Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

The few times I have met Charles Holt and Dusty Owens have been amicable. I have no personal dislike for them and I desire their salvation. However, I believe much of the doctrine taught in The Examiner to be dangerous to one’s faith and destructive to the body of Christ. I am also concerned about the biting sarcasm with which many articles are written which, in some cases, are downright slanderous of gospel preachers and the “people in the pew.”

The Examiner’s Attitude Toward the Assembly

The Examiner teaches that “there is no specific ‘assembly’ that is required of God and if missed (‘forsaken?’) is sinful” (Demetrius, Vol. 1, No. 6, p. 19). That New Testament Christians were in the habit of assembling regularly is abundantly clear from Hebrews 10:24,25. Christians were told to “consider one another to provoke unto love and good works: not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another.” One cannot forsake that which has never begun. This writer contends that the reason they were in the habit of assembling regularly is inherent in the things they were authorized (yes, required) to do in their collective worship and periods of edification. That these gatherings were not just a “one time occurrence” is clear from the word assembling (episunagoge), continuous action.

The teaching of The Examiner encourages “floating membership” or “membership-at-large” who have no responsibility to a particular local body of Christians. They are free-wheelers left to “free-lance” their religion with no organization to it. If anything is done with other Christians it is decided democratically. Contrary to it being a meaningless thing, the Lord had local congregations established in which Christians are to worship together, be fed, overseen, and provoked unto love and good works.

Terminology

We will be using terms that are not accepted by the Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. In objecting to “local church,” “universal church,” and “church treasury,” Holt says, “We have developed a large vocabulary of words, terms, and names that do not come from the Bible” (Vol. II, No. 1, p. 7). Of course, the editor and staff of The Examiner frequently use phraseology not found in the Bible, such as the word Bible! Let is be observed that not all Bible things have been given names. Whatever term would accurately describe such things would be in harmony with the Scriptures. (The term Great Commission does not appear in the Bible but describes a Bible idea.) This does not mean one is not “speaking where the Bible speaks” if he uses terms that describe Bible concepts. Here is a partial list of words used by The Examiner but not found in the Bible: individual, functional unit, Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. (TAFMI), non-profit organization, the people in the pew, Bible, regular contribution (to TAFMI), congregations of the Lord’s body, mutual edification, portion of God’s people, group of disciples, reformation, renaissance, etc.

Are they speaking where the Bible speaks? With all those references to financial support, regular contributions, etc., surely they could find room for a treasury. The Examiner is playing word games.

TAFMI Surplants Local Church’s Worship

Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. is the name of the corporate body which publishes The Examiner. While teaching that there is no such thing as a local church, no command for God’s people to assemble for worship, no authority for a treasury, etc., The Examiner argues for the right of TAFMI to conduct such worship. Note: “If we (TAFMI) should meet on Sunday, as such a group, would it be scriptural for us (the gathering or assembling) to sing, pray, study God’s word, take up a contribution to help a needy family and support to a worthy preacher in Nigeria, and observe the Lord’s Supper? If not, why not?” (No. 4, p. 7) What Scripture would they use that would not authorize a local church to do the same?

TAFMI is not a local church. It has a Board of Directors – 4 men, 2 women. While on a smaller scale, TAFMI operates on the same basis as the ministries of the electronic evangelists. They solicit donations and sell merchandise. In fact, Holt’s corporation discourages giving money into the local treasury and encourages readers to send it to his ministry.

