Truth Magazine

By Dick Lambert

It was May of 1940. The dreaded German Panzar Division had swept across Europe and had the British Army pinned down at Dunkirk. The British and French generals thought that the narrow twisting roads and paths through the Ardennes forest were too small to allow the mass movement of the large German tanks and machinery. However German general Heinz Guderian managed to maneuver the large tank force through the Ardennes and was ready to strike. The German planes were bombing and strafing and with the huge tank force in place, the British and French armies would be lucky to last a day.

God Works in the Affairs of Men

The British commander was able to get a communiqué back to Britain that consisted of just three words, “but if not”! Those three words sparked a surge of courage, determination and down right grit throughout the British military and the entire civilian population. Those three words brought about the bravest, most unorthodox successful rescue of any army in the pages of history. Admiral Ramsey was chosen to attempt the Dunkirk rescue. He ordered all civilian fishing, pleasure and commercial craft between 30 and 100 feet in length to report to Dover to join the Naval ships for the rescue. Some 850 craft arrived and the civilian owners and their crews volunteered to man their craft. They had only one day to complete the rescue which would be only 45,000 of the approximately 365,000 troops. They departed from Dover and something unexplainable happened. Just as General Guderian was ready to surround and attack with his large tank force, Hitler ordered him to stop at the outskirts of Dunkirk. Guderian was furious. Instead of one day and 45,000, Admiral Ramsey had 9 days and rescued 338,226 British and French troops and brought them back to Dover.

Do You Recognize Those Three Words?

Why did three simple words move the British to such gallant action against overwhelming odds? Do your recognize those three words, “but if not”? They are from Daniel 3:18. Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego refused to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar set up. In a rage he ordered the fiery furnace to be heated seven times hotter than normal and then Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were to be bound and thrown into the furnace. They said, “0 King, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of thine hand 0 King, But if not’ be it known unto thee 0 King, that we will not serve thy gods nor worship the golden image which thou has set up.” God delivered them from the fiery furnace. Read Daniel 3.

Notice that the British were familiar with the Bible and their army turned to the Bible for strength and courage when it looked like they were doomed. They turned to the God of heaven believing that he could deliver them, but if not, let it be known they wouldn’t fall down before Hitler’s Panzar Division.

The British, the Americans and people in other countries turned to the Bible and to prayer for strength and courage during the second world war. They revered God and had an appreciation for his word. Romans 15:4 had a very real meaning for them as they learned first hand that everything written in the past was written to teach that through endurance and encouragement of the Scriptures they might have hope. This was the only hope that they had.

53 Years Later

Fifty-three years have passed and people no longer turn to the Bible for hope and guidance. The wisdom of man has replaced the wisdom of God, secular humanism has re-placed Bible precepts and situation ethics (“no absolutes”) has replaced “thus saith the Lord.” These philosophies teach that man is supreme, there is no right or wrong, and everything is relative depending on the person and the circumstance.

Now folks can tell you who is leading the pennant race but they can’t tell you who lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. They can quote batting averages but they can’t quote Scripture. They can tell you who won the NFL championship but they can’t tell you about Jesus and the Christ who won the victory over death. They can tell you all about the NBA stars but they can’t tell you about the star in the east that was seen by the wise men. Small children can sing lyrics and quote word for word the beer advertisements on the sports channels but they can’t quote John 3:16. Folks don’t recognize “but if not” any more and kids don’t know who Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego are.

God Gave Parents the Responsibility to Teach Their Kids

In God’s wisdom he gave parents the responsibility to teach their children about him, his Son the Christ, the Scriptures and to love and discipline them (Deut. 6; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15). When parents did this and taught them moral and ethical behavior, respect and politeness at home, the kids grew up to be good citizens with an appreciation for God and his Word. They in turn taught those things to their children. When parents depend on someone else (the baby sitter, the church or the school) to do this for them, it just doesn’t get done and everyone suffers  the kids, the parents, and society. Baby sitters don’t have the same interest as parents, the school teaches a humanistic philosophy and at the very most kids are at church only 3 to 4 hours a week which isn’t enough time to teach them what they should know. What our kids learn today shapes their destiny tomorrow and determines the character of the next generation.

