Truth Magazine

By David V. Hurst

Imitations exist today on every hand; imitation gold, imitation leather, imitation flavors, the list is endless. The same thing is true of religion. We are aware that imitation religions exist on every street corner. However, is it possible that in the pews of those who call themselves after Christ, that imitations are there as well?

Self-examination is critical for the faithful child of God. He must continually scrutinize his life to avoid having a counterfeit faith. The genuine believer is not content with “occupying space” in a building during Sunday mornings but pursues his desire to be a “real” Christian. Peter offers tangible suggestions whereby we can confirm our claim as a believer in God (1 Pet. 1). Let us study these together as we remember the admonition of Paul, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves” (2 Cor. 13:5, NIV). How may we distinguish the “genuine” from the “imitation”? What are characteristics and attitudes of the genuine believer?

The genuine believer in God is sanctified by the Spirit of God. “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied” (KJV 1 Pet. 1:2). The idea of being sanctified is that one is set apart for the special purpose of glorifying God. How is this accomplished?

The apostles were told to preach “repentance and forgiveness” when the power of the Spirit came (Luke 24:46-49). That power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8) came in Acts 2 after which men were baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Therefore, they were then set apart from the world; that is, they received the sanctification of the Spirit (Acts 2:47).

The genuine believer in God is a redeemed person through the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:2,18,19). He had been a slave to sin (Rom. 6:16-18) but now is made free (Jn. 8:32) by the blood of Christ. As a former slave, he appreciates the ransom paid to set him free!

The genuine believer calls upon God with the knowledge that his father will judge him in the last day (1 Pet. 1:17). His prayers are serious. One does not fool God. “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things (are) naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13, KJV).

The genuine believer in God is a child of obedience (1 Pet. 1:2,14). When one thinks of a child, it will have certain characteristics depending upon its parents. For example, the “child” of a dog will most likely bark, have a tail and four legs. “Children” of obedience are those whose “habit” and “characteristics” coincide with being “doers of the word, and not hearers only” (Jas. 1:22).

The genuine believer has his loins gird about with truth (1 Pet. 1:13; cf. Eph. 6:14). This is the figure of one who takes the long flowing garment he is wearing and tucks up its fullness into his waste belt so it will not hinder him in his task. He is preparing himself for the toil ahead. He is diligent in preparation (2 Tim. 2:15, ASV).

The genuine believer is one who endeavors to be holy as God is holy (1 Pet. 1:15,16). This is the intent of the religion of Christ. Our aspirations are to think, talk, and act like God. With each passing day we progress closer to being perfect as God is perfect and to being pure as God is pure. We yearn to allow God to live through us (Gal. 2:20).

The genuine believer possesses a living hope which anchors his life (1 Pet. 1:3). Without this, one will not fight as hard as he should (Rev. 2:10). This is the major thrust of the entire epistle of 1 Peter.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 462-463
August 1, 1991

The genuine believer does not fashion his life through the lusts of this world in ignorance (I Pet. 1: 14). The way one talks, dresses and even his entertainment is fashioned after the society he lives in. The believer in God refuses to be like the world but transforms himself into being like God (Rom. 12:1,2).

The genuine believer is sober (I Pet. 1: 13). He is sensible and level headed. His right thinking will not allow him to be side tracked from the reward he desires and expects to receive. He is self-controlled in his life rather than his life controlling him.

The genuine believer purifies his soul (I Pet. 1:22). He has made his life sinless not because he is perfect, but because he has repented and confessed his wrong. When he fails, he continues to confess and repent asking for forgiveness that the blood of Christ will cleanse (purify) his soul (I Jn. 1:8).

The genuine believer loves his brethren with a love that is unfeigned (1 Pet. 1:22). His love for others in Christ will not be with pretense or hypocrisy, but in sincerity. It is a love that is manifested in his actions.

The genuine believer sojourns in this life (I Pet. 1: 1, 17).

He realizes he is an alien in this world. If he allows this world to infatuate him, it will be reflected in his life. It is futile to concentrate on making this world so comfortable when one’s real home is in another world.

