Truth Magazine

By Michael Garrison

The word “must” is used several times in the Scriptures. Some do not know the meaning of the word or else they ignore the meaning in an attempt to hold to a position they think to be scriptural.

First, we should define the word. Strong’s dictionary defines it as: “it is (was, etc.) necessary (as binding): behooved, be meet, must (needs), (be) need(ful), ought should.” Thayer’s definition is: “it is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper; . . . it denotes any sort of necessity.”

In John 3:7, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” This new birth consists of being “born of water and of the Spirit,” i.e. in order for one to be born again, “it is . . . necessary (as binding)” for one to be born of both water and the Spirit. One may think he was “born anew” before either or both elements involved in the new birth were complied with, but Jesus, by using the word “must,” shows the necessity of water and the Spirit in being born again.

Another example of “must” occurs in Acts 1:16. Here, the apostle Peter said, “This scripture (Psa. 41:9) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas.” In other words, “it was necessary (as binding)” that Judas do what he did in betraying Jesus.

Now, having established the use of the term “must,” let us look at two modern examples where some reject the meaning and application of the term.

In Charles Holt’s magazine, The Examiner (Vol. 2, no. 2, March 1987), Holt wrote, “1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 are abused and misused when the things mentioned there are asserted to be ‘qualifications’ necessary for one to be officially appointed to be an ‘elder’. . . We read all of this into these passages.” Is he teaching truth when he says this? No!

Not what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write: “A bishop then must be. . . ” and a list of about 16 items follows. From the definition of “must,” we learned it “denotes any sort of necessity.” So, 1 Timothy 3 is not misused when selecting men to be appointed elders. It would be a misuse of the Scriptures to teach, as Holt and others do, that “The word ‘elder’ simply means ‘older’ or ‘senior'” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1986).

I wrote to Holt and informed him of his error in March of 1987 and have yet to hear from him. I told him I noted the word “must” is used in Acts 9:6. There Saul of Tarsus was told by Jesus Christ to “arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do” (emphasis mine, m1g). Now some may will say that we abuse and misuse the passage and say baptism (required in Acts 22:16) really is not one of the items one “must” submit to, but that doesn’t change the Truth that Jesus found it necessary to bind baptism to wash away sins. So it is when some teach as Holt does; the Truth must be taught and contended for and those teaching error must be exposed.

After Bob West had an article in The Examiner (Vol. 3, No. 5, Sept. ’88) titled, “I’ve Learned Better,” I wrote to him to let him know how disappointed I was in his departure from the faith. (He basically agrees with Holt on the subject of elders.) We have engaged in a good deal of correspondence. In one of his letters, West wrote, “. . . Isn’t it possible that Paul was giving Timothy a general description of a shepherd (and the kind of person one should be) instead of a list of legal specifications? Have you noticed that his instruction to Titus was not identical?”

I wonder if West thinks Jesus’ use of “water and the Spirit” in John 3:3-7 is just a “general description” of being “born again” or if they are to be considered as “legal specifications” before one is “born anew”? I wonder if brother West thinks that Peter’s use of Psalm 41:9 in Acts 1:16 is just a “general description?’ of the one who betrayed Jesus or does he consider it a “legal specification” of Judas himself? Does he think Jesus told Paul there was something he must do (Acts 9:6) as a “general description” or was it a “legal specification”? Honesty would demand Holt and West to teach I Timothy 3 and Titus I are items men must – of necessity – meet before they are qualified to be appointed as elders, or they must treat John 3:7; Acts 1:16; and Acts 9:6 the same way they mistreat 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, etc.

The quibble that the instructions in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus I not being identical is as easily answered as if he said the instructions in Acts 2:38 are not identical to Acts 16:31. Bob West ought to know we combine various passages to find the plan of salvation – it is not found altogether in one passage – and I’m sure he knows this! When we combine all the Scripture says about elders, we can know what God has taught concerning that subject. Some of that is elders are married men with children, and meet various other qualifications and that each congregation has a plurality of elders. This is what God has specified; it is not a general thing, but a must!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 329
June 1, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Perhaps you are familiar with the classic conversion experiences of those in denominationalism. They cite their “testimony,” or give their “experience of grace,”. relating how they “received Christ as” their “personal Savior.” Generally, upon their confession that “God hath for Christ’s sake” pardoned their sins, they are presented to their denomination as a candidate for baptism. At the next appointed baptism service (some weeks later), they are baptized into their particular denomination.

