Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In recent months, we have seen several articles which have called brethren back to Christ-centered preaching. Indeed, Christ should be the central focus of our preaching (1 Cor. 2:1-5). These articles generally charge that brethren have been guilty of preaching a church-centered or institution-centered message rather than a Christ-centered message.

We always are delighted to see men who are guilty of sin and error in their preaching correct their preaching to bring it back to the standard of right and wrong revealed in Gods word. If these brethren tell us that they have been guilty of preaching a message of salvation on the grounds of affiliation with some human institution and affiliation with a group of people, I will take their word for it. I am delighted that they have recently discovered that salvation is grounded in the blood of Christ and not in men.

However, they would be mistaken to use a broad brush to accuse their preaching breathren generally of being guilty of that which they admit occurred in their own preaching. Many of us cannot admit that we have been preaching that salvation is grounded in anything except the shed of blood of Jesus Christ. I understood that I was saved y the blood of Christ the day I was baptized and shortly after I was twelve years old and have preached salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ from the first day of my preaching. I understood at this early age that the church was people, not a building, and I never thought that any person in any local church saved me. All of the preaching which I have sat under emphasized that salvation is grounded in Christ Jesus. Therefore, I cannot plead guilty to not believing that the grounds of our salvation was the shed blood of Christ or having neglected emphasizing that in my preaching, nor have I heard such preaching from my brethren.

On several occasions, I have asked those who have charged that we have had an improper emphasis on the church (preaching the church instead of the Christ) to show me an example of the kind of preaching to which they object. So far, I have never received a photocopy of an article or a tape of a sermon that gives me an example of the kind of preaching which is elevating the church over the Christ. If an isolated incidence of misdirected preaching were found, I am confident that it would be the exception and not the rule, unless they produce many such examples (which should be easy to do to hear them talk). But, if these brethren say that they have been guilty of that sin, I am willing to take their word for it and express my thanksgiving that they have suddenly learned that they are saved by the blood of Christ. But, I keep asking myself, “What business does anyone who does not realize that salvation is grounded in the shed blood of Jesus have in preaching before he learns this fundamental fact?” Furthermore, I marvel that it has taken some of these men whose brilliance is so widely attested so many years to learn what I knew at twelve years old!

All of the Gospel Must be Related to Christ

We understand and must communicate as we preach on the various subjects revealed in the gospel that they are authorized and prescribed by God. Some have charged that we have been preaching baptism, condemnation of instrumental music in worship, the organization of the church, and other subjects without them being related to the Christ. Again, I ask for some examples so that I can see the kind of preaching which is being condemned. That should not be so hard to produce, since it is supposedly so widespread among us.

However, I cannot plead guilty to separating Christ from these subjects. I understood that I was baptized at twelve years old because Christ made baptism a condition for salvation by his blood. He said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). I was not baptized because it was something the local church determined that men should do as a condition before the church dispensed salvation. I never thought that we opposed instrumental music in worship because of lack of funds to purchase a piano, a preference of the local church, or cultural reasons. I understood that we did not use instrumental music in worship because the one Lawgiver, Jesus Christ, did not authorize its use (Jas. 4:12). I understood that the church was organized under elders and deacons because the word of God authorized it, not because we thought that worked better than the papal, episcopal, and presbyterian forms of church government. Was the little area in Groveton, Texas so unique that this congregation alone was taught that all of these things were related to Jesus Christ and his revealed word? I doubt that!

My conviction is that I was just like most others in the church. If you had asked anyone else in the church the question, “Were your sins washed away by the blood of Christ?” they would have answered the same as I did. If you had asked them why we opposed instrumental music in worship, they would have told you that God did not authorize it in the New Testament. The identifying marks of the Lord’s church were taught in relation to the Christ.

Trends Among Us

We would be naive were we not to observe ‘that one of the trends which is presently active among our liberal brethren is a departure from preaching the truth of the gospel on a variety of subjects under the guise of “Christ-centered” preaching.

C. Leonard Allen, writing in The Cruciform Church, charged that “‘the word of the cross’ has been significantly displaced in the history of the Churches of Christ” (113). The proofs that we have removed the cross from its central place in our preaching are: (a) our concentration of sermons on “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” (119); (b) replacing the gospel of grace with a gospel of duty, law, and perfect obedience  preaching a legalistic message (122-123); (c) treating the Bible as if it were a law or blueprint (19,31); (d) eagerness to debate with our neighbors (19). Allen called for brethren to change their preaching to focus on the gospels rather than the epistles.

