Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Do It for the Children

A southern Indiana county (just across the Ohio River from Louisville) has just voted on whether to allow riverboat gambling. The advertisement in favor of this has been intense. A Baptist preacher has led the flight against it and has been openly attacked by the pro-gambling forces as a religious fanatic, bigot and a few other choice terms. The pro-gambling people have made the usual arguments about tax revenue, jobs and helping the economy. But the strangest twist of all has been the campaign ploy to “do it for the children.” Ostensibly they are to benefit from added revenue for education.

This makes about as much sense as it would to promote riverboat prostitution or drugs. Think of all the jobs that would create. Why people would have not to slip around on the seamier side of town to find a prostitute or to get their drugs from some shady character on the street. They could enter the glittering world of the riverboat, obtain what they want, the county would profit from the taxes, schools could be helped and we could do it all “for the children.” If this is not an abuse of children, pray tell, what is? Gambling keeps bad company. Corruption of every sort surrounds it. It is not “for the children.” The promoters don’t give a hoot about the children. It feeds off the desire to get something for nothing, minimizes the virtue of honest work for honest pay and the whole thing is about greed. What is good “for the children” has nothing to do with it.

For a Season

Moses chose rather to “suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” (Deb. 11:25). The NASB reads “the passing pleasures of sin” as does the NKJV. But I like the old KJV rendition. What better describes the transitory nature of sin and its pleasure than “for a season”? As this is written, autumn has passed its peak in Kentucky. The brilliant artistry of the Almighty which dazzled the eye from early October has given way to the rains of late fall and several hard freezes. Leaves are falling and by the time you read this, the cold naked branches, once so gorgeously arrayed, will stretch their boney fingers toward heaven as if in supplication for the return of spring. Autumn is an exciting time. But it is a passing season. Before long the landscape will be draped in a dazzling carpet of white. But that too shall pass. Sin promises much but delivers misery and death. Whatever pleasure it provides is soon gone and we are left with its bitter aftertaste. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). The flush of its color, the excitement it offers, is only “for a season.”

Glad the Old Law Has Passed

Lowell Sallee was preaching on “Children Obey Your Parents” and read Exodus 21:15 and 17 to show how seriously God regarded smiting or cursing parents. In both cases the law of Moses mandated the death penalty. A nine-year-old boy listened intently and afterward commented to Lowell, “I’m sure glad we are not under the old law for I would have been dead for three years.”

While the law of Moses has been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17), the New Testament still teaches “Children, obey your parents for this is right. Honor thy father and mother that it may be well with thee, for this is the first commandment with promise” (Eph. 6:1-2). This is a divine responsibility and the Child’s Rights Movement cannot set it aside. And it is not child abuse to teach our children this principle with enforcement when necessary. Respect for parents is the beginning place for respect for all authority, domestically, in the civil realm and in the spiritual domain.

Necessary Inference

Of late, necessary inference, as a means of establishing divine authority has come under at-tack from advocates of the “new hermeneutic.” But I have often marvelled at the force of some-thing I heard the late A.C. Grider say. He said that when we come to the word “therefore” in the text, we ought to see “what it is there for.” Peter drew such an inference in Acts 15:10. He had shown that God put no difference between Jew and Gentile when the gospel was itnroduced to both. In each case God poured out the Holy Spirit. Since God put no difference, Peter said, “Now there-fore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples. . . .But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they” (Acts 15:10-1 1).

The Hebrew writer said, “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we let them slip” (Heb. 2:1). What is “therefore” there for? The preceding chapter had shown that God speaks in these last days through his Son who is superior to both prophets and angels. Even the Father himself addressed him as “0 God.” His eternity was argued (“thy years shall not fail”) and his rank established in that the Father said to him, “Sit thou on my right hand.” Being so qualified as heaven’s spokesman “in these last days” “there-fore” we ought (obligation, moral imperative) to give earnest heed to what he said. Now do you see what “therefore” is there for? All you aspiring experts in hermeneutics who have been reading the likes of The Core Gospel, The Cruciform Church, and The Second Incarnation would do well to ponder brother Grider’s advice.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 23, p. 3-4
December 2, 1993

By Pam Martin

On September 12, 1992, Devin Augusta Kleckner, my first granddaughter was born. Following two very complicated pregnancies with only one live birth, the doctors had anticipated that my daughter would have serious problems with this one, too. Surprisingly, not only did this one proceed without serious problems but the delivery itself was fairly easy. Devin’s father and I were told that she was fine and that there were no problems. Within a matter of four hours we would not only be told that she was dying, but that they honestly didn’t know what to do to save her.

