be the Watchdogs?” Jerry delivered a lesson that every preacher should hear concerning the work of an evangelist. He pointed out to the listening audience our individual responsibility to be on guard for the souls of men and women, and the terrible consequences of not watching. It was at the conclusion of Jerry’s lesson that a brother in Christ came forward confessing the sin of not watching out for the spiritual welfare of his family. We wept, rejoiced, and prayed with this brother who realized the far reaching effects of not taking a spiritual lead in one’s family and a strong stand for the truth. The next day, on Sunday morning another Brother in Christ came forward and confessed the sin of buying lottery tickets. It was uplifting to see the good results of these kinds of sermons that declare the whole counsel of God.

We also saw another result of these faithful preacher’s strong and sound teachings, visitors from other faithful congregations that expressed a desire for this same lecture series to be presented at the local congregation expressed a desire for this same lecture series to be presented at the local congregation where they are members. We believe this to be a direct result of the clear call to holiness contained in each of the lessons that were presented during the three days. The speakers’ positive attitude toward the subject of Bible fellowship should lead those who would honestly investigate the lessons presented in this series to give thanks for the far reaching effects it will have in the future for that which is good in the sight of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 9-10
October 20, 1994