Truth Magazine

By Tarry L.CluffFort

There is a great deal of misunderstanding by many as to the purpose of the church. Some think that the church should be a political power to involve itself in the politics of the land. Others feel that the church has the task of educating people with secular knowledge. There are still others that think the church should go into secular business in order to make money. All of these ideas are foreign to the Bible teaching as to why Christ died or built His church.

Nevertheless, one of the most erroneous ideas that people have about the church is that the church is to be some kind of a social club or center. This, too, is foreign to Bible teaching. This erroneous idea has led to “fellowship halls” and kitchens being built, bingo games, parties, and entertainment of every kind. But where is the authority from God’s word for the church to be a social club? Where in God’s word did Christ ever teach that this is a work of His church? Is this one of the purposes Christ died to build a church?

When Paul wrote to the brethren at Corinth concerning their attitude toward the Lord’s supper, he made a comment that we should observe: “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you” (1 Cor. 11:20-22). They had made the Lord’s supper no more important than a common meal, a social gathering. Paul went on to explain what the Lord’s supper should mean to the Christian and concluded his argument with these words: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come tegether for judgment 11:34).

Now I do not know any church that uses their “fellowship hall” in their observance of the Lord’s supper. But the use that is made by churches with their “fellowship halls” or their kitchens, (neither are even mentioned in the Bible) is the same type of abuse that the Corinthians were guilty of in regards to the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper is an act of worship, which the Corinthian brethren abused by making it of no more importance than a common meal. That same type of abuse is done when people make the church into a social club by having a “fellowship hall” in their buildings.

Jesus intended His church to be a spiritual organization, not a social organization. Peter wrote: “Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). The church is to provide the Gospel of Christ to save a person’s soul, (Rom. 1:16-17). This is called evangelism. The church also edifies her members so each member grows in the gospel. The only other thing the church is authorized to do is to relieve the needs of her members if they become in need of such relief. (Eph. 4:12, 1 Cor. 16:1).

Let us let the church be the church and a social club be a social club.

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 10-11
January 6, 1977

By Don Potts

Today it is no uncommon thing to hear a congregation sing, “Take time to be holy, the world rushes on,” then to hear them urge the preacher to cut every corn possible to shorten his sermon in order for the congregation to be out and gone by twelve o’clock. clock: Take your time and hurry up, “consistency thou art a jewel!.” May I ask what all the rush is about? I hear brethren talking about how to pass the Lord’s supper around in less time, and how we can sing two songs instead of three or four and perhaps two verses of the invitation song rather than all four verses. At the same time, “long winded” preachers are rejected in favor of “short and sweet” preachers. But why? `

Much is being said about a current “preacher shortage,”pshaw! I know that we have many loyal, dedicated brethren and congregations, but in many cases we have a preacher shortage all right, a shortage of preachers that will preach what will preach what we want, like we want, and, in the length of time we want. For example, I recall driving three hundred miles, in a round trip, to talk to one congregation about working with them. The sermon preached was one that would have been received in any sound congregation, but they concluded immediately that I was not the man for the job. You ask why? – I preached entirely too long! It has been said that a preacher cannot hold the attention of an audience over twenty five or thirty minutes. If this is true of an audience, one or two things seems to be true, the preacher needs to spend more time with the book and less time socializing, or else, there is something wrong with the spirituality of the congregation, and I will let them tell me which it is.

But someone says, “consolidation” is a sign of a well prepared preacher. But consolidation does not assure either an informative lesson or a short one. For example, Archibald McLean in his book, Alexander Campbell . . . as a Preacher says, “At home Mr. Campbell spoke from an hour to an hour and~a half. Abroad and on special occasions he spoke twice as long. He often spoke two or three times a day. The length of his sermons was in harmony with f he customs of the time, and barely met the expectations and wishes of the people”` `(page 30). Didn’t Campbell and preachers of that day and time know about consolidation? Who would have the audacity to say that Campbell was an ill-prepared speaker? It might be well for those who associate short sermons with intellectualism to read some of the sermons of pioneer preachers like Benjamin Franklin whose sermons fill at least twenty to twenty five pages of solid print. Those sermons are in every respect consolidated and illuminating, and in no respect, to my thinking, do they fall short of the mark.

