Truth Magazine

By Dennis Abernathy

“Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another” (Rom. 14:19). The Psalmist said: “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it” (Psa. 34:14). To seek and pursue peace is to make every effort to do the things which lead to or bring about peace. Peace is wonderful and refreshing as a breath of fresh air on a spring day. We ought to make every effort to attain unto it.

Is it possible to seek peace, yea, to even pursue it, and yet not attain peace with a brother or sister in Christ, or within a

local congregation for that matter? Yes indeed. When one approaches a brother or sister in Christ, seeking to bring about peace, and those approached undermine your influence, try to destroy your reputation, hold you at arms length or otherwise isolate themselves from you, there is no way to make peace.

Many things can cause peace to be disrupted. The only way to have peace is to stop the things which disrupt peace. Peace among brethren is disrupted by worldliness, gossip, whispering campaigns, self-wined attitudes, pride, selfishness, envy, jealousy, intolerance, binding one’s opinion, hatefulness and discourtesy, etc. I might add, that false teaching will also disrupt peace.

The Christian is to work for peace. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). It behooves each of us to do all we can to pursue peace, without sacrificing truth and duty to God. “If it is possible” implies that with some it is “impossible” to be at peace. Peace with brethren is a two-way street. Two cannot be at peace if one has no desire for it. We ought to be willing to sacrifice our own personal rights, liberties, and preferences rather than stir up trouble in the church. I should never seek to bind my personal opinion and push it on others to the disturbance of the church. Neither should I be determined to have my own way about things that are of no importance. There are things that brethren may or may not do and we should leave brethren free to pursue whichever course they desire. We must contend for the faith, and, that earnestly (Jude 3), but we must never contend to the point of binding, for traditions, opinions and customs. Granted, when we contend for the faith it may disrupt peace, but when we contend for our opinions it will disrupt peace and we will be to blame, i.e., we are not pursuing peace, but strife.

If you are at odds with your brethren or with a brother or sister, why not go to them and talk about it (read Matt. 18:15; 5:23-24)? In other words, pursue peace! It is true, that on occasion our brother or sister may not listen or desire reconciliation. What then? There is little else, other than prayer that you can do. But perhaps they will listen to another. Try all within your power to restore peace and continue to serve God.

In conclusion, read 1 Peter 3:11; Hebrews 12:14, and 1 Thessalonians 5:13. “Finally, brethren, goodbye. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, p. 646
November 2, 1989

By Robert F. Turner

Carmelo Casella edits a paper in Tasmania, Australia called Discipling, in which he advocates what I believe to be an erroneous doctrine concerning the personal ministry of Christ, and our use of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Copies of many pages of this material have been sent to me for review. Ordinarily I would write what I had to say and just send, it to the inquirer, but because this position is also found in the United States, and Casella’s paper is sent to some in this country, I feel we should all give these matters our attention. The following only answers material at hand, but we should be further concerned with the basic principle of N.T. usage which is involved.

Some years ago in a written discussion on remarriage, my opponent took the position that Jesus’ “except for fornication” in Matthew 19:9 was but an explanation to the Jews of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and applied only to those under the Law of Moses. He contended that death was the only scriptural cause for remarriage, and that no exception is made to people under the New Covenant. Now, this preacher says whether or not a person who has been divorced because of adultery could ever remarry, “is not a question of any significance in the doctrine of Christ.” You guessed it! He says Matthew 19:9 applied only to those under the Law of Moses. In both cases the divorce problem triggered the arguments, and in both cases we are asked to dismiss a teaching of Christ because it is not specifically repeated in “Acts through Revelation.”

In this later case the writer says, “It was impossible for Jesus to give us his doctrine while he himself was subject to the doctrine of Moses.” It was not impossible for Isaiah (under Moses’ law) to teach things that would be a part of the New Covenant – such as the acceptance of gentiles (49:6). This premise cripples the preparatory work of Jesus, teaching the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23). It shows a poor understanding of that period when things were being readied for Christianity. Luke wrote, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (16:16). Jesus set forth principles of a spiritual kingdom which built upon, but would supercede, Judaism. He could say he was Lord also of the sabbath (Mk. 2:28). He taught with authority and not as the scribes (Mk. 1:22). We do not have to deny that the New Covenant was made effective by the death of Jesus to accept teachings he set forth during his life time, and which were later written for our benefit.

