Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

On pages 16-17, I have reproduced an article from Christian Standard (10 November 1991) written by David L. Eubanks, president of Johnson Bible College. This article expresses the common belief of many of our Christian Church friends. Therefore, it deserves a reply.

We appreciate brother Eubanks’ concern about unity. Where Bible attitudes are matched with Bible actions on both sides that unity can be attained and maintained. We shall strive to do that in this reply and commit ourselves to give up any and everything that is a human opinion for the sake of the unity of the church.

We are agreed that the Devil “has used this controversy to sow the seed of discord among the brethren and hinder the growth of the church of Jesus Christ.” However, we are disagreed regarding what that seed of discord is and what plants must be extracted for the peace to be restored.

An Inconsistency in the Argument

Brother Eubanks’ argumentation is self-contradictory. First he intimates that the Bible commanded that mechanical instruments be used in worship and then treated them as optional. If they are commanded, they are not optional. Our good brother cannot have it both ways. Which way will he choose – mechanical instruments are commanded or mechanical instruments are optional?

Mechanical Instruments Are Commanded

In the first section of his article, the president of Johnson Bible College contended that mechanical instruments are commanded. He used the following Scriptures to prove his point: Psalm 87:5-7; Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Do the passages cited prove his point that mechanical instruments are commanded to be used in worship? Let us look at each carefully.

Psalm 87.-5-7. Brother Eubanks contends that this psalm is a prophecy of the church and concludes that “the psalmist prophesied that there would be the players on instruments as well as the singers in the church.” Does his conclusion follow? No!

If this passage is a prophecy of the church, the prophet is using the symbolism of Levitical worship to foretell worship in the Christian era. This occurred on many occasions. We should no more conclude that players of mechanical instruments are a part of the worship of the New Testament church than we conclude that animal sacrifices were a part of its worship, based on this argument.

Isaiah 66:12-24 is a similar prophecy of the church age. Isaiah describes the “new heavens and new earth” when God’s mercy is extended to the Gentiles. In speaking of extending his mercy to the Gentiles, Isaiah revealed God to say, “And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord” (Isa. 66:21).

If brother Eubanks can find instrumental music in Psalm 87, he should have no trouble authorizing a distinct priesthood – a clergy – on the basis of the prophecy in Isaiah 66:21. Yet, I am confident that brother Eubanks would join me in rejecting a priesthood and tell our Catholic friends that what was authorized in the Old Testament is not necessarily authorized in the New Testament. Rather, God was using the language of Old Testament worship to describe divine blessings under the New Covenant. If he can understand this about the Levitical priesthood, he surely can see that the same will apply to his argument based on Psalm 87.

Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3.16

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord (Eph. 5:19).

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord (Col. 3:16).

Brother Eubanks argues that the Greek noun psalmos (psalm) in these passages refers to songs sung to instrumental accompaniment. He also argued that the Greek verb psallo, used in Ephesians 5:19 (make melody) and in James 5:13 (sing psalms) means to “pluck or twang an instrument of music.” What Greek authorities did he quote to prove this? What are his Greek credentials that justify the translation. There is no standard English translation which has ever translated psalmos a song sung to instrumental music. (For a thorough discussion of the psallolpsalmos argument one should read the Boswell-Hardeman Discussion on Instrumental Music in Worship. This argument has been answered on many occasions, but our Christian Church brethren continue to make the argument which, as I shall notice later, even brother Eubanks does not believe to be conclusive.)

He appeals for the instrument not to be made a test of fellowship by saying the scholars are disagreed. (In this respect, he reminds me of some of our brethren who have called for tolerance on the matter of unscriptural divorce and remarriage on the same basis – scholars are disagreed.) I am confident that brother Eubanks is aware that scholars are disagreed on whether or not baptism is for remission of sins and whether or not sprinkling or pouring constitute baptism. Does the fact that scholars are disagreed on these subjects mean that he is willing to treat the action and subject of water baptism as matters which should not be made tests of fellowship? Is he ready to accept the pious unimmersed, to show forbearance on this issue because the scholars are disagreed?

Furthermore, the argument that psalmos and psallo are defined to mean “a song sung to the accompaniment of an instrument” and “to twang an instrument” proves more than he wants it to prove. The argument implies that musical instruments are inherent in the meaning of the words. In a similar manner we both agree that “immersion” is the inherent meaning of the noun baptisma and the verb baptizo. Believing that “immersion” is inherent in the meaning of this noun and its verbal cognate, we assert that Bible baptism is immersion in water. Neither of us is willing to say that sprinkling or pouring can be accepted because of the meaning of the word. If brother Eubanks is correct that psalmos and psallo mean to sing a song to the accompaniment of an instrument of music, the use of that instrument is not optional – no more so than immersion is an optional way to baptize. If the words mean to “sing to the accompaniment of an instrument,” men are guilty of sin who do not use an instrument when they sing. They cannot obey the command to sing a psalm or “make melody in their hearts” without an instrument of music if the instrument inheres in the meaning of the words psalmos and psallo.