It seems not to matter to such people that their process of pardon is not found in the New Testament. They rely on their “calling,” “feel led of the Spirit,” and are quite satisfied with their “church home.” That they are led by a spirit, I do not deny, but the Holy Spirit of God does not lead them into an experience, a confession, a church and a baptism unknown to the Bible.

Christians have always pointed out the contradictions noted above and appealed to the word of God. Not a few have been truly converted to Christ. This is as it should be. Beguiled souls can be redeemed when they have been “taught of God” (Jn. 6:44-45).

Now, though, there are even some Christians who are telling of their mid-life conversion experiences. They sound something like this:

For years, I felt a chafing sense of legalism as I witnessed Phariseeism. in the church. Now, I have always been a member of the Lord’s church, and I don’t question my roots in the body of Christ. However, the harder I prayed and the more I went to church, the more frustrated I became. But a few years ago, I cast, off the yoke of brotherhood bondage. Today, my prayer life is more meaningful. I smile more often. Even my wife has noticed it. Our faith should be a happy faith! Everyone smile out there! That’s better. And it didn’t break your face, either, did it?

Brethren, we have “Nadabed and Abihued” the world to death. We have made laws out of some of our traditions, and that’s exactly what they are – traditions. We need a more positive gospel of love, and we need to learn to emphasize God’s grace. We’re turning people off with our commands and our laws. I’m afraid we’ve almost become the Pharisees of our day that Jesus condemned.

Now, don’t misunderstand me (some have in places where I’ve preached these things), but since I have allowed Jesus to be in my heart more than rules and regulations for the church – well I’ve been a changed person, and I feel more secure in my salvation. Honestly, I used to think I’d probably go to hell. I thought God probably hated me and was just waiting for me to do something wrong so he could condemn me, but now I don’t feel that way because of the change in my life.

Sound Familiar?

Brethren, have you heard a reasonable facsimile of the speech above? Keep your ears open. “Take heed what ye hear” (Mk. 4:24). “Take heed . . . how ye hear” (Lk. 8:18). You may hear such things, for they are being said. They are being spoken with great piety and sincerity, which makes them even more dangerous.

So, I hope that after this week, you’ll feel better, too. I trust that you’ll have the joy of knowing Jesus in your heart as I do and not just the drab and dreary knowledge of the laws and barriers in the church that some well meaning but misguided brethren have erected.

But one aspect is not clear. Why is it that a sectarian’s “testimony” of his “conversion experience” is unacceptable, but a Christian’s “testimony of his mid-life conversion experience is acceptable? If a. brother’s “personal testimony” of his conversion is to be a pattern, then why not receive the sectarian’s story of his conversion? One is as good as the other. But since when is a man’s “personal experience” to be my guide? Tell me why I must reject one as a pattern but accept the other. Until someone does explain that question, I shall reject both and cling to the word of God, for it “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

If a man needs a mid-life correction, he should have it. He must regret, renounce and repent of anything that turns him, from truth. But I do not need to take Alka-Seltzer because someone else burps.

Phariseeism In The Church

The Pharisees constituted “the most straitest sect of our (the Jews) religion” (Acts 26:5). The condemnation of the Pharisees consisted of their:

(1) Doctrine – Matthew 16:6, 12.

(2) Hypocrisy – Luke 12:1; 16:15; Matthew 23:5,14, 23-31.

(3) Covetousness – Luke 16:14; Matthew 23:14.

(4) Outer Form vs. Inner Purity – Luke 16:15; Matthew 23:5,23-31

(5) Human Tradition vs. Divine Commandment – Matthew 15:3-9; Mark 7:9-13.

(6) Self-righteousness – Luke 18:9-14.