Rubel Shelly’s book, The Second Incarnation, picks up where Allen left off to emphasize that the church is the second incarnation of Christ. Shelly stated that the church must lay aside its restoration theology to change the church to meet the needs of every succeeding generation (xii,xiv,3,17,71); there is no pattern for the church (6,31,36,65). He emphasized that we need to give a priority of the gospels over the epistles in our preaching (36); to accept that unity is not uniformity (60); quit calling for the denominations to become “just like us” (81); change the worship to fit the needs of this generation (131-132, 138,140); etc.

James S. Woodruff authored The Church in Transition which also decried the restoration plea charging that it created sectarianism (9,57,109,121,1 49), charged that brethren do not teach salvation by grace (19), stated that when we preach “the true church” we show that we do not understand the true message of the gospel (26), asserted that we have become critics of denominations rather than preachers of the good news (31), affirmed that we have over-emphasized baptism (33), maintained that we have ignored the Holy Spirit (49), etc. Woodruff wants us to quit preaching that the denominations are sinful, quit emphasizing the conditions for salvation, quit quoting so much Scripture in our sermons (49), and practice unity-indiversity (115,117).

Bill Love’s The Core Gospel also charges that brethren have forsaken the core message of the atonement by emphasizing the restoration plea (128) and the conditions for salvation (151,165,231), making the gospel something to obey (159). Love was turned off by “church versus church” preaching (196,206-207), emphasizing the conditions for salvation (201,248), preachers who exposed false teachers (203,326; of course Love himself is excepted when he writes a 318-page book to expose the false teaching of brethren who have departed from the core gospel), preaching on baptism (231), and restoration preaching (235).

Notice from these quotations, that the kind of preaching which is shunned is this: (a) that which emphasizes the Lord’s church in contrast to the denominations of men; (b) debating with one’s religious neighbors; (c) an emphasis on the necessity and action of water baptism; (d) an unscriptural condemnation of instrumental music in worship.

All of this loose preaching is marching under the banner of “Christ-centered preaching.” The use of such banners was no doubt borrowed from our political leaders who can pass a “deficit reduction” budget that increases the national debt, reduce our taxes while increasing that which is withheld from our checks, and affirm pro-choice while denying the unborn the right to ever make a choice. Under the name of “Christ-centered preaching,” the preaching of

Christ is condemned, ridiculed, and forsaken. Its banner is palatable but its message is deadly poison.

What Is Happening?

In observing who is making the criticisms that brethren have quit preaching Christ, one cannot avoid noticing that much of the writing of these reformers among us takes on the characteristics of our liberal brethren. Frequently, those among our own brethren who charge that we have quit preaching Christ seem to avoid writing on such things as the identifying marks of the Lord’s church, debating their convictions with those who oppose them, and exposing the errors of denominationalism. Non-distinctive articles which never contrast revealed and unrevealed religion is the standard diet.

Which is more logical to believe? (a) That we have some brethren who have been preaching the gospel for decades who suddenly realized that justification is grounded in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and that the church is the recipient of salvation instead of the dispenser of salvation; or (b) That the influence of this movement away from distinctive preaching is spilling over among us?

Church Versus Church Preaching

Much has been said about church versus church preaching, implying that such preaching detracts from Christ and exalts the church. I make no apologies for church versus church preaching. I understand this preaching to be a contrast between revealed and unrevealed religion. Jesus did this kind of preaching when he contrasted the traditions of the men with the revealed word of God (Matt. 15:1-14). If we are going to give priority to the gospels over the epistles in our preaching, surely this is one part of the gospels which needs to be preached. Jesus contrasted that which was “from heaven” from that which is “of men” (Matt. 21:25). If we are going to walk in his footsteps, we must do the same. Those who have reached the point in their preaching that they have forsaken “church versus church” preaching have simply quit contrasting revealed and unrevealed religion, quit calling men out of unrevealed religion, and become convinced that men can be saved believing and practicing anything religiously so long as they are good, honest and sincere. Preaching which contrasts revealed and unrevealed religion is “Christ-centered preaching.”

