Truth Magazine

By Louis J. Sharp

It has been said, “Great minds run in the same channel.” We make no claim for “greatness” – but ” kindred minds,” quite often do arrive at the same place. Because we are “like-minded,” this happened with me and a life-long friend.

Last Mother’s Day, I wrote a short article entitled “Childhood Memories of Mother” for our local bulletin. Brother Mike Willis, editor of Guardian of Truth, evidently thought it deserving of wider circulation and ran it in his paper. My friend, Robert L. (Bob) Craig read it, and wrote the following letter, which I print with his permission.

“Dear Louis, I just finished reading your article on your mother, and since I knew her pretty well, I just wanted to say that your article does her justice. I was in one of her classes just as I was in sister Brewer’s (my grandmother, US) and another of your aunt’s whose name I do not recall at this time (Ruth Dowdey, US). And since my mother died when I was only ten, you might say that 1, too, learned some of what I know at the feet or knee of your mother and your kins people. I wrote a little poem this past Mother’s Day that I thought you might appreciate and am sending you a copy.”

Last May, both Bob and I were recalling precious memories of our mothers. I am so thankful I did not lose my mother at ten years as he did, but I am gratified that my mother was able to touch the lives of a number of others whom she taught. Bob’s letter is a great tribute to her memory. Following is his accolade to his own mother, who was taken in his childhood.

Honoring Mother

I heard a man on TV say,

“A broken heart will go away.”

Time will heal

A million things,

But a broken heart

Will still remain.

She was little and pretty,

And very bold.

And I was a lad

Just ten years old.

She doctored my cuts,

Kissed away my tears,

Tended my bruises

And healed my fears.

She slept one night,

And her soul He did take.

A little heart broke,

‘Cause she didn’t awake.

I’m weary and tired,

And my hair has turned gray,

But time has not healed

The heart broken that day.

Night after night

As I pillow by head,

I think of my mama

And honor the dead.

Truly a beautiful tribute to his mother by brother Craig.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, p. 295
May 21, 1992

By Mike Willis

We Christians are committed to the restoration of the New Testament church. We are not interested in “reforming” any established denomination. The denominations are religious bodies established and governed by men. Rather, we are interested in reproducing in all essential parts the church of the New Testament, especially wherein there has been a departure from the faith and practice of the inspired apostles of Christ.

The plea to restore the New Testament church rests upon the conviction that the Bible is an infallible revelation from God which is all sufficient to meet man’s spiritual needs. The Scriptures record Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would “guide” the apostles into all truth (Jn. 16:8). As a result of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, what the apostles taught was the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37). The revelation which they communicated to man is sufficient to provide man with all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4). There is no spiritual need which man has for which God has not provided in his word.

The plea to restore the New Testament church is a plea to return, in all things, to the simple teachings of the Scriptures and a plea for abandonment of everything in religion for which there can not be given a divine warrant. This idea is expressed in the slogan, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

The Restoration Plea Condemned

In recent years, the restoration plea has not only been abandoned by many but also condemned as an instrument of division. In his book The Restoration Principle, A.T. DeGroot, noted historian of the Disciples of Christ, wrote, “Legalistic primitivism or restorationism has stunted the spiritual development and limited the growth of scores and scores of prior movements of this kind” (7). He later added, “From the foregoing survey of the experience of the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, we may conclude that the more specifically the restoration plea has been defined in terms of governmental, organizational, and ritualistic patterns of behavior, the less success it has had as an effective and cohesive force in the Christian world” (160). DeGroot viewed the restoration plea as a hindrance to the unity of the church.

J.P. Sanders wrote, “The early church was not itself a rigid structure; the development of it, as seen through New Testament letters, shows this clearly. To talk about ‘restoring’ the early church requires that we designate which early church – for example, the one of Corinthians, or the one of the pastoral letters” (Voices of Concern 39). He continued, “Thus, far from being the basis for unity today, patternism or restorationism may become a sure and certain barrier to unity and has, as a matter of fact, resulted in more divisions” (44).

Victor Hunter reached the same conclusion in this comment: “The problem with a restoration theology is that it rests on the premise that the mission of the church is to set up a ‘true church’ in which all the details of church life are exactly like they were in a first century world. It functions on the assumption that there is a blueprint or pattern in the New Testament that the church is to reduplicate in each succeeding generation. Such a theology makes the church’s mission egocentric and past-oriented rather than outward looking and future-oriented” (Mission Magazine V:9 [March 1972] 6).

