Truth Magazine

By Wallace H. Little

Among God’s people today, one of the many issues needlessly dividing brethren might be identified by what is represented in the title. To some who are pushing their opinions to the level of law, “segmented worship” describes congregations which allow brethren to partake of the Lord’s Supper either during the morning assembly, or the one at evening, depending upon their ability to get to the one or the other. Cecil Willis has written that every error among brethren has started from overemphasizing some point of truth. This situation bears out his statement.

There is little doubt some have abused the fact they had opportunity to take the Lord’s Supper during evening assembly as an excuse for their sin of failing to assemble at all times. My comments here are in no way to serve this group. But the fact something is abused does not make the thing itself sinful; only the abuse is wrong.

I had a tract written by a brother in Christ who went to some length to demonstrate the sinfulness (?) of allowing the Lord’s Supper to be offered during Sunday evening assemblies after it was also offered during morning worship. The main thrust of his argument was that such constituted what he termed “segmented worship” and the New Testament is silent on authority for any such thing. To his credit, he is consistent. He has persuaded the congregation where he worshiped to disband Sunday evening assemblies. But his consistency extracted quite a price from the other brethren there, in loss of edification they could have during evening worship.

His claim of segmented worship demands a little more examination, from a viewpoint he neglected in his tract. I would like to see some evidence from the Bible that having two or more periods during the Lord’s Day when we obey Christ in the things He has commanded for public worship constitutes “segmented worship.” This is not contained within God’s Word; it is not speaking as God’s oracles (1 Pet. 4:11); it is the language of Ashdod (Neh. 13:24).

Historically, God’s people established a pattern quite different from that which we use today. The early church met in extended assemblies (note Acts 20:7, where Paul preached until midnight, then continued on to the break of day – see verse 11). Assemblies then were apt to be lengthy proceedings, rather than the one hour we meet today on the Lord’s Day morning for worship. Likewise, during the restoration period and on down well into the Twentieth Century, assemblies were likely to extend over three and four hour periods, often broken at noon when brethren either ate food they brought with them on the grounds on good days, or in the buildings when the weather was poor.

Our so-called “segmented worship” (referring to the fact we break around noon, then return during the evening) is nothing but a concession to our taste permitted by the better means of transportation we have. It is no real difficulty now for a family to drive ten to fifteen miles to the building, attend Bible class and worship, then drive the same distance back home for dinner; later during the evening, make the return trip for another hour of worship. Such a practice was unheard of however, until the near-universal availability of automobiles among brethren.

I am not trying to prove anything by the practices of brethren. The New Testament is our only standard. But these practices do indicate what brethren for years and centuries understood the Bible to teach; we know their beliefs by their practices.

Now let us go back to the Bible and see if this so called “segmented worship” is all that bad. I will not quote from the entire text, but you read it all: Luke, in Acts 20:7-11, wrote, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight . . . When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” If Biblical authority for “segmented worship” is desired, consider this, and Acts 2:46 where the strong implication is of the same thing.

And let us stop this senseless, destroying argument!

Truth Magazine, XX:14, p. 13-14
April 1, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Recently the Dallas and Cincinnati Baptist Associations, both of which are members of the Southern Baptist Convention, dumped, deposed and disfellowshipped four charismatic congregations from their Associations. Pentecostalism has invaded and permeated Baptist Churches. The Dallas Association “branded the movement as a radical departure from `historical Baptist practices.’ And the Cincinnati Baptist Association, which also kicked out two congregations, called the emphasis on tongues speaking and faith healing `unscriptural’ and `un-Baptist.’ Other leading Baptists, like Dr. W. A. Criswell of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, have charged that charismatics `border on heresy’ and that their worship experiences are `of the devil’ ” (The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky. Dec. 30, 1975, p. A6).

Some Questions Raised By These Events

Very vital and interesting inquiries are resurrected by these happenings.

First, “by what authority” does a Convention oust a local church and “who gave thee this authority?” The ouster and eviction of four charismatic churches from the Baptist premises manifests a power larger and higher than the local church, but beneath Christ, the head of the church. Where is such an institutional, ecclesiastical hierarchy to be found in the Bible? Of course, Baptist Churches are not New Testament churches, so they can devise and develop governmental structures as they desire, but supposing, as they do, that their churches are of Christ, who or what empowers any organization to “kick out” a congregation? The shades and shadows of Rome darken the Baptist horizon.

Second, have these Pentecostal Baptists “fallen from grace?” They are “branded” as a “movement” which is a “radical departure from ‘historical Baptist practices,'” to say nothing of scriptural New Testament principles. They are labelled “unscriptural” which is nearly as bad as being “un-Baptist.” Their doctrine is said to “border on heresy” and their “worship experiences are `of the devil.’ ” How much worse can people wax? So, have these Baptists been “severed from Christ?” They have been “kicked out” of the Southern Baptist society, but have they been given the boot by the Lord? Or can one be too bad to be in a Baptist Association but still good enough to go to heaven? It is a fundamental, cardinal Baptist tenet that a child of God cannot fall from grace and be lost. Will the Baptist Associations of Dallas and Cincinnati tell us whether these Baptist charismatics will be saved in their “unscriptural,” “radical departure” that is “of the devil?”

