Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The cycle of life continues endlessly; a new generation will always be moving on the scene which does not know the fundamentals of God’s word. God’s people constantly need to be teaching their children the first principles of the oracles of God. Asaph wrote in Psalm 78:

I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the Lord, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: that the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments (78:7).

The need to teach every generation the foundation principles of God’s revelation will never cease.

Emphasize the Basics

Without denying the need to move beyond the elementary principles of the oracles of God to feed on strong meat, I would like to remind us of our need to emphasize the basics. As a young preacher, I distinctly remember thinking, “Everyone has heard sermons on the church and baptism. I want to preach something different.” I was fortunate to have my brother Cecil to redirect my thinking by feeding me many good books which emphasized the fundamentals of the gospel. Until I began reading and preaching on these fundamentals, I did not realize how little I actually knew about the basics.

Another thing surprised me as I preached on these topics. I was surprised by how many Christians expressed to me their appreciation for these sermons. They were learning as I was learning. Many times someone said, “I never heard a sermon on that before.” I am confident that they had heard such lessons, but they did not register with them at the time. Too, there were young folks growing up in the church, visitors to the services, and new converts who needed to hear the basic fundamentals emphasized. We do the congregation a great disservice by not emphasizing the fundamentals of salvation and the church.

Drawing A Crowd

Gospel meetings can be effectively used to teach “what must I do to be saved?” and to emphasize the “New Testament church” in contrast to denominationalism. Unless our visitors recognize they cannot be saved in their denomination, they will never become concerned about their own salvation. Unfortunately, some are consciously steering clear of these messages in their gospel meetings.

In writing about evangelistic meetings, one said, “Subjects like, ‘If you died tonight, would you go to heaven?’ or ‘Bible answers for a hurting home’ are excellent because they deal with immediate human needs and show the Bible to be relevant in people’s lives. Subjects like ‘Why do you believe the doctrines you believe?’ are also excellent. The idea here is not to deal with any specific false doctrines but to show that false doctrine is prevalent and encourage them to examine their own beliefs. Denomination ‘bashing’ doesn’t go over well with first-time visitors and should be reserved for one-on-one Bible studies.”

I am not sure what this writer means by “denomination bashing” (bash: “to make ashamed”). None of us wants to belittle, ridicule, and mistreat any person – whether he is an erring brother or an alien sinner visiting for the first time. Furthermore, we should follow Jesus’ directive: “be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16), Having said these things, I must confess that these exhortations quoted above leave me with the distinct impression that sermons which contrast the Lord’s church with denominationalism, the Lord’s conditions for salvation with those which denominationalists teach, and other distinctive messages should not be preached in gospel meetings for fear that we might drive off visitors! If I have correctly understood this material, I am opposed to what is written.

In a recent copy of The Buckler, the bulletin of the church which worships at 1216 W. Sixth Street in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Lowell Blasingame mentioned the topics for a class of young Christians conducted at a liberal church in Mississippi. Here was the list of topics:

“How Good Is Your P.A. (Positive Attitude) System?”

“How To Get A Turtle On A Fence Post”

“Snake Bites That Snafu Your Life”

“Pain, Problems, and Pearls”

“Crisis Sparks Opportunity”

“A Million Dollars Worth of Asset”

These topics reminded me of a couple of meeting advertisements from some of my own brethren. In a “special lectureship” on “Guides To True Spirituality” aimed at non-Christians, the speaker’s topics included “Self-Analysis and Spiritual Awareness” and “Human Relationships: How to get along better with your fellow man. ” The meeting advertisement touted this as a “how-to” guide “to help us rise to the heights of spiritual maturity” with emphasis on “selfanalysis,” “personal sharing,” and “the beauty of ‘triangular’ relationships.”

Another “seminar” advertisement designed for non-Christians was entitled “How To Improve Your Lifestyle” and included these topics: “How can I be truly time efficient?”, “How can I love more effectively?” and “How can I eliminate stress in my life?”