As I waited outside the neo-natel intensive care unit, my daughter and son-in-law by their daughter’s side, I began to visualize all of the things this small child would never see, of all the wonders she would never know.

As I prayed for her life, it wasn’t for years or decades. But, rather, it was for just one more hour. Just one more hour in which to tell her all about God and all the beauty he created for mortal man. To tell her about the gift he gave to us of his Son who died on Calvary for sinners like me. To tell her about all the wonders God left here on earth; and of the love I have for God, before she had to leave. Just one more hour, please.

Lord, I asked, in just one hour I could paint her pictures of the Bible she’ll never read; of her Mother’s face she’ll never see. I could sing to her the hymns she’ll never sing; and, tell her of the promises of the Bible that we mortals sometimes take for granted.

Lord, I pleaded, let me have just one more hour to hold her with these earthly arms; You see you’ll have her for all eternity. Let me share with her the joy of seeing a new day bloom, and of the colors of the horizon as the sun begins its descent at the end of the day and of the moon as it begins to rise at sunset. And of the sounds the ocean makes as it breaks on the beach. Let me tell her of the thrill of seeing the first snow flake as winter’s morning wakes. Or the first blades of grass as spring brings new life to this world she would never know.

Just one more hour to assure this small child that when she left this earthly realm that she would be with her Heavenly Father. And that although those she left behind would mourn her leaving, we would know that there were no better hands that she could be in. That we loved her and would miss her and that her leaving would leave an empty place in all of our lives. Was I asking too much, Lord, for just one more hour? I knew that children are only on loan to us, but she was only a few hours old. Was it too much to ask for one more hour to tell her a lifetime she would never know; just one more hour in which to let her go?

Six days later for reasons her doctors did not understand, Devin’s condition had improved to the point that she was removed from the critical-intensive care list to stable condition. She went home when she was twelve days old. There were people in four congregations praying for his small child; praying that if it was the Lord’s will that she would be healed. One in every million babies are born with some measure of Devin’s problem. Hers was so severe that she deteriorated from healthy to extremely critical in less than two hours. That fragile baby is now a healthy little crawler with a one hundred percent perfect bill of health.

Our children are on loan to us from God. In modern day language, if you fail to take care of a loan then you must pay the penalty. If we fail properly to take care of the loan God has given us of our children, we will pay a very heavy penalty when the final judgment comes to pass. Never forget the heartache that can and will occur in this lifetime if we fail our children spiritually.

Have you taken care of your precious loan? Have you treated it as though it were the most precious thing you could ever receive? Or, have you neglected your loan to the point that you are now in default? If so, it is now time to refinance your loan and start anew today with the support of God and his word to show you the way he wants his children to live. Remember, children do learn what they live and you never know if this is indeed your last hour.

Don’t find yourself begging for one more hour to make right with your children what you have had a lifetime to do as the years have passed you by.

(Written after the birth of my granddaughter. What at first appeared to be a time of great joy quickly turned into a drastic test of my faith. A few short words brought me face to face with how quickly a young life can end.)

Guaridan of Truth XXXVII, No. 22, p. 22
November 18, 1993

By Jimmy Tuten

Seemingly insurmountable problems exist in the minds of some when consideration is given to the incarnation of the Son of God (Isa. 7;14; Lk. 1:35). Studies centered in the person of Christ are complicated, involving many perplexities. The majority of Bible students accept the fact that Christ was both God and man. The central issue, however, is his deity. At the same time the humanity of Christ is kept in the forefront due to the indispensable nature of his death on the cross, his role as Prophet and Priest, his having fulfilled prophecies and his claim to be the messiah. The fact that Holy Scriptures bear testimony to both his humanity and his deity is a matter that is indisputable. The denial of either is tantamount to a denial of the Word of God.

Discussions of the nature of Christ in recent years bear witness both to the difficulty of understanding certain matters relating to God becoming a man and the efforts to articulate studied conclusions thereof (Heb. 2:14; 4:14-15). Some are denying the reality of the humanity of Jesus either by: (1) their rationalizations on certain passages (commenting on Philippians 2:7 one speaker said, “likeness does not mean anything more than similarity. It is not sameness. The word Paul used here for `likeness’ does not imply the reality of the Lord’s humanity like the word used to describe the reality of his deity.’ ) or (2) by outright denial thereof (one of the latest examples is that expressed in an article, “The Deity/Humanity Controversy,” The

Preceptor  September 1992, pp. 5-7).2 Others, it is now believed are denying the deity of Christ when they make statements such as some have made in the past, such as: “he surrended the glories and privileges,”3 “he divested him-self of his divine nature,”4 or “he emptied himself of the independent exercise of his deity.”5

What I am saying is that since brethren have always expressed their understanding of the subject in so many different ways illustrates the difficulty of articulating these things. The fact that in the present context, these brethren might word it differently if the opportunity presented itself, does not alter this conclusion.