Third, these non-historical, hysterical Baptists are accepting people from “Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and Roman Catholic backgrounds” into their charismatic community. That is to be expected, but Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics: (1) Substitute sprinkling for baptism; (2) They sprinkle water on infants; (3) And they believe in infant salvation and church membership based on their sprinkling. However, the Southern Baptist and Pentecostal denominations do not believe in the above mentioned items. How will they face and deal with such matters in their integrated, charismatic churches? Does the Holy Spirit tell Baptists to immerse believing adults but to ignore screaming infants while He tells the Lutheran or Catholic charismatic to splash the baby and dunk the adult if he requests it? There is a real conflict and controversy in this regard that cannot be casually waved aside by a chorus of “Praise the Lord.”

Fourth, the Baptists are traditional “trinitarians.” They believe there are three persons in the Godhead; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (There is a Pentecostal. Southern Baptist Church near Louisville, Kentucky, which is called the Trinity Baptist Church.) These Baptists now claim kinship with the “Pentecostal experience” of Holy Spirit baptism, tongues speaking and faith healing. But the United Pentecostal Church, “the greatest of all Oneness organizations,” teaches that there is only one person in the Deity, Jesus Christ. How will they hurdle this barrier of belief? United Pentecostals cannot tolerate the rejection of their “Oneness” or “Jesus Only” theory. Historically, the “Oneness” Pentecostals left the “trinitarian” Assembly of God denomination over that very issue. There never would have been a United Pentecostal Church if the “Oneness” versus the “Trinity” concept could have been harmonized and unionized. (See Arthur L. Clanton’s book, United We Stand, published by the Pentecostal Publishing House in Hazelwood, Missouri.) How will the “trinitarian” Baptists and the “Oneness” Pentecostals resolve this issue? Or does the Holy Spirit speak out of both sides of His mouth on this topic also?

Fifth, the Pentecostals believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is “for the remission of sins.” Not even a “radical,” “unscriptural,” “of the devil” charismatic Baptist could be led to accept Acts 2:38! Again, their “Pentecost experience” has their fellowship wires crossed. What lineman among them can settle the water baptism question? Since they both claim the “gift of knowledge,” how do we determine which one is telling the truth? See Isaiah 8:20 and 1 John 4:1,6. Surely, the Spirit does not “reveal” such an important matter as how one acquires the forgiveness of sins in two different ways!

Purpose and Conclusion

Much more could be said in this muckraking article, but this is sufficient to show: (1) That acceptance of subjective experiences does not bring about unity of or in the Spirit; (2) That the charismatic movement is characterized by self contradiction and confusion; (3) That denominational, ecclesiastical organizations are toothless and unarmed in their opposition to internal (4) That there is a constant need to teach the mold, the pattern, “the form of sound words” in all areas and aspects of worship in the Lord.

Truth Magazine, XX:14, p. 12-13
April 1, 1976

By Jack Gibbert

There are times when I begin to wonder if the “conservative” movement is not beginning to drift. I recognize this “drifting” as inevitable (1 Cor. 11:19), but I become a bit sick to my stomach when I think that such is happening so close on the heels of the last great digression. Have brethren, especially those who were involved up to their eyeballs in the battle, not learned anything from their experiences? Brother Cogdill has sounded the warning in a recent article (Truth Magazine September 11, 1975) about the language of Ashdod creeping among us. I have noticed it appearing again and again, in articles written by “knowledgeable” brethren, and even in sermons and “off the record” discussions. I am not pushing any panic-button over some babe in Christ who doesn’t know better than to talk about “joining the church” and “Christian” nations, schools and institutions. I am referring to “old hands” in the grandest profession of all, i.e., practicing Christianity.

In December of this past year, one conservative church published in it’s bulletin a story billed, “Madeline M. O’Hair Is At It Again!” On the back of this bulletin they announced that, “Atheist M. O’Hare Petitions F.C.C. To Ban All Religious Broadcasting.” The article stated that Mrs. O’Hare “has presented a petition to the Federal Communications Commission with 27,000 signed letters. Christian radio and television is being threatened by Petition No. RM 2493 . . . this petition is an effort to make religious programming on radio and television illegal in the United States. If this petition becomes law, people will no longer have the privilege of choosing whether or not to hear religious programs. The basic issue is not whether or not the people should be forced to listen to the Gospel but whether or not they have the option and privilege to do so. . . .” The article went on to ask that everyone send in a letter of protest to this petition.

As soon as I read this I had a “gut” reaction that said, “this is just like that phoney Pentecostal stunt about the computer finding some lost time in the past.” For those who don’t remember it, there was an article circulating a few years ago about a man named Hill (I remember the name because it was the same as the “Flim Flam man” in the movie “The Music Man”) who supposedly put the question to a computer at the space laboratories and it came up with the fact there was time missing, supposedly relating to the Bible accounts of the sun standing still. This was proven to be a hoax, perpetrated by a man “led by the Holy Spirit.”

