Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Short

By request, I am writing to explain why I left a denominational church to become a member of the church of Christ. My hope is that this will not only be encouraging to those who are members of the body of Christ but will also be a useful tool in guiding the lost to the truth in God’s word about salvation.

Up until the summer of 1998 I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church. My parents raised me to be a faithful member and I was considering entering some form of church minis- try. In 1997 I was introduced to Dr. Hoyt Chastain and studied religious topics with him for a few months. Dr. Chastain is a retired Missionary Baptist preacher and a very experienced public debater. He was giving free lessons on the Greek language and Bible analysis at the church where I regularly attended. I knew nothing about the church of Christ until I heard Dr. Chastain explain some differences between denominations and the church of Christ.

When I first heard of the church of Christ and some of its doctrines, especially baptism and hymns without instrumental music, I thought it was one of the most ridiculous ideas I had ever come in contact with. I could not understand how a church that proclaimed to believe in God could say instrumental music was wrong in worship and baptism was required for salvation.

Mt. View church of Christ in Foster, Oklahoma, I was able to help set up a public debate between Dr. Hoyt Chastain and David D. Bonner, who is a well-studied preacher in the church of Christ. During this four-day debate I was able to discover what I needed to study and how to go about it. This debate was good in showing me what I needed to study, but I found that isolating myself from the religious opinions of others and studying on my own was the most beneficial to me.

There are many doctrinal differences between the church of Christ and denominational churches. The main ones that I focused on and had to be convinced of were the teachings on the establishment of the church, baptism, and instrumental music.

Establishment of the Church

In Matthew 16:18-19, Christ said, “I will build my church” and would give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In this passage we find that “kingdom” and “church” are meant as the same thing. Some who were with Jesus would not die until the “kingdom” of God or “church” of God came with power (Mark 9:1). This shows that the kingdom would come in the lifetime of some of those who were with Jesus in those days.

In Luke 24:47-49, Christ told his disciples that repentance and remission of sins should be preached beginning at Jerusalem. The disciples were told to go to Jerusalem and wait to be endued with power from on high. Acts 1:8 confirms that they would receive power “after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” If we can find when the Holy Ghost came upon them then we can know when they received the power that was promised to them. And if we can see when the power came then we can see when the kingdom or church was started. In Acts 2:1-4 it is obvious that the power came to the apostles when they were all filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, therefore it should be clear that the church was established with power on the day of Pentecost.

To be further convinced of the establishment of the church I found I had to examine the uses of the words “church” and “kingdom.” I found in the Bible that until Acts 2, the words “church” and “kingdom” were spoken of the future tense, but beginning in Acts 2:47 the church presently existed, “and the Lord added to the church such as should be saved.”

Baptism

All of my life I have been told that a person is saved before and without baptism. However, Mark 16:15-16 gives the true order of salvation. In this passage, Christ commands his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel. What order of salvation did this gospel teach? Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” He did not say that the person who believes shall be saved and then some other time at that person’s convenience he can be baptized.

Christ told his disciples that repentance and remission of sins would be preached beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47). While in Jerusalem, the apostles witnessed the establishment of the church on the day of Pentecost. As Peter preached in Jerusalem, he taught repentance and remission of sins which was what Christ had told him to preach. Peter told those who were “pricked in their hearts” to “repent and be baptized for the remission (or forgiveness) of sins” (Acts 2:37-38).

However, I was hardheaded and these verses on baptism were not really enough to convince me to convert from one faith to another. The conversions in the book of Acts are what convinced me. When the Samaritans heard and believed Philip’s preaching — they were baptized (Acts 8:12). When Simon believed — he was baptized (Acts 8:13). After Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch — the eunuch was baptized (Acts 8:35-38). A woman named Lydia who heard Paul preach was baptized after her heart was opened (Acts 16.14-15). When Paul and Silas were in prison, a jailer asked them what he must do to be saved. They said to believe on the Lord and after they spoke to him the word of the Lord, he was baptized (Acts 16:25-34).