Conclusion

I do not stand opposed to Christ-centered preaching, correctly understood. We must keep Christ as the central focus of our preaching and preach every word which he has revealed to us. However, that which is marching under the banner of “Christ-centered preaching,” which was quoted above, is an insidious doctrine of the devil which must be opposed. Those who oppose the false doctrines of classical liberalism (that is marching under the banner of “Christ-centered preaching”) but are writing their articles about the need for “Christ-centered preaching” need to be aware of the mixed signals they are sending and formulate a way to express themselves without lending their support to this movement in liberalism. It is certainly possible to caution brethren about the need for balance in preaching, without getting out of balance and echoing the unbalanced criticisms by apostates of sound gospel preaching.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p.2
October 7, 1993

By Donnie V. Rader

After the conversion of Lydia, as Paul and his travel companions went to prayer, a slave girl who had a evil spirit followed them crying out, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17). Paul, being annoyed, cast the demon out. The masters of the girl were disturbed because they had lost a means of income. They seized Paul and Silas and brought them before the magistrates charging that they “exceedingly trouble our city” (v. 20). Paul and Silas were beaten with rods, given many stripes and cast into prison (vv. 22-24).

While those who cast them into prison may think they have defeated these men of God, it simply provides them with another opportunity to preach the gospel. This time it is the Philippian jailer who hears and obeys the gospel.

The Most Important Question

At midnight as Paul and Silas were singing and praying to God, a great earthquake shook the prison. The doors were opened and chains were loosed. The jailer took his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought all the prisoners had fled. Paul, seeing what he was about to do, said loudly, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here” (v. 28). The jailer then got a light and ran into the cell with Paul and Silas and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

1. What prompted the question? First, the jailer had noted the faith of Paul and Silas as they sang and prayed to God. He knew they were men of God. Else, why would he ask them about salvation? Second, the great earthquake caused him to tremble and seek help from these men in his search for salvation.

2. It was a sincere question, The jailer did not ask this question to trap and ensnare these preachers as the Pharisees often tried with our Lord. This question was asked out of fear. He really wanted to know what he must do to be saved.

3. He recognized the need for salvation. Until one sees a need for salvation from sin, there will be no interest in doing what he must do. That may be why some who need to obey have not done so yet. They may not be convicted of the sin in their life that creates a need for salvation. The jailer realized that he was lost, an alien, without God and without hope (Eph. 2:12).

4. He recognized that there was something he must do. He apparently knew enough to understand that some obedience was necessary. His question itself implies that there are conditions to receiving salvation. He wanted to know what the conditions were.

5. His search for salvation was more important than anything else. His fear, his question and the urgency with which he responded demonstrates that being saved was the most important thing at the time. Whenever a sinner recognizes his real condition, nothing else will matter until he becomes a child of God.

The Answer

When the jailer asked what he must do to be saved, what answer was given?

1. He was told to believe. Paul and Silas answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your household” (v. 31). This does not mean that he could be saved by faith alone. James tells us that man is not justified by faith alone (Jas. 2:24),If this passage were saying that faith is all that is essential to receive salvation, that would mean that repentance is not essential (cf. Acts 2:38: 17:30-31).

There are time when the words “believe” or “faith” are used to encompass other acts of obedience. Notice the contrast in “believe” and “disobedience” (1 Pet. 2:6-8). Thus, “believe” simply stands for obedience. The same point is seen in Romans 10:16. In order to prove his point that “they have not all obeyed,” Paul quotes an Old Testament reference that said they did not “believe.”

2. He repented of his sin. His repentance is indicated in the fact that he washed the stripes of Paul and Silas (v. 33). He must have been told that repentance was necessary for others were told to repent (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30-31). Otherwise, God would be a respecter of persons (cf. Acts 10:34).

3. He was baptized (v. 33). He and his family were baptized in the same hour of the night. In answering his question, Paul and Silas must have told him of the necessity of baptism. Else, why would he be baptized immediately? If they didn’t tell him he must be baptized, their preaching would not harmonize with the Lord (Mark 16:16) or their own teaching at other times (Gal. 3:26-27).

The Urgency

There was a sense of urgency on the part of the jailer in obeying the gospel message. He immediately (in fact, in the same hour) was baptized. There was no waiting or delay. He did not put it off and wait for a convenient time.

Others who obeyed the gospel did so quickly. Those on Pentecost obeyed the same day (Acts 2:41). The Samaritans and the Eunuch obeyed when they heard the gospel (Acts 8).