Again, what is all the rush about? T.W. Brents once said, ” . . . If you will let your preachers know that you cannot endure sound doctrine, he may learn to feed you on fables, and tickle your itching ears with nice little half hour speeches exactly suited to your taste. Preachers are not so dull as to be unable to learn that half-hour discourses are much more easily prepared and delivered than discourses of an hour or more in length. There is not a field hand in all the country that does not know that a half hour’s work is more easily done than an hour’s work. There is another advantage, too, in half-hour sermons. When a preacher has to preach to the same congregation for a number of years, if he cuts up what he knows into small sermons, having only one or two thoughts in each, the balance in nice filling, he will be able to make his stock go much further than if he prunes out all surplus drapery and puts in discourses of an hour or more, filled with solid shot throughout. Oh, but he who makes short discourses learns to consolidate his thoughts and say more in less time. Such has not been our observation. These half-hour speeches are made up of flowers designed to tickle the itching ear, and, as a rule, have nothing solid in them. The man who has something to say is the one who consolidates. He knows he can discuss no important subject thoroughly in half an hour, and if he wishes to teach the people he selects subjects that have something in them worth preaching, and he has no use for surplus words, or redundant verbiage just to fill up, or embellish his sermons. We have no objection to elegance or style, but we are more concerned about what is said than about elegance of expression. We would rather have sound doctrine plainly and forcibly expressed, than to have the ears tickled with a straw” (Gospel Sermons by T.W. Brents, pg. 206, 207).

Again I ask, “Why all the cry for shorter sermons, shorter services?” Is it because we love to hear the gospel expounded more, or because we today are more spiritual than they were in the days of Campbell and Brents? Is it because we want to get out so we might rush across town to share the good news with some lost and perishing soul? Is it because there are more important tasks that must be attended to on the Lord’s day? Or, is it that we have forgotten that the first day of the week is indeed the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10)? I repeat, the Lord’s day, not the Lord’s hour! Rather than planning the services in such a manner that brethren can be about their business, it is high time that they start planning them in such a manner as to be about the Father’s business. This day belongs to the Lord, and if so, it is not ours, like the rest of the days of the week. Unlike the Sabbath of the Old Testament, it is not a day of rest, it is a day for the work and service of the Lord, a day of worship and mutual edification. Instead of firing and brow beating godly preachers for preaching too long, the church would do well to plan the services and make it a day of edification and indoctrination of the church, a day of preaching and worshiping (Acts 2:42). If then, there is time left after such worship and service, rather than spending it in the field or in the shop or plant, why not use that precious time reading the Bible, visiting and ministering to the sick, “warning the unruly,” “comforting the feeble,” “supporting the weak,” or “teaching a lost soul about Christ”?

A woman of my acquaintance retorted, “Well it’s always been a custom among churches of Christ that the services let out at twelve.” Of course, such is no more true than to say the early church started it’s services at ten. But the thought that came to my mind was, if it is only the custom of brethren, its time we change our custom and give the first day of the week back to the Lord. In short, let’s stop saying, “Take your time and hurry up.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 9-10
January 6, 1977

By Johnny Stringer

Invocation of Matthew 7:1

It is almost impossible to condemn sin in the lives of people or to expose the errors of false teachers without being met with the retort, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). Men who know virtually nothing else about the word of God-men who couldn’t tell you whether it was Moses or Paul that led the Israelites out of Egypt, or whether Matthew was a ‘ publican or a Republican-have this one verse down pat. It is on the tip of their tongue and they are prepared to invoke it any time their life or teaching is called into question. They thereby seek to relieve themselves of the burden of scripturally defending their practices of doctrines. This verse is for them a convenient means of averting this responsibility. They believe we are in error for judging them to be guilty; yet they have no qualms whatever about judging us to be guilty of violating Matt. 7:1.

