Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Controversy and argument among the Lord’s people is not new. Much of the New Testament reveals doctrinal division among brethren (Acts 15; Gal.; 2 Thess.). This article is not written to criticize and condemn examination and investigation of issues that are matters of dispute. Perhaps, though, there is a need to reflect on another aspect of texts, passages and subjects that are under study.

For Example

It is easy to get “caught up” in a discussion with a Baptist on the purpose of baptism. Is it “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38)? What does the word “for” mean? Run to the lexicons and cite the translations of the phrase, “for the remission of sins.” Compare the related verses (Mk. 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). The smell of blood fills the air; my opponent is withering and writhing! I am right I He is wrong! I have slain another foe! How clever I was! How penetrating were my unanswerable questions! I tied him up! He was made to look like an idiot; he did not know what to say or which way to turn! I nailed him good – another victory for truth!

Sound familiar? These disputes occur, and they are necessary. But is it possible that I am exterminating error without regenerating souls? Is it a lust for triumph, for display of debating skills, or is it a genuine love for truth and lost souls that motivates me? The Ephesian church was doctrinally sound. They ran false teachers out of town -“Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev. 2:2). However, they had left their “first love” (Rev. 2:4). In today’s conflicts, “Lord, is it l?”

Apply the same thoughts to instrumental music, the work and organization of the church, Pentecostalism (Holy Spirit baptism, miracles, tongues), marriage, divorce and remarriage, and such like. Is it possible to win argument; but not souls? Again, the arguments and discussions are essential. Not every exchange of views will result in conversion (Acts 28:22-28). Still, the battles must be fought on these topics. Fight them with vigor. Cry aloud and spare not. Read, study, write and teach the truth “with much contention” (1 Thess. 2:2), but remember what your goal and purpose is.

Let us study the meaning and application of Scriptures like 1 John 1:6-2:2. But if I understand and handle aright every Greek tense, yet, fail to gently lead an erring brother to repent, confess and pray, what have I gained? If I prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that no piano or organ is justified in Ephesians 5:19, but never teach brethren to sing and make melody in their hearts to the Lord, what have I achieved? If I convince brethren that the Lord’s supper is to be taken only on the first day of the week, but never cause them to discern the Lord’s body, remembering and showing his death, what have I accomplish ed? If I can show the truth in marriage and divorce and rout every false argument, but neglect to teach my children the basis of a loving home, what have I gained?

“These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, p. 552
September 21, 1989

By Stan Adams

The scenario is familiar to many who preach the gospel. A group of preachers get together and eat and often the question of support comes up. One brother will lament the fact that he is struggling, and just doesn’t know how he will make it. Often the subject turns to all the “difficulties” one has with the community and with the “brethren.” Often those who preach forget that they are “the brethren” also.

I realize that not every preacher is supported as he should be, and that many are truly struggling. This should not be, and brethren should liberally support those who labor in the spread of truth. I also believe that many have legitimate difficulties, and that many Christians are not behaving themselves. But I would like for all of us to consider, whether we really are “suffering” as much as we imagine. It is time to say a word of thanks for those who have born the brunt of abuse, and have truly given of themselves, and sacrificed, to proclaim the precious word.

I believe that if most of us would be honest, we would realize and admit, that we have it better, financially, than those who have gone on before. Just a casual conversation with older gospel preachers, will reveal that many of them often preached for nothing, financially. In an age when many gospel preachers, seem to think of preaching as a career (in the same genre as promotions at the plant), I believe many need to consider just what preaching is about.

I am fortunate to be a preacher’s son, and consequently, to have been privy to conversations by many gospel preachers through the years. I can remember my father speaking of a time, when he and others were offered a deal by liberal brethren, if they would consider preaching it “their way.” He and others refused even though it meant financial burden. I also remember him speaking of a time when he was paid with chickens and squirrel meat. More than once he was paid with the “change” from the collection plate. Often he furnished rides to others who preached on appointment, and among all of them, they hardly made enough to meet expenses. When he started preaching, he received $35 per week. He could have made more money as a chemist and a musician, but he loved preaching. So did Mom and they were not going to quit, simply because the brethren were unable, or unwilling to pay better. We have lived in some places that might have been condemned, called preachers houses, but they were home to us, because they were filled with love. I know that Mom and Dad often made themselves sick, wondering where the money would come from to buy groceries, but it always seemed to be there. He was “docked” for any Sunday he was away, and often performed funerals at great distance for nothing. This was a time when brethren believed generally, that preachers ought to be willing to suffer, or they were not worth anything. It was a learning time.

