Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

In the boiling-pot of social turmoil in the sixties many religious people turned-to civil disobedience as their last hope of changing the wrongs that they saw in society. These people despaired of ever seeing any rapid change through the normal democratic processes established by our Constitution and laws. Proponents of civil disobedience defended their breaking of law on the basis that Christians must obey. God rather. than man (Acts, 5:29). Racial discrimination in varying forms was opposed on the grounds that it was immoral, and “sit in’s” were deliberate, peaceful, and public violation of laws; considered to be inferior to, God’s law. Those, that participated justified their behavior on the grounds that their intent was to change the law, not just to break it. The legal right of the state to punish was readily recognized and many accepted prison without resistance. This same form of civil disobedience was practiced by the later draft-card burners, and soldiers who willingly served prison terms rather than serve in Viet Nam.

Unfortunately, peaceful civildisobedience gave seed to another form of law breaking that vas more aggressive. Violent means were used by those who followed the non-violent protesters. Frustration moved some to bombings of public buildings, violent demonstrations, burning, looting, and selected assassination. The SLA is a modern example of the heritage spawned by the nonviolent tactics of earlier law breakers.

Civil disobedience is not a new problem by any means. The early colonists were revolutionaries. They refused to obey certain laws passed by the English Parliament and enforced by George III which they believed were in violation of God given rights guaranteed by the Magna Charta. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – that when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . .” While the Declaration of Independence is, by today’s standards, a most sober and temperate document, its assumptions were couched in the emerging humanism of Thomas Jefferson, not upon Divine will. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are not “unalienable rights.” Man’s right before God is to “Fear God and keep his Commandments” whatever the cost to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Governments are not instituted and brought down by men, but the powers that be are ordained of God.” They do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed “For there is no power but of God” (Rom. 13). Neither does man have the right when government becomes tyrannical to “alter it or abolish it.” Rather “let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” When men established “law” and government according as they felt they “did what was right in their own eyes.” It was something characteristic of the establishment of our democratic republic that while “all men are created equal,” slavery, indentured service, child labor, and aborigine genocide was a common part of life at the time under law. Recognizing these things, yet the American system of government was born in a world coming out from under monarchies where “king was supreme.” Socially oriented governments representing the, people in varying degrees in Congresses, Parliaments, Republics, and Soviets were what the people desired, and they overthrew their kings and Czars and emperors to achieve their goal. The U.S., though she fought a revolutionary war to that end, again showed remarkable control and respect for duly instituted government. (Remember that the French revolution ended in anarchy and the indiscriminate slaughter of French nobility, as did the Russian revolution.)

With our historical perspective colored somewhat by the revolutions of times past, many in the church in America today subscribe to the belief that civil disobedience is a justifiable method of correcting unjust or inhumane laws. Supporters of civil disobedience often cite the example of New Testament characters in their defense of social disruption. Peter and John were commanded by the authorities to discontinue their teaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:13-21). They

replied that they would follow God’s demands rather than the demands of men. Their open defiance of Jewish authorities brought their repeated imprisonment and ultimate persecution. Christians through the ages continued to violate men’s laws when they conflicted with God’s laws and paid the price of repeated persecutions, imprisonments, burning, and fodder for the Roman circuses.

But, there is a definite difference in the scriptures between civil disobedience for righteousness sake and “suffering for evil doing.” Whenever the Christian or the man ‘of faith’ was confronted with a choice of keeping God’s law or sinning, he chose God regardless of what laws had been framed by man (Cf. Daniel 6; Psa. 94). But the Christian is capable of putting up with a great deal of what we might consider “immoral” abuse and still “knuckel under.” Slavery as a social concept is commonly thought of today as immoral. But, the scriptures teach the Christian who finds himself a slave, should remain a slave offering service to his master as he would offer it unto God himself, “not with eyeservice, as menpleasers: but as the servant of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart” (1 Cor. 7:21-24; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1,2; Tit. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-20). I do not encourage or condone traffic in human flesh, but God has not condemned slavery as a social and economic evil; on the contrary, he gave us instruction in how to live as a slave. Not only is the Christian not to raise up against the slaveholder, but if one finds himself under the tyrannical rule of a despotic master, he is to “be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for . conscience sake endure grief, suffering wrongfully” (1 Pet. 2:18,19). Jesus taught slave owners and used the discriminatory relationship of master and Lord as an illustration of our duty to obedience to God (Luke 17:7-9). To be sure, on a spiritual level there is neither slave, or freeman, rich; or poor. But God recognizes social and economic discrimination as a part of life. The Christian who finds himself the brunt of such must maintain his spiritual freedom and liberty, not to do evil (rebellion or disobedience), but to do God’s will (1 Pet..2:12-16).

