Truth Magazine

By Robert C. Welch

In spite of all the teaching of the Bible on the subject, in spite of all the emphasis which has been placed on that teaching in recent years, brethren who should know better are continuing to teach that the church can do what the member does. Many who do not study for themselves accept this erroneous doctrine. The gist of their reasoning is that, since the church is composed of individuals, the church does what the individuals do. Some argue that since Christ said the kingdom is within us, therefore each Christian living and acting among men is the church. Others assume that since all congregational action is expressed by the combined individual action of its members, therefore all action of the members is congregational action. The Sommer position assumed that an individual could do only that which the church could do in religious activity.

This doctrine is assumed for the most part in an effort to justify the church support of colleges, parochial schools, orphan homes, old folk homes, hospitals, camps, special forms of missionary societies, and a host of other businesses, to which church support is unauthorized in the Scriptures. The latter position mentioned in the above paragraph is assumed in opposition to Christians in their individual capacity participating in these organizations, especially the schools and orphanages.

There are many functions which the church as a unit has which, according to the Scriptures, do not belong to the individual. The Lord’s supper is to be taken in the assembly (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20 and context). The idea that the Lord’s supper is to be carried about and administered to those who do not or cannot assemble is borrowed from the Catholics as they administer the mass. Elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23). Each member has no scriptural right to appoint his own elders. The church, gathered together, is to exercise discipline upon the ungodly member (1 Cor. 5:4,5). While all the members are to carry this out, one man cannot take it upon himself to act for the whole church (3 Jn. 9, 10). These should be sufficient examples to show the unbiased that there is a difference between individual and church action. It should cause him to pause in his headlong rush into the assumption that the church can do everything which the individual can do.

A Christian may marry and as a husband he is to love his wife (Eph. 5:25). But the church cannot do this. Someone may raise the quibble that he is only speaking of religious activity when he says that the church can do anything which the Christian can do. The above illustration is that which the Scriptures authorize, call it what you will. The man who will thus quibble about the matter has set up his own arbitrary definition of what is included in religious activity. He needs to read from the Bible where the Lord has given one of his commands and made it religion and then given another and excluded it from religion; but he cannot find that which is not there. Perhaps such a man has reasoned that those things which the church does are religious acts and that none other is to be so defined. Then when he comes to justify the church support of his idols (institutions) which he has built, he reasons that this is religious and that if we agree that the individual might support some of them, then the church can do it also. But he has reasoned in a circle, violating his own primary definition of religion.

A widow is to be enrolled if she has washed the saints’ feet (1 Tim. 5:9, 10). This condition is one of a number which are specified in the same passage, some of which the church at times engages in; for example: good works and relieving the afflicted. But very few would be so puerile as to argue that this passage teaches that the church is to practice foot washing. The authorization for the church engaging in good works and relief of the afflicted is to be found in other places in the Scriptures rather than in this one. There is no place authorizing the church to engage in foot washing. Hence, this is another example of individual right and obligation which do not belong to the church.

That a Christian may engage with others in an honorable business, either with or without profit or income, for manufacture of products, publication of literature, providing education, care of the sick, the aged, the widow, the orphan and the needy in general, is positively affirmed in the Scriptures (for example: Rom. 12:17; Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 4:11,12; Jas. 1:27).

The trouble with a great number is that they want the churches either to go into these businesses as owners and operators or to have fellowship in such businesses by direct contributions to them. The church is authorized to give relief to the saints in need, under their own supervision and distribution as independent congregations (Acts 4:32-35; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-3). The church is authorized to have fellowship in furthering the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8,9; Phil. 1:5; 4:14-18; Col. 4:16). There is no authorization, however, for the churches to contribute to the businesses and institutions which men have built, whatever their product or service. There is no authorization for churches to combine in the building, owning and operating of such business or organization. You ask why no Scriptures are given which discuss these practices specifically? There are none, just as there are no Scriptures which specify instrumental music, the Lord’s Supper on Thursday, or a missionary society. Churches should stay out of these businesses and institutions for the same reason that they should stay out of instrumental music, missionary societies and Thursday Lord’s suppers.