“My brother and sister, you alone are responsible for the decision for the use of your ‘contribution’ . . . You dare not give away this responsibility. You will be held accountable before God. It is easy to merely drop our contribution into the plate and let the organization decide its use according to the operational budget. But it is a cop-out on your part!” (No. 1, p. 9) Then in soliciting for TAFMI, “This means that all monetary contributions are fully tax-deductible. The same as if dropped into the plate at what is called ‘the worship services of the church’. . . And we do need and desire your help” (Ibid). Notice the use of the word responsibility. What verse gives us that responsibility according to TAFMI? Do away with the local church and its collective worship and send your money to us! The local church and its assemblies (including the treasury) is a financial threat to TAFMI. The Examiner expresses much bitterness toward local churches. We should shut all of them down and act responsibly by sending our money to Holt’s corporation. If that were to ever happen Holt’s ministry would cause Jimmy Swaggart’s to pale in significance. Swaggart’s ministry is also “non-profit” and you can get a tax deduction for donating to it (The Examiner frequently gives this incentive for donations).

“Official Worship Stations”

Dusty Owens looks at local churches as “official worship stations.” “That makes this ‘local church’ the official meeting place where the five acts of worship are to take place” (Vol. I, No. 2, p. 17). “But we can’t think, nor can we do anything without ‘an assembly.’ That is the way we have been brain-washed. If someone took our ‘assembly’ . . . away we wouldn’t know how to behave” (Vol. III, No. 3, p. 9). Anybody knows the local church is not a place. The church is people, remember? I have never known anyone who argued that the church was a place. Owens builds a straw man. Straw men are easier to oppose. He belittled the “five acts” of worship. It so happens that there are five things that Christians are authorized to do together in assembling. Does he belittle the five acts because there are more or because there are less? Let him tell us how many there are in the assembly.

But notice again, Owens says, “While God has not commanded us to assemble for the specific purpose of worshiping him, he has commanded us to do things while assembled that when done constitute a service (worship) to him!” (Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 17) Earl Kimbrough answers Owens well in his booklet Destructive Heresies (p. 26): “If we are commanded to do certain things while assembled, how can those commands be obeyed without assembling? Would this not imply the necessity of assembling even if there were no commands, such as Hebrews 10:24,25? Owens’ reasoning is about like saying, ‘While God has not commanded us to enter the water for the specific purpose of being baptized, he has commanded us to do things while in the water that when done constitute obedience to him.'”

Five Acts of Worship

There is no question that worship is an individual matter, but it is not individual only! This is where The Examiner errs. It so happens that there are five things Christians are required to do collectively.

Owens says “they have supplicated to some extent the mind set of the Catholics that you assemble for the purpose of worshiping God” (Vol. III, No. 3, p. 8). He believes the assemblies were man-centered rather than God-centered. God forbid! Both purposes were served in that God was worshiped and men were edified. Owens arrays one against the other. That Christians assembled to worship God is seen in the things they did when assembled. Owens is requiring itemization. Whether he calls it a command or not, Christians are required to assemble to worship God.

Does God want to be worshiped? Yes (Matt. 4:10; Jn. 4:23,24). Are there acts he wants done toward him in our assemblies? Yes.

1. The Lord’s Supper. Paul said, “For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” (1 Cor. 11:23). The only way Paul could have known God wanted the Supper in the assembly was that he “received it of the Lord.” It was done “when they came together” (1 Cor. 11: 17-20,3 3,34). Is the supper an act of worship? Yes. Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me” (vv. 24,25). It was an act of worship directed toward the Lord. Christians assemble on the first day of the week to eat the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7). The Examiner cannot find any place where the Supper was taken outside the assembly. I deny that an assembly of the TAFMI was what the Holy Spirit had in mind.

2. Singing. The singing we do together is to be “with your heart unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:19) and “with grace in your hearts unto God” (Col. 3:16). This is in keeping with Jesus’ example. “In the midst of the congregation (ecclesia, assembly) will I sing thy praise” (Heb. 2:12). The singing we do in assembling is worship.

3. Praying. All prayer is addressed to God (Matt. 6:9f). Praying was done in the assemblies and included giving God thanks (1 Cor. 14:16; Acts 6:6).