Causes of Disobedience

There are serious injustices in our world. As in the day of the prophets, the rich get richer at the expense. of the poor and the destitute (Amose 2:6-8; 4:1-3). Judgment and righteousness is sold to the highest bidder in the courts of law (Habakkuk 1:2-4; Amos 5:1013). Often reasonable prospects of obtaining remedy through the law are nonexistant, double standards of law enforcement are often obviously present. Today the frustrated, the dissatisfied, the impatient and hostile speak out in deliberate disobedience to duly constituted law. Once change is effected < through civil. disobedience it then is turned to as a first resort rather than a last one. Electing people to high office, passing laws, and effecting change are methods seen as too slow by the one who wants change now. “Power to the people” is the byword of this revolutionary force.

An attitude is developed among the populace: that each and every person is free to disregard laws he believes to be unjust. Such an attitude leads to anarchy. Often “nobel causes” become corrupt along the way and become an avenue for the unscrupulous and those of impure motive to try similar tactics. The present issues that face Christians and the world aren’t religious as much as they are political. The Christian can endure patiently almost any wrong as long as he is not restricted in worship and evangelism. In such a case, we must obey God rather than man.

What Can I Do?

We can as active citizens in a land that permits and, encourages representative reform use the avenues open, to’ us for that reform: Through lawful petition, voting and lobbying for congressmen and laws which uphold, justice and morality, speaking out in print or in word against injustice and immorality about us, and working to encourage just laws in content and enforcement. We can participate in government and .private programs designed to eliminate or correct social conditions which breed discontent, frustration, and civil disorder. We can, refuse to participate in any disobedience to civil ,law except as it violates God’s will. And we can-eliminate ourselves from the problem by putting our neighbor’s good before our own. Discrimination in housing, education, jobs, law enforcement, or authority because of, nonrelated causes like sex; race, or religion should be put away from the Christian’s life. The Christian must live at peace with all men with as much diligence as he. has within him (Heb. 12:14; Rom. 12:18). Be content to do God’s will without constant thought-to “rights” and “privileges.” Remember that “whosever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:2).

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, pp. 602-603
September 29, 1977

By Morris W R. Bailey

When we think of handling aright, (or rightly dividing) the word of truth, our minds usually turn to the distinction between the Old and New Testament, and the fact that we are, today, under the New Testament of Jesus Christ, and not under the Law of Moses. This has been the .burden of our discussion thus far. With this article we enter upon a new phase of our subject in that we propose to show that . . .

The New Testament Must Also Be Rightly Divided

Just as people become confused and arrive at wrong conclusions when they fail to make the proper distinction between the Old and the New Testament, so they often become confused and arrive at wrong conclusions when they fail to make the proper distinction between things that differ in the New Testament, itself. This article will deal with the distinction that must be made between events and conditions before and after the cross of Christ.

In Hebrews 9:15-17 we read: “And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise – of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that trade it liveth.”

In these words the writer of Hebrews speaks of the new covenant under the figure of a testament, or will. A will is a legal document in which the testator states his or her wishes relative’ to the disposal of money or property after their death. Some have become -so :imbued with the doctrine of salvation by grace that they have developed a phobia of anything with a legal aspect in connection with salvation. So when a Gospel preacher points out. conditions of salvation that must be obeyed, he is met with the’, objection that such obedience would be legalism-that is, trying to earn salvation by works, and thus contrary to grace. Well, in Hebrews ,9:15-17 Paul designated the Gospel as a testament-a legal document. So I guess that Paul was a legalist.

Old Covenant In Force During Jesus’ Personal Ministry

About two thirds of the, way through our Bible, we find a page bearing the words, THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. Unfortunately some have concluded from this that everything in that section of the Bible is a part of the New Testament plan of salvation. Such, however, is not the case. A proper division of the word of truth locates the personal ministry of Jesus Christ as taking place while the Law of Moses was still in force. This is evident from the following observations.

1. The Law of Moses did not end until the cross of Christ. Paul said, “having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” From this we conclude that since the Law did not end until the cross,.it was therefore in force during Christ’s personal ministry.

2. Jesus, Himself, kept the Law. On numerous occasions we find him keeping the Passover feast. Moreover He taught His disciples to keep the Law. To His disciples He said, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. All things therefore whatsoever they bid you do, these do and observe . . .” (Matt. 23:2,3).

