Truth Magazine

By Ronny Milliner

While we are singing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” we are also to be “teaching and admonishing one another” (Col. 3:16). We are to worship God in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:24). Therefore it would be wrong for us to sing words that expressed a false idea. Indeed, if we engaged in such we would surely be as guilty of false teaching as if we had gotten up in the pulpit and taught the same thing.

Many of our songs have been written by those in denominational error. It would thus be very easy for some of their false beliefs to be expressed in the songs they write. We need to be on guard and to carefully examine all that we sing lest we find ourselves singing that which we believe to be contrary to God’s word.

I would like to give the reader’s four examples of such songs found in Sacred Selections for the Church for their consideration.

“Searching for a Savior”

Song number 128, entitled “What A Savior,” expresses in verse one, “They searched thru heaven and found a Savior To save a poor lost soul like me.” I have difficulty harmonizing this thought of a searching party roaming through heaven trying to find a Savior with the Biblical teaching on God’s eternal purpose. Paul connects the eternal purpose of God and Christ in Eph. 3:10-11. Peter speaks of Christ as the sacrificial lamb being “foreordained before the foundation of the world.” No, there was no searching for a Savior. God knew before the world was created that it would take the blood of His only begotten Son to take away the sins of men.

“Christ’s Righteousness Alone”

Much has been written, and rightly so, regarding the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This erroneous teaching is found in number 120, “The Solid Rock” written by the Baptist preacher, Edward Mote. The words of verse four are, “When He shall come with trumpet sound, O may I then in Him be found; dressed in his righteousness alone (emphasis mine-RM), Faultless to stand before the throne.” Our sins are not covered by a “make believe” pretense by God imputing Christ’s righteousness to us. They are forgiven as we repent, confess them, and ask God’s forgiveness (Ac. 8:22-24; 1 Jn. 1:9; Jas. 5:16). We will be judged by our righteousness. We will be judged by the deeds we have done in OUR bodies (2 Cor. 5:10).

“Child’s Sin”

I believe another Calvinistic song is to be found in the old familiar “Jesus Loves Me” ( # 274-a). Usually this song is taught to and sung by very small children. Yet in verse two we find the words, “He (Jesus) will wash away my sin, Let His little child come in.” Now what sin does a little child have? Is it the inherited sin of Adam? Should we baptize those to whom we teach this song so that this “sin” might be forgiven? The imputation of Adam’s sin is just as false as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (see for example Ezek. 18:19-20).

“Imminent Return of Christ”

Many of our day, as true in time past, are crying of the imminent return of Christ. Some say it will happen “in this generation.” Others talk about it being “right around the corner.” Some have even set dates as to when Jesus will return. We have pointed out the error in this teaching by showing that we do not know when Christ will return. Yet would we not be guilty of the same thing by singing, “It won’t be very long till Jesus shall descend.” (“It Won’t Be Very Long- #343)? How is it that we know that “it won’t be very long?” Jesus said, “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” (Matt. 25:13). He could come soon or it could be another 1900 years. We simply do not know.

Conclusion

Again, let us examine the words that we sing and the thoughts we express so we may know they are in harmony with the teaching of God. Let us not be guilty of singing false doctrine, but rather be “teaching and admonishing one another is psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16).

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, p. 109
February 17, 1977

By Voyd N. Ballard

Satire is defined as the “use of sarcasm or irony to attack or ridicule a habit, idea, custom etc.” Anonymity is the “state of being anonymous” which is “of unknown or unacknowledged authorship.” Truth is defined by the dictionary as “that which is true”, “Conformity with fact or reality.” It is defined by Cruden as “opposed to hypocrisy, dissimulation or formality (Heb. 10:22)”, and by the Bible as, “He that speaketh truth showeth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit” (Prov. 12:17). Jesus says, “the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32) and the Holy Spirit through Paul admonishes us that we should, “put away lying-speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). Truth has nothing to be ashamed of and those who speak the truth on any subject have no reason to desire that their writing or speaking be of “unacknowledged authorship.”

