Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Jr.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is God’s power to salvation (Rom. 1:15-16). Yet, I am afraid that many are not willing to let it stand on its own merits. Many feel that they must give it a boost in one way or another or it won’t get the job done. I am alarmed as I think of attitudes that I see expressed and exhibited by many brethren when it comes to the spread of the gospel. Many seem to have developed some carnal attitudes toward the preaching of the gospel.

When we look at Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, we see that the root of many of the problems that Paul addressed was the carnal-mindedness of the Corinthian brethren. Instead of thinking and acting in spiritual terms they were guided and motivated by carnal minds. This carnal-mindedness manifested itself in various ways. It caused them to overlook sin in their midst (chapter 5). It caused them to attempt to settle differences between themselves by appealing to the courts of the world (chapter 6). It caused them to engage in immorality (chapter 6). It caused problems in their marriages (chapter 7). It caused them to disregard the consciences of their weaker brethren (chapters 8-10). It caused them to make a sham out of public worship and the Lord’s Supper in particular (chapter 11). It caused them to have an improper attitude toward the spiritual gifts that they possessed (chapters 12-14). It caused them not to have proper love that they should have had one for another (chapter 13). It caused them to reject the resurrection of the dead and therefore the resurrection of Christ (chapter 15). But we also see the effect of their carnal thinking in the first three chapters, in that it affected their attitude toward the preaching of the gospel. We, too, need to be careful lest we allow our attitudes toward the preaching of the gospel to be corrupted by carnal thinking.

The Personality of Preaching

First of all, let’s watch our attitude when it comes to the personality of preaching. We must be careful not to develop an improper preference of one preacher over another as the Corinthians had (1 Cor. 1:12-17; 3:4). Some preferred Paul, others Apollos and yet others Peter. Each of these men possessed qualities that would cause brethren to admire them. Paul was a great apostle and one who established many churches. Apollos was eloquent in speech with a great knowledge of the Scriptures (Acts 18:24). And Peter was a great apostle who had been very close to the Savior while he was on earth. On the other hand, each of these men had things in their lives that, if one didn’t have the right attitude, he might find reason to criticize and refuse to listen to them. Paul was not the best of speakers, considered dull by some and hard to understand at times (2 Cor. 10:10; 2 Pet. 3:15-16). Trouble seemed to follow him everywhere he went. He even spent some time in jail. Apollos once held to the baptism of John (Acts 18:25; 19:1-7). If he were so mistaken at one point, how could anyone be sure that his judgment could ever be trusted again? And Peter – just think about all the problems that Peter has had. First, he denied the Lord at a time when he was most needed. Then there was the confrontation with our beloved brother Paul when he had to be set straight (Gal. 2:11-13). Although he seems to have repented of these things, how could he ever really be trusted again? Does any of this sound familiar?

We also might develop an improper preference for a style of preaching. It is easy to let our likes or dislikes for the way a sermon is delivered or the mannerisms of a speaker prevent us from hearing the message being delivered. Never mind what is being said, if we don’t find the sermon “interesting” then we won’t listen. Let’s face it, the problem with many is that they don’t find spiritual things interesting and unless things are dressed up in some way they are not going to receive it. It reminds me of when my mother used to put ketchup on our peas to get us to eat them. Many desire flowery speech and persuasive words of man’s wisdom (2:1-5). The message to many is not as important as the way in which it is delivered. Many seem to want the fireside chatterer who spins a good story, but care less whether he ever preaches anything of substance. Brethren, when we exhibit such attitudes are we not carnal and behaving as mere men?

The Content of Preaching

Another thing that we must watch is our attitude when it comes to the content of preaching. I am afraid many have developed a desire for preaching that is after man’s wisdom (1:18-31; 2:4-16). They want to be dazzled by philosophy and psychology. As a result, Bible content has become optional in many pulpits today and this kind of preaching is applauded by so many. So we as preachers give them what they want, instead of what they really need, the pure, simple word of God. This divine word is void of worldly pizzaz and therefore uninteresting in the eyes of many. If you do get around to some real Bible teaching then they desire that the preacher give them only milk and no meat (3:1-3). Indeed, in many respects, are we not carnal and behaving as mere men?