Our Kids Are Taught Secular Humanism At School

The public schools used to reinforce what parents taught their kids at home. They demanded respect, basic moral behavior and disciplined the children. The school day started with the pledge of allegiance to the flag and prayer to the God of heaven. That is no longer the case. Instead of helping, the schools have become part of the problem. Many schools start the day with a weapons search, a drug check and have a discipline problem from the very start of the day. The curriculum used to teach moral lessons, honesty and good citizenship along with academics. Now the schools allow practicing homosexuals to teach and influence our children, against the wishes of parents. They want to teach our kindergarten kids sex education, teach them that man came from monkey and give them condoms when they are in Junior High and High School. They counsel the kids that abortion is the answer to unwanted pregnancy, but won’t teach abstinence as an alternative to prevent disease and pregnancy because that is said to be a religious teaching.

Where Is This Teaching Taking Us?

We need look no further than the morning newspaper to see the results of such teaching. In August 1993, a Marion County judge ordered the population of the Marion County jail to be cut in half because they were double the capacity and still needed more room. Articles in the Indianapolis Star and News reported that the crimes of murder, assault, theft, rape and fraud have increased. Health sources re-ported that abortions and teenage pregnancies are both increasing. Syphilis is in the epidemic stage in Marion County with 15 to 19-year-old girls having the highest infection rate. The dreaded disease AIDS is increasing in all groups of people, both male and female. Surely the Proverb writer was right when he said, “the way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:15).

Mainline denominations cannot decide if homosexuality is sin or an alternate lifestyle to be accepted. Some have now appointed homosexuals to preaching positions as well as appointing women to preaching and leadership rolls. Many of them use entertainment and recreation events to promote church growth. Such ideas as these come from the minds of men not from the mind of God. Search the

Scriptures as you may and you don’t find even a hint of such things. We dare not feel smug and say this could never happen to us, because there are congregations that are already having problems with some of these things.

Hosea told Israel, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” The last of the verse says, “seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children” (4:6). First Israel, then Judah forgot God and went to their destruction just as the prophets of God had warned. In Romans 1 we read that the Gentiles changed the truth of God into a lie. They didn’t retain God in their knowledge and he gave them over to their reprobate minds. Folks in our day lack the knowledge of God and have changed the truth for a lie. We are trodding down the same road that led Israel, Judah and the Gentiles to destruction and, in fact, we are only a few steps behind them.

Is There Any Hope?

Our only hope is in God not man. “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord and whose hope is in the Lord” (Jer. 17:7). During the last 53 years man has turned away from God and turned to his own philosophies which have brought about the moral decline and degradation of our nation. Humanistic practices are described in Jeremiah 10:23 and 17:9. He says man’s heart is deceitful, he is desperately wicked and it is not in man to direct his steps. We read of the ultimate result of secular humanism in Proverbs 14:12. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Only the word of God can be a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. His commandments are our lamp, his law is our light and his reproofs are instruction for righteous living (Psa. 119:105; 6:23). The word of God is all sufficient to change man’s heart and bring him to repentance. Faith, trust and hope come by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). This is the turning to the Lord and forsaking the ways of men that Isaiah talks about (Isa. 55:7).

The early church turned the world upside down by preaching the gospel. In the early 1800s there was a great movement to restore the church to its original state. Men wanted to return to the Bible for authority and let it be their only rule of faith and practice. They wanted to be Christians only, not some kind of a Christian and they became known as men and women of the word. No longer is that the case. The church has become comfortable, complacement and has lost its zeal to teach all folks of all nations.

Unless we change our priorities and give up those things that keep us from diligent Bible study there will be no hope! If we once again become known as men and women of the word with a desire to evangelize the world, starting with our neighbor, then there will be hope. Perhaps once again folks will recognize “but if not” and children will know who Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego are!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 10-11
September 15, 1994

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Our Lord equipped the church with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11-12), but why use them, when we can have educators, scientists and engineers? Just another meaningless question about a hypothetical situation? Hardly.

Evidence is mounting that brethren, allegedly conservative, are more and more turning to people of perceived intellectual distinction in an attempt to edify the saints (especially younger saints) in the faith. Brochures keep coming to our mailbox urging brethren to attend, or at least send their children to “specials,” emphasizing that the speakers (or teachers) will not be ordinary people, but ones who have distinguished themselves in the intellectual world of academia and high technology. We have seen enough to make us feel the need to hang out the yellow flag of caution for those who might be tempted to run on that fast track.