A good deal has been said lately about satire in an attempt to justify lying and false witnessing against the truth on such subjects as “grace only”, “Faith only”, “fellowshipping error” and hobnobbing around with false teachers. This so called “satire” has been used against the truth and against those sound and faithful men of God who are teaching this truth and standing firm against false teachers and compromisers. Some of these fellows who are still trying to deceive sound churches into believing that they are sound gospel preachers are now writing for Christian Church publications, institutional papers, and bulletins, (for, not against) appearing as “featured speakers” in “Youth Forum” “Unity Campaign”, “Special Youth Meeting” conglomerations right along with Ketcherside, Garrett, Ed Fudge and others, who are leading many of God’s people into denominational error by opening the flood gates of error to every denominational doctrine the devil has ever invented.

Those who have thus used “satire” have succeeded in convincing some that they were “just having a little fun” and indeed some have said they were “overly impressed with the purely human element of these satirists.” I personally fail to be impressed by any form of “satire” against Truth, and especially when those engaged in such insist on remaining “anonymous.” This “anonymity” thing sounds more like cowardice to me. Whoever heard of sound men of God wanting to have “a little fun” using satire against truth? The things being taught in Truth Magazine are the Truth, the “Whole counsel of God” setting forth the truth of God against the false doctrines of Calvinism, institutionalism, and the old denominationalism plea that we should fellowship these doctrines and their sympathizers. Those responsible for such pleas know that they cannot meet and overcome the Truth of God as applied against these false doctrines. They know that,

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9). Yet, they want to fellowship these transgressors, so under the guise of satire they make fun of the Truth they cannot meet. They seem to think this is something “new and wonderful.” However, it is neither “new” nor “wonderful.” This thing is as old as denominationalism itself. This is the very tactic employed by every denominational preacher I have ever debated. If you cannot meet the truth of an argument, make fun of it, ridicule it, and belittle the man who is upholding _the Truth. The only difference I can see is that most k denominational preachers have had the courage to identify themselves when using “satire” against Truth instead of hiding behind “anonymity.” Also, they are much more expert in the use of such “satire” than are some of these fellows who think they are so “thoroughly informed” and have such “adequate ability.” I suggest to all who are so “overly impressed with the purely human element” of these modern “satirists” that they examine the skill and cunning of such men as Ben M. Bogard, D. N. Jackson and other denominational debaters in their use of “satire.” These men, and other false teachers of their caliber, were really “experts” in ridiculing and making “fun of the truth.” Some of these fellows who seem to think they are so “thoroughly informed” along these lines could learn a lot more about “satire” and how to use it against the truth if they will study the writings and debates of these denominational debaters than they now know. They will also learn that these men (while just as wrong as the modern false teacher) did have the courage to identify themselves. I cannot buy the idea that anonymity is ever justified when used to reply to a religious teaching. It sounds more like cowardice to me! If a man believes any religious teaching is wrong he has the right (and obligation) to reply to it, but I fail to understand why he would want to hide behind “anonymity.” Why would any man who believes he has the truth, and who believes he is exposing false teachings, practices and attitudes want to, remain anonymous even if he is using satire against these teachings, practices and attitudes?

No one denies that satire is sometimes used in the Bible. However, I am willing to affirm that no inspired writer ever used it without first identifying himself, and then proving that the teaching or practice to which he applied satire was false! Inspired men of God were not spiritual cowards hiding behind “anonymity.” Elijah was not afraid to stand boldly against the false gods of Baal and their false teachings and practices. Can you for one moment imagine Elijah wanting to deny his participation in his battle against these false gods and their practices? Not on your life! “As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, I will surely show myself unto him this day” (1 Kings 18:15). And show himself he did. He called upon all the people to make a choice between the true God and Baal. “How long halt ye between two opinions? (go ye limping between two ways) If the Lord be God, follow him: But if. Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word” (vs. 21). I am sure the reason “the people answered him not a word” is because they knew he had the truth. They knew in their hearts that the “Lord is God” and the false prophets of Baal were deceivers. Error and false teaching cannot stand the test of truth, and the rantings, ravings, and “satire” of false teachers will never change nor overcome the Truth of God. They can cry from morning even until noon, cut themselves even after their manner, with their deception and denominationalism, but the Truth will always be truth.