Phariseeism is not:

(1) Strong Conviction. Some equate firm, certain belief or conviction with smug, self-righteous Phariseeism. Paul, Peter and John were men of strong conviction (2 Tim. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:3; 1 Jn. 4:6). Luke wrote of “things which are most surely believed among us.” He “had perfect understanding of all things” and wrote “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed” (Lk. 1:1-4). Timothy was to continue “in the things which thou hast learned and has been assured of” (2 Tim. 3:14).

We, too, are to “know the truth,” “the doctrine which (we) have learned” (Jn. 8:32; Rom. 16:17). We are to “hold fast the form of sound words,” “that which is good” (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:21). We are commanded to understand what the will of the Lord is, and we can understand it when we read what the apostles wrote (Eph. 3:4; 5:17; 2 Cor. 1:13). Some apparently have strong convictions that such an attitude is Pharisaical. Are they Pharisees for their strong stand against Phariseeism?

(2) Keeping (Obeying) Commandments. Some insist that we are Pharisees if we demand obedience to commands, but the Pharisees did not keep the commandments of God (Matt. 23:2-4; Mk. 7:9). Jesus said, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death” (Jn. 8:51). Was he advocating Phariseeism? Is it Phariseeism to say, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (Jn. 14:21)? “If a man love me, he will keep. my words . . . . He that loveth me not keepth not my sayings” (Jn. 14:23, 24; cf. 14:15; 15:14). “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46) “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14). Those who say. Phariseeism is demonstrated by stressing obedience to commandments and “rule keeping” have a problem. They have a rule against keeping commandments. Is their rule against rule keeping a form of Phariseeism?

(3) Condemning Error And Its Advocates. Since the Pharisees questioned Jesus and the disciples (Matt. 12:2; 15:2), some say Christians are guilty of Phariseeism. when they rebuke denominational doctrines. Is this true? Jesus answered the arguments of the Pharisees. He did not challenge their right to raise legitimate objections. He condemned their motives and confounded their allegations, but he did not deny one’s right to question another (1 Jn. 4:1; Rev. 2:2; 1 Thess. 5:21). Was Jesus a Pharisee since he rebuked error and its exponents (Matt. 7:15-28; 11:2024; 12:39; 15:13,14; 23: 1 ff.; 22:29)?

Was the apostle Paul a Pharisee in the negative sense? Observe his open and pointed reproof and rebuke of Peter and Elymas (Gal. 2:11-14; Acts 13:8-11). See his strong words of sarcasm and condemnation in Galatians 1:6-9; 4:12; Romans 16:17; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 4:2-4; Titus 1:9-13; Philippians 3:2. If one does as Paul did, and is a “Pharisee,” then Paul was a Pharisee, too. “These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15). Are those who condemn the “error of Phariseeism,” Pharisees for doing so?

(4) Pattern Theology. It is argued that exclusive, binding patterns are a symptom of Phariseeism. Some spit out the words “pattern theology” and “pattern mentality” as though they were vile terms. In short, if you believe the Bible is a blueprint, a pattern for one’s work and worship, then you are a Pharisee (cf. 1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; Matt. 28:20).

Is initial obedience to the gospel Phariseeism? There is a “form (mold) of doctrine” to be obeyed (Rom. 6:17,18). Is there a pattern for becoming a Christian? Is there a specific body of truth to be known, believed and obeyed, or is becoming a Christian a nebulous, ephemeral, hazy, subjective thing that “just happens” (Jn. 8:32; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 1 Pet. 1:22)? If there are specific, certain terms or conditions to be obeyed,,i.e., a pattern, is this Phariseeism (Mk6 16:16; Acts 2:38; 19:1-5)? Was Jesus’ mercy and longsuffering in the salvation of Paul a case of Phariseeism? It is 46a pattern” for us (I Tim. 1:16). Was Jesus guilty of Phariseeism in saving Paul via this “pattern”?

Ironically, those who charge Phariseeism go to the Bible to prove their position. Is the Bible a pattern for teaching non-patternism? If so, do they have a “pattern theology,” a “pattern mentality,” and are they Pharisees when they use the Bible to prove non-patternism?

