Truth Magazine

By P.J. Casebolt

What the Hebrew writer says makes no sense whatever, if we are afraid of death, have no certain knowledge of death and what lies beyond, and fear the unknown.

Yet, there are those among us who not only claim that men are afraid of dying and fear the unknown because of their uncertain knowledge, but that since Jesus was human he must also have embraced these qualities.

In the first place, I emphatically deny that all men are afraid of dying, or that they fear the unknown because they lack certain knowledge. Some may, but some don’t.

And I even more emphatically deny that the life of Jesus was characterized by doubt, uncertainty, lack of certain knowledge, or fear of dying. Jesus “feared” in the same sense that we should “serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Heb. 12:28). It is this kind of fear that caused Jesus to be heard in his hour of trial (Heb. 5:7).

A time or two in my life, I have faced not only the possibility of death, but accepted the fact that such a possibility could turn into a certainty, but I did not face those hours with any uncertainty or doubt as to what lay beyond. We may not prefer to die, may not enjoy the prospect of it, and a certain amount of emotion may accompany that prospect, but that has nothing whatever to do with the other things mentioned.

I have stood beside others who faced the certainty of death, but there was no fear of dying in their hearts, or uncertainty because of the unknown. On the contrary, the fact that the scriptures are clear and complete in the knowledge of death and what lies beyond, gives us the faith and hope that is necessary to face death unafraid. And a part of that knowledge is the example that Jesus left for us to follow.

Jesus had certain knowledge of who he was, from whence he came, and where he was going (Jn. 16:28). This did not keep Jesus from subjecting himself to those temptations, pain, and sorrow which accompany a fleshly form.

But some seem to have a problem with understanding how Jesus could be divine and human at the same time. With men, human wisdom and reasoning, and a lack of faith this would be impossible to understand. But walking by faith, and “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13), we have no problem whatever with either the divine or human characteristics of Christ.

We may not understand just how one is “born of water and of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:5), but we accept it. We may not understand just how the “operation of God” (Col. 2:12) raised Jesus or how it raises us from baptism into a new life, but we believe it. We may not understand how Christ could still be the Son of God even while he was “manifest in the flesh,” or how he could say “the Son of man which is in heaven” (Jn. 3:13) even while he was in the flesh, but if he said it, we believe it. It’s that simple.

But if we insist on comparing spiritual things with carnal, using human standards of measurement or percentages to limit the power and nature of God, we may have trouble accepting some of these truths which others hold to be self-evident.

David said, “I will fear no evil: for thou art with me” (Psa. 23:4). Paul was not afraid of dying, expressed confidence in the thought of such (2 Tim. 4:6-8), and even preferred that option over the prospect of abiding in the flesh (Phil. 2:23,24). And it is this confidence instilled in us by our knowledge of God and our relationship to him that causes us not only to say, but to boldly say, “The Lord is my helper and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (Heb. 13:5,6). And the fear of what man shall do includes the fear of death (Matt. 10:28).

“Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love” (1 Jn. 4:17,18).

To those who are tormented by the fear of death, uncertainty, and the unknown, I say: learn of God’s love manifested through the gift of his Son in the flesh, and claim the boldness which lies in a faith in God and a hope which lies in the resurrection.

Only then can we give confidence to the dying, and say to the living concerning the dead, “. . . that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 15, pp. 451-452
August 6, 1992

By Brooks Cochran

The above is the title of a booklet I found in the waiting room of a local hospital. It had been placed there by a member of the Baptist Church. The author of the booklet gives what he considers to be seven lies which the Devil tells people as to what they must do to be saved. After each listing of the lies, the author gives Scriptures from the Bible which, he feels, answer the lie. Of the seven there were two which caught my attention. For it seemed to me that in his mishandling of the Scriptures, rather than exposing, he helped the Devil to continue deception.

Consider, for example, lie number two: “Your good works and self-righteous life will save you.” I agree with him on this point. It is with his answer or lack of answer that I disagree. The writer quotes part of Titus 3:5 and omits the important part of the verse. Namely, how God saves an individual. “Not be works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. ” (The underlined text was omitted by the Baptist preacher.) He is, by such action, doing what the Devil wants done, i.e. keeping the truth from a person so he will remain in a lost state. The author, no doubt, feels that baptism is non-essential to salvation and thus feels no need to discuss the subject. However, such a position is another of the Devil’s lies. The Devil, through this Baptist preacher, would have a person believe that baptism is non-essential; but the Word of God states the truth. Baptism is essential to one’s being saved (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16 1 Pet. 3:21).

