Truth Magazine

By Walton Weaver

The third claim Jesus makes for Himself in conversation with Thomas and Philip, as recorded in John 14:5ff., is, “I am . . . the life.” He uses the definite article as he did in the first two claims. This use of the article, as in the other instances, demonstrates the uniqueness of the claim. He does not claim merely to be life, but he claims that he is “the life.” The last two claims that he is the truth and the life have special significance in their relation to the first claim that he is the way. Through his death and his going to the Father Jesus would open up the way into fellowship with the Father. He could not have accomplished this great work had he not been the truth and the life.

One sense in which Jesus is “the life” is that all life (cf. John 1:3), both physical and spiritual, finds its meaning and origin in him. Paul affirms that “in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17), and John begins his gospel by saying, “In him was life” (John 1:4). But when Jesus said, “I am . . . the life,” there appears to be no doubt that he meant spiritual life. John also likely has spiritual life in mind when he says, “In Him was life,” because he immediately adds, “and the life was the light of men,” where “light” must refer to the spiritual realm. But how is it that Jesus is “the life” in a spiritual sense?

In the statement “in him was life” there is a reference to the very essence of the Word who was “with God, and … was God” (v. 1). From this description of the divine nature of the Word as he was in the beginning, John takes up the word “life” and gives to it its truest and highest meaning. Life in the very best sense of the term belongs eternally to the Word which was with God, and was God.

The Manifested Life

1. The Word As The Life. The first epistle of John begins with the expression, “What was from the beginning,” and in so doing takes us back into eternity again when the Word was with God. We do not know for sure that this expression refers to the same Word we read about in the first chapter of the gospel of John until we read on in the verse. This becomes clear when we see John describe “what was from the beginning” as that which the eyewitnesses had “heard,” “seen,” “beheld,” and “handled.” At this point we can know for sure that he is speaking of the Word as he does in his gospel record. By this statement John indicates that what had been with God (“What was from the beginning”) had now come into the arena of human experience. The Word had made himself known in history: “And the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us” (v. 2). The emphasis in this verse “is the historical reality of that to which John bears witness. It is the eternal life, he says, which was with the Father and then appeared to us. The language used here is precisely that which was used of the personal Word which was with God in the beginning (Jn. 1:2). It was the personal manifestation of the eternal life in the historical person of Jesus which was of crucial importance for the writer and his readers” (I. Howard Marshall).

2. The Meaning of “Manifested.” The word “manifested” is the key word in the second verse. It is used two times in this one verse. The term means to bring to light or make known what already exists. What was it that had already existed but had now been made known? The “life” was what had been from the beginning, and now “the life was manifested,” or made known. This is a favorite word of John to describe Jesus’ first coming (1 John 3:5, 8; cf. John 1:31). He also uses it to refer to the second coming (1 John 2:28). But how was the Word manifested when he came into the world? John is more specific in his gospel when he says, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

When the Word “became flesh” he was not converted into something different from what he was when he was “with God, and . . . was God.” He simply entered into a new state of existence. He assumed or took on a new nature when he became man, yet “the life” that was in him as the Word was ever the same. This life was now “manifested” in flesh.

The Eternal Life

John says that the life that was manifested was “eternal life.” Could we expect anything less when we consider that this “life” or Word not only was “with God” but also “was God”? Could he be God and not be eternal? This in itself shows that the words “became flesh” in John 1:14 do not mean transmuted into flesh. How could that which is eternal be transmuted or converted into that which is transient and temporary? The word “eternal” only brings out what is inherent in the concept itself. It describes the eternal quality and duration of the life which he is in himself.

Jesus tells us that “the Father has life in himself,” and “He gave the Son also to have life in himself’ (John 5:26). This describes the self-sufficiency of both the Father and the Son. Each has eternal life inherent in himself; or, perhaps we should say, life as an independent possession. Even though this life was in the Son as well as in the Father, it was “given” of the Father to the Son. At first this does not seem consistent with John’s earlier claim that “in him was life.” So, how are we to understand this statement from Jesus? Surely it must refer to the time when the Word became flesh. As the Word Jesus ever had life in himself, but as he stood before the unbelieving Jews and made this statement, “he was vindicating his own authority and action, by connecting them with the Father’s will and action. And he was not, as he stood before the Jews, simply theEtemal Word, but, rather, the God-man” (Alvah Hovey).