James O. Baird recently wrote in defense of the restoration plea in the Gospel Advocate [January 1992, 20], “Well platformed and highly profiled men in churches of Christ are mounting a barrage against the validity of the restoration principle which was the germinal idea of the movement to restore the New Testament church.” He then proved his statement by several quotations of his brethren condemning the restoration plea. He concluded that the liberal brethren are facing a major threat from those who have rejected the principle of restoration of the New Testament church.

Max Lucado was quoted by the Tulsa (OK) World as follows:

He said, “I have a gut feeling that we (the church of Christ) have approached the Bible as an engineer, looking for a certain design or architectural code. And I think we find that everyone finds a different code. As a result, we split into 27-28 splinters or factions.

“There is no secret code. The Bible is a love letter as opposed to a blueprint. You don’t read a love letter the same way you read a blueprint” (quoted in Behold the Pattern by Goebel Music, 114).

Rebel Shelly of Nashville, Tennessee said, “Pattern theology has been our undoing. Pattern theology we have learned to generate by a hermeneutic of command, example, and inference . . . it assumes the Bible is all of a kind in terms of literature, that all of it is case study legislation, so you take this system and you put a grid over it and what you come up with is your pattern” (Music 301).

These statements reject and condemn the restoration plea. Similar statements have appeared with greater frequency in journals published among our liberal brethren, such as Image. Also see documented statements condemning the restoration plea quoted in Goebel Music’s Behold the Pattern. Added to this is the incorrect perception that some among us seem to have that the restoration plea is a plea to restore the restoration movement. These things being so, I wish to reaffirm the basic principles of the restoration plea in the next several articles.

The Restoration Principle Affirmed

Thomas and Alexander Campbell are not authorities in religion, but they plead for all men to return to the New Testament as the word of Christ and final authority in religion. Let us briefly review their plea for the restoration principle. When Thomas Campbell published The Declaration and Address, these fundamental propositions were believed and accepted by them:

“1. That the church of Christ upon the earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else can be truly and properly called Christians.

“2. That although the church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another; yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them to the glory of God. And for this purpose, they ought all to walk by the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing; and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and the same judgment.

“3. That in order to this, nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion; but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them, in the word of God. Nor ought any thing be admitted, as of divine obligation, in their church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament church; either in expressed terms, or by approved precedent.

“4. . . . the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members; as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament church, and the particular duties of its members” (16).

The Restoration Plea Is a Plea for Unity

The plea to restore the New Testament church is a plea for unity. Campbell had given up hope of finding peace and harmony “by continuing amidst the diversity and rancor of party contentions, the veering uncertainty and clashings of human opinions” (1). They thought peace could be found only in God’s simple word. Thomas Campbell wrote, “Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be, that rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men, as of any authority, or as having any place in the church of God, we might forever cease from farther contentions about such things; returning to, and holding fast by the original standard; taking the divine word alone for our rule” (1-2).

The restoration plea was the means for bringing reconciliation to brethren torn by division. Campbell desired to see the church return to its original unity, peace, and purity. He asked, “Is there any thing that can be justly deemed necessary for this desirable purpose, but to conform to the model, and adopt the practice of the primitive church, expressly exhibited in the New Testament?” (10)

“Who then, would not be the first amongst us, to give up with human inventions in the worship of God; and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren: that our breaches might thus be healed? Who would not willingly conform to the original pattern laid down in the New Testament, for this happy purpose?” Then he committed himself to give up whatever he believed, taught or practiced for the sake of the unity of the church. “But this we do sincerely declare, that there is nothing we have hitherto received as matter of faith or practice, which is not expressly taught and enjoined in the word of God, either in express terms, or approved precedent, that we would not heartily relinquish, that so we might return to the original constitutional unity of the Christian church; and in this happy unity, enjoy full communion with all our brethren, in peace and charity” (10-11).

The divisions which pose a threat to the Lord’s people today can be healed by a commitment to the restoration plea – a plea to restore the belief and practices of the New Testament revelation of the word of God. In further articles, we shall see just what such a plea is and what it demands.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 290, 309-310
May 21, 1992

By Larry Ray Hafley

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). Since the gospel “is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16), when one preaches the gospel he preaches the cross. To “preach Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2) is to preach the cross, the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17,18). To preach the cross, the gospel, is to preach “the testimony of God” and “the wisdom of God” which has been revealed by the Spirit of God in the book of God, the Bible (1 Cor. 2:1-13). No one who believes the word of God doubts any of these facts.

