Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

“Why not? Shouldn’t religion change with the times?”

Most people are shocked to learn that Jesus Christ did not give the world a religion of change! He alone is “the way, the truth, and the life.” He gave all men the one right way to the one true God – through one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” The unchanging Christ warned against “false prophets” who bring “divers and strange doctrines” (Jn. 14:6; Eph. 4:4-6; Heb. 13:8; Matt. 7:15).

To understand the issue of a woman bishop, we must first understand the church Jesus built with the shedding of his blood. When sinners believe Christ And are baptized into him, he saves them by his blood and adds them to his church (Matt. 16: IS; Acts 2:4.7; 20:28). He organized his people into local churches to do his work, and gave them a plan for each congregation to develop its own overseers or bishops – also called elders, pastors, and presbyters (Acts 14:23; 20:17,28). Also, he provided for evangelists or preachers to proclaim his word, but the preacher does not have the authority to oversee a local church like bishops or pastors do (Eph. 4:11).

The Lord ordained men to lead as bishops and to preach as evangelists. He did “not allow a woman to teach” or in any other way to “exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:12, NAS). The work of bishops and of preachers involves the authority to lead the mixed assembly, which is not the woman’s role. To qualify for “the office of a bishop,” a person must be “the husband of one wife” and have children (1 Tim. 3:1-7). A godly woman can be the wife of a bishop and a great asset to the church, but the church of Christ has no female bishops.

There was no separated priesthood for clergy in the church Jesus built. Both mew and women were priests, a synonym for Christian or one who worships God (1 Pet. 2:5). A priest did not mean a preacher or a public leader. The modern idea of a formal or clerical “priesthood” distinct from other Christians was never authorized by Christ.

The Episcopal Church is a denomination with a national organization. A “bishop” presides over many local churches in a region called a diocese. Their preachers are a distinct clergy called “priests.” This denomination voted to allow female priests in 1976. Barbara Harris has now been “elected” as a bishop by the Boston diocese and the election ratified by a vote of the “standing committees” of the nation’s 118 dioceses. Mid-January 1989 marks the final step, confirmation by a majority of the Church’s 118 diocean bishops. Sounds like a political campaign, doesn’t it? She will be officially “consecrated” as a “suffragan (assistant) bishop,” something else not found in the Bible (Time, 26 Dec. 1988, p. 81; Houston Chronicle, 5 Jan. 1989, p. 7-A).

Harris is a divorced feminist and a social activist who wants practicing homosexuals to be priests and bishops. And why not? If God’s Word means nothing when it limits bishops to service in a local church, and dioceses can be organized; if the Bible’s limit of public leadership in the church to men means nothing, and women can be preachers and bishops; if the New Testament limit of the office of a bishop to married men means nothing, and bachelors, maidens, and divorcees can be bishops; then why should God’s prohibition against sexual perversion mean anything?

By such logic, those who practice the sin of polygamy can be Christians, those who desert their mates to enter adulterous marriages can be preachers, and homosexual perverts can be bishops. Unreasonable men hinder the truth when they lose respect for God’s Word and for the urgency of repentance, leaving sinners in polygamy, adultery, and homosexuality while promising them eternal life with God. “Be not deceived … .. they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21).

Women bishops – what difference does it make? There is no logical stopping place when we begin to compromise the authority, truthfulness, and steadfastness of God’s Word. Denominationalism, modernism, and liberalism breed the spirit of compromise. We must “ask for the old paths” of divine revelation in all things, “where is the good way, and walk therein,” if we would find true rest for our souls (Jer. 6:16). To serve God and save our souls, we must esteem all the precepts of God “concerning all things to be right” and “hate every false way” (Psa. 119:128).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, p. 265
May 4, 1989

By Warren E. Berkley

As a young man, I cherished visions of being a preacher. I didn’t think it would ever happen, but there were times when I would envision myself as a preacher. From my father’s library, I often opened the Harris Dark book of sermons, God Hath Spoken. I would lay on my bed and read through his sermons, against the background of my imagination, picturing myself in the pulpit delivering those words. (When I preached my first sermon, at the Valley Station church of Christ in Louisville, in 1969, Harris Dark “prepared” that twenty minute talk!)

