Truth Magazine

By C.D. Plum

I. Antecedents

What is an antecedent? An antecedent is a word (noun or pronoun) for which another pronoun stands.

II. Illustrations

(1) James 1:26-27: “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” The pronoun “himself” in verse 27 has as it antecedent the noun “man” in verse 26. Our liberal brethren pervert this truth, and these Scriptures, by telling us these Scriptures refer to the church, and denote church action, instead of man action (individual action). “Himself” is a masculine pronoun. The church is the “wife” of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Rom. 7:4). Would Christ use a man’s pronoun to represent his wife? No, of course not! So, our liberal brethren (in this perversion) are wrong both “gospel wise” and “grammar-wise.” I am aware some versions say “oneself ‘ ” but this is still an individual pronoun and denotes individual action, not church action.

Those that “pervert” the gospel are the ones that are causing the trouble in the church. Read it and repent (Gal. 1:69).

(2) Galatians 6:1-10: I quote verse 10. “As we therefore have opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. ” Galatians 6:1-10 is written “to” brethren “about” a man (generic), about an individual’s activity and responsibility. Church activity and responsibility are not under consideration at all, though our liberal brethren err by saying it is. But notice the following:

(a) Individually we restore the erring man (Gal. 6:1).

(b) Individually we bear another’s burden, also our own (Gal. 6:2,5).

(c) Individually we humbly serve, and not deceive ourselves (Gal. 6:3).

(d) Individually man proves his own work, and rejoices therein (Gal. 6:4).

(e) Individually we communicate to teachers (Gal. 6:6).

(f) Individually we sow and reap (Gal. 6:7-9).

(g) Individually we do good unto all men, and especially unto them who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). It is not only good to do good unto “sinners” and “saints,” but the individual is commanded to do so. (There is no teaching, and no example, in the word of God where church contributions are used to feed or clothe or house sinners.)

Our liberal brethren pervert 2 Corinthians 9:12-14, trying to find sinners therein that were helped by the church. But this perversion is easily seen. Why every one helped here were “glorifying” God and “praying” for their helpers. Glorifying God and praying are not things done by sinners (especially alien sinners) but by Christians (saints) (Eph. 3:21; Heb. 4:16). Yes, members of the church.

But another truth is appropriate here. The church is not even obligated to help “poor saints” where there are relatives who are able to take care of them. Please read and study 1 Timothy 5:9-16. Note under what conditions the apostle Paul said these words: “Let not the church be charged. ” Note, too, the words: “widows indeed.” Not all widows are widows indeed. Not all poor saints are the charges of the church. Many of the ones the church helps are the charges of relatives. The Holy Spirit said so (Truth Magazine, 2 Sept. 1971, p. 658).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 399
July 5, 1990

By Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

(When the Gospel Guardian began in 1949, Foy E. Wallace, Jr. surveyed “The Issues Before Us” in two articles. Excerpts are given here from those articles which originally appeared in the Gospel Guardian for 5 and 19 May 1949, pp. 3 and 2-3.)

The issues confronting the church today are neither vague nor uncertain. Anyone with any ability at all to discern the trends or with any understanding of the course of history in the past cannot be mistaken in the portents of the present . . . In a dozen obvious ways and in unnumbered subtle and hidden ways “the mystery of lawlessness” is already at work. The development of institutionalism, centralized elderships, doctrinal weakness in the missionary situtation are but a few of the more apparent issues crying for correction. There are others.

Institutionalism

No one claims that these institutions are divine organizations; no one denies that they are secular and human; yet their proponents want to bed them up in the treasuries of the churches and thereby subordinate the divine church of the Lord to the human organizations of men. So much emphasis in fact has been put on these institutions by various papers and in many congregations that when people are baptized in some of these places one may be led to wonder if they know whether they are being added to the church or just joining some college. Some brethren need to learn all over again what the church is and what the church is for; and we humbly hope to be able to help them learn it.