This conclusion would mean that the church was guilty of sin for 670 years for not using the instrument of music in worship. This would mean that any church today which does not use mechanical instruments of music in their worship is guilty of sin. If brother Eubanks does not accept this conclusion, he does not really believe that one must have an instrument to sing a psalm (psalmos) or to psallo!

The Argument Is Inconclusive

After making the argument that the instrument inheres in the meaning of these words, brother Eubanks then says, “From my study, I would say that the arguments on both sides are inconclusive.” I appreciate his honesty. This statement is an admission that the evidences to prove that psallo and psalmos include the instrument in the meaning of the word are insufficient to sustain the affirmation. He is correct in this.

However, he now has a problem for himself. Inasmuch as he has admitted that the evidence is inconclusive, he cannot affirm that he is acting byJaith when he uses an instrument. He is in the same position as the man who admits that he cannot prove for certain that sprinkling and pouring are accepted for baptism. To act by faith means that one has clear and plain authority from the Bible to sustain his practice. But, brother Eubanks has admitted that “the arguments on both sides are inconclusive.” He therefore has implied that he cannot “walk by faith” in using mechanical instruments of music in his worship. There remains an element of doubt, even in his own mind, whether or not God approves of instrumental music in worship. This is precisely the situation Paul had in mind when he said, “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Having this self-confessed doubt, brother Eubanks is obligated not to practice what he cannot do with full, assurance of faith.

He also says that the argument against using instruments of music in worship is inconclusive. That is fine, but my practice does not obligate me to prove that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is unscriptural. The man who uses the instrument must prove his practice. In the absence of positive divine authority, mechanical instruments of music stand on the same basis as sprinkling, infant baptism, salvation by faith only, and other unauthorized practices. If brother Eubanks fails to provide conclusive affirmative authority for his practice, which he admits he cannot do (“the arguments are inconclusive”), the practice stands condemned as unscriptural by default.

Is Singing A Part of Corporate Worship?

Brother Eubanks questions whether or not singing is authorized as a part of corporate worship. If he doubts that singing is a part of corporate worship, why does he have singing in his worship? If the Bible does not authorize singing in corporate worship, the logical conclusion is “don’t sing in worship.” However, brother Eubanks’ conclusion is this: since we can’t even prove that singing is a part of corporate worship, we also can use mechanical instruments of music when we sing. How that conclusion follows from the premise, I do not understand.

Is brother Eubanks arguing there is no pattern for worship? If there is no pattern for worship, there can be no violation -no sinful kind of worship (Rom. 4:15). If there are no patterns for worship, then idolatry is just as acceptable in worship as any other kind of worship. If there is no pattern for worship, there is no obligation to partake the Lord’s supper on the first day of every week. If there is no pattern for worship, there is no violation in a church raising funds through taking collections on days other than the Lord’s day or through fund raising schemes (cake walks, car washes, Las Vegas nights, Bingo games, and such like activities).

Is An Instrument An Aid?

Next brother Eubanks affirms that mechanical instruments of music in worship are aids to singing just like songbooks are. The shift in our brother’s argument which says that the instrument of music is an aid to singing contradicts his previous argument that the Bible commands instruments of music in worship, based on the meanings of psalmos and psallo. Both positions cannot be true.

But brother Eubanks, what are instruments of music “aiding” when they are being played during the partaking ,of the Lord’s supper, the taking of a collection, and the offering of the invitation? When a brass band from one of the Christian colleges performs at the Sunday evening worship services, what are they “aiding”? They surely are not aiding the singing for singing is not being done during these parts of the worship.

Playing an instrument is another kind of music, it is not an aid to singing. When we use a songbook as an aid to singing, we are still just singing. When we use a tuning fork to get the first note, we still are just singing. However, when we introduce mechanical instruments of music in worship we have introduced another kind of music – a kind for which there is no authority.

Departure From The Restoration Plea

Brother Eubanks affirms that making the use of mechanical instruments of music a test of fellowship is a departure from a fundamental premise of the restoration plea. That plea was this: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” Let me unequivocally state that I believe this restoration plea because it affirms the teaching of 1 Peter 4:11 – “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” It expresses the teaching of 2 John 9 – “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.”

Brother Eubanks has misused the slogan and the Bible passages on which the slogan is based. Brother Eubanks is using the plea in this manner: the Scriptures are silent in condemning the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship; therefore, we can use them in worship and you brethren should be silent in opposing us for using them. Brother Eubanks is surely aware that the Scriptures also are silent about infant baptism. There is no Scripture which says, “Thou shalt not practice infant baptism.” Is he guilty of violating the restoration plea when he opposes infant baptism?

Brother Eubanks understands what “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent” means when it comes to infant baptism and sprinkling for baptism. He understands that since there is no Bible authority for either of these practices they should not be practiced in the church. He believes he is standing foresquare on the word of God when he opposes these practices, even though the Bible is silent about both practices. Why does he have trouble understanding what “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent” means when it comes to another subject on which the Scriptures are equally silent – namely, using mechanical instruments of music in worship?