It is sad that men can recognize the difference between the individual and the family, the individual and the government, the individual and the business in which he engages; but cannot recognize the difference between the individual and the church. If some man who wanted to justify the church support of his institutions had not taught the false doctrine the people would not have been so blind to reason and revelation. But “the god of this world hath blinded the minds” of some (2 Cor. 4:2-4) (Gospel Guardian, 31 Oct. 1963, pp. 402, 413).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 403, 410
July 5, 1990

By Daniel H. King

Fornication has always been a sin not only against God and holiness, but also against one’s own body. Throughout this period of sexual madness that our nation and the world have been experiencing, that is one fact which has been largely ignored. Paul noted this in making his argument against the licentious ways of the Corinthians: “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18).

According to Paul’s observation, no sin quite so intimately requires the total involvement of the physical anatomy as does fornication. Additionally, it puts the body completely at risk. The Bible attests that from very early times God has associated this sin with danger and even death. Numbers 25 tells of how the Israelites “began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab” (v. 1), and “Israel joined himself unto the Baal of Peor.” Canaanite religion was a fertility cult and was inherently sexual in nature. People worshiped Baal and Asherah by means of union with cultic prostitutes (both male and female). There is ample attestation of this in the Scripture itself and also in outside sources such as the cuneiform texts from Ugarit. Israel was tempted to join in with the worship and did so to his hurt. Fornication is dangerous! The Bible tells how Moses and the priests struck down some who engaged in this evil. But, almost in a footnote, it ends the story of the incident with these words: “And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand.” Imagine that! Twenty-four thousand persons perished by a plague because of their fornication! Undoubtedly this plague was some sort of sexually transmitted disease.

The brothel at Peor was not a safe place to visit!

Our young people need to be constantly warned that there is danger in fornication. While God has blessed the marital union (Heb. 13:4 – “the marriage bed is undefiled”), he has cursed pre- and extra-marital involvements: “fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4b). Too many of our foolish intellectual leaders are attempting to salvage their so-called “sexual revolution” by encouraging “safe sex,” i.e. sex with a protective condom. In reality, the only “safe sex” is that between two persons who are married and faithful to one another. We who believe Scripture must not hesitate to remind ourselves and others that the curse of God is upon those who commit fornication. Even if one takes the risk and gets lucky (does not contract a disease or experience some other of the rewards of this sin), still the wages of sin is ultimately death (Rom. 6:23).

At this stage in our history venereal diseases are running rampant. Gonorrhea, syphilis, chancroid, lymphogranulorna venereum, granuloma inguinale, nongonococcal urethritis (chlamydial infection), venereal herpes (herpes genitalis), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), etc., are all threats to public health. Herpes and AIDS are incurable; AIDS is always fatal. Contrary to public opinion, curing these diseases is not easy for the scientific community, nor is the solution to merely throw unlimited funds into research (as many in the homosexual community seem to think, especially with reference to AIDS). Not only are the causative organisms in these various diseases different structurally but they also represent distinct classes of micro-organisms: spirochetes, cocci, bacilli, and viruses. Herpes and AIDS are both viral organisms, and so are the most difficult to prevent or interdict with medication. It is impossible to eradicate them because they are constantly being transmitted to new hosts by sexual activity of infected persons, knowingly or unknowingly.

The AIDS virus in particular strikes fear in the hearts of even the most casual in their views toward sexual “freedom.” The slow and excruciating death, punctuated by debilitating infections and unrelenting cancerous tumors, and the knowledge that there are no survivors, should be sufficient to give anyone pause before considering a “casual sexual encounter.” It seems that in this mysterious virus God has created a scourge worthy of the plague at Peor calculated to punish those who have no respect for his Law!

Yet, there is no reason for the child of God to fear these deadly venereal plagues. The Lord has made a way to protect his people from such. In their faithfulness to God and their marital partner, or through denial of lust and its fulfillment, Christians guard themselves from these plagues. As Jehovah said in the Old Testament, “the Lord will . . . put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee. . . ” (Deut. 7:15). On the other hand, if we succumb to the lusts of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). As Moses warned Israel: “Then the lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance. Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou was afraid of; and they shall cleave to thee” (Deut. 28:59-60).

