Truth Magazine

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

By Norman E. Fultz

“It doesn’t matter what one believes if he is honest and sincere,” we’ve often heard it said. Many prominent leaders in religious circles today advocate it and their attendants accept it, at least on the surface.

But is it possible .. .

That God really doesn’t care what one teaches or believes?

That one doctrine really is just as good as any other?

That one religion is truly as good as another?

You’ve likely heard that sentiment, maybe even voiced it yourself. It is an appealing idea and can do much to relieve the threat of offense to another who is of a different persuasion. But, really now, where did such great wisdom come from? Is it from heaven or is it of men (Matt. 21:25)? Does it matter that it might be of men (Matt. 15: 8-9)? Kind reader, I suggest to you most candidly that it is not of God, but of man; and it does matter. Let’s consider .. .

If it really makes no difference, there cannot be such a thing as false doctrine or teaching! Yet the Bible is replete with warnings against false teachers and false teaching (doctrine). Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing.” He compared them to corrupt trees that bear corrupt fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). He also stated clearly that it was possible for some to worship him vainly because of teaching doctrines whose origin is in men (Matt. 15:8-9). Further, he taught that if one is blindly led by blind leaders, they shall both fall into the ditch (Matt. 15:14), their honestly and sincerity notwithstanding.

Additionally, the apostles who were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13), sternly warned against perverting that which they delivered. Hear Paul in Galatians 1:8-9, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed.” First century believers were admonished to “try (test) the spirits (teachers), whether they be of God” (1 Jn. 4:1). Some will teach “fables” to tickle the ears of their audience (2 Tim. 4:2-4). And while it may be difficult to understand, God will allow one to believe a lie to this own condemnation who “receives not the love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The very fact that there were Bible characters who were honest and sincere in their persuasions, but whose persuasions did not meet God’s approval is further testimony to the falsity of the thought stated at the beginning of this treatise. Saul of Tarsus who became the great apostle Paul was honest and sincere in the “Jew’s religion” (Gal. 1:14; Acts 23:1). He always labored to have a conscience void of offense before God and man (Acts 24:16), but it was not good enough. The treasurer of Ethiopia was so devout as to travel perhaps a thousand miles by chariot to worship according to the best of his understanding, but Philip the evangelist was commissioned by the Spirit to “preach Christ” unto him from the very scripture where the man was reading. And we learned from him that one who is truly honest and sincere, when he comes into new truth, will readily respond unto it (Acts 8:26-40). And the Roman commander, Cornelius, a worshipper of God, a good and devout man, and a good citizen, was told to “hear words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 10:1-11:18).

Kind reader, it simply is not true that it makes no difference what one believes. If it makes no difference what one believes, ultimately we must conclude that it makes no difference what the Bible says. But the teaching of Scripture is, “If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Being religious or saying, “Lord, Lord” is insufficient (Lk. 6:46). One’s salvation rests upon his doing God’s will (Matt. 7:21-23). Put your religious beliefs to the test of God’s word. Try those who teach, for it does make a difference what one believes.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 7
September 15, 1994

By Donnie V. Rader

I don’t know if you have heard the story about John Beagan or not. It is an interesting story to say the least. John was married to Susan for 18 years. They were faithful to each other. Both seemed to be happy with their marriage. In fact, they both say that these past eighteen years have been the best years of their life. John and Susan have four children: Loy (13), Tammy (11), Houston (8) and Liz (5).

John has been the best dad he could be to these four. He never missed a baseball game that Houston played. Loy cared nothing for ball, so John took him hunting and fishing  even when he really didn’t have the time. Don’t think for a moment that he neglected Tammy and Liz. He spent as much time playing games and dolls with them as he did the boys.

Little by little things changed in the family  or really with John. As time passed, he spent less and less time at home. Oh no, he wasn’t seeing another woman or drinking or doing anything immoral. He just got to where he was working a lot more than he had been. You see, John works for a company that makes blank VCR tapes. Sales have been up with the increase of VCR owners.

