Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Oklahoma: “Does 1 Corinthians 3:9 authorize collective action of churches “

Reply:

The text in question says, “For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” This passage appears in a context wherein Paul shows the folly of “contentions” in the church at Corinth. “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (i Cor. 1:12). “For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am’ of Apollos.” (1 Cor. 3:4).

Paul reveals the absurdity of such partyism. “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul” (1 Cor. 1:13)? “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then (in view of those facts-LRH) neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth (Paul) and he that watereth (Apollos) are one (in contrast to you Corinthians who are divided over us-LRH): and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building” (1 Cor. 3:49).

Paul and Apollos were one because they labored together with God. They were not separated with respect to purpose. Their oneness was seen in that they worked toward the same goal. “He that planteth and he that watereth are one (How?) … For we are labourers together with God.”

Accordingly, Paul argues, the Corinthians should be one-one vineyard, one building. It was a united labor that planted, watered and raised them. God’s seal of approval was seen in that He gave the increase. The planting and watering, a united action, was given increase. It produced. Division is foreign to that figure and concept. “You are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” “Therefore let no man glory in men,” men like Paul or Apollos or Peter. “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another?” (1 Cor. 4:6, 7).

Now To The Question

A plurality of congregations is not under consideration. Collective action of churches is not the subject. Therefore, collective action of churches is not authorized in 1 Corinthians 3:9. The unity Paul urges is as broad as the division he was repudiating and rebuking. Was he discussing intercongregational schism? Was he encouraging a number of churches to cease their squabbling? No, therefore, the unity he advocated was not a unity of churches.

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 2
April 15, 1976

By Mike Willis

In the November installment of Leroy Garrett’s series on “The Word Abused,” he decided to write on Romans 14:23. The editor was more concerned with disarming an argument made for the necessity of Bible authority than he was at clarifying what Rom. 14:23 actually teaches. Actually, the editor revealed that his own understanding of Rom. 14 is in conflict with other segments of Scripture, as I shall prove later in the article.

To show what the editor of Restoration Review trying to disarm, read the following:

“In the party in which I was reared and schooled, this passage is connected with Ro. 10:17, `Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,’ so as to show that if a particular practice is not mentioned in scripture (always something we oppose), then it is sinful. For something to be `of faith,’ therefore, it must be in the Bible, for `faith’ comes by hearing God’s word. It makes a perfect argument against the likes of instrumental music, and It is as sound as an Aristotelian syllogism.

“Whatever is not of faith is sin.

Instrumental music is not of faith.

Therefore, instrumental music is a sin.

“This argument depends upon Ro. 10:17, which can be expressed as another syllogism.

“If something is a matter of faith, then it can be heard (or read) in the word of God (Ro. 10:17). Instrumental music cannot be heard (or read) in the word of God (implying New Testament).

Therefore, instrumental music is not a matter of faith.

“Then comes the first syllogism. Since instrumental music Is not a matter of faith, it is a sin (Rom. 14:23).” (Restoration Review, XVII: 9, p. 162).

The editor’s complaint is lodged in the belief that the word “faith” is used in two different senses in Rom. 10:17 and 14:23. He said,

“To examine an argument we must first look at Its terminology. . . . Just so, in the first two syllogisms the term `of faith’ can be misleading, causing one to draw a wrong conclusion. In fact, `faith’ in Ro. 10:17 is different from `of faith’ in Ro. 14:23, while the argument implies that they are the same. This itself destroys the argument, for one equivocates when he uses a term In two different ways in the same argument, or when he uses a term that means something different In two contexts as If they meant the same. It Is like arguing: Man is the highest creature on the evolutionary ladder; therefore, man is superior to woman. If we argue about `faith’ from two different passages, as If the meaning of the word were the same, then the meaning must be the same. But this is not the case with Ro. 10:17 and Ro. 14:23, as we shall be seeing” (Ibid., p. 163).

The editor’s objection loses all of its force when one sees that the poignant syllogism which he is opposing does not even depend upon Rom. 14:23 for its validity. I would freely grant that the word “faith” is used in a different sense in Rom. 14:23 and Rom. 10:17 and agree that to use them together in a syllogism violates a principle of logic which invalidates any conclusion drawn from the joining of the two as a major and minor premise. However, if one does not employ Rom. 14:23 in the syllogism and uses the term “faith” to mean the same thing in both syllogisms, then the argument is valid.

Rom. 14:23 teaches, as Garrett pointed out, that whatever action one engages in which does not proceed from the firm conviction that it accords with God’s will is sinful. Paul was not discussing whether the action was in accord with God’s word; rather, he was discussing whether the person engaging in the practice believed that it was in accord with God’s word. Basically, this is the main point of Rom. 14:23. To use the passage to teach that to practice anything not taught in the Scriptures is sin is to abuse the Scriptures, even though that which is taught is true. We need to substantiate our contention from other passages.