Romans 14 and Unity in Diversity

Brother Eubanks thinks that the mechanical instrument of music should be treated on the same basis as eating of meats and observing of days in Romans 14. (He is like some of my brethren who want to place Matthew 19:9 in the category of things discussed in Romans 14.) Both are placing matters of “the faith” in the category of matters which are “indifferent.”

To clear brother Eubanks’ thinking on Romans 14, let me suggest that he. put the matter of receiving the pious unimmersed in the category of Romans 14. Is he willing to say that receiving the pious unimmersed falls into the category of things under discussion in Romans 14? Here are some others things we suggest he might want to apply Romans 14 to:

1. The kinds of instruments of music he will accept in their worship. Is our brother ready to accept a full band with every kind of instrument or will he limit the instruments to be used to a piano and organ?

2. The kinds of music these groups can sing. Is he ready to accept the hard rock groups (such as Petra), in addition to his contemporary, southern, and bluegrass gospel music?

3. The restructuring movement of the Disciples of Christ.

4. Supporting of missionaries through the United Christian Missionary Society.

5. The belief that inspiration did not protect the writers of the Bible from doctrinal error, much less historical and geographical errors.

6. The belief that Paul’s instructions about the role of women was culturally influenced rather than divinely revealed. Is brother Eubanks ready to accept women preachers, women singing solos, and leading singing?

7. That homosexuals should be allowed to serve as ministers.

Is our good brother ready to apply the guidelines of Romans 14 to these areas over which he disagreed with his Christian Church and Disciples of Christ brethren? If not, why not?

The things discussed in Romans 14 must fit the criteria mentioned in the chapter. Here are some the things said in the chapter:

The Lord will receive a person whether or not he practices the matter under discussion (14:3).

The matter must be done “unto the Lord” (14:6).

The matter must be “good” (14:16).

The matter must be “pure” (14:20).

The matter is not wrong if it is practiced with a clear conscience (14:23).

These things are not true of unauthorized matters. These things cannot be said of a man who divorces his mate for some reason other than fornication and marries another, the one who teaches salvation by faith only and who receives the pious unimmersed, or the one who uses mechanical instruments of music in worship. These things can only be said of things which are authorized of God but not required. Before Romans 14 can be applied, one must first prove his practice is authorized of God. Applying Romans 14 indiscriminately to every matter over which brethren are disagreed leads to the acceptance, tolerance, and fellowship of sin.

Hijacking the Restoration Leaders

Brother Eubanks quoted from Thomas Campbell and J.W. McGarvey as if these brethren agreed with him on instrumental music in worship. In both cases he misrepresented the men.

In the Declaration and Address, brother Campbell wrote, “Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word: yet they are not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so.” How did brother Campbell apply this with reference to infant baptism? Did this mean, as brother Eubanks says with reference to instrumental music, that one should not judge the man who was sprinkled as an infant? How does brother Eubanks treat the one who chooses to call himself reverend, and who wishes to organize the church in a restructuring movement to become a fully organized denomination? Thomas Campbell never meant what brother Eubanks interprets this statement to mean.

Campbell’s understanding of his statement in Declaration and Address is illustrated by his approach to infant baptism. The Campbells held that “all matters not distinctly revealed in the Bible should be held as matters of opinion and of mutual forbearance.” In a sermon laying out the basis for unity, Thomas Campbell said, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” Having concluded his sermon, Andrew Munro said, “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.” Campbell replied, “Of course, if infant baptism be not found in Scripture, we can have nothing to do with it” (see Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell 1:235-238).

The Scriptures included everything which should be practiced and taught, and excluded everything else. The silence of the Scripture was not viewed as opening the door to many unauthorized practices, but as closing the door to all of them.

In relating what brother J.W. McGarvey said and practiced about instrumental music, one cannot ignore his statement at the end of his life. J.W. McGarvey said to J.P. Sewell in 1902,

You are on the right road, and whatever you do, don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinctions between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches to every young preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of those men who are preaching the truth today. It won’t work” (J.P. Sewell, “Biographical Sketches of Restoration Preachers,” Harding College Lectures, 1950, p. 75).

What Thomas Campbell and J.W. McGarvey practiced mean nothing to me, so far as establishing Bible authority is concerned. What Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude said is all that matters. However, I hate to see good men misrepresented, as brother Eubanks has done to Campbell and McGarvey. He is like the Disciples of Christ brethren who use the Lunenberg letter to show what Alexander Campbell believed about baptism.

Instrumental Music in Worship Is Not All of the Problem

Brother Eubanks might be writing under the impression that fellowship could be restored if we could work through the impasse of instrumental music in worship. He needs to understand that instrumental music is just one among many items which his brethren are practicing to which we object. The Independent Christian Churches are also involved in these other unauthorized practices:

Observing unauthorized holy days (Christmas, Easter)

Church operated schools (kindergartens through colleges)

Using entertainment to draw a crowd

Having quartets, solos, and other singing groups to draw a crowd

Having church support of human institutions (such as missionary societies, orphan homes, old folks homes, unwed mothers homes, colleges, national conventions [the NACCI).