4. Giving. Giving is an act of worship (Phil. 4:18). To prevent Paul from having to make collections, each disciple was to give on the first day of every week. This was an order (1 Cor. 16:1,2). As to the frequency of giving, this is the sum total of God’s revelation. The Examiner says this was a special contribution, for the Romans were not commanded to participate (A. Roberts, Vol. 1, No. 6, p. 25). The faulty reasoning is obvious and it essentially would destroy any obligation for us to worship today. What do they have against God anyway? Note the “logic”: Singing in the New Testament was “special circumstances” for the Philippians were never commanded to sing. The Lord’s Supper was “special circumstances” for the Thessalonians were never commanded to eat the Supper. Praying was “special circumstances” for the Galatians were not told to pray. And preaching was “special circumstances” because the Galatians were not told to preach.

5. Teaching. Speaking “as the oracles of God” glorifies him (I Pet. 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:31) and is to be done in our assemblies (1 Cor. 4:17).

Owens ignores these and says, “God has placed the emphasis of ‘coming together’ on our mutual edification. Man has distorted the teaching by placing the emphasis on ‘worshiping God.'” When Jesus said “this do in remembrance of me” he must have misplaced his emphasis, according to Owens. The point is, Owens minimizes worshiping God. He makes our coming together man-centered rather than God-centered. Both purposes were served in the assemblies (worship and edification) and neither should be minimized. Nor should one be maximized above the other.

Neo-Orthodoxy

My impression is that those aligned with The Examiner long to hear “some new thing.” Not all traditions are wrong (2 Thess. 3:6) and it just may be that once in a while the orthodox position is the correct or permissible one. A case in point: Steven Clark Goad tried to make a list of what he calls the “Church of Christ” Creed (Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 14). In his desperation he listed the use of a “wooden box or pulpit” as part of the creed. He asks, “Did Peter have a pulpit on Pentecost? Did Paul have a pulpit on Mars Hill? Did Philip while riding in the eunuch’s chariot?” Nobody knows what they had, not even Goad. And I know of nobody who says we have to have a pulpit or that it is the only way to preach. It is simply a convenient tool when speaking to a group. A kitchen table is more convenient when in someone’s home. But Goad so desperately wanted to attach a creed to the church that he listed the pulpit. Boy!

Slander

A reader wrote to Owens about his position that Christians don’t have the responsibility to assemble to worship and gave Scriptures. Owens replied that this was “the same line of argument that . . . I have used personally . . . (until I learned better). Preachers have made these points in order to keep their ‘members’ obligated to attend . . . . and support the ‘work of the church’ with their money . . . . They need the numbers and they need the money, so they assemble these Scriptures to make it sound authentic and hurl their thunderbolts from the pulpit, oh, so convincingly. The members are intimidated.”

Owens gives neither the preachers nor the listeners credit for being honest and sincerely believing these Scriptures. Instead he chooses to slander them. Is he saying these were his motives “before he learned better”? Owens does not know the mind of any man (1 Cor. 2:11). Because he so vehemently disagrees, he impugns the motives of others. Much of what I have read in The Examiner is of this nature. The Examiner needs to examine itself.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 583-585
October 4, 1990

By H.E. Phillips

The nature and work of the “eldership” in the local body of Christians has been the center of a continuing controversy for a long time. The fact that there is controversy does not mean that the word of God is not clear and complete on the subject. The New Testament provides ample evidence to establish the truth on this subject.

The Scriptures teach that the church in every community is to have elders. The word “church” is used in the New Testament to refer to all baptized penitent believers the world over (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:22,23; 1 Cor. 12:12,13). We call it “universal” because it embraces all Christians without any idea of locality, organization or function. It is one body (Eph. 4:4).

But “church” is also used to designate relationship and action impossible in the universal sense. It describes a “church” in a locality, with some organization for function, such as the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1; 4:15).

God revealed his mind to man by words (1 Cor. 2:9-13). It is complete (2 Tim. 3:16,17), perfect (Psa. 19:7), powerful (Rom. 1:16), sufficient (2 Pet. 1: 3), unchangeable (Gal. 1:6-9), indestructible (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23,25); and it is once for all given to the saints (Jude 3). We must understand the meaning of the words used in the word of God to know his will. The common Greek language in Palestine in the days of Christ and the apostles provided a transport from the mind of God to “every creature” in “all nations” to give his complete and final revelation that will perfect a man unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17; Jude 3).