Propagators of error have always used sarcasm, irony and ridicule in an attempt to turn people from the truth. The use of such makes a very wonderful impression upon all those (both in and out of the church) who cannot “endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3). These are “ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7) They are, therefore, in a position to lend open ears to all those which “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (Rom. 16:17) and instead of “marking and avoiding” them as the Holy Spirit admonishes, they swallow, hook, line and sinker, the false doctrines of these fellows who are running around all over the country “prating against us with malicious words” (3 Jn. 10) and who by their “good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:18).

A correspondent who was once a faithful member of the church, but who has for the past several years been under the influence and teaching of such men as Gordon Wilson, Jerry Phillips, Ed Fudge and their kind, recently wrote me, “I have read Truth Magazine for years and totally disapprove of their tactics of censoring a person simply because he disagrees with them.” Of course what she means is that she disagrees with Truth Magazine (or anyone else) who exposes the false teachings of these fellows. These boys claim that they still believe and preach the truth, but in reality they are compromisers and false teachers. They know this. According to Ron Halbrook’s article, “New Unity Beat Goes On, and On and On and On” (Truth Magazine, April 18, 1976), Gordon Wilson went to the Dunn Road Chapel “Winter Youth Study” in December of 1972 as one of their “featured speakers” along with Carl Ketcherside and others who have long since departed from the faith, not to “grapple with the Ketchersidian error into which they have long ago fallen” but to “hobnob” with these false teachers, and “Specifically, he commended the presence of Carl Ketcherside and the others on the program as being of benefit to all concerned.” According to Brother Halbrook, Gordon has since tried to deny that he was even there! If this is not proof that Gordon knows better than such stuff and that he was aiding and abetting false teaching, I would like to know why. Had Gordon gone there and dealt with the error of Dunn Road and exposed the false teaching of Ketcherside as he should have, instead of “making a blanket commendation of the program and of Ketcherside’s part in it” and preaching that the “works” in James 2 have no reference to “the alien sinner nor . . . what the alien sinner does!”, he would not be ashamed of his part in the program, nor would he have any reason to deny his appearing there! I have never heard of a gospel preacher ever being ashamed of appearing anywhere to preach the whole counsel of God, reproving and rebuking false doctrine. I personally would welcome such an opportunity to expose error and uphold the truth; however, appearing on such a program, commending it, and teaching that the works of James 2 “has

no reference to the alien sinner nor what the alien sinner does,” “would be and is totally disgusting to me!” It “would and is totally disgusting to me” that any man who claims to be a gospel preacher would continue to write for the Christian Standard (or any other denominational paper) and especially the kind of articles Gordon has been writing. As Brother Halbrook says, “There is nothing in these articles that would offend Christian Church people in their peculiar error-nor to save them.” If Gordon will write articles teaching the truth on such subjects as, The One Body, The Work of the Church, The Sin of Instrumental Music in Worship etc., they will never see the light of day in the Christian Standard, nor any other denominational publication; and no one knows this better than Gordon Wilson.

The conduct and teaching of such men are leading people away from the truth and into the old denominational error of “it makes no difference, one church is just as good as another, etc.” The correspondent I referred to above further stated, “I seldom go to church anywhere, but when I do go, I ‘go wherever I please. I have gone to what you would consider `liberal’ congregations, `conservative’ congregations and the Christian Church. I felt more uplifted at the Christian Church.”

This statement reflects the influence these false teachers are having on many today. No wonder they hide behind “satire” and “anonymity” and try to deny their part in such “totally disgusting” affairs.

Brother Halbrook says, “Gordon’s Facts for Faith was being published by Lindy McDaniel’s `Pitching for the Master Foundation’ with the aid of Hubert Moss and William Wallace. Edward Fudge was happily lending his support by writing a regular column. Others have provided aid and comfort to compromisers by providing articles and financial help.” It is hard to believe that these fellows have been ignorant of Wilson’s activities. It is however, high time for all lovers of Truth to come forth with clear cut convictions of courage and avow disapproval of all such conduct and teaching.

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, pp. 108-109
February 17, 1977

By Earl E. Robertson

(TRUTH MAGAZINE is delighted to present this series of four articles on instrumental music in worship by one of our associate editors, Earl E. Robertson. These articles are currently being printed into a tract available through the Truth Magazine Book Store. I am sure that you will appreciate the work which Brother Robertson has done and will be delighted to use his tract in teaching others the truth about instrumental music in worship. Editor.)