However, the position “whatever is of faith is taught in the word of God” is true. No one can act from faith in doing anything for which he is unable to find authority in the Scriptures. I might decide to break my leg as an act of devotion to God. Though I might sacrifice quite a bit to do this, the act would be in vain and meaningless because it was not an act of obedience to God’s word-an act of faith (cf. Col. 2:20-23). Rom. 10:17 clearly connects faith and God’s word. One cannot act out of faith unless he is proceeding in obedience to God’s word. Other passages reveal the same truth, such as 2 Cor. 5:7. The major premise of the syllogism which Garrett denies cannot be attacked as being untrue. The major premise simply states that all matters must have positive authority from the Scriptures before thay can be considered scriptural. This is the positive expression of the “prohibition of silence” argument. For a thing to be wrong, one does not have to find a “thou shalt not;” if no positive authority can be found for an item, whether general or specific, it is sinful when incorporated into the work and/ or worship of the church. Thus, our major premise reads:

Major Premise: All matters of the faith are revealed in God’s word. Our minor premise does not depend upon Rom. 14:23 for its validity or substantiation. Therefore, the editor’s objection about equivocal usage of terminology carries no weight. The minor premise is:

Minor Premise: Instrumental music is not revealed in God’s word. Any objection which can be raised against this argument must be raised about its truthfulness. Is instrumental music revealed–as-acceptable unto God? This is where the issue must rest! The conclusion is valid or invalid depending upon whether this statement is true or false. Until recently, both Christian Churches and churches of Christ realized that the issue lay at this point. Arguments, pro and con, were made to establish the validity or invalidity of the statement. One must read the pertinent passages to decide for himself which is true. However, if both the major and minor premise is true, the conclusion is irresistible.

Conclusion: Instrumental’ music is not a matter of faith. Our knowledge of God’s attitude toward the introduction of unauthorized practices leads us to the conclusion that to introduce mechanical instruments of music into worship (something which is not a matter of faith) is sinful. We have learned all of this from Rom. 10:17 without the usage of Rom. 14:23. All of Garrett’s comments on Rom. 14:23 do not invalidate the argument; he might as well have been writing on Matt. 1:1 so far as its effect on this argument is concerned.

The argument can be applied to any item not authorized in the Scriptures. Garrett complained,

“The minor premise can be adjusted to fit all party distinctions, whether classes, literature, agencies, societies, sponsoring churches, owning real estate, pastor system, choirs, stained glass windows, orphanages, and on and on. The couplet of Ro. 10:17 and Ro. 14:23, joined In argument as described herein, is unanswerable-`I haven’t met the man yet that could answer it!’ It Is unanswerable if the terms in the premises are allowed to mean what the person making the argument wants them to mean” (Ibid.).

Brother Garrett, the terms of my syllogism are not equivocal; I have confined myself to Rom. 10:17. The argument is valid or invalid depending upon the veracity of the minor premise. If someone substitutes something into the minor premise which is scriptural, then the argument is invalid. However, so long as the minor premise is true, the conclusion is irresistible.

Look Who’s Abusing Rom. 14

However, while we are considering Rom. 14, perhaps we should make some comments about Garrett’s treatment of the passage. Garrett treats matters pertaining to congregational worship and work on the same level as matters of individual conscience, asserting that we ought to treat matters such as the sponsoring church, instrumental music, church support of institutions, etc. on the same basis as we treat eating meats, having a Christmas tree, exchanging gifts at Christmas, etc. He wrote,

“Then in verse 22 he asks, Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Again, this has no reference to one’s belief in the gospel. It is rather like asking, Do you have certain convictions about these things we’re talking about? If so, he adds, you are to have them before God. You don’t have to be judged by your brothers in reference to them” (Ibid., pp. 164-165).

Now, Brother Garrett, are you going to make the statement, “You don’t have to be judged by your brothers in reference to them” a universal statement? If it applies to all circumstances, then we have a conflict in the Scriptures. In 1 Cor. 5:9-13, Paul revealed that the church not only had the right, but also had the obligation, to judge its own members. If your statement applies to everything, the Scriptures contradict each other and cannot be considered God’s word. Furthermore, the church must not judge those who are modernists, immoral, etc., if we cannot judge our brethren as you asserted. If the statement you made is not universal, then it does not apply to all things. What right do you have to classify congregational matters, such as the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship, the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions, modernism, etc. on the level of personal opinions? We want to see the criteria which you use to tell whether or not the rules of Rom. 14 apply to any given item.