Life In The Son

1. God’s Eternal Purpose. God had planned from eternity to make life available to man “in Christ Jesus.” Paul refers to this eternal purpose of God as “his kind intention which he purposed in him” (Eph. 1:9). When the time was right God would “sum up all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth” (Eph. 1:10). John speaks of this plan of redeeming man in terms of life in Christ: “And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life” (1 John 5:11-12). Only God who “has life in himself’ could make this life available, and no one but Christ, the Son of God, whom the Father “gave … to have life in himself’ could offer “life in the Son.” This unique Son of the Father in heaven was the only One who could lay hold of the claim, “I am . . . the life.”

2. Out Of Death Into Life. Jesus himself shows how one may pass “out of death into life,” i.e., by hearing his words and believing him (the Father) who sent him (John 5:24). To pass out of death into life is to leave the realm where death rules and to pass over into the realm where life rules. John shows that the realm where life rules is “in the Son.” Paul describes the sphere of death as “the power of darkness,” and the sphere into which one is transferred as “the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col. 1:13). One cannot have the life which Christ offers unless he is brought into him in whom life is found, that is, into Christ.

What is to be gained “in Christ” when one passes out of death into life? Redemption and forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7), salvation (2 Tim. 2:10), freedom from condemnation (Rom. 8:1), and all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3). But how does one come “into Christ”? He is “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3, 4; Gal. 3:27). Other things must precede baptism into Christ, such as faith (John 8:24; Mark 16:16), repentance (Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 17:30, 31), and confession of one’s faith in Christ (Rom. 10:10; Act 8:37), but one comes “into Christ” at the point of his baptism into Christ.

In baptism one is “buried with him [Christ] through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Could we find a better description of how it is, and at what point, one passes out of death into life? We die with Christ in baptism, and we gain newness of life in him as we are raised up with him. He has “made us alive together with Christ (by grace ye were saved), and raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6). Wonderful thought! Marvelous grace!

My friend, do you have this “life in the Son”? No one but Jesus Christ could claim, “I am… the life,” and no one but Christ can make you alive in him today! Would you not put your trust in him, and “arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16)? As Ananias asked Saul, “Why do you delay?” Jesus Christ is “the life,” obey him today!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 10-11
October 7, 1993

By Larry Ray Hafley

Who spoke these words?

Christianity is the foundation of our national morality, and the family (is) the basis of racial and political life.

We want to be active, to work and make brotherly peace with one another, to struggle together, so that some day the hour will come when we can step before him and will have the right to ask him: Lord, you see, we have changed; the nation is no longer the nation of dishonor, of shame, of self-laceration, of timidity and little faith; no, Lord, the … nation has once more grown strong in spirit, strong in will, strong in persistence, strong in enduring all sacrifices. Lord, we will not swerve from you; now bless our struggle.

I am well aware of what a man can do and where his limits lie, but I hold to the conviction that men who have been created by God ought also to live in accordance with the will of the Almighty…. Ultimately the individual man is weak in all his nature and actions when he goes contrary to almighty Providence and its will, but he becomes immeasurably strong the moment he acts in harmony with this Providence! Then there pours down upon him that force which has distinguished all the great men of the world.

He made it a maxim that “one could not do enough to cultivate ties with the common people.”

This country must not be a power without culture and must not have strength without beauty.

About whom where these words spoken?