Brotherhood Elderships

History is repeating on ecclesiastical organization. It comes now in the form of the little church working through the big church – which is centralization. It amounts to little elders turning the responsibility of their work over to big elders – which is diocesan in principle. Thus hierarchal and ecclesiastical centralization is growing – elders over elders, bishops over bishops. Remember, the pope of Rome is just an overgrown metropolitan bishop. With one eldership of one church taking over the work of many elders of many churches, and with this centralized eldership overseeing workers by the dozens who are not even members of the church where these elders are supposed to elder, what will be left of the local autonomous organization of the New Testament church? And to think that it has happened in Texas.

Promoting a Program

And another thing on the missionary situation-are we preaching the gospel and saving souls in foreign fields, or simply promoting a program to finance the building of schools, orphanages, and human institutions? If it be argued that through these human organizations and institutions the church can be established better, souls saved the more, then why is it that Jesus Christ did not order it done that way when he gave the Great Commission? And why did not the Apostles do it that way when they went into various countries of the world? And why was it not reported that way in the accounts and records in the Acts of the Apostles?

Shades of all the giants of the past generation who fought to their dying day the encroachments of missionary societies and human organizations in their early inroads within the churches of Christ! Between this and that, we had as well accept the missionary society and be done with it.

That we shall not do. The fight against societies, organizations, centralization of authority, and all that belongs to digression in general, so valiantly made in Tennessee and Texas fifty and sixty years ago, shall be fought all over again. The Lord has many thousands yet who have not bowed the knee to Baal – and shall not! From every point of the compass they shall rally to the call for truth and right. Our fathers have not fought in vain; their sons shall catch the torch of truth and hold it high. Let advocates of error be fully warned; there are a mighty host who say with us, They Shall Not Pass!

The Fellowship Question

While some of the brethren are becoming exercised over withholding fellowship from theorists and errorists among us from whom they think fellowship is not and should not be automatically withdrawn, let us suggest that Romans 16:17 covers the case and Titus 3:10 prescribe the procedure. Extending fellowship is a singular way to mark and avoid and reject teachers.

If these appeasers among us who are trying to decide whom to fellowship and not fellowship, what to tolerate or not tolerate would stop compromising anything and start preaching the truth on everything, the fellowship question would take care of itself like it did in John’s day: “They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). The same attitude was commanded by Paul and the same procedure enjoined in the case of the Corinthians: “There must also be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest” (1 Cor. 11:20). And Titus was charged accordingly: “A man that is a heretic (factious), after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted” (Tit. 3:10). This inspired injunction runs quite counter to the policies of appeasers among us who attempt to push their fellowship with everything and everybody upon us. They have themselves become factious in fostering a false fellowship. It is time that these prescriptions should be extended to them as well, who foment strife in their spacious pleading. They are propagandists for error. The pressure of the preaching of the plain gospel, if it is constant, will drive heresy and heretics out – they will not stay long enough to be fellowshipped. And that is exactly what John and Paul meant by what they said.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 395-396
July 5, 1990

By Robert C. Welch

The apostolic examples are to be observed by men today just as in the day when first given. Denominations, digressive people of all kinds, and the human institutional and sponsoring church brethren in particular, attempt to deny the force of such examples. The reason for this is that they do not want to follow these examples. So far as they are concerned they would like to see the examples and the requirement to follow them removed from the Bible. The Methodist hates the example of the apostle Paul and the Colossian saints in their burial in baptism (Col. 2:12); he wants to sprinkle. The digression of the last half of the past century hates the example of Paul and the churches in their joint participation in evangelism; it conflicts with their missionary society. Those brethren today who want the church to support their human institutions of benevolence, education and evangelism hate the examples of churches doing the work themselves with one church sending to another church where the need exists, and the church sending to the evangelist; the examples omit their institutions.