False Concepts

Those who have had a “mid-life conversion experience” and charge the church with being Pharisaical often hold to false concepts. First, they confuse biblical worship with “traditional, rote, going through the motions” religion. Those who make the charge often ref~r to their own “traditional past” when they “did all the right things,” but were devoid of “true love.” Well, that is their problem., Because they were once self-confessed Pharisees does not prove that others are. One may do things by rote and ritual and leave his first love, but that does not mitigate against the form of true worship (Rev. 2:2-5). Because Ananias and Sapphira, went through the motions of giving (Acts 5:1-11), does not justify a Monday night collection. Because the church at Corinth perverted the Lord’s supper with their tradition (1 Cor. 11), does not authorize a Thursday night communion. Nor do those examples make one a Pharisee if he contends for the biblical pattern (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).

Second, they say, “Our church laws and traditions, though essentially correct, turn others off.” No one should devise human laws and traditions, whether they repel or compel others. But what specific items, though “essentially (scripturally) correct,” should we reject so as not to offend some people – immersion for the remission of sins? Elders in every church? Lord’s day communion and contribution? Singing without a piano? What? Preaching Jesus as the Son of God “turns off” many people (Acts 9:20; 18:4-6). Should we abandon this as a “church law and tradition”?

“Two songs, a prayer and another song” are rote, ritualistic worship; it is too trite and traditional, or so we are told. Well, is it scriptural? Do you pray before your meals three times a day? If so, is it “trite and traditional”? Worse yet, is it Pharisaical? Sectarians have objected to serving the Lord’s supper every Sunday for the same reason. It makes it too common, they say. Should we dispense with the weekly communion because they consider it too formal and rigid?

Shall we have spontaneous singing to break out of the rut of this alleged ritualism? How about during preaching and praying? Should we sing then? Some think humming hymns during the Lord’s supper is “a nice touch.” How about humming during prayer or preaching? After a while, though, humming during the Lord’s supper would become trite and traditional. That is the way of all fads. When a fad gets old, it becomes a tradition – sprinkling, instrumental music, beads and candles – all are examples.

Some like applause after a sermon. How about hissing and booing a poor sermon? Some prayers are better than some sermons. Shall we clap for them? If your wife and kids hummed hymns while you gave thanks for breakfast and applauded after you were through, would you commend them for “breaking out of the rut of trite and traditional” thanksgiving?

Third, some say, “We have freedom in Christ. God did not deliver us from one law simply to enslave us under another one.” Certainly, we have freedom, liberty in Christ (Jn. 8:32,36; Gal. 5:1). Paradoxically, our freedom is contained in “the perfect law of liberty” which we must look into and continue in (Jas. 1:25; 2:12). Even Galatians 5:1 commands us to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. Are we “free” to disobey that command? Liberty has its bounds, its restraints (1 Cor. 8:8-13). “For, brethren, ye have been called into liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13).

Some who promise liberty make themselves the servants of corruption (2 Pet. 2:19). Some who promote and promise freedom in Christ become servants of human traditions and enemies of divine truth. Diotrephes was not “free” to oppose apostolic doctrine. Was John a “Pharisee” for opposing him (3 Jn. 9-11)? Hymanaeus and Philetus were not “free” to teach their views without Paul exposing them (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Was Paul a “Pharisee”? The Corinthians were not “free” to cause confusion with their spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14). Was Paul a “Pharisee” for putting limits, for setting rules and restrictions on their exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:23-33)?

Frequently, an appeal is made to Romans 14 for freedom. The very first verse of that chapter contains a command and a prohibition! One must receive the weak brother, but not to doubtful disputations.” Am I “free” to disobey? The strong brother is not free to despise the weak brother (v. 3). One is not free to cause his brother to stumble (v. 13). One is not free to exercise his rights if they cause a brother to stumble (vv. 14, 21). Usually, when a denominational preacher is hemmed in and cannot justify his doctrines, he will flee to Romans 14, but the chapter has rules in it, the very thing he is trying to avoid.

But while we are speaking of freedom, I, too, am a “free man in Christ.” As such, am I free to:

(1) Preach and bind baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts. 2:38)?

(2) Preach that sprinkling is not baptism (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12; Acts 8:36-38)?

(3) Preach that Jesus built his church, not Martin Luther’s, or any other man’s (Matt. 16:18)?