His soul seems made of leather, and incapable of any grand or noble emotion. Compared with the mass of men, he is a line of flat prose in a beautiful and spirited lyric. He lowers, he never elevates you. You leave his presence with your enthusiasm dampened, your better feelings crushed, your hopes cast to the winds. You ask not, can this man carry the nation through its terrible struggles? but can the nation carry this man through them, and not perish in the attempt…. He is thickheaded; he is ignorant; he is tricky, somewhat astute, in a small way, and obstinate as a mule…. He is wrong-headed, the attorney, not the lawyer, the petty politician not the statesman, and, in my belief, ill-deserving of the soubriquet of Honest… . You cannot change (his) character or conduct. He remained … surrounded by toadies and office-seekers, to persuade himself that he was specially chosen by the Almighty for this crisis, and well chosen. This conceit has never yet been beaten out of him, and until it is, no human wisdom can be of much avail.

(His) ruthlessness . . . had long been apparent to his foes … (he) showed himself to be a man who would hold to principles only so long as he had more to gain than lose by them. Observing this . . . (some) defined him as slippery, mendacious, and above all not to be trusted.

That despot . . . that wretched and detestable abortion, whose contemptible emptiness and folly will receive the ridicule of the civilized world.

Othersdesigned to expose him as a master of deceit, a clod, a tyrant, a bawdy clown, a monster.

Surely, the first set of quotations did not come from Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, Hussein or Attila the Hun! They were spoken by Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln, do you not suppose?

Whatever the source or object, evil men occasionally say good things, and god men have evil things said of them (Jesus and Paul, for example). Also, good men may speak evil, at times, and evil men may have god things said of them.

However, in the final analysis, our judgments do not matter (I Cor. 4:3-5). God will judge, and he will do so in complete righteousness (2 Tim. 4:8). By him, thoughts, words and deeds are weighed (1 Sam. 2:3; Prov. 24:12). Abraham Lincoln once said that if his actions during the Civil War were proved correct, it would not matter what his critics said, but that if his judgments and decisions were wrong, ten thousands angels swearing that they were right would not alter the verdict. That assessment, as it is applied to our affairs shall be judged by the “law of liberty” (Jas. 2:12).

It is easy to be misled by evil men who speak “great swellings words” (Jude 16). “By good words and fair speeches,” wicked men “deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17,18). This is the essence of wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15). If there were not such critters, Jesus would not have warned against them. Our problem is that those we regard (judge) to be sheep are always genuine sheep. A wolf is always a wolf. We know the difference, or so we think! But Jesus still said there will be wolves “in sheep’s clothing.” Yes, you know that, but have you ever seen one? Do you not find that your sheep are always real sheep, but others have a wolf problem? Careful, now, for such thinking makes Jesus’ warning void, so far as you are concerned.

“Take heed what ye hear” (Mk. 4:24). “Take heed … how ye hear” (Lk. 8:18). So, take heed how you hear what you hear. It is not enough to see whether the creature bleats or growls. A sheep cannot growl, we presume, but a wolf can bleat. Jesus said so (Matt. 7:15; Rom. 16:18).

A sheep may be called a wolf (Matt. 5:11; 1 Pet. 3:16; 4:14). The Lamb of God was (Matt. 27:63; In. 7:12). Good men will be reviled. We know it is a truth, but those whom we revile are never good men. They are always deserving of our harsh words of condemnation. Does not every one so think? If I never revile good men, and you never speak evil of good men, who does? No one? No, somebody does, but we do not. Who, then? Dare you and I ask, “Lord, it is I?”

Could one of my brethren or “my Pastor” be one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing? Before extinguishing the thought, consider the implications hinted at above. Could I be guilty of reviling a good man who teaches the word of God in truth? Again, reflect. Remember, as you seek to study, know and live in harmony with the will of God in any area of truth, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). It matters not how sincerely, how sweetly, they may bleat.

Incidentally, in case you are curious, the first set of words cited in the beginning, expressing noble values and sound philosophy, were spoken by Adolf Hitler (Hitler, Joachim C. Fest, pp. 388, 389, 423, 521, 527). The second set of quotes was spoken against Abraham Lincoln (Civil War, Vol. 2, Shelby Foote, pp. 108, 883, 884, 906).

