Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Controversy over whether or not it is scriptural to make provision for the Lord’s Supper to be served at the Sunday evening assembly, hence in more than one assembly, continues to plague some churches. I know of at least one church in Missouri that split over the issue and other congregations who are troubled over the matter.

Those who object to Sunday night communion do so for various reasons. These can be broken down into three catagories: (1) The “Time Argument”, with its subdivisions of “Sundown-to-Sundown Day Theory” and “The Daylight Theory”; (2) The “One Assembly” argument; and (3) The “Stumbling Block” argument. An explanation of each of these theories will be given as we study each objection in this article and the ones to follow.

With deep concern for the unity of the church, the reader is asked to study carefully the material which is presented. In these writings the writer is defending the right of the church to offer the Lord’s Supper in more than one assembly on the Lord’s Day. I do this because I believe it is the authorized thing to do. I offer no defence for any abuse of the Lord’s Supper. I am defending the right of the church to make provision so that it will be possible for the individual Christian to do exactly what he is commanded to do: “but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Cor. 11:28). It is my conviction that this provision can be made at both assemblies on the Lord’s Day, so that those who cannot attend the morning assembly will have the opportunity to commune with their Lord. It is not my position to enquire into reasons as to why people do not attend Sunday morning, nor to question their motives. If a person is deliberately forsaking the assembly Sunday morning, knowing he can commune Sunday night, he should be dealt with as any disorderly person is dealt with. Just because one may abuse the second assembly communion does not mean it is wrong to serve communion at night.

The Time Argument

First, let us deal with the “Sundown to Sundown” theory. According to this position, Sunday evening communion is unscriptural because it is observed after sundown and hence is not on the first day of the week. The basic assumption is that the Divine manner of reckoning the beginning and the end of a day is from sundown to sundown. It is argued that this was the only way of reckoning days in the Bible. It is further asserted that Pope Gregory changed the counting of the day

from sundown-to-sundown to our present method of counting time.

In answer to the theory it, should be observed that Pope Gregory is not responible for our midnight-tornidnight count of time. He did make a calendar reform in 1580 to correct certain errors in the calendar then in use which dated back to Caesar in 46 B. C. Please observe that calendar reforms involved changes in the order of months and their length, not changes in the reckoning of the start and the end of a day. Our calendar required an adjustment of one day every 3,330 years! A check with Encyclopedias will reveal that the manner of reckoning the day has varied from nation to nation as far back as history records.

Now it is a fact that most of the Bible employs the sundown method of counting a day. But this is not the only method employed in the Bible. The New Testament also uses Roman time. The issue is this: is the sundown-to-sundown method of counting time on Christians today? There are three possibilities: (1) It is a part of a universal law of God, applying to all people throughout all time. For this to be true two things must be proven: First, the existence of such a universal law running throughout all dispensations; secondly, the fact that the sundown theory is a part of that law. This writer denies that there is such a law and waits for proof of its existence. It will do no good to appeal to Genesis 1:5,8, because the error lies in the fact that these passages are not a statement of a law, but a fact. The word “day” means a 24 hour period and Moses is simply telling us of the first, second, third, etc. 24 hour periods in the earth’s history. Proof that this is not a universal law is seen in the impossibility of its being observed universally. For example, at Tromso, Norway, a city of about 10,000 inhabitants, located 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle, there are three months of the year when the sun never sets and three months when it never rises. How could the sundown theory apply there? According to this theory a church could observe the Lord’s Supper but one time in the three month day (no more than one assembly where the Lord’s Supper is served, remember) and that provided the day began on the first day of the week. There would be a three month’s period when they could not observe it at all since it is perpetually night. It is by no means clear that in Genesis 1:5,8, the “evening and morning” means from “sundown to sundown”.

(2) The sundown-to-sundown day might be a part of the law of Moses. This of course is correct. Throughout the Old Testament the Jews were instructed to begin the new day at sundown. This was as much a part of the Mosaic law as the Sabbath. An attempt, however, to bind the sundown method of reckoning the day on Christians is just as scriptural as attempting to bind the Sabbath upon them.

(3) It could be a part of the law of Christ, and hence a part of the New Testament. If this is true, there would be instructions regarding it recorded therein. Where is the record in the New Testament? Let us have proof or else those who bind the sundown theory are making a law where God has made no law!