In those days, my concepts of preaching were juvenile and shallow. I had no idea of the inner motives, the soberness of mind and sheer labor involved in the work. Twenty years have made a difference. And, as I concern myself with the need for good men to enter preaching, I’m influenced by a different and hopefully deeper set of values. We need men, but what kind do we need?

We need men who are constrained by love. “For, the love of Christ constrains us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died” (2 Cor. 5:14). Since the immediate context has the statement, “One died for all, ” the subjective genitive interpretation seems to be sustained, that Paul is talking about Christ’s love for man (both for the lost, and the particular love for his people). There is the need for men to preach who are influenced by the love which Christ has shown in dying for all men. Men who not only admire that sacrificial love and preach it, but are motivated by it. The redeeming love of Christ for the lost, and the unchanging love of the Savior for his disciples should so influence the gospel preacher, that he is “constrained” (bound or influenced by this love; see same word sunecho in Lk. 12:50). This love of Christ becomes the reason for zeal and extraordinary effort. I speak not of an occasional gush of emotion; but a steady effort and labor that rests on belief in and appreciation for the crucified Christ.

We need men who are vindicated by their sincerity. Regardless of the accusations of scoffers, and the judgments of unkind unbelievers and self-seeking trouble makers, we need men who are vindicated before God by their sincerity. Men who, under pressure, can pass the deepest penetration of divine examination (Heb. 4:12; 1 Thess. 2:3). Men with clearness and purity of motive who refuse to preach one way, and live the opposite. We need men who serve “with a pure conscience,” and whose exhortation does not come “from deceit or uncleanness, nor… in guile” (2 Tim. 1:3; 1 Thess. 2:3).

We need men who are filled with determination. Such determination as was exhibited by Paul, reflected in his words to the Colossians: “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to his working which works in me mightily” (Col. 1:28,29). This determination results from a firm decision, and is carried out through strong character, study, prayer and work!

We need men who are graced with purity. Any person (Christian, non-Christian, preacher, non-preacher) can carelessly stumble into situations where it is exceedingly difficult to calculate the consequences of one’s actions. Concerned adults warn teenagers about dates spent in the back seats of automobiles, or unchaperoned evenings, dances, etc. These warnings are based on the wise premise, that one can get himself into situations where the impact of temptations and passion makes it exceedingly difficult (though still possible) to calculate consequences. In like manner, older preachers frequently advise the novice to guard against becoming too familiar with the sisters, or with female non-members he may visit.

A few years ago, editors and writing brethren began in earnest sounding warnings about the “epidemic” of fornicating preachers. Connie Adams said: “The cause of Christ has suffered severe damage in the last few years through this very thing. There seems to be a virtual epidemic of this malady. The scenario is all too familiar. A good brother who is happily married, sets out to ‘counsel’ with a sister who is having marital problems. He lets his guard down, violates his own rule to have either his wife present on such occasions or else one of the elders, or an older sister, so as to ‘provide things honest’ in the sight of God and man, and the rest all too frequently becomes history. He feels sorry for her and in trying to help, imposes confidences from his own life. Additional ‘counseling’ sessions are required and before long compassion merges into infatuation which is reciprocated, and there it goes!” (Connie Adams, Searching the Scriptures, Vol. XXII, Nov. 1982, No. 11)

We need men who recognize the wisdom of discretion in these matters. Men who are ready to provide “honorable things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” (2 Cor. 8:21). Paul advised Timothy to treat “the younger” women “as sisters, with all purity” (1 Tim. 5:2).

We need men who have ability! The apostle told Timothy: “The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The preacher or teacher of the Word (whether part or full-time) functions as a communicator, with the obligation to communicate what the Bible says. This requires some ability! Ability will surely be relative when measured between individuals; personal styles and methods will vary. But there is a basic ability to communicate that is essential to the task: ability to study; ability to think objectively, ability to organize, stay on course and explain things to people; ability to persuade (2 Cor. 5:11); ability to be gentle (1 Thess. 2:7); ability to be bold (Eph. 6:19); ability to speak so as to be understood (1 Cor. 14:19), etc. We need men who are willing to develop and maintain these abilities, and use these abilities while placing the emphasis on the message itself, which is God’s power to save (1 Cor. 2:1-5; Rom. 1:16,17). (Some men spend several years in preaching, without having developed most of these abilities. Robert Benchley said, “It took me fifteen years to discover I had no talent for writing, but I couldn’t give it up because by that time I was too famous!”)

