Truth Magazine

By Roland Worth, Jr.

At this season of the year, it is good to take a minute or two of time to review some of the things we do not know about Christ’s birth. Among them are these facts:

(l) The year Christ was born in.

(2) The month He was born in.

(3) The day He was born.

(4) The specific location in Bethlehem of the birth.

(5) The number of ‘wise men.” (We know the number of presents they brought but not the number of people who brought the gifts.)

(6) What country or countries the “wise men” were from.

(7) What their racial or ethnic ancestry was.

(8) What their names were.

What we do not know about Christ’s birth has been the fertile breeding ground for tradition, tradition that Protestants have often unthinkingly adopted from the Roman Catholic Church that gave birth to it. Is it not rather odd that the very same people who will obstinately reject the Catholic tradition concerning Mary’s birth and life will adopt that same Church’s tradition concerning the details of Jesus’ birth?

Protestant friend, the next time you hear your preacher speak of the month or day or year in which Jesus was born, the next time you hear him refer to the number or country of origin of the “wise men,” take a little of your time, hand him your Bible and ask him to prove what He has said from the pulpit. You will quickly discover that He has no Scripture but only tradition to rely on.

If he attempts to dismiss your question with a remark such as “it doesn’t really matter” why not ask him, “What happened to our claim to be a Bible believing church?” At this point you are likely to be greeted with either indignation or a stony silence. Either way you will have the answer to your question: That instead of being part of a church that really accepts the Bible you are part of a church that has substituted Roman Catholic tradition for Scripture.

At that point we would urge you to seriously investigate the church of Christ, a church that refuses to accept Catholic tradition concerning the birth of Christ. There and there almost alone are you going to get away from the spiritual relics such as Christmas observance that Protestantism has inherited from Catholicism.

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, p. 762
December 8, 1977

By Irven Lee

False doctrines and practices in religion are condemned by several means in the Bible. Many are mentioned as being wrong in the sight of God and as being of such nature that they will prevent our inheriting the. kingdom. For example “All liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8. Read also 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19, 20; Col. 3:5-11). Even though many things are so specifically named and condemned, they are among the very common sins. Many people show little concern for the will of God.

There are many things just as certainly condemned by broad principles. We list a very few. “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28). He does not here list all the good and acceptable occupations, but He does necessarily imply that some occupations are good and some are not.

“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom. 14:21). The eating of flesh evidently referred to the eating of animals whose blood had been sprinkled before some image or idol god. Almost the entire eighth chapter of First Corinthians is taken to emphasize this principle. This great chapter concludes with the words “if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Cor. 8:13). The “nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” makes it very evident that this has a very broad application.

Another way by which God condemns some things in spiritual matters is by saying absolutely nothing about them. The New Testament does not say. thou shalt not offer animal sacrifices, thou shaft not count beads in worship, or thou shaft not use an instrument of music in worship. It does not say that the church must not establish central national agencies to collect funds from churches and then disburse them under the guidance of the board of the society, or that the church must not build a banquet hall or play house under the name of a fellowship hall. Honest people who have not learned to respect the silence of the scriptures include any such practices as they desire and, in defense of the innovations, ask where the Bible says that we should not do this or that. They then further charge that we are making a law where God made none when we suggest that they are not scriptural. They are the ones who take the liberty to add a law to His perfect law of liberty.

The Holy Spirit made it clear through Peter that grace and peace are multiplied through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, and that His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness through that knowledge (2 Peter 1:2-4). In other words He left nothing out of His perfect law that will help in our quest for life and godliness.

Many are the times that my brethren have pointed out that the inspired scriptures will furnish the man of God completely to every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Are we forgetting this completeness of His revelation? The inspired writer of Hebrews took a few verses to effectively argue that Christ could not be our high priest without a necessary change of the law since Christ came of the tribe of Judah and Moses, in giving the law, said nothing concerning a priest of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:11-14). It was not necessary for Moses to say that one of the tribe of Judah could not be a priest. One of the tribe of Judah was automatically eliminated because Moses said nothing about a man being a priest if he were of that tribe. It is very important for us to remember this principle. It would take a long freight train to carry all the Bible if it had been necessary for each writer to specify all the things that are unlawful every time he gave a law. Who could own such a book? Who could ever read it all? Think of how tedious it would be.

He gave us a perfect law that will give us all things that pertain to life and godliness and that will furnish us completely to every good work. He then 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” (2 John 9). How could man over emphasize this teaching? What could be more dangerous to the unity of the church and to our spiritual welfare than to ignore this? We need to be silent where the Bible is silent.