We are told the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth, and they would set forth “the doctrine of Christ”; and we fully believe that. But the conclusion is drawn, those who want to know Christ’s doctrine “will find it all from the second chapter of Acts on to the end of the New Testament . . . . the sum total of God’s will for people who want to be in the kingdom of heaven.” This seems to ignore the fact that the Apostles and N.T. prophets, by the Holy Spirit, gave us more. The synoptic gospels were written long after Pentecost and John even later; and they were written “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed” (Lk. 1:1-4); “of all that Jesus began both to do and teach” (Acts 1:1-2); “that ye might believe . . . and have life through his name” (Jn. 20:31). Jesus told the Apostles, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you can not bear them now.” But when the Holy Spirit would come, He would “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jn. 14:26); as well as reveal additional things (Jn. 16:12-13). The gospels contain the “doctrine of Christ.”

Any exegete worthy of the name knows that circumstances (who speaks, where, why, etc.) must be considered, and that some teachings of Jesus were peculiar to Judaism (Matt. 8:4); but the same consideration of circumstances must be observed in studying “Acts through Revelation” (Acts 21:23-26). The Jewish government was originally a Theocracy, and priests were civil as well as religious leaders. These circumstances continued to some extent through the early days of the church, and until Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans. Social customs of the day also affect our application of Scriptures: the kiss of greeting, foot washing, etc.; but such are found in the teaching after Pentecost as well as before. Somehow I get the impression that Jesus’ personal ministry teaching on marriage and divorce is the main problem, and some would change the rules of exegesis rather than accept it. Let us hope this is not so.

We are told that,2 Peter 3:2 divides Scriptures into two categories: (1) the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and (2) the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. (Unwarranted emphasis is placed on “spoken.”) What Jesus said in his personal ministry, unless repeated in “Acts through Revelation,” is supposed to be as a prophet to the Jews, and have no application to all nations. While Jesus was Prophet of prophets (Acts 3:22f), he has spoken “in these last days” (Christian dispensation) as distinguished from prophets of old (Heb. 1:1-2). His teaching before death is not apart from the apostle’s later teaching, but apart of that teaching, as shown by their setting it forth (writing Matt., Mk., Lk., Jn.), and stating the purpose of those writings for people of all nations (Matt. 28:20; Mk. 1:1; Lk. 1:14; Jn. 20:31).

After the above, and more, the subject of our review admits the prophecies, examples and history of the “beforetime” revelations are needed. He cites the “Royal Laws”‘ (Love God, and man, Mk. 12:28-31) and says “Since most of what Jesus taught . . . Israel was really an expansion of these two great commandments, then most of what Jesus taught is applicable in the kingdom . . . because the two great commandments apply universally.” This is nice and soothing after pages of major surgery on the personal ministry of Jesus. But we have not forgotten that from all that teaching which does apply to us, the editor has deleted Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:4-9, etc.). It would be interesting to see a list of what else is left out, other than the obvious national and social matters which affect interpretation before and after Acts 2.

And what is more “universal” than the marriage law which was “from the beginning”? Jesus acknowledged – that Moses had “allowed” (“suffered”) divorce (see Acts 14:16; 17:30), but declared, “from the beginning it was not so.” The nature of the union which God ordered makes no place for adultery – it violates the sanctity God intended. This is not to say adultery erases marriage – that there must be a divorce. But its sanctity has been violated, and the resultant “exception” is inherent in the universal law of marriage that was “from the beginning.” When men seek to erase Matthew 19:9, et al., from the New Covenant they tamper with a universal law of God. And when this tampering takes the form of new rules that limit the Lord’s teaching to “Acts through Revelation” the first error is compounded.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, pp. 645-646
November 2, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

Francis Crick, Life Itself. Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 25

From time to time, human beings have reflected upon how life began on earth. Many people in the past believed (and some of us in the present still believe) that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Others, styling themselves “modern,” reject such notions in favor of this or that new theory, baptized at the font of “science.”

It ought to be apparent upon some reflection that any or all of these theories, when pushed back to their ultimate bases, can be said to be either theistic or materialistic. Either matter always existed, and somehow produced all living forms from its inanimate self; or some form of intelligence or divinity has always existed, able to design and bring about life. (Another alternative is that nothing always existed, and that something – indeed, everything we see today – came from nothing.) We accept the thesis that it is as easy (and requires as much faith) to believe one as to accept another.