The genuine believer is willing to go through trials of hardship (I Pet. 1:7) because he has kept his faith strong. He will put his trust in God and remember his hope (Rev. 2: 10). He esteems his blessings in God far more than the perishables in this world.

A “real” believer is one that fears God (I Pet. 1: 17). He recognizes that God is his judge. He reverences and respects God’s Word. He understands that God is a consuming fire (Heb. 10:29) and that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10: 3 1). He therefore lives in the favor of God so that God in turn will protect him (I Pet 1: 5).

By Wayne Greeson

Brother Thomas N. Thrasher met brother Roger Jackson in public debate in northern Alabama on June 3-4 and 6-7, on the subject of church benevolence. The first two nights were conducted near Somerville, Alabama, at the Union church of Christ building where Roger Jackson regularly preaches. These first two nights, the proposition was, “The Bible teaches that a church of the Lord’s people may make a contribution, from its treasury, to a home for orphans.” Jackson affirmed this proposition and brother Thrasher denied it. The second two nights were held in the building of the church of Christ on Sparkman Drive in Huntsville, Alabama. Brother Thrasher affirmed and Jackson denied that, “The Bible teaches that, in benevolence, a church of the Lord’s people is restricted to the relief of needy saints only.”

Both Thrasher and Jackson have conducted numerous debates. Jackson has had about ten prior debates, at least two have been on church benevolence, one with Ed Bragwell, Jr., and another with Bob Myhan. Brother Thrasher has had almost 40 debates but this was his first debate on the subject of church benevolence. The discussion between Thrasher and Jackson revealed the debating experience of these two men and clearly showed their differences on the issue of church benevolence.

The first night of the debate, Jackson affirmed that a church may contribute to a home for orphans. In support of his proposition, Jackson introduced the following “rule,” “All passages which relate to peculiarly religious matters are passages which apply with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian.” This rule reappeared in virtually every speech in the debate and became the main focus of the debate.

Jackson also introduced Galatians 6:10, James 1:27, Acts 20:35 and Galatians 2:10. Interestingly, Jackson’s own chart clearly labeled these passages as instructions to “individuals.” So how could they be instructions concerning church benevolence? Only by the application of Jackson’s “rule.”

Thrasher quickly got to the heart of the discussion by asking Jackson three questions: “Where is the command for a church to contribute to a home for orphans?” “Where is the necessary implication for a church to contribute to a home for orphans?” Jackson responded by saying there was no command or example, but James 1:27 provided the necessary implication. Thrasher skillfully pointed out that there was no authority by command or approved example according to Jackson for a church to contribute to a home for orphans. Thrasher went further and demanded to know how Jackson could necessarily imply from James 1:27 that a church could contribute to a home for orphans, when the passage said nothing about the church, or the church contributing funds from its treasury. Thrasher pointed out that even Jackson admitted a church contributing to a home for orphans was not the only way or even the best way, therefore, this meant there was no necessary implication.

Thrasher also pointed out that Jackson’s “rule” was really “Jackson’s Law.” Jackson made a law where God has not made one and Thrasher urged Jackson to prove his “Law” by the Scriptures. Jackson first tried to support his “rule” or “law” by arguing that Ephesians 5:19 was to individuals, but it gave authority for the “church to sing.” Jackson even asked for the passage that authorizes the “church to sing.” Thrasher answered that individual Christians are authorized to “sing in church” by Hebrews 2:12.

Thrasher also questioned “Jackson’s Law” on several other points. Thrasher asked, if every member of a church could give to a college, can the church give to a college? Jackson avoided the question by saying a church could give to a teacher of the Bible. Thrasher wanted to know whether benevolence was a peculiarly religious act and if so, could I the church give to the KKK for its benevolent works? Jackson was vague about whether benevolence was a “peculiarly religious act” but he argued that the KKK did other things so the church could not give to it.

As Thrasher pressed Jackson to provide Scripture support for his “law,” Jackson mentioned three passages, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Revelation 2-3 and Galatians 6:2. Jackson said that 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 says, “As I gave order to the churches so do ye,” and this showed that orders to churches also applied to individuals, therefore, orders to individuals could apply to churches. Thrasher quickly noticed that none of these passages taught “Jackson’s Law.” Individuals and churches were not commanded to do the same thing in these passages. Further, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 was, if anything, the opposite of Jackson’s Law. Jackson said commands to individuals apply to churches, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 says, “As I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye.”