It is obvious from a study of New Testament teaching that those who thus use this verse are guilty of grossly perverting its true meaning. The judging of which Jesus warned in Matt. 7:1 is not merely the recognition, reproving, and rebuking of sin. This is obvious from the fact that judging in the sense of discerning sin and rebuking it is commanded rather than forbidden.

Judging Which Is Commanded

Yes, as shocking as this may seem to some, there is a kind of judging which is commanded. Jesus very plainly commanded, “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Unless one takes the position that Matt. 7:1 and John 7:24 contradict each other (and Bible-believers know this cannot be the case), he must admit that the kind of judging discussed in Matt. 7:1 is of a different nature than that which is discussed in John 7:24. It is obvious, therefore, that there is a kind of judging which is right, and there is a kind of judging which is wrong. I believe the context of John 7:24 proves that the judging of that passage entails the fair examination of a man’s practice in the light of the scripture to determine whether or riot his practice is in harmony with the scripture. Thus, when I discern by a study of God’s word that a man is clearly violating His word, I am obeying the command to judge righteous judgment. Those who argue that I cannot make such a judgment are wrong. Certainly, then, that kind of judging is not the judging against which Jesus warned in Matt. 7:1.

Many other passages prove that in Matt. 7:1 Jesus did not have reference to the recognition, reproof, and rebuke of sin. This kind of judging is demanded time and again in the scriptures. In fact, just a few verses down in the same chapter, Jesus demanded that we beware of false teachers (Matt. 7:15-20). We cannot beware of false teachers unless we are able to determine which teachers are false teachers, and Jesus said that such a judgment can be formed on the basis of their fruit. Further, in Phil. 3:2 Paul warned Christians to beware of dogs and evil.workers, thus clearly implying that we have the ability to recognize spiritual dogs and evil workers. Another passage which demands this type of judging is Rom. 16:17-18. In order to mark and avoid the false teachers referred to in the passage, we must be able to discern that these men are indeed false teachers. Additionally, there are a number of passages instructing Christians to reprove and rebuke sin 12 Tim. 4:2, Eph. 5:11, Lk. 17:3).

Sinful Judging

Having shown the kind of judging that is not under discussion in Matt. 7:11, it behooves us to consider the kind of judging to which Jesus did refer. He said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” His point was that our judgment invites judgment upon ourselves. In verse 2 He explained the reason for this warning: we can expect to receive judgment in accordance with the judgment that we mete out. Thus, verse 2 makes it evident that the kind of judging Jesus was warning against is the kind of judging which we would not want to receive ourselves. If we do not want to receive a particular kind of judgment, we had better not mete it out, for we shall receive judgment commensurate with that which we mete out. Thus, Jesus’ warning is directed against harsh, severe, uncharitable judgment-such judgment as we would not want to receive. If we condemn without mercy, being unwilling to forgive, we can expect like treatment (James 2:12, 2 Sam. 22:25-26, Matt. 6:14-15). Note the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:21-35). The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day held certain ones in such low esteem that they considered them to be worthless; they judged them to be so despicable that they could not possibly be the objects of God’s loving concern and had no chance of being saved (Lk. 5:30, 7:39). By such harsh, uncharitable judgment, they invited the same kind of judgment.

The warning in Matt. 7:1-2 does not disturb faithful men who reprove and rebuke those who violate God’s word. They are not bothered by the warning that they will be judged in accordance with the judgment they mete out; for they do not fear receiving the kind of judgment they mete out, but desire it and appreciate it, for they know they need it. Jesus’ warning was against judgment such as we would not want to receive ourselves.

Jesus went on (verses 3-5) to condemn hypocritical judgment. By the illustration of the mote and the beam, Jesus demonstrated that before trying to correct the sins of others, we must first correct our own sins (cf. Rom. 2:13). He did not condemn our trying to get the mote out of our brother’s eye, as some have imagined; rather, He commanded that we do so. He simply taught that we must get the beam out of our own eye first.

