Truth Magazine

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

By Mike Willis

We have witnessed the biblical testimony to the deity of Christ from the prophets and the birth narrative. In this article, I shall continue to present evidences of Jesus’ deity.

The Prologue to John’s Gospel

Parallel to the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke is the introductory statement of John’s gospel. The statements we consider are these:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. . . . And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth . . . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son (God, NASB), which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (Jn. 1:14,14,18).

The prologue makes these affirmations about Jesus.

1. The pre-existence of Jesus. The Jesus of John’s gospel existed prior to his coming to the earth. Indeed, when one goes back to the beginning of time, the Word already was. The Word has eternal existence. He is not a created or derived being.

2. The shared communion with the Father. Not only did Jesus exist prior to his coming to the earth, he also “was with God,” intimating the closest communion between him and the Father. The preposition “with” distinguishes the Word from the Father. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow (Zech. 13:7), enjoying communion with him.

3. The deity of Jesus. The third affirmation is that the “Word was God.” Though the Word is distinguishable from the Father, he is also God.

4. The Word is Creator, not a creature. A vast chasm distinguishes the Word from the creation. He is the Creator of every thing that has been made, distinguishing himself from creation. Hence, the Word is no created being.

5. “In him was life. ” A characteristic of God is that “the Father has life in himself” (Jn. 5:26). The Word also has life in himself (1:3). He is the life (11:25; 14:6), the eternal life (I Jn. 5:20). He does his miracles from his own inherent power, not by a power given to him from the Holy Spirit, as did the prophets and the apostles.

6. The Word became flesh. No less than the Word himself became flesh. Deity took upon himself a human body. His glory shined through the veil of his body for John said, “And we beheld his glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father.” Benjamin Warfield commented on these verses as follows:

That in becoming flesh the Word did not cease to be what He was before entering upon the new sphere of experiences, the evangelist does not leave, however, to mere suggestion. The glory of the Word was so far from quenched, in his view, by his becoming flesh, that he gives us at once to understand that it was rather as “trailing clouds of glory” that He came . . . . The language is colored by the reminiscences from the Tabernacle, in which the Glory of God, the Shekinah, dwelt. The flesh of Our Lord became, on its assumption by the Word, the Temple of God on earth (cf. Jn. ii. 19), and the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. John tells us expressly that the glory was visible, that it was precisely what was appropriate to the Son of God as such. “And we beheld his glory,” he says; not divined it, or inferred it, but perceived it. It was open to sight, and the actual object of observation. Jesus Christ was obviously more than man; He was obviously God. His actually observed glory, John tells us further, was a “glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” It was unique; nothing like it was ever seen in another (“The Person of Christ,” Biblical Doctrines, p. 193; also available in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, General Editor, Vol. IV, pp. 2338-2348).

Such words emphasize that the Jesus of John’s gospel is not merely a man.

7. The Word revealed God to us. The New American Standard Version reflects the variant reading of the better manuscripts in John 1:18 which describe the Word as “the only begotten God … .. The adjective ‘only begotten’ conveys the idea, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality: Jesus is all that God is, and he alone is this” (Warfield, 194). Because of his eternal association with the Father, the Word can reveal him to us. Though mere man has never seen God at any time, the Word can reveal him to us (hence, he is not a mere man).

The opening of John’s gospel emphasizes the deity of the Word. The Word did not cease to be deity when he became flesh. He retained his glory for it was perceived by man. This is the thrust of John’s testimony:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifest unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (1 Jn. 1:1-3).

Jesus’ Testimony Concerning Himself

The gospel of John preserves several of Jesus’ sermons and conversations. From these monologues, we can see what Jesus said to others about himself. Study these statements which he made about himself:

1. He is the Light of the world which has been darkened by sin (8:12).

2. He is the Way to heaven (14:6).

3. He is the Truth (14:6).

4. He is the Life (14:6).

5. He is the living Bread come down from heaven (6:35,48). Believers who eat his flesh and blood shall have life (6:54).

6. He is the Water of life which, if a man drinks, he shall never thirst again (4:14).

7. He is the Good Shepherd and all who came before him are thieves and robbers (10:8,11).

8. He is the Vine connection with which is essential for life (15:1,5).

9. He is the one and only approach to the Father in heaven (14:6).

10. He teaches men to pray in his name and professes to have the ability to answer that prayer (14:14).

11. He contrasts himself with his fellowman saying, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (8:23).

12. He claims to be Lord over death, having the ability to call the physically dead to life (5:28,29). He proclaims himself to be the Resurrection and the Life (11:25).

13. He teaches men to trust in him as they trust in God (14:1). They are to believe in him just as they believe in God (14:1; 6:29,40,47).

14. He taught men to honor him as they honor the Father (5:23). The man who hated Jesus hated the Father (15:23).

15. He claimed to judge the world (5:22) on the standard of the words which he spake (12:48).

16. He claimed to be above all (3:31) and that all things had been given into his hands (3:35).

17. He could see the things which the Father was doing and do them as well (5:19).

18. He asserted that to know him was to know the Father (8:19).

19. He asserted himself to be the “I am” of the Old Testament (8:24,58).

20. He asserted an intimate communion with the Father such that what he spoke was what the Father said to him (8:26,38,40).

21. He affirmed that he and the Fafther are one (8:30; 17:21).

22. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles (16:7).

No mere man can make such declarations about himself without being guilty of blasphemy. These statements reflect Jesus’ consciousness of his own deity and his demand that men believe that he was God incarnate. These affirmations are what stirred the animosity of the Jews to charge that he was guilty of blasphemy because he made himself equal with God (5:17-18; 10:33). The verdict of blasphemy reached by the Sanhedrin cannot be understood without admitting their belief that Jesus was making the claim that he was God.

