Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill (1907-1985)

Certain ones from the household of Chloe had informed Paul that there were divisions among the brethren in Corinth. When he wrote to the church there, deeply concerned about their contentions, Paul condemned them for their “carnality,” and pointed out at least two indications or expressions of a carnal mind: glorying in men, and putting the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God. In beseeching them to overcome their problem along this line, he invokes the name of Christ. “Now I beseech you brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment”(1 Cor. 1:10).

By using the name of Christ to enforce and back up his admonition to them, the apostle called into play all the authority of heaven. This would be sufficient influence in the mind and heart of any individual who had respect or reverence for the Lord; this name would challenge attention and demand concern from all who were not completely hardened. The writer gives three particulars in which they are to work in overcoming their dissension:

“Speak the Same Thing”

It is impossible to have unity without all those involved being willing to speak the same thing. When men teach different doctrines, there is division; when they are willing to teach only the faith of the gospel of Christ, unity will prevail. So Paul’s order to these brethren is that they must all come back to the basis of a common faith, a common message, the gospel of Christ. This will correct their division; without it they can never have unity. Divisive doctrines, differing opinions and ideas will always bring discord. But when all men confine their “speaking” to the truth of God, unity will exist within the body. This is the Paul’s instruction for the restoration of unity in Corinth. But whatever will restore unity there, the same procedure will perpetuate unity in our generation.

“No Division Among You”

There are some who take Paul’s admonition that “there be no division” as justification for “peace at any price.” God does not want peace purchased at the expense of truth. Jesus made this very plain when he said, “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). Christ came into the world as the Prince of Peace, but he knew that his word, the truth, as it was preached in the world, as it entered into the hearts of men would most certainly create faith; it would find hostility in another heart, and the man would be hardened. Thus, with one man believing and another rejecting, it would be inevitable that the two should be set against each other. This cleavage should extend even into a man’s own family.

“For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw; and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” A man’s primary concern shall be that he have peace with God; peace within his family must always be secondary to that. When we put peace with men above peace with God, we have forsaken God’s way. Peace at any price means I prefer men and their fellowship above God and his fellowship; it means I am set against God. I have separated myself from him by my disrespect for his word.

God’s word is the only basis on which peace can exist. If it exists on any other foundation, it is false and deceitful. It is easy enough to have peace if one is willing to pay for it by the sacrifice of God’s word. But that is not the kind of peace the Christian seeks. If God’s word brings the division, then let the division come. When a faithful disciple takes his stand upon the word of truth, he is at once at peace with all others who thus stand; he is at enmity with all those who do not so stand. Loyalty to God and fidelity to him must mean more than all the goodwill and all the peaceful relations with any men on this earth.

“Same Mind and Same Judgment”

As long as a Christian has the “mind of Christ” he will be likeminded with other Christians. Into such a group division can not come. But when men are willing to buy harmony at the cost of truth or righteousness, they do not have the mind of Christ. This is true not only in the church, it is true also in the community, in business, or anywhere else. Peace with God comes first; as long as that is maintained, the one having that peace is automatically at peace with every other person on the earth who is also at peace with God. Thus between and among the true and faithful disciples of the Lord there is always unity. When any breach or division comes, it is evidence that somebody has departed from the right relationship with God.

Thus Paul admonished the Corinthians, “speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Such a course would restore peace to Corinth; such a course will perpetuate peace among any people and in any age (Gospei Guardian [13 Jan. 1955], p. 549).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 387-388
July 5, 1990

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: “From the Papers,” Gospel Advocate, XXXIX (May 27,1897), 322.

“The church of the New Testament is no such institution as that word conveys to the mind of the average man. In New Testament times, religion was on an individual basis, and the church was a spiritual body over which Christ was the head, and in which every Christian was a member. It ought to be that way yet. The people ought to build their own meeting houses in keeping with the simplicity and economy of their own homes, and within the limits of their financial ability, and then conduct their own religious worship and services according to the simplicity of New Testament precept and precedents.”

Few problems are more difficult than keeping the nature of the church straight in our minds and in our practice. What was in the New Testament a spiritual kingdom (Matt. 16:18), activated only in groups of Christians in a locality doing a relatively few things together (for instance, the church in Corinth, 1 Cor. 1:2), is easily translated into a powerful, coercive human institution. Today, the term church conveys to few what is meant in the New Testament.

We must be ever vigilant not to turn the church into an operational national organization, even though the alternative is to live in a relatively disorderly world of independence. The church can become a denominational entity in many subtle ways. It is easy to translate a perfectly correct concept of a spiritual “we” (recognizing our spiritual kinship to all those in Christ) into a denominational “we” (expressing affiliation with a human organization). Editors can become denominational officials, schools can become denominational agencies, unwritten creeds can become tests of denominational orthodoxy.

The motive behind such denominational drive is that old enemy human pride. Men want a kingdom like those around them. Leaders aspire to recognition and honor. Human values replace a spiritual understanding.