Building gymnasiums, fellowship halls, etc.

Having college bands present programs at the evening worship hour in the building

Allowing women speakers to address assemblies with men present, sing solos, lead singing

Raising funds through methods in addition to the first day of the week contribution (one local Christian Church had a “kingdom circus”)

Loose views on the Holy Spirit (personal indwelling that results in the Lord revealing his will separate and apart from the Bible)

Pentecostal worship practices (hand clapping, handraising, dancing)

National Convention of Christian Churches

Extending fellowship to the Churches of God (Anderson, IN) and Disciples of Christ (Disciples of Christ in Renewal)

Taking the Lord’s Supper on days other than the first day of the week

The Independent Christian Churches distinguish themselves from the Disciples of Christ, making objection to modernism in the Disciples. A formal separation of the two groups occurred in 1968 when the Disciples of Christ restructured their denomination (fellowship between the two groups was broken years before then). There is little fellowship between the two groups, the more conservative Independent Christian Church opposing the more liberal Disciples of Christ. Here are some of the issues to which they object:

Receiving the pious unimmersed

Denial of miracles

Inspiration of the Scriptures

Appointing homosexuals as preachers

Ecumenism

The Disciples of Christ have moved into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism; the Independent Christian Churches are still in the shallow areas of the stream. They object to the “liberalism” they see in the Disciples of Christ. None of brother Eubanks’ arguments and appeals for unity based on Romans 14 have any application to his Disciples of Christ brethren! What brother Eubanks fails to understand is that these developments of liberalism (liberalism which even he admits exists among the Disciples of Christ) spring from the loose view of authority of the Scriptures which was manifested in the introducing of mechanical instruments of music in worship and church supported missionary societies. The seeds of liberalism left unremoved will produce the same fruit over and over again.

Brother Eubanks recognizes the importance of the differences between us, saying, “We must resist legalistic attitudes in which some Christians try to bind the consciences of other believers over matters that are not essentials, for which there is not a clear ‘thus saith the Lord.”‘ I join brother Eubanks in opposing anything which is bound on Christians for which there is no “thus saith the Lord,” especially do I oppose those who bind using instruments of music in worship when there is no “thus saith the Lord” to justify their use in worship.

However, what he calls “legalistic attitudes” is our appeal for “pattern authority.” Both brother Eubanks and I recognize that we have a significant difference in our approach to determining what is authorized of God, which has led us in different directions. We can never attain the “unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:1-3) without reaching the point that we “speak the same thing” (1 Cor. 1:10). Let us open our Bibles to openly discuss these differences, manifesting the attitudes necessary for unity that we might attain and maintain the unity for which Jesus prayed (Eph. 4:1-3; Jn. 17:20-21). We are prepared to meet with our brother wherever and whenever possible to pursue the unity of the Spirit.

We have no interest is ecumenism, unity-in-diversity, union or any other kind of unscriptural plan of unity. We shall resist it on the same grounds as we reject infant baptism, the papacy, denominational organization, and other unscriptural activities.

In the meantime, we must be faithful to our perception of what the Word of God teaches. Therefore, we shall continue to oppose the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship as an unauthorized addition to the worship of God based on the authority and tradition of men which makes worship vain (see Mk. 7:1-13).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 146-150
March 5, 1992

By Andy Alexander

In the fourth chapter of the book of John we find Jesus speaking with a woman from Samaria. In the course of this discussion Jesus informs this woman that “true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:23). We can deduce from this that those who do not worship in spirit and in truth are false worshipers, The idea that God will accept any and every form or activity that is offered as worship is entirely foreign to the Scriptures.

God seeks people to worship him who will do so in spirit and in truth. Jesus promised his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn. 4:24; 16:13). The New Testament is the complete will of God and it contains all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3). The only place that we can find worship that is pleasing and acceptable to God is going to be in the New Testament. Anything that is added to the worship that is found in the New Testament cannot be according to truth.

God Does Not Accept All That Is Offered As Worship

The fact that God does not accept everything that is offered as worship is forcefully demonstrated in the Bible. Nadab and Abihu are two men who took it upon themselves to after the form of worship which God had delivered and “fire went out from the Lord” and devoured these two men as a lesson that he is to be sanctified by those who come near him (Lev. 10:1-3). The worship of the Pharisees was in vain because the traditions and commandments of men had perverted the true worship which God would accept (Matt. 15:1-9). The worship of the woman at the well in Samaria was in ignorance and the Lord pointed her in the right direction (Jn. 4:21-24). These are enough examples to prove the point that all worship is not acceptable with God, but only worship which conforms to the pattern given by him in his word. We must have authority from God for everything that we do in worship and it must be offered from a willing heart (Jn. 4:24).

