Truth Magazine

Yes, it has been nearly forty years. I think back to a Gospel Meeting. The little congregation of twenty-five or thirty souls met in a typical white frame building so common in those days. It was not quite the middle of September, but fall came early that year. There was a nip in the air every evening when we assembled. 

The meeting progressed quite nicely. The attendance began at thirty and the last night there were 92 present. Visitors came from all around. 

There was nothing cutesy or frilly about the sermon topics. Rather, they were a selection of some of the countless, timeless topics of the Bible! Monday night we started out with “Binding and Loosing,” a lesson showing the difference between the Old and New Covenants. (In those days we had never heard of the “One Covenant Theory.) Later in the week we spoke on, “Dangers Facing The Church” and closed the meeting Sunday night with, “What Shall I Do With Jesus?” I suppose the invitation was extended with average enthusiasm as I explained step by step the Gospel plan of salvation. That would have been followed with an earnest exhortation to “respond before it is eternally too late!” When we stood to sing the 92 present joined wholeheartedly in singing the invitation song.

As we were concluding the song, from the body language and facial expressions, I had a strong feeling that some present really had been convicted by the sermon and the song. It was the last service of the meeting and the last song. What was I to do? I alerted the song leader and the audience to be prepared to sing the last verse of the invitation song again. With that, I with great urgency, pled with those who were not Christians to respond while there was “time and opportunity.”

As we sang the verse again, much to the delight of         everyone, five adults from two different towns came forward. And they were baptized the same hour of the night!

That night I learned some great lessons. (1) Never get in a hurry to close a service. (2) Never be reluctant to ask for one more verse of the invitation song if it seems warranted. (3) And, never get in a hurry in extending the invitation! After all, that is what the gospel meeting had been all about. From that time forward, with few exceptions, I go through the plan of salvation very methodically, step by step, at the conclusion of every service. Those who need to be baptized are the ones who likely know the least about the scheme of redemption. Take time to tell them one more time. It may move them. Telling people about God’s plan for saving them has motivated folks for two thousand years!

By James Hahn

While living in the St. Louis area a few years ago I read an article in the local newspaper which stated that the divorce rate in the United States was “leveling off” at the rate of about one in every two marriages ending in divorce. With this kind of “leveling off” we do not have much to be excited about. For many years the number of divorces in this nation has increased. In 1975, for the very first time in history, there were over one million divorces in this nation. That number has increased since then. What is the cause (or causes) for this alarming number of divorces? I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do believe that I have observed certain things that contribute to the many divorces that take place each year.

The very fact that so many are getting divorces is one factor that encourages so many divorces. In years past divorce was frowned upon by nearly everyone in our society. Getting a divorce was an admission of failure and was a shameful thing. I am sorry to say that such is no longer the case. The attitude of “everyone is doing it” seems to prevail. Getting a divorce is now the “in thing” and nothing for which one needs to be ashamed. This should not be the case.

Another problem is the failure of parents to properly teach their children. Paul instructs fathers to bring up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). One has not done this if he fails to teach his children the Lord’s will pertaining to the marriage relationship. God’s will is very plain. When a man and woman are married, they have made a life-long commitment to one another (Rom. 7:2, 3). Parents, we need to teach our children from the time they are able to be taught that when they reach the age when they will be selecting a marriage companion they must consider this a relationship which will exist so long as they both shall live. To fail in teaching this truth is to fail in providing proper teaching for our children.
This failure in teaching is a contributing factor in another cause of divorce. Many young people enter into marriage with the attitude of mind that if things do not work out as they would desire they can always get a divorce. Young people (and old ones as well) need to understand that when difficulties and problems arise (and they surely will) divorce is not an option they have and must never be considered as a solution to their problems.

Selfishness is another cause of divorce. Paul instructed husbands to “love their wives as their own bodies” (Eph. 5:28). A failure to show such love will lead to problems and heartaches. I have known men who thought of no one but themselves. They would spend all their “free” time doing only the things they enjoyed doing. They would spend large sums of money on themselves and on things they wanted, but would never consider doing the same for their wives. As long as husbands or wives continue to think only of themselves and their own selfish desires we will continue to see these marriages ending in divorce.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to talk to a judge that had presided over many divorce cases. I asked him what he thought was the number one cause of divorce. I was somewhat surprised at his answer. He told me that the number one cause of divorce, in his opinion, was the interference of in-laws. He noted that, even when other problems were given as the cause of the divorce, investigation would show that these problems had often come about as a result of either his or her parents interfering in the marriage. Whether you agree with this judge about this being the number one cause or not, you must admit that this is a problem in many marriages. God said that “a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife” (Gen. 2:24). This applies to the woman as well. So many young people are not willing to leave father and mother. They fail to realize that their first responsibility (as far as human relationships are concerned) is now to their husband or wife. They need to let their mate know this in word and in action. To fail to do so is to invite disaster.