Another inspired plea for us to stop where the Bible stops is in Rev. 22:18, 19. The Lord there warns that if we add to the word, He will add the plagues to us. It is important for us to do all that He commands for if we take away, He will take away our part out of the holy city. This passage would refer especially to the book of Revelation, but the ~ principle is repeated often throughout the Bible (See Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6). Man is presumptuous to add a bit of his own human wisdom to try to improve God’s law.

God gives general laws that necessarily imply things that would make possible the carrying out of the general commandments. God told Noah to build an ark. Noah was not adding to God’s law when he used hammers and saws and all other necessary tools to carry out the command. We are not adding to God’s law when we have song books to be used in carrying out the command to sing. The songs are implied .in the command to sing. The meeting house is implied in the

command to meet. Things necessarily implied are not additions. People who preach on “where there is no pattern” in defending some unscriptural practice err grievously. Blind followers will fall into the ditch with them (Matt. 15:9, 13, 14).

For a thing to be expedient in spiritual matters it must expedite the carrying out of a law of God. God has not authorized the church to enter into the field of entertainment. Therefore the gymnasiums, ball fields and courts, etc., could not be scriptural expedients.

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, pp. 761-762
December 8, 1977

By O. E. Watts

On Christmas cards we have seen made-up pictures of the shepherds and the wise men at the manger at the same time. Pageants and tableaus often portray this supposed “togetherness.” Matt. 2:2 shows that Jesus was born before the men from the East made inquiry at Jerusalem. Properly translated their question was, “Where is he who has been born?” (Green, Berry, RSV, NASB, NIV). This proves that they were not at the stable the very night of his birth.

A close study will convince anyone that the visit of the shepherds that night was at least forty days before the Magi arrived with their gifts. Matt. 2 and Luke 2 record five events in the early life of the Savior. These are:

1. The birth of Jesus.

2. The visit of the shepherds.

3. The journey to Jerusalem (taking Jesus).

4. The visit of the wise men.

5. The journey to Egypt.

Luke 2:22-24 (with Lev. 12:3-4) shows that the baby boy was not presented at the temple in Jerusalem (3, above) until he was at least forty days old. The shepherds had gone to the manger the very night that he was born. See “this day” and “even now” in Luke 2:11-15. When the wise men reached Bethlehem (4) the parents and the child were not at the stable. They lived in a house at that time (Matt. 2:11). After their visit an angel of the Lord told Joseph to take Mary and the baby Jesus to Egypt. He did this immediately according to verses 13 and 14. So in the above list of five happenings, 1 and 2 were on the same night. Number 5 began very soon after 4. Hence, the “forty days” and No. 3 had to be between these two pairs of events. The visits of the two groups of men were separated by a period of time of at least six weeks.

This time sequence has been pointed out by others. But there is an additional proof which this writer has not seen presented. This is in the offering of the two birds for a sacrifice according to Luke 2:24. Only the very poor were permitted to offer the second bird as a substitute. Read Lev. 12:6-8. The provision of God’s law in ordinary cases was that this sacrifice was to be a lamb. It is certain that the young couple would have wanted the best in connection with the one they knew to be the Son of God. If the expensive gifts given them by the Magi (Matt. 2:11) had been presented before their trip to Jerusalem they would have offered a lamb. They could have afforded one. We must conclude that visit of the wise men followed the forty days and the sacrifice at Jerusalem. These records harmonize in a remarkable way. This causes us to praise the Lord for His wisdom and goodness in giving us this history as He did.

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, p. 760
December 8, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in a previous article that handling aright the word of truth requires that we recognize the distinction between the church universal and the church local, I now propose to show that a proper division of the word also requires that we recognize the distinction that the Bible makes between

The Church And The Individual

In the discussion of the issues that have risen to trouble the churches during the past quarter century regarding church subsidization of human institutions such as colleges and benevolent corporations operated by brethren, much has been said about this matter and a great deal of confusion regarding the above distinction has become evident. The position that has been taken by some is that since the church is made up of individuals, whatever the individual may do, the church may do, and whatever the individual does, it is the church that does it.

A Concept Born Of Necessity

This concept is a child of necessity adopted by those who favor church support of human institutions that most brethren agree may be supported by individual Christians. It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention. This has often proved to be true in the material realm, and is responsible for many of the good things that we enjoy today.

Unfortunately, however, it has also proved to be true in the spiritual realm to the detriment of Christianity in that it has been the occasion for the introduction of many false doctrines and practices. One false doctrine has made necessary, or at least given birth to, others equally false. Infant baptism was introduced because of the previously espoused doctrine of hereditary depravity and to (supposedly) save those dying in infancy. The doctrine of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion is an outgrowth of the previously espoused doctrine of the total depravity of man.

It is thus not surprising that when some among us wanted to justify church support of colleges and other institutions operated by brethren which most brethren agree may be supported by individual Christians, they resorted to the argument that since the church is composed of individuals, what the individual may do the church may also do in the matter of good works.