Jackson also argued that Thrasher had two rules for Bible passages: one rule said passages to individuals could be applied to churches and a second rule that covered only two passages (Jas. 1:27 and Gal. 6:10), that the church must be specifically addressed or excluded. Thrasher said neither of these rules accurately reflected his position and he rejected Jackson’s characterization as false.

On the third and fourth nights of the debate, Thrasher affirmed that a church of the Lord’s people could provide benevolence to saints only. Thrasher, anticipating Jackson’s request for a rule of interpretation, went to Revelation 2 and 3 and indicated that he was going to “hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” Thrasher argued that in church benevolence, the Spirit says “saints” and the Spirit only said “saints.” Thrasher illustrated this principle with a series of charts. Where did the Bible authorize “singing and playing” or baptizing “believers and non-believers” or partaking of “bread and fruit of the vine and something else” or church benevolence to “saints and non-saints.”

Jackson repeatedly tried to argue for the specific words “saints only,” and he suggested that to argue “saints only,” was like the Baptists arguing “faith only.” Jackson made an interesting argument from Matthew 5:47. He argued that we should not salute our “brethren only” therefore, the church could provide benevolence to non-saints. At the same time, Jackson excluded certain groups from benevolence. His charts specifically excluded the “lazy,” “false teachers,” “enemies,” “thieves,” “sinners” and “the rich.” The only ones Jackson allowed church benevolence to were children and the feeble minded.

Thrasher used Jackson’s exclusions to his advantage. He argued that in Matthew 5, God sends the rain and sunshine on the “just and unjust” and the “good and evil” and Jesus is telling us to love all men, not our brethren only. But the church is not here and the passage did not authorize the church to provide benevolence. Thrasher argued that Jackson believed in limited benevolence, but the difference was Thrasher limited it to what the Spirit says to the churches. Thrasher asked where does the Bible say benevolence is to “honest people only,” or “poor only,” or “workers only” or “non-enemies only.” Thrasher vigorously argued that Matthew 5:43-48 includes enemies, the just and unjust and sinners under God’s law of love, but that Jackson’s misapplication of the passage to church benevolence excluded them.

Besides Matthew 5:47, Jackson also used Galatians 6:10 and briefly 2 Corinthians 9:13. These passages were intended to show that the church could contribute to saints and non-saints. Thrasher took each of these passages in turn, read the context and noted that none of the passages authorized church benevolence to non-saints. Thrasher noted that the only possible way Galatians 6:10 and Matthew 5:47 could apply to the church was by “Jackson’s Law” and that was not found in God’s Word. In one chart, entitled, “Metamorphosis,” Thrasher showed how the command to the “individual” was meta-morphosized to a command to the “church” by Jackson’s Law.

Over all, brother Thrasher dealt with the issue and questions very straightforwardly and simply. One could not misunderstand where he stood and what he said. On the other hand, Jackson appeared at times to purposely avoid questions and try to create confusion and misunderstanding, to avoid the argument. However, Jackson is to be commended for his willingness to openly debate these issues, something fewer and fewer of his brethren are willing to do.

If anyone desires audio and/or video tapes of the debate, contact Thomas N. Thrasher at P.O. Box 9141, Decatur, Alabama 35602 (phone: 205-353-3085).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 454-455
August 1, 1991

By Ron Halbrook

God has provided or offered salvation from sin for every soul. The Father prepared a perfect plan for saving the lost, “according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11). The Son of God died on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). The Holy Spirit made a perfect revelation of the gospel in its fulness and finality, all of which was recorded in the Bible (Jn. 16:13; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Salvation is thus provided by the love, mercy, grace, and compassion of God, yet he will not force anyone to be saved.

Man must accept God’s offer of salvation. What must we do to accept salvation by grace? Faith in Christ is necessary. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). We must repent of our sins. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). We must confess the deity of Jesus Christ. “The eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:36-37).

We must be immersed in water. Baptism is essential to salvation because baptism is essential to true faith, repentance, and confession (see passages already quoted). When we are baptized, we are “then made free from sin” (Rom. 6:3-4, 1718). Have you been made free from sin by obeying the gospel?