The sundown-to-sundown count of the day is not the only count used in the Bible. The midnight-to-midnight Roman count has the approval of the Holy Spirit. The Roman count is used in the Gospel of John. This is seen in the comparison of his account of the trial crucifixion of Jesus with Mark’s account. Mark 15:25 says that Jesus was crucified the 3rd hour of the day, Jewish count. This corresponds to 9 o’clock our time. In Mark 15:33 we learn that Jesus hung on the cross as darkness covered the earth from the 6th hour until 9th hour. This is from noon to 3 p.m. our time. Since the trial preceeded the crucifiction, the trial must have taken place before the 3rd hour (Jewish time) since that was the hour when he was crucified. In John 19:14 we learn that the trial before Pilate was in progress at the 6th hour. Is this according to Jewish count? If so, John and Mark contradict each other. The true explanation is that John was using Roman time, according to which the day began at midnight. Thus, the 6th hour would 6 a.m. This fits perfectly with Mark, for as seen, the crucifixion took place at the 3rd hour, Jewish time, 9 a.m. Since infidels have used these passages as evidence of supposed contraditions in the Bible, those who would bind the Jewish count of time must either agree with the infidels that this is an error, or give up their theory as to the necessity of following Jewish time. John uses Roman time and thereby places the approval of the Holy Spirit upon it.

Friend, the New Testament Law of Christ does bind upon people any certain language, calendar, reckoning of days, names of days and such like. Rather, it encourages Christians to be conformed to the laws and customs wherever they may live. One should study carefully 1 Corinthians 9:20-22; 1 Peter 2:1 and Romans 13, in this connection. Changes in the laws governing the count of time may come about through God’s direction as described by Daniel: “Blessed be name of God forever and ever: for wisdom and might are His: and He changeth the times and the seasons: He removeth kings and setteth up kings…” (2:20-21). Thus, God, acting through kings has changed and does change “the times and seasons.” I observe the midnight to midnight count of time because it is the law of the land in which I live. God teaches me to observe such laws. I therefore resist the teaching which would bind the Jewish count of time on us today. (More to follow).

Truth Magazine XXI: 5, pp. 73-74
February 3, 1977

(Author’s Note: A number of years ago notes taken from Earle West’s sermons on the subject. 7 articles draw heavily upon these notes).

By Cecil Willis

This week we are focusing our attention to more of the miracles of Jesus. We want to consider especially those listed by John in his Gospel. The Gospel of John has been called the “Gospel of Belief”, for John seeks to call to mind, through the Holy Spirit, the signs that Jesus did, and to record them so as to produce faith in the minds of those who read his account of the life of Christ. In stating the purpose for his Gospel account, John says, “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that believing ye may life in his name” (Jn. 20:30, 31). These miracles are proofs of Christ’s deity, according to John.

The word “sign” is the word used by John when referring to a miracle. “While the use of this term as applied to a miracle is not confined to John, it is the only word used for miracle in that Gospel. John, then, presented the miracles not merely as supernatural deeds nor as manifestations of supernatural power, nor even as exceptions to the usual current of events, but definitely as material witnesses to underlying spiritual truth” (Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief, p. 29).

Notice also that John says “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book,” which declares that John does not intend to record every miracle that Jesus performed, but to select certain ones. John’s Gospel is, therefore, a selective Gospel. In all, there are about nine outstanding miracles recorded in the book of John. We are going to study but seven of them, omitting Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, and the drought of fishes recorded in chapter 21. Each miracle that Jesus performed indicated His divine power over a certain sphere.

Power Over Quality

The first miracle performed by Jesus is recorded in John 2:1-11. Jesus and his disciples were invited to a wedding feast. During the feast the wine failed, or the supply gave away. So Jesus commanded that six stone waterpots be filled with water. Then He commanded them to dip from the waterpots and take it to the ruler of the feast. The servants complied and took the water now-turned-to-wine to the ruler. He declared that the wine which the bridegroom had reserved to the end of the feast was even better than that which had been served in the beginning of the supper. The servants knew that Jesus had turned the water into wine by divine power. The fact that Jesus could instantly bring about the wine which took a vine months to produce was indication of His supernatural power. It showed that Jesus had power over quality. The significance of this miracle is seen in verse 11: “This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” This was the intended result of John’s recording of this miracle in his Gospel account. It showed Jesus’ power over quality.