However, not all of the problem lies with young people unwilling to leave father and mother. Many parents are unwilling to let them leave. Many fathers just cannot accept the fact that someone else now has the responsibility of providing for his “little girl” and many mothers feel that they must tell that daughter-in-law how her “little boy” must be cared for. Parents, we need to teach our children to obey God’s will and this means that we need to teach them to “leave father and mother and to cleave” to their husband or wife. I have seen parents interfere in their children’s marriages and then when divorce finally comes they are ready to say, “See, I told you he (or she) was not good for you.” What they never admit is that if they had not interfered their son or daughter could have had a very happy and long-lasting marriage.

Of course, in all of these causes we see a failure to respect God and his will. This we must do if the divorce problem is to be eliminated. To follow his will is to insure happiness here and a home in heaven in the hereafter.

1212 Melaine Ct., Lawrenceburg, Kentucky 40342-1724

By Larry Ray Hafley

Error and its advocates seek shelter from attacks of truth. Numberless ways have been manufactured to protect the practice and practitioners of error. In the last decade or so of the last century, we had Romans 14 thrust in our faces as a shield. “You can’t chasten me; you can’t challenge my doctrines, for they fall under Romans 14.” This was an old ruse which worked its leaven on the simple and ensnared the gullible (Rom. 16:17, 18).

Another umbrella for error has been opened. It is the cry of “church autonomy.” It is ever so effective, for it is used against those who are, because of the institutional conflict, super-sensitive to anything that would violate the self governing status of a local church! We have fought too hard and labored too long to transgress the principle which many struggled to maintain. 

This tactic is not a new one. (That is one thing about error. Its proponents are not original. They add a few new words to their song, but it is always the same old tune.) From an article by J.W. McGarvey, first published in 1864, we extract the following strategy (Brother McGarvey was addressing the issue of “Instrumental Music In Churches.” He tells how some instrumental innovators were seeking to avoid having their practice questioned.):

But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not unanimous in favor of instruments, and upon the principle of church independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the wishes of other congregations. 

Note the excuse, the justifying qualification, “upon the principle of congregational independence.” In other words, “Since we are all independent churches, none may justly protest our pianos or oppose our organs.” Change “independence” to “autonomy,” and we have the same thread- bare argument in modern garb. Then, as now, it is argued that congregations may avoid opposition to their innovations by appealing to “the principle of congregational (autonomy).” 

Regarding the use of man-made instruments in worship, brother McGarvey acknowledged, “If the practice is in itself innocent, then these congregations act upon a correct principle and others have no right to interfere or complain.” However, as he correctly observed, if the question is not one of congregational judgment but of scriptural authority, then, said he, “We must discuss it upon its merits . . . renew the original investigation, lay aside all feeling pro and con, and start anew the inquiry: Ought we to make use of musical instruments in public worship?”

Some Modern Examples

Let us use other items of work and worship to God and apply them to the problem and principle cited by McGarvey. 

1. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of a monthly or weekday communion, and upon the principle of church independence they have assumed the right to practice it without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Will that work? Does congregational autonomy allow a church the freedom to break bread upon the first day of the month (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; Phil. 3:16, 17; 4:9)? 
2. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of fund raising sales and suppers, and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Is congregational autonomy a sufficient smokescreen for pancake breakfasts, pie suppers, and rummage sales (1 Cor. 4:6, 17; 7:17; 11:2; 16:1-3; 2 Thess. 3:4)? 
3. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of women leading the church in prayers and public preaching and teaching over the man, and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Does the autonomy of each local church permit it to appoint women to act contrary to Scripture (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12)?   
4. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of building cafeterias and physical fitness centers, and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Will any argue that a church’s self governing status gives it the right to build such facilities for the social and recreational pursuits of its members (Eph. 4:11-16)? 
5. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of observing Christmas and Easter (some, like Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado, do so in cooperation with denominational churches), and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to observe them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Does a congregation’s independence free it from the injunction of the word of Christ on the incorporation of human traditions in worship (Matt. 15:8, 9; Col. 2:8; 2 John 9)? 
6. “But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of giving “the right hands of fellowship” to those whose teaching encourages people to continue in adulterous marriages, and upon the principle of congregational independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the scriptural objections of others.” Does a local church have the sovereignty to allow “that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants to commit fornication” (Rev. 2:20)? 