Representative of the thinking of some brethren along that line is a quotation which I have taken from a tract written some years ago by Batsell Barret Baxter of David Lipscomb College. The tract was entitled, Questions And Issues Of The Day In The Light Of The Scriptures. While the subject of church support of human institutions was argued from various standpoints, for the purpose of this article, attention is directed to one paragraph where Brother Baxter said:

“In view of all that has been said above, it is now possible to state what I believe to be a broad general principle. Any ‘good work’ which the individual, as a Christian, is obligated to support financially, the church is equally obligated to support financially. There has been a great deal of talk about what the Individual can do in supporting good works, and what the church cannot do in supporting the same good works. No such distinction is taught In the Scriptures. If it is a good work which the Lord wants done, the obligation falls equally upon the individuals and the church, for individuals are the church.”

Sentiments similar to the above have been written and voiced by other writers and speakers. It is just another facet of the idea advanced by the digressives in justification of instrumental music in the worship, that what is permissible in the home is also permissible in the church.

An Interesting Paradox

The disposition to confuse church action with individual action has paradoxically led its proponents to sometimes arrive at conclusions that are diametrically opposed to one another. For example: it has been used to justify church support of colleges operated by brethren. The argument goes this way: (1) The church is made up of individual Christians. (2) What the individual does the church does. (3) The individual may support the college. (4) Therefore, the church may support the college.

On the other hand, Daniel Sommer was, for the greater part of his life, a staunch opponent of colleges operated by brethren, even to the point of one time denying their right to exist. His reasoning went this way: (1) The church is made up of individual Christians. (2) What the church is not permitted to do the individual is not permitted to do. (3) The church cannot support the college. (4) Therefore, neither can the individual support it. Thus we have the strange spectacle of men arriving at opposite conclusions while arguing from the same basic premise.

The Premise Examined

On what premise does Brother Baxter (and others) base the conclusion that what the individual may do in the matter of good works, the church may also do? This, I believe, is spelled out clearly in the closing words of the paragraph from which we quoted.

“If it is a good work which the Lord wants done, the obligation falls equally upon the individual and upon the church, for individuals are the church” (emphasis mine-MWRB).

In further elaboration of this point, Brother Baxter said in another paragraph of his tract:

“The church Is the people and Christians are the church all of the time. At midnight and at dawn, wherever they may be, Christians constitute the Lord’s church . . . . Christians are the church, whether at home, or In a place of business, or in the public assembly for worship . . .”

It is thus seen that the basic premise from which church action is identified with individual action is that Christians (individuals) are the church all of the time and in all places.

With the exception of those who published The Sentinel a few years ago, I know of no one who contends that the church is the church only when it is assembled for worship. Most assuredly the church is made up of individuals. And just as assuredly are they the church all the time, awake or asleep, in the assembly and away from the assembly.

But, granting that the church is made up of individuals, and further granting that what the church does is through its members working in concert, does that prove that what the individual does the church does? Would those who thus aver be willing to pursue that premise to its logical conclusion?

1. Christians are the church all of the time and to all places.

2. What the individual Christian does it is the church that is doing it.

3. A Christian is charged with and convicted of stealing money.

4. Therefore the church was guilty of stealing money.

Now, can anyone deny the conclusion if premise number two is true? Was not the Christian a member of the church (albeit, a sinful member) when he stole that money? But if what the individual Christian does the church does, did not this individual’s action make the church guilty of theft? If not, why not?

Consider another example. In the fifth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul wrote about a case of fornication on the part of one of the members of the church (1 Cor. 5:1). True, the church was severely censured by Paul for its failure to exercise discipline. But did this one member’s sin involve the whole church in fornication? This raises some questions that are germane to the issue.

1. Since Christians are in the church all the time, was not this man in the church when committing fornication? Does not Paul’s words, “one of you hath his father’s wife” make it obvious that the offender was a member of the church at the time that the sin was committed?

2. But, if what the individual does the church does, did not then the act of this member make the whole church guilty of fornication, according to the reasoning of Brother Baxter? Furthermore, when Paul commanded the church to take action against this member, was he not, in effect, commanding the church to take action against itself? And when Paul later commanded the church to forgive the man and receive him back (2 Cor. 2:6-8), was he commanding the church to forgive and receive itself?

But since it was stated by Brother Baxter in his tract that “No such distinction (between the church and the individual–M) is taught in the scriptures,” and that “any good work which a Christian is obligated to support financially, the church is equally obligated to support financially,” I propose to show in an article to follow that the scriptures do indeed recognize the distinction between the church and the individual Christian, and moreover that the individual is charged with financial responsibilities that the church is forbidden to assume.

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, pp. 759-760
December 8, 1977