We find authority in the Bible for five specific acts of worship: singing (Eph. 5:19), partaking of the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-26), giving on the first day of every week as prospered (I Cor. 16:1-2), teaching God’s word and praying (Acts 2:42). Those who are familiar with the Lord’s church know that instrumental music is not part of the worship of the church which we read about in our New Testament; therefore, we do not use instrumental music because such would pervert the worship which God has authorized and cause it to be unacceptable in his sight. Just as we could not acceptably add honey butter to the Lord’s Supper to make the bread more desirable to our taste, we cannot add instrumental music to our singing to make it more pleasing to our ears. We honor and obey God by obeying his will in our worship services.

This same appeal to the Scriptures must be followed when teaching someone the plan of salvation. God has revealed in very clear and distinct language the conditions we must meet in order to be saved. We are not saved and added to the Lord’s body until we meet each and every condition which God has given in the gospel. We must believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that God raised him from the dead, confess our faith in Christ, repent of our sins, and be baptized for the remission of our sins (Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 2:38). When we are obedient to these conditions the Lords adds us to his body (Acts 2:47). These conditions are absolute and we either have obeyed them or we have not. We are either saved or lost, there is no middle ground. After obedience to these conditions we either worship God according to his will or we do not. Just as the acts of worship of the first century church are specific, the conditions of salvation are specific and we either obey our Lord in these matters or we do not. Obedience is absolutely necessary in order to please God (Heb. 5:9).

A Pattern for All Things

Just as God has given a pattern for the worship of the church and a pattern for entrance into the church, he has given a pattern for the work of the church. The church falls into apostasy when it violates the pattern which God has given. There is authority for the local church to help needy saints and support the teaching of the gospel from its treasury (Acts 6:1-7; 11:27-30; 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:14-16). Another part of the work of the local church which does not concern the treasury is that of corrective discipline. The church is commanded to withdraw from those members who are walking disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6-15).

There are numerous congregations in this country, state, county, and even this city which are in apostasy because they have added to the work of the church things which God has not authorized. We call churches which handle God’s word in such an irreverent manner apostate, liberal, or digressive. There are congregations which have not burdened the church down with unscriptural works, but are guilty of treating the word of God in an unholy or unsanctified manner by avoiding or ignoring God’s teaching on corrective discipline, allowing worldliness to take over the flock, disregarding the qualifications laid down in the Scriptures concerning the elders, or some other such departure from the truth. If all the members of a church such as this are content and not working to bring about repentance, then this church would be as digressive as those which have added unscriptural practices to the work. We must be obedient to God in all things (Jas. 2:10).

Fairlane Day Care Center

The Fairlane Church of Christ owns and operates the Fairlane Christian School as a separate corporation from the church. Their recent bulletin (10-18-90) states that “the elders have the final say in matters pertaining to the school” and the church provides the building without charge to the school. This seems like such a good work since there are many families in which both parents must work that quality day care is needed for their children. There are so many good things that can be said about a day care program such as the one run by the Fairlane Church of Christ, but where is the Scripture that gives the authority for the Lord’s church to own and operate a day care center _________? Just fill in the blank if such a Scripture exists.

Authority From God for All That We Do

The church has authority to build a building to teach the gospel because Jesus commands that we assemble to edify one another (Heb. 10:25). But, where is the command for the church to own and operate any business? Someone says, “Well they are not charging for the building and it would just sit there empty all week, so what’s the harm?” Could the church allow one of the deacons to operate a “Christian” car business out of one of the classrooms? How about one of the ladies operating a “Christian” travel agency out of another? Well, we could have a “Christian” minimall on the church property during the week. What’s missing in all of this is authority! We must have authority for everything that we do. “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17).

Should One Leave an Apostate Church?

The question might come to mind, “Can I serve God acceptably in an apostate church, even though I don’t agree with the unscriptural practices that are going on?” We might ask, “What is the reason that one would stay in a church that is going beyond what is written in the New Testament?” Is an active effort being made to correct and bring to repentance those who are in error? We are to “prove all things” and to “hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). Are we searching the Scriptures daily as did the Bereans in Acts 17:11 to verify everything that we are taught and are practicing as a body? As Christians, we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God and we are to be ready at all times to give those who ask an answer for the hope that lies within us (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 3:15).

Every Christian in every congregation is to study for himself to make sure that he is in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). If a congregation decides to add to the worship some form of entertainment, such as choirs or instrumental music, then those who are loyal to God must stand in opposition to these unauthorized practices. If they drift along with the crowd and blame the elders or preacher for these innovations but do nothing to prevent them from being added, they are in sin as much as the elders or preacher who brought them in. Apathy is the cause for many people remaining in a local congregation when they know that it is engaged in practices which are unknown to the New Testament. Ignorance is another cause but if we are obedient to God’s command to grow in knowledge then we will study our way out of error. Those who are faithfully following God cannot remain silent in a digressive church.