Was brother McGarvey wrong when he denied independent churches the right to decide what they would do with respect to the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship?  Brethren, if congregational autonomy forbids one of the above scenarios, it prohibits them all. If it tolerates one, it authorizes them all. They stand or fall together. 

4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521

By Mike Willis

In this lesson of this series, we intend to cite for our study the example of the conduct of the Apostles as models worthy of imitation. We shall call especial attention to some examples of conduct that are presently condemned by brethren with mistaken concepts about the proper work of a gospel preacher in exposing error and with mistaken concepts about the autonomy of the local church.

Typical of men’s mistaken concepts about the role of the apostles and other inspired men is the following quotation that I lifted from an e-mail that recently came to me: “I recognize that Elijah and Christ, as inspired men, were able to call false teachers’ names, and even make fun of them at times. There are no inspired men today who have that authority.” This argument clearly implies that one cannot refer to false teachers by name unless one is doing so under divine inspiration.

The Example of the Apostles in Exposing Error

The Apostles had to address the various false doctrines that threatened the first century church. Their conduct in addressing these false teachers is a model for our imitation. From a study of their conduct, we learn how to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7). We learn how to cast “down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring(ing) into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” without resorting to using the weapons of carnal warfare (2 Cor. 10:4-5). Let us consider the example of the Apostles’ conduct.

1. The Apostle Peter. The Apostle Peter preached in Jerusalem the resurrection of Christ from the dead, which stirred up the Sadducees who insisted that he quit preaching Christ in Jerusalem. Peter refused to submit to their dictum and continued preaching in spite of their demanding that he quit (Acts 4:19). (Would the situation have been different had the ones demanding that Peter quit preaching been elders in a liberal church?) Later the high priest had Peter arrested, but even this did not stop his preaching (Acts 5:17-41).

Peter wrote one of the most scathing rebukes of false teachers found anywhere in the Bible (2 Pet. 2). He described these men:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift  destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not (2 Pet. 2:1-3).

. . . Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage (2:10-19).
Could the things that Peter said about these false teachers be known only by inspiration, or can one also identify false teaching without inspiration, be able to perceive covetousness, lasciviousness, presumption, self-willed conduct, and such like things from observation? We know from experience that we can know these things in that manner as well. Can we, then, follow this apostle’s example and rebuke it in the manner that he did? Perhaps the better question is not “can we. . .” but “should we?”

The conduct of Peter with reference to the autonomy of the local church also needs to be considered. When the brethren at Jerusalem heard what had happened at Caesarea in the conversion of Cornelius, they contended with Peter about his conduct (Acts 11:2). Apparently, being an apostle did not carry so much clout that the brethren in Jerusalem were intimidated by it. Nor did “congregational autonomy” prevent them from asking what happened at Caesarea. When these brethren were convinced that Peter’s conduct was scriptural, they then held their peace (Acts 11:18).

Those who were scattered abroad from Jerusalem as a result of the persecution recorded in Acts 8 went as far as Antioch, Phenice, and Cyprus. In Antioch, brethren began preaching to Grecians. “Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch” (Acts 11:22). Did the brethren in Jerusalem violate the autonomy of the church at Antioch in sending someone to check out what was being done at Antioch? If brethren did the same thing today, some would react, “You are violating the autonomy of the local church!” Did the Jerusalem church have the right to commit sin (i.e., violate the autonomy of the local church) because it was the first church established and had apostles among its members? I remind you of what we have previously asserted: (1) “Being an apostle did not give one the right to commit sin (i.e., violate the autonomy of the local church).” (2) “The Apostles were not officers over a brotherhood of churches,” because there is no such thing as a brotherhood of churches! That being the case, surely one must conclude that some modern concepts of church autonomy are wrong.

2. The Example of Jude. Jude is probably the brother of Jesus, rather than the apostle who bore that name. Whereas Peter foretold the coming of the false teachers, Jude testifies to their having come. His words are so nearly the same as those of Peter, that some believe one borrowed from the other. He exhorted that the saints should “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (v. 3). He exhorted this for this reason: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 4). He went on to describe these men saying, 

Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. . . . But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. . . . These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. . . . These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage (vv. 8, 10, 12-13, 16).

He reminded the brethren that the apostles had previously foretold the coming of these men saying, 

But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves (“divide you,” NIV), sensual, having not the Spirit (vv. 17-19).

Jude instructed the saints in how to salvage saints from their influence: “And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (vv. 22-23). In none of these texts did he imply that one should have an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those men who preached these false doctrines and were leading men’s souls into sin and, ultimately, damnation. 