John doesn’t feel it is really his fault that he doesn’t come home much. He was told by his supervisor that everyone on his shift was to work overtime. Well, John did that for a long time. But then, he got to staying around the plant after his shift was over. Later, he would leave the plant and go get a bite to eat, browse through the mall, go see a friend and then go back to the plant. He hasn’t been home in several weeks now.

Naturally, John’s family is puzzled. They can’t under-stand why he doesn’t come home anymore. Oh, John hasn’t cut off communication. He is willing to talk when they call him at work. His wife has made repeated trips and begged him to come home like he used to. Several times the whole family has gone and talked with him. They have asked what the problem is. They have pled with him over and over to come home.

Loy and Tammy (the older children) have just about given up on him. Liz was heard to say she didn’t think he loved his family anymore. Little Houston, though he is only eight, assessed the situation saying, “I don’t think daddy wants a family. And we can’t help him if he doesn’t care!” His family is not the only ones who have been puzzled and critical. Some of his co-workers and friends have talked with him as well.

John told me that people just don’t understand. He has repeatedly told his family (and others) that he really does want and love his family. In fact, he gets a little “put out” with those who suggest he doesn’t. It’s just that he has been so busy. He says that he really can’t help it. He has had to work a lot lately. And he does have a lot going on in his life.

The last time he talked with Susan and Tammy (a week ago) he told them that he knew he needed to start back to coming home after work. And, he plans to get started just as soon as he can get a few things straightened out in his life.

John’s mother, Marinda Beagan, asked me if I would talk to Susan and the children. Don’t misunderstand. She doesn’t approve of John’s actions at all. In fact, she has been to see him to encourage him to go home to his family. But, she does think that Susan and the children are being a little hard on John. She said that John told her, “Mom, I really do love my family, it’s just that . . . well, I just got out of the habit of going home after work.” She has begged Susan and the children to be a little more patient with John. Now she wants me to talk with them.

John’s mother explained to me how tired John gets working the hours that he does. He needs some time to himself, she said. He really doesn’t feel like playing, fishing, hunting, talking or going to a baseball game. She thinks if Susan and others would be less critical of his not coming home and be more positive and encouraging that he will gradually come home more. Now don’t tell Marinda that I said this, but I think she is just making excuses for John.

Oh, I’m sorry that I’ve rambled on with this story so long. I thought maybe you haven’t heard this story. But, I guess you have. It is really the same old story about people who were faithful but gradually quit coming to worship. Now, why can we see that John doesn’t really care about his family and yet we quit or miss a lot of Bible study and worship service and contend that we really do love the Lord. I guess I just don’t understand.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 6
September 15, 1994

By Jamey Hinds

“We love him because he first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19). “By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us” (1 Jn. 3:16). “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son, the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:7-10).

God’s love is astonishingly indescribable. And, yet, his love is limited in that it cannot force anyone to be saved from his sins. Of course, that is the beauty of God’s love  He has created us to be morally free in choosing right and wrong.

According to Mark, “Now as Jesus was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before him, and asked him, `Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?’ So Jesus said to him, `Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, God. You know the commandments.’ . . . And he answered and said to him, `Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth.’ Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, `One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me.’ But he was sad at this word, and went away grieved, for he had great possessions” (10:17-22).

Notice Jesus’ love for this man. But even his love was not enough to remove the requirements necessary to be pleasing to God: he had to make an individually responsible choice  a choice we all must make. “But without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).

There are those who deny the necessity of water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And, yet, they proclaim their absolute truth in God’s incorruptible love. They often forget that his love is incorruptible and cannot simply disregard such things as the command to be baptized for the remission of our sins (Matt. 3:13-17; 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-14; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:21).

God’s love is magnificently beautiful and pure. It is most powerful and majestic. But it cannot, alone, save us. We must love him, too.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 4
September 15, 1994