In Revelation 2 and 3 there are admonitions by our Lord to the seven churches of Asia to be zealous and repent (Rev. 2:5,16,22; 3:3,19). He said to the church of Ephesus, “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.” This was a church with many good qualities for which Christ commended them, but they were in danger of losing their candlestick unless they repented.

If we are in an apostate church and doing nothing to bring about its repentance then we are in sin and danger of condemnation. If we attempt to teach the truth to bring about repentance and are silenced or commanded not to speak on these matters then there is only one recourse and that is to leave and serve God in a congregation that respects the authority of the Scriptures. If a congregation cannot be found in a given area, then a new work should be established so that others may hear the gospel and be able to meet with those of like precious faith to serve God.

Why Don’t Some Who Know Better Speak Out Against Apostasy?

We have already noticed apathy and ignorance as reasons why some Christians do not oppose sinful practices in the local church. But, another reason that may keep us from going to the elders or men of the congregation and calling for repentance is sin in our own life. We know that we are not living as we ought to live and that if we point to some problem that needs correction and urge repentance, others may well point to us and say, “Who are you to tell us we need to repent?” Possibly we have allowed worldliness to infiltrate into our lives or we do not faithfully assemble with the saints as we are commanded to do or some other sin that is apparent and we know that we cannot be the one to lead others to repentance. The solution to this sin is to repent and admit the error or errors that we have been guilty of and then press on in the battle for truth (1 Jn. 1:9; Acts 8:22).

God will not overlook sin in our private life or the sins we commit or participate in as a congregation. Repentance is necessary in both cases if we are to be saved. Those in the first century who were commanded not to speak prayed to God for courage and then went out and taught the world the gospel (Acts 4:29-31). Let us do exactly what God commands in every facet of our service to him, both individually and as a congregation of the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 134-135
March 5, 1992

By Frank Jamerson

During the first century, the apostles and others were given miraculous powers. They could heal the sick, raise the dead, strike men blind, drink deadly poison, take up serpents, etc. Do men today have these powers? No, they simply try to mimic some of the signs that the apostles did. The contrast between apostolic powers and the pretended powers of men today are clear.

1. The apostles were given the commission to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:15,16). They went forth and taught the gospel, including these terms of pardon, and “confirmed the word through the accompanying signs” (Mk. 16:20). Faith healers today teach that men are saved by faith without baptism. Is God confirming their doctrine? If so, he is contradicting what he confirmed through the apostles!

Paul taught that two things were essential to be “of Christ”: (1) Christ crucified and (2) baptism in his name (1 Cor. 1:10-13). A person could as reasonably argue that men were Christians before Christ died (as the Mormons do, Alma 46:15) as they could that men are Christians before they are baptized into Christ. I have never met a “faith healer” who believed what Christ or Paul taught about what we must do to be saved.

2. Faith was not always required on the part of the one upon whom a miracle was performed. The man who had been sick for thirty-eight years was healed by Jesus before he knew who Jesus was (Jn. 5:5-15). The blind man that Jesus healed did not know who Jesus was until after he was healed (Jn. 9:35-38). Elymas, the sorcerer, was struck blind for a season by Paul. He certainly did not have to believe that Paul could do this before it became a fact! (Acts 13:8-12) Dorcas was raised from the dead by Peter (Acts 9:36-41). Eutychus was raised by the apostle Paul (Acts 20:9-12). How much faith did these dead people have? Faith healers today cannot do anything unless the person seeking the “miracle” believes in them. They are operating on the principle of the power of suggestion, not the power of God. If a person’s sickness is imagined, they can help him, but the person must “believe” before he can be helped by them.

3. A man may have faith and not be healed. Faith healers often say that a person could have been healed if he “really had the faith.” What does this say for the apostle Paul? He prayed three times that the “thorn in the flesh” be removed, and God did not do it (2 Cor. 12:7-9). Did he have enough faith? Do people today have more faith than Paul had? No, miraculous healing was not necessarily connected with a person’s faith. “If you have enough faith, you can be healed” is not true, and never has been!

4. When Jesus and the apostles performed miracles, even their enemies had to admit that a miracle had been performed (see Matt. 12:13,14; Acts 4:16; 16:18,19). Those who were healed immediately received their sight, or health and there was no question about the miracle. Faith healers today emphasize faith and gradual improvement while they receive contributions from people who believe that they have some miraculous power.

The contrast between faith healers today and miraculous healing in the first century is too sharp to be missed by those who will look honestly at the evidence. Men today do not have power to strike opposers blind, to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, heal an ear that has been cut off or make the lame walk. The miraculous age ended when the “perfect law of liberty” was revealed and confirmed (1 Cor. 13:8-10; Jas. 1:25). The miracles written are sufficient to produce faith in Christ to the saving of the soul (Jn. 20:30,31). There is no new Savior, nor new revelation; therefore, the miracles that confirmed Christ and his message are not needed today.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, p. 136
March 5, 1992

By Mark Mayberry

Introduction

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,

And our hearts, though stout and brave,

Still, like muffled drums, are beating

Funeral marches to the grave.

Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant!

Let the dead Past bury its dead!

Act, – act in the living Present!

Heart within, and God o’erhead!

Lives of great men all remind us

We can make our lives sublime,

And, departing, leave behind us

Footprints on the sands of time.

Let us, then, be up and doing,

With a heart for any fate;

Still achieving, still pursuing,

Learn to labor and to wait.(1)

Sacred history is filled with examples of those who waited on the Lord. Who could forget Noah? Though he lived in a desperately corrupt society, yet Noah walked with God. As a result, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and God promised to save him from the coming flood. Noah waited patiently on God for 120 years while the ark was under construction (Gen. 6:3,8-9,22; Heb. 11:7). Consider the example of Job. God allowed Satan to test the faith of this righteous man. As a result, Job lost all that he had: his possessions, his family, and his health. Yet, he waited on the Lord (Job 1:13-22; 2:7-10; 14:14). Ponder the faith of Abraham. God called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees when he was 75 years old. Abraham obeyed God and went out, not knowing where he was going. He wandered in the land of Canaan as a stranger and sojourner for 100 years. When Abraham finally died at the age of 175, he still had no permanent dwelling place. He continued to look for the city of God (Heb. 11:8-10).

At the age of 40, Moses was in the prime of manhood when he slew the Egyptian who was mistreating an Israelite slave. Thinking he was ready for leadership, Moses took matters into his own hands. He mistakenly tried to do God’s will in his own way. The Lord would eventually use Moses to deliver the nation of Israel from Egyptian captivity, but he was not yet up to the job. At this point, his actions were rash, reckless and premature. When his deed was known, Moses fled from Egypt and became a shepherd in the wilderness (Exod. 2:11-15). Forty years he wandered and waited, forgotten and forsaken. Finally, when he was 80 years old, God called Moses from the burning bush. By then he had lost the bravado of his youth. He had lost the will to dare and to do. Yet, God was now ready to use Moses. It is not our strength, but God’s that wins the victory. He alone is able to deliver (Exod. 3:1-12).

By the power of God, Moses challenged Pharaoh. Through successive plagues, he demonstrated that Jehovah God was greater than the so-called gods of Egypt. Finally, with his nation devastated and in ruins, Pharaoh allowed the Israelites to leave Egypt. Yet, soon afterwards he changed his mind and pursued the Israelites. When the people saw the Egyptian army advancing upon them, they cried out in fear. Yet, Moses said, “Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord” (Exod. 14:13). When all hope seemed lost, Moses fell back on his basic plan: he waited on the Lord.

The Bible holds many other examples of those who waited on God. Great believers are unwearied waiters. Aged Simeon, who met Joseph and Mary when they brought the Christ child to the temple, waited for the consolation of Israel (Lk. 2:25). Joseph of Arimathaea, who went before Pilate and begged for the body of Jesus, waited for the kingdom of God (Mk. 15:43). The time would fail for us to talk of Gideon, David, Samuel, and the prophets. These great men and women of faith accomplished much, endured much, suffered much. Yet, they never fully realized the promises of God (Heb. 11:33-40). They lived and died waiting on the Lord.

Disciples of the Lord must be committed to waiting! (Psa. 33:20; 62:1-2; Isa. 33:2) We are most pleasing to God when we wait upon him. But what does it mean to wait on the Lord? Many think it implies a wholly passive attitude. Yet, saints cannot sit around twiddling our thumbs and be pleasing to God. Waiting on the Lord implies an attitude of confident assurance, patient endurance, steadfast hope, and willing obedience.

A. Confident Assurance.

Because God is the Sovereign Creator of the universe, we need never fear. Let us not be worried or anxious, disturbed or distressed. Be not filled with panic or fear, terror or trepidation. God delivers those who trust in him. As George Muller said, “The beginning of anxiety is the end of faith, and the beginning of true faith is the end of anxiety.”(2) Our heavenly father is dependable and trustworthy; he is our rock and our redeemer. Therefore, let us wait on him with complete trust and total confidence (Psa. 18:1-2; 20:7-8; 37:3-5; 125:1-2).

It is one thing to say, “We must wait on God.” It is quite another thing to actually do it. Our professional expertise often gets in the way. We consider ourselves talented, intelligent and resourceful. People often trust in themselves and discount the need for God’s assistance. They think, “I can get by very well on my own, thank you!”

Yet, it is imperative that we recognize the difference between human frailty and divine strength. In contrast with God’s omnipotent power, our strength indeed is small. In comparison with God’s eternity, our days on earth are fleeting. The span of our years is as nothing. The works of our hands shall not endure. Understanding our own incapability, let us therefore wait on God (Psa. 27:13-14; 39:4-7; Prov. 3:5-6).