We have been fairly effective at persuading brethren that the church is all-sufficient in organization and mission to do any work that God wants it to do. Lines, in most areas of the country, have pretty well been drawn between those who hold to this all-sufficiency principle and those who advocate additional organizations and works. By now, we pretty well know where everyone stands. For this we can be thankful.

Now, even some who have stood firmly for the all-sufficiency of the church are showing signs of a lack of faith in the sufficiency of the simple teaching and preaching of the word of God to produce and maintain faith. It is not at all uncommon for a congregation to conduct “seminars” or “workshops” featuring educators, scientists, engineers, etc., in an effort to boost the faith of its members and other Christians in the area, especially younger ones. One advertisement, after listing the intellectual credentials of the participants in the special event two or three times, made a point of emphasizing that these people were not preachers. What a “revolting” development” that would have been.

Plain vanilla personnel (evangelists, pastors, and teachers equipped with Bible knowledge) just won’t cut it these days. We must have folks with scholastic credentials in education, science or technology to produce and maintain the fundamentals of faith in God and his Son.

Dear brethren, if this concept does not go against everything the New Testament teaches about the power of the gospel to produce faith and save souls, then I don’t know what it would take. The whole tenor of New Testament teaching on this matter is that the gospel, in the hands of “earthen vessels,” is more powerful and has more real wisdom than anything this world has to offer. Even when New Testament preachers were learned men in the affairs of this world, such as Paul and Luke, it was played down rather than magnified as a qualification to speak the unsearchable riches of Christ.

I understand the concerns and motivations of those who turn to this kind of thing in an effort to shore up the faith of young people. Our young people are exposed to the teachings and influences of faithless educators, scientists, engineers, etc. from grade school through graduate school. Brethren feel that they are at a disadvantage, so they are trying to level the playing field by bringing in Christians who are as academically qualified as those that the youngsters are daily exposed to and often admire. They feel that this will make a greater impression on the minds of these young folks than just a plain preacher (evangelist), elder, or Bible teacher  without scholastic credentials. That is the problem. It levels the field too much! It pits academics against academics  intellectual against intellectual. In reality, it takes away the real advantage that brethren have. The simple “word of faith which we preach” (Rom. 10:8,17), from the lips of “earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7), has a distinct advantage over all the academic, technological and professional wizards in the world. When we come to feel that we must somehow shore up the “word of faith” with academic, technological and professional credentials, we are, wit-tingly or unwittingly, advertising our lack of faith in the inherent power of that word to produce and maintain faith.

What is our next step in this one-upmanship in impressing our folks and their neighbors that we have people with as many smarts as anyone? We have folks, young and old, who are impressed with the academic power of denominational “pastors.” Would not these folks be more likely to listen to doctrinal discourses from people who are at least equal to those “pastors” in academic training? So, rather than regular gospel meetings, we could have workshops on the gospel plan of salvation or meaningful worship featuring our own seminary graduates with the Bachelors or Doctors of Divinity or Theology. Now, that ought give our people an opportunity to impress their friends that we are not a bunch of ignoramuses. For shame!

It makes a difference to God as to where our faith stands. Paul makes it abundantly clear that he did not want the Corinthians’ faith to stand in the personal or fleshly power of the speaker (read 1 Cor. 20). He declared that he did not come to them with “excellence of speech or of wisdom” (though he was evidently scholastically qualified to do so) and that he was with them in weakness (vv. 1,3). His speech was “not with persuasive words or human wisdom” (v. 4). There was a reason for all of this  “that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (v. 5).

In chapter 1, he reminds the Corinthians (and us) that “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom form God  and righteousness and sanctification and redemption  that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord” (vv. 26-31). You see, God, by design, chose the foolish, weak and base things of this world over the wise, mighty and noble so that our faith would stand in the power of God rather than the wisdom of men  to the glory of his Son.