We need men who, in their preaching and teaching, are limited to the Word! The issue need not be complicated! The preacher’s job is to “preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2). His age, good reputation, educational background, number of meetings held, style, methods, charm, eloquence, knowledge and debating skill – these things are all secondary to the basic question: Is he preaching the Word? The gospel preacher is to preach all the Word, and is limited to the Word. Richard Whately said, “Preach, not because you have to say something, but because you have something to say” (Apothegms). I would add to that: say what the Bible says!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, p. 268, 271
May 4, 1989

By H. Leo Boles

Nothing is taught more clearly and emphatically in the New Testament than that Christians, disciples of Christ, should be united. Jesus, before he established his church, prayed that his disciples should be one. “And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one” (Jn. 17:22,23). The Holy Spirit through Paul exhorted Christians to “be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Again Paul wrote by the Holy Spirit to the church at Philippi “that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (1 Pet. 3:8). Scriptural quotations could be multiplied which emphasize the fact that God’s people should be united. Not only do the Scriptures clearly teach that the disciples of Christ should be united, but division among the people of God is condemned. The church at Corinth was instructed to speak the same thing: “And that there be no divisions among you.” The New Testament is clear in condemning division as it is in emphasizing that God’s people should be united.

One of the vital questions of our day is that of bringing together all of the professed followers of Jesus. The question is frequently asked: “How shall the followers of Christ, now ranged under different banners, be rallied and united under one standard, when party names shall be known no more?” The desire of many is that the distinctions which are represented by party names pass away and the reproach -of division be removed. Many earnest and honest hearts are pondering the difficult solution of uniting the believers in the Lord. They feel keenly that such divisions as now exist are condemned by the New Testament. At the same time they see no satisfactory conclusion of the present divided condition; they know that no power can force people to unite; they know that the union must be wholehearted on the part of everyone. The heads of the denominational bodies know that they cannot compel the members of the different denominations to disband and merge into one large body of believers. No one denomination today will claim to be infallible; no denomination will claim to have all the truth, and each denomination will admit that the other denominations have some truth. It is an impossible task to unite the present denominations. A uniting of all the denominations into one large denomination is not the unity for which Christ prayed and which the New Testament teaches.

The union of believers in Christ cannot be had by the different denominations “agreeing to disagree”; there is no such thing as uniting these different religious bodies by getting them to ignore the differences that separate them into different bodies; neither will they be brought together into one body by agreeing to differ with each other, and yet maintain their distinct organizations. It is impossible to form a confederation of the denominations and have so many “wheels within a wheel.” Any theory of unity that assumes and makes provision for the perpetuation of denominationalism is doomed to failure. Many fatal objections can be urged against it, and no wise leader among them is bold enough to urge such a thing. The efforts that have been made toward union on such grounds have resulted in still more confusion, and as a result we have “confusion more confounded.” As a result of such efforts, denominations have multiplied and subdivisions have been the result of the different methods and theories urged for the union of religious people. Some have concluded that it is impossible for believers in Christ to be united. God requires all of his children to be of the same mind. If all cannot be of the same mind and be united, then God requires an impossibility of believers in Christ; if he does not require an impossibility, then all can be united in Christ. Hence, the dilemma: either God requires an impossibility of believers, or believers are condemned for not being of the same mind, united in Christ.

The Bible nowhere intimates that the perpetuity of denominations shall continue. They did not exist in the early days of Christianity; neither were they provided for in the New Testament; their origin, organization, and perpetuation are condemned in the New Testament. There is not a single intimation that God endorses them or that the Holy Spirit guides their different activities. If Paul censured the dissensions and party feelings in the church at Corinth, how much more reprehensible must be the ripened fruit of such schisms in religion today? They are antagonistic to, and destructive of, the spirit of unity. There is nothing in the New Testament that can be fairly construed to give any justification of denominationalism. Such divisions among the followers of Christ were not only unknown in apostolic times, but are by explicit apostolic teachings condemned for all time. And since denominations had their origin since the days of the apostles, they must certainly pass away before “we all attain unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (Eph. 4:13).