To receive the word of God is to receive the gospel (Acts 2:4 1; 8:14; 11: 1; 1 Cor. 15:1). To receive the word, the gospel, is to receive “the grace of God” (2 Cor. 6:1; Tit. 2:11,12). Unless and until one is obedient unto “the word of his grace” (Acts 20:32), he has not been saved by “the preaching of the cross” (1 Pet. 1:22; 1 Cor. 1:18). To preach the cross is to preach “the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). Whenever and wherever one is obedient to the gospel he is saved by grace (Acts 10:48; 15:11). Again, about this there can be no denial by anyone who believes the Bible.

So, why cite the facts above if no one questions them? Recently, in a paper published by brethren, several articles appeared which correctly called for “the preaching of the cross.” Assuredly, the gospel facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed, promises to be enjoyed and threats to be avoided must be impressed on the hearts of all who would be “of Christ.” However, in certain articles, the idea was advanced that when we refute denominational error and preach obedience, baptism and the church that we are somehow drifting away from a cross centered gospel. While stating their objection to denominational error and upholding the need for obeying the gospel, the thrust of some essays was that preaching against error and emphasizing gospel obedience unwittingly causes “some to stray from a cross-centered evangelistic message to a church-centered appeal.”

Paul’s Preaching of the Cross

When the apostles preached the cross, did they preach something in addition to the facts of the death of Christ? If the answer to that question is “yes,” then one may preach the cross and preach things other than the physical, literal death of Jesus on the cross. Let us see the example of Paul. Obviously, he preached the cross, “Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

When Paul preached the cross at Corinth, he preached at least three things: namely, (1) the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4); (2) Christ was crucified for them (1 Cor. 1:13); (3) that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:13; 6:11; Acts 18:8). When one preaches “Christ crucified,” he preaches not only the death of Christ but also what one must do in order to receive the redemption procured by his death. When the Corinthians heard the preaching of the cross, they “believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). This is the way they were “washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Baptism is “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Matt. 28:19; Acts 10:48; 19:5), and baptism “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5).

How did the Corinthians know to be baptized in the name of Christ since what they had heard was “Jesus Christ, and him crucified”? They knew to be baptized because “the preaching of the cross” includes the preaching of baptism. Hence, when one preaches baptism, it cannot be said that he is not “preaching the cross,” for baptism is a part of “the preaching of the cross.”

Indeed, the entire letter to the Corinthians is “the testimony of God,” “the wisdom of God,” “the gospel,” “Christ crucified.” In other words, it is all “the preaching of the cross.” When Paul spake of denominational division and encouraged unity (1:10-3:9; 12:12-27) was he not “preaching the cross”? When he wrote of marriage and morality, of adultery and idolatry (5:1-13; 6:9-20; 7;8;10:1-13), was he not “preaching the cross” of Christ? When he spoke of subjection and the Lord’s supper, the communion of the body and blood of the Son of God (10:1621;11), was he not “preaching the cross”? When he urged peace, decency and order in the churches with detailed directions regarding the place of “spiritual gifts,” (12:1-14:40), was he not “preaching the cross”? When he spoke of the “resurrection of the dead” and gave “order” to the “churches” “concerning the collection for the saints” (15:12-16:4), was he not “preaching the cross”? Who will say that he was not?

When gospel preachers of today address these topics, when they assail the evils and errors of Protestant and Catholic denominationalism, are they not “preaching the cross”? When they warn against immorality, adultery, fornication, homosexuality “and such like,” are they not “preaching the cross”? While discussing headship and the proper partaking of the Lord’s supper, are they not “preaching the cross”? When gospel preachers debate Pentecostal errors regarding Holy Spirit baptism, tongues and spiritual gifts, are they not “preaching the cross”? When they dispute against premillennial speculations concerning “the resurrection of the dead,” are they not “preaching the cross”? When studying “the issues” with institutional brethren concerning congregational cooperation, are they not “preaching the cross”? Who will say that they are not?

It is a false choice to say, “Preach the cross, not baptism.” Beware of those who say, “Let us preach the cross and not the church,” or “let us emphasize the person of Christ on the cross and not the plan of salvation.” Broken down into its simplest form, this is nothing more than the old ” gos pel- doctrine” distinction. It is the same thing as “Let us preach the man and not the plan.” Do not be deceived by these pseudodistinctions. Where in the Bible are we ever warned against these “so-called” differences? Where are we ever told to preach Christ more than we preach the church or baptism? What passage even hints at such a “misplaced emphasis”? Where in all the word of God are we ever told to preach more on the actual “doing and dying of Jesus” and not so much on obedience to the gospel in baptism? It is a false, unscriptural concept.

