Truth Magazine

By Paul J. Casebolt

The people who did not attend the wedding feast all had different excuses. Yet, they all had one thing in common  “And they all with one consent began to make excuse” (Lk. 14:18).

When viewed separately, each excuse may seem valid, especially by the one who made the excuse. But, when viewed together, all the excuses appear to be just that  excuses. I marvel that we cannot see the weakness of our excuses, when they are placed alongside others with similar or identical characteristics.

Some questions and answers concerning various doctrinal positions will show that those who take these positions all have one thing in common  an attempt at self-justification (Lk. 16:15).

Question: Why do some people say that there is no god, or if there ever were a God, that he is now dead?

Answer: Because if we admit that there is a God, then it is our duty to fear that God and keep his commandments (Eccl. 12:13,14).

Question: Why did Martin Luther deny the authenticity of the book of James, and reject it as being “spurious”?

Answer: Because James 2:14-26 (and especially v. 24), directly contradicted Luther’s theory that man is justified by “faith only.” And, if you reject a part of a chapter, what not reject it all? And if you reject a chapter, why not reject the whole book? We’ll see this attempt at consistency coming up again later. And a whole lot closer to home.

Question: Why do some religious groups says that the name “Christian” was given by the enemies of the church in mockery or derision, and not by the “mouth of the Lord”?

Answer: Because to admit that the name Christian was a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa. 62:2; 65:15); that it was given under the direction and approval of inspired apostles (Acts 14:14; 11:25-26); that it was later approved by the apostle Paul (Acts 26:28); and that it was sanctioned by Peter (1 Pet. 4;16), is to concede that such sectarian names as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., do not honor Christ, have no salvation attached to them (Acts 4:11,12), and violate the teaching of the Bible with respect to glorying in men (1 Cor. 1:12; 4:6).

Question: Why do some brethren now deny the principles of the Restoration Period of the 19th century, or even deny that there is any such thing as a restoration of the church’s identity as it existed in the first century?

Answer: Because to admit that the true order of things can be (and has been) restored, is to admit that some brethren and churches are not in harmony with those restoration principles. But to deny the principle and possibility of restoration is to deny the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chron. 29-36), and that the seed of the kingdom is still capable of reproducing the kingdom of Christ at any given place and time (Lk. 8:11-15; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Question: Why do some deny that the local congregation should be fully organized with elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13), or that there is such a thing as a mission, work, or public assemblies for the church?

Answer: Because to admit such things would condemn those who have rebelled against duly established order and authority, have replaced it with preacher-led or other Diotrephes-led movements, and are forsaking assembling of themselves with faithful saints.

Question: Why do some deny that an approved apostolic example constitutes sufficient authority for a practice?

Answer: Because to admit such would be to admit that such apostolic examples as sending directly to the preacher in evangelism (Phil. 4:14-16), and sending to needy saints without the use of human benevolent societies or sponsoring church arrangements are still binding on us today.

And the reason some reject the apostolic example of observing the Lord’s supper “upon the first day of the week” is simply a half-hearted effort to be consistent after rejecting apostolic examples described in the passages mentioned above. I say half-hearted, because some have not yet rejected the example of Acts 20:7, some have done so reluctantly and privately, while those who believe that you “could” take the Lord’s supper on some other day, still do it on the first day of the week.

Question: Why have some in the past denied that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are part of the New Testament?

Answer: Because they don’t believe that Matthew 19:9 should be applied to marriage/divorce/marriage situations in this dispensation of time. But, following the example of Martin Luther with respect to the Book of James, if you reject Matthew 19:9, you must reject the whole book of Matthew. And if you reject Matthew, you must be consistent and reject Mark, Luke, and John because they are similar in content to Matthew.

Question: Why do some deny that the alien sinner is accountable (or amenable) to the law of Christ?

Answer: In order to relax the laws of marriage/divorce/ remarriage toward those alien sinners who are involved in a manage relationship which cannot be justified by the law of Christ.