In Romans 14 Paul discussed another kind of sinful judging. Some were evidently condemning brethren who had not violated God’s law, hence were not condemned by God. Note especially verses 3-4, 10. Paul argued that it is Christ before Whom men must stand; hence if Christ has not condemned one’s actions, we have no right to do so. Certainly it is sinful to set up our own standards of right and wrong, and judge men based on those standards. Romans 14 stresses that my brother is not my servant; he is the servant of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ, not I, that he must please; and as long as he pleases Christ, I must not condemn him. The only time I have aright to reprove and rebuke a brother is when I discern fromi the scriptures that he is not living so as to please Christ; this is righteous “judgment (John 7:24).

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 8-9
January 6, 1977

By Olen Holderby

“Unity in Diversity” is based on the theory that God receives into His fellowship those that practice the social gospel, instrumental music in worship, institutionalism and similar sins; we, therefore, dare not exclude them from our fellowship. This is not a new idea; Carl Ketcherside taught such as early as 1961though he has made fuller application of the theory more recently. I am aware that Christian Church preachers and a few others taught such doctrine long before Carl Ketcherside.

A number of years ago I heard Brother Cecil Willis make the “prophecy” that the “grace-fellowship” and “unity in diversity” problems would be the next wedge to divide the church and have some of the biggest battles yet to be fought. It has taken only a few years to prove him to be most accurate. But, why the battles? For the simple reason that such theories are based on error and not truth, are causing division and not unity, and are destroying souls rather than saving them.

In this series I shall briefly consider some of the error taught and call attention to some of the division wrought by this soul-condemning theory. I believe this to be one of those instances when, as James Adams put it, “silence is not golden.” Those teaching this “unity in diversity” doctrine may have the best intentions ever; their motives I do not question. However, they are still false teachers, to be marked in harmony with God’s Word and avoided by the faithful (Rom. 16:17).

I know of none who argue that “unity in diversity” is impossible, as long as this “diversity” is on matters of opinion or in the realm of judgment. However, when this involves a corruption of the worship, organization, or work of the church – matters legislated by God – such “diversity” is forbidden. Romans 14 is often used in an effort to enhance this “unity in diversity” movement, in matters legislated by God. However, this text does not deal with such matters. Rather it deals with individual actions in which others are not involved. These actions were not to be forced upon others; this would be sinful. Fellowship was not to be forbidden those involved in such personal actions; “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom. 14:4). Actions without Divine authority which involve others in such actions are forbidden (Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Thess. 3:6). Had God said eat (or not eat) a certain thing or to observe a certain day, those not doing so would sin; but such matters were left to personal choice. God is not pictured, in Romans 14, as overlooking error and receiving those who err.

Those who follow Bible examples will not fellowship those in error, even if they are ignorant of their error. Things not of faith are sin (Rom. 14:23); thus matters of faith are not under consideration in Romans 14. The only way sin may be involved here would be to violate our conscience or force such violation upon others. Not a single item of Romans 14 finds a parallel in instrumental music in worship, institutionalism, or any such innovations. Paul did not here, or anywhere else condone error or encourage it.

Expediency vs. SinSin is a transgression of God’s Law (1 Jn. 3:4). However, to condone a thing as a matter of expediency (Acts 16:1-3) or to practice that same thing as a matter of faith (Gal. 2:1-5) is quite two different things. Acts 21:18-26 is sometimes used in an effort to show that God approves the condoning of error for the sake of unity. Verse 21 clearly shows the accusation against Paul concerned “circumcision” and “customs.” Paul complied with the customs here as a matter of expediency and did not violate the Law of God in so doing. In Gal. 2:1-5, we are shown that when this same thing was required as a matter of faith, he refused.

Sin is sin, regardless of one’s ignorance or sincerity (1 Jn. 3:4; 5:17). Neither of these passages make any allowance for ignorance, sincerity, or any other unusual circumstances. Some sins may be relative (depending on capability and opportunity); while other sins may be absolute. When we fail to function to the fullest of our capabilities we sin. The fact that I know of none claiming perfection in this area, does not change the fact. We are simply in a position of seeking forgiveness and pressing on toward a fuller function.