However, it has an appeal. Like the proud publican of Luke 18, there is a super piety, a spiritual elitism, that feigns greater reverence for the things of God when it says, “We need to trust more in the Savior’s person and not so much in his program. ” Assuming a divine demeanor, they declare, “We need to lead people to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ rather than to a baptistry.” It is subtle; it is snide. Worse, still, it is false.

For example, note Paul’s interchangeable terms as he spoke of salvation:

1. “Baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:27). “Baptized into one body,” the church (1 Cor. 12:13,20; Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:18,24).

2. Reconciled unto God “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18-20). Reconciled unto God “in one body,” the church (Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16).

3. Saved, redeemed by the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1: 18,19; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Church purchased with the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28).

4. Christ “gave himself for me” and tasted “death for every man” (Gal. 2:20; Heb. 2:9). Christ “gave himself for it,” the church (Eph. 5:25).

5. “In Christ” – “made nigh” – “by the blood” (Eph. 2:13). “In one body” – “reconciled” – “by the cross” (Eph. 2:16).

When one speaks of baptism into the body or church of Christ, when he speaks of reconciliation in one body, the church, when he speaks of Christ’s having purchased the church with his own blood, he is not off balance or out of focus, for what is ascribed to one, Christ, is also said of his body, the church. The apostle Paul once “persecuted the church of God” (Acts 8:3; Gal. 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:9), but when the Lord appeared to him, he said, “Why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14) To persecute the church was to persecute Christ. Hence, to “preach Christ” is to preach the church. If not, why not? If to persecute Christ is to persecute the church, then to preach Christ is to preach the church.

So Also Is Christ

1 Corinthians 12:12-27 contains Paul’s great analogy of the human body and the spiritual body of Christ, the church. He speaks of the many members of the physical body and their respective offices or functions and concludes that though there are many members with diverse duties, yet there is “but one body.” Paul shows that the same thing is true of the church, that it, too, has many members, each with its own distinct place and responsibility, yet it constitutes one body (cf. Rom. 12:4,5).

However, our subheading above contains the sentence of verse 12 which says, “so also is Christ.” Now, this is a curious, singular wording. In the context, we should expect the Spirit to have said, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is the church, ” but he did not say that. Rather, the Spirit said, “so also is Christ. ” In the very next verse, he says we are “all baptized into one body.” Here he could have said, as he did in other passages, that we are “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3). But he speaks of “Christ” and “one body” and refers to the same thing. Christ, the church, the one body are spoken of in synonymous terms. Hence, let no one beguile you with enticing words of superficial spirituality by saying that we need to talk more of Christ and less about the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 302-303
May 21, 1992

By Robert F. Turner

The recent Bassett-Holt debate on divorce and remarriage “except for fornication” placed the issue on whether or not the second marriage must be terminated. Holt said one must cease that error of which he repents – identified as the adulterous relation of the second marriage; while Bassett said the “adultery” of Matthew 19:9 (et al) was only the “adulteration” of the first covenant: divorce plus making a second covenant. He said the noun “marriage” was sexual in its nature, but the verb “marry” was not. Holt replied that the “whoso” of Matthew 19:9b (“whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”) would be a previously unmarried man, hence no covenant breaker. He noted the immediate context (vv. 10-12) where “not to marry” (verb) was related to “made themselves eunuchs” by sexual self-containment. He also cited 1 Corinthians 7:9 “better to marry (verb) than to burn,” obviously with passion.

Bassett contended a married couple cannot commit adultery with one another; but Holt cited the basic principle of Romans 7:2-3 which says the second marriage is adulterous “so long as he (the first husband) liveth.” Bassett said this was only an “analogy,” but Holt replied each facet of the analogy is still true. Holt also used Mark 6:17-18 to say the marriage of Herod and Herodias was adulterous. When Bassett said it was only incest, Holt replied that incest involved uncovering “the nakedness of thy brother’s wife” (Lev. 18:16). He also used a chart which supplied Mark 6:17-18 names to Romans 7: “For the woman which hath an husband (Herodias) is bound by the law to her husband (Philip) so long as he liveth. . . So then if, while her husband (Philip) liveth, she (Herodias) be married to another man (Herod), she shall be called an adulteress.”