Am I over-reacting to be alarmed by these announcements? I think not! I have preached long enough to witness the impact of this shift in preaching on churches. When I first started preaching in the late 1960s, the shift in preaching emphasis had already begun to occur among the liberals. Their meeting announcements featured topics similar to those mentioned above. Their bulletins were filled with material which could be published in any denominational church bulletin in town. A concentrated effort was made to eliminate from their preaching those things which offended denominational folks who visited the meetings. What has been the result? Many liberal churches are full of “Christians” who can not distinguish the Lord’s church from denominations. The same sowing will always produce the same harvest!

Conclusion

The gospel does not appeal to every man. Some men do not like its teachings about the deity of Jesus, miracles, and the supernatural. Some do not like its moral demands on their lives. Some do not like its teaching regarding the church. When these men hear the gospel, they will turn away from it. We dare not change or dilute the message of the gospel to appeal to these men.

Instead, we need to preach the gospel. The gospel will appeal to those who recognize their sinful and lost condition, have the humility to submit to Christ as their Lord, and be obedient to his word. Should we live in a period of human history or a geographical location where those men are few in number, we simply must preach to more people to convert the same number as we have been used to converting. Should our fate be to live in times like Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Noah, let us have the fortitude to cling to the word. God told Ezekiel:

But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted. Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy forehead strong against their foreheads. As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house (3:7-9).

Let us never compromise, dilute, or change the Lord’s message to gain numbers. Conversions never occur by compromise.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, pp. 194, 212-213
April 5, 1990

By H. M. Phillips

In this age of free and liberal religious thinking we often hear some one say: “Preach the gospel and let others alone.” The idea is to let others do as they please and let God accept or reject them. Preachers have made quite a study of how to preach and let people alone, yet it is not a success even with the people or the preacher, and surely God is not at all pleased with such efforts.

The Israelities said to Moses: “Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians?” (Ex. 14:12) This was said when they came to the Red Sea and saw no way of escape.

The prophet Hosea said: “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone” (Hos. 4:17). So often we may see what appears to us a case for which there is no hope. It is like casting pearls before swine, and we despair of any good being done. Ezra (6:7) exhorts certain ones to let the work of the house of God alone. They were not of the people of God, and it is for God’s people to take care of the house of God. What a lesson for some now who call on outsiders to help the church!

This book on Proverbs is in our new “Bible Text Books” series of adult and senior high studies. It contains 13 lessons covering the book of Proverbs. The book contains commentary plus a good selection of different kinds of questions to motivate class preparation and participation.

But possibly the most interesting thing connected with the expression, “Let me alone,” is when God told Moses to let him alone and he would destroy the Israelites (Exod. 32:10). Why did God speak to Moses? Whom did he ever tell, before or after, to let him alone when he got ready to do anything? Who or what was Moses, that God seemingly consulted him before acting? Again, why did God take the advice of Moses rather than do as he said he would, which was to destroy the people? Did Moses have to instruct God as to what people would say about his action? Had God got so angry and so hasty in it that Moses had to give him a rebuke to settle affairs for the best and let God not do anything rashly? Well, I think not, but God was putting Moses to a test. If he would plead for a people who had gone astray; if he would die with them; if he would even be blotted out if they were not spared, then God could look with some hope to Moses as a leader in patience, love, and intense interest. What a noble spirit to plead for the rebellious! What a great thing to know that Moses pleaded with God to spare Israel and let him lead them on to success! If God would destroy those who were rebellious, then what hope would Moses have? For he, too, was rebellious in not glorifying God in the rock. Let us not want to let God alone and may we never want him to let us alone.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, p. 180
March 15, 1990

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Frequently, we hear from brethren who seem bent on freeing us from the shackles of “legalism” or “phariseeism,” as they perceive it. To these people, viewing the New Testament as a rigid standard for moral and religious conduct makes one a “legalist” – the chief of sinners, a Pharisee of Pharisees, without love and having no mercy in the world. So, these folks are trying to restructure brethren’s thinking on how to view and apply the New Testament so as avoid “legalism.”

Frankly, if one wants to charge me with “legalism” (“strict, literal adherence to law”(1)), then I will plead guilty as charged. I unashamedly take the “legal” (“authorized or permitted by law”(2)) approach to religion. Contrary to what some think, the New Testament is a system of law – with ordinances (or commandments) to obey or rules to be followed. No, I do not believe one can earn his salvation by law or any other means. Even if one were to do all things commanded, he still would not have a right to boast of having earned his salvation the Bible (Luke 10:17). Still, the Bible does teach strict and literal adherence to God’s law.