Another of the Devil’s lies discussed is that “your church membership will save you.” I agree that just having your name on the church roll does not automatically mean that the individual is right with God. The author, like most Baptists, denies the importance of the church. However, one cannot separate the saved from the church. The moment one is saved he is added, by the Lord, to the church. The church is the saved (Acts 2:41,47; Eph. 5:23; 1:22,23; 4:4)! Only those in the church will be saved. Those outside will be lost. Too, in speaking of the “church” we are referring to the church that belongs to Christ and not some denominational church such as the Baptist church.

It is sad that such men write lies and falsehoods. But we shouldn’t be surprised for the Devil has ministers that “fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 15, p. 452
August 6, 1992

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: Richard John Neuhaus, ed. Theological Education and Moral Formation (Grand Rapids, ME William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), pp. 226-227.

Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the conservative journal First Things, also edits the Encounter Series of volumes published by Eerdmans, of which this is volume 15. Readers of this journal might also be interested in other volumes in the series, particularly volume 2 (Unsecular America) and volume 5 (The Bible, Politics, and Democracy).

Typically, each volume reports a conference in which four to six featured speakers delivered prepared addresses, following which those speakers and perhaps a dozen others join in a panel discussion of the issues raised in the prepared speeches.

This particular volume reports a conference at Duke University and offers some rare insight into the state of the denominational mentality in America, and I offer excerpts from three different sections of the round-table discussion for your amazement.

Professor William Willimon, speaking of the crisis of authority in the United Methodist church today:

“Right now the clergy suffer from a crippling inability to discipline one another, even in some of the grossest breaches of moral conduct. I’m thinking particularly of the United Methodist examples, but I could think of others. In my own annual conference there are cases of wife abuse, income tax evasion, and worse. This happens yearly. The United Methodist system is predicated on the assumption that clergy will discipline their own, and the laity wait for us to do that. For example, there was a district superintendent, a Duke graduate, who didn’t pay income tax for twelve years. He was indicted and convicted. When this came before the annual conference, people took the floor and talked about the one who was without sin throwing the first stone. I asked, ‘Does anybody have a rock?’ When I left the meeting, my dominant impression was this: Here’s your typical United Methodist ethical mush at work. Later I came to a much more devastating conclusion: We don’t even respect ourselves enough to say to this guy, ‘We don’t want you to be a part of us.’ We United Methodist ministers should think so much of our God-given vocation that there will be some colleagues to whom we must say, ‘You can be a wonderful Christian. But you can’t be a United Methodist pastor anymore. You forfeited that possibility. We can’t use you.’ It’s sad that six hundred people sat in that room at the annual conference and none of us said, ‘We treasure so much the yoke under which we serve that we cannot use you.

Willimon continued his point by noting that demoralized clergy lead to paralyzed churches: “As a United Methodist, I’m part of a denomination that over the last decade has lost six hundred members a week. All of the main-liners, or old-liners, are in the same situation. How much more dissatisfaction do we need? This summer I went to the jurisdictional conference. A bishop got up and said, ‘The good news is that our rate of decline is one of the lowest in the United Methodist Church today. The good news is that we have lost only 120 members a week since we last met.’ Despite this ‘good news,’ he expressed regret and said we needed to work on evangelism. Then, when we had finished with that, we proceeded to elect a group of people as bishops, not one of whom, in my humble estimation, knows what to do about the losses.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 14, p. 427
July 16, 1992

By Mike Willis

The things to be accomplished by the plea to restore the New Testament church are many and great. The adoption of the restoration plea by the general populace would greatly improve and correct the moral and religious circumstance in America or anywhere else in the world. Here are some results which would be accomplished by the plea to restore the New Testament church:

1. The original church of Christ, in its faith, worship, organization, unity, and terms of admission, would be reproduced. In every community where the plea was followed, the Lord’s church would be established. The rule of faith, the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), would be the rule of faith of every local congregation. Every church would assemble on the Lord’s day to remember the Lord’s death in the Lord’s supper, pray to God, give of their prosperity, study God’s word and sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Eph. 5:19).