I recall hearing Weldon Warnock, Connie Adams, C.D. Plum, Barney Keith, Tom Icard, Paul Casebolt, and a number of others, speak of similar circumstances. Recently, I learned that my brother-in-law, had a similar experience. Generally, this learning period is over and most gospel preachers are treated with respect and it is recognized that they must be able to feed their families, and it is not wrong for them to have a little of this world’s goods, also.

This has been made possible, because of a number of gospel preachers who have unselfishly stood, when it would have been easier to quit. They lost support for standing for Truth. Their wives and children stood with them, and realized that it was for righteousness they were suffering. This was a generation that did not view preaching as a “professional position,” with steps. They went where they were needed most, and preached the same way everywhere without fear of any man. Their bellies may have been empty, but there hearts were on fire for Truth.

I do not believe that it is wrong, to recognize these faithful soldiers and to say a much overdue thank-you to them for their faith and their inspiration. To those of this generation, let us take note of those who have refused to compromise principles for a chance to preach at a “super” location. Let’s view preaching as a blessing and quit complaining over our sad plight. We have it great comparatively.

To those who are struggling, our hearts are with you, and we say for you to get the word out to faithful brethren who are willing to faithfully support sound preaching.

To congregations who are forever waiting for the “roof to fall in,” and have several thousand dollars in the bank, while good preaching brethren are hurting for lack of support, have some faith, and support the preaching of the gospel. So what if you have a big account balance. If the roof really fell in, or the air conditioner really broke, don’t you think that the average member, would “chip in” a little more to take care of that need? Why do we pay insurance premiums?

Spiritual Israel has unlimited potential and resources. If we set our minds to it we could really spread the gospel throughout the world. The men are in position, the fields are white, and we live in a prosperous time when brethren have sympathetic attitudes toward preachers. The only thing holding us back is ourselves, and our own lack of zeal. We should be willing to spend every dime for the spread of the gospel. Let’s not be covetous with God’s resources.

Again to those who have made it a little easier to preach the gospel, “Thank you.” To faithful preachers wives, who have stood by their husbands through very lean times, thank you for your inspiration. To families of preachers who have done without, so that brethren can be more spiritual, thank you, also. May we all love the Lord with the same intensity as these, and never let financial setbacks deter us from our course.

How beautiful are the feet of those who peach the gospel (Rom. 10:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 563, 567
September 21, 1989

By Ron Daly

The Holy Spirit through Paul, the Lord’s apostle, enjoins, “And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). In the context of 1 Corinthians 10, discussing Israel’s idolatry, and fornication, Paul warned believers to “flee idolatry” (v. 14), to have no “communion with demons” (w. 16-22), and to do only the things which “edify” and demonstrate love toward the “conscience” of the other (vv. 23-33). It is in this setting that the Holy Spirit says, “Whether ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (v. 31). In Ephesians 5:20, Paul states, “Giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father. . .”

All of these passages clearly illustrate the necessity of doing all to “the glory,” or wonderful and majestic power and splendor of God. And, when this is done we can truly “give thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But a thing is done to his “glory, ” and “in his name” only when it is performed in the recognition of his sovereign authority. He has “all authority,” and this authority is revealed to men and bound on men through his word which stands written (Jn. 12:48; 1 Cor. 2:9-13; 2 P t. 13; Jude 3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). So, in things religious the crucial question is always, “What saith the Scriptures?” “What stands written?” It matters not what issues are being discussed, the authoritative answers are only found by searching what God spoke, Christ brought, the Holy Spirit revealed, the apostles wrote, taught, and preached, and the early church practiced under apostolic guidance, for revelation came from God, to Christ, by the Spirit, through the apostles and other inspired writers, and finally in the bound volume of the book which we have (Jn. 12:48; Jn. 16:13; Eph. 3:3-5; Jude 3; Col. 4:16, etc.).