Fletcher Srygley (quoted above) sensed that this destructive change in attitude could first be seen in the conduct of a local church. When one equates the well being of the church with the quality of a meeting house, or with the aesthetic quality of the services, he betrays a human rather than a spiritual value system. Such a value system can only end in the destruction of the church as a divine institution. The church can be beautiful, effective, and approved if it conforms to the simple but meaningful instructions of God. – Ed Harrell

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, p. 356
June 21, 1990

By Warren E. Berkley

As a boy, I still remember brother Cecil Douthitt warning brethren about apostasy and false doctrine. One thing that stays in my memory is this: Brother Douthitt often remarked: “In every specimen of false doctrine, the false teacher – on some point – is missing or ignoring some basic concept of Bible authority.”

I was reminded of this recently, listening to Ron Halbrook and Jack Freeman debate the matter of remarriage. Both in Las Vegas, and in West Columbia, Texas, brother Freeman made this argument (stated in his words, as best as I can recall): “Find the scripture… find just one Bible example … of an apostle or inspired man telling a married couple to separate as a part of their gospel obedience.”

Brother Douthitt was right, certainly in the case of this false teacher. Brother Freeman’s premise is this: There must be a specific example of every act of repentance. Thus, since there is no specific example (after Acts 2) of an inspired man telling or requiring a couple to separate, Freeman wants to conclude: There is no authority for this requirement, and we cannot tell anyone this today.

He is stumbling over a basic concept of authority; and he is arguing in favor of his proposition on the basis of silence. But let’s begin with . . .

What Is Repentance?

When the apostles and inspired men urged repentance, they often used the word metanoeo. How did the alien sinners in the first century understand this? What did the word signify to them? Consider the following authorities:

Robinson: “In a religious sense, implying sorrow for unbelief and sin, and turning from them unto God and the gospel of Christ” (p. 458, Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament).

Clark: “That his mind, purposes, opinions, and inclinations, are changed; and that, in consequence, there is a total change in his conduct” (p. 50, Vol. V, Commentary).

Lard: “Repentance denoted our mental determination to forsake sin, resulting in the actual abandonment of it” (p.76, Commentary on Romans).

Vines: “To change one’s mind or purpose, always, in the N.T., involving a change for the better, an amendment” (p,280, Vol. 111, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

Hence, when the apostles and inspired men are telling alien simmers the requirements of obedience, they used a word which means the actual abandonment of sin … change in conduct … amendment … a turning from sinful involvements. This is what the word meant in the vocabulary of the day, when the apostles were proclaiming the gospel. I mean to say – it was understood in the very word the preachers used, that all sinful involvements were to cease. I deny and call for proof, therefore, that every specific evil practice or wrong relationship had to be specified: “You’ll have to quit this … leave this situation… stop doing this … quit thinking this way … stop committing fornication.”

In the general command to repent, conveyed to alien sinners with a word that communicated abandonment of sinful involvements, there is the authority to require such abandonment today . . . for any transgression of God’s law.

When people enter into marriages with parties they are forbidden by God to marry (see Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9) and afterward repent and wish fellowship with God, and the local church – what does repentance require? The same thing that repentance of any sinful involvement requires: the abandonment of the sinful involvement. Specific examples of every possible case of abandonment are not necessary.

That brings me to the aspect of authority, mentioned in the introduction.

Demanding Specific Authority

It seems to be the thinking of some, that if the Bible does not deal with a matter in explicit, specific terms, we have freedom to act; silence is approached as permission.

I’m thankful my children do not approach my authority like this. I have never, for example, specifically and explicitly dealt with the matter of writing checks, knowing you do not have sufficient funds in the bank. I have endeavored to teach my children principles of honesty, and I have taught them against theft; I have even identified theft and dishonesty as transgressions of God’s law. Still, I’ve not specified every act that would fall in these categories. Nevertheless, my children do not interpret my silence (on the subject of deliberate, deceitful overdrafts) as permission to write hot checks.

Likewise, the apostles and inspired men did not deal explicitly with every imaginable form of sin that was to be abandoned. What they did was, to convict people of sin; define and identify sin . . . and then, tell people to repent, and they used a word that meant the abandonment of sinful practices.

Jack Freeman and others are making the argument since you cannot produce a passage or example of an apostle or inspired man telling a couple to separate, such separation is not authorized. They are doing what many before them have done; they are desecrating the sanctity of God’s silence. In controversy over a whole multitude of issues (from instrumental music to church sponsored activities) this old argument has been dusted off and used. Gospel preachers have repeatedly shown – when God speaks nothing, this silence must be honored by man; not used as permission (see Heb. 7:13,14). (In the Freeman-Halbrook debate, brother Halbrook made this very point; but it was never answered by brother Freeman. Ron also cited 1 Cor. 6:9-11 as teaching the necessity to sever wrong relationships.)

But it should be noted, this door Freeman opens is wider than the remarriage issue.