We must know that, even today, “he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). If we are guilty of this sin, we are not only transgressing an ordinance of God, but we are hurting ourselves, potentially destroying our own bodies! “A prudent man seeth the evil, and hideth himself; but he simple pass on, and suffer for it” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 417, 439
July 19, 1990

 

By Ron Halbrook

The only sure and safe way to avoid all forms of religious idolatry is to follow the New Testament pattern of faith and practice. Unity blesses those who adhere to that standard. Naturally, they will be separated from all who act upon some other principle. The Holy Spirit admonished first-century Christians to hold fast the form or “pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13). The pattern was binding and exclusive, not optional. Timothy was to charge hearers to “teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3).

The message inspired by the Holy Spirit was first proclaimed through apostolic men, then presented in writing. This inspired Word constituted the pattern. “These things write I unto thee . . . that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14-15). The things proclaimed by apostolic men and presented in writing by them were all-sufficient, and binding for all ages (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:12-15). The pattern of sound words revealed the will of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the life and work of Jesus Christ; the scheme of redemption; the conditions of pardon; the graces of godliness to be developed in our lives; the origin, work, worship, organization, doctrine, and discipline of the church; and the hope of eternal life.

Many churches of Christ are slipping away from the New Testament pattern and separating themselves from the Lord (Rev. 2:5). An excellent tract by Cecil Willis identifies “The Taproot of Digression: No-Pattern-Ism.”

The history of man is the history of his digressions from God’s divine will. Man has, at one time or another, perverted and polluted every divine provision of God. He has corrupted the sacred worship, distorted the organization of the church, and perverted the divine mission of the church. Again and again, man has changed the unchangeable. Herein has been the source of a multitude of digressions.

Brother Willis then explained, “The basic assumption of the digressive is that there is no New Testament binding pattern.” The question of “freedom” and “unity” are always raised by the digressive. He wants “freedom” to change the New Testament pattern, and considers those who deny this freedom as disturbers of the peace. Faithful men recognize that in adhering to the pattern there is freedom from the chaos of idolatry. Either there is a pattern or there is not; here are two irreconcilable concepts of what it means to serve God.

Leroy Garrett argues, “Those who look for a ‘fixed pattern’ might well give up their search. There is no pattern of Christian worship in the Scriptures.” There being no pattern of what must be done, none of the following can be excluded: “coffee and doughnut session” as part of “social or corporate worship,” “children’s church,” “a symbolic candle-lighting to enhance the Supper,” “choirs,” “counseling and group therapy,” and, of course, instrumental music (Restoration Review, October, 1978, pp. 142-146). Garrett thrilled to report, “A church of Christ in the Dallas area recently had a candle lighting as part of its worship and edification” (p. 160). It is not deviation from the pattern which causes division, he says; rather, the “fatal error” is “restorationism, ” the idea that “the New Testament constitutes a fixed pattern,” also called “legalism” (p. 148). Carl Ketcherside reports that he had a private, true conversion experience 27 March 1951, escaping “legalism and tradition,” while Robert Meyers explained that he only gradually reached “the wisdom of uncertainty,” “Christian” agnosticism, the concept that “one can never know very much for sure” (pp. 152-158). These men have tested the heady wine of no-pattern-ism and gotten gloriously drunk on it.

In discussing “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things,” a young preacher named Alexander Campbell (17881866) wrote in 1825 that before inquiring “what was the ancient order of worship . . . it may be expedient to consider whether there be any divinely authorized worship in the assembly of the saints.” He saw two irreconcilable answers: ‘Either there is a divinely authorized order of Christian worship in Christian assemblies, or there is not. ” Campbell then reduced no-pattern-ism to its logical absurdity, as follows:

On the supposition that there is not, then the following absurdities are inevitable. There can be no disorder in the Christian assembly, there can be no error in the acts of social worship; there can be no innovation in the department of observances; there can be no transgression of the laws of the King. For these reasons, viz. Where there is no order established there can be no disorder, for disorder is acting contrary to established order; where there is no standard there can be no error, for error is a departure or a wandering from a standard; where there is nothing fixed there can be no innovation, for to innovate is to introduce new things amongst those already fixed and established; and where there is no law there can be no transgression, for a transgression is a leaping over or a violating of legal restraints. Those, then, who contend that there is no divinely authorized order for Christian worship in Christian- assemblies, do at the same time, and must inevitably maintain, that there is no disorder, no error, no innovation, no transgression in the worship of the Christian Church – no, nor ever can be. This is reducing one side of the dilemma to what may be called a perfect absurdity (Christian Baptist, Vol. 2, pp. 239-243).