The reason given for God’s placing the gospel revelation in earthen vessels (the apostles) was that “the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us” (2 Cor. 4:7). The apostles, for the most part, were “unschooled, ordinary men” (NIV) or “uneducated and untrained men” (NKJV, Acts 4:13). Equipped with divine revelation, they were a powerful force for producing faith. The apostles and prophets, with their direct divine revelation, have completed their work. We have their work in the written revelation. However, evangelists, pastors and teachers still remain. Faithful evangelists, pastors, and teachers armed with a knowledge of the “word of truth” are perfectly capable of meeting the challenge of the wise and powerful according to flesh. They are perfectly able to do battle and meet the arguments of the fleshly intellectuals: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (fleshly  eob) but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-5, emphasis mine, eob).

Let us just suppose that one would be more inclined to receive those with powerful academic, technological, and professional credentials than he would be to a plain vanilla teacher or preacher. Let us suppose that he is persuaded by the teaching of these intellectuals when he would not be by ordinary men, armed with the same truth. Where would his faith really stand? Would it really be in the power of the word of God, or in the academic power of the intellectual?

I think that, deep down, we all know the answer to that question.

Now, lest anyone be inclined to call me an “anti”that is anti-education, anti-technology, anti-scientific or anti-intellectual  let me make something crystal clear. I am not anti any of these things. I encourage folks to get all the education that they have sense enough to use.

“Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast. For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise!” (2 Cor. 11:18-19) Among those of my own children and their spouses (all of whom, thank God, are faithful Christians and Bible teachers in the congregations where they attend regularly) are those who have earned or are working on degrees in the following fields: engineering, journalism, business, medical, mathematics, and education. I do not claim total objectivity here, but I think they all have done pretty well in their respective fields. I only bring this up to counter any idea that this writer is against higher learning among Christians  or against using brethren as teachers and preachers who happen to have higher degrees. I have a stack of canceled checks that will testify to the contrary. But when it comes to their work of teaching the word of truth in an effort to produce and maintain the faith of the saints, they must put their scholastic credentials on the back burner, and be-come as “unschooled, ordinary men,” with Bible in hand, so their work can produce a faith that does not sand “in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”

Brethren, I pray that I never see the day when brethren will generally feel that they must turn to the wise of this world to produce, maintain, or strengthen the faith of Christians either young or old. If that day comes, “unschooled, ordinary men” will no longer be needed as “evangelists, pastors and teachers,” no matter how much they may have studied the Scriptures and have the ability to use them to cast down arguments and convict the gainsayer. We will turn to our engineers, doctors (M.D.’s, Ph.D.’s, LL.D.’s, Th.D.’s, D.D.’s etc.), scientists and other intellectuals to do this for us. It may very well be that the qualifications of an evangelist, elder, or teacher may come to include degrees in these fields  so that they can better relate to a more educated membership. Sound far-fetched? Dumber things have happened. Color me green and call be stupid if you like  I really believe some brethren are headed in that direction.

Let us continue to hold to the principle of the all-sufficiency of the church to produce and maintain the work that God wants the church to produce without turning to human inventions. Let us also maintain the principle of the all-sufficiency of the word of truth to produce and maintain the faith that God wants without turning to human wisdom. Let us “preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5), in a way that the faith of our hearers will stand in the power of the message and not in the wisdom and/or fleshly credentials of the messenger.

Brethren, are we drifting  again?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 15-16
September 15, 1994

By Lewis Willis

There are many people in churches of Christ today who are not familiar with the terminology, “Missionary Society.” Many of these people are not even aware that at one time churches of Christ and what we know as the Christian Church were united in one body. However, almost 150 years ago a division occurred over questions of authority relating to the work and worship of the church. Two principal questions were the focus of the dispute: (1) The Missionary Society, and (2) Mechanical Instruments of Music in worship. In 1849 a Missionary Society was formed by liberal brethren meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1859 L.L. Pinkerton introduced the organ into the worship of the Midway, Kentucky church. Prior to those dates, neither of these things were present in churches of the Restoration Movement. The Movement was an effort on the frontiers of America to cast aside humanly devised programs and actions, and return to the way things were done in the primitive church as recorded in the Scriptures.

The Missionary Society created by these brethren was a human organization. They solicited funds from churches and individuals for the operation of this human organization. The Missionary Society, then, selected preachers and their fields of labor and sent them forth to preach. The preachers were under the control of the Missionary Society which supplied their support. The only control the church had over this matter was to decide whether or not to support the Society. There was one fundamental thing wrong or sinful with the arrangement: God had assigned the work of preaching the gospel to the church  not to a human institution. That made the liberals no difference, and they pushed their human society until it divided the church. That division was generally complete by the year 1900.