Instrumental music in worship to God has occasioned the gathering of soldiers, both to champion its existence and use in the churches, and to oppose its use in praise to God as lacking New Testament authority. Such battles have not always been. It is our conviction that apostolic authority was preached and respected by the early church and that such authority granted only the right to “sing” which, being respected, limited the worshipers to vocal music. There is no evidence that any early church of the New Testament ever used instrumental music in its worship. No apostle of Christ ever taught any church to use it in worship. Yet, all the discord over this question does not mean that God did not clearly express His will in this matter. The problem is not over what God says, but the difficulties are occasioned over what God has not said (authorized).

What The New Testament Says

The church of Christ is a New Testament institution and, being such, must be circumscribed by New Testament authority (Col. 3:16). The church was built by Christ (Matt. 16:18); He is its foundation (1 Cor. 3:10-11), head (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18), and Savior (Eph. 5:23-24). Being “of” Christ, it must move or act only by his direction. This is the real issue involved in this study. While many do not believe that whatever the church may do in worship and work to God it must do so because it is divinely authorized, we must confess that our service is under divine revelation. After all, is authority not necessary? Jesus says, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). “And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28, 29). The Father had said, ” . . . This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5). All who do not hear Jesus shall be utterly destroyed from among the people (Acts 3:23). Jesus said, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9). We must learn from the apostles “not to go beyond the things which are written” (1 Cor. 4:6). The apostles now sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (spiritual Israel-the church); all churches of Christ must subscribe to and act wholly within the revealed authority of Christ as they expressed it (Matt. 19:28; Acts 2:42).

“And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name” (Rom. 15:9). This is a quotation and application of Psa. 18:49. Christ did not come in person and do this; rather, it finds fulfillment in congregational singing. Eph. 5:19 reads, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” A parallel passage to this reads, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). Heb. 2:12 reads, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” There are additional passages, like 1 Cor. 14:15, “What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” These tell what kind of music the early churches offered as worship to God. Additional passages tell us: “And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives” (Matt. 26:30), when the Lord instituted His supper. Paul and Silas “rayed, and sang praises unto God” in the inner prison at Philippi one midnight (Acts 16:25). Heb. 13:15 and James 5:13 instruct in the matter of one feeling disposed to praise the Lord, saying, “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” “Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? Let him sing psalms.”

Now, this is the sum of what the New Testament says about the kind of music both commanded and offered by the people of God both in a collective capacity and on an individual basis. The scriptures authorized vocal music and record that the early Christians only sang. Their practice agreed with the Lord’s word.

Definitions

It is obvious that language cannot be understood if the words conveying it are not understood. Misunderstanding and acceptance of false positions taken on the word of God leads to disobedience. The word of God must be read with discernment to cause acceptable service (cf. Acts 8:30, 31; Eph. 5:17). Sometimes we are told that we do not understand the verb “make melody” which translates the Greek psallo. Some tell us this verb commands mechanical instrumental music as worship.

This verb is defined: “a. to pluck off, pull out: b. to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang: to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate . . . in the New Testament to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song” (Thayer, p. 675). Please observe this lexicographer states that the basic meaning of this word is to pluck off or vibrate by touching. Then he said, “In the New Testament . . . ” We must keep in mind what “in the New Testament” means. He means the language of the New Testament-the Greek language used in the giving of the New Testament. Pre-classical Greek was spoken from 2000 to 1000 B.C., and Classical Greek from Homer (1000 B.C.) to the death of Aristotle in 322 B.C. Then followed the Koine period beginning in 322 B.C. and ending in 529 A.D., at the closing of Plato’s Academy by the Emperor Justinian. This language, being used for some 850 years, is the language of the New Testament. This is the time with which we are concerned in this material. What did psallo mean, how did the apostles of Christ use this word, and what action did the early church make of this, is our concern now. This period was followed by the Byzantine (529 A.D. to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 A.D.), then the Modern period which continues to the present.

The eminent scholar, Charles H. Roberson, said, “It is obvious from the evidence that the basic meaning of the verb and noun does not involve music as such. Rather, the general significance of `touch’ or `strike’ stands out as the root or proper meaning irrespective of the particular object” (Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 6, p. 31). Few men have made as much study on this word as M. C. Kurfees. He wrote: “Again let it be noted that no particular object inheres in the original meaning of the term to the exclusion of other objects, the word merely meaning `to pluck off, pull out, to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang,’ regardless of the object that one might pluck off, pull out, cause to vibrate by touching, or twang” (Review of O. E. Payne’s Book on Psallo, p. 13).