Freedom from the law (of Moses) enjoyed in Christ is not freedom from all law, contrary to what some would have us believe. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christians are not “without law toward God, but under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). While we are not justified by the law “of works,” we are justified by “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27 with context). Christians are subject to the “law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). They are expected to be doers of it. They will be judged by it (Jas. 2:12), to the point that if they offend in one point, they are guilty of all (Jas. 2:10). It was the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that freed us from “the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

Since the early days of Christianity, there have been heretics, assuming for themselves a superiority in spirituality. They believe that they experience a degree of fellowship, knowledge, and love that lifts them above a system that burdens one with commandment or rules keeping. The gnostic influence upon some in the early church produced such heretics. 1 John was likely written to counter this heresy. It is evident, from reading 1 John, that these folks considered their superior (?) knowledge of God (Gnostic means “knowing one”) and love for him and his children as lifting them above a system that burdened people down with commandments and rules. John has to remind them of what is required of true fellowship, knowledge, and love. “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But, if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin . . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:6-9). “Now by this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says, ‘I know him,’ and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in him” (2:3-5). “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (5:2,3).

A more recent device for relieving the burden of strict commandment keeping is the “love and mercy” rule. While professing respect for divine law, some would set it aside by their method of applying law to life. We are told that since God’s law is really based on “love and mercy” (who among us would deny this), we can know that our application of law is wrong if it does not show proper love for God and mercy toward our fellow man – despite what the law may say. Sounds good, so far, doesn’t it? Who can be against love and mercy? So, as we are told, the Pharisees really had a great respect for the law and wanted to do what the law said about the Sabbath? The law said, “Do no work.” The Pharisees, being the conservatives that they were, really wanted to do God’s will. Why, then, were they wrong in condemning those who “worked” on the Sabbath in the New Testament? Of course! It was because they did not apply the “love and mercy” rule. Unlike the man killed in the Old Testament for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, those condemned by the Pharisees were acting out of love for God and mercy toward their fellow man rather than rebellion. You see, according to the “love and mercy” folks, they could work – if they did it out of a heart of love and mercy, even though the law said “do no work.”

By applying this rule, we can solve (?) other pressing problems. What if a couple has been married several times without having divorced for fornication? The Bible seems to say that they are committing adultery (Matt. 19:9) and that Christians must quit committing adultery (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Applying the law strictly would create an undue hardship. It would mean that this couple would have to separate and then live celibate. Their children would be without both a father and mother. Would not “love and mercy” demand that we have compassion upon them? Then our application of Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that says they must dissolve the adulterous relationship must be wrong. Why? Because it would be unloving and uncompassionate to break up that “home.” After all, the law rests upon love for God and mercy toward our fellow man. Still sounds good, doesn’t it? So, the conclusion to the whole matter is that love and mercy are the overriding considerations in applying God’s commandments – regardless of what the text of the commands may plainly say.

Now that we have our rule of application firmly established (?), let’s get on with applying other points.

God’s law plainly says, “You shall not murder” (Matt. 5:21). A dogmatically conservative legalist might read that and think that murder is wrong under any circumstances. However, the “love and mercy” rule puts it in a different light – if one kills out of love for God and mercy toward man. After all, is that not the underlying principle upon which divine law rests? So, euthanasia or “mercy killing” must be acceptable. If not, why not?

God’s law plainly says, “And the man that commits adultery with another man’s wife, he that commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:10). The New Testament also forbids adultery. A legalist would probably think that such fooling around with the neighbor’s wife is always wrong – because he takes the text for what it says. Being fallible in his application, and unwilling to invoke the “love and mercy” principle, he would likely be too harsh.

For example, a brother’s wife becomes permanently ill and must be put into a nursing home. His neighbor, about the same time loses his mind and must be institutionalized. The couples have been good friends for years. Both the good brother and his neighbor’s wife are still young with needs to be fulfilled. So, since their partners can no longer fulfill those needs, they turn to each other. Now, remember, they are only doing it out of love and compassion for the other. Do you think that would work?