Christ Has All Authority Over the Church

The church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy; Christ is king over the kingdom and head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:18). He has been given all authority in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18). He received this authority from the Father (Heb. 1:1,2; Jn. 12:48-50; 1 Cor. 15:27,28). Christ will have this authority until the resurrection at the last day (1 Cor. 15:24-26). The government of Christ over the church is perfect, and it cannot be overthrown.

Christ rules through his revealed word. Christ sent the Holy Spirit upon the apostles to empower them to speak his word, by which he exercises his authority (Jn. 14:25,26; 16:12,13). On the day of Pentecost when the power came upon them, they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 1:1-4; 2:1-4). Paul said that the things he wrote are the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37).

Who Are the Elders?

The words we use to designate a person or thing tell something of the characteristics, relationships and work of that person or thing. Three Greek terms are used to designate the oversight of a local church. These terms define different areas of the work and relationship of these men in the local church.

1. Presbuterion. The Greek word presbuterion means “an assembly of the elders” which means “the eldership” or “elderhood” as in the translation of Acts 22:5 by George Berry in The Greek New Testament. The English word eldership does not occur in the New Testament, but the Greek term presbuterion is found three times and could be so translated (Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5; 1 Tim. 4:14). The first is translated by “elders” and the last two by “presbytery.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon says of presbuterion, “Body of elders, presbytery, senate, council; of the Jewish elders, Lk. xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5; of the elders of any body (church) of Christians, 1 Tim. iv. 14.”

It literally means “an old man.” In whatever relationship it is used, it always connotes one older, a senior. It is used of overseers of the church (Acts 14:23; 20:27,28; Tit, 1:7). The word elder itself does not inhere the idea of oversight, but when used in a context that plainly shows the oversight of elders in a church, the word denotes that group of men who have the oversight in that church. It is translated by “elders” and “presbytery.”

2. Episcopos. Thayer’s Greek.-English Lexicon says of this word: “an overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator guardian, or superintendent . . . spec. the superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church; . . . Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7).” It is a variation of episcopeo: “to look upon, inspect, oversee, took after, care for; spoken of the care of the church which rested upon the presbyters, 1 Pet. v. 2.”

Episcopos is translated by the English overseer and carries the same meaning as the Greek just defined. It means to supervise, take care of, rule, direct, guide, and oversee. When this word (episcopos) is used with reference to those in the church as in Acts 20:28, it is impossible to deny that the New Testament teaches that there are local churches and that elders are overseers in these churches. The English bishop is another word that translates episcopos in I Timothy 3:1,2; Titus 1:7.

3. Poiman. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines poimaino: “To feed, to tend aflock, keep sheep . . . to rule, govern . . . to furnish pasturage orfood,to nourish. b. metaph. thepresiding officer, manager, director, of any assembly: so of Christ the Head of the church, Jn. x. 16; 1 Pet. 2:25; Heb. xiii. 20, of the overseers of the Christian assemblies.”

Poiman is translated by the English word shepherd. It means “tending, feeding, guarding.” By common usage it has come to mean “one who feeds, tends, and guards” the spiritual interests of people in a given locality. It refers to the elders of the church (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Poiman is also translated by the English pastor, which means “to feed” and is found in Ephesians 4: 11.

These three Greek words signify age, maturity in all phases of life, oversight, feeding, teaching God’s word, supermtending the work and development of each member of a local body of Christians. All these words refer to the same men in their relationship to a local group of Christians designated “the church” (Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

Every Church to Have Elders

When Paul and Barnabas returned from their preaching tour, they “ordained them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Paul left Titus in Crete, “that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Tit. 1:5). I do not know of a passage anywhere in the New Testament that directs any other oversight, and I do not know of any authority of Christ to abolish the eldership.