Modernism is the basic attitude behind all of this denial of the authority of approved apostolic example. Some who espouse it may not recognize it, and those who do will not admit it. In fact, very few modernists admit that they are. Modernism denies either the sufficiency or the authoritativeness of the Scriptures, in part or in whole. This basic fallacious attitude toward the Scriptures explains the gradual omission of other requirements when they omit the first scriptural requirement, and the continual addition of unauthorized practices when they include the first addition. There is no stopping place.

A Recent Case

Harold Littrell had recently moved to Blytheville, Arkansas, to try to build an orphan home, Herald of Truth Church, waging a fight against the two churches of the Lord in the town which have made great strides in spreading the gospel there and elsewhere and in harmoniously building up the body in that city. As such men have done ever since Ahab called Elijah the troubler of Israel, he piously claims that he is not causing any trouble but that those who have built the two substantial and active churches are causing trouble!

His basic modernist attitude adequately explains his actions. And he expresses in terse sentence the attitude which is behind the institutional digression of this era. In his bulletin he says: “It has to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods.”

This same modernist attitude has already led many of them to say that the specified day on which the disciples met to break bread is not binding on disciples today. It has led them to deny that the church is limited to praying, singing, teaching, communion and contributing in its assembling and worship. They have added the functions of recreation and entertainment. The same modernist attitude has led them to add to the work of evangelism and assistance to the needy, by putting the church into business and civil politics. As long as this attitude is present, there is neither logical nor practicable limit to that which they will teach and practice.

By Express Command

Emphatically, it does not have to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods. The Bible pointedly stresses that we are to do that which is exemplified by these inspired men. And then it just as pointedly stresses that we are to go no further than their expressed teaching and example.

The book of Hebrews compares the tabernacle of the Old Testament with the church of the New Testament. In one place the book speaks specifically of the structure of the tabernacle and applies it as a type to the care with which we are to follow the inspired description of the church. “Who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount” (Heb. 8:5). We have a pattern of the church shown us, just as surely as Moses had a pattern of the tabernacle. That pattern is in the New Testament. If this passage does not teach that, it teaches nothing.

Paul himself says: “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). With such a direct command as that, no one but a modernist could without sense of guilt say that we do not have to follow Paul’s examples.

More specifically, Paul gives an example of his support in evangelism in the book of Philippians, showing that the church at Philippi at one time, but not always Philippi alone, sent to his need. The church gave, he received (Phil. 4:14-17). Almost immediately preceding this example he says: “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil. 4:9). With this command and example presented in the same letter and same chapter, none but a modernist can read it and say that it has to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods. We are commanded to do that which we learn, receive, hear and see in Paul.

Hebrews speaks of those who gave us the revealed word, which is our rule, in this command: “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word ot God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7). The example of their life and faith is given us by them in the word of God; we are commanded to imitate it. The modernist denies this. The man of faith believes, teaches, and imitates their faith.

One of these apostles who has thus lived and given us the example and the charge to follow their examples, places a limitation upon that which we are to teach and practice. Paul expressly says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). This excludes addition to the teaching of the Scriptures concerning churches support of the evangelist, as well as addition to the teaching concerning singing and baptism. This is God’s law of exclusion. No sponsoring church through which a number of churches contribute to the preaching of the gospel is in the teaching and example of the New Testament: God thus excludes it. No benevolent society through which the church functions is given in teaching and examples in the New Testament; God thus excludes it (Gospel Guarthan [26 Sept 1963], pp. 326, 332).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 402
July 5, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

I. Introduction:

A. Fifty years ago, a prominent preacher warned:

“The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sand-bar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is characteristic of the age. This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in the missionary society but scruple not to form organizations for the purpose of caring for orphans, and teaching young men to be gospel preachers. Of course it is right for the church to care for the fatherless and widows in their affliction, but the work should be done by and through the church with the elders having the oversight thereof” (Guy N. Woods, A CC Lectures, 1939, p. 54).

B. Using commonly accepted terminology as employed in the quote above, the Scriptures shall be our authority in this study of institutionalism (2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; Matt. 28:20).

