Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Acts 18:24-26 reads thusly:

And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

We are not told directly of Apollos’ response. We are left to infer that he readily recognized the way of God (cf. Acts 17:11,12), as surely he did, else the brethren would not have written that he should be received (Acts 18:27; cf. 1 Cor. 3:5,6). Suppose, though, that Apollos was not convinced by Aquila and Priscilla. What then?

Obviously, further study, debate and argument would have been essential. Paul reasoned for three sabbath days upon one occasion (Acts 17:2,3). He debated for two years and three months in Ephesus (Acts 19:8-10). At another time, the Athenians said, “We will hear thee again of this matter” (Acts 17:32). Paul warned some of hardness of heart and encouraged others to “continue in the grace of God” (Acts 13:40-43). Protracted and extended controversy often is necessary. Frequently, “much disputing” must occur as brethren weigh and sift through issues of difference (Acts 15:2,7). There must be a period of sober, sincere study as men seek to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). If this is not done, some will wrest the Scriptures “unto their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16), and they that be led of them shall be destroyed.

Each situation, person and issue will have to be considered individually on its own merits. Longsuffering forbearance (not indulgence of iniquity) must guard our hearts and guide our actions. Ultimately, one must use his best judgment, discerning good and evil. What is a “teaching opportunity” to one may be “casting pearls” before swine” to another. Whether the issue is circumcision and law (Acts 15; Galatians) or marriage and love (1 Cor. 7), a “thus saith the Lord” must be obeyed, and those who oppose must be exposed.

This very scenario was enacted in the latter part of the nineteenth and the early part of the twentieth centuries in the dispute over societies and the instrument that eventually led to the formation of the Christian Church denomination. David Lipscomb, Benjamin Franklin and others were criticized as church splitters and vilified as Pharisees, men full of the party spirit. The “antis” and the “non-progressives” were chided and derided for their narrow-minded, sectarian bigotry. Debates, lectures and volumes of literature spewed forth as a mighty torrent. In the end, the “spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” were made manifest (1 Jn. 4:1,6). The same thing has transpired in the past forty years institutionalism and related topics. It will do so again on these questions.

Back to Apollos. Those he baptized with the baptism of John would have to be taught (Acts 19:1-5). If Apollos had continued making disciples with the baptism of John while he deliberated the issue of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus, his converts would have been objects of study, explanation and instruction. Some of the principles of Romans 14 would not have applied. But some would have objected, “You are seeking to question brother Apollos’ sincerity, destroy his influence and undermine the unity of the saint.” Beware of making error a martyr and truth a murderer. Beware of apologizing for the source of error and thereby sympathizing for its effects. An Apollos must be loved, taught, reasoned with and prayed for, but the error he espouses must be disputed and confuted.

Finally, what if Apollos, after much prayer, study, meditation and reflection remains wedded and welded to the baptism of John? The years hasten by. Our zealous, intellectual, eloquent brother, mighty in the Scriptures, writes fervently and speaks forcefully for the “things of the Lord,” but persists in the baptism of John. Do we welcome him as a faithful brother? Do we endorse him and his teaching? Do we promote him, defend him and excuse his error while believing the truth on baptism in the name of Christ? If Apollos has a kind, charming manner, he will sway many, drawing away disciples after himself.

However, if we oppose his insidious, damnable heresy, we will be pictured and portrayed as (1) ungrateful for the good Apollos does accomplish; (2) partyistic, sectarian; (3) judgmental, harsh, severe; (4) like unto Diotrephes, desiring prominence for ourselves over Apollos; (5) jealous of Apollos’ talents, abilities and influence; (6) inconsistent, for accepting vegetarians (Rom. 14) and would have a Timothy circumcised (while opposing circumcision), but will not “fellowship brother Apollos”; (7) giving occasion for Hymanaeus and Philetus to blaspheme (2 Tim. 2:16-18), as they point out “your unbrotherly treatment” of our beloved brother Apollos. (Thus, they imply that our opposition to them is but a further reflection of our unloving, hateful disposition. Never mind their error. Since we are so mean in dealing with Apollos, that must be why we oppose them, too.); (8) being more interested in destroying Apollos than in saving him. This ignores the years of study and debate that have occurred. It also impugns motives and borders on 44evil surmising” (1 Tim. 6:4).

These criticisms may be reversed, turned against the critics. Are the critics being ungrateful, partyistic, judgmental, like Diotrephes, jealous, inconsistent and unloving when they so criticize?

Conclusion

What is the result of all this? Truth is obscured. Souls are blinded. Error is allowed to increase “unto more ungodliness,” eating as doth a cancerous gangrene. What is the remedy? Preach the word. Speak the truth in love in love for Christ, in love for truth, in love for the souls of men.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 579-580
October 5, 1989

By Lewis Willis

None of us would doubt the “fact” of sin. The Bible tells us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). If this scriptural testimony is not sufficient, all we need to do is look about us to see the presence of sin everywhere in the world. Those blessed with intellectual honesty do not argue the question of sin; they simply acknowledge and confess it. It is not something of which we are proud, but sin is a part of our lives. Unforgiven sin will be the cause of our condemnation (Rom. 6:23). However, because of the grace of God, and on the condition of our faith and obedience, sin can be forgiven. The hope of the Christian is to go to Heaven, in spite of his sin. This requires that the. Christian be realistic about sin and forgiveness.