During Paul’s conversion, he was told to “arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:8-16). These conversions taught me that baptism is a very important part of what was being preached to these men and women who were being converted to Christ.

Being saved from our sins is what the term salvation is all about. What better way is there to be saved from sin than to be forgiven of our sin? Baptism is the act that Christ expects every sinner to obey for the remission (forgiveness) of his sins (Acts 2:38).

Instrumental Music

When dealing with this subject, I needed to understand that the New Testament is the authority for our pattern of worship today. Christ’s sacrifice took away the first law so that a second one could be established (Heb. 10:1-10). The Old Testament law was nailed to the cross and done away (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15). The new law (testament) did not go into effect until after the death of Christ (Heb. 9:15-17). Since the laws and practices of the Old Testament were done away, we should look to the New Testament for our doctrine and pattern of worship.

If we are going to use the New Testament for our wor- ship pattern, we must find examples and commands of how or what to do. When music is mentioned in the worship of the New Testament church only vocal music is mentioned. There are several examples and commands of singing or vocal music in the New Testament (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; l Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; 13:15; Jas. 5:13). There is not one Scripture that even indicates instruments should be used. I found that while it was very easy to see the truth on vocal music, the emotional bond I had for instrumental music (having been a “Christian Rock” musician) was the most difficult thing I had to overcome. Therefore, I decided that I would please God by keeping his commandment of vocal music rather than please myself and men with instrumental music. By doing this, I knew I would not be adding to the pattern of worship that God has set forth in his word (Rev. 22:18-19; l Cor. 4:6).

Conclusion

All of these teachings were very difficult to accept in my mind, but the more that I studied the more I became convinced of the truth. It did not take very long for me to run out of excuses for the denomination of which I was a member, and so after struggling with what my friends and family might say, I finally decided to account for myself (Rom. 14:11-12) and obey the gospel plan of salvation. I realize now that the most important decision I ever made was being baptized into the one and only church that Christ built (l Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23).

I’ve heard the following quote, or similar words, several times in recent years — “The church of Christ is the only army I know of that shoots its wounded.” Such a statement is neither accurate nor helpful. It attempts to lay guilt at the feet of the church which should be born by sinners who have deserted the church and left the Lord’s way.

Literally speaking, no church could shoot its own members without the event being thoroughly reported by the news media and soundly condemned by the public (remember Jim Jones and The Peoples Temple?). But the quote surely is not meant to be taken literally. Rather, it means to imply that the church is guilty of actively seeking to do spiritual harm to those whose souls have already been damaged by the working of Satan. This is nonsense. What church is going to purposely pursue a course which destroys the souls of those who have fought courageously (and would be willing to fight again) in the battle against Satan? The worst any church should be charged with is botching a surgery intended to heal the wounded.

While the Bible teaches that those who are overtaken in sin should be “restored in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1), the reality is that there are those who do not respond either to gentle encouragement or fervent pleas. When, despite efforts to exhort, reprove, and correct, an individual continues in sin, the church must withdraw from that individual. 1 Corinthians 5:13 plainly charges the church to “put away from yourselves the evil person.” And in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, the inspired apostle Paul wrote, “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” He is not a wounded soldier; he is a deserter. He is “walking disorderly” — out of step with the rest of the troops — and needs to be dishonorably discharged in the hope that such severe action will motivate him to “turn himself in” and take his place in the ranks once again.

Prologue

C.R. Scroggins and Keith W. Shack- leford

In the fall of 1997, Lauri Ritchie, then a junior in high school as well as a member of the Mt. View church of Christ in Foster, Oklahoma had arranged a Bible study with some of her classmates during the lunch period. Just prior to the first study Lauri had gone to the local grocery store where she would buy her lunch and read her Bible. While reading her Bible, Jimmy Short (an employee at the time), asked Lauri what she was studying. This encounter led to future studies with Jimmy and others. However, it was during the very first Bible study with him that the subject of a debate arose. Jimmy said he knew Hoyt Chastain, a Missionary Baptist preacher and debater who would be interested in debating. Lauri knew David D. Bonner, a gospel preacher who also would be interested in a debate. This set the course for the two debates that were held in Pernell, Oklahoma in June of 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in October 1998. Hoyt Chastain offered the fol- lowing propositions to be affirmed by each disputant: “Resolved that the church of which I am a member is Scriptural in origin, name, doctrine and practice.”