Indeed, in the faith, as in the world, wolves may bleat, and sheep may be called wolves. Watch.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 8-9
October 7, 1993

Introduction to Debate

Several months ago, I wrote an article on instrumental music in worship and how it affected the fellowship of the saints. Ron Tate, who is affiliated with the independent Christian Churches, wrote me a lengthy letter in disagreement with my material and argued the unity-in-diversity approach to unity on the subject of instrumental music. Inasmuch as he had given so much thought to this subject, I suggested that we have a three article exchange to be published in Guardian of Truth and one of their journals if he could secure one to carry the exchange. He was unable to secure a paper, but I consented to publish the exchange any way. I asked brother Donnie Rader to carry the negative in the exchange.

After receiving brother Rader’s response to his first affirmative, Ron Tate dropped out of the exchange and has not answered my last letter (although several months have passed since I wrote him). Therefore, I am publishing both articles and leaving it to the reader to conclude why Mr. Tate chose not to continue the discussion.

First Affirmative

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that we must have unity in doctrine on a core gospel but allows unity in diversity on doctrinal matters.

The first order of business at the outset of this discussion is to define what is meant by the terms “core gospel” and “doctrinal matters.” The term “core gospel” refers to those essentials of the faith which are based on clear, specific statements in the Scripture and, as such, are not negotiable.

“Doctrinal matters” are those areas that are not ad-dressed by specific commands and, as a result, disagreements have arisen within the Restoration movement over the appropriateness of their presence in the life of the body of Christ.

Great statements and slogans, which rallied many people to the restoration ideal, were articulated during the beginning of this movement. Some of those statements were:

“In matters of faith, unity;

In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love!”

“Let us speak where the Bible speaks,

and remain silent where the Bible is silent!”

The principles, embodied in these slogans and statements, challenged individuals and, sometimes, entire churches to consider a new and fresh approach to the unification of God’s people.

A thorough study of the Scripture reveals that there are those things which are essential matters of faith to which we must hold. We also find that these essential matters of faith are relatively few in number. When one thoroughly examines the Scriptures to find those areas which are absolutely necessary for one to be in Christ, the following essentials become apparent: acceptance of the authority and existence of God (Heb. 11:6); acceptance of the deity and the Lordship of Christ Jesus who is the only way to heaven (John 14:6); acceptance of the Scriptures as the infallible, inspired and complete Word of God (2 Tim 3:16-17); acceptance of the church as the entity for which Christ died, to which he adds those who are being saved (Acts 2:47) and in which we must be dwelling when he returns (Eph. 5:23); acceptance of the importance of immersion in effecting the new birth (John 3:5; Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 5:17); acceptance of faithfulness to him as a way of life (Matt. 16:24; 1 Cor. 4:2). To the degree that there is agreement regarding these essential matters of faith, unity is a reality.

But how do we handle matters of opinion? In fact, which things are matters of opinion? Which things are essential? In order to answer these and other legitimate questions, honest and devout men continued to search for a method which would provide them with the answers. As a result of their efforts to restore New Testament Christianity, the old methods of interpreting the Scriptures (hermeneutics) began to fail. It is important to note that the men who began what we know as the Restoration Movement disagreed quite strongly among themselves over certain issues. However, in spite of this disagreement they did not divide. These differences were the result of different hermeneutical approaches (i.e. our particular way of deciding what we believe and practice from the Bible).

The hermeneutic to which brethren in the churches of Christ have subscribed calls for a direct command, an approved example or necessary inference for a matter of faith or practice to be authorized by the Scriptures. Brethren from the Independent Christian Churches, who were just as desirous of following God and his Word, developed a different but equally valid hermeneutic which called for obedience to direct commands, an understanding of what is non-scriptural (things not mentioned in Scripture, e.g., church buildings, song books, communion sets, instrumental accompaniment, collection plates, etc.) and a recognition of what is anti-scriptural (i.e., is it prohibited by the Scripture?).