Such general instructions as “grow,” “abound,” “teach,” or “visit,” are seen in varying degrees. Our best in many of these may still leave us short, but we cannot overlook them if we are to be acceptable to God. Having sought forgiveness we continue trying to improve. God, knowing the heart, can forgive and help us to improve. However, no part of God’s Will can be ignored. Human weaknesses may preclude maximum potential, but we must not stop, but keep on reevaluating and trying, seeking God’s forgiveness wherein we fail and applying ourselves to more effective service. It is still necessary to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3) and to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21) though greater efficiency in these is attainable with study and experience.

God has specified the acts of worship; there is no relativity; one either observes these or he does not. We may sin by adding to them taking from them, or altering them in some way. While improvement is always in order, there can be no dispute as to whether one performs these acts or not. Sin is not merely the result of imperfect knowledge and, therefore, to be overlooked. It seems that some have forgotten how the Bible defines sin (1 Jn. 3:4; 5:17; Jam. 4:17).

Sin separates a man from God (Isa. 59:2; Ezek. 18:20). I cannot fellowship God and fellowship the man separated from Him at the same time. To make an effort to do so is to separate myself from God (2 Jn. 9:11) for I have then sinned. I will remain separated from God until I have corrected the same (Acts 8:22).

Ignorance in the Church

The Lord’s church, ideally, is composed of those who are taught and properly informed in, the Gospel (Jn. 6:45; 8:31-32). Faith comes by hearing God’s Word (Rom. 10:17); and this faith is a prerequisite for baptism (Mk. 16:16). And, every member of God’s church is to live by faith (Rom. 1:17). In spite of these facts it must be admitted that much ignorance does exist in the church. Dangers of ignorance among God’s people have been seen in all ages (Hosea 4:6; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; Acts 3:17; Eph. 4:14). In 2 Thess. 2:10-12, Paul makes no allowances for ignorance and shows that such may cause eternal damnation. This is very important to the “unity in diversity” doctrine; for Sins of Ignorance are not suppose to consign one to hell.

It seems that there are those going about declaring themselves deeply concerned for the unity within the body of Christ. I suppose it does not bother them much that they are causing division; since, of course, they do it “in ignorance,” and God will not reject them because of their ignorance. Others appear to be making use of Ketcherside’s step no. 3 (Truth Magazine, 9-3-73, p. 9), and staying within to accomplish subversion. In either case, such men need to be exposed for what they are (false teachers) and for what they are doing (causing division).

Some have argued that “God’s grace will cover mistakes of the intellect.” If this is so, why such warnings as Gal. 6:7a; Col. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:1; Mt. 7:15? Mt. 13:15, speaks of a “waxed-gross” heart with which they could not understand. Is not the intellect a part of the heart? The parable of the sower (Mt. 13) shows what happens to the intellect that rejects God’s Word, as well as the intellect (heart) that is honest and good. Those who would substitute their own for the things of God need to carefully read Mt. 7:21-23.

The remedy for ignorance has clearly been offered by scripture (2 Tim. 2:15; Prov. 23:23; Psa. 119:11). In Eph. 2, Paul discusses the past of the Ephesians, and shows how sinning in ignorance had kept them alienated from God (Eph. 4:18). It was ignorance that nailed the Son of God to the cross (Acts 3:17; 1 Cor. 2:8). It is most difficult to get men to admit to sin. In fact only nine times in all the Bible do we hear someone say, “I have sinned.” Nonetheless, when we do sin, we need to remember 1 Jn. 1:9; Acts 17:30; Acts 8:22; 1 Pet. 1:22.