In the December 3rd issue, brother Jesse G. Jenkins’ review of these debates. In the article that follows, appears an article from Jimmy Short who was converted from listening to the debate in Pernell, Oklahoma.

Through the years, most of us who preach have undoubtedly presented many lessons, which a lot of brethren have surely heard, on the threat of secular humanism or at least on worldliness and immorality in general. We certainly need to understand how these godless influences have been eating away at the very foundations of our society, especially as they seek to leave their mark on our children through their control of the educational system. One would assume that the purpose of such lessons is not to scare people, per se, but to make them aware of the dangers that we face, warn them of problems ahead, and encourage them to fight the good fight of the faith.

However, some people may react to hearing this kind of information with an attitude of discouragement and despair, throwing up their hands and saying, “Well, if the world is as evil as you say it is, then there is nothing that we can do about it and, therefore, there is no hope for us.” It is almost as if they have fatalistically resigned themselves to a failure in trying to bring up their children with faith in God and a desire to please God. And that which people believe is impossible to do they will probably make little or no effort to accomplish.

Yet, as evil as our world is today, and there is no argument from this corner that it is pretty bad, the first century was surely no better than our time and perhaps may even have been somewhat worse in many respects. But despite the dregs of Roman and Greek culture prevalent in that day, a woman, with the assistance of her mother, but apparently without the help of her husband, was able to raise a son whose praise was spoken of among all the brethren of his time. That young man was Timothy, and he grew up in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation to be a faithful Christian and proclaimer of God’s word.

Paul wrote to him, “I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, that without ceasing, I remember you in my prayers night and day, greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also” (2 Tim. 1:3-5). This wonderful example shows us that raising moral children in an immoral world is possible. However, that does not mean that it will be easy. It is going to take some effort.

It Is Going To Take Teaching

God understood this fact and so gave commandments to the children of Israel regarding his words to them. “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deut. 6.7). Have you ever wondered why so few Jews are ever converted? While Judaism today is not the same as Old Testament Judaism, most faithful Jews still follow some of the Old Testament principles, and one that they do follow is to teach, teach, teach their children what it means to be Jews in such a way that they lose a very small percentage, especially compared to the number of children growing up in homes of Christians who never obey the gospel or soon fall away. There are undoubtedly many reasons why we are seeing such a “drop-out rate,” but in a lot of cases (not all), it is most likely because the children were not taught sufficiently. The aim of parents should be to teach a child in such a way that he truly remembers his Creator in the days of his youth (Eccl. 12:1). Of course, this will not be accomplished solely by bringing children to two hours of Bible class and two hours of worship a week, and then attending two or three gospel meetings and perhaps a vacation Bible school each year. That is good, but in ad- dition to it there needs to be daily, constant teaching in the home about God, Christ, the Bible, and other important spiritual matters.

To illustrate the importance of this, remember Timothy. The faith of Lois and Eunice dwelt in him. How? These things did not come by genetic inheritance or mere osmosis, but by teaching he “learned them” so that Paul said, “From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:14-15). Parents cannot even hope to raise moral children in an immoral world without diligently teaching them God’s will.

It Is Going To Take Example

To illustrate this principle, consider Abraham. God knew that Abraham would command his children and his household after him to keep the ways of the Lord (Gen. 18:10). How did Abraham do this? Well, he certainly must have taught them. But how did God know that Abraham would continue to do this in the future? You see, Abraham had already established a pattern of reverence for, complete trust in, and obedience to God. When God told him to leave for a new homeland, he did (Gen. 12: 1-8). When God told him in his old age that he would have a child, he believed God (Gen. 15:1-6). And all of this occurred even before Abraham had any children. Then, when he did have children, he continued in the same way.