There is a certain polarization of antagonistic view-points brought about by the attitudes of certain brethren whose spirit and demeanor are obviously characterized by a “morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words” (1 Tim. 6:3-5, NASV). When such actions hinder honest and sincere study of Scriptures, they can only be labeled “perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds” (Acts 17:11-12; 2 Tim. 2:15; Prov. 18:13). While the Scriptures will not allow us to promote false teachers that are promoting evil and forfeiting our fellowship with God (2 In. 9-11; Eph. 5:11), they do demand a degree of patience where there is honest and sincere disagreements. Solomon said, “By long forbearing is a prince persuaded, and a soft tongue breaketh the bone” (Prov. 25:15). In the current controversy over the deity of Christ, the basis for fellowship is being denied by the failure to admit sincere investigation. “A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife (Prov. 15:18). Wherever there is desire to learn, there of necessity will be some arguing, writing and many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making. It is the obligation of Bible students to make certain scriptural determinations before labeling a man a false teacher (Tit. 3;10-11). How can we be of the “same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10) on any subject without the spirit of study that places truth above oneness for the sake of oneness? Judgmental arrogance has no place in the investigation of Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6). The wrong attitude in doing even that which is right is a still sin! May God help a bitterly fragmented brotherhood to follow the example of the Apostle Paul: “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27).

In Christ the Fullness of Deity Dwells

While the verbalization of my understanding of Colossians 2:9 may not accord with the words with which some brethren express their thoughts on the passage (as stated above, among brethren these differences are apparent), the fact is that I am committed to the belief that every ascribed attribute or characteristic of Jehovah God is also attributed to his Son (Jn. 14:7-9). In fact, I am completely convinced that the scriptures demonstrate that the divine attributes ascribed to Christ give clear presentation to the fact that “in Christ there is all of God in human body.” This means that the deity possessed by Christ prior to his birth is the same as that found in him after his incarnation (Phil. 2:6). Christ was and is both God and man. He is “in fact the incarnation of the eternal God” (William A. Spurrier, Guide to the Christian Faith, pp. 115-118). His nature and substance is the real essence of his divine manifestation.

Hence the person of Christ involves the “sum of all the attributes, and their relationship to each other” (John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 114). He was equal with God and in the very form of God (Phil. 2:6-7). During his sojourn on this earth, Christ was the personal manifestation of all the fullness of deity. From this totality of deity came the fullness of redemption through him (I Pet. 2:24; Col. 2:10). Therefore when the “word became flesh” On. 1:14), God, without ceasing to be God, took upon himself human flesh. The word was God, but in the incarnation the word became what he was not  flesh. He became flesh without ceasing to be what he eternally was God. In addition to the divine nature he took upon himself a form that was human. In doing so he was still one person, but this single personality had two natures (the human and the divine). The incarnation involved a change of “form,” not essential being or content (Phil. 2:6-11). Water that is frozen is still water, though its form has changed. Even so Jesus simply took on a new form. This form involved a fleshly body. The word ‘flesh” in John 1:14 is a synecdoche, that is, a part is used for the whole (Jesus became a human being). There are differences among us as to how this conviction is worded. One speaks of what he “gave up,” another speaks of Christ “emptying himself,” and still another speaks of his giving up “liberties and advantages,” etc. Our failure to grasp how the Lord could lay “aside his privileges” and still be God, does not alter the fact that he was and is God. Though his humanity poses a problem for us we must not assume that he overcame temptation as deity, that is, that he was somehow immunized against sin. He was not faced with a limited solicitation to sin. The Bible clearly teaches that he was subject to the liability of sinning just as all human beings. The fact that we may not fully grasp this does not give us the right to rationalize over what he emptied himself of to the point that we reject his humanity or his deity. Our understanding of all aspects of the union of deity and humanity will never been settled to the satisfaction of all concerned. Brethren, we are going to have to accept the fact that there are some things that are not revealed. However, the fact that Jesus resisted temptation as a man cannot be successfully disputed without denying express statements of Scripture (Heb. 2:14; 4:15).