God’s law says, “You shall not steal” (Rom. 13:9; cf. Eph. 4:25). Hurricane Hugo recently did much damage in South Carolina. Suppose a brother, envisioning himself as a modern “Robin Hood,” had looted the damaged stores and homes of the rich and given it to the poor and needy. Remember, he knows what the Bible says about stealing, but he has also heard about the “love and mercy” rule of application. Should he be held accountable for his stealing?

Brethren, seriously now, we should take a long look at the consequences of adopting a rule of application that allows us to set aside plain Bible statements in the name of love and mercy. The results are staggering. It is just situation ethics in a different garb.

Oh, yes, what about those who did certain things on the Sabbath day and were defended by Jesus, but criticized by the Pharisees? “Do no work” did not forbid all activity on the Sabbath. Even the Pharisee recognized this fact (Matt. 12:11-13). The things Jesus and his disciples did the were not the “work” prohibited on the Sabbath or they would have sinned. The “work” was what we call working for a living or occupational work. It is much like the word as used by Paul. He accused some of “working not at all,” yet they were busy-bodies (2 Thess. 3:11). They were not inactive, yet they were “working not at all.” He defended the right of preachers to “forbear working” (1 Cor. 9:6) even while they were very busy preaching the gospel. None of those defended by Jesus violated either the “spirit” or the “letter” of the law. Not once did Jesus say, “I know they may have worked on the Sabbath, but. . . ” They were guiltless because they did no work on the Sabbath, despite what the Pharisees said.

Endnotes

1. Webster’s New Reference Library and Encyclopedia.

2. Ibid.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, pp. 195-196
April 5, 1990

By Don Partain

As a sophomore at Florida College, in 1970, 1 attended Edgar Srygley’s class on Logic. One section of the class dealt with the error in reasoning known as “the fallacy of four terms.” In this fallacy, instead of having a three-term syllogism, the reasoner actually employs four terms because one of the terms has two different meanings. For example, “Designing persons are untrustworthy. Architects make designs. Therefore, architects are untrustworthy.” What is the fallacy of this reasoning? “Design” is being used in two different senses, ambiguously.

Unwittingly, I think we have often been a party to ambiguity as we have taught our denominational neighbors about the “one church.” There, of course, is only one church, one body of Christ, of which one must be a member in order to be saved (Eph. 4:4; 1:22,23; 5:23). However, I’m afraid that we are coming across as saying, “There is only one true denomination – the “Church of Christ.” In other words we are using “church,” meaning the universal body of the saved; but they are hearing “church,” thinking “denomination” – a denomination that claims to be the only right one.

The fact that we upset them by saying there is only one church is evidence that they have misunderstood us, because mainline denominations teach the same thing! Their creeds or manuals speak of there being only one universal body of Christ; and in fact, they usually even refer to it as “the church of Christ.” So, they would not argue with us on the point that there is only one church, and that it belongs to Christ. They only become upset when they think we are saying that the congregations which go by “Church of Christ” are a denomination within the body of Christ that thinks it is the only right denomination.

So, when teaching them, we should first make it clear that we do not use “Church of Christ” in a denominational way. When we say there is only one church, we are not talking about a denomination, but instead, the one universal body of the saved. This doctrine is common ground for both of us, we should point out.

Then, we teach them how to be added to the church. And, we teach them that the universal church is not composed of either denominations (denominated collectivities) or local churches; instead, it is composed of individual Christians. Here is where we will need to do much teaching, because denominations teach that “faith only” places one into the saved body. And, having been saved by faith only, then one simply joins himself to a denomination – and that all the denominations, taken together, constitute the universal church.

I’m afraid that we have often unnecessarily aroused prejudice and have closed doors of opportunity because we have not made it clear in what sense we are using “church” when we say there is only one true church. And, it is especially regrettable since we could have instead even used the scriptural doctrine of there only being one church to establish common ground with our denominational friends – common ground that would have possibly made them more receptive when we began discussing gospel obedience with them.

So, when we talk about the one church, let’s be sure that they understand “church” in the same way we mean it. Otherwise we may have mixed our terms much the same as we did in our faulty syllogism which concluded that architects are untrustworthy.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, p. 182
March 15, 1990