Truth Magazine

By David Bonner

On the nights of April 9,10,12,13, H.L. Collett engaged Ben F. Vick, Jr. in a debate on church benevolence to saints and non-saints, or just to saints, and whether churches can donate to Boles Home and Potter Children’s Home. The first two nights were in the building where brother Vick preaches (Shelbyville Rd. in Indianapolis, Ind.). The last two nights were in the building where brother Collett preaches (Lafayette Rd., in Noblesville, Ind.). Approximately 125 to 150 attended each night. One reason the audiences were as small as they were, besides just lack of interest, is that Vick is a very “conservative liberal.” He opposes “homes” under elderships, most of the social gospel, all “human organizations” in the church budget except for the benevolent ones he calls “homes.” There were several preachers of his “stripe” who attended from afar and I was impressed with both their sincerity and conservatism. Wherever they are, they are an island. It will be interesting to see where they are in ten years or so. They are much closer to us than they are to the runof-the-mill liberals.

Vick has debated some before. This was Collett’s first debate. Both men did a good job of presenting their convictions. Good conduct prevailed in the audience and interest was high. As I was moderator for Collett (Mark Bass of Illinois was moderator for Vick) many have asked me who won! My reply is “The Lord.” When truth and error come together, if truth in fact is presented, error is no match. Space would not allow a full discussion of the debate but I’ll make just a few points.

Vick, on the subject of benevolence, argued James 1:27 as being for both the individual and church. He argued Galatians 6:10 as church benevolence and that it was the same case as 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 8,9. He also used 2 Corinthians 9:13 (“all men”) to try to prove church benevolence to non-saints. H.L. adequately showed that even the grammar of James 1:27 would not allow church action. He showed, by studying all of Galatians 6, that it was both individual and the good was spiritual. On 2 Corinthians 9:13 H.L. showed the “unto them” was the “poor among the saints” (Rom. 15:26) and the “all” was the other saints primarily in Jerusalem (Jews) who would have their prejudice broken down toward the Gentile sending people in said churches. H.L. also met the tears on the occasion by showing the March of Dimes will not care for heart patients or even orphans because it is not their work. He showed the same is true for each local church of Christ. Benevolence is not the local church’s work. Vick argued O.T. Israel robbed God (Mal. 3:8) and inferred no benevolence to the non-saints was just that. This really backfired on him when Collett showed we rob God when we use the church treasury in an unauthorized way (for the non-saint). Vick used the argument about a non-saint attending who got sick in the assembly and said then we could not call the 911 number for an ambulance or use “church water” or a towel to wipe his brow. Collett said the first saint who got to the sick man would both call 911 and wipe his brow as an individual but Vick’s brethren in order to have church action to decide to do the same would have to call an eldership meeting to make the decision and before the decision could be made, the man might die.

On the Boles Homes part, Collett asked Vick where in the Bible any local church ever donated to a family, showing the church made distribution to each man as any man had need (Acts 4:35). Vick reasoned to help a child the church would have to give to his father. This was a subtle way of trying to get the non-saint in the church budget. Collett asked Vick if the church donated to one widow, would that be donating to a widow’s home. Vick said, “Yes.” This backfired when Collett showed family is a collective word and one person can’t make up a family. Vick does not believe in missionary societies, he says, in the church budget or works of a church under a board. This also backfired when Collett read from a Boles Home publication which states, “Boles Home is a ministry of Churches of Christ,” and the same publication shows Boles Home is under a board. Collett showed the Southern Baptist Convention receives funds from local Baptist Churches and owns and operates orphan homes, Bible colleges, and evangelizes. He then showed the Oregon Christian Missionary Society also receives funds from Christian Churches and owns and operates both orphans homes and Bible colleges as well as evangelizes. He showed the American Christian Missionary Society (started in 1849) was under a board and evangelized. Then he showed Boles Home is the name of a corporation to provide a home for destitute and dependent children. And they “see” their “task as missionary in nature” (from one of their publications). Collett showed Boles Home is not like a missionary society but is a missionary society. By definition a missionary society is an organization or society designed to do the work or mission of the church. To those who view general benevolence as the mission of the church, an organization or society to perform this work “For Churches of Christ” is surely a missionary society.