Some who have advocated denominationalism have ceased to do so and are now excusing it by saying that there was a time for denominations, but now the time has come for them to cease and all come together in one great body and form one new gigantic denomination. Such a claim betrays ignorance of Bible teaching. There is as much authority for two hundred denominations as there is for one; there is absolutely no authority for the existence of any of them. If denominations are to remain, union is impossible. There is no reason that can justify such organizations from New Testament teaching. Those who may be set for the defense of denominationalism must understand that they are opposed to New Testament teaching. No one can be right with God and in harmony with its truth and at the same time justify division among the believers in Christ. A denomination has not the authority of Jesus Christ for its existence; hence, it has no mission divinely guided, neither has it any work that is ordained of God. Moreover, he has not promised to bless anyone for loyalty to or service in any denomination. If they are perpetuated, it must be by the will of man and in opposition to the will of God.

The sin of division is great, The stench of it reaches to high heaven; the guilt of it descends into the depth of hell. It is the gigantic sin of the ages; it stands stubbornly in the way of the kingdom of God on earth. Denominationalism is the “man of sin,” which “opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God” (2 Thess. 2:3,4). The sin of denominationalism stalks abroad in the land, perverts the gospel, divides believers in Christ, and fosters opposition and antagonism; it is the mother of religious prejudice, which destroys a vision of the truth; it enters into the sanctity of the home and separates husband and wife, children and parents, friends and companions; it robs worshipers of the blessings of God, turns the praise of God to the praise of men; it honors men and fosters the party spirit and jealousy among its devotees; it often destroys faith in the Bible and has made infidels innumerable. May God speed the day when this sin shall be swept from the earth! (Reprinted from Gospel Advocate, LXXXIV, 35 [27 August 1942): 820-21).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, p. 264, 269
May 4, 1989

By Jady W. Copeland

In our former article we noted that being “right” with God is being righteous, and one can only be righteous if God pronounces him righteous. This is promised if one by faith accepts the terms offered by Christ for his salvation. Being “right” implies a standard of judgment of right and wrong, and only God’s standard is perfect; it is by that standard we will finally be judged (Jn. 12:48). Being “right” with God means we come into a right relationship with him, where he will acknowledge us as his child and we believe him to be our Father. This is, in effect, what the church is a relationship. Of course the church in its local sense is a group of those in a right relationship with God who have agreed to work and worship together in a fellowship of Christians.

A sinner gets into the fellowship with God through his faith in Christ and we are called into this fellowship by the Father (1 Cor. 1:9). He calls us by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14) and accepting the call requires faith (Heb. 11:6), turning from sin (repentance) and baptism into Christ (Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:27; etc.). Those who accept the call have been saved from sin and given the promises and blessings to be found in Christ – that is, in the proper or right relationship with Christ. Those saved people constitute the church.

Can Saved People Become Lost?

The next question that comes up is, “Can these saved people be lost?” As long as they maintain their faith, no. But the question is, “Can they lose their faith?” And if they lose their faith will they then be saved eternally? Some of the early disciples lost their faith, as John said: “many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him! (1 Jn. 6:66). If they walked no more with him, were they disciples or followers? Judas, one of the twelve, lost his faith for “after the sop, then, entered Satan into him” (Jn. 13:27). Can a disciple have Satan enter into him? If he does, is he still in a saved condition? Every warning of apostasy is an argument for the possibility of apostasy. Peter writes, “Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Pet. 3:17). The Hebrew writer says, “Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience” (Heb. 4:11). Again Peter writes, “Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). If one “stumbles” would he be finally saved if he never recovered from the fall? Another classic example of falling is 1 Corinthians 10 where Paul gives the example of thousands falling (because of their unfaithfulness) in the wilderness and the warning is directly to the saints at Corinth (1 Cor. 10:1-12). As someone has said, “Every grave in the wilderness is an argument for the possibility of apostasy for the Christian.” They fell, and we can fall. And when we fall, there is no promise unless we turn back to God.

Some can and did turn away from the faith. Paul writes, “But the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall fall away from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1). HyMenaeus and Alexander made shipwreck of their faith, and Paul turned them over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:19-20). It is a little difficult to believe that, had they died in this condition, they would have been eternally saved.