Bassett used 1 Corinthians 7:24 as though it was saying “abide” in whatever marriage relation one has when converted; but Holt showed the context limited this statement to things indifferent, as circumcision (v. 18) and slavery (v. 21; cf. vv. 10-11). Bassett said “loosed” (27b) meant “divorced,” and v. 28 said if such an one marry he has not sinned. Holt said the context (vv. 25-26) deals with never married people. (See “virgins” “so to be,” cf. Rev. 14:4, rft.) He also pointed out that to divorce and remarry are the two elements Bassett had said made the sin of adultery. The above is a sample of only one facet of the discussion – studying the contents of Matthew 19: et al, to see what Jesus taught during his personal ministry.

But there is an entirely different facet to this discussion. Here, as in other studies on the subject, there is a recurring difference in concepts regarding the application of Christ’s personal ministry teaching to today. Bassett seems to think since Jesus lived under Judaism, and used “the law and the prophets” in his teaching, that he taught nothing applicable to this dispensation – except “eternal moral principles.” There seems no fixed rule for identifying such “eternal moral principles.” What about “born again” (Jn. 3:3) or “tell it to the church” (Matt. 18:17)? He said morals never change -except polygamy (or something else?). He felt Jesus’ teaching must be viewed as Jews of his day would apply it. I would say “as Jesus applied it,” in his efforts to prepare them for the soon coming kingdom (Matt. 4:17).

Yes, Jesus began with “the law and prophets” but taught with authority, “not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:29). Revelation of God’s will was progressive, with its “starlight, moonlight” ages leading to the “sunlight” of perfection in Jesus Christ. Bassett and others like him seem to think if a teaching of Jesus “differs” with the law of Moses it violates inspired Scriptures, and is in conflict with Jesus’ statement: “I came not to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 7:15). The “fulfill” of that verse refers to substance that Christ gave to O.T. shadows; the spiritual reality of what began in physical types; the filling out or expanding of things only prefigured in Moses’ law. Among many fine statements in Expositor’s Greek Testament (on Matt. 5:17) we read, “He fulfills by realizing in theory and practice an ideal to which O.T. institutions and revelations point, but which they do not adequately express.” No contradiction here.

When Pharisees came, tempting Jesus with a question about divorce, he cited “leave, cleave, one flesh” from Genesis, saying, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matt. 19:3f). They counter by citing Deuteronomy 24: 1f where Moses regulated some legal aspects of divorce. But Jesus said, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. ” Compare Acts 14:16; 17:30; Romans 2:4; 9:22. The polygamy, idolatry, and yes, the divorce “suffered” in O.T. times (as a parent patiently seeks to train an erring child) is no standard for the sunlight age of Christianity. “From the beginning it was not so” does not say contradiction; it says God had higher and more noble things in mind even as he led his children through a training period. The “except for fornication” of Matthew 19:9 had not previously been enunciated, but it is inherent in the “cleave” and “one flesh” of Genesis 2:24.

Jesus taught the “sunlight” standards during his personal ministry. In John 14:26 he told the disciples the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance “whatsoever I have said unto, you.” Hebrews 1:2 says God “‘hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” and that which was first spoken by the Lord “was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (2:3). Long after the establishment of the church Luke wrote his “gospel” to declare the certainty of “those things which are most surely believed among us” (Lk. 1:1-4). They were things “that Jesus began both to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). We shall be judged in the last day by “the word that I (Jesus) have spoken” (Jn. 12:48). The teaching of Jesus reaches back to “the beginning” and to his rapport with the Father (vv. 49-50).

The message of God through Moses and other prophets are a sort of sketch over. which the Master painted in full glorious whole truth. If some should ask where did the apostles write what Jesus taught in Matthew 19 would suggest they look at Matthew 19, written after Pentecost, by the apostle Matthew, directed by the Holy Spirit.

One more quote from Expositor’s (on Matt. 5:17): “Therefore, in fulfilling he necessarily abrogates in effect, while repudiating the spirit of a destroyer. He brings in a law of the spirit which cancels the law of the letter, a kingdom which realizes prophetic ideals, while setting aside the crude details of their conception of the Messianic time.” The message of the moonlight age must be interpreted in the light of the message of the Son. It is a serious mistake – it could have eternal consequences to seek to escape the message of the Son by reading it in the light of the moon.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 293-294
May 21, 1992