Filling In The Blank

Freeman’s case is this: If you can’t find where an inspired man told people to cease ___________, then that practice or relationship can be continued in, with impunity after baptism. Now, Freeman filled in the blank: A Marriage Relationship Entered Into, Without Scriptural Basis. But, the argument cannot be limited to this! Anything else can be put in this blank, and if you can’t find a passage where an inspired man told people to cease _______________ that shows (in Freeman’s reasoning) that _______________ can be continued in after baptism.

Do you know what this agrument would prove? If accepted, this agrument would prove the following things could be continued after baptism: Homosexuality (no specific example of any inspired man telling two homosexuals to break up); car theft (no specific example of any inspired man telling a car thief to give the car back); bestiality (no specific example of an inspired man telling a man to cease that vile iniquity!). The door Freeman opens, for accepting people unscripturally remarried is also open to accept homosexuals, thieves, and others. All that is necessary to accept them is this: not having a specific example where an inspired man told someone not to do the thing. Freeman would deny this, but I’m pressing his argument to the logical outcome.

When the apostles enjoined repentance as a condition of pardon, I do not envision that they took each person aside and gave him specific instructions: “you will have to stop this . . . You, sir, will have to quit this job . . . You folks will need to separate … Mr. Thief, you will need to return the goods you’ve taken, and make just restitution.” Had this been done, the book of Acts would be a monumental volume, many times larger than the New Testament itself. In some cases this may have been necessary (Acts 14:15). But I beleive when people were convicted of sin, and as they understood God’s moral law, they knew they couldn’t continue in sin. They knew what the word “repent” entailed (see Acts 19:19). And they were given these admonitions, in passages like: Romans 6:1ff; 13:11-14; Galatains 5:16-26; Ephesians 5:1ff; 1 Peter 4:2-4; 2 Corinthians 6:17-7:1; etc. In these passages, some sins are listed, and there are some general terms that cover several practices (“all uncleanness,” and “and such like”). The point is this: on the strength of this teaching, people with good and honest hearts knew that their involvements in sin had to cease.

In the excellent book, Is It Lawful? brother Bob Waldron well states the case: “As children of God, our responsibility is to understand the will of God without prejudice and to apply it without partiality. The statement is made,’Well, where in the Bible was anyone ever told to leave a husband or wife?’ In Ezra’s day, when people were found in marriages which did not have God’s approval, Ezra told them to put their wives away. He did not say, ‘You know , we are going to have a lot of trouble over this unless we change our position.’ Erza had the idea that men do not make the Bible conform to their lives; rather, he felt that lives must be conformed to the Bible. The wives were put away (Ezra 9-10). The man who was unscripturally married at Corinth certainly was not given the option of continuing to live with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5). There were Christians at Corinth who had been homosexuals (1 Cor. 6:9). Did they have to give up their homosexual relationships? All would say, ‘Yes.’ Yet no specific example is found where they were required to do so by some church. With all the examples given in the scripture of what to do about sin, it was not necessary to say specifically that fornicators must cease fornicating, homosexuals must stop their homosexuality, and adulterers must give up their adultery” (Is It Lawful?, pp. 136-137).

May God help us to receive the word of the message; receive it as the “word of God,” and “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 366-367
June 21, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

It is possible for one to forsake the assembly even when he is “in church.” It is done by various means – sleeping, daydreaming, playing with babies, trimming one’s nails, etc. Likewise, it is possible to be worldly-minded even while doing good works. Let me explain.

Perhaps I am judging others by myself, but so little thought is given to the coming of the Lord and of going to heaven, even among Christians. The Thessalonians had “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” Is that all? No, they were not only saved to serve but also “to wait for his Son from heaven” (1 Thess. 1:9,10). Is there that sense of waiting “for his Son from heaven” while we “serve the living and true God”? Many faithful saints serve, but how many serve and wait?

Observe Peter’s constant emphasis on the “revelation of Jesus Christ” and our consequent redemption (1 Pet. 1:3-13). Brethren today serve and suffer but are silent about “salvation ready to be revealed in the last time,” about “the appearing of Jesus Christ,” or about “the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” In 2 Peter 3, the child of God is assumed to be “looking for . . . (cf. “waited for,” Lk. 1:21) the coming of the day of God” (v. 12). Peter says “we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth” (cf. 1 Pet. 1:4), but do “we”‘? “Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent” (v. 14). Do we look for such things at his coming?

Christians, elders, preachers and teachers can get so busy in day to day service in the kingdom that they lose sight of his appearance, his coming, his revelation from heaven. When we fail to think about it, we fail to talk about it. How many of our children hear talk about his coming and about the redemption and retribution that he will bring? We may stress class lessons, attendance and godly living, and we should, but do we fill their mind with the concept of “waiting for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come”? If our children are not taught in these areas, they will become oblivious to them and lose their faith.

Truly, all our works of faith, labors of love and patience of hope should be engaged in with the constant awareness of his coming.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, p. 362
June 21, 1990