We are ready to help you in studying the gospel and in obeying it so that you can receive God’s grace. For eternity’s sake, we plead with you to face the question: are you saved?

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 463
August 1, 1991

By Larry Ray Hafley

Enlarged hearts, broader love and wider, extended fellowship is the order of the day. And who is opposed to hearts filled with love and open to communion with God? Certainly no one who loves God and men can be against such things. However, there is a cry today that says the church of the Lord is too narrow, too restrictive, and that it preaches a gospel of limitation and exclusion. We are driving honest souls away with our set approach and pat replies. What we need is “more loving acceptance” of others and less emphasis on our particular, traditional ways of doing things.

In this vein, we hear liberal men as they seek to enlarge and expand the borders of God’s kingdom. With nothing but a beaming smile, a “come as you are” wink and a waving gesture, they would annex alien areas into the confines of the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Is the answer to spiritual division and false religion to take down the barriers of truth and grant people citizenship in the kingdom of heaven by simple decree? If so, I am for it. But before we make human hunches into divine decrees we must examine the rightfulness of our cause and course. Before we alter and change the wisdom of God for the wit, will and wishes of men, we must consider the precedent of the word of God.

The Proposals

In order to teach and reach more souls for the Lord, we are advised to loosen and soften our stance and status “in the present truth.”

For example, (1) do not quibble and quarrel over pianos and organs in worship; (2) relax restrictions against Easter, Christmas and other “holy” days; (3) do not be so sure that taking the Lord’s supper is bound upon the first day of the week; (4) our ironclad, unyielding insistence on the form and purpose of baptism must give way to a sincere believer who has been sprinkled or immersed into a denomination; (5) rigid construction as to the form of local church government must be eased in light of the changing world situation which demands some kind of organizational structure to reach the teeming billions with the gospel; (6) women’s role must be expanded to fit an enlightened society; present concepts of women in the church are the cultural residue of an ancient past which traditionally treated women as second class citizens; (7) man’s needs are societal as well as spiritual; hence, the church must adapt and present itself as a caring community committed to meeting the “felt needs of the whole man” in projects ranging from “Day Care” schools to environmental concerns (save the whales, endangered species, fund AIDS crisis centers, etc.); (8) negative, condemning remarks about hell and eternal punishment must be eliminated and replaced by positive appeals designed to soothe the sorrows and burdens of men; (9) “empty stomachs must be filled before souls can be fed”; “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care” (Translation: de-emphasize gospel preaching; meet social, secular needs).

The Response

(1) If these men had been around in Noah’s day, only the crops would have been washed away. Surely, a loving group, a caring community, could have built several auxiliary arks which would have saved those whom old narrowminded Noah excluded. Did the love of God only save eight souls by water? Did a flood actually come and take them all away? Who can believe it?

(2) Was God so exclusive that he rejected Hagar’s issue, Ishmael, from the promised seed? Was Jacob preferred over Esau in the unfolding scheme of redemption? Was Jerusalem and Mt. Sinai the seat and source of his law and not Samaria or Mt. Gerizim?

(3) Were Nadab and Abihu consumed with fire for offering “strange (foreign) fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not”? After all, fire is fire. What difference did it make? It is not like they were burning incense unto Baal. So, if their hearts were right, and if they were truly sincere. . . . (Let it be noted, for the record, they still were burned up.)

(4) Naaman considered the “rivers of Damascus,” Abana and Pharpar, better than all the waters of Israel, but if he had dipped 700 times in them rather than 7 times in the river Jordan, he would have remained a leper.

(5) David and all the people sought to please God in moving the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. 13:2-4), but when they acted contrary to God’s law, when they “sought him not after the due order,” they were smitten (1 Chron. 15:13). Where were those broadened borders of brotherhood? Ask Korah, Dathan and Abiram. what they think of attempts to rearrange God’s order and due process (Num. 13-17).