We cannot assume that Classical distinctions were still valid in the New Testament period. Everyone should be very concerned as to what the apostles of Christ meant when they commanded “singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,” and whether the early church correctly understood them. The apathy too often seen in religious folks prevent a diligent search for proper understanding and appreciation for truth. “In the New Testament” has significance.

The basic idea of psallo was, therefore, to “pluck off, pull out, to touch or strike the chord” causing a vibration. This idea prevails “in the New Testament” as Christians sing and make melody in their heart. The instrument to be “touched” or “vibrated” is named in the New Testament-the human heart! The chords of a cold, inanimate, mechanical machine, made by the hands of man cannot offer the warm, vibrant, spiritual devotion that God demands; only the human heart is capable of rendering such. Yes, some instrument must be touched and caused to vibrate! “With the heart” is dative in case being the object of the verb making melody; so, the heart is the instrument touched in the giving of praise to Almighty God. It is a metaphorical usage of the word. Peter tells us our service to God is spiritual (1 Pet. 2:5). Whether we pray or sing it is an outpouring of the feelings of the human heart. The “fruit of our lips” as we sing “What a Friend We Have In Jesus” is indeed spiritual and a vibration of our heart strings! How can one possibly contend for the same with a piano? Oh yes, the song is played, but is it a spiritual service made “with the heart” as the word of God commands?

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, pp. 105-106
February 17, 1977

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

We conclude our study of the second assembly communion with a discussion of the “One-Meeting” theory. According to this position there can be held, scripturally, only one service each Lord’s Day for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an individual congregation. Those who were unable to attend the meeting were the communion is served have no right to meeting at the church building at some other time to commune with their Lord. This second meeting for the Lord’s Supper is considered as an innovation.

The Theory Answered

Those who take this position are really saying, “If you do not worship with us at the time and place where we worship, we will forbid you to worship at all.” There are some conclusions we need to consider. I realize that in pointing out the consequences of a theory we do not necessarily prove it unscriptural by the Bible, yet it can be shown that their position leads to some rather foolish results. It certainly indicates that the reasoning leading up to the conclusions needs to be reexamined to detect the faults.

Now take times of disaster or persecution for example, when the church could not gather in one place. We have always felt that it was the privilege of Christians to gather from house to house in small assemblies to engage in divine worship. Such would be out of order according to the “One-Meeting” theory. According to this position the Lord’s Supper could not be served until the entire church could once again assemble in one place. In Acts 8:4 when the Jerusalem church was scattered except the Apostles, we have this unique situation: The very disciples who were present when the communion was instituted could not now gather to observe it because the whole church could not meet with them. This is a foolish conclusion to draw, yet it is the necessary conclusion to the “One-Meeting” theory.

If we should accept the One-Meeting-in-one congregation theory, there is perhaps a solution to the problem: form two congregations! Let those who work in the morning form a separate congregation. The regular time of worship for this congregation would be Sunday evening at 7:30 p.m. Those who do not work in the morning would be in a separate congregation which would observe the communion at 11:00 a.m. These two congregations could use the same building, employ the same preacher, and work together in every way. Those who attend at night could invite those who attend during the day to visit with them at the evening worship. If for some reason a brother who usually works in the morning did not have to work some particular morning, he could visit with the 11:00 a.m. assembly, and take communion.

There is nothing unscriptural about visiting other congregations. We certainly would be justified in establishing a congregation for the convenience of time as to establish one for the convenience of place, as is often the case.

Some Proof Texts Exampled

(1) Acts 20:7-The word “together” in this passage is said to prove that all members of the Troas met in one place at one time to partake of the Supper. The truth of the matter is that “together” modifies the verb “came” and answers the question “where”? The word “together” does not demand that all disciples eat the Lord’s Supper in one assembly on the Lord’s Day. The word “together” does not prohibit a second assembly for the benefit of those unable to attend the first assembly.