The Promotion of Preaching

We also must be careful about our attitude when it comes to the promotion of preaching. We are quick to condemn the denominational world and our “liberal” brethren for their use of such things as social programs to promote the gospel. These we say are “carnal means.” But I have observed a disturbing trend in the last few years among those who claim to be “conservative” churches in their promotion of the gospel. I suppose that there is nothing wrong with advertising a series of Bible classes as a “seminar,” but I often wonder if that is just a ploy to make the gospel more appealing to the world and make it sound more sophisticated. The question I’m asking is what is our motive? It also bothers me to see us advertise our speakers or speakers advertise themselves by their earthly credentials (M.D., PhD., Engineer, Chemist, Biologist, etc.). Again, what is our motive? Also, I am made to wonder what our motive is when we begin in the work of the church to make appeals to the young people through special programs. (We dare not call these special programs “youth rallies” because then people will know what they really are and accuse us of being “liberal.”)

Why not let the gospel promote itself and stand on its own merits? When we decide that we must dress things up and use the promotional gimmicks of the world, then we are saying that the gospel is not sufficient to accomplish what it is intended to without our interference. Again, are we not carnal and behaving as mere men?

The Results of Preaching

Finally, we must watch our attitude, when it comes to the results of preaching. I am afraid that sometimes we may be more concerned with the result that our preaching has on the tote board than the result it has one the hearts of men i 1 wonder if we are more concerned with filling pews and keeping them filled than with filling peoples’ hearts with sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:2-4). Are we more concerned with how many we can boast of “baptizing” than whether they are truly converted to the Lord? We then shy away from any kind of preaching that might in anyway be rejected by anyone and thus possibly decrease the number of seats occupied in our building. So what happens is that we tend to judge preaching that results in large attendance as better than preaching that results in not so large attendance and that is not necessarily so. Preaching may result in dwindling attendance because the preacher is a reprobate who doesn’t practice what he preaches or because he goes out of his way to be obnoxious and offensive. This ought not to be. Preaching, however, may result in dwindling attendance because some listeners are not willing to put up with sound doctrine. On the other hand, preaching may result in large attendance because the preacher soothes everyone’s conscience with fair words and never calls for them to correct their lives. I am afraid that many churches are overflowing because some have been led to believe that following Jesus doesn’t really require any sacrifice on their part and people tend to flock to a message like that.

Let us consider what the Bible says that the result of sound preaching will be. We are told that people will be converted to the Lord (Rom. 10:14-17). Notice, I said converted, not merely gotten wet. Also, Christians will be edified (cf. Eph. 4:11ff). But we are also told that some will reject the preaching of God’s word (Lk. 8:12-14). But we are not willing to accept the possibility of this rejection. So we do whatever it takes to remove any obstacles to anyone joining with us even if it means compromising what the Bible teaches. After all, we are told, we have to “accentuate the positive, and eliminate the negative.” So we turn the religion of Jesus Christ into a religion of convenience for the sake of numbers, instead of teaching the importance of total commitment to the Lord despite the cost, the way Jesus himself taught it must be. When we put this kind of over emphasis on numbers for numbers sake, are we not carnal and behaving as mere men?

Brethren, let’s not think carnally, but soberly as God would have us to think (Rom. 8:5-6).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, pp. 661-662
November 1, 1990

By Weldon E. Warnock

Has the Lord prescribed a formula that is to be said when one is baptized? Some say “yes” and quote Matthew 28:19 for scriptural proof. The passage states, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” However, in analyzing the passage we observe that it tells us what to do, not what to say.

The American Standard Version translates the verse, “baptizing them into (emphasis mine) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The preposition translated “in” (KJV) and “into” (ASV) is from the Greek word eis. The ASV is the more correct rendition.

A footnote on Matthew 28:19 in Williams’ translation says of the preposition “into” that it “expresses transfer of relationship.” Hence, in scriptural baptism we are baptized into a relationship with the Godhead – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Arndt-Gingrich say “the one who is baptized becomes the possession of and comes under the protection of the one whose name he bears” (A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 575).

Vincent states, “Baptizing into the name has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto denoting objector purpose. . . . 2. Into denoting union or communion with, as Rom. 6:3, ‘baptized into Christ Jesus; into his death;’ i.e. we are brought by baptism into fellowship with his death” (Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 149). Foy E. Wallace said, “Into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost denote the state, or relationship, the baptized person enters. This condescension of God to put the name of the Godhead on the act of baptism imparts to the institution the importance and the solemnity of the name it bears” (Bulwarks of the Faith, Part 2, p. 28).