2. All of the followers of the Lord would be Christians only. There would be an end to “Baptist Christians,” “Methodist Christians,” “Pentecostal Christians,” and “Catholic Christians.” The names which reflect the divisions among us would all die. These would be replaced by the wearing of Bible names – Christian, disciple, believers, saints, children of God, etc. The churches would no longer be called Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Roman Catholic Church, and such names as are not found in the Bible; instead churches would wear names such as church of God (1 Cor. 1:2), church of Christ (Rom. 16:16), house of God (1 Tim. 3:15), etc.

There will be no need for sectarian preachers building fences to keep their members from going to another denomination. There will be no need for duplication of labor and service, where one denominational preacher serves the need of 50 people in his little group and another denominational preacher serves the need of 50 people in his little group. When the plea to restore the New Testament church is followed, these differences will be destroyed that all may be one in Christ.

3. All Christians would belong to the church of the Lord alone and not at the same time hold membership in some modern denomination. The Lord’s church is big enough to include all Christians; there is no need for different churches for different people. If both Jew and Gentile could be reconciled to God in the one church of the first century, so can all men in the twentieth century be reconciled to God in one body (Eph. 2:16). Therefore, all denominational churches are wholly unnecessary and are contrary to God’s revealed will.

4. All Christians will believe the one divine creed, have the same confession of faith, and be governed by the same divine rule of faith and practice. There will be an end to creeds written by men to regulate the beliefs and actions of the churches. There will be an end to annual “general assemblies” called together to vote on changes to the rules governing the churches, as presently is done in modern denominationalism. The largest church organization on earth would be the local church and the highest church office on earth would be that of an elder in the local church.

5. Among Christians, there will be allegiance to just one head, Jesus Christ. Jesus alone is head of the church. The plea to restore the New Testament church would remove human heads of churches, such as the pope, synods and councils.

6. The moral standards of God’s people would be those approved of God. We would not have one church accepting easy divorce and remarriage and another accepting the teaching of Matthew 19:9. We would not have one church hosting a gambling event (bingo games, casino nights) and another opposing gambling as sinful. We would not have one church ordaining homosexuals to preach and another condemning homosexuality as sinful. If the restoration plea were accepted and adopted, there would be an end to differing standards of morality.

7. The Lord’s prayer for the unity of his people would be answered. Jesus prayed, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:20-21).

The restoration plea is the only means of seeing the Lord’s prayer for unity answered. Other plans for unity condone unscriptural doctrine and practice in express violation of 2 John 9-11 (“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”). Unity-in-diversity, unity in gospel and differences in doctrine, ecumenism, and other denominational forms of unity are not to be equated with the unity for which Jesus prayed. They are not and never can be the Bible plan of unity.

8. All men will be united in the “one hope” of the gospel. There will not be one group working to accomplish “heaven on earth” because they have lost faith in obtaining eternal life and another trying to restore Israel to the land of Palestine. Instead, all will be aiming to obtain the everlasting home with God, the inheritance that is “incorruptible, undefiled, fadeth not away, and is reserved in heaven” (1 Pet. 1:4-5).

9. There will be biblical cooperation in the great works of evangelism and benevolence. Every local church will do its work in taking the gospel to the lost in their community and in supporting men to preach in other areas (1 Thess. 1:7-8; 1 Tim. 3:15; Phil. 4:15-16). The world can be evangelized without the invention of central organizations such as missionary societies, mother churches and sponsoring churches. God’s plan worked in the first century, to spread the gospel throughout the known world, and it will still work today (Col. 1:23).

When brethren in a given locality are in need, local congregations can rally to relieve that need, just as they did in the first century (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 11:27-30). They relieved the needs of suffering saints without the creation of church supported hospitals, orphan homes, old folks homes, and other human institutions.

Conclusion

We are not so naive as to think that all men everywhere will lay aside their unrevealed religions in order to restore the New Testament church. Not all of the Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians, Essenes, Epicureans, Stoics, and other first century proponents of unrevealed religion did, so why should we expect that all Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Episcopalians, Muslims, and other proponents of unrevealed religion will today? Men will be saved one soul at a time. Our prayer is that we can increase the number of the redeemed by the preaching of the undiluted gospel and bring a few more sons to glory in the process. (I have borrowed heavily from The Plea to Restore the Apostolic Church by James C. Creel for this series of articles.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 15, pp. 450, 471
August 6, 1992