In showing that the Law of Moses-the old covenant-was in force during the personal ministry of Christ, it thus becomes obvious that the new covenant could not have been in force at the same time. It is a fact, well .established in all jurisprudence that two covenants or wills cannot be in force at the same time. If a man makes a will and then later makes a second will, the first will becomes null and void. That the two covenants, the old and the new, could not be in force at the same time, is made clear by the apostle Paul in several strong scriptural arguments.

1. In the seventh chapter of Romans, Paul used the analogy of the marriage contract. A woman, married to a husband, is bound by the law of that husband for as long as he lives. She cannot contract a marriage with a second husband while husband number one is alive. If she does, she is guilty of adultery. Therefore the first husband must die before she is free to contract a marriage with a second husband.

Applying that illustration to the Law, Paul said in verse four, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead.” Paul’s argument thus is, that they could not be joined to the Law of Moses and the new covenant at the same time. The Law of Moses had to be repealed before the new covenant could be established.

2. In the fourth chapter of Galatians, Paul gave the allegory of two women, Hagar and Sarah. Hagar, the bondwoman, represented the Law given at Mount Sinai. Sarah, the freewoman represented the new covenant. Just as Hagar and her son were not allowed to inherit with Sarah and Isaac, but were cast out, so neither can those under the law inherit with those under the new covenant.

3. In Hebrews 10:9 the writer said, “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second.” First what? Second what? Verse ten tells the writer is speaking of wills. Thus the first will, or testament, was removed that the second will, or testament could be established.

Based on the foregoing observations, it thus becomes obvious as to why it is important that we make the proper distinction between events that occurred, and conditions of forgiveness stipulated before the death of Christ and events and conditions after his death when the new covenant was in force. Failure to recognize this distinction leads to . . .

Confusion Regarding Conditions Of Salvation

By this, I mean that when Gospel preachers endeavor to set forth the conditions of salvation under the new covenant, especially the command to be baptized, they are often met with the objection that there were people saved during the personal ministry of Christ without baptism. So they assume that if people could be saved during Christ’s personal ministry without baptism, people today can be saved without it.

That there were some who, during the personal ministry of Christ, were saved without baptism, is readily conceded. There was the palsied man of Matt. 9:2, to whom Jesus said, “Thy sins are forgiven.” There was the sinful woman of Luke 7:36-48, of whom Jesus said, “Her sins which are many are forgiven.” There was the thief on the cross of Luke 23:42, 43, to whom Jesus said, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Not only did these people receive forgiveness of sins, but said forgiveness was bestowed without their having been baptized. No one denies that.

But what those who object to baptism have overlooked, is the fact that in each of these cases, forgiveness of sins was granted while the Law of Moses was still in force, and not according to the conditions of the New Testament, which did not become effective until after Christ’s death. Since those who were saved without baptism lived on the other side of the cross, they cannot be examples of conversion to those of us who live on this side of the cross and under the New Testament, sealed and dedicated by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Some Consequences

One more thought in this connection retrains to be observed. Sometimes a doctrine involves consequences that its adherents are not willing to accept. Such is true of, the idea that examples of forgiveness of sins without baptism. during the personal ministry of Christ, establish a precedent for salvation without baptism today.

In Romans 10:9 Paul made this declaration, “Because if thou shalt confess. with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe’ in thy heart that . God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” It will be observed that in these words, Paul stated as a condition of salvation that one must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. But what about those who lived before Jesus died? Could they believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead? Obviously not.

So when those who would rule out baptism from the plan of salvation for us today, tell us that some were saved during Jesus’ personal ministry without baptism, we respectfully remind them that some, were saved during his personal ministry without believing that God raised Jesus from the dead. Shall we say, on that basis, that such faith is, unnecessary? So, rule out baptism from the plan of salvation, and by the same process of reasoning, (or lack of it) faith is ruled out too. That is the logical, consequence, whether one is willing to accept it or not.

Yes, even the New Testament must be rightly .divided. In other articles to follow we shall point out other distinctions that must be made between things that differ if we would handle aright the word of truth.

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, pp. 600-602
September 29, 1977

By Dennis G. Abernathy

There is a practice that I have observed in several congregations that, it seems to me, is out of harmony with the word of God. The practice is that of using young boys, who are not Christians, to take part in the services of the church (lead singing, give a talk, etc.). Now; if I might ask: Where is the Bible authority for it? Secondly, let me ask: What is the purpose for so doing?