We lack both stamina and strength, but God’s might is never diminished from weariness or fatigue. We must learn to exchange our weakness for his strength (Isa. 40:28-31). His grace is sufficient to meet our needs. When I collapse with fatigue, he faints not. When I’ve tried and failed, he lifts me up and quietly encourages me to try again. When I, like the prophet of old, grow weary and think of quitting, he never wearies or gives up on me. Instead, he renews me with his strength. He enables me to overcome all obstacles. He empowers me to rise up on the wings of eagles. He does for me what I cannot do for myself. He liberally supplies my every need. Thus, I am not partially, but wholly, dependent upon God.

B. Patient Endurance.

Waiting is the rule rather than the exception. Life is filled with red lights. We are repeatedly told to “Stop!” “Stop!” “Stop!” Occasionally life has a burst of green lights. When you have an open door, Go! Grasp the opportunity. Seize the moment! Yet, understand that the rest of the time, we must wait. Be patient. Be stedfast. Be willing to operate of God’s time schedule rather than our own. As George Macdonald once said, “The principal part of faith is patience.”(3)

First, we need the ability to “Keep on keeping on.” We must be willing to persevere, to endure adversity and hardship. Life inevitably has its difficulties and trials. Patience enables us to stand up under pressure. It is the staying power of life. It gives us the tenacity to see things through to the end. It helps us remain steadfast regardless of life’s circumstances. At times our situation may seem dark and hopeless, but patience doesn’t admit defeat or throw up its hands in despair. It doesn’t become discouraged or bitter. Rather, it helps us react properly to the challenges of life (Jas. 1:2-4; Heb. 12:1). The Bible teaches that God delivers those who wait patiently upon him (Psa. 40:1-3). Those who look to God are saved from the overwhelming flood (Psa. 69:13).

Second, we must not be troubled by the apparent injustices in life. It is easy to become outraged at life’s inequities. Nothing is so finely felt as unfairness. At times, we may be tempted to take matters into our own hands. Yet, we must not recompense evil for evil. God will set all things right. He will vindicate the righteous and punish the wayward. Wait on the Lord! (Psa. 37:7-9; Prov. 20:22)

Finally, let us never forget that Christian faith looks beyond this life to the next. It anticipates the Lord’s return. Faithful disciples of Christ patiently await the coming of their Lord and Master (1 Cor. 1:7; 1 Thess. 1: 9-10; 2 Thess. 3:5).

C. Steadfast Hope.

The writer of Hebrews likens hope unto the anchor of a ship (Heb. 6:17-20). Storms may rage, billows may rise, but so long as the anchor holds, the ship is safe. So it is with the Christian. The anchor of a ship is cast downward into the murky waters of the deep, but the hope of a Christian is cast upward into the celestial waters of heaven.

As someone once said, “Eternity is the divine treasure house, and hope is the window, by means of which mortals are permitted to see, as through a glass darkly, the things which God is preparing.”(4) As the people of God, we have been given exceedingly great and precious promises. Our hope of realizing these promises is anchored in the very character of God. Therefore, let us wait on the Lord with sure expectation and stedfast hope (Psa. 130:5-7; Rom. 8:2325; Gal. 5:5).

D. Willing Obedience.

Sinners do not wait on God’s counsel (Psa. 106:13), but the faithful observe and obev Heaven’s will. Waiting implies a listening ear. It describes a heart responsive to the will of God. It is displayed in the attitude of Cornelius, his kinsmen and near friends, who eagerly awaited apostolic guidance (Act 10:24,33). Let us meditate upon God’s word and open our hearts to his truth. Let us heed God’s wisdom and instruction (Prov. 8:33-35).

Waiting also implies service. Christians must be submissive and obedient to heaven’s will. George Eliot once said, “It is vain thought to flee from the work that God appoints us, for the sake of finding a greater blessing, instead of seeking it where alone it is to be found – in loving obedience.”(5) The life of Christ is a pattern of patient obedience (Jn. 4:34; 6:38; Heb. 5:8-9). Following his example, let us be ready to obey and willing to serve (Num. 3:10; Rom. 12:6-8).

Conclusion

Most of us would rather do anything than wait. In our “hurry up and wait” society, we rush to the doctor’s office and then wait for two hours. We hurry to work only to get stuck in traffic. For this reason, waiting carries certain negative connotations. Yet, as the saying goes, “Good things come to those who wait.” This is especially true regarding those who wait on God (Lam. 3:25-26). Untold blessings are reserved for those who wait on him (Isa. 64:4; Prov. 37:9).

Endnotes

1. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, [1807-18821, “A Psalm of Life,” Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Knowledge Index Quotations Database (REFI), (Oxford University Press, 1979), Downloaded Sept. 29, 1990.

2. George Muller, Signs of the Times, quoted in Frank S. Mead, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1965), p. 135.

3. George Macdonald, Weighed and Wanting, quoted in Frank S. Mead, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1965), p. 135.

4. William Montford, quoted in Frank S. Mead, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1965), p. 234.

5. George Eliot, quoted in Frank S. Mead, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1965), p. 320.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 138-140
March 5, 1992