Why the urgency? (1) Life is so uncertain. We don’t know for certain that we will live another day or hour. Life is like a shadow (Psa. 144:4) or vapor (Jas. 4:14) that is present one moment and then is quickly gone. (2) The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night  suddenly and unexpectedly (2 Pet. 3:10). (3) The longer we wait the chances are greater that our hearts could become hardened in sin (Heb. 3:7).

You can be saved just like the jailer if you obey like he did.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 13
September 16, 1993

By Irvin Himmel

It is a popular opinion that one church is as good as another. Many people stoutly deny that church membership is essential to salvation. Without doubt, much confusion has arisen in the public mind pertaining to salvation and the church due to misconceptions of the church and misunderstanding of what one must do to be saved.

The New Testament teaches that membership in the body of Christ. which is the church, is necessary. To deny this truth would involve a rejection of a number of basic Bible facts. Let us suppose that one can be saved out of the church; then what?

1.1f one can be saved out of the church, he can be justified with-out being a part of Christ’s purchased possession. God does not remit sins without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22). Justification is made possible by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). We are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ” (I Pet. 1:18, 19). But Paul tells us that the church is that which was “purchased” with Christ’s blood(Acts 20:28). Our Lord loved the church and gave himself for it (Eph. 5:25). Paul told the people in the church at Corinth. “For ye are bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20). To affirm salvation apart from the church is to take one of two positions: either (I) salvation can be obtained without the blood of Jesus, or (2) one can be purchased with the blood of Christ independently of being a part of his purchased possession, the church!

2. If one can be saved out of the church, he can be reconciled to God without having his name enrolled in heaven. The redeemed have their names written in the book of life. In the judgment scene depicted vividly in the closing verses of Revelation 20, it is stated, “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” But He-brews 12:23 informs us that the ones which are written (enrolled) in heaven are the “church of the firstborn.” To argue for salvation without member-ship in the church of the firstborn is to suggest some means of one’s being reconciled to God without having his name recorded in the book of life.

3. If one can be saved out of the church, he can be saved without becoming a child of God. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God .. . And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ”(Rom. 8:14, 17). “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27). Every responsible person is either a child of God or a child of Satan. But God’s children are in his family, since he has no illegitimate spiritual offspring, and the “house” or “household” or family of God is the “church of the living God” (I Tim. 3:15). If becoming a child of God necessitates one’s entering the household of God, which is the church, salvation outside the church would be salvation without being a child of God.

4. If one can be saved out of the church, he can be saved without baptism. The Bible teaches that baptism is necessary to the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Jesus made belief and baptism conditions of salvation (Mk. 16:15, 16). But baptism puts one into the body of Christ, which is the church of Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free: and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). The apostle Paul identifies the body as the church (Eph. 1:22. 23; 5:23: Col, 1:18). Since baptism puts one into the body, the church, to maintain that salvation can be obtained without ones entering the church is to argue for salvation without baptism.

5. If one can be saved out of the church, he can be saved and still not be among the saved. The English word “church” translates die Greek term ekklesias meaning the called out” or congregation As people are being called out of the world through the gospel, they are being added to the church, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47), Flow can one be saved without the Lords considering him one of the saved, or one of the called out, or one who belongs to the Lord? Since the church is composed of the saved, to suggest salvation outside the church is to say that one can be saved and still not be a saved one!

To many minds the word church” implies a denomination, a man-made religious body, an ecclesiastical organization or society with its own hierarchy. ft is reasoned that one denomination is basically as good as another. Furthermore, it is considered ridiculous that membership in a particular denomination should be thought essential to ones salvation.

How tragic that people do not understand what the church is in New Testament usage~ The church that Jesus purchased is not a denomination nor is it a mystical conglomeration composed of all man-made religious bodies. The church of God is the body of Christ, the family or house of God, the kingdom, the people belonging to the Lord. No accountable person in this age is promised salvation outside the church. To be saved one must submit to God by obeying Jesus, the Son of God. To be in Christ is to be in the church over which he is the head.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 1
September 16, 1993

By Mike Willis

The word “autonomy” is defined as “the quality or condition of being autonomous; self-government; any state that governs itself.” The word “autonomy” does not appear in the English Bible. How-ever, the concept of church autonomy certainly does.