God told him to take his only son Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice, and Abraham did (Gen. 22:1-12). What kind of an impression must this have made on Isaac when he saw that his father obeyed God implicitly regardless of any personal feelings that he may have had in the matter? Not much is said of Isaac in the Scripture, but what is said seems to indicate that he followed his father’s example of faithfulness. And it is for this reason that Abraham is used throughout the New Testament as an example for us (cf. Rom. 4:16-24; Heb. 11:8-19; Jas. 2:21-23). Abraham was a worthy example for his own family and so is a good ex- ample for us. It is not enough just to tell our children what to do. They will be the very first to detect any hypocrisy between what we say and what we do. Raising moral children in an immoral world also requires that we show them the difference between right and wrong by our example.

It Is Going To Take Discipline

The word “discipline” in our English language literally refers to that which is necessary to make one a disciple. If a parent is faithfully serving Christ, then his goal should be to make disciples of his children (cf. Matt. 28:19). In the New Testament, the word “discipline” is translated from a term that means “the whole training and education of children.” It is the word that is rendered “admonition” in Ephesians 6:4, where Paul said, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” Thayer’s Lexicon notes that this term relates to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose now commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment. Thus, everything that parents do in raising their children, including teaching and example, falls under this general category of discipline.

However, since the term does include reproof and punishment, there are contexts where it seems to be used with the more specific meaning of chastisement, yet still with the positive goal of correcting mistakes, curbing the passions, and increasing virtue. According to Hebrews 12:5-11, God chastens us as his children. We may not always know exactly how he does it, but it is justified on the basis that human fathers chasten their children if they wish to develop in them the peaceable fruits of righteousness. And the Bible has a lot to say about the need for chastisement — correction and punishment — of children. For example, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15).

Also, “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” (Prov. 29.15). These and other such passages are not saying that parents should be beating their children silly and senseless, or should they be used to justify genuine child abuse. But they do teach that children, being young and immature, will make foolish mistakes, and it is the job of parents to use chastening, punishment, and correction to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Furthermore, when those children are quite young and most susceptible to this chastening, the thing that they understand best and is in the majority of instances the most effective is the pain of using the rod of correction. The outright rebellion of youth so characteristic in our society is proof positive that one cannot raise moral children in an immoral world without some form of loving, yet firm, discipline.

It Is Going To Take Love

Parents are going to make mistakes. We may miss a golden opportunity at some special point to teach an important lesson to our children and have to make up for it in some other way. We have our own faults and weaknesses, and may not always act before our children in the way that we expect them to act, even though we may try. We may fail sometimes at discipline, either being too harsh on one occasion or being a little too soft on another. But in spite of all our mistakes and failures, the glue that can still hold a home together and provide a place of joy and peace where children can find a sense of stability and security now and later on a good basis for establishing their own homes is love. “But above all these things, put on love, which is the bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14).

This passage is not necessarily talking about the home but the church. Yet, whatever is true of the need for love in the family of God should be true in our own human families as well. In our homes, as we relate to each other, we need to “put on love, which is the bond of perfection.” How can we apply this practically? First, the husbands (and fathers) are told, “Love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). It has been said that one of the greatest things which a man can do for his children is to love their mother. When children see that their father truly loves their mother, that example alone will teach them untold lessons about commitment, dedication, and faithfulness.