My brethren, to show you why I am leery of Garrett’s application of Rom. 14 to contemporary problems, consider the following quotations from other articles in this one issue of Restoration Review which reveal how liberal Garrett’s thinking really is:

1. He believes that the church may celebrate the Lord’s Supper with leavened bread. “There is no reason for us to make the Lord’s Supper Jewish in this sense, buying their bread and following their custom. We should encourage our sisters to bake bread especially for the occasion, one loaf appropriate to the size of the congregation. Or simply place a loaf on the table right off the grocer’s shelf, Manor’s or Mrs. Baird’s would be fine, unsliced! There is no instruction in scripture that it must be unleavened, though we always have it that way, as if we presumed it was required. Matthew tells us that `Jesus took bread,’ which was unleavened only because that’s all they had in the house during Passover. It does not say that he chose unleavened bread. Whenever we take bread, the ordinary bread that we have in our homes, we are doing as he did…. This is why I would prefer leavened bread, for it makes for a more imposing symbol, rich and round and full of life as the Body of Christ should be” (p- 167).

2. He rejects examples and inferences as methods of establishing authority. “Since boyhood I have been taught that the scriptures teach us In three ways: by direct command, approved example, and necessary inference…. I am presently convinced that this approach is of no real value in applying biblical authority. This is because some commands in scripture are clearly not for us all; approved examples are not always distinguishable, and the question remains as to who is to decide which ones are approved; inferences can be tricky and confusing as to whether necessary of unnecessary, with the matter of proper application still unsolved” (p. 169).

3. Acts 20:7 does not reveal a pattern for the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper. “Acts 20:7 may not emerge as a clear-cut case for disciples breaking bread each Sunday and only then, but it Is a vital piece of information that we are to give its proper place” (p. 170).

4. Baptists are Christians. “Ouida went with me to Texas hill country to perform a Church of Christ-Baptist wedding. I entered into this situation tangentially, from a discussion with Baptists at Baylor University. This Baptist student, to be married to a Church of Christ girl, was having a lot of problems, one being that he did not want to be married by a minister hostile to his own faith, though he was resigned to its being otherwise `Church of Christ.’ That everybody was out to `convert’ him he was taking pretty well. Since I loved both and accepted them both as Christians, and since I was `Church of Christ,’ I was asked to do the honors, albeit there was little hope that I would be all that popular a choice” (p. 172).

Frankly, I am not ready or willing to place all these items in the same category as eating of meats. I want to see some objective reason for putting them into the same category. If one can include these items, I know of no reason why he could not also put matters pertaining to faith in the deity of Christ in the same category.

I do not seriously disagree with Garrett’s exegesis of Rom. 14:23. However, I violently disagree with his application of it to matters of faith. Furthermore, I disagree with his conclusions regarding arguments on Rom. 10:17. Those who are reading the material flowing from Garrett’s pen can only view this as another attempt to blunt the sword used to make war against false teachers.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 11-13
April 8, 1976

By Frank Drive

On Monday morning of November 3, Brother Tarry Cluff, minister of the Downtown church here, and I left for three days of work with the church in Sioux City, Iowa, arriving there early that evening. About half way there, we stopped in Broken Bow, Nebraska and visited briefly with Brother Don Jenson, manager of a local department store. He with Sister Jenson, are faithful members of the newly formed church in Broken Bow. This little city of 4,000 is almost in the center of Nebraska, and the congregation of about six members is moving right along in a good way. We had already visited with Brother and Sister Gene Masters of North Platte who also attend in Broken Bow. We were highly impressed and pleased with the zeal and optimism and forward look these brethren have.

We spent our visiting time in Sioux City with several brethren who have been neglectful of their duty and also some who know and understand the truth and should be taking their stand for it. As in many places and especially in new and hard fields as this, internal tragedies have befallen the Lord’s work that have discouraged many, and our work was one of surveying the field, make a study of how we could help, and the kind of help we could urge others to provide, and cultivate and strengthen as much local interest as we could. We will need to go back again and again, and plan to do so, but we were pleased with the results of this, our first trip and effort with them.

As you noted in my previous article referred to above, Brother and Sister Glenn Meyer are the only members at the present time, but they attend and conduct worship and preaching services in regular order, and drive 40 miles (one way) to do so.

As we drove out Morningside Avenue through the largest outlying business and residential area of Sioux City, looking for the street that would lead us to the building, we were surprised to approach unexpectedly the sign, “Church of Christ,” right on Morningside Avenue, encased in a nice brick triangular form, seen both directions, pointing only one-half block to the building. We found the building in nice condition and in good appearance, large enough to seat 150 in the main auditorium, and a full basement, where the office area and the printing equipment is, which the Meyers still use to print their bulletin twice each month with several hundred local residents on their list. With payments of $77.00 per month, this property will be paid for in seven years.