Contextual Study of Colossians 2:9

The setting of the chapter goes back to the threat of a dangerous heresy developing throughout Asia Minior (called the “Colossian Heresy”).6 Exhortations to continue in the orderliness and steadfastness demanded by the teachings of Christ was an expression of the writer’s concern for their spiritual well-being (Col. 1:29; 2:1-8). He stresses their sufficiency in God through union with Christ (Col. 2:3-4). He alone is the embodiment of all wisdom and knowledge. Real understanding of things around us are understood only in Christ. The world’s teachings are empty, so the Colossians were being challenged to reject them and live in union with Christ. It is vain to seek answers outside of Christ (Col. 2:4,8). The proof of our sufficiency in Christ is the completeness found in him (Col. 2:10, “complete,” Gr. pepleromenoi, to be made full). What makes this possible is the fact that Jesus is the “fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). Colossians 1:19 affirms that “it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fullness dwell.” Looking at Colossians 2:9, please note:

1. “All” (Gr. pan) denotes “every,” “totality.” “Pan is emphatic, the whole fullness dwells in Christ, therefore it is vain to seek it wholly or partially outside of him” (The Expositor’s Greek New Testament).

2. “Fullness” (Gr. pleroma), that of which a thing is full. A.T. Robertson, says, “Paul here asserts that `all the pleroma of the Godhead,’ not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ” (Word Pictures, Vol. 4, p. 491). Our Lord partook of humanity with its physical attributes, but in limiting himself he did not cease to be deity. The fact that he could impose limits on himself is apowerful demonstration of the “fullness” of deity which indwells him. The question is asked, “When did this `indwell’ him?” The text simply states the fact of the fullness dwelling in him. By implication therefore it has always dwelt in him. The Scriptures shows this to be true: perfect Godhood was in Christ in his pre-fleshly state (Jn. 1:1,18; Phil. 2:6), it was in him while he was in the flesh On. 1:14,18; 1 Jn. 1:1-3) and this Godhood dwells in his present exalted position (Col. 1:19; 2:9).

(3) “Godhead” (Gr. theotes), from theos. “Deity , the state of being God, Godhead” (Thayer), that is, the essence of God (Vine). In him dwells “all the fullness of absolute Godhead … he was, and is, absolute and perfect God” (Trench). This has reference to his divine nature and not his attributes. The word “Godhead,” found in Romans 1:20, is translated from theiotes not his attributes. The word “Godhead,” found in Romans 1:20, is translated from theiotes and has the meaning of “divinity” (“divine nature,” ASV). This word refers to god-like qualities, or attributes, and not to the essence of God. Wuest points out an important aspect concerning Romans 1:20, that is, the fact that he is a Being having divine attributes, is clearly seen by man through the created universe, that when Paul speaks of the Greek’s conception of deity he uses theiotes because the Greeks could, apart from the revelation of God in Christ, only know him as a Being of divine attributes (Romans in the Greek New Testament, pp. 30-31; also Treasures From the Greek New Testament, pp. 74-75). In Colossians 2:9, Paul speaks not of divinity, but of deity. This is important because the Lord’s attributes are not the person of Christ, but rather that which his Being possesses and which he performs as actions of his Person. In back of all these attributes is the essence of the One to whom they belong. Hence, God can choose to limit any one of his attributes, such as his power to create (context of Romans 1). Jesus proves his deity by creation:

He that built all things is God (Heb. 3:4).
Christ Jesus built all things (Jn. 1:1-3).
Therefore: Jesus is God!

The fact that God ceased his creative work (Gen. 2:2), shows that he is no longer exercising this attribute of divine power. This does not effect the fact that he is deity. He is still God!’ So when brethren talk about the Lord surrendering “the glories and privileges that belonged to that position” (Phil Roberts), or “this Divine majesty of which he emptied himself was his own” (W.R. Jones), they are not necessarily denying the Lord’s deity. Fairness demands an understanding of how a given writer uses certain words. Likewise, our failure to agree on various matters relating to the divine attributes, which is attributed to our lack of understanding of this profound subject, does not have to become the basis of fellowship. I personally do not under-stand all that there is to know about the attributes (our brethren are not even in agreement as to what they constitute), but I know that the essence of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has never been anything short of absolute deity! It is obvious that when a man parades his thinking on the subject as absolutely the last word on the matter, he displays arrogance of epic proportion. God forbid!