Titus was directed to “set in order” something. Thayer says this expression means “to set in order besides or further.” Titus was to set in order “the things that are wanting. ” Something needed to be supplied for order. In telling Titus to set in order the things that are wanting, he told him to “ordain” elders in every city. “Ordain” means “to appoint one to administer an office.” That is in the word of God and it can no more be taken out than baptism can be eliminated from the conditions for the remission of sins. Every church that does not have elders appointed has something lacking.

The Holy Spirit was not telling Paul, Titus or Timothy to “ordain” older people to be older people. He was commanding that men be ordained to a work of oversight in the local church. They were called “elders” because they were to be older men with the other qualifications listed in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. The term “elder” is used by the Holy Spirit with reference to this work or “office.” Paul sent from Miletus to Ephesus, and “called the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17). In verse 28 he told these “elders” that “the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Elders Must Be Qualified By God’s Standard

The New Testament teaches that some older men must have certain qualifications before they can be appointed to be bishops, elders or shepherds in a congregation of Christians. The lists of those qualifications are given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. While these requirements are a must, they do not require a perfect, sinless man. The bishop must have all the requirements listed to a mature degree. He must not be a novice. These qualifications must have been acquired before he is appointed to the work.

The Holy Spirit makes elders; the church where they are to serve selects them because of their qualifications to be appointed to the work. There is a definite time when they begin the oversight. One cannot be a Christian until and unless he obeys every condition for the remission of sins. Likewise, one cannot be a bishop (elder) until and unless he qualifies in every respect given in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.

These qualifications make the man what God wants him to be in the oversight of every local church. They make him a good moral man. He must be blameless, of good behavior, hospitable, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, no brawler, a lover of good men and just. They make him a man of self-control. He must be temperate, self-governed, not given to wine, not soon angry, not self-willed, sober, serious and just. They make him a good family man. He must be a mature husband, of one wife, faithful children (Christians), rule his house well, They make him a mature spiritual man. He must desire the good work, be apt to teach, not covetous, not a novice, of good report and holy. It takes time and effort to develop these characteristics.

The qualifications equip the men to be able to:

1. Be a good example (1 Pet. 5:3; Acts 20:28).

2. Properly use the word of God (Tit. 1:9; Acts 20:32).

3. Take the oversight (1 Pet. 5:2).

4. Take heed to the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2).

5. Rule well (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17; Heb. 13:17).

6. Feed the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2).

7. Watch for grievous wolves (Acts 20:28-30).

8. Stop the mouths of vain talkers and deceivers (Tit. 1:9-11).

9. Admonish (1 Thess. 5:12).

10. Support the weak (Acts 20:35).

11. Pray for and help the sick (Jas. 5:14).

12. Watch for the souls of those in his charge (Heb. 13:17).

It is wrong for a man to try to eliminate or modify baptism for the remission of sins in making one a Christian. It is just as wrong to eliminate or modify any of the qualifications of a man in making him a bishop in the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 581-582
October 4, 1990

By Luther W. Martin

Reincarnation: “A rebirth of the soul in successive bodies; specifically, in Vedic religions, the becoming of an avatar again; one of the series in the transmigration of souls.”

Transmigration: “The act of transmigrating; especially, the assumed passing of the soul from one body, after death, to another; metempsychosis.”

Avatar: “In Hindu mythology, an incarnation; manifestation.”

Veda (noun), Vedic (adjective): “Literally, knowledge; the oldest sacred literature of the Hindus, especially one of the four holy books of the Hindus of which the Rig-Veda is the most important.”

Vedanta: “The Hindu orthodox school of philosophy based on the Vedic literature and teaching that pantheism must eventually result in skepticism.”

Metempsychosis: “Transmigration of souls from body to body.”