Question: Why are some brethren now demanding a “new hermeneutics” approach to the interpretation/application of the Scriptures?

Answer: Because the present and time-tested approach of direct command/approved apostolic example/necessary inference will not permit them to believe and do some of the things which are being advocated. And rather than make some of the same excuses listed above, or just throwaway the Bible entirely, they feel that they need to come up with some respectable approach that will justify what they have already decided they are going to do anyway.

Like the excuses for not attending the wedding feast, the above mentioned excuses for doing or not doing a thing are different, yet alike. When viewed separately, each may sound authentic to the one making the excuse, or to those around him.

Yet, when you look at that many excuses all at once, even those making the excuses will have to concede that “some” of them may not be valid, and certainly all of them cannot be, if we don’t like the company we are keeping, and do not want to be involved in “guilt by association,” then I would suggest that we stop trying to justify our-selves, our families, our friends, or some situation in a given congregation and act our doctrines and practices in harmony with the truth.

The Lord will not accept flimsy excuses for not attending the wedding feast and neither will we be blessed if we show up without a “wedding garment” (Matt. 22:11-14).

And if we can figure out what constitutes being espoused or married to Christ, and how to live a life of fidelity to him without committing spiritual fornication, we ought to be able to do the same with regard to marriage relationships here on this earth.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 18-19
June 16, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

“No creed but Christ” is the message of the Bible from beginning to end. Christ, and Christ alone, is the Savior promised to all the world as the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:3). He is the great Prophet whom God would send as the culmination of all prophets before him to “speak . . . all that I shall command him” (Deut. 18:18-19). God promised to raise up his Son as “an ensign of the people,” around which all men must rally in order to receive the saving “knowledge of the Lord” (Isa. 11:9-10). There can be no creed but Christ because there is no savior but Christ, no king but Christ, no high priest but Christ, and no lawgiver but Christ.

Jesus Taught “No Creed But Christ”

Jesus taught his disciples “no creed but Christ.” Peter made that very confession when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ then promised to build his church upon the truth of that creed and promised to rule over this new “kingdom of heaven” by revealing the truth from heaven through his Apostles (Matt. 16:16-19). In the Great Commission, the resurrected Lord sent his Apostles to preach the gospel to all nations. That meant preaching the necessity of a comprehensive, total, obedient faith in Christ and his every word  “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20).

Jesus required total commitment to this proposition, “No creed but Christ.” He taught that all the creeds, commandments, and churches of men must be “rooted up” so that the Word of God can reign supreme over the souls of men. When some of his own disciples complained that such preaching was offensive to people who embraced the creeds of men, Jesus said to ignore the criticisms of the offended and let them follow their blind teachers to destruction if they will not hear the truth (Matt. 15:8-14).

John’s account of the gospel is built around the theme “no creed but Christ,” because it is written “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30-31). Jesus promised “everlasting life” to all who truly believe in the “only begotten Son of God,” but he made it clear that this true faith requires that men be “born of water and of the Spirit” in order to “enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5,16). Jesus taught, “I am the living bread,” and that men must eat of that bread by accepting all that he taught. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Some of his own disciples found this teaching offensive “and walked no more with him.” Jesus asked his Apostles whether they too would turn away, but Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou halt the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ” (Jn. 6:51, 63-69). “No creed but Christ” means that we recognize the words of Jesus Christ, and his teaching alone, to be spiritual and life-giving. When Christ is our creed, his every word is our creed!

Confessing “No Creed But Christ”

“No creed but Christ” requires an open, vocal confession of Jesus Christ and immersion in water “for the remission of sins.” When the Apostles proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ, there was no variation in these requirements, but they were binding upon “every one of you” in every case of conversion (Acts 2:36-38). Preaching Christ in Samaria meant refuting the claims of a false teacher named Simon. Not only were many of his followers converted to “the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,” but also “Simon himself believed . . . and … was baptized” (Acts 8:5-13). Later, on a lonely road, Philip preached Christ to an Ethiopian man who soon expressed his desire to be baptized. “And Philip said, If thou believed with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Upon this confession of Christ, Philip immersed the Ethiopian in water (Acts 8:26-40).