It is surely equally obvious that none of these proposed explanations are “scientific” but rather are philosophical or religious. Whatever position one chooses to believe, the origin of life was not observable, repeatable, or testable. This can prove to be quite frustrating for anyone who chooses to limit “knowledge” to what can be quantified or studied empirically.

In this article, we ask our readers to consider briefly with us some of the possible alternatives for the origin of life, beginning with the proposed “chemical” theory that life could have begun in some primeval soup. We believe that the simple declarative statement, “by the word of the Lord were the heavens made . . . for He spoke, and it was done” (Psa. 33:6,9) will not suffer by comparison.

We begin our consideration of the origin of life with an examination of a popular theory (“proven” in the popular mind by experimental demonstrations by Oparin, Miller & Urey, Fox, and others). These empirical demonstrations whereby life’s basic building blocks may be produced by passing an electrical discharge through certain chemicals in a closed system are certainly impressive, even elegant, in their conception and execution. Of course, one may argue that they simply demonstrate that intelligence can re-arrange existing materials into other forms. They certainly do not address the more basic question of how chemicals and electricity came to be in the first place. And they make large and unprovable assumptions about the nature of the early atmosphere which would have been necessary to have produced such experimental work writ large in nature.

But there are other problems as well. If one dismisses all the above considerations and objections and accepts by faith that it could or might have happened that way, the question remains: How likely is it that life began in this way? Now, I am no chemist (as may already be evident), so like most others, I must rely on the testimony of those who are.

One such individual is Nobel Prize-winner Francis Crick. His 1981 book, Life Itself. Its Origin & Nature is a good short summary of some of the concepts sketched above. Crick makes an attempt to calculate whether it is highly likely or very unlikely that life arose from some chemical broth. His conclusion (which we will consider in our next installment) is that one really cannot tell.

Does that mean that Crick considers creation of life by God a reasonable alternative hypothesis? Certainly not, since he declares “the limitless powers of God” to be “a doubtful proposition at best” (p. 25). Does he then have some other hypothesis to propose? He certainly does – but don’t hold your breath. (Continued).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, p. 653
November 2, 1989

By Ron Halbrook

One of the questions increasingly asked by those who visit our service is, “Why do you not have a ‘fellowship hall’ or gym where the church can sponsor social meals, parties, and recreational programs?” That is a good question – one that is worthy a biblical answer. It can be answered in just a few words, “We do not have such facilities because God has not authorized the church to sponsor social meals, parties, and recreational programs.” All that one does is to be done “in his name” (or by his authority, Col. 3:17). Since he has not told the church to sponsor such activities, we do not have the right to assume it is alright to serve him by means of the “fellowship hall” or gym.

That answers the question but below is more information to help one understand why we do not use social meals, parties, and recreational programs in the work of the church.

It Is Not Because

1. We do not like food and fun. Members of churches of Christ like food and fun as well as anyone else. Often social meals, parties, and recreational activities are enjoyed at home or in situations other than the work of the church.

2. We cannot afford them. When we are getting new congregations started by preaching the gospel, often people suggest that we do not have social activities and recreational facilities in our work because we are few in number and the church is getting started. No, we could have afforded them then and could afford them now – that is not the reason.

3. We do not have anyone to conduct them. Some of the best cooks in the world worship with the church of Christ. Many members play ping pong, soft ball, and other games. Some even make their living as teachers of home economics and as athletic coaches. But, they do not play these roles when they gather to worship God and conduct the work of the church.

4. We just want to be different. Not using a “fellowship hall” or gym makes us different from most religious groups, but that is not the reason we do not use them. We do not mind being different but we do not refrain just to be different or difficult.

There are other religious groups who do not use “fellowship hall” or gyms in their services or work. Several Baptist churches do not use social or recreational activities and it is for the same reason which we do not. They say that they are not authorized in the New Testament. Remember also that these people emphasize being a New Testament church – the church established when the Bible was first written.

In fact most denominational groups did not use recreational activities until less than 100 years ago. Leading authorities in many denominations can be quoted as to why they oppose their denomination using recreational programs.