C. Topics to be discussed:

1. Is there a Bible pattern?

2. How is scriptural authority established?

3. What is the church?

4. What is the work of the church?

5. What is the issue?

II. Discussion:

A. Is there a Bible pattern?

1. Noah had a pattern (Gen. 6:22).

2. Moses had a pattern (Exod. 25:8,9,40; 26:30; 27:8; cf, Acts 7:41,44; Lev. 10:1,2; 1 Sam. 15).

a. “Works of their own hands” (Acts 7:41 vs. God’s, v. 44).

b. “Obey better than sacrifice” (1 Sam, 15:22).

c. Cf. Jereboam – “devised of his own heart” (1 Kgs. 12:33).

3. New Testament pattern (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:5; 3:16,17).

a. For gospel obedience (Rom. 6:17,18; 1 Tim. 1:16).

1. If not, cannot bind baptism.

2. If not, cannot forbid infant baptism.

3. If no order, no disorder.

b. For worship (Col. 3:16,17).

1. If not, Lord’s supper on Saturday.

2. If not, piano, beads, candles.

3. If no order, no disorder.

c. For organization (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2).

1. If not, one man pastor plan of Protestants?

2. If not, accept priestly caste of Catholics?

3. If no order, no disorder.

d. Some want to pick and choose which patterns they will follow – “Lazy Susan” patternism.

e. Others use the Bible to show there is no pattern! Is the Bible a pattern for “no patternism”?

B. How is scriptural authority established?

1. Direct command, statement – “Take, eat” (1 Cor. 11:24-26) – Observe Lord’s supper.

2. Approved apostolic example – “Upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7) – When to observe Lord’s supper.

3. Necessary Implication – “Upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; Exod. 20:8) – Frequency of observance.

4. Generic and Specific authority:

C. What is the church?

1. Universal body of all obedient believers (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27,28).

2. Local congregations (Rom. 16:16; Gal. 1:2; 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:11,20).

3. Cf. Eunuch and Saul – both members of the church, but a member of no local church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:13; Acts 8:26-40; 9:26; 2:47).

4. A plurality of local churches did not move, act or work in concert as a single unit – no “churchhood” concept.

a. If so, cite head, organization, work, treasury. b. If so, what are entrance qualifications? Officers qualifications? How appointed?

D. What is the work of the church?

1. Preaching (1 Thess. 1:8; Acts 11:22).

2. Edification (Eph. 4:12; 1 Cor. 14; Acts 11:22-26).

3. Benevolence (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:16).

4. Recreation, Entertainment? No Scripture.

a. “For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church. The church, like Nehemiah, has a great work to do; and it should not come down on the plains of Ono to amuse and entertain” (B.C. Goodpasture, Gospel Advocate, May 20, 1948).

b. “Building recreation rooms and providing and supervising recreational activities at the expense of the church is a departure from the simple gospel plan as revealed in the New Testament” (Gospel Advocate Annual Commentary, 1951, p. 229). E. What is the issue?

E. What is the issue?

1. In evangelism:

a. The issue is not:

1. Should preaching be done.

2. “How” should preaching be done (means, methods).

3. May churches cooperate.

4. May a place be maintained.

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain missionary societies to do work God gave the church to do.

2. In edification:

a. The issue is not:

1. Should saints be edified.

2. “How” edifying should be done (means, methods).

3. May churches cooperate.

4. May a place be maintained.

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain colleges to do the work God gave the

church to do.

3. In benevolence:

a. The issue is not:

1. Should needy receive care.

2. “How” should care be done (means, methods).

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain benevolent societies to do work God gave the church to do.

III. Conclusion:

A. Compare principles above to church sponsored recreation.

1 1. Note a “what if” comparison:

2. Church does the work, provides gym, games, toys, coaches.

3. Not this:

4. If the church is not a “home” and must contribute to a benevolent society, as some argue, then since the church is not a gymnasium, must it contribute to YMCA’s to play?

B. The local church is all-sufficient to do the work God assigned it to do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 392-393
July 5, 1990