Power Over Distance

In John 4:46-54, we find a record of Jesus’ healing the nobleman’s son. Jesus had just visited Samaria and returned to Cana of Galilee. “And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him, that he would come down, and heal his son; for he was at the point of death” (v. 46,47). The original language implies that the nobleman’s son had a lingering illness, and was so weakened that he was now at the point of death. The father, hearing of Jesus, came to Cana, in order that he might get Jesus to go to his house to heal his son. Upon hearing the man’s request, Jesus said, “Go thy way; thy son Iiveth.” This was a real test for the nobleman’s faith. Was he to leave Jesus whom he believed to be capable of healing his son? Should he go back home believing his son already healed? His faith won the contest, and he went home. His servants met him and told him that his son liveth. Upon inquiring about when the change came over his son, they told him, yesterday at the seventh hour. He then remembered that this was when Jesus had told him that his son liveth. In this instance Jesus healed a boy who was about twenty miles away from Him. Jesus was in Cana, and the boy in Capernaum. So Jesus showed Himself to be the master of distance by this miracle.

Power Over Disease and Time

In John 5:1-9, Jesus healed a man lame for thirty-eight years. In Jerusalem there was a pool that the lame thought could heal them it they were put in the water at the time the waters were troubled. When Jesus asked this lame man if he wished to be made whole, he told Him that he had no one to put him in the water when it was troubled. Jesus told him to take up his bed and walk. “And straightway the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked” (v.9). It is common knowledge that the longer one is afflicted by any disease, the more difficult it is to cure. This man had been in his infirmity, the Bible says, for thirty-eight years. But Jesus instantly healed him of his disease demonstrating His power over both disease and time.

Power Over Quantity

In John 6:1-4, we have the account of Jesus’ feeding the five thousand men, besides women and children, with the five loaves and two small fish. Jesus had been teaching the multitude, and when mealtime came, there was nothing for them to eat. One of His disciples suggested that two hundred shillings worth of bread would not be sufficient to feed such a vast multitude.

But Jesus took the five loaves and two fish, fed the multitude as much as they would eat, and yet there were twelve baskets of broken pieces left over. This shows Jesus’ power over quantity. He took this small amount of food and miraculously multiplied it so as to feed the vast multitude.

Power Over Nature

John teals of another miracle performed by Christ. In 6:16-21, we have the account of Jesus’ walking on water. After Jesus had fed the multitude, the disciples entered into a boat, and rowed a considerable distance form the shore. Jesus was not in the boat with them, and as the wind as rising, they beheld Jesus, coming unto them upon the water, and were afraid. Jesus consoled them by saying, “It is I; be not afraid.” Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus came to them in the fourth watch of the night, and John adds that they had not gone but thirty furlongs, or 3 3/4 miles. So it had taken them nine hours to go this short distance. It must have been a very startling occasion for them to look up and see Jesus walking to them upon the rough sea. This miracle indicated Jesus’ power over nature, as do the instances in the other Gospels, when by a word by Him, the sea is calmed.

Power Over Misfortune

In John 9:1-9, we have the account of Jesus’ healing a man, blind from his mother’s womb. The disciples asked what this man had done to cause his blindness. They also asked, what did his parents do to cause him to be born blind? But Jesus answered, “Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” But seeing the plight of the man, Jesus spit upon the ground, mixed some clay with the spittle, rubbed the mixture on his eyes, and told the man to go wash in the Pool of Siloam. The man complied with Jesus’ command, and came forth seeing. This miracle indicated Jesus’ power over misfortune.

Power Over Death

The final miracle mentioned by John, besides the resurrection of Christ and the drought of fishes, is the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. This miracle is recorded in John 11:1-46. Remember that Lazarus was a very close personal friend of Jesus. The message came to Jesus that Lazarus, whom He loved, was sick. Before Jesus came to the place where Lazarus was, Lazarus died. In fact, the account says that Lazarus had been dead for four days. But Jesus went to the cave where Lazarus was buried, and commanded that the stone be removed. Then Jesus prayed to God the Father, and after He prayed, He shouted with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” and Lazarus came forth, bound hand and foot in the grave clothes. By raising this man from the dead, Jesus showed His power over death.