One preacher said, “I feel it is no different from a visitor (not a Christian) asking a question or commenting in a Bible class.” Surely, he was not thinking when he said that! Would you want to call upon the visitors (not Christians) to get up and lead a song or preach a sermon? Suppose you have a man who is attending regularly, but has not yet obeyed the gospel, would you allow him to lead the church in worship to God? If a young boy, who has not yet obeyed the gospel, can lead the singing or give a talk in the assembly why , cannot a man who is thirty or forty years of age, but who has not yet obeyed the gospel do likewise? Where do we draw the line? Brethren, what are we thinking about-or maybe we are not thinking at all. Would you encourage the same young man (who is not a Christian) who can lead the singing -and give a talk, to partake of the Lord’s supper?

Leadership in the church of the Lord is for faithful Christian men, not children. We-, need to; teach our children the word of, God and ‘their, responsibility to Him through obedience to His will. e need to teach, young men to be faithful Christians so”they can take their place as song leaders, elders, deacons, preachers.

Brethren we need to be careful. Already the liberal brethren have their “Children’s church”. I believe it is just this kind of shallow reasoning that leads to that type of service. As Dillard Thurman, said in the publication of Gospel Minutes: “I can think of no situation in which the church must use children to do that which is committed to those in Christ;” Neither can this writer!

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, p. 600
September 29, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

In the First Century, brethren came face to face with this question, “What of Christians who were Jewish returning to the Old Law? How should such be viewed? Are such brethren safe-perhaps ‘safe in prospect’ or hope-since the Old Law recognized the same God as the New?” In the first part of the Hebrew letter, the writer taught that to have God, one must have Christ, and to have Christ one must obey all the words of His law. “God . . . hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . . . Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.” The writer said “every transgression and disobedience” was punished under the Old Law, and assures us the likelihood of escaping punishment for violating the New is even less! “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (Heb. 1:1-2:4).

The writer warned that even God’s people can be guilty of unbelief by continuing in sin; those who do not hear God’s voice and obey “.the word of God” cannot enter into the heavenly rest (chs. 3-4). The writer exalted the New Covenant in all its glory, warning again and again that those who “have tasted the good word of God” but who violate it without repentance shall come to a horrible end; “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the diving God” (chs. 5-10). The brethren were reminded that “without faith it is impossible to please” God, and by reference to great men and women of faith in the Old Testament were reminded also that the faith which pleases God is that which obeys Him. “By faith Abraham . . . obeyed” (Heb. 11). The conclusion contains a prayer that God will ‘,’make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ” (13:20-21). Only those Jewish Christians who continued to obey God’s Word maintained unity with the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and all the saints!

Among other things, James addressee) himself to this question, “Can the church show respect of persons?” James said brethren must not only look into, hear, and understand God’s word, they must obey it; those who think otherwise are “deceiving your own selves” (1:2127). “The royal law” requires love of fellow man without “respect of persons”-and “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Those who will be’ “judged by the law of liberty” must show love and mercy to all men without partiality. James demolished the self-deception of one who argued that he had faith and was justified without all this attention to strict statutes, rules, and laws. “. . . can faith save him? . . . faith without works is dead …. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (ch. 2). No, brethren who violate the apostolic teaching have no hope of justification. Those who “err from the truth” are not covered by grace; each one must be brought back into grace and unity by being converted “from the error of his way” (5:19-20).

Other issues were met, by 1, 2, 3 John and Jude. A major one was, “Can we know God or have His grace and not keep His commandments?” Some claimed to be “in the know”-seeing great truths missed by others, looking into deep mysteries perceived by the initiate. Therefore, they were on a high plane of knowledge and fellowship with God and were not bound to observe strictly every detail of the Inspired Message.

Oh, how John and Jude exploded the proud. fancies of these “knowing” ones! These lordly princes of knowledge who claimed to be ,above the law and sin were sinning every time they said they had no sin! Further, there was no forgiveness for them because their cock-eyed theories prevented them from confessing, repenting of, and repudiating their sins-they would not meet the conditions of forgiveness. Their “light” was darkness; by thinking they could continue in sin without breaking the unity,, they made themselves “of the devil.” All their “knowing” was a farce: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Both doctrinally and in actual practice, these “knowing” ones turned the’ truth in-side-out and up-sidedown. They perverted both the place of Christ personally and the place of his Inspired Message in the scheme of redemption. They did not know how to love either God or their brethren, and were walking in “the spirit of error” while claiming “higher truth.” The apostolic teaching was the true test of Light, knowing God, Love, and Faith; maintaining unity with the Father and the Son depended upon continuing in the apostolic teaching, “The Doctrine of Christ” (1 Jn. 1:1-3; 2:3-6; 4:1-6; 5:1-3; 2 Jn. 9; Jude 3, 17-21).