(6) A brass snake on a pole is a pretty exclusivistic, narrow way to cure snake bite, but long, loud prayers from sincere hearts did not save anyone who refused to look and live (Num. 21:4-9). Surely, if some of our modern spiritual snake doctors had been there, they could have saved a few more folks by praying or simply holding up a garden hose wrapped around a stick and saying, “Look on this and you’ll live just the same as if you really go to all the trouble to look on Moses’ serpent of brass.” Reckon it would have worked? Nope, not then, and not now, either.

(7) Imagine telling a blind man to feel and find his way down to the pool of Siloam (Jn. 9). What a waste! But who thinks he would have come “seeing”if he had not gone and done precisely what the Lord said for him to do? Not me.

The Gospel of Exclusion

When the Spirit says repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins,” what right do we have to say, “But you can do otherwise and be saved just as well”? Remember Naaman’s washing in Jordan and Moses’ serpent of brass before you answer.

May we add pianos and organs to singing when God would not allow a different fire or another way of transporting the ark of the covenant (1 Cor. 10:6,11)? Can we devise and develop extra-ecclesiastical governmental structures when God destroyed those who forsook his order (Nam. 13-17)? May we sail additional works and agencies along with the ship of Zion when nothing but the ark floated in !he days of Noah? I have a sinking feeling that we may not.

Actually and factually the gospel system is one of inclusion and exclusion. It includes “whosoever will” and excludes whosoever will not. There is one God and only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). There is no way unto God except through Jesus the Christ (Jn. 14:6). There is no other name, power or authority by which one can be saved (Acts 4:12). There is only one foundation, and only one supreme, sublime head of the one, true church, and there is no other (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 1:22,23).

The faith says salvation by works of the law are excluded. It says idols are nothing in the world, that there are not gods made with hands. The delusions of ancient Athens and Ephesus were counted as base superstitions and as the pretensions of men, unable to save, bless or benefit man. Jews of the flesh are not Jews, not the Israel of God (Rom. 2:28,29). Those born of the flesh are lost until they be born from above, of water and of the Spirit. This is exclusion with a vengeance.

All spiritual blessings, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ and no where else (Eph. 1:3; Col. 2:3). Neither principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come can aid the man who will not kneel in simple trusting faith at the feet of King Jesus, for in him and in him alone dwelleth the fulness, the completeness, the perfection of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9, 10). Therefore, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).

The Son of God made one question the central issue regarding the baptism of John (Matt. 21:23-32). The Jewish leaders rejected it, but Jesus said one fact made it mandatory, essential, and that fact was – was it from heaven, or was it from man? If from heaven, it must be obeyed; if from man, it could be ignored. It was “from heaven,” authorized. To refuse it was to reject the counsel and purpose of God. To accept it and be baptized was to be justified of God (Lk. 7:29,30). That is an exclusionary message.

Now, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, is it from heaven or of men? If it is from heaven and rejected by men, do they not reject God’s purpose? If not, why not? The washings of the Pharisees were not accepted by God (Mk. 7). They were excluded. The baptism of John was approved of God. Likewise, the baptisms of the denominations are human traditions, from men, which make void the word of God. Dare we accept them, sanctify them and give them equality with the “one baptism” of the gospel? No more than we can unite the Pharisees’ baptisms with the baptism of John, no more one than the other. Call that exclusionary if you must, but it is the truth.

The seven ones of Ephesians 4 (one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God) may not be expanded, multiplied or modified. If we are at liberty to make one body mean hundreds of denominations, are we free to make one Lord and one God into “gods many and lords many” (1 Cor. 8:5,6)? If the one faith can be expanded into the Catholic faith and Protestant faiths, can one Lord include lords other than Jesus?

If so, is the Book of Mormon truly “another revelation of Jesus Christ” as the Mormons claim? Would our brethren who detest and protest our “exclusionary” gospel deny the Mormons their delusionary doctrines? And what of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation and of the extra books of the Catholic Bible? Are they to be included, or do our inclusionary brethren have a mean exclusionary streak in them that would deny credibility to these works?

Finally, is this article to be accepted by our broad minded brethren, or is it to be excluded? Would that not be ironic? Imagine those who decry exclusionary teaching having to exclude the views expressed here! Now where is their “loving acceptance” of teaching with which they disagree? Is it wide enough to include this material? Just who is excluding whom?

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 456-457
August 1, 1991