The singing of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” is an act of worship by which we praise God, and “teach and admonish one another” (Rom. 15:9; Acts 16:25; Col. 3:16). God’s word regulates our activities in the assembly, and in private worship with regard to the kind of music we must offer unto him. The Scriptures teach us that God obligates us to engage in singing, to the exclusion of mechanical instruments of music relative to the individual’s acts in his private devotion.

Luke wrote, “But about midnight Paul and Silas praying were singing praises and the prisoners were listening to them” (Acts 16:25). James penned the following, “Is any among you suffering misfortune? Let him continue praying. Is any cheerful? Let him continue singing praises” (Jas. 5:13). Paul and Silas were not in a public assembly of worship, they were in prison. The action ascribed to them was performed out of a congregational gathering; individual, private devotion is expressed. The singing of praise commanded by James is to be done by any one who is cheerful – individually, privately.

So, in the case of Paul and Silas engaging in the private worship of God in song, out of the assembly, we have an apostolic example of singing without mechanical accompaniment. In James’ text, the Holy Spirit commands the cheerful one to sing praise. Therefore, by direct statement and example we learn that singing is the only kind of music authorized by God in private worship, such as in one’s home. This being true, if one may add a different type of music to his private worship other than what God requires, may he (we) not do the very same thing in congregational worship, and for the same reasons?

Some argue, “I agree that it would be sinful to sing with mechanical instruments if such singing were done as an act of worship, but we may sing ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ for entertainment with the mechanical instrument and not be guilty of sin.” This argument has two very dangerous implications, viz. that one may properly sing “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” for entertainment (and we do not speak here of the joy and good spirit which comes from singing meaningful songs, but mere show, display of talent, and without full regard for the words and sentiment expressed by the songs), and that one may add mechanical instruments, even though God gives us authority for singing only. Therefore, instead of giving scriptural justification for the practice, this argument compounds the sin!

Furthermore, not only is it sinful to use mechanical instruments with singing in private worship, we are put at a very great disadvantage in making our verbal defense against this same practice among the denominations, the Christian Church included, because of the doctrinal in: consistency involved. If they violate the Scriptures by going beyond the teaching of Christ, and repudiating the authority of God’s word, and by adding an element to worship which is foreign to the New Testament, so do we, when we do the same thing!

May a Christian have a piano or other musical instrument in his home? Yes. May a Christian play secular music upon the musical instrument? Yes. These things are not the issue. The question is, may a Christian (or anyone else) use mechanical instruments of music as an accompaniment to the singing of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” in private worship? We answer unequivocally no, because there is no authority provided for such in the New Testament. The conclusion is, it is sinful for one to sing religious songs with mechanical instruments of music at any time, on any occasion, in any place, and for any reason.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, p. 555
September 21, 1989

By Ron Halbrook

III. Apostasy Through Centralization

A. Danger of Apostasy. If we are disciples of Christ, we cannot substitute some other pattern for his own pattern of independent and autonomous churches, each overseeing its own work. When elders advocate a different practice, they speak “perverse things” which lead men away from Christ in the name of following him (Acts 20:30). When preachers defend another practice, they “depart from the faith” and fail their mission to “preach the word” and to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:1; 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:2). Brethren who follow such elders and preachers are following blind guides – “both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14).

B. Pattern of Centralization. Over and over in history, the people of God have proven themselves vulnerable to the temptation to centralize their work. In the pattern of apostasy, Israel desired a king, large city churches carried out area-wide programs leading to the papacy, and brethren formed missionary societies one hundred years ago. Churches today centralize their work of evangelism in the Herald of Truth, benevolence in orphanages, and edification in church supported colleges.

C. Revelation vs. Substitution. We must learn again the vital difference between divine revelation and human substitutions. Is Jesus Christ divine, or only a great human teacher? Must we immerse in baptism, or will sprinkling do? Are we limited to singing, or is playing instruments acceptable? If the church is to preach the gospel, does that exclude from its mission political work, economic reforms, social service, and entertainment? When God revealed the local church and equipped each one to do its own work, may we substitute churches working through human institutions (church supported schools, camps, orphanages, colleges, etc.) and the centralized elderships of the sponsoring church idea (Herald of Truth, World Radio, etc.)? If any one of these substitutions is acceptable to God, all of them are!