5. It is just our personal preference. It is not a matter of our choosing the opinion of the church’s mission as gospel preaching, worship and spiritual edification, and. caring for our needy over social meals, parties, and recreational activities. It is a matter of faith. That is, it is a matter of what God has authorized. What one does in the worship and work of the church must be according to what God has authorized. God has not left the acts of worship or the church’s work to the opinion of men. It is a matter of faith (legislation from God) not opinion of man.

Why No “Fellowship Hall” or Gym?

Whether or not something is right or wrong, is not determined by opinion. Different people may have different opinions as to what the speed limit ought to be but the laws of the land determine what it will be. When one violates that law his opinion about what the speed limit ought to be will not satisfy the courts of the land.

The same principle is true with regard to one’s relationship to God, even to the worship of God and the work he assigned to the church. There may be a variety of ideas as to what will make God happy, but the only way that one can know what God desires in the work and worship of his people is to read what God has written on the subject.

The New Testament is our authority for what God desires in the work and worship of his people. The New Testament does not authorize “fellowship halls” and gyms in the work any more than instrumental music in the worship. Even though historically both Jews and Gentiles “sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” in the name of religion, they did not when they became Christians.

There are several passages in the New Testament which tell about the work of the church and all of them authorize gospel preaching, spiritual edification and worship of God, and caring for needy saints – none authorize “fellowship halls” or gyms for social meals, parties, and recreational activities.

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

“For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak anything” (1 Thess. 1:8).

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7).

“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed” (1 Tim. 5:16).

See also Philippians 4:15; Acts 2:42-45; 6:1-7; 1 Corinthians 1l:17-34; 14:26; 2 Corinthians 11:8.

Can you find a passage which gives us the right to use “fellowship halls” and gyms? Let us know if you have in mind a passage.

Conclusion

Why no “fellowship hall” or gym? Because it is not authorized by God. We are to walk by faith – which means we walk by the instructions which God gives (Rom. 10:17). Where God has not spoken we do not have the authority to do.

Addends: Appeal for Unity on Bible Ground

I want to sincerely thank Wayne Burger (P.O. Box 551, Wylie, TX 75098) for helping me to organize and express these great truths of the gospel by writing his article on instrumental music. Brother Burger preachers for the Wylie (TX) church of Christ. He was my respondent during the Nashville Meeting on liberalism-institutionalism. It was a delight to make his acquaintance.

The great principles of the gospel of Christ defended by Wayne in his article on instrumental music are the sameprinciples we defended at Nashville in opposition to Wayne, Roy Lanier, Jr., Calvin Warpula, Bill Stedman, and others. Those who promote instrumental music try to cast doubts on the certainty, the expediency, the reliability, or even the existence of the New Testament pattern for the worship of the church, just as Wayne and other speakers cast various doubts on the pattern for the work and organization of the church.

Some proponents of instrumental music get so frantic to defend their innovations that they claim the instrument inheres in the “psalms ” and “making melody” of Ephesians 5:19, just as some proponents of liberalism today get so frantic as to claim church sponsored social meals and recreatiohal activities inhere in the “feasts of charity” of Jude 12 (orin the “fellowship” of Acts 2:42-47). In both cases, these arguments prove more than these brethren wish to affirm. If instrumental music, social meals, and recreational activities are found in the New Testament pattern for the church, every church which fails to practice such things violates the pattern and leads brethren into sin and condemnation. Yet everyone agrees that churches which sing without adding instrumental music, and churches which fulfill their God-given mission without adding social meals and entertainment programs, are thoroughly scriptural andpleasing to God.

In other words, the New Testament ground is not the cause of the disputes and divisions but is the unquestionable and unassailable ground of unity (Jn. 17.17-21). Digression from that ground generates disputes and divisions (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Jn. 9-11). May God help us to reopen the doors of communication, study, discussion, and debate, and fill our hearts with a burning desire to unite upon New Testament ground in all things! That was the aim and purpose of so many of us in going to Nashville. That is the aim and purpose of this article. With that aim and purpose in view, I have invited brother Burger to find and submit “a passage which gives us the right to use” church-sponsored social meals, recreational activities, “fellowship halls, ” and gyms in the work of the church. “Where God has not spoken we do not have authority to do.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, pp. 655, 658
November 2, 1989