(1) The Oriental Religion that considers that the soul of the deceased person may return to earth again, and inhabit the body of a lower animal, such as the “sacred cows” of India. It is because these bovines may be “Uncle Ed” reincarnated, that they are not killed for food.

Upanishad: “Literally, a philosophical treatise; one of the treaties forming the third division of the Vedas, dealing with the nature of man and the universe.” (Each of the above definitions come from the Britannica World Language Dictionary).

There are at least two basically different false doctrines involved with the subject of reincarnation.

All of which reminds me of a lady in a Missouri town, whose husband had passed away. But, since, this lady believed in the “transmigration” of her former husband’s soul into the body of an animal, she always kept the overhead garage door (attached to the residence) raised some six inches from the garage floor, in case her husband came back in the form of a dog (canine), and needed shelter. I don’t know why she expected him to return as a dog, but that was her expectation.

(2) The other Oriental belief consists of the idea that the soul’s existence is manifested in a series of cycles or episodes, wherein my soul (let us suppose) once inhabited some other body or bodies in previous centuries; and, I very well may expect that my soul will continue these cycles in yet different bodies in the future. Thus, according to this (and I emphasize false) doctrine, the soul participates in any number of deaths or departures, as it blends with first one body and then another.

Back in the 1950s a popular novel was published, entitled The Search For Bridey Murphy, authored by Morey Bernstein. The fiction had to do with a Pueblo, Colorado housewife, who had supposedly lived previously in Ireland, in the early 1800s. She reportedly had knowledge of both the people and geography of Ireland, that she would not have possessed if she had not indeed, been “Bridey Murphy” and actually lived in that time and place, in Ireland.

However, there are numerous ways in which she could have acquired such knowledge and information, and thus in no way did this fictional work prove reincarnation!

A New Testament Passage That Stops Reincarnation Abruptly

“And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment”(Heb, 9:27). Mankind is limited to the separation of soul and body, once! Then, next in sequence is the judgment!

An Example of False Evidence For Reincarnation

One believer in reincarnation, refers us to Joshua 24:3 “and I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac” (KJV). In this version, the word “flood” is used, and the reincarnationist jumps on it, and proclaims: “See, Abraham lived before the flood, and then lived again, after the flood!

However, if some other translation is consulted, one will learn that in both the 2nd and 3rd verses, of this passage, the Euphrates River is under consideration. That God led Abraham from his former home, Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 15:7; Neh. 9:7), on the eastern side of the Euphrates, westward to the land of Canaan. Seasonally, the Euphrates rose to “flood-stage” and the King James Translators used the term “flood” not in reference to the Great Flood, but in reference to the annual Euphrates flooding. Thus, a correct understanding of the passage, totally removes any thought of Abraham’s having lived once before the Great Flood, and then a second time after the flood.

According to Herodotus, “The Egyptians were the first to assert the immortality of the soul, and that it passes on the death of the body into another animal; and when it has gone the round of all forms of life on land, in water, and in air, then it once more enters a human body born for it; and this cycle of the soul takes place in three thousand years” (ii. 123).

There were numerous and varied theories on this subject among the ancient peoples. It is thought that Egypt’s ability and skill in preserving the bodies of their death, was accomplished in order to retain the body of the deceased for the re-entry of the soul.

Bruhmanism and Buddhism In India

The doctrine of transmigration is not found in the oldest books of India, but in both the Brahman and Buddhist religions, it has become a basic ingredient.

Traditions of the Jewish Rabbins

The Rabbins held to two ideas of transmigration: (1) That the soul was restricted to a life-tenancy in a single body. (2) That souls may temporarily inhabit or “possess” a body, without going through the processes of birth and death.

During the time of miracles, when Christ was upon the earth, both the servants of God and the agents of Satan were empowered to accomplish supernatural actions, such as Christ healing the sick and raising the dead; and Satan being able to enter into the being of a person, causing the person to be “demon-possessed.”