D. Divine vs. Human Organization. Does the authority of God’s Word and the voice of his Son mean anything to us? The voice of the Good Shepherd authorizes the local church to conduct its own work of evangelism, edification, and benevolence. It may use agents and methods, buy goods and services. We can all agree to that because the divine organization of the church is revealed – thus saith the Scriptures! But church donations to human institutions, including the brotherhood eldership of sponsoring churches, for any endeavor, is emphatically not authorized in the teaching of Christ. Since the law of Moses authorized a priesthood from Levi and “spake nothing” concerning Judah, the effect was to forbid, exclude, and prohibit priests from Judah (Heb. 7:14). To bind circumcision today, when the inspired men “gave no such commandment,” is to pervert the gospel (Acts 15:24; Gal. 1:7). God’s revealed plan for the local church has the emphatic effect of forbidding, excluding, and prohibiting us from forming human institutions to coordinate and centralize the work of the churches.

E. What’s the Difference? “What’s the difference? We are all doing a good work either way,” someone says. It makes a great difference to God, whether it does to men, whether we speak “as the oracles of God” or not. It makes a big difference to God whether we practice what is revealed in “the doctrine of Christ” or go beyond that revelation (1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9). God’s plan for the local church is in the Bible, in the oracles of God, in the doctrine of Christ. We can put our finger on the Book, chapter, and verse for it. Now, here is the difference: human institutions, societies, conventions, boards, headquarters, and centralizing elderships for church cooperation are not in the Bible. They are not in the oracles of God, not in the doctrine of Christ. We can not put our finger on the Book, chapter, and verse which authorizes any of them!

F. Centralization Is Just One Phase of Apostasy. It is no accident or coincidence that the big city churches of the 1940s which aspired to be sponsoring churches also wanted to use much of the money raised for a massive benevolence program to the general public in Europe – a sort of Marshall Plan for the churches of Christ. These same churches became much interested in supporting colleges, orphanages, camps – and then clinics, convalescent homes, hospitals, and something called “medical missions.” These same churches pioneered church kitchens, “fellowship halls” (euphemism for rooms used for suppers, parties, and games), recreational programs, and “family life” centers (glorified gymnasiums). These churches are into everything from job training to legal services. These same churches are broadening their concepts of grace and fellowship, participating in ministerial associations and interdenominational services, and generally entering the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism.

It is no accident or coincidence that our studies for three days have covered that whole spectrum. Those of us who protest “liberalism” realize that this problem is much deeper than one specific program or issue over which we differ. The fundamental problem is a gradual loss of respect for the authority of God’s Word – a creeping “loose constructionism” opening the way to a whole complex of concepts and, practices which are foreign to the Bible. Such teaching eats as a vicious and violent cancer deeper and deeper into the vitals of faith (2 Tim. 2:17; 2:13).

Conclusion: Let Us Stand With Christ – Hear His Voice! Those who love the Good Shepherd and hear his voice must not be seduced by illusions of a grace, peace, and unity which tolerate liberalism. Rather we must take the mighty weapons of truth and press the war against apostasy, “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,-and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:35). We are not trying to destroy souls – we are trying to destroy the digression that destroys souls. We do not hate our digressive brother, but labor in love to convert him from the error of his way in order to save a soul from death and to hide a multitude of sins (Jas. 5:19-20).

As much as we love our erring brethren and long for fellowship with them, we love Christ even more and desire fellowship with God above all other desires. The lines of truth and fellowship are drawn by the Lord himself in Scripture. They are not ours to barter and negotiate. We cannot apologize for them nor compromise them – not in this place, or any place, not at this time, or any time. We can extend hands of love, courtesy, and concern for the welfare of our erring brethren, but not “the right hands of fellowship” which betoken unity in Christ, in work, and in worship.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2 Jn. 9-11).

May God help us all to accept and to abide in the teaching delivered by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.(1) May we follow the voice of the Good Shepherd, and flee from the voice of every stranger.

Endnote

1. Another sign of digression is the effort to limit “doctrine of Christ” in 2 Jn. 9 to the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ. This limitation greatly broadens the lines of fellowship, but it is a false unity. My book on The Doctrine of Christ and Unity of the Saints (Marion, Ind.; Cogdill Foundation Publ., 1977) is a detailed examination of 2 Jn. 9.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 556-557
September 21, 1989