When Paul preached the gospel, he too taught that men must “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus” and be “baptized into Jesus Christ” in order to be saved by the blood of Christ (Rom. 10:9-10; 6:3-4). “No creed but Christ” means “that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-11). In reality, the confession of this creed means that we will submit ourselves to the teaching of Christ on all matters, including every aspect of daily life (business relations, marriage and family life, speech, dress, recreation, etc.) and every aspect of the identity of his church (its name, doctrine, worship, work, organization, discipline, etc.).

The Rise of Human Creeds

The creed of early Christians was nothing more or less than faith in Jesus Christ and his word as absolute and final in all things. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles warned against the coming gradual departures from that creed as men would usurp the place of God as lawgiver in his kingdom (2 Thess. 2:3-4). Specific departures included doctrines of men “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Later, the “office of a bishop” was transformed from the work of several qualified men in each local church to a clerical position of power usurped by one man in each of the larger city churches. Local bishops in the Bible were required to be married men with experience in raising children, but the new bishop was forbidden to marry (1 Tim. 3:1-5).

During A.D. 100-300 the false doctrine of apostolic succession arose, claiming that “the bishop” stood in the position of an Apostle of Jesus Christ. “The bishop” functioned as an autocrat or monarch in his domain, exercising powers not authorized by the New Testament. The rise of “the bishop” with its concept of apostolic succession was “the vehicle” for collecting and formulating the supposed oral traditions of the Apostles as the “rule of faith” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church in 8 Vols., II:525).

“The role of the bishop as a bond of unity in the church was reinforced by the development of a creed” (E. E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, 1964, p. 126). Under the leadership of its bishop, “each of the leading churches framed its creed” and later councils of bishops framed universal creeds as the living faith of the church in the living, oral tradition of the Apostles, which was considered consistent with the teaching of Scripture (Schaff, pp. 525-533, seep. 529). For instance, the Apostles’ Creed of A.D. 340 has twelve articles, each of which was thought to have come from the oral teaching of each of the twelve Apostles, each Apostle providing an article. There were several creeds by this same name, all claiming to be authoritative.

In an effort to forge a larger unity, Emperor Constantine called a council of the bishops to Nicaea in 325 and they wrote the Nicene Creed. In the continuing development of Catholicism, other creeds followed. Beginning in the 1500s the denominations which resulted from the Protestant Reformation wrote new creeds, but claimed they had secondary rather than equal authority with the Scriptures. The claim that human writings bear any such authority is the essence of the creedal spirit.

Human creeds embody human traditions as standards of authority in religion, such as the Decrees of the Council of Trent in Roman Catholicism, the Westminster Confession and Catechism in Presbyterianism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Episcopalianism, the Augsburg Confession of Lutheranism, the Articles of Religion of Methodism, and such like. As Moses Lard noted, “A creed is the organic law of the party which depends upon it for its existence,” which implies that the Word of God is not a sufficient rule of faith and practice (“Human Creeds as Tests of Truth Make Void the Word of God,” Lard’s Quarterly, 1863, I:60-84, see p. 76).

Restoring “No Creed But Christ”

“No creed but Christ” means that the faith and practice of the church of Christ is already found in the New Testament, which makes void any other standard of authority in religion. Human creeds are necessary to sustain the identity of human names, doctrines, and practices which cannot be identified in the New Testament. In the early 1800s, men weary of denominational error and strife began to forsake every human creed and to return to “no creed but Christ.”

Alexander Campbell agreed with a Presbyterian preacher who said that human creeds were necessary to the existence of denominations, but he denied that the New Testament authorizes human creeds or denominations.

The word of the apostles shall be the only creed, formula, and directory of faith, worship, and Christian practice, when the ancient order of things is restored. . . . The constitution and law of the primitive church shall be the constitution and law of the restored church (The Christian Baptist, 1827, II:216-225).