Concluding Remarks

This concludes a brief survey of the miracles that Jesus performed as mentioned by the apostle John. We have purposely made our remarks concerning these miracles brief, as we want to compare these miracles that Jesus performed with those who claim to have the power to work miracles today.

Within the next few articles, God permitting, we shall study the Duration of Miracles, seeing that they were for a temporary purpose; they served their purpose, and were done away. But notice the variety of miracles that Jesus performed. He changed water into wine, healed a nobleman’s son who was more than twenty miles away from Him at the time, healed a man of a disease which he had for thirty-eight years, fed five thousand men, plus the women and children, with five loaves and two fish, walked on water, healed a man born totally blind, and -raised Lazarus from the dead. And John says that Jesus did many other signs. But compare the different kinds of miracles that Jesus did with the acts of men today who claim they are working miracles. They only pretend to do one or two kinds of miracles. They try to heal and they claim to speak in tongues. In the Bible we read that speaking in tongues was to speak languages which they had never learned-not just a conglomeration of unitelligible jabber. So, really miracleworking today resolves itself to healing. Later we will study miraculous divine healing. But did you ever see one of these fellows who claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit so that he can work miracles attempt to feed five thousand with five small loaves and two small fish? You certainly did not, nor will you find anyone trying it. They would be certain to meet failure, and it would be apparent. Did you ever see one of these men who claim to work miracles walk on water? Jesus could. Jesus stopped the storm simply by commanding the winds to be still. Did you ever see, or hear tell of one of these socalled inspired men who could calm a hurricane or a tornado with the command of his voice? No sir, nor will you see one of them trying. Have you seen any of them raise a man from the dead, or have you seen anyone whom they have raised from the dead? Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. He had been in a tomb for four days, and his body was already decaying. Let me see one of these men who can work “miracles” go out and raise one from the dead that has been in the tomb for four days. Neither can they make a blind man to see. They do not even attempt to work a miracle on a totally blind man. They might take a man who cannot see very well, and work on him so that he thinks he will be able to see better than before, or at least he sees better than before, but they do not take a totally blind man, and make his eyes as new.

Friend, the point I want to make is that these modern-day miracle-workers do not do the same kind of things that Jesus did, for they cannot. We will study this point more completely later. (Material on Miracles in John is found in substance in Merrill Tenny’s John: The Gosepl of Belief.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 5, pp. 71-72
February 3, 1977

By L. A. Stauffer

One of the foundation stones in the Garrett-Ketcherside theory of fellowship can accurately be called “agnosticism.” The word is from the Greek language and basically means “unknowing,” “unknown” or “not to know.” The classical use of the word describes folks who avow that one cannot know whether God exists. Believers say “God exists” and atheists say “God does not exist.” Agnostics occupy a middle ground and argue-we cannot know.

This spirit is prominent now among many modern-day “restorationists”(?) who in effect say we cannot know the truth. It is the attitude that where we have division, one must conclude that God has not been specifically clear on the subject. Should we, for example, use mechanical instruments of music in worship? Should we have an extra-congregational apparatus through which churches can cooperatively work? Should churches build kitchens, gymnasiums, etc. as facilities available for the sponsoring of social and recreational activities? Division has existed over all these matters, therefore the Bible is not clear and “we cannot know.” So say the agnostics.

What is apparent by now is that agnostics are always on the run. They can never have any convictions. They cannot settle down and take a stand. For a while these “restorationists” were settled on baptism as immersion. The indications at this time are that some among them are loosening the stakes, preparing to move their tent over into the broad circle of “faith is the important thing.” But, “faith in what?” is the next question. Jesus as God’s Son who was raised bodily from the tomb? Can one be sure of that? “Hmm,” they must say, scratching their heads. “That does pose a problem.”

After all, many “Disciples of Christ,” who are included in the Garrett-Ketcherside fellowship, do not accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus. What the agnostics must logically do is keep running. If one cannot be sure of the resurrection, then accept faith merely in Jesus’ person-his love and goodness. But can one be certain about his love and goo . . . , etc. ad nauseam.