If I were to write about false teachers in the same terms as Jude used, some today would say, “You’re not an apostle.” But, then of course, neither was Jude! He was the brother of the Lord, not an apostle! They would react, “You’re not inspired.” Do we mean that inspired men were allowed to do things that, should we do the same today, are sinful? Do you mean that inspired men had the right to sin? “No! We don’t mean that,” they would reply. Then, their conduct was not sinful. It was righteous conduct to be imitated by other righteous, God-fearing men. The example of inspired men such as Jude was given for our instruction and learning, that we today might imitate them in how they addressed false doctrine and false teachers.

3. The Apostle John. This apostle is generally described as the “apostle of love” because he wrote so much about love. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find one who did more to attack the false teachers and false doctrines of his day than did John. In addition to the gospel which bears his name, this apostle wrote 1-3 John and Revelation. 

In 1 John, the apostle wrote to correct the impression that one’s sins did not affect one’s relationship with the Lord (see 1:5-6). He insisted that one could know that he had fellowship with the Lord only as he abides in the commandments of the Lord (1:7; 2:3). He wrote, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). This statement was not a judgment about the person’s personal integrity who said such (that is, he is not stating that he willfully and intentionally is telling a falsehood), but a comment about the truthfulness of his message. He judged these false teachers saying, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (2:19). They had departed from apostolic teaching and those who followed it.

A number of years ago, I made a similar statement about a brother who “went out from us.” Some brethren criticized my saying so, stating that I am not an apostle. Does it take inspiration to know whether or not a person has departed from apostolic teaching and those who follow it? If one has left us and is influencing others to go with him, should we imitate the example of the “apostle of love” and say about him what he said about those in his day?

John continued, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). Was John passing judgment on the moral integrity of these men when he described them as “liars”? He was not saying, “These men’s word cannot be trusted. They do not tell the truth. They are insincere, dishonest, immoral, and covetous.” Rather, he was saying, “Their message is not the truth.” John could know this about any teacher who denied the humanity of Christ and proceeded into gnostic teaching. We can know the same thing about those who deny the deity of Christ and proceed into modernism just as certainly. In John’s usage of the word, all such men are liars.

John further instructed his followers in how they could identify false teachers. “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother” (3:10). “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (4:1-3). “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (4:6). They could identify who these false teachers were without the need of divine inspiration. Being able to identify false teachers, they should follow the apostles’ example and oppose their false doctrines and sinful ways.

In 2 John 9-11, John commanded brethren not to have an on-going and never-ending fellowship with those who transgressed the doctrine revealed through Christ. He said, “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.”

In his book of Revelation, John directly confronted false doctrine and false teachers. He commended the church at Ephesus who, without having an apostle in its membership, “tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (2:4). He specifically stated that he and the church at Ephesus hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans (2:6). The specific mention of this religious group by name is no different from one of us saying, “I commend the brethren in Salt Lake city who hate the deeds of the Mormons, which I also hate.” Yet, some brethren would condemn a preacher for saying such a thing because he was not manifesting love. Some would even say, “You’re not an apostle.” But the “apostle of love” is the one who said this and his example is for our emulation!

John condemned the church at Pergamos saying, “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate” (Rev. 2:14-15). He condemned the religious “denomination” by name and condemned the local church, of which he was not a member, for having them in its membership. Were I to do the same thing today, I would be condemned on two counts: (a) not showing love; (b) violating congregational autonomy. Men would say, “You’re not an apostle.” Did being an apostle give one the right to sin by not showing love and by violating congregational autonomy? Surely, everyone can see that such an argument is erroneous.

John condemned the church at Thyatira saying, “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols” (Rev. 2:20). This is a rather specific identification of someone at Thyatira who the brethren there would recognize as specifically condemned by John. He drew her picture in such a clear manner that they did not need for him to put her name on it for all to know of whom he was speaking. Can we follow this apostle’s example?

The main thrust of the book of Revelation is aimed at attacking another form of false worship of that day — emperor worship. He described this false religion under the image of the beast that comes out of the earth who “causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast” (13:12). This false religion is described as being under divine judgment and sentence of damnation and death.

Can one know these things with reference to false religion only by inspiration? The purpose of 1 John was to let us know how we could know the same things about false religion and that without the present possession of miraculous, divine revelation. Having recognized something as false religion, can one follow the apostles’ example and treat false religion as they did? Were they guilty of sin in treating false religion and its proponents as they did? Of course not! Their conduct is recorded as divine guidance for all gospel preachers and brethren to know how to confront false doctrine.

We will conclude this series in the next article with a consideration of the example of the Apostle Paul.

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com