Next, wives and mothers are to be taught “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers . . .” (Tit. 2:4-5). Brethren continue to argue about whether it is good, let alone right, for a woman to work outside the home under any circumstances, especially if she has small children. I do not wish here to go into all the pros and cons on that because each family must do what is best for it. But consider this. We assume that God wants men to love their children too, but there is no specific command to do so. Yet here, Paul tells older women to admonish younger women to love their children. Because of her nature, the mother is the emotional center of the home, and her being there for her children is necessary for their emotional development and well-being. How do mothers do that? It is by being “homemakers” or as the King James Version reads, “keepers at home.” It may well be that at least one of the reasons for all the problems in the past several generations has been the fact that mom has not been home! “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” If we expect to raise moral children in an immoral world, we are going to have to show true love in the home.

Conclusion

Everyone, except the most rabid humanists and feminists, agree that the home is important. God established it for the good of mankind (Gen. 1:28; 2:24). It is in the home that God intends for two loving parents to raise children who will be capable of taking their proper place in life when they grow up. Of course, children are free-will moral agents, so there are no absolute, iron-clad guarantees. There are other forces and influences in children’s lives which can counteract good teaching in the home or even make up for bad teaching in the home in certain circumstances. But God has a plan for the family, and when it is followed we can be assured that he will be pleased with our efforts. And the outcome will doubtlessly have a lot greater chance of being more favorable than rejecting or ignoring God’s plan and going our own way. “Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul” (Prov. 29:17).

By Robert F. Turner

By some strange travesty those who cry loudest for liberty are often the ones who mean liberty for their opinions only; and “non-sectarian” preachers have a way of becoming the most “creed-bound” of all. The absence of an official written “discipline” is no guarantee of an “open pulpit.”

What is a “creed”? The word comes from the Latin “credo” which means, “I believe.” Many creeds of today retain the form of the so-called Apostles’ Creed, each article beginning with “I believe        .” They are concise statements of belief, or doctrine, which identify the “position” of the maker.

Perhaps the first creeds were formulated in an effort to combat what was believed to be error — to state with clarity some matter that was being questioned — or simply an unashamed affirmation of principles upon which certain ones stood. Today our brethren write little creeds in tract form, to show what “we believe”; or as clauses in deeds to church property, to keep a church building in the hands of men who gave the same “I believe” as the original owners. (This seldom works, because of the failure to apply yesterday’s principles to tomorrow’s problems.)

Are such “creeds” wrong? Not necessarily! After all, “we do believe” certain things, whether we write them or not. But should we claim to state that which must be believed, anything less than God’s word is too little, any- thing more than God’s word is too much, and anything different from God’s word is condemned by this fact. A Christian’s “creed” may be stated as his confession that Jesus Christ is Lord — which recognizes the Son of God as having “all authority,” and accepts everything taught in his covenant. We believe, accept, and practice — recognizing as a basis of fellowship with Christ and Christians — only those things which may be proven to be “by his authority.”

The error of “man-written creeds” (as we call them) is (1) man’s presumption to shorten, lengthen, alter, or better arrange God’s revelation of truth; and (2) the setting up and acceptance of some man’s “I believe” as a standard of right and wrong.

“Creed-bound” minds are minds tied to one’s own or some other’s “I believe” — no longer free to approach God’s word objectively, to be changed by this unchanging divine standard.

Creeds and sectarianism have moved hand in hand through history. Certain “beliefs” are accepted as “orthodox,” and become the standards for determining “fellowship.” Tradition, majority rule, big churches, papers, preachers, and such like take the place of God’s word and all who object must be marked and ostracized. These seem to think Romans 16:17 reads, “Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine of our party and traditions.” This is sectarianism, whether in or out of the church, and it will send souls to hell.

But someone asks, “Should we not ‘believe’ something; and should we not have firm convictions, wanting others to accept what we believe to be the truth?” We should indeed! And, we may state, even write, what we believe about a matter without being a creed maker, or “creed-bound.” The difference lies in one’s attitude toward his beliefs. Have they become his standard, or is he still willing to “prove” them by God’s word?

Do we become angry if someone questions our “beliefs”? Are we unwilling to discuss them in the light of God’s truth? Do we refuse to consider any conclusion other than our own? Are we fair with ourselves in answering the questions of this paragraph? There is One who knows my heart and yours!