This article is about the progressiveness of sin. That is, unforgiven sin does not get any better w e passage of time. To the contrary, it progressively gets worse. Some seemingly think that they can sin “just a little” but that they will not permit it t go very far. This is one of the deceptions and traps of sin. We dare not allow ourselves to become sin’s victim. look with me at the way sin gets worse.

“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night” (Psa. 1:1-2). I want you to notice the progression in this passage. (1) A person can listen to the counsel or advice of those who are ungodly and walk in it. (2) When he does, he stands with other sinners. (3) In the passage of time he finds himself seated comfortably with the sinners and looking with scorn upon the things of God. The sin gets progressively worse. The passage says that we are “blessed” if we never start down that path.

Consider with me the case of Peter when the life of Jesus was drawing to a close. The Saviour tried to tell the Apostles of his death and of how they would be scattered abroad when process of his trial began. Peter confidently affirmed, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. . .’Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee” (Matt. 26:31-35). Luke says that Peter affirmed, “Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death” (Lk. 22:33). Here was a man who was convinced that he would not fall into sin as the others did. One is reminded of Paul’s warning, “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). But, we know the story of Peter too well.

This confident disciple only thought he would stand. When the enemies of Jesus came to capture him, “all the disciples forsook him, and fled.” Peter apparently went only a short distance for it is said that he “followed him afar off” to the palace of the high;priest so that he could see what would happen to the Lord (Matt. 26:56-58). When an effort was made to connect Peter with Jesus, he started a process of sin. (1) He denied the Lord with a lie. (2) Again he denied the Lord, this time with an oath, and lied again. (3) Finally, he began to curse and to swear, saying he did not know Jesus (Matt. 26:69-74). His first sin was bad enough, but we see how it got worse as it remained unforgiven.

Another example of the progressiveness of sin is seen in 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” Look again: (1) These people would adopt an attitude in which they would not endure or tolerate sound doctrine. (2) Next they would only want to hear teachers who told them what they wanted to hear. (3) They would not abide Truth, they would turn away their ears from Truth. (4) Finally, they would turn aside unto fables, or, they would be gone. Sin would progress from an attitude to apostasy.

Nothing more needs to be said. The man of Psalm 1, Peter and the Apostates of 2 Timothy 4 prove the case we have under consideration. Sin does not get better. Instead, if it remains unforgiven, it gets worse. This information is presented in the hope that we all might guard ourselves against Satan’s evil trap. Let us stay as far away from sin as we can get so that it cannot enter our lives and progress unto our damnation. When we sin, let us be resolved to obey God’s Word quickly and expel sin from us.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 577, 299
October 5, 1989

By Robert F. Turner

Like “Instrumental Music in Worship,” this topic has become aged and worn, and many may turn the page to something more current. But experience tells us both problems continue, and “Independence” is by far the least understood. It is not unusual to hear lengthy discussions on the “sponsoring church arrangement” where congregational independence is only mentioned in passing instead of being treated as the basic issue. This is not to question the valid arguments that are made, and institutional brethren are usually charged with violating independence. But we may expect a greater understanding of the subject than really exists, so that our hurried charges fall on ears unable to appreciate our concern or make application of our argument to their practices.

With few if any exceptions our brethren preach that each local church is “independent and autonomous.” So did Alexander Campbell, first president of the American Christian Missionary Society. So do dozens, perhaps hundreds of various religious groups whose organizational structures (as regards a plurality of congregations) range from episcopacy to monarchy. Perhaps the following material from my Arlington Meeting script, can best express this thought.

The Handbook of Denominations in the United States, by Frank S. Mead (edition of 1951), lists 137 different religious groups in our country. A surprising number of these denominations claim to believe in “congregational independence”; but a wide eyed look at their practices reveals some startling contradictions. Here are a few samples. “Congregational in government, each local church is completely independent. The churches are grouped in five districts and five annual conferences; over them is a national general conference, which meets biennially.” Another: “Local churches are left quite independent in polity and in the conduct of local affairs. District officers have a pastoral ministry to all the churches and are responsible for the promotion of home missions. Work is divided into forty districts in the U.S., most of which follow state lines, each with a district Presbytery, which examines, licenses, and ordains “pastors” (pp. 18, 23). There are many other like examples. In each case, if we read only that portion I have emphasized we might think this was written about the Lord’s church. But those first lines do not tell the whole story. Is this the kind of “independent” congregations we believe the Scriptures authorize? Surely not!

We must do more than just say we believe in congregational independence. The “framework of the local church” is not some scheme for district, churchhood, or universal collective action. It is God’s limitation of collective action – the extent to which God authorizes organized church functions. If this is not the case our use of the words “local church government” is as meaningless and ambiguous as that of the denominations cited above. If we used a county frameword to run a national function – say, let the Burnet County sheriff serve as Commander in Chief of the nation’s armed forces, receiving operating funds from over the nation, and functioning in the national interest; would this mean we had no armed force on a national scale? To ask is to answer, even if we continued to call him “Sheriff.” And yet, many seem to think no brotherhood (churchhood) action is being taken although the elders of some local church have the additional control of a churchhood project.