In a debate with N. L. Rice, Campbell affirmed, “Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical,” arguing, “The primitive Christians had one, and but one faith, written out for them by apostles and prophets: we have it in one volume, usually called the New Testament” (Campbell-Rice Debate, pp. 759-912, see p. 759). When Campbell was opposed for opposing denominational error and creeds, he responded,

I opposed not one item of the Christian religion…. I do oppose, and will, by the grace of God, oppose, not only almost, but altogether, everything received as the Christian religion, not found in the New Testament, to the utmost of my ability and opportunity, at the risk of everything (The Christian Baptist, I:98-100, see p. 99).

The restoration of New Testament Christianity requires a return to the plea, “No creed but Christ.”

I have preached “no creed but Christ” for over thirty years in opposition to Catholicism, denominationalism, and sectarianism of every kind, identifying the creeds and those who uphold them. Is that same kind of preaching needed today? Professed gospel preachers such as Bill Love in The Core Gospel and C. Leonard Allen in The Cruciform Church argue that such preaching obscures the cross of Christ. I have read articles advising against preaching on “The Sin of Denominationalism,” lest we offend people. One evangelist recently advised a young man who wants to preach not to identify false teachers and religions in sermons, and especially not to preach like Larry Hafley because he identifies the denominations along with their creeds and doctrines by name. Such preaching is said to be “outdated.” The timeless preaching of Jesus and his Apostles named false teachers, creeds, and sects (Matt. 15:1-14; 16:6-12; 2 Tim. 2:16-18).

The only time some preachers cry out against “creeds” is when they protest plain, pointed gospel preaching which exposes religious error because they regard such preaching as creedal, legalistic, Pharisaical, narrow-minded traditionalism. Olan Hicks says we need to “stop being creed makers,” in a context where he means we need to stop opposing the apostasy of instrumental music, church sup-port of human institutions, and his error on divorce and remarriage (News and Notes, January 1994, p. 3). Such are the plaintiff cries of error for toleration, for compromise, and for relief from exposure. Those who truly oppose the doctrines, commandments, and creeds of men will be unmoved by such cries.

Now and always, we must continue to preach with great plainness of speech, “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible!”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 8-9
June 16, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

Part One: Bred in Infidelity

One would have to be totally ignorant of the Bible to deny that Jesus Christ is both the center and circumference of all that the Bible contains. There is not a single doctrine or nuance of biblical teaching that does not have Christ as its foundation. If we begin in Eden, the fall of Adam and Eve is tempered by the promise of the Seed of Woman. If one considers the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood, its meaning is found in Jesus as High Priest. Animal sacrifices, the Law, the promises to Abraham, etc., each finds its meaning as it relates to the person and work of the Messiah.

The same is true of the New Testament. Whether one studies baptism, the Lord’s supper, morality, the church or the second coming, each relates directly to Jesus for its meaning and relation to our lives. His perfect life, submissive death and resurrection to David’s throne provides the scarlet thread that explains God’s grace and human need in progressive revelation from Genesis to Revelation. Any who misses this is condemned to a life of ritual, empty ceremony and meaningless liturgy.

It is absolutely true that we must never divorce commands and commandment-keeping from the story of the cross. Blind submission to laws, even those of God, is Pharisaical and ritualistic. Thus, our preaching and our personal faith must ever avoid the sterility that comes from Christ-less conformity to rules.

However, having said that, we must also note that there are those who, under the guise of preaching more about the cross, are guilty of the very thing of which they charge others: divorcing Christ from his commandments! A concentrated attack on the “word of the cross” and “gospel” so as to exclude the doctrines of Christ is underway. While a blanket charge toward all should be avoided, it remains true that some are guilty of redefining Bible terms so as to exclude doctrine from the gospel. Others are guilty of poor scholarship and naive assumptions which parrot cynical attacks by those who would re-define commands out of the “gospel” or “word of the cross.” While seeking to avoid extremes which miss the fulness of truth, we must also avoid elements that would impose a compromise with error because of deliberate evisceration of Bible terms.