Vick argued, if Galatians 6:6 is not authority for church support of preachers then Collett could not get his salary from the church. Collett showed 1 Corinthians 9 and other passages would include church support of preachers. Collett showed Galatians 6:6 is on the subject of the taught one having fellowship with the teacher in all good things which he teaches by living the teachings. It is not on paying a preacher.

We really believe Vick and his people generally are sincere. If they could just learn how to establish Bible authority, how the word church is used and how a local church may function, there might be great hope they will come to the truth. Truth was taught. H.L. Collett was well prepared having made well over 200 charts. Robert Bond flipped his charts and Larry Ritchie kept his time.

In conclusion, possibly the strongest argument Collett made, after Vick had made many of his points, was to state that about ten years ago he changed from Vick’s basic position having preached it for 12 years at the time. And why did he change? He stated he changed because of the same kind of arguments the audience had just heard Vick make, which will not hold water. Collett then affirmed he sends to the social security department of the U.S. Government which helps over 38,000,000 orphans, widows, and aged men so that ought to take care of James 1:27 for him. Then Collett showed that does not take care of James 1:27 for “visit” has to do with personally inspecting with the eyes for the purpose of doing good. Collett also asked Vick if an orphan child were still an orphan after a husband/wife adopted him. Vick said, “No.” Collett then asked if a child were still an orphan when taken in by Boles Home. Vick said, “No.” Collett showed if that is so, then no person or church obeys James 1:27 by donating to Boles Home since they are not orphans. Collett had charts contrasting a natural family with Boles Home, which Vick claimed was a substitute family, with about sixteen points of contrast. This made Vick’s position absurd. How can a rich board have poor kids in a family?

I believe debates do good and appreciate all the work H.L. put into this one. May honest people seek (Jn.7:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 423-424
July 19, 1990

By Mike Willis

Sometimes young folks reach the mistaken conclusion that religion is for little kids and old folks, not for maturing young adults. Among the young folks, some are venturing into the pastures of Satan to “sow their wild oats.” Some are testing their own newly discovered independence, pushing against the fences of established norms and standards of righteousness. Some will reject the Lord, never to obey his word.

Jesus calls every person to his service, including young people. Even as he called the rich, young ruler to be his disciple, so also he calls every other young person (Matt. 19:16.22). The Lord has commanded young people, “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth” (Eccl. 12:1). Let us consider the Lord’s call for young people

The Call to Become a Christian

When a child is born into the world, he is born sinlessly pure. He has not inherited either the guilt of the sins or a morally depraved nature from his ancestors (Ezek. 18:20; Matt. 18:3). The doctrine of inherited depravity, which led to infant sprinkling, is not taught in the Bible. Solomon wrote long ago, “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29).

When a child reaches the “age of accountability,” he chooses to transgress God’s commandments of his own will and volition (Rom. 3:23; 2 Cor. 5:14). Through this act of his own will, he rebels against God and enters the kingdom of Satan by sin. Becoming guilty of sin, the young person is separated from God, dead in his sins, and lost (Isa. 59:1-2; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:1).

As a sinner, young people have the same needs as do the rest of us. They need a Savior and salvation. So soon as a young person is lost, he is old enough to be saved.

Some Christians insult our young folks by saying the gospel will not convert their hearts and keep them close to the Lord. Instead, they urge that we reach our children with baseball, hot dogs and Coke, and keep them with church camps, trips to amusement parks, and hay rides. Our young people’s hearts are not so hardened by sin that the message of the gospel will not penetrate their consciences. Many of them have a love for the Lord which has outgrown that of many older folks.

The young people of our age are just like the young people of every other age. They will respond to the Lord’s love when they have it taught to and lived before them (2 Tim. 3:14-15). We exhort our young folks to become Christians. Recognizing your lost condition outside of Christ, believe on the Lord Jesus, repent of your sins, confess your faith in Christ, and be immersed in water for the remission of your sins (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 8:37; 22:16).

The Call to Righteous Living

When Paul wrote the young preacher Timothy, he said, “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). In every idea of his call to righteous living, Paul exhorted that Timothy be a model of what a Christian should be.

1. In word. A Christian young person should manifest purity of speech, avoiding the corrupt speech and filthy jesting of the ungodly (Eph. 4:29; 5:4). He should avoid lying (Eph. 4:25). Some commentaries make “word” refer to Timothy’s preaching and teaching. If so, a young person should be an example of sound teaching as well.