(4) Preach that Jesus is the head and Savior of only one church (Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23-25; 1 Cor. 12:20; Rom. 12:4,5; Col. 1:18,24)?

(5) Preach that the Lord’s supper should not be carnalized with a common meal (1 Cor. 11)?

(6) Preach that some will subvert your souls by teaching doctrines not found in the word of God (Acts 15:24; Gal. 1:8,9; 2 Thess. 2:1-3,15; 2 Jn. 9; Matt. 15:8,9)?

Will those who spout and flaunt their “freedom” tell me whether I am free to preach the things above? Am I free to oppose them when they, under the cloak and guise of freedom, endeavor to bring in their doctrines, or am I bound not to do so? Or is their “freedom doctrine” a one way street? They want freedom, but they usually deny it to those who oppose them. Finally, if, freedom is as broad as they say, am I not free to be a Pharisee? Or is there a law against one being a Pharisee? (For a more complete and thorough study of Phariseeism, see James D. Bales’ book, Faith Under Fire, from which I shoplifted many of the above thoughts. The rest I simply plagiarized.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 304-306
May 18, 1989

By John A. Smith

The ad reproduced below appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader (January 15, 1989) and is part of a terrible lie and deliberate homosexual recruitment program funded by the Lexington area homosexual community. Like Lot in ancient Sodom (2 Pet. 2:7-8), righteous souls today need to be sorely vexed when such lies are spread and sin is greeted with acceptance.

The entire one-in-ten hypothesis is without foundation having been built upon questionable data gathered by Dr. Alfred Kinsey in 1948. Edward Eichel, a New York psychotherapist, in his book Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud documents the bias associated with Kinsey’s report. Abraham H. Maslow, one of Kinsey’s colleagues, warned Kinsey about the bias in his “representative sampling” which included men in prison where normal relations would not have been an option. Lionel Trilling, a contemporary of Kinsey, questioned the scientific objectivity of the study and attacked its assumptions and many positive statements as highly debatable.

What Are the Facts?

If Kinsey’s 10 percent is not correct, or at best flawed, what then are the facts? Dr. Stephen C. Joseph, New York City Commissioner of Health, estimates the homosexual population of New York to be closer to three percent. The National Institute of Health estimates the national figure to be closer to 1.5 percent. Charles Turner, writing for the National Research Council, objects to the 10 percent of Kinsey and says that realistically it is no higher than 3.3 percent of the U.S. population. Even Playboy, with all its liberal biases, places the figure not higher than 1.5 percent!

Why the lie? It is an attempt to gain sympathy and acceptance for their perverted lifestyle. If the homosexual community and those in sympathy with them can inflate the numbers then it is easier to assert that homosexuality is a healthy and normal expression of sexual desires. It is easier for them to recruit young people who may have had a passing and troubling homosexual fantasy. They can more easily advance the myth that it is biologically predetermined. (A myth that even the Masters and Johnson report discards.) By deliberately misrepresenting the facts they hope to spread their perversion and silence the opposition.

What Does the Bible Say?

The first mention of homosexuality is in Genesis 19:1-11 where the men of Sodom preferred Lot’s two male visitors rather than his two virgin daughters. It is stated that the men of Sodom wanted to “know” Lot’s visitors. Even a quick glance at the context will give one an understanding of “how” they wanted to know them. The New King James inserts in italics the word “carnally” which makes the meaning even clearer. This disgusting episode is included in the biblical record as an example of how depraved and perverted these people had become.

Lot did not accept their “alternative lifestyle” neither did he uphold their right to practice “reproductive freedom.” Lot rightly condemned them and declared that they had done “wickedly.” God was so sickened by their actions that he destroyed them! It is apparent that God does not approve of homosexuality regardless of the numbers!

Under the terms of the Law of Moses, homosexuality was a capital crime! Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. ” Israel was told that if they defiled themselves with sexual sins (including homosexuality) as did the inhabitants of Canaan, the land would vomit them out for their abomination (Lev. 18:22-30). Even the land is pictured as being sickened by homosexuality!