Much has been written through the years about those who would make a distinction between gospel and doctrine. Some want these terms to be mutually exclusive so that “fellowship” is never limited because of a difference about doctrine. If the term “word of the cross” is substituted for “gospel,” the same scheme appears. It is a new formula for the old “unity in diversity” that has been around for years and which has compromise and fellow-ship with error at its heart.

I say that much has been written about the gospel/ doctrine controversy, which is true. However, little has been written about the source of this error. It is time that we look at the parentage of this error to show that it has been bred in infidelity, nurtured by cynicism and spread by discontent.

Modernistic Infidelity Promotes This Error

Where did this idea come from that there is a distinction between the use of “gospel” and “doctrine”? It is certainly not scriptural. Gospel and doctrine are used interchange-ably in the Scriptures (1 Tim. 1:8-11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; and many others). The “word of the cross” is not limited only to the facts of Golgotha, but includes the story of Pentecost, the epistles, and all things needed to bring men into a right relation with God (1 Cor. 1:18; Gal. 5:11; Phil. 3:18).

However, brethren are now making this unwarranted distinction and, from it, proposing a decreased emphasis on doctrinal preaching and an increased acceptance of error as though “doctrine is of lesser importance.” Again, where did this error arise?

However ancient it may be, modem references trace the supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine to a Church of England theologian and pastor, Charles Harold (C. H.) Dodd. A prolific writer, Dodd authored over 50 books, pamphlets and lectures while Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. He became a tremendous influence through his printed works and, consequently, upon brethren who have researched his material. It should be pointed out that Dodd (1884-1973) did not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. He accepted German form criticism with its attendant dependence on redactors, oral tradition and misplaced documents. “I assume the main results of source-criticism as they bear upon his part of the Gospel Record. Mark is the earliest Gospel. Matthew and Luke depend largely upon it as a source. They also depend upon a lost document, denominated `Q’…” (History And The Gospel, C. H. Dodd [London: Nesbit and Co., Ltd., 1935], p. 78).

Of inspiration, Dodd said: “The `inspiration’ of the prophets is essentially a power of insight into the situation as expressing a meaning which is God’s meaning for His people” (The Bible Today, C. H. Dodd [Cambridge University Press, New York; The Macmillan Co.], p. 105).

“It is nevertheless true that mankind is a `fallen’ race. The presence of evil in the human will, and of error in human thought, makes it inevitable that in the long stretches of human history the divine meaning should be more or less completely obscured” (The Authority of the Bible, C. H. Dodd [Harper Torchbook, Harper Brothers, New York, 1960], p. 10).

“The Bible, we have seen, records a development in men’s notions of God. . .” (Ibid., 248).

“The new thing that the prophets communicated we found to be something essentially something in themselves. Because they were the men they were, and reacted to their experiences in the way they did, they were open to certain aspects of God unopened by other men” (Ibid., 258).

“Creation, the Fall of Man, the Deluge and the Building of Babel are symbolic myths. The Last Judgment and the End of the World, if they are not in the strict sense myths, have a similar symbolic character” (The Bible Today, 112).

“It is impossible to think of Doomsday as a coming event in history. . . we are dealing with symbol” (ibid., 115).

Is it not strange that a man with such a warped view of Scripture could exert such an inordinately powerful influence upon the religious world in general and the church of Christ in particular? Yet it is from this perspective of modernistic infidelity that Dodd predicated his view of a gospel/doctrine distinction. Unable to escape the power of religion altogether, he sought to weaken the authority of the Scriptures by denying true inspiration and relegating Scripture to oral traditions of myths. And it is no less than the arrogance of worldly wisdom that suggested to Dodd that he could investigate the epistles, isolate these buried “oral traditions” and “original sayings of Jesus” from the “evolutionary doctrine” added later by Paul and others.