“Christian agnostics,” we have found, are difficult people to answer. At first it seems rather simple to point out to them that Paul said when we read what inspired men wrote we can understand the revelation of Christ (Ephesians 3: 15). The agnostics, however, reply: “How do you know that is what Paul meant? Are you sure?” “Read it!” we would say, probably getting a little huffy by this time. “Whereby,” Paul said, “when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ.” “That is what is says all right,” the agnostics would likely admit. “But everyone may not agree on what Paul meant. We just cannot be sure.” So goes the agnostic spirit. On and on they run, finding no resting place. After all, according they stop running and stand for something, become a sect with a creed.

It is really pathetic, brethren.

Truth Magazine XXI: 5, pp. 70-71
February 3, 1977

By Mike Willis

In the October, 1976 issue of Restoration Review, Editor Leroy Garrett examined another one of the abuses of the Scriptures which occur among brethren. Again, his purpose was to examine one of the verses used against false teachers, make it innocuous and replace it on the shelf. He has already written a treatise on each of the following passages: 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Rom. 16:17-18; Gal. 1:8-9; Amos 3:3; Rom. 14:23; 1 Jn. 1:7; etc. The overall aim of this series on the “Word Abused” is obvious to anyone with his eyes open: Garrett is trying to persuade us to quit using these Scriptures with reference to those who have sinfully introduced instrumental music in worship, sponsoring churches, institutionalism, etc. Rather, we are told to ignore these unscriptural innovations and practice sweet fellowship with one another. Before I get off onto his doctrine of fellowship, let me return to 2 Thess. 3:6. Here is the passage as it appears in 2 Thess. 3:6:

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

After giving a pretty good commentary on the historical circumstances which caused Paul to write this verse, Garrett examined the verse. By the time he had finished with this verse, he concluded that all that it was teaching was the following:

“Using the coming of Christ as a reason, some of them no doubt sincerely, a number had turned to a life of Idleness and indolence, which not only made for an Imposition upon others who were poor to start with, but which also violated the principles and example that Paul had set before them. Some strong measure had to be applied. So he is telling the faithful to avoid or hold aloof those who refuse to work and bear their own load. When they come around, don’t let them impose on you, don’t feed them. Put a hoe or an ax in their hand and let them work for what they eat. This is what he is telling them.

“That this has no reference to any kind of formal. withdrawing of fellowship is evident by the context.”(1)

He concluded, therefore, that one abuses this passage when he applies it to doctrinal matters which presently divide us. Hence, he wrote:

“Paul could never have dreamed that his words, `Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly’ would someday be used as a prooftext for ‘withdrawing fellowship’ from those who veer from this or that doctrinal position, whether in reference to a divorce, speaking in tongues, Im. porting an organ, becoming a Mason, conducting a Sunday School, using uninspired literature, adopting the pastor system, or supporting a TV-radio program through the treasury of the church.”(2)

You will notice that once again Garrett considered how the ones who oppose innovations abuse the Scriptures. Wonder why he has never found time to write on passages such as Rev. 14:2; 1 Cor. 14:7; Psa. 150; etc. which are used by the instrumental music brethren to justify the introduction of mechanical instruments of music in the worship? Wonder why he refuses to treat passages such as Gal. 6:10 and Jas. 1:27 as used by the liberals among us to justify orphans homes? Brother Garrett, are we who oppose these innovations the only ones who abuse the Scriptures? Methinks the brethren can see the wolf behind the sheep’s clothing!

Who Are The Disorderly?

Who are the ones described as “disorderly” in 2 Thess. 3:6? The historical situation at Thessalonica reveals, as Garrett has said, that the disorderly were those who quit working and sponged off their brethren because they thought that the Lord’s second coming was imminent. However, you must notice that Paul said, “Withdraw yourself from every brother that walketh disorderly.” Is the form of disorderliness which was practiced at Thessalonica the only form which it may take? Certainly not! Hence, anything which might properly be described as “disorderly” must be treated in the same fashion as the form of disorderliness at Thessalonica was treated. A proper understanding of “disorderly” (ataktos) is needed.