“How shall churches be organized?” This question was answered for First Century saints by the letters to Titus and Timothy. By the inspired instructions in the letter to Titus, Paul revealed how Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting” among the churches of Crete. Men were not left to build their own ecclesiastical pyramids and to set the bounds of their own authority. Elders and deacons were to be ordained in- each church, which in itself .indicated the sphere of their activity (not to mention other references which state the limit of that sphere; cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Strict qualifications for the office and work of elder were given both to Titus and Timothy. Immediately after discussing some of these matters on church organization, Paul said, “These things write I unto thee . . . that thou may know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15-16). The things written were to be strictly observed: that was the basis of .unity on the question of church organization.

When the book of revelation was written, brethren were being forced to face this very practical issue, “Can we accommodate ourselves to the world in time of persecution?” The “record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ” which John gave was the very word of God-not mere theological theorizing. “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein. . .” (1:1-3). He admonished the saints to be unswervingly faithful, not to accommodate, not to compromise; warned of false doctrine, smug indifference, and refusal to repent of sin; gave a panoramic view of the eventual victory of Christ and His servants, and of the sure defeat coming to the devil and his angels. John concluded with an appeal for men to “do his commandments” and a fearful warning not to “add unto these things” nor “take away from the words of the book of this prophecy” (22:14-19). Unity and victory was for those who continued to obey, defeat and death for those who disobeyed. There was no middle ground, no room for compromise or accommodation-no matter how fiercely the battle raged.

What About Today?

We have demonstrated at some length that obedience in faith to the inspired message was necessary to maintain unity in the first century. What about today? Will it still work? Faith can give only one answer: “Yes!” As has been often said but too little observed in practice: God’s plan will still work if we will still work God’s plan.

In matters of faith and practice necessary to salvation, we can “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). We can still maintain unity with “both the Father and the Son” by abiding “in the doctrine of Christ.” But “whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). We can and must “fulfill the law of Christ” by bearing “one another’s burdens,” while at the same’ time earnestly contending “for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Gal. 6:2; Jude 3).

On the other hand, we dare not try to create or maintain an unholy unity in the bonds of iniquity-either by faith or practice-with those who “pervert the gospel of Christ.” Paul warned, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9). In view of the admonitions contained in these and similar passages, Moses E. Lard asked, “Is it true . . . that all Christians cannot see alike? It is a humiliating fact, I grant, that they will not see alike, but a grand lie that they cannot” (Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. I (1865), p. 253).

“But,” someone objects, “when the Bible is made the standard of unity, it divides people.” Yes, indeed, any standard of unity is also a standard of division! C. C. Morrison, liberal Disciple of Christ, in The Unfinished Reformation complained about the Bible dividing people; Lanny Hunter, liberal member of a Church of Christ, in the June 1974 issue of Mission picked up the same cry. Whatever standard they propose will be a standard of division to all who do not accept it, so the only question is whether we shall have a divine standard of unity (which separates those who do not think it is a good standard) or a human standard (which will also separate).

Yet another brother thinks that our language is not pure, but is crude and misleading, when we claim the Bible is the basis of unity. He says it is not “strictly true that the Bible is the basis upon which we are to unite” and that ‘not “even the plainest New Testament teachings are the basis of unity” (Edward Fudge, June 20, 1968 and May 1, 1969 Gospel Guardian). He proposes Christ as the basis of unity. Whatever such nebulous talk means, it is obvious our brother is uncomfortable with the plea which makes the apostolic teaching the basis of unity. He is making “Christ as the basis of unity” mean something less than the apostolic teaching; such a road leads to making less and less of the apostolic teaching necessary for unity. The truth is that we have unity with Christ the same way sheep have unity with their shepherd. “And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (Jn. 10:4-5). When one strays from the apostolic teaching, he strays from the voice of Christ. Unity in Christ means unity upon His Word. It was so in the New Testament days, and the restoration plea simply calls men to return to that premise.

Another pleads that Romans 14 allows doctrinal diversity in faith and practice. The truth is that the chapter deals with matters in which God has neither required nor prohibited: The same book, in chapter 16:17-18, warns that we cannot teach anything as a condition of salvation and fellowship which God has not bound in the Inspired Message.

In short, brethren, the inspired book teaches this: The unity of Ephesians 4 is maintained by the sound preaching of 2 Timothy 4. That was God’s plan in .the First Century. He has given no notification of its change in the Twentieth Century. We dare not risk our souls (and the souls of others!) on any other platform. In God’s blessed Son, in His Holy,Word, let us maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. In the Twentieth as in the ‘First Century, there is one Lord, there is one faith.

(To be Continued)

Truth Magazine XXI:38, pp. 598-600
September 29, 1977