The “name” into which we are baptized in Matthew 28:19 is not a designation, but is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being, namely, his characteristics and attributes. Such meaning is seen in the model prayer, “Hallowed be thy name” (Matt. 6:9). A. Lukyn Williams wrote, “So being baptized into the Name of God implies being placed in subjection to and communion with God himself, admitted into covenant with him. It is to be observed that the term is ‘name,’ not ‘names,’ thus denoting the unity of the Godhead in the trinity of Persons” (Pulpit Commentary, Matthew, p. 645).

To insist that “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is to be said over a person’s head just before baptism is to treat the expression as a charm and adds another prerequisite to baptism. Admittedly, we can say what we are doing, and I generally do, but I also recognize that in so doing I am following a customary practice that is arbitrary and optional. Whether we do what Matthew 28:19 teaches is not discretionary, but whether we say it or not, is!

Brother R.L. Whiteside wrote, “Any one who reads the Bible should know that the power of life and death is not in the mouth of the administrator of baptism. . . . The one who is being baptized may be thoroughly prepared in heart to render acceptable obedience; but if the preacher does not say the right words, the baptism is useless! Can any thoughtful person believe it? It is putting as much power in the preacher as any Roman Catholic ever placed in his priest” (Reflections, pp. 244-245).

In the book of Acts baptism is “in” and “into” the name of Christ. We notice:

Acts 2:38. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” The preposition “in” is from the Greek word epi, meaning “upon; on the ground of.” Thayer comments on epi in Acts 2:38, “so as to repose your hope and confidence in his Messianic authority” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 232). Hence, Peter says to repent and be baptized on the ground of Jesus’ Messianic authority.

Acts 8:16. “. . . only they were baptized in the name of Lord Jesus.” The Greek word for “in” here is eis. It is translated “into” in many other versions. It suggests relationship. The same is true in Acts 19:5 where “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is “into the name of the Lord Jesus.” This same concept of relationship is set forth in 1 Corinthians 1:13 where Paul said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in (eis, into) the name of Paul?”

J.W. McGarvey said that “into the name of the Lord Jesus” is but an abbreviation for ‘into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts, Vol. 2, p. 151). R.L. Whiteside wrote, “This (into the name of the Lord Jesus, wew) is the same as saying that they were baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Reflections, p. 247). Obviously, when we baptize into the name of Jesus we are baptizing into the name of the Godhead.

Acts 10:48. At the household of Cornelius we read that Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Here, the preposition “in” is from the Greek word en. It denoted “in the name” or “by the authority” of the Lord.

Observe there is no uniform pattern of expression in these passages in Acts. Acts 2:38 has “in (upon) the name of Jesus Christ,” Acts 8:16 and 19:5 have “in (into) the name of the Lord Jesus,” while Acts 10:48 has “in the name of the Lord.” Therefore, when we are baptizing a person in the name of the Lord, we are baptizing him into the name or relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Parenthetically, the “Jesus only” people make Acts 2:38 a necessary formula for baptism, totally missing the point of what “in the name of Jesus Christ” means.

Actually, to be baptized “in the name of the Lord” is the authority for baptism and “into the name of the Lord Jesus” or “into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is the result of baptism.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, pp. 654-655
November 1, 1990

By Don Partain

Church A meets on Thursday night instead of on Wednesday night as most others do. Church B partakes of the Lord’s Supper on Tuesday instead of on Sunday as most others do. Both Church A and Church B are doing things not practiced by the majority of other churches of Christ. Yet, Church A does not sin in meeting on Thursday instead of on Wednesday, while Church B does indeed sin by partaking of the Lord’s Supper on Tuesday instead of on Sunday. The difference? Church A is simply using an expedient not widely practiced by other churches, while Church B is “going beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

The problem some in the brotherhood seem to have is failing to distinguish between a practice that is sinful because it is without scriptural authority and a practice that is simply an expedient that differs from what most other faithful congregations use. Church C has a singing every fourth Wednesday of the month, while Church D has a literal prayer meeting every fourth Wednesday. Church C has never been questioned for having a monthly singing night. But Church D has indeed had to defend its right to have a monthly prayer meeting. Why the difference? Because monthly singings are well established expedients, while monthly prayer meetings – though also expedients – are rarely conducted by churches of Christ anymore.

So, it would be helpful to understand just what an expedient is, and what its relation is to practices the Lord has required, whether by direct statement or command, by apostolic example, or by implication of these. Basically (and ideally), an expedient is an advantageous or profitable method of carrying out the Lord’s directions. The Lord directed us to assemble on Sunday to partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). So, each congregation examines its own situation, then determines what time of the day, on Sunday, it would be most spiritually profitable to assemble to partake of the Lord’s Supper – whether it be 6:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 6:00 p.m., etc. The time of the day is a matter of expediency. And any time of the day is scriptural, regardless of the fact that most churches partake of the Supper around 11:00 a.m.

