Truth Magazine

By Bobby L. Graham

(Editors’ Note: The Florence Times (June 27, 1993] carried the following article about this march for freedom.)

Both in ancient times and in modem times young people have sometimes taken bold stands for right and truth on matters that were not popular with all of their peers. Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the food and drink regimen prescribed by the Babylonian king for the young men in training for places of leadership. The Bible’s emphasis on his purpose of heart is crucial in the understanding of this matter of conviction. Once one has learned what truth demands and God de-sires, he must act on that conviction. Doing so often requires courage, giving rise to the expression “the courage of his conviction.”

The young preacher Timothy had been taught and trained by a mother and a grandmother who understood their role. The result was a young man who became a Christian during Paul’s first missionary trip and a travel companion and helper in the gospel on the second such trip of the apostle. In a pagan society filled with the worship of idols and associated immorality of that society, it was not easy for Timothy to take his bold stand for Jesus Christ. His mixed religious background (father a Greek and mother a Jew) likewise did not make his turning to Christ easy. He became convicted by truth and then acted on it out of courage.

In the last few weeks two young men in the Florence area, Drew Jamieson and Steve Graham, Jr., took a stand that could have been unpopular and undoubtedly is in many instances. They chose to speak up for God and his gracious blessing in the lives of all and to pray during a graduation ceremony at a public high school. For their action they were criticized by some but praised by most. It was conviction and the courage of their conviction that worked to produce their stand. Later events related to this situation included a march for such freedom in Florence. It is gratifying to know of young people today who will take such stands.

Are you one who has convictions, strong beliefs based on the truth set forth in the Bible? Do you act out of conviction or out of convenience? To do the first is to please God, but to do the latter is to please self. Why not learn from the examples of young people who lived long ago and some who live now what it means to be courageous. Their examples surely inspire us to do what we should do.

In what police referred to as the city’s largest gathering of its kind in decades, several thousand people sang, prayed and carried signs with biblical references at a religious free speech march and rally in Florence, Alabama.

3000 Attend Prayer Rally, March – Florence police estimated the march crowd at 3,000 and said it was the largest single gathering they had seen in 20 years.

The march was held in sup-port of two former Bradshaw High School students, Drew Jamieson and Steve Graham, Jr., who violated school officials’ orders by saying a prayer and making religious references at their graduation ceremony June 3.

Jamieson, a youth minister at a local church, led the audience in prayer after a speech he made to his graduating class. Graham changed the graduation speech he was supposed to give and had supplied to Bradshaw officials. In his altered speech he made several religious references.

The prayer has prompted the threat of a lawsuit by the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union and a statement by school system officials that student involvement in graduation activities may be limited in the future.

Marchers sang songs such as “Lord, I Need Thee,” as they marched and several carried signs that said things such as “We believe in prayer,” “In God we trust,” and “Our nation needs to return to honor and respect for God.”

Graham said some Bradshaw officials supported the students’ desire to say a prayer at their graduation, but were bound by the law to put aside their personal beliefs. He called on those attending the rally to fight to change the laws.

“So let us come together to place blame not at the local level or on men who are but helpless pawns in this struggle, who are unable to take any other course due to rulings by the courts, each seemingly in an effort to outdo the other and take the prohibitions against religious speech to more outlandish limits.

“Let us not blame them, but let us take our fight and our cause to our homes, back to our communities, and finally into the halls of justice, where basic and important changes can be made.”

Some of those in attendance said they saw the march and rally as an opportunity to express their religious beliefs openly and proudly.

“I feel like this is a golden opportunity to get out and stand up for Jesus,” said John McDaniel of Florence. “Two thousand years ago he died for us. I believe I can walk a few blocks for him. In the past we have been too apathetic. I think this will get a lot more people to stand up.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 1
October 7, 1993

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