Ataktos comes “from the verb tassa which is a military term referring to the act of arranging soldiers in military order in the ranks. When the Greeks wanted to make a word mean the opposite to what it meant originally, they placed the letter Alpha as its first letter. Thus atakteo refers to soldiers marching out of order or quitting the ranks, thus being disorderly. The word therefore means `deviating from the prescribed order or rule.”(3) “Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament comments as follows: ” . . . it characterizes a man as one who sets himself outside the necessary and given order. In view of the attested breadth of meaning one must be on guard against taking it too narrowly in the Thessalonian Epistles. In 2 Th. 3 one might easily conclude from v. 7 that the primary reference of the group is to laziness. But outside Christianity the verb, when applied to work, does not in the first instance lay emphasis on sloth but rather on an irresponsible attitude to the obligation to work. Certainly the tines in v. 11 are not guilty of mere inaction but of a busy unrest which obviously finds expression outside the community.”(4)

Notice that the emphasis of the word ataktos is on “deviating from the prescribed order or rule.” Other expressions in this text confirm that this is so. The one who is ataktos refuses to walk “after the tradition which he received of us” (v. 6); he does not obey “our word by this epistle” (v. 14). Hence, any person who refuses to conform to the traditions handed down by the apostles might properly be described as a disorderly man subject to the discipline prescribed in these verses.

The traditions (paradosis) of the apostles included, not only what was said about working to earn a living, but also God’s revelation pertaining to the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:2), the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23), the holy commandments (2 Pet. 2:21) and the faith (Jude 3). (See the usage of paradidmi in the sense of passing down doctrines from one generation to the next.) Hence, any express violation of God’s revelation is “deviating from the prescribed order or rule” and, therefore, might properly be called “disorderly.” Hence, the instructions of this passage, although expressly written concerning one particular form of disorderly behavior, can be legitimately applied to any form of disorderliness whether doctrinal or moral.

What Was To Be Done With The Disorderly?

Another perversion of this passage, according to Garrett, is the idea of making “withdrawing yourselves” mean any kind of formal withdrawal of fellowship. He said,

“The brother who would not heed the apostle’s urgings was to be kept at bay. They were not to associate with him nor In any way encourage his prodigality, including turning him away from the door at mealtime. This might lead the brother to shame and get him back in line. Paul never really touches upon the subject of excluding such ones from the fellowship of the congregation, as he does, for instance, in the case of the fornicator at Corinth.”(5)

Let us notice the passage to see whether or not what he asserted is true.

Those who say that this passage has nothing to do with the formal withdrawal of fellowship are forced to believe in several levels of fellowship. A large number of denominational commentators make a distinction between withdrawal of fellowship and excommunication; Garrett has accepted the distinction. However, I would like for someone to go through the Scriptures and demonstrate the difference between the two. He needs to prove that there are various levels of fellowship such as full-fellowship and limited-fellowship (a brother in the fellowship of the church with whom Christians are forbidden to associate). Keep in mind that Brother Garrett sees a difference between excommunication and what 2 Thess. 3:6 commands! The word stello means “keep away, stand aloof . . . from someone.”(6) Hence, the passage expressly demands that one keep away from anyone who walks disorderly. Am I to believe that God commands me to shun someone who is in the fellowship of the church? The person is either in the fellowship of the church or he is not. If he is in the fellowship of God’s people, he should be treated as such; he should be called .on for prayer and otherwise used in the service of worship. If he is not, he should be disfellowshipped. Where, Brother Garrett, can I read of shunning a brother who is in full fellowship with God and the church? Brother Garrett, your slip is showing!

Actually, this passage is teaching the very same thing as 1 Cor. 5 teaches: whenever a brother refuses to submit to the Lord’s commandments, he is to be publicly disfellowshipped. To demonstrate that this is so, notice the following evidences:

(1) He is to be “noted” (v. 14). The word “note” is translated from semeioo which means “to mark for oneself.” The person under rebuke is to be noted by every individual member in order that he might be shunned. How was every Christian , in Thessalonica to learn of this man’s conduct? Was a gossip campaign to be started to inform every member? Surely not; rather, the man was to be publicly exposed, marked or noted. Regarding the word semeioo, Bengel commented, ” . . . mark, with a note of censure; using this epistle to admonish him, and enforcing it upon him . . . . The meaning of the verb paradeigmatizein, to make an example of, is akin to this. It may be done to others by letters, if abroad, or face to face, if present.”(7) Similarly, C.A. Auberlen and C. J. Riggenbach said, “Point him out by an agreement in the church, in order that this may be done.”(8)

(2) The man was to be avoided by faithful Christians. The very same commandments as were given with reference to the Corinthian fornicator (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9-13) were given with reference to this man. The congregation was forbidden to have social fellowship with the disorderly member.