If there is no pattern, Campbell pointed out that various assemblies of worship could be devoted to nothing but dancing, singing, shouting, running, lying prostrate on the ground, reading, listening to a speaker, sitting silently, waving palm branches, crying, or playing an organ. To exclude any act from worship, a person must refer to some fixed standard.

Ephraim’s idols originated in a spirit that refused to be restrained by a set pattern of teaching. The same spirit is producing the same results today. Ultimately, nothing revealed in the New Testament can escape the destructive hand directed by the spirit of no-pattern-ism. The only way to avoid the total destruction of New Testament faith and practice is to hold fast the pattern of sound words (Truth Magazine, 8 Mar. 1979, pp. 165-166).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 404-405
July 5, 1990

By James W. Adams

Probably the great hoax perpetrated in the religious world during the nineteenth century was the imposition of the “Book of Mormon” on the American public. The book first appeared for sale and distribution in the bookstore of printer, E.B. Grandin in Palmyra, New York, on March 26, 1830. It was entitled: “The Book of Mormon, by Joseph Smith, Junior, author and proprietor.” It purported to be a translation of a revelation from God written on golden plates which, directed by the heavenly messenger, Moroni, Joseph Smith uncovered on a hill just outside Manchester, Ontario county, New York. According to Smith, he was told by Moroni that God had a work for him to do, and that there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang, and that the “fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; also, that there were two stones in silver bowls – and these stones, fastened to a breast plate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummin – deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.”

Joseph Smith claimed that by this means he “translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written” the material which constitutes the “Book of Mormon.” Hence, there is no question that he claimed the “Book of Mormon” was divinely inspired, a “latter day revelation” from the God of heaven. That this is the belief of Mormons today is corroborated by the accepted name of their church: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

I have in my library a book called: “Braden-Kelley Debate.” It is a discussion between Clark Braden, of the church of Christ, and E.L. Kelley, of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. It was conducted in Kirtland, Ohio in the spring of 1884. Mr. Kelley was much perturbed throughout by the fact that brother Braden uniformly referred to Joseph Smith, Junior, as “Imposter Joe.” I do not necessarily agree that brother Braden was wise in the use of this terminology, but in the light of what follows, it would appear that the Utah branch of modern Mormons tacitly, at least, accept it to be altogether fitting.

Note the following (AP) news item which appeared in the May 1, 1990 edition of The Lufkin Daily News, Lufkin, Texas:

Mormons Revise Church Ritual

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) – In a rare revision of Mormon ritual, the church has dropped wording that required women to pledge to obey their husbands and portrayed the clergy of other religions as agents of Satan. . . .

The revised ritual, which took effect last month in ceremonies performed in 43 temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is being greeted with enthusiasm by church members who say it reflects greater sensitivity toward women and other religions.

Mormons attending temples were read a statement from the governing First Presidency informing them of the changes. The statement said the revisions were unanimously approved by the three member body and the advisory council of the Twelve Apostles.

By reason of the limitations of space, I shall deal only with the change relative to Mormon teaching concerning “other religions” or the denominations of modern Christendom. Joseph Smith, Junior, professed to have had a vision when fourteen or fifteen years of age which identified him “as a person for whom God had special plans.” He reports that he saw “a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. . . I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other – This is my beloved Son, hear him!” Smith further says: “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. . . . I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right – and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong . . . He again forbade me to join with any of them . . . that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt.” This is the teaching that is the subject of the recent change mentioned in the Associated Press news item above.

Since Smith claimed he received the above message directly from the Father and the Son, the change ordered by the First Presidency of Mormonism does one of two things: (1) It declares that today’s Latter Day Saint may ignore with impunity divine revelation; or (2) Joseph Smith, Junior, was what brother Braden declared him to be, “Imposter Joe” -that his “revelations” were pretended revelations, hence that the “Book of Mormon” is a giant hoax which makes its way by reason of the gullibility of its adherents. I charge without fear of successful contradiction that the recent ruling of the officials of the Utah branch of Mormonism is a tacit admission that Joseph Smith, Junior, was a false prophet, an imposter, hence that the Book of Mormon is a great hoax. If not, why not?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 419-420
July 19, 1990