We are all the more convinced now, after this visit, that the work in Sioux City merits the favorable consideration of brethren anywhere who can go or help others to go. There is no doubt a good number will read this, who have an interest in this work, and perhaps have even helped with it in the past. Some may hesitate, considering the length of time Sioux City has been helped, but it must be remembered that most of this help was given during the time the church had a strong liberal element, which the brethren were eventually forced to leave. It is now a relatively new work, and the brethren there are to be much commended for securing this property, especially in such a very favorable location, and under such extreme adverse conditions, and to have made such progress in retiring the debt load on it, and to have continued to print and mail their bulletin as they have and are, to such a large list.

I must say also that Brother Terry Johnson, minister at Omaha, is helping Brother and Sister Meyers regularly with their bulletin work, and he and Sister Johnson have spent much time with them in their work.

Who will be willing to move to Sioux City and who will help provide the income to make it possible for someone to do so? Please let us hear from you, brethren. This work must have help. These good Christian workers, the Meyers must not be allowed to continue under such a burden alone. ‘They are valuable servants of the Lord in an extreme and unusually needy field. Especially because of its size and location, there must be a good church in Sioux City. The preaching of the Gospel is the common responsibility of us all, and we must rally to their aid now, and share their work with them. Write me or call, (303)482-9690. Contact Glenn H. Meyer, Route 2 Box 71, Bancroft, Nebraska 68004, or call him at (402)648-7697.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 10
April 8, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

The mission of Christ into the world was fully accomplished. He will not be reincarnated to dwell on Earth. He will come a second time to award salvation to them that wait for Him.

For four thousand years the world looked forward to the Coming of Christ. It was heralded by all the prophets as the hope of the race. Every event in Old Testament history was made to converge into the design of His Coming. It was the event of supreme importance. Any doctrine, the consequences of which make the Lord’s first coming a failure, is pernicious, and cannot be ignored as some are wont to do.

We want in this article to contrast the Lord’s first coming in both manner and purpose with what the Bible has to say concerning His second coming. The text suggesting the basis for such a contrast is Hebrews 9:2728: “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart f-om sin, to them that wait for Him unto Salvation.”

The First Advent

Our text declares that Christ “was once offered to bear the sins of many.” This is the foundation of the Gospel of Christ. Paul preached that Christ died for our sins, “According to the Scriptures.” God’s law had been violated. Death was required as a penalty. Christ died in our stead. That is the doctrine of atonement.

The scriptures declare that Jesus came into the world to destroy the works of Satan. “To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil” (1 John 3:8). The destruction of the works of the Devil was the very purpose of Christ’s first coming. Premillennialism teaches that Christ will come again to accomplish that purpose. A mighty carnal war will be waged by him at the time of His second appearance, in their scheme, for the purpose of accomplishing what he came the first time to do, viz., put down Satan, destroy his works, and establish His Kingdom. That means that he failed to accomplish this at the time of His first advent; that instead of conquering he was conquered, and instead of being exalted and crowned in His ascension to the Father, He went home in defeat and humiliation. What other conclusion can such a doctrine have?

That is not all. Christ came into this world and was made flesh and blood in order “To bring to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Premillennialism teaches that He will triumph over Satan and bring him to naught, at His second coming; again proving that they regard the first advent of the Lord a failure. Such consequences cannot be overlooked, nor excused with any regard for truth.

The Bible not only declares that Christ came into the world to “destroy the works of the devil” and to “bring Satan to naught” but, according to the Scriptures, he succeeded in accomplishing this. Paul declares in Col. 2:15 that He “despoiled the principalities and the powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,” and in Eph. 4:8 he said “when He ascended on high, He. led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men.”

Jesus said: “But no one can enter the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man.” Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan (1 John 3:8). This he could not do without binding Satan (Mark 3:27). He accomplished his purpose (Col. 2:15). Therefore Satan, the strong man, was bound. Satan has only the power and privilege that is yielded to him. “Each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” (James 1:14). “Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). We have indeed been delivered from Satan’s power and bondage to sin.

The Second Advent

The second coming of Christ will be “to them that wait for him unto salvation” (Heb. 9:27). His promise is, “I will come again to receive you unto myself, that where I am ye may be also” (John 14:3). When He comes again, “even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. . . . then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:14-17).

We shall not know Christ after the flesh again for “though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more” (2 Cor. 5:16). He will not, therefore, return to dwell in the flesh. Concerning His first coming, Paul says, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” But in sharp contrast, of his second coming he declares that Christ “shall appear a second time, apart from sin.” Those words can have no meaning if Christ comes back in the flesh to dwell on earth (The Gospel Guardian, February, 1936).

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 9
April 8, 1976