The books of First and Second Thessalonians give us some more information regarding church discipline which we need to notice. 1 Thess. 5:14 commanded, “Now we exhort you, brethren’, warn them that are unruly (ataktous) . . . .” About three months passed between the writing of First Thessalonians and Second Thessalonians. Apparently, the unruly or disorderly (ataktos) Christians had refused to change their ways. Therefore, when Paul wrote Second Thessalonians, he commanded the brethren to withdraw from them. Hence, we should give the disorderly among us today fair warning and a short time to repent. If they refuse, we should publicly withdraw from them as this Scripture directs.

Unconditional Forgiveness?

Another statement made by Garrett which demands some attention is this:

“We all walk disorderly in one way or another, just as we are all wrong or `brothers in error’ in one way or another. It Is a matter of Intention and the condition of the heart as to how serious these errors are. What really counts is our faithfulness to Jesus. If we Ilk him up In our lives, yielding ourselves to his example and to the scriptures the best we know how, then our feebleness, our disorderly moments in act and thought, our errors of judgment and behavior will be covered by his love and grace. If this is not the way of it, then we may as well call the whole thing off, for all our works, even those ‘done In righteousness,’ are for naught. It is only by his mercy that we are saved, not by orderliness of doctrine and practice.”(9)

There are a number of comments which I want to make about these statements.

(1) “It is a matter of intention and the condition of the heart as to how serious these errors are.” This statement implies that one can do evil deeds (i.e., things which are not authorized in the Scriptures) from a good heart. Though one might inadvertently fall into sin, his heart is sinful if he refuses to repent of it once he has been warned as 1 Thess. 5:14 demands. No person is to be disfellowshipped without that kind of a warning. The person who continues his sinful, disorderly ways once he has been warned does not have a pure heart. Those have led the liberals into apostasy have been duly warned; yet, they refuse to repent. Hence, their hearts are not so pure as Brother Garrett would have us to believe they are.

(2) ” . . . our errors of judgment and behavior will be covered by his love and grace.” Amen! However, we must hasten to ask whether those “errors” (does Brother Garrett mean “sins”?) will be covered conditionally or unconditionally. If they are covered conditionally, one must repent and pray for forgiveness before they will be covered. If they are covered unconditionally, then one can be saved without turning from his wicked ways. Apparently, the latter is what Garrett believes since he concludes that a person can be saved without renouncing mechanical instruments of music in worship, tongue speaking, institutionalism, etc. Where, Brother Garrett, can I read of God forgiving sins unconditionally? If He will forgive my sins unconditionally, will He also forgive those of the denominationalists unconditionally (without faith, repentance and baptism)? If He will forgive my sins unconditionally, will He also forgive those of the sincere Jews who disbelieve in Jesus unconditionally? And, will He also forgive unconditionally the sincere atheists? If He does not forgive all men on the same basis, God is a respector of persons. The doctrine of “unconditional forgiveness” logically leads to universalism. If we can fellowship our disobedient, liberal brethren, we can fellowship atheists on the same basis.

(3) “It is only by his mercy that we are saved, not orderliness of doctrine and practice.” That we are saved, by mercy and grace cannot be doubted. Yet, we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). The act of believing is without value unless one believes the right things. Just as the act of eating will not keep a man alive unless he eats the right things (e.g., the man who eats arsenic will not live even though he does eat), also the act of believing will save no one unless he believes the right things. Hence, orderliness of doctrine and practice are essential to salvation, otherwise Jesus would never have said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32).

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me remind you that Leroy Garrett is trying to dilute every passage which we have used to defend ourselves against wolves in sheep’s clothing. His purpose for doing this is obvious: he is trying to persuade churches to extend the right hand of fellowship to those who use instruments of music in worship, speak in tongues, support human institutions (colleges and orphans homes) from the congregational treasury, destroy congregational autonomy through the sponsoring church arrangement, etc. Brethren, wake up the to the dangers which exist among us. Unshield your swords and help us to destroy this foe before his pernicious doctrine infiltrates other congregations among us!

Truth Magazine Vol. XXI: 5, pp. 67-70
February 3, 1977