Dodd, and others, speak so boldly and confidently of having found the “original gospel” that one would think one could turn easily to it in the Bible. But one reads in vain for any identification of a “buried message,” or “oral tradition.” Is it out of reason to ask, “Where is it to be found?” How do we identify Jesus’ own words with certainty beyond the written text? Are these utterances written in red in the “red letter editions”? Must we read between the lines to find an early catechism that is not recorded in Scripture? Are they identified in any significant way by recognized men of inspiration? Or do we only have Dodd’s authority that he has located the original message?

Dodd has significantly admitted: “It is true that the kerygma as we have recovered it from the Pauline epistles is fragmentary. No complete statement of it is, in the nature of the case, avail-able. But we may restore it in outline somewhat after this fashion… .” (The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development, C. H. Dodd [Hodder and Stoughton, Ltd., London, 1950], 17).

But even with this weak admission before us, we must nevertheless admit that he is the modern father of a heresy that has widespread popularity. Robert C. Worly, writing of Dodd’s position said: “The significant features of Dodd’s theory which have been described in their developmental sequence are:

“1. In the earliest church a distinct activity called preaching was practiced.

“2. Preaching had a particular content, the kerygma, which was the earliest missionary message of the church.

“3. Fragments of this earliest message are discernible in the written record, Scripture.

“4. Teaching is a second, distinct activity of the early church.

“5. The content of teaching is primarily ethical instruction and exhortation. Its form is derived from Jewish antecedents.

“6. The practice and content of teaching are the product of the evolutionary development of the earliest church as it awaited the second coming of Jesus” (Preaching and Teaching in the Earliest Church, Robert C. Worley, 22-23).

This “core gospel” or “kerygma” that Dodd advocated consisted of seven facts to be believed. They were:

The prophecies are fulfilled and the New Age is inaugurated by the Coming of Christ.

He was born of the seed of David.

He died according to the scriptures, to deliver us out of the present evil age.

He was buried.

He rose on the third day according to the scriptures.

He is exalted at the right hand of God, as Son of God and lord of the quick and dead.

He will come again as Judge and Saviour of men (The Apostolic Preaching And Its Development, p. 17).

Dodd further developed a distinction between gospel and doctrine by advocating a distinction between preaching and teaching. “The verb `to preach’ frequently has for its object `the Gospel.’ Indeed the connection of ideas is so close that kerysein by itself can be used as a virtual equivalent for evangelizes Thai, `to evangelize’, or `to preach the gospel.’ It would not be too much to say that wherever `preaching’ is spoken of, it always carries with it the implication of `good tidings’ proclaimed” (Ibid., 2).

The final step in this synthesis of error is that of application. Dodd, a Calvinist, made the natural step in connecting the gospel with preaching so as to produce faith (justification by faith alone). He saw doctrine as that which produced law by which a believer works for sanctification but which is not essential to salvation. Any student of Calvinism should be aware of the gospel doctrine, faith/law (works), justification/sanctification distinction which is the natural out-growth of the gospel/doctrine distinction.

This final step should also explain the antagonism that is expressed against doctrine by the New Unity Movement people and the New Hermeneutic people among churches of Christ. Though reluctant to accept Calvinism openly, they nevertheless flirt with it by advocating a gospel doctrine distinction that mitigates against doctrine, law or works. Faith is essential to salvation; doctrine is not! When brethren today decry the emphasis on doctrinal preaching and charge that not enough gospel is being preached, they are making the typical application of Calvinism. Baptists have, for years, taught “The Man, not the Plan.” Now it is being heard among churches of Christ. But it is couched in new terms and now we hear: “More gospel; less doctrine,” “More `word of the cross’ and less legalism,” or “more Golgotha and less Pentecost.” But it is all cut from the same cloth. To be sure, not all are aware of the source of this error, but it is past time to realize what is going on by some who are informed, well read, and who make this application because they have accepted the premise of Dodd.