In the same way, the Lord directed us to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in our worship to him (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). So, we must sing (not use instrumental music) and we must sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (not secular songs) in our worship. But, whether we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in unison (for example, chanting them, as many early Christians did), or in 2-part harmony (for example, having the men sing one part and the women, a harmony part), or in 4-part harmony (as most churches in our country do today), etc. is all a matter of expediency. Any style, as long as it is orderly and reverent, is acceptable – whether or not most other churches today use it. Each congregation must simply determine which style (or styles) of singing would be most spiritually advantageous for it to use.

We all recognize that several names or designations for the local church are scriptural: “the church of God at ________” (1 Cor. 1:2), “the church of Christ” (Rom.16:16), “the church of the __________ in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 1:1), “the church of the Lord” (or “the Lord’s church”) (Acts 20:28), etc. Basically, any designation that describes our ownership by God or Christ and describes our location is scriptural. Which particular designation we use is a matter of expediency; that is, each congregation must analyze its own situation and determine – without interference or pressure from outside brethren – which designation is most expedient to use.

A key point: local church expedients are primarily just that – local in nature; they are not primarily brotherhood matters. If Church A determines it is expedient to meet on Thursday night rather than on Wednesday night, outside brethren might disagree – and even discuss why they believe Wednesday night would be more expedient. However, they must not treat Church A as unsound or “going liberal” simply because it uses an expedient not used throughout the brotherhood.

Can you distinguish between a requirement and an expedient?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, p. 659
November 1, 1990

By Pat Jones

After 17 years of preaching, I have noticed that there are several things which can create a distraction at a worship service. In each case the reaction of the audience is the same. All eyes are focused on what is going on instead of the lesson. They are not hearing what is said.

First, I have observed that when a group sitting together begins to whisper, grin, laugh, etc. it will create a distraction not only for themselves, but for those around them. Often teenagers have been guilty of this, but, believe it or not, I have watched grown-ups do it, too. In either case, those causing this disturbance are old enough to know better and should stop it.

A second thing that distracts concerns small children. When little ones are allowed to constantly talk out, make excessive noise or roam about or when a baby which persistently cries is kept in the auditorium, the attention of the congregation is going to be badly affected.

Let me say that I very much appreciate young parents who are trying to be faithful to attend and bring their children. I don’t want to discourage anyone from doing that. As a parent of young children, I realize that all will at some point give trouble. I don’t think it is fair to be unduly harsh on those with this sometimes frustrating responsibility. But there are some guidelines to follow that will help us tend to children with a minimum of distraction.

All babies are going to cry during a worship service. That is why we provide a nursery or cry-room at the back of the auditorium. I realize the embarrassment a parent goes through wondering at what point to take a fussy baby out. I would suggest that from what I see up in the pulpit, after a minute of crying much of the audience now has their eyes directed at the noise. Also by this time, most parents are getting tense and frustrated with trying to calm the baby. Certainly, no one will think badly of any parent who takes the baby on out. On the other hand, to keep trying to “fight the battle” in the auditorium will only keep the disruption growing.

As children grow out of the baby stage, there is a trap that parents can be led into. Misbehaving is sometimes a child’s ticket out of the auditorium to go visit the water fountain, nursery or just to walk around. When we have to take them out, let’s make sure through whatever means of punishment is appropriate to their age that their unruly behavior will not be rewarded.

A third problem of disturbance is when there is too much wandering about of adults and young people. Trips to the restroom, to the water fountain, to the telephone, to go do this and do that when most all these things could be taken care of before or after services are distracting. There are, no doubt, cases of health problems that require this, but we need to limit such unless absolutely necessary.

A suggestion: Even when the things recommended in this article have been followed, there will still be occasional disturbances. To the distracted I want to make a plea: There are plenty of seats down front. Get nearer the front and you will not be as prone to have your attention wander.

A final thing I want to mention that may not be distracting to the audience, but certainly is to the preacher is the problem of sleeping members. While it is often passed off as almost comical, the truth is it’s a very bad habit. The sleep-prone Christian can combat this by taking notes, turning to the verses in their Bible and by working harder to concentrate on what’s being said. Rightly considered, we surely know that going to sleep at worship is disrespectful to God and discourteous to the speaker.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, p. 655
November 1, 1990