The Biblical Concept of Autonomous Churches

In the Bible revelation of the government of the church, there is no revelation of an organization of churches tied together under any kind of ecclesiastical government. The modern denominational concept, of all of the Presbyterian churches (or Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, etc.) being organized into a body with elected officials overseeing the various congregations as a single unit, is not found in the Bible.

1. There is no formal, earthly organization of the universal church. The concept of a universal church is not a group of churches, but all of the saved in the world (cf. Eph. 5:23f). The only officer in the universal church is Christ as the head of the church; the inspired writings of the apostles and prophets are the governing law of the body of Christ. This does not mean the universal church is in a state of disorganization and disarray, but it is organized directly under Christ without earthly offices, intermediaries or headquarters. There are no earthly officers in the universal church.

The Scriptures give considerable discussion to the qualifications of the officers in the local church. There is no mention of an earthly office in the universal church and no list of qualifications for such an officer. Why would God so carefully direct the local church in its appointment of officers but say nothing about officers in the universal church? That does not make sense. The very silence of the Scriptures precludes universal church offices and officers.

2. Local churches are independent from each other. The authority of the elders in a local church is limited to the “flock of God which is among you” (I Pet. 5:1) and the flock “over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts 20:28). Elders have no authority to rule over anything larger than the local church.

The sponsoring church is a violation of church autonomy because it makes elders of the local church oversee the funds of thousands of churches. The elders have authority to oversee the members, discipline, teaching, and funds of the local church and it only.

No Substitutes For Universal Officers

There are no provisions for universal officers under Christ in the church on earth. Brethren need to guard themselves from thinking of anything or anybody as such. Editors of papers are not creed writers. Colleges and publishing houses are not dictators of doctrinal positions. I do not know of a college president or editor of a paper among us who believes otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with a person teaching the word of God, whether he be a college president or an editor. The power of what he writes or says is only in the moral persuasion of the word of God. Hence, the authority resides not in the office he holds as college president, editor, preacher, etc., but in the God of heaven who wrote the Bible. Consequently, in reading after or listening to any speaker, we should give attention to what the Bible says, not who says it. Let us “search the Scriptures daily” to see if the things taught are so (Acts 17:11). This is our best safeguard against intrusions on the autonomy of churches.

Misunderstanding of Church Autonomy

During the institutional controversies, the liberal churches that violated church autonomy by the sponsoring church arrangement frequently manifested a misunderstanding of church autonomy which was reflected in their protestations of teaching being sent to their members. This misconception was reflected also in protests against naming specific churches and their digressive practices. Many faithful congregations used church bulletins to teach those who were in liberalism, exposing and documenting the digression with specific cases. On several occasions the elders in the liberal churches charged that their autonomy was violated because a faithful church sent bulletins to their members and exposed their practices.

The autonomy of a local church is not violated by teaching being sent to its members. Did Paul violate the autonomy of the churches of Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, Colossae, or Thessalonica when he sent his epistles to them? Would a preacher sin if he followed an apostolic example of sending teaching directed to the problems in a local church?

Did Peter and John violate the autonomy of the church at Samaria when they were sent to see how things were going in Philip’s work (Acts 8:14)7 Did Bamabas violate the autonomy of the church at Antioch when he was sent there by the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:22)?

Did John violate the autonomy of the seven churches of Asia Minor when he included both positive and negative points about their practices in a single letter and circulated this same letter to all seven churches (Rev. 2-3)?

Those who protest the receiving of teaching, whether done through a man (such as Peter, John, or Bamabas), a bulletin, or a paper, as a violation of church autonomy show a misunderstanding of church autonomy. Those who protest exposing the digression of specific churches reflect the same misconception.

Autonomy Does Not Mean Immunity

From Scriptural Examination

On more than one occasion, brethren have written articles in subscription journals to teach that articles in subscription journals violate the autonomy of the local church! Editors and preachers who write for subscription journals are condemned for violating church autonomy by a preacher writing an article in a subscription journal. Now if that makes sense to you, perhaps you can enlighten me! “Therefore thou art inexcusable, 0 man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things” (Rom. 2:1). Is it right to write an article in a subscription journal condemning those who write articles in subscription journals? Brethren, this is just plain silly!