Take these affirmations one by one and substitute in the place of Jesus the New Testament saint who most completely represents what a Christian should be to your mind. Take for example, the apostle Paul. Could Paul claim for himself the things which Jesus claimed for himself? Could Paul say, “I am the bread of life,” “he that hath seen me has seen the Father,” “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me,” “I and the Father are one,” “before Abraham was, I am,” etc.? To attribute such statements to mere man would not merely strain the affirmations, but would be blasphemy. Why are they not blasphemy when made by Jesus? Because he is the incarnate God!

H.P. Liddon, in his classic work, The Divinity of Our Lord, sees the Lord affirming his deity in his claim to rule the souls of man. He presents this argument for the deity of Jesus:

He commands, He does not invite, discipleship. To Philip, to the sons of Zebedee, to the rich young man, He says simply, ‘Follow Me.’ . . . His message is to be received upon pain of eternal loss, so in receiving it, men are to give themselves up to Him simply and unreservedly. No rival claim, however strong, no natural affection, however legitimate and sacred, may interpose between Himself and the soul of His follower. ‘He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me’; ‘If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.’ . . ,

It is impossible to ignore this imperious claim on the part of Jesus to rule the whole soul of man. Other masters may demand a man’s active energies, or his time, or his purse, or this thought, or some large share of his affections. But here is a claim on the whole man, on his very inmost self, on the sanctities of his deepest life. Here is a claim which altogether sets aside the dearest ties of family and kindred, if perchance they interfere with it. Does any who is merely man dare to advance such a claim as this? (pp. 176-178)

The Jesus of John’s gospel manifestly claimed to be God incarnate. If he was merely a man, he was guilty of blasphemy as charged by the Jews and not the perfect, sinless sacrifice for sin which Christians affirm him to be. There is no middle ground: Jesus is either God or a brash sinner!

(Continued next issue.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 674, 692-693
November 15, 1990

By Frank Jamerson

The proper attitude toward the silence of God has become a problem with many in interpreting Scripture. Some believe that “silence gives consent,” while others believe that authority gives consent. Which attitude does the Bible teach?

The very nature of revelation answers this question. Paul said, “For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11). He went on to say that the things of God were revealed “not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth; but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (v. 13). Just as a man cannot know what pleases me from silence, he cannot know what pleases God from silence. The very purpose of revelation is to reveal God’s mind. If we could have known it from silence, he could have remained silent!

In a previous article we used the example of the Jerusalem conference to show how the apostles established authority. The doctrine of the Judaizers was a doctrine based upon the silence of the apostles. The conclusions of the discussion was that “we gave no commandment” to those who “went out from us . . . subverting your souls” (Acts 15:24). The Judaizers therefore were teaching “without commandment,” or “speaking where God was silent.” The apostles did not say, “Well, God was silent about circumcising Gentiles, so go ahead and bind that upon God’s people, and we will remain silent.”

According to some of the advocates of “a new hermeneutic,” we should not condemn activities that are not specifically condemned in the Scripture. In the March, 1990 issue of The Examiner, brother Holt said that instrumental music in worship “is neither ‘scripturally allowed’ nor scripturally ‘forbidden.’ The NT Scriptures say absolutely nothing about instrumental music one way or the other.” He went on to say that he had debated the instrumental music issue three times in years past, but had taught his “deductions and human reasoning” when he did so, and said: “It is not easy to prove that something is sinful which is not even mentioned in the Scripture.” (If he had made much a statement when he started the paper four years ago, many of his present disciples would have thrown up their hands in horror at such disrespect for authority, but they have drunk at his well long enough that they can now swallow such false teaching.)

But, let us look further at examples of what our attitude should be toward the silence of Scripture. In Hebrews 1:5-8 the writer makes an argument on the deity of Christ from silence. God never said to an angel, “Thou art my Son,” but he did say that about Jesus. We know then, from revelation that Jesus is the Son of God, and we know from silence that angels are not! Later in the book that same Spirit-guided writer argues from the silence of Scripture that Jesus could not be a priest on earth. He said, “For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:13,14). His conclusion was, “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). According to some of the non-Spirited teachers of our day, we would have to say that since Moses said nothing either way about priests from Judah, we cannot know whether or not Jesus could be a priest!

Leaders in the Reformation and Restoration movements were divided over this issue. “Luther said we may do what the Bible does not forbid. Zwingli said what the Bible does not command we may not do, and on that account he gave up all images and crosses in the churches . . . Organs in church also were given up. The Lutherans love to sing around the organ. The Zwinglians, if they sang at all, did so without any instrument” (via The Thunderous Silence of God, by Joe Neil Clayton, p. 70). In 1809, Thomas Campbell concluded a sermon with the statement, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent” (via Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 1, Earl West, p. 47). This became a slogan for many without understanding its meaning. The statement of the apostle Peter, “If any man speak, let him speak according to the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11), necessarily implies that if the word of God has not spoken, we should not speak. Some restoration leaders continued to speak the slogan while introducing missionary societies in the work of the church and instrumental music in worship, and the modernistic Disciples of Christ denomination is the fruit of that attitude.

The Bible teaches us that “faith comes by hearing” God’s word (Rom. 10:17). When men act upon the silence of Scripture, they are not acting by faith. Secular history shows us the fruit of this disrespect for authority. Those who substitute sprinkling for baptism, water for the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s supper, add instrumental music to worship, etc. can say “the Bible says nothing about those things either way,” but the Bible does teach us that when you “have no such commandment,” you should not act. It further says, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, p. 650
November 1, 1990