Let us make one thing clear: God organized the church and assigned work to it. Note what Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:11-12: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” God assigned the work of evangelism to the church, and he gave it all of the organization it needed to accomplish that mission. Paul went forth preaching and he was never supported by a Missionary Society. To the Corinthians he said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service” (2 Cor. 11:8). We know that he was supported by the Philippian church. He said, “Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity” (Phil. 4:15-16). Finally, he said that the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This is the scriptural case which establishes that the church is to do the work God assigned to it, and it has no right to turn its work over to a human institution.

Not all of these human institutions have been called Missionary Societies. Some are called by names such as David Lipscomb University. I have before me a letter dated June 1, 1992, from a young Lipscomb student who is trying to raise money to go to Prague, Czechoslovakia. He is asking churches and individuals to support him in his work of taking the gospel to that former Communist country. The letter came in an envelope bearing the name and seal of David Lipscomb University, from the “Department of Bible.” The letter says, “Contributions may be made out to David Lipscomb University with a cover letter explaining that the money is to be used for my trip. These checks are tax deductible if you leave the memo space blank.” He then gives the address where the money is to be sent: David Lipscomb University, Bible Department, Box 4188, Granny White Pike, Nashville, TN 37204-3951. Lipscomb will receive the money and dispense it to preachers who will preach in that foreign country. Considering that the University is doing the same thing that was done by the Christian Church’s Missionary Society, it would be very easy to confuse them with the Missionary Society, wouldn’t it? I seem to find a lot of uses for the analogy, but “if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers, it is a duck.” It seems to me, folks, we have another duck here. It is another Missionary Society calling itself David Lipscomb University.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 5
September 15, 1994

By Bobby R. Holmes

In the September 30, 1993, and December 31, 1993 issues of Sentry brother Shane Scott had an article entitled “The One True Church.” Brother Scott is a very talented young man who does a good job in writing. However, he used a portion of an article that I wrote entitled “Bible Baptism vs. Baptism For the Remission of Sins” in which he grossly misrepresented me. I have no desire to harm brother Scott in any way and have written him (November 9th, December 8th, and December 28, 1993) urging him to correct this, but he has refused to do so. I am left with no alternative but to correct the misrepresentation myself lest I be labeled as one who believes and teaches falsely regarding the Lord’s church.

My article appeared in “Guardian of Truth” (June 3, 1993, page 330). When my article appeared in GOT brother Scott challenged it and wrote a response to it. After talking to Mike Willis, editor of GOT, brother Willis urged him to talk with me about it before presenting his response for publication. Brother Scott wrote me a letter June 29th in which he stated that he disagreed with some of the points I had made regarding the church of Christ being the one true church. He also included a copy of his response to be published. I immediately called brother Scott and we talked about my article.

Brother Scott thought from my article that I believed that the church universal was made up of local churches. After we talked, he under-stood that I did not believe that. I told him clearly that I had never taken that position. I told him that I did not claim to be a writer and perhaps could have worded my article better had I been one. I suggested that he go ahead and send his article to GOT for publication if he so desired and I would answer it to the best of my ability. He stated that it would not be necessary to do that since he now knew that I stood for the truth on the subject. We had a pleasant conversation and I thought that the subject was closed.

Then on September 30th his article “The One True Church” came out in Sentry. On page 12, paragraph 2 he states:

To illustrate the deficiency of this view, here is a quote from a recent article in a brotherhood pa-per: “There is only one church and that is the church you can read about in the Bible that honors his (Christ’s) name, is organized ac-cording to his dictates, works and worships according to the pattern he has given. No church but the church of Christ can truthfully make that claim” (author’s own emphasis). When this author says that the only church that can truly claim to work, worship and be organized as the Lord instructs is the “church of Christ,” in what sense is he using that phrase? He cannot mean the church in the universal sense, since it performs none of these actions collectively. He certainly cannot be using “church of Christ” in the local sense, since he said there was only one church which was right, and I know of many local churches obeying God’s will. He was using the phrase “church of Christ” to describe some sort of institution that blurs and merges the concept of the universal body and local churches. Such an unbiblical institutional concept has more in common with modern denominationalism than it does with first century apostolic teaching.