2. In conversation. This refers to the young person’s manner of life. He should put away the works of the flesh and put on the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:19-23).

3. In charity. The young person should manifest the active traits of love (1 Cor. 13:4-8) toward his fellow man.

4. In spirit. He should be “full of the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), manifesting a zeal for obedience to the word of God.

5. In faith. This may refer to his personal faith in God or his faithfulness. In a listing of character traits, the latter is probably meant. The young person should be one on whom you can count on attending the worship services, keeping his word, and every other matter.

6. In purity. The young person should keep his heart pure (Prov. 4:23) in order that he can keep his body from sin.

In Titus 2:4-8, Paul again exhorted young people to be a model Christian. Paul instructed the aged women to teach the younger women, to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine, shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech, that cannot be condemned.

Young people need to be reminded that God will bring every deed they do, even in their youth, to judgment (Eccl. 11:9).

Reasons for Obedience While Young

There are several good reasons why young people need to obey the gospel. Here are some of them:

1. The young die too. James said that a person’s life is a vapor “that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away” (4:14). That is true of every man’s life, regardless of how old he may live to be. However, we sometimes are reminded of the fraility of life by the tragic death of a young person. I helped conduct a memorial service recently for a fourteen-year-old girl who died in an automobile accident.

Indeed, the young die too! Young people need to obey the gospel while they are young for the same reason that middle aged people need to obey the gospel when first they hear it: we have no guarantee of a tomorrow.

2. To wander into sin leaves scars on one’s life. The temptation to wander into sin for a few years before becoming a Christian is full of danger. First of a, there is no guarantee that you will ever come out of sin. Sometimes the devil so ensnares a person in sin that it is impossible to renew him to repentance (Heb. 6:4-6). Secondly, the person who wanders in sin will be scarred by sin. Even when the scars are minor they are painful. A young person will develop a taste for the things which God forbids, while wandering in sin. Even when he turns away from sin, the temptation to turn back into sin will be greater by the remembrance of the pleasant taste of the forbidden fruit. Sometimes the scars are much worse: the auilty conscience of having aborted a baby, the body destroyed by disease (venereal disease, AIDS, etc.), the mutilated body of a traffic accident while drunk, and similar scars.

3. A person can bring an enthusiasm, zeal and strength to the service of God. As we grow older, the enthusiasm and strength fade away. Some older folks can only bring the leftovers of their life to God, but that it not true of young folks. Young folks can bring a whole lifetime as a living sacrifice to God (Rom. 12:1-2).

Inspiring Examples

The Scriptures furnish us with some inspiring examples of young folks who devoted themselves to God. Joseph resisted the sensual advances of his master’s wife to maintain his sexual purity (Gen. 38) and served the Lord in some difficult circumstances as a slave and prisoner. Ruth devoted herself to the service of her mother-in-law in her youth. Her inspiring words still are quoted at many weddings:

Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me (1:16-17).

Samuel manifested the attitude which every man should have toward the word of God, “Speak Lord, thy servant heareth” (1 Sam. 3:9). David courageously stood against Goliath, the Lord’s enemy, trusting in God for the victory and deliverance (1 Sam. 17). Daniel refused to eat the unclean foods and wines which were part of the king’s dainties, putting himself at great personal risk (Dan. 1:8-21). Everyone of these young men and women were inspiring examples of faith.

Some of our contemporaries also inspire us by their devotion to the Lord. My daughter Jennifer refused a leading role in her high school play because it required dancing. A young lady in Canada refused to go to her high school prom because of the sinful dancing and the impact of her example on her younger brother and sister. There are many untold stories of the victories of faith of these our younger brothers and sisters.

The moral purity of some young folks glows in their faces. They are “examples of believers.” These young folks absolutely inspire me to greater service. They remind me that we can rear godly children in an ungodly world, because some are doing it. While we sometimes fret over those who are lost to the world, let us pause to remember the faith of those. who have devoted themselves to God’s service.

Conclusion

We rejoice that there are churches full of young folks who have devoted themselves to the Lord. They are a joy and delight to be around, being full of joviality, life, high ideals, energy, and love. May their number increase!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 418, 438-439
July 19, 1990

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