This supernatural ability which prevailed for a forty-year period (30 A.D. to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. see Micah 7:15), contributed to the Jewish Rabbin’s acceptance of theories of transmigration of souls, as they rejected Christ!

Metempsychosis In the Middle Ages

The Manichaeans combined the ideas of the “wandering of souls” with their concept of eternal punishment. They concluded that the sinner was placed in a place of punishment, like “limbo” or “purgatory,” until a partial cleansing had occurred. The sinner was then reclaimed to the light and allowed another trial in the present world. The sinner was supposedly afforded ten such opportunities for reclamation, but if he was still unworthy or unfit for heaven’s bliss, he was then condemned forever.

Witchcraft and Transmigration

The departed soul was thought to stay around in the vicinity of the body’s burial, for some time after death. In many instances, the souls of persons who died a particularly violent death, were said to remain active on earth, until such time that the “death was avenged” (murder, in particular). Then, the soul of the deceased might “find peace,” and its earthly activities (particularly nocturnal) would cease. This has led to the superstitions about walking through or near a cemetery after dark. “Witches” and “sorcerers” supposedly have the ability or power to “possess” the bodies of animals.

Holy Scriptures and Witchcraft

At a time in the history of mankind, when most nations actively engaged in the acceptance of witchcraft, sorcery, enchanting, soothsaying, and the like, the Jews were being instructed to destroy witches and sorcerers; and have nothing to do with such practices.

“You shall not permit a sorcerer (witch) to live” (Exod. 22:18).

“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord” (Deyt. 18:10-12).

“Also he (Manasseh) caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger” (2 Chron. 33:6). Manasseh was a king of Judah.

Witches, warlocks, fortune-tellers, and the like are condemned in the Bible, Reincarnation, transmigration, and such like, are subjects that are foreign to Holy Scripture. Fictional works that may speculate on such ideas may entertain the imagination, but have no place in the belief and conviction of Christians.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 17, pp. 528-529
September 6, 1990

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied” (Acts 9:31).

“Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Rom. 14:19).

God, in his infinite wisdom, arranged Christians into autonomous local churches for edification and cooperation. A major advantage of this group arrangement is that it allows Christians to mutually edify (teach, support, encourage, comfort, correct and discipline) one another.

Each congregation’s effectiveness in the Lord’s work greatly depends on a combination of peace and edification. A church may enjoy peace without scriptural edification, but it can have very little effective edification without peace. This is why congregations must diligently eliminate disruptive influences from among them.

A divisive person must be dealt with firmly and swiftly. After the first and second admonition such a one is to be rejected (Tit. 3:10). It only takes one divisive, pre-eminence seeking, self-willed character like Diotrephes (cf. 3 Jn. 9) to completely destroy the peace of a good church.

False teachers bring in destructive heresies (factions or parties) by causing some to rally around their false doctrine to the detriment of both the purity and peace of churches (2 Pet. 2:1ff). Such teachers bear the responsibility for much of the strife among churches today.

However, not all strife is caused by those who teach “various and strange doctrines” (Heb. 13:9). Paul spoke of those who “indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife” (Phil. 1:15). While endorsing what they preached, even rejoicing in it (Phil. 1:18), he criticized their ulterior designs. Such often use their positions as teachers/preachers of the gospel (sound doctrine) as a means of gaining personal power among their brethren. One cannot fault what they teach. They may be paragons of doctrinal soundness, yet use the respect gained by their strong stand for the truth to rally naive brethren around them personally. They often find ways to discredit any whom they consider to be a threat to their pre-eminence among brethren. Some use the respect that they have gained for their doctrinal soundness as a power base to force the church to bow to their self-willed edicts in all matters of judgment – or face scorn from them and their party of loyal followers. These self-willed tyrants are as surely “heretic,” “factious” or “divisive,” needing to be rejected by the congregation, as the false teacher who brings in destructive heresies. ‘They needlessly disturb the peace of the church and create a climate “hat makes much needed edification extremely difficult – if not impossible.