(4) “Bodily” (Gr. somatikos), coming from the word soma, body, it refers to physical nature, most likely the humanity of Jesus. We must not lose sight of the fact it is the fullness of the essence of the deity that is under consideration and not “bodily attributes. “As stated above, Jesus did limit the exercise of the attribute of power, but he still retains the essence of his person. He is deity! Whatever is said about the “person” of Jesus does not negate this fact. Colossians 2:9 clearly states that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him, not just certain aspects of it. The following is a summary of some of the evidence of the deity of Jesus Christ suggested by Walvoord.e

The New Testament (1) explicitly asserts the deity of the Son (Jn. 1:1; 20:28; Phil. 9:6; 40:3). (2) Applies divine names to him (Acts 2:21; 1 Tim. 3:16; cf. Isa. 9:6; 40:3). (3) Ascribes to him divine attributes (eternity, Jn. 1:1-2; omnipresence, Matt. 18:20; 28:20; omniscience, Jn. 2:24 25; 21:17; immutability, Heb. 1:10-12; etc.). (4) speaks of him as doing divine works (Jn. 5:22-23;14:1; 1 Cor. 15:19, etc.).

Likewise, the Scriptures explicitly assert the humanity of Jesus (Lk. 2:52; Heb. 2:14; 1 In. 4:2-3; Matt. 26:38; In. 13:21, etc.).

Observe by way of a summary that the wedding of the human and divine natures in Christ is a fact attested to by Scripture (Phil. 2:6-11; Jn. 1:1-14; Rom. 1:2-5; 9:5; I Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2;14; 1 Jn. 1:1-3). If my understanding is correct, the continuance of his humanity in eternity is reflected in Matthew 26:64; Luke 22:69-70; Philippians 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:5. (There are those who disagree with me on this for they liken Christ’s present state to that of an elder whose children dies, that is, he is not disqualified as an elder because the experience thereof is still with him. It is admitted that I may need further reflection on this.) In conclusion:

What, then does the historian know about Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of him. And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presuppositionalism, or literary maneuvering.”9

Footnotes

The Lord of Glory, Florida College Annual Lectures, 1980, p. 20, italics mine, jt).

‘The writer said, “Emptied himself means he gave up this state of existence and took the form of existence of a bond servant or slave. But this does not say that Jesus became a man . . . Those who claim that Jesus became human at his birth cite John 1:14 as proof. However, the meaning of flesh must be decided by the context. The verse is about the birth of the only begotten from the Father or about the virgin birth. God is his father, so how could he be human and have human nature. Jesus did not have a human father which would be necessary if he was a human. “Flesh and blood” in Hebrews 2:14 means no more than a physical body. The statement thatiesus had to have human nature to be our Savior is false” (pp. 6-7, italics mine. jt).

‘Phil Roberts, The Plano Provoker, April 28, 1977, p. 2.

4W.R. Jones, The Preceptor, Dec. 1982, p. 50.

‘Jerry Accetura, Hebrews for Every Man, Florida College Annual Lectures, 1988, p. 47.

‘This was believed to be the forerunner of Gnosticism. Based on the book of Colossians, we understand that the form it took at the time of the writing was that of Jewish teachings combined with Christianity, that was then modified by Hellenistic astrology and pagan mystery cults.

7I highly recommend the reading of Jesus: “So much better than the angels Made a little lower than the angels,” by Ronny Milliner (Faith and Facts publication).

‘Jesus Christ Our Lord, pp. 108-109.

‘John Montogomery, as quoted in Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, p. 84.

(Editorial Note: I want to thank brother Tuten for this contribution to the study of the deity and humanity ofJesus Christ. Let us continue to patiently search the Scriptures on this matter [Acts 17:11]. This note is not designed to argue with any particular point he made, but only to add a thought or two in reflecting further on this subject.

I am not aware that anyone has objected to the view that Jesus retained all the attributes of deity while on earth but limited his exercise of certain attributes. Objections have been made to the affirmation that Jesus divested himself of his divine attributes before coming to the earth, and that he therefore did not exercise his own power as deity when he performed miracles, forgave sins, etc. I see how a person could limit himself in using certain attributes and powers and still be the same person, but do not see how he can divest himself of his inherent attributes and powers and still be the same person. Brother Tuten’ s comments on this area are helpful for all of us who are studying this subject. As to what was in the mind or consciousness of Jesus while on earth, we have very little direct information in the text of Scripture. How did the divine spirit attain a human consciousness, and did Jesus limit himself to the level of human consciousness for the purpose of being tempted, and how did Jesus reach beyond that level at times to do things which deity alone can do? Such questions are bewildering, and perhaps not necessary or edifying. Delving into details of his “consciousness” may well be beyond our grasp. He was a spirit in a body, and that spirit was the divine spirit of deity according to John 1:14. Man is a spirit in a body, and Jesus was a spirit in a body, and thus this mode of existence made it possible for him to be tempted as a man. The incarnation is a miracle and we cannot go very far explaining miracles. One thing is for certain. The Bible says Jesus was God in the flesh [John 1:1-3,14]. The Bible says he was tempted as a man (Heb. 4:15). We can believe and preach what the Bible says whether or not we can explain all the details of how these things were accomplished.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 22, p. 18-21
November 18, 1993