Let us be sure to understand, therefore, that when brethren begin to advocate that the gospel is different from doctrine they are not teaching biblical ideas. Let us also understand that this concept is not limited to a debate about definitions of words, but that a major application of error is contemplated, with widespread changes in churches of Christ. Anyone who holds this unscriptural distinction is headed for fellowship with sectarians because doctrine, law and works become unimportant to fellowship with God or with the people of God. Finally, let us understand the source of this error. Though it may be bathed in an aura of scholarship and suffused with a sense of tolerance, it is as destructive as any evil Satan ever produced. It is the child of infidelity.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 13-14
June 16, 1994

By Evelyn Dahlquist

Without the truth of God, it is impossible to be a Christian (John 8:32).

It means more than simply believing. To be sure one must be a believer (Heb. 11:6; Mark 16:16), but he must have a faith that works by love (Gal. 5:6).

It means submission, obedience, conformity to the will of God and Christ in every relationship in life, in all manner of living (1 Pet. 1:13-16; Jas. 1:22-27).

It certainly includes being a member of the body of Christ  the church  but it includes more than just church membership. One cannot be a Christian, a saved individual, without being a member of the church. God adds the saved to the church (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:23).

What was the most outstanding trait found in the life of the Savior? It was serving others. Christianity is obeying Jesus and serving others. “Yea, all of you gird yourselves with humility, to serve one another” (1 Pet. 5:5); “. . . but through love be servants one to another” (Gal. 5:13). These teachings are sufficient to enable us to see what God requires of Christians. If we are to be pleasing to God and great in his sight, we must subdue self and render service to others, both friend and foe.

Men think greatness is obtained in some other ways, but it is not so. It doesn’t make any difference what man thinks, because in the final analysis, it will be between God and you. God is the one we’ll answer to and no other. There-fore, we should desire God’s approval in all things.

Happiness comes through giving. Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). A person who does not believe this does not believe the Lord.

Giving means more than money. There are more people in need of other things than money. Counsel, encouragement, good cheer, sharing of burdens, and guidance are needed by those around you (Gal. 5:1-2; John 16:33).

“Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2), is the best guarantee for happiness in this world.

The life of a Christian in the home brings unity. The secret of unity is “thinking alike.” Paul said, “Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same things” (Phil. 3:16).

The life of a Christian in the home brings happiness. To be happy one must be content. “Godliness with contentment is great gain . . . be content with such things as you have” (1 Tim. 6:6; Heb. 13:5-6).

The life of a Christian brings love. Every Christian will imitate God. “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children”(Eph. 5:1). And, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16).

The life of a Christian gains respect in the business world. It has always been so. Those who are dishonest, respect those who are honest; those who are deceitful, respect those who deceive not. “There is no respect among thieves, but thieves do respect the righteous.”

The life of a Christian gains admiration. All admire one who will stand for that which is accepted by God. Those who yield to the pleasures of sin, admire those who fight against these pleasures.

The life of a Christian gains confidence. Honesty is the one great characteristic that will gain the confidence of others. The believer’s life is a constant training in “honesty.”

The life of a Christian in society gains honest and sincere friends. A Christian will always take heed to Paul’s teachings found in 1 Corinthians 15:33: “Evil companionships corrupt good morals.”

The life of a Christian gives hope to others. A faithful Christian in society is a light in darkness. Christianity gives to society a “hope of a better life” here and in the hereafter.

The life of a Christian shows the purpose of this life: to serve the Creator; to love one another; to help those who are in need; and to cast a light of hope into the darkness of this present generation.

In the conclusion of this lesson, it could be all summed up as this: If you and I would put God first (Matt. 6:33), there would be less need for debating who is the “church of God,” when we shall have become more loving, more unselfish, more humble, more faithful, and purer; when we shall have become enough like Christ to cause men to say (even our enemies), “These people have been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).

It is not that the truth of Christ is difficult to teach. It is not that the truths which make one a Christian are difficult to learn. But the world’s indifference to God is so compounded when men and women cannot see Jesus in us who are Christians. To know me better ought to remind people more of Jesus, and will do so, if he is in me. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 20
June 16, 1994