Thus we have seen that a baby is born pure and sinless (see first article). But sin enters his life and because of his sin, he is lost (Isa. 59:1-2). But God loved us, Christ died for us and gave us a way whereby we can be “right” with him again. But then one can again separate himself from God with sin, even though he has been forgiven. Is he now a sinner! Of course! He is just as lost as ever, and a number of passages suggest he is worse off then before. In the parable of the steward (Lk. 12:41 ff), the steward who knew the Lord’s will and made not ready will be beaten with many stripes, whereas the one who knew not will be beaten with few stripes. The most graphic and horrible picture of the fallen saint is given in 2 Peter 2:20-21. One had “escaped the defilements of the world,” then had gone back to the world and was “overcome.” Could he be saved in this condition? I think not. But read carefully the illustration Peter gives. One of the most horrible and even nauseating sights I have ever seen is a dog returning to his vomit. This is the picture of the saint who goes back to the world. What a horrible and dreadful thought! Some call such people “erring children of God,” but I call them sinners. The fact that they do not need to be baptized again does not take away from the fact that such is sickening in the mind of God, for they have once known the way of righteousness. At one time they were “right” with God, but now they are wrong. Yet God still loves them!

Restoration

So what can be done? Can they be saved? Of course, for God does not turn his back on the penitent person. First, it is helpful, if not necessary, for them to “remember” from whence they have fallen (Rev. 2:5). The Ephesians had left their first love and needed to repent. As with the one who has never become a child of God, they must realize they are lost. Many a fallen saint doesn’t realize that because he still “goes to church.” Because of habit, custom, or whatever, he still maintains fellowship in the local church, thinking, perhaps, that this will be sufficient. The church at Sardis had “a name that thou livest, and thou art dead” but evidently these brethren were not aware of their terrible state. I am truly afraid that we have so much traditionalism (tradition of men) among us that many have lost their first love, or they engage in worldly attractions, or in some other way give evidence that they are unfaithful, that they do not really realize they are lost.

Once they remember they have fallen, sorrow must be present. Paul says that godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation (2 Cor. 7: 10). But sorrow is insufficient. It leads to repentance (a turning) but it is not repentance. Sorrow may come from different sources, but godly sorrow causes one to repent or turn back to God. Judas “repented himself” but it was not the kind of repentance that led to forgiveness (Matt. 27:3). Godly sorrow leads to repentance that causes one to bring fruits of repentance.

But repentance is not enough. He may have turned back, but what of the sin that he has committed? The one who first came to Christ had to have faith in God and turn from his sins, but also he was required to be baptized for remission of sins. Faith and repentance were insufficient. Just so, the one who is coming to Christ after having fallen must do more than be sorry and repent. Sorrow and turning do not forgive. The fallen saint must then pray for forgiveness (Acts 8:22-24). Simon had been baptized. Then he sinned. But in order to get “right” with God, he was told to (1) repent and (2) pray the Lord. Again, repentance would change his life, but it took prayer to God to get forgiveness. When a saint sins, he separates himself from God. In order to get back into a right relationship to God he must remember from whence he has fallen, be sorry for his mistakes, repent of his sins and ask God’s forgiveness.

God’s child is constantly making adjustments in his life. I certainly would not make the argument that some make that the Christian sins every hour or even every day. But that Christians can and do sin is evident. But when we do, we have an advocate, and can turn away from sin, turn back to God, be sorry for our sins and ask God’s forgiveness. Of course if we have done another person wrong, we need to ask his forgiveness also. Peter stands as a good example. He sinned against his Master and against God in denying the Lord. He went out and wept bitterly, indicating repentance. Is there any question that he asked God’s forgiveness? Not in my mind there isn’t. I’m so very thankful that the child of God is on speaking terms with the Father so that he not only can give thanks, but can seek forgiveness when he sins. Then he is “right” with God. What a horrible thought to come before the great Judge without being right in his eyes. How terrible that pride, selfishness, jealousy and many other ungodly attitudes keep us from approaching God for forgiveness! And how awful to think that these same attitudes prevent us from seeking forgiveness of our brethren. We need daily to ask ourself: “Am I right with God?” If not, it is clear what needs to be done.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 262-263
May 4, 1989