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr

In the religion section of the September 25, 1993 edition of the Times Daily of Florence, Alabama, the headline boldly declared a “historic event.” Just above the heading was a photograph of two men smiling and shaking hands. No, it was not Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. It was “Stanley Clark, minister of North Wood Methodist Church, and Joe VanDyke, minister, Magnolia Church of Christ.” So what was this “historic event”? The subheading read, “Church of Christ, Methodist church hold joint meeting.”

The report’s first three paragraphs tell the story:

FLORENCE  A joint celebration of worship by Magnolia Church of Christ and North Wood United Methodist Church last Sunday night is considered a historic occasion, say ministers Joe VanDyke, church of Christ, and the Rev. Stanley Clark, Methodist.

Attendance was estimated at approximately 500 with numerous chairs added to increase the seating capacity of the pews in the sanctuary of the Methodist church.

“We’re not here tonight to say that we agree on everything there is to discuss,” VanDyke said in his sermon, “We’re here to say that there’s something greater that we share in common than anything that would divide us.”

There are brethren, I am sure, who were blind sided by this report. But those of us who have actively opposed the liberal trends among brethren for the past forty or more years have seen it coming for a long time. It was just a matter of time. As many brethren moved closer to denominationalism in their thinking, it was inevitable that such steps as this would come. Church supported human institutions, centralized working arrangements, church supported social and recreational activities were mere symptoms of a deeper problem  a general disrespect for scriptural authority and the unique nature of the Lord’s church.

I wonder how many in this area, who have been so free to stick their “anti” labels on us, will now let it be known that they are “anti” such meetings as this. Surely, there will be some. When they do, let it be known that such foolishness is nothing more than their loose attitude toward authority taken to the next level.

This meeting must have been truly a “love feast.” The report states that “VanDyke mentioned the great things as including the message of salvation, the death of Jesus on the cross, the resurrection and the commandments to love the Lord God with all our might and love our neighbor as ourselves. The lesser things include doctrine.”

In reference to Ephesians 4, he said:

It seems that Paul was telling us there are things of great importance and things of lesser importance, and if you want to talk about preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, you’ll have to put yourself in override and come over some of those differences and focus on those things that you hold in common.

It kind of sounds like he is trying to “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative,” doesn’t it?

He states further:

The message we should take to the Shoals is “Hey, don’t look at us, don’t listen to us, but look at who lives in us and look at the unity and strength and power that can come into an individual’s life and a body of people because they say, `I love God with all my heart, soul and strength and my neighbor as myself.”‘ Those things are the sum and substance of all the otherseverything else depends on all of this .. . If religious fellowships can focus on the supreme, that which they hold highest in common, and believe in God through his son, there will be no time to notice those things that have caused differences and divisions in the past.

It seems that a good time was had by all. Half of the songs were with instrumental music and half without “in respect to the traditions of the denominations.” ” Maybe at their next “annual North Wood Methodist-Magnolia Church of Christ gathering” they can sing an invitation song and immerse half and sprinkle half of those who respond. We are told that “the service closed with the singing of `Blest Be the Tie That Binds’ and `I Love You With the Love of the Lord.”‘

It was simply “monumental,” “awesome,” and “positive” according to a young visitor from another Church of Christ in town, who is reported to have said, “This is a monumental occasion. I enjoyed it tremendously. To have a church put focus on the positive in worship to God is an awesome thing.”

Of course no religious meeting of such historic significance would be complete without some social function, so “after the meeting refreshments and fellowship were enjoyed by the two congregations.”

Now, for the benefit of any who might still be interested in what the Bible says, let me leave you with a few quotations from the Scriptures concerning love, fellow-ship, and doctrine.

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not brudensome” (1 Jn. 5:2-3, NKJ V ).

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He hath abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 In. 9-11).

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 22, p. 23-24
November 18, 1993