Brother Scott knows that I believe that the church universal is made up of the saved throughout the world. He also understands I had reference to the local church in my statement, “the church you can read about in the Bible that honors his name, is organized according to his dictates, works and worships according to the pattern he has given” (1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1). Brother Scott knows what I mean by what I wrote because I told him so before he wrote his article in Sentry.

What brother Scott is reacting to is “church versus church” preaching. My article was written to point out that denominationalism is not the same as the Lord’s one true church! What can be seen of the Lord’s church is seen in the local church! It is “organized ac-cording to his dictates” with its own elders, deacons, etc. (Phil. 1:1). It “worships and works according to the pattern he has given” as it meets regularly to lay by in store (1 Cor. 16:1-2), partakes of the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7), teaches God’ s word (Acts 20:7), prays, sings and uses the Lord’s funds in helping needy saints (Acts 11:28-30) and supporting those preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8-9). Who would deny that?

Why the clamor and challenge concerning “church versus church” writings and preaching? It seems to me that there are some brethren who include some of those in denominational churches with the saved of God simply because they were “baptized for the remission of sins.” My article hit a tender spot.

The bottom line of it all revolves around the subject of revealed religion versus unrevealed religion. Revealed religion is seen in the organization of the local church, its work and worship as described above versus the unrevealed religion of denominationalism. In brother Scott’s article Sentry (pp. 11-12), he states:

However, sometimes we use a highly denominational concept of the church when we evangelize. An approach which I used to use (emp. mine, b.r.h.) is what I call the “one true church” approach. I would begin by reading all the verses which talk about the one church. Then I would show the prospect the identifying marks of the “one true church”: It’s led by elders (1 Pet. 5:1-2); uses only vocal singing (Eph. 5:19); takes the Lord’s supper every Sunday (Acts 20:7), etc. But this presentation is based on taking the principle of the one universal church, then applying passages to it that are actually describing the work, organization, and worship of local churches.

When I wrote of the “one true church you can read about in the Bible that is organized according to his dictates, works and worships ac-cording to his pattern” I was writing about revealed religion. Have we reached the point that we cannot preach the difference between revealed and unrevealed religion?

I would not for a moment judge the heart of brother Scott as to his motive for knowingly misrepresenting what I believe but, the fact is that he did misrepresent me and I do not want those who read my article and then read his article to thank that I hold to such false teaching.

It seems to me that he was so desperate to find something that would prove an imagined evil (emphasizing the church to the neglect of Christ) that he was grasping for straws when he used my article as evidence. There may be some among conservative brethren who hold the view that the church universal is made-up of local churches but, brother Scott knew when he wrote this article that I was as opposed to them as he is. Why he left the impression that I believed that the church universal is made up of local congregations, when he knew that was not true, I will leave for him to explain.

In the meantime, let me assure you that I have not out grown preaching that contrasts the Lord’s revealed religion (his church) from humanly devised religion (the denominations of men). Brother Scott seems to indicate that he has made some changes in his preaching and teaching as to the subject of revealed religion versus unrevealed religion (note: “An approach which I used to use. . .,” Sentry, pp. 11-12). In a letter from him dated January 11, 1994 he states that he has not outgrown preaching that contrasts the Lord’s revealed religion from humanly devised religion and “categorically denies that he has.” Inasmuch as he has criticized how his brethren abuse “church versus church” preaching and he says he has not outgrown it we will be looking for a series of articles from him to show us how it should be done.

Again, let me say that what can be seen of the one true church is seen in the local church in its God-given organization. No, the church universal is not made up of local churches. It is made up of the saved throughout the world. When one teaches and preaches the difference between the denominational churches (unrevealed religion) and the local church arrangement of God’s people (revealed religion) in organization, work and worship he is preaching the Truth! I have used an illustration that I believe is appropriate. “If you want to see just how crooked a stick is, hold it up beside one that is perfectly straight.” In preaching the difference between revealed religion and unrevealed religion one is doing just that.

I sincerely regret having to publish this correction of brother Scott’s article and only resort to submitting this article after my repeated attempts to persuade him to correct it failed. I do not hold any animosity toward brother Scott, although I believe he has publicly misrepresented me.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 8-9
September 15, 1994