A Few Questions

Bible interpretation may be a field of dispute, but there are certain rules of exegesis that are rather common and usually serve quite well in arriving at the true meaning of any passage. In view of this, I would like to ask a few questions of the “unity in diversity” advocates:

1. Eph. 5:11, Where do you get the idea that this applies only to the unregenerated?

2.1Cor. 1:10, Whence the idea that this does not cover division caused by instruments of music in worship or institutionalism, but applies only to trouble over preachers?

3. Gal. 1:8-9, Where do you get the idea that these apply only to those changing the “first principles” or to the Deity of Christ?

4. 2 Jn. 9-11, Just how do you reach the conclusion that this applies only to the Deity of Christ?

5. Tit. 3:10, How do you arrive at the conclusion that “heretic” refers only to the “party-minded” or “factious person?” And, how is it that you are willing to apply this to those who oppose the “social gospel,” “institutionalism,” and similar errors?

6. 2 Thess. 3:6,14, How did you find out that this refers to those in “obvious moral error” and not to false teachers?

7. Rom. 16:17, Where did you get the idea that this applies to the false teacher only when he becomes factious in pushing his error?

Any doctrine that can be supported only by a wresting of scriptures ought to arouse the suspicions of every honest soul. The truth of the matter is that the “unity in diversity” crowd would have us fellowship those in error on institutionalism, speaking in tongues, instruments in worship, work of the church, and many other such errors.

Imputation

I am here concerned with the theory that says the personal righteousness of the life of Christ is imputed to our lives, and this is what causes God to overlook our errors. If this theory was fact, it would do away with the necessity of much obedience (Mt. 7:21); and if true about some commands, why not all commands? Secondly, such theory makes God a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:11), thus God is responsible for man’s being lost. Third, it would encourage and give comfort to those in error (2 Jn. 9:11). Fourth, it would make numerous passages of scripture false-Ezek. 18:20; 1 Jn. 2:4, etc.

Others espousing this soul-condemning doctrine say that to teach we can be free from sin would demand “infallible interpretation of the infallible guide.” In other words, if one fails to understand and comply with the instruction of the Lord, He will overlook it and save that one anyway. Would not this same reasoning apply to any command of God? How do we know where to draw the line? What is to keep the alien from misunderstanding Bible teaching on baptism and not

complying – yet, the Lord saves him? The ultimate consequence of this “unity in diversity” doctrine destroy the identity of the church and would empty sacrifice of Christ of its real meaning-for what happens, if one simply does not understand that sacrifice?

“Oh no,” shout our “unity seekers,” “we would accept such conclusion.” Why not? The Roman Catholics have their “seven sacraments” that, they say, brings man into fellowship with God. They have put certain teachings in a class by themselves and made them more important than other commands. Our “unity in diversity” brethren just have a shorter listof “sacraments”- and it gets shorter all the time. Maybe they should reread James 2:10-12.

True, Jesus died for us! But, where is the scripture that says He lived a perfect life for us? He most certainly lived a perfect life, but that made Him the perfect and acceptable sacrifice (Heb. 7:26-28). Justification not offered on the basis of the perfect life of Christ, but on the death of Christ (Rom. 3:21-28; 4:4-11; Gal. 2:21). “Meritorious works” on the part of man or Christ for man are not taught in the scriptures. Those to whom God “”imputeth righteousness without works,” are those “whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins a covered” (Rom. 4:6-7). Acts 2:38 and 1 Jno. 1:7, clearly show how those iniquities are forgiven.

God’s Will can be understood (Eph. 5:17). The failure lies not in the difficulty of the Word, but in man’s effort, determination, dedication, and faith (Mt. 5:6; He 5:14). Step-by-step this “unity in diversity” theory heads straight for the Calvinistic doctrine of the “direct operation” of God’s Spirit upon those elected. This ignores such statements as Heb. 5:9. The free-agency of man to choose is very close to being questioned. Thes are same of .the consequences of such thoughts a “Jesus first lived a life of perfect obedience, meeting the demands of God’s holy law, and enabling Jesus to stand before God for us as He now does.” (Edward Fudgi Answers to Questions, p. 112). To be continued.

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 6-8
January 6, 1977