It must be understood that each of these hermeneutics came into being as a result of the efforts of human beings. It must be recognized that neither hermeneutic has the status of Scripture nor is either infallible. To elevate our personal hermeneutic to the point where we equate it with Scripture itself is one of the most serious mistakes that Christians can make. The process is inductive in nature and comes from the study, prayer, beliefs and scholarship of human beings. It is a serious matter to draw lines of fellowship based not upon the Scriptures themselves but on human scholarship.

There is virtually universal agreement within the two remaining segments of the Restoration Movement (Churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches) that commands are given to be obeyed and are not optional. (Note: The group which identifies itself as “Christian Church  Disciples” has long since abandoned the notion that biblical commands are important.) To continue to associate the Independent Christian Church with the highly organized, denominationally structured “Christian Church  Disciples” indicates that some 40 years of recent Restoration history has been ignored.

What about “approved examples”? The question “Are they binding on Christians today?” can be re-stated as follows: “Are people today required to imitate the actions of individuals or churches recorded in the New Testament?” Is the lack of a “direct command” or an “approved example” sufficient to prohibit particular actions?

Thomas Campbell set the stage for this discussion in the American Restoration in his Declaration and Ad-dress and his thoughts have been repeated by some restorationists since that time. He said:

 

We dare, therefore, neither do or receive anything as of Divine obligation for which there cannot be expressly produced a “Thus saith the Lord” either in express terms or by approved precedent.”`

 

(Note: While slogans and statements are inspiring, they are, nonetheless, the products of human effort and study and are not to be equated with Scripture.)

These slogans, statements and hermeneutics began to generate controversy in the Restoration Movement over the authority of examples. For example, those who oppose located preachers believe that there is no authority for such because there is no example in the New Testament of a preacher located with a church that had elders being supported for his work. Those who oppose Sunday Bible classes say that there is no example of a church with apostolic sanction that con-ducted Sunday Bible study and used women as teachers.

On the other hand, since there is no command, example or inference which would prohibit these (and many other) practices, some have concluded that these are not violations of Scripture and, as a result, are not prohibited by the Scriptures.

Firm Foundation Publishing Company publishes a directory of the non-instrumental churches of Christ in America. This directory lists over 20 different codes for identifying “particular characteristics” of the churches of Christ listed in it.’ A cursory reading of various “brotherhood” publications indicates that there is little or no fellowship between many of these groups. Sweeping charges that this or that group is either “liberal,0 0progressive,” “digressive,” or “institutional,” etc. are thrown about almost at will.

The sad part is that all of these 20 or so groups claim to be a part of the Restoration Movement and, in fact, each claims to use the very same hermeneutic. Each of them demands a command, an example, or a necessary inference as Bible authority for matters of faith and practice.

With all of this division, one might suggest that the hermeneutic being used is faulty. But there is nothing wrong with it. It is a pretty good one. What is wrong is the judgmentalism and sectarian spirit it produces!

Mindless cloning is out of the question. It is ludicrous to suggest that in order to have unity everyone must give up those things where there is disagreement in order to please the most legalistic church or person in each of our brotherhoods. This is not the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. Having differences with someone else does not mean division is required or appropriate.

The solution to this and other similar difficulties is to simply recognize that others in the Restoration Movement may have as great a desire to be New Testament Christians as we do and that they adhere to a hermeneutic as valid as ours. The simple fact is that they have reached different conclusions about non-essentials than we have. The reality is that promoting unity while allowing “diversity” is the most reasonable, rational and Scriptural response. In acknowledging this, however, it must be understood that it need not result in a compromise of the truth of God because it is not the truth that is under attack. Truth has not caused our divisions. Insisting that everyone agree with us on every opinion and issue is the great divider!

Footnotes

‘Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address (Brown and Sample, 1809 [reprint]), p. 41.