The teachings of the New Testament uphold the repulsive nature of homosexuality. In 2 Peter 2:6-8 the men of Sodom are once again mentioned and said to have been ungodly men who practiced filthy conduct. God continued to condemn the wickedness of homosexuality. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:9-11 and Romans 1:26-27 homosexuals are described as not being able to inherit the kingdom of God, insubordinate, lawless, ungodly, and depraved men who are storing up for themselves the penalty due them.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly condemn the act of homosexuality and no amount of human deceit or trickery can change God’s attitude toward it.

Conclusion

But what of our attitude toward the homosexual? Are we, as the ad suggests, teaching our children to hate gays when we teach them the truth from the Bible? Should our reaction toward these people be hatred? Not at all! We need to love them, just as God loves them while at the same time despising the filth of their actions. We need to recognize that the Gospel of Christ can change their lives just as it did some in Corinth (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Even the homosexual can be washed in the blood of the Lamb and be made pure again in the sight of God.

Sources

Buchanan, Patrick, “Dr. Kinsey’s biggest He is exposed,” Orange County Register, Monday, September 26, 1988.

Associated Press, “Study: 20 percent of men have tried gay sex,” Orange County Register, Friday, January 20, 1989.

Sheldon, Lou, Shape, “Homosexual Propaganda Exposed,” Vol. 6, No. 2, February 1989, p. 6.

Lexington Herald-Leader, January 15, 1989.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 302-303
May 18, 1989

By Frank Jamerson

The concepts. that people have are extremely important. Our convictions and actions basically come from our concepts. It is also important that we study history that we may learn from the mistakes of others. Restoration history is interesting, though we are not disciples of the “Restoration Movement,” but of Christ.

About two years ago a college room-mate and I had occasion to visit and talk about events since school days. He has finally finished his Doctorate in History and changed his faith to the degree that he can preach for the Christian Church without it bothering his conscience. He insisted that the “Restoration leaders” were not opposed to denominationalism and therefore that he should not oppose it.

I fear that many brethren have the concept that whatever Restoration leaders believed must have been right, therefore we should accept those things. Now, I appreciate what those men did in calling men back to the Bible as the standard of authority, and leaving denominationalism, but I am not a member of the “Restoration Movement.” I am a member of the body of Christ and subject only to its head.

My concept of New Testament Christianity does not permit me to endorse or. be a part of denominationalism. The church revealed in Scripture is not composed of denominations, but of saved individuals. Local churches are not parts of the universal church. The universal church is composed only of individuals, and though these same individuals are to join themselves together in local churches, there may be individuals who have not done so. (The Ethiopian eunuch was in the body of Christ when he was baptized, but we do not know where or when he met with others in a local assembly.)

Those who are so concerned about the “Restoration heritage” are constantly concerned about “which group” is right. This views God’s arrangement in a denominational way. The primary concern that we should have is: Am I doing the things that God authorized?

Yes, I believe that the concept of “restoration” is the biblical concept. We must accept that, or believe in continued revelation, or that it makes no difference what we do! If the Bible is not a “pattern” for us, then it “matters not what we speak, nor whether we speak at all” to quote Bill Humble when he believed in “pattern authority”). We must “restore” New Testament teaching on every subject, but I am not overly concerned about what some in “the movement” thought or believed.

My friend insisted that he had not “left the church of Christ” because he had preached for several years for the Christian Church! That reminds me of brethren who quit assembling with the saints for years but they “never quit the church.” Well, as one preacher put it, “If they were going to quit, what would they do differently?”

The church that Jesus established was not a denomination, though it was accused of being “a sect” of the Jews’ religion (Acts 24:5,14; 28:22). The word “denomination” means “a sect,” and a sect is a party, or denomination that represents division and a group that holds peculiar and false teachings. It is a work of the flesh (heresy or party in Gal. 5:19). It is division with an attitude to defend the party which Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 1. Christ died for the church (Eph. 5:25), but he certainly did not die for a work of the flesh.

Let us guard our thinking about the church of the Lord. It is not a product of the “Restoration Movement, “but of the word of God. Following the word of God never made, and will never make, a denomination. When we “restore” the New Testament teaching, we restore what the New Testament established – churches of the Lord!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, p. 300
May 18, 1989