“Autonomy” is not a concept to hide behind to avoid scriptural examination, the necessity of giving Bible authority, and exposing specific cases of digression and apostasy to the light of truth. That process does not make any local church subservient to the oversight of any paper’s editor, any college president, any preacher or even any single Christian any-where. Any Christian with a Bible in his hand can ask where the Bible authorizes a specific practice of any given church. Members of that church can choose to give a Bible answer or to declare themselves immune from giving a Bible answer on the mistaken notion that giving a Bible answer to “every man that asketh you a reason” violates church autonomy (1 Pet. 3:15; 4:11).

If a church uses mechanical instruments in worship, the concept of autonomy does not shelter it from preaching that condemns innovations in worship. If a church builds a fellowship hall and perverts its mission to provide recreation for its members under the guise of “felt needs” preaching, the concept of autonomy does not condemn brethren calling attention to these apostasies. If a church accepts into its membership those who have divorced for reasons other than fornication and subsequently remarried or bids Godspeed to this error by using and supporting preachers who teach this doctrine, the concept of church autonomy does not forbid preaching which calls this apostasy to light. The issue is not autonomy but open investigation of truth and departures from it. Those who love the truth have nothing to fear from the process of open study on any subject. Those who have a practice that is not authorized by the Scriptures may hide behind the false claims of violated autonomy.

The same is true of the concept of fellowship. 2 John 9-11 says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that 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.” If a church violates 2 John 9-11 by fellowshipping those who have departed from the doctrine of Christ (whether the area of departure be receiving one who teaches that instrumental music in worship is acceptable, the sponsoring church, church sponsored recreation, or unscriptural doctrines on divorce and remarriage), the concept of church autonomy does not preclude their practice being examined in the light of Scripture. And, whether that review of their practice be published in a church bulletin, a subscription paper, or preached from a pulpit does not affect whether or not it violates church autonomy. If so, will someone please send me the Scripture for making such a distinction.

Violations of Church Autonomy Are Wrong

But Motive Judging is Right?

In some of the articles in subscription papers which charge that church autonomy is violated by those who write articles in subscription papers, there is considerable motive judging. The writers under review are charged with having an ulterior motive of trying to attain power and control the brotherhood. They are self-important and lust for power and prestige. Of course, the author of the article in a subscription journal who is condemning others who write in subscription journals does not lust for power and prestige, think himself self-important, or have an ulterior motive of attaining power! Those attributes are in others, but not in himself! Violations in church autonomy are severely condemned but no attention is paid to sinful judging of anothers motives. This kind of censorious judging is what Jesus condemned in Matthew 7:1-5 when he said,

Judge not, that ye he not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again, And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam Out of thine own eye: and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye (Matt, 7:1-5).

There is no defense for sinful attitudes and conduct for individuals, churches, papers., colleges, or anyone else. Wherein a brother is guilty of lusting for power, thinks himself self-important, and has an ulterior motive of trying to attain power, he is guilty of sin and should repent. However, we should be careful not to attribute these sinful attitudes to a brother ,just because he calls attention to a person or a churchs departure from the revealed word of God! He may just be a God-fearing brother doing his best to serve the God of heaven. If that be the case, how unfortunate would be the scathing articles which condemn him for ulterior motives. Jesus warned,” But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Matt. 18:6-7)

Conclusion

Let us avoid violations of church autonomy. There is no eldership which has authority over anything larger than a local church. No outside individual has the right to intrude into the affairs of a local church to make decisions for that church. However, there is no sin committed in preaching the truth to anyone, whether or not he is a member of the same local church as I am, Church autonomy is not a concept to hide behind to escape open investigation of any Bible subject or principle, or the necessity of giving Bible authority for the actions and decisions made in a local church!

Furthermore, let us be wary of any teaching that discourages obedience to the Bible command to search the Scriptures daily, whether these things taught were so (Acts 17:11) and to try the Spirits whether they are of God” (I John 4:1). This attitude is essential to prevent the growth of apostasy among us. When brethren destroy this attitude, they prepare the soil for the seeds of apostasy to be planted or for those which already have been planted to grow. In my judgment, some articles on church autonomy have denigrated the open study of truth and the obligation to give book, chapter, and verse authority for their practices under the guise that church autonomy is violated by the very request for Bible authority cite is nobodys business what is done in the local church of which are a member”). This undermines the need forgiving Bible authority for our practices and is itself a danger to be guarded against.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 2
September 16, 1993