We must come to a more accurate understanding of such matters; agreeing on scriptural “independent” church government, and giving particular attention to those things which violate this independence. In our own history, as in that of many other religious groups, independence has been given away, yes given away, under the name of “cooperation.” Bear with me for one more quotation from Mead’s Handbook of Denominations. “In 1814 the Baptists organized their own separate General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America. This convention, representing a national Baptist fellowship, marked the first real denominational consciousness of American Baptists.” This has a familiar ring to those who know our history well.

How do we prove this congregational independence we so freely claim? Most knowledgeable saints will cite Acts 14:23, “elders in every church” or 1 Peter 5:2, “Feed (shepherd, rft) the flock of God which is among you.” These Scriptures indicate (1) each congregation is on an equality with reference to oversight; and (2) oversight is on a local level, not on a district, churchhood, or universal scale. Does this limit organizational structure to the local church level? We usually agree that it does. Our reasoning, if we stop to analyze it, is that God has spoken on the subject, and there is no authority for organization on any other level. God must intend that each congregation be independent and self-ruled. I believe this is sound scriptural reasoning. Of course we understand that we speak of “rule” from the viewpoint of coordinating oversight in matters of judgment necessary for collective action of saints. Christ is the sole Ruler of his citizens in matters of faith, and in this sense the church has but one overseer.

Another proof of congregational independence has to do with the church treasury. Collective action requires not only the acceptance of a common oversight, but also the pooling of means and abilities, money being the usual medium through which a plurality act as one. As the scale or extent of oversight indicates the level of operation which God approves, so also does the scope of the pooled fund by which the joint operation is powered. 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 reads: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.” The funds were accumulated on a local scale, each church being instructed alike, each providing its own fund; and they were controlled on a local basis (“whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters . . . your liberality”).

An “independent church is “not dependent,” the “in” being a negative prefix on “dependent.” An independent church “has a competency” to function in all things essential to its existence (see Webster’s or any other standard dictionary). We believe God intended each congregation to function with its own oversight, selected from among the flock to be served; and that is regular means of funding its work should be contributions from its members according to their ability. We do not question some visitor’s right to drop something in the contribution plate, nor voluntary gifts from a friend; but the independent church, like an independent individal, should be expected to act commensurate with its own resources, and function according to its own ability (see 2 Cor. 8:11-12). An independent local church would fulfill its purpose before God, if there were not another congregation in existence.

We are aware that some first century churches became dependent, and other churches sent them alms. Our next article

will deal with these circumstances, and coordinate such scriptural information with our study on congregational independence.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 581-582
October 5, 1989

By Dan Walters

Romans 2:7-16, especially verse 14, has been used by James Bales and other brethren to prove that alien sinners are not under law to Christ and are thus exempt from the marriage law contained in the Gospel. This verse says that “when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” Other brethren have taken this further and are teaching that these “Gentiles,” alien sinners who have not heard the Gospel, will be judged by this “law unto themselves” and will then be saved, if obedient to this law, without the Gospel.

It is noted that Paul speaks, in the present tense, and so if is assumed that what is said here of Jews and Gentiles still applies in the Gospel age. But remember that Paul here speaks of both Jews and Gentiles in a parallel sense. He writes in verse 12: “For as many as have sinned without law shall be judged by the law.” If it is true that Gentiles may be saved by obedience to their unwritten law, then it is also true that Jews may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses. “For there is no respect of persons with God” (v. 11). This argument proves too much; it proves that the law of Moses is still in effect for Jews and that they may be saved under its provisions if they have not heard the Gospel. Since Paul speaks of Jews who were responsible to the law, he has to be speaking of those who lived under that law before it was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). The same is true for the Gentiles; he speaks of those who lived before the Gospel came into effect.

Men are taking Paul’s argument and reversing it. Paul was establishing the fact that both Jews and Gentiles were in an equally lost condition and were equally in need of the gospel of Christ. The modern reasoning is that both can be saved without it. There is a difference between the way God judges people today and the way he judged them before the cross. This is seen in Paul’s words to the men of Athens: “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent (Acts 17:30).

Is forgiveness of sins promised today to those who obey the moral law, but have not heard the Gospel? If so, where in the Scriptures is this clearly taught? Cornelius was a Gentile and a good moral man (Acts 10:1,2). If Peter had never gone to him with the Gospel, would he have been saved anyway due to his obedience to the unwritten law? The angel told Cornelius that Peter would “tell these words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts If: 14). Some brethren have said that the ignorant are already in a saved condition, and that the reason we should preach the Gospel to them is the same reason we cultivate a crop of corn, to make it a better crop. But if Peter’s words would save Cornelius, this clearly implies that Cornelius was lost before he heard the words. If Cornelius, as upright a man as he was, was lost, does this leave us much room to hope for the salvation of those today who have never heard the Gospel?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 580, 594
October 5, 1989