Peace

If a congregation is to grow and function as it should, it needs to maintain a peaceful environment. Jesus Christ is our peace (Eph. 2:1-14). All men, Jew and Gentile alike, can be reconciled unto God and each other through him so making peace (Eph. 2:18). Without a peaceful relationship with God, congregational peace is meaningless. That peaceful relationship (“unity of the Spirit”) that was established by the Spirit (Eph. 2:18) must be guarded (or kept) by us (Eph. 4:3). In order to do this we must “walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering” (vv. 1,2). This includes “bearing with one another in love” (v. 2). The strong have to bear with the weak (Rom. 15:1-3). Without gentleness, longsuffering, and bearing with one another, it would be impossible for a group of Christians, all of whom make mistakes, to work together with any degree of peace. One who is doctrinally sound needs to be sure that his humility, gentleness, longsuffering and forbearance are also in order. Otherwise, he may make havoc of the church and destroy opportunities to save them that hear him.

If a church is to be effective, its meetings need to be conducted in peace rather than confusion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33,34). This goes for worship assemblies, Bible classes and business meetings. Too often, these meetings are turned into a forum for every radical to sound off – to the tearing down rather than building up of the church. Such continual wrangling will kill the morale of a church and drive good brethren away from the congregation. Sometimes serious differences may need to be aired in such meetings, but they should be done in a calm and brotherly fashion rather than the contentious spirit that is so often the case.

Edification

As suggested earlier, peace alone will not make a congregation truly effective in the Lord’s work. A church must receive good edification. A lack of peace is an immeasurable hindrance to edification, but a church may be at perfect peace with itself and be in shambles spiritually.

There are certain things that the Bible says edifies brethren, individually and collectively. Members of any congregation would do well to pursue these things.

Sound doctrine edifies (Eph. 4:11-16). Sound teaching such as was done by apostles and prophets and continues to be done by faithful evangelists, pastors, and teachers keep brethren from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine and results in the edification of the body (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-4:5; Tit. 1:9-13). All of us have our ability, to “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1-8). Such will edify the church.

Pure speech edifies (Eph. 4:29). Wholesome words that reflect and promote a high standard of morality, ethics, courtesy, and spirituality serve to edify one another. Our speech should always be the truth, whether it is the truth of the gospel or the truth about every day events in our lives. Error and lying tear down rather than edify.

Love edifies (1 Cor. 1:8). When Paul says that knowledge puffs up, he is not discouraging or degrading knowledge. However, knowledge alone, untempered by love, tends to puff one up. Without love, one knowledgeable of his lawful rights in Christ may run rough shod over his good, but weaker, brethren who have not yet reached his level of knowledge.

Some things that are lawful do not edify under some circumstances (1 Cor. 10:23). There are two kinds of lawful things – things required and things permitted by law. Those things required by law always edify. They must always be done. Things permitted by law may not always edify. Paul is discussing things permitted by law – specifically, eating meats offered to idols. Under some circumstances they could be eaten without harm but under other circumstances they would not edify but tear down. Love would cause the brother, knowing his right under the law of Christ to eat such meats, but not being required by law to eat them, not to eat them under circumstances that would hinder the edification of his brethren.

Love of brethren takes precedence over mere rights (not obligations) under the gospel. We may need to yield certain rights for the sake of peace and edification (1 Cor. 9). To promote peace and edification, we may need to yield personal judgment calls to the judgment of others. To preserve peace and advance edification we may need to be extra patient with certain scruples of others, especially if the thing in question is a matter of indifference to us (cf. Rom. 15:1,2).

It takes effort to build one another up in the faith. To do so each needs to follow things that make for peace and that edify each others.

It takes all the help, teaching, and encouragement we can get to make it. We need to work to keep the congregation, of which we are members, in a position to give such help by promoting edification and preserving peace. We all need to take advantage of what the congregational arrangement, as God ordained, has to offer.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, pp. 547-548
September 20, 1990