Arguing that it is sinful for just one disciple or a few to eat in a second assembly is just a dodge. Actually, those who teach this false doctrine admit that it would be just as sinful for 1,000 to eat in an evening assembly if some disciples had already eaten in an earlier assembly. Sometimes we are challenged to produce a passage which shows that one disciple ate the Lord’s Supper alone. A disciple never eats alone when he partakes of the communion scripturally, for in eating and drinking he eats and drinks with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-21).

Let me suggest also that when Acts 20:7 states that they met to “break bread”, the breaking of bread is no more important than the other acts of worship, such as singing, praying, etc. If mentioning the Lord’s Supper makes that more important than singing, etc., then the expression “breaking bread” makes the bread more important than the fruit of the vine. If not, why not? The facts are that the Bible frequently uses a figure of speech known as metonymy by which one thing is mentioned, but others are included and understood. The expression “breaking bread” refers to the Lord’s Supper; one part of the communion is mentioned but the other part is included and understood. Then the text says the disciples came together to “break bread” it simply means that they came together to worship.

(2) 1 Corinthians 11:20-This passage is used to prove that all must come together in one place at one time. If the passage is studied carefully, one will see that the emphasis is not on one as a definite number, but rather the idea of the word is some place or any place. It simply signifies a gathering at some place. Actually, this passage does not apply to the problem under discussion. Rather it forbids the spirit of revelry and gluttony accompanying the supper at Corinth.

It is interesting to observe that as far as we know from reading 1 Corinthians 11, the disciples were eating and drinking in one assembly. Yet, they were guilty of sin. The sin that brethren claim to find in the second assembly was found in the one assembly at Corinth. If brethren are guilty of sin today in respect to the manner in which they eat the Lord’s Supper would they not be guilty of the same thing condemned in 1 Corinthians 11? One could as easily be guilty of this sin in the first assembly, as in the second.

(3) 1 Corinthians 11:33-We are concerned in this passage with the expression, “tarry ye one for another”. If this passage has any bearing on the issue, it proves that those who meet at 11:00 a.m. are in the wrong by refusing to wait for those who are working in the morning and cannot come until later. Rather than condemn the evening service, it condemns the very ones who use this passage to condemn the evening assembly. The passage does not demand that people quit their jobs in order to attend the first assembly. It commands those who arrive earlier to tarry for the others. If some object that this would involve too long a wait, we ask, what else do you have to do? Do we not have an example of an all night service? Why not have an all day service?

This however is another case of mistaken application of scripture. It is too bad that people will wrest scriptures out of their setting and make them apply to some hobby which they are determined to justify in some way.

(4) Hebrews 10:25-Some make an effort to bind Hebrews 10:25 and Acts 20:7 together and come up with the theory that the Lord sets the day in Acts 20:7 and an hour in Hebrews 10:25. Such people admit that other assemblies are authorized, but have difficulty in showing such authority since they apply Hebrews 10:25 to one particular hour on the first day of the week. There is no one service of the church called “The Assembly”. To call the 11:00 a.m. service “The Assembly” is to depart from scriptural terms. This is just another example of objector inserting their opinion.

Hebrews 10:25 does authorize assembling. It condemns those guilty of forsaking the assembling. But Hebrew 10:25 does not authorize one assembly to the exclusion of all other assemblies. If so, where is the authority for the disciples to assemble a second time on the Lord’s Day? Where is a command for disciples to assemble twice on the Lord’s Day? Where is an example of the disciples assembling twice on the Lord’s Day? Hebrews 10:25 doe authorize one, two, three or more assemblies on the first day of the week.

Conclusion

We conclude this series of three articles on “Sunday Night Communion” by stating simply that when disciples

break bread in one assembly on the Lord’s Day they are doing that which is authorized. When other disciples break bread in another assembly at a later hour on the same day, they are only doing that which is authorized. If either changes the elements, or the day, or the manner of eating and drinking, they act without authority.

Abuses of the Lord’s Supper should be dealt with a Paul dealt with as such in 1 Corinthians 11. Those who do not respond to such teaching must be disciplined. However, it is not our obligation to throw the Lord’s Supper out of the assembly of the church in order to punish those who did not attend an earlier assembly. Why not deal with sinful members as they were dealt with by the Apostles? We did not advocate that the church cater to the whims of the unfaithful, rather such should be dealt with in a scripture manner.

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, pp. 104-105
February 17, 1977