‘Where the Saints Meet, Firm Foundation Publishing Company, Mack Lynn, editor.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 16-17
October 7, 1993

By Lowell Blasingame

No religious topic generates more controversy than water baptism. The problem isn’t that the Bible hasn’t spoken clearly and plainly. The real cause for the difficulty is because so many have drawn conclusions from their own feelings and opinions without consulting the Bible to see what it says.

All religious people agree that baptism is a command but there are differences over who are subjects of the command and for what purpose it is to be obeyed. Maybe we can remove some of the difficulty if we approach the study of the topic from the negative standpoint and point out some of the things that baptism isn’t for.

1. Baptism isn’t for the untaught. Jesus told his disciples to go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Teaching was to precede the baptizing and each case of conversion related in the book of Acts shows that persons were taught before they were baptized. Since baptism isn’t for the untaught, it follows that babies and irresponsible persons are not subjects for baptism.

2. Baptism isn’t for unbelievers. While Philip was teaching the eunuch, they came to a certain water and the eunuch asked whathindered him frombeing baptized. Philip’s response was, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (Acts 8:35-37). Jesus placed believing before baptism (Mk. 16:16). Since baptism isn’t for unbelievers, it isn’t for atheists or agnostics.

3. Baptism isn’t for the impenitent. Sometimes I hear people say, “If I thought one had to be baptized to be saved, I’d force that person to be baptized.” But, wait, friend, you’ve missed a point in Bible teaching. One must repent before he is baptized (Acts 2:38) and if you were to compel one to be baptized who has not repented, you would have forced him to submit to an act that isn’t for him.

4. Baptism isn’t for saved people. I know that many think that one is first saved, then baptized as a symbol or sign of his salvation but I want you to read carefully the following passages of scripture and take note of where baptism is placed in relationship to the blessing that is promised in each of them.

a. Mk. 16:16 Baptized  saved.

b. Acts 2:38 Baptized  remission of sins.

c. Acts 22:16 Baptized  washing away of sins.

In fact, in every passage of Scripture in which baptism and a word corresponding to forgiveness appears, baptism always comes before that word, never after it. There is but one conclusion that can possibly be drawn and that is baptism isn’t for saved people.

5. Baptism isn’t for Christians. Some talk about baptism being a “Christian rite” or the “Christian ordinance” of baptism. Baptism is a command so in this sense it is a rite or ordinance but it isn’t one for a Christian to obey. Let me show you that this is so. One does not become a Christian before he enters Christ for it is in him that he becomes a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). But he does not into enter Christ until he is baptized into him (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27). Therefore, it follows that one is not baptized as a Christian, one already in Christ, but in order to get into that One in whom he becomes a Christian.

6. Baptism isn’t for the sins of a child of God. Often when I point out that baptism is for the remission of sins, I am asked, “Does this mean that a child of God must be baptized each time that he sins?” The answer is, “No, baptism isn’t for the sins of the child of God.”

Look at a Bible example that proves this. In Samaria, Simon heard Philip’s preaching and was baptized (Acts 8:13). Later, Simon sinned in trying to buy the power to impart miraculous gifts of the Spirit but he wasn’t told to be baptized again. He was told to repent and pray that the thought of his heart might be forgiven (Acts 8:18-23). Baptism isn’t a command given to children of God for remission of their sins.

7. Baptism wasn’t for Old Testament Characters. “If Abraham, David and Moses were saved without baptism, does not that prove that I can be saved without it?” is another question that I have had asked. Again, the answer is, “No, Christ gave the command to baptize just before he returned to heaven.” Old Testament characters who had lived and died before it was given were not subject to obeying it. The same is true of the thief on the cross. He had been dead more than forty days when Christ gave this command (Acts 1:1-3).

Baptism is a command now for us and we must obey Christ if we are to be saved (Heb. 5:9). It is for those who gladly receive the word (Acts 2:42) and show such by believing in Christ (In. 8:24), repenting of their sins (Lk. 13:3) and confessing their faith in him as the Son of God (Matt. 10:32-33). If you are willing to do this, baptism is for you. If you aren’t willing to do this, baptism isn’t for you!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 14-15
October 7, 1993