Now, why this “gut” reaction? (1) Mrs. O’Hair, like her or not, is not stupid, and such a petition would be stupid. (2) The use of “Christian radio and television” is so loose that even the liberals would not use it, I assumed that it’s roots were in Pentecostalism as they use it all the time.

I immediately wrote a short note in our bulletin to the effect that I was sure this was another case of my brethren jumping on a Pentecostal bandwagon and that faithful brethren should keep clear of the unclean thing.

A few weeks later I received another bulletin with the same article in it, this one was copied from the first one and gave credit to the first bulletin for it. Now I was really upset. Apparently this thing will have gone all over the country by the time this article sees print, but I know of no other way to stop this kind of thing other than to expose my brethren’s blind duplicity to hysterical Pentecostal lies.

I called my congressman and asked if he could get me information on Petition RM No. 2493 and he informed me that he could and would mail it to me within the week. I now have that information from the F.C.C. in their publication “FCC 75-946, 36588.” It’s 13 pages long and I will not bother to reprint it. I will however quote a few facts and make a comment or two.

First off, this legal opinion and order was adopted, 1 Aug. 1975 and released, 13 Aug. 1975. In other words, the action on this petition had been taken over 4 months before my brethren jumped on the band-wagon. As usual, when we support Pentecostal causes, we are a day late and a dollar short, and for that I thank God. Now as to what we are informed in this F.C.C. release.

This petition dealt with the “standards applicable to the licensing and operation of educational stations or reserved FM or television channels.” It in no way dealt with the right to have religious programs on radio or TV.

Next we are informed, “The filing of the petition has generated a vast amount of letters to the Commission, likely in excess of 700,000 . . . the majority of these letters are not directed to a resolution of the issues raised by the petition, as most are based on an incorrect understanding of the nature of the relief petitioners seek. Many of them are form letters that are premised on the mistaken view that the petition was filed by Madalyn Murray O’Hair, when such was not the case. In addition, the vast majority of letters urge us to reject what they understand to be the proposal to ban the broadcast of all religious programs (including church services) from the air. However, no such proposal was advanced by the petitioners, nor was it raised by the commission.”

Section 3 of the release informs us that “Although the religious aspect of the petition has garnered virtually all of the attention . . . in fact, much of the petition involves separate questions not involving religiously affiliated licensees.”

Now I will not go any further than to say that as the release explains what was asked for in the petition, I find myself more “FER IT” then “AGAIN IT.” I have in front of me at this moment an article from the Virginia Beach Sun (Jan. 7, 1976) that tells of the vast $2.95 million site that has been acquired by the “CBN” (Christian Broadcasting Network) that will run somewhere around $20 million for the headquarters they are planning to build here in Virginia Beach. All of this, we are informed, will be “tax-exempt.” This network is what we would call “holy roller” in its theological outlook and that is the kind of religious programing you will hear on it brethren, you will not hear the gospel on it. Petition No. RM-2493 was opposed to the “one sidedness” of sectarian owned stations. Not to their owning such a station, but to their refusal to grant other views an airing. And that, good brethren, is what you wrote in opposing when you wrote in opposition to RM 2493. You were actually fighting for the right of “holy roller” stations to refuse to sell time to faithful churches of Christ to preach opposing views to Pentecostalism.

Know what? I can understand to some degree why the “rank and file” of the Lord’s church may have written letters of protest . . . after all, didn’t their preacher say they should, didn’t he call them to arms? But what I do not understand is how knowledgeable preachers can be so easily sucked into a Pentecostal scheme, based on a lie (and incidentally, those who printed this lie really owe Mrs. O’Hair an apology) and even be so blind as to print their lie as they wrote it, not ,even taking the time to re-write it is acceptable Bible terms . . . or is the term “Christian radio and television” something faithful preachers are now using?

Brethren, our Lord said, “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14). There are some blind leaders among us who need to open their eyes before they and their followers wind up in the ditch. Telling lies about an atheist is surely heading for the ditch (Rev. 21:8) and needs repenting of … and I believe an apology to Mrs. O’Hair, I hope those who misrepresented her will be humble enough to do it. I am sure those who started the lie and used her name and cause to further their own cause will apologize, but I hope that brethren who helped to further the lie will show Mrs. O’Hair and other atheists that while sectarians do not mind lying to further their cause, Christians do and refuse to take part in such low tactics.

Brethren to keep from eating this type of crow, let us stick with preaching the gospel. Let us keep out of politics, especially is this true with this being an election year, we simply have no business being unequally yoked with the world of politics or the problems of Pentecostalism’s “Christian radio and television.” Let us trust the Lord, preach the word, and leave the lying to worldly sectarianism where it belongs.

Truth Magazine, XX:14, p. 10-11
April 1, 1976

By Mike Willis

One term which is rather generally neglected with reference to Christians is the word “saint.” Probably, this is largely due to the Catholic doctrine about sainthood. The Catholic Church began the process of canonization of “saints” in the ninth century.

“In the Roman Church this (canonization, mw) is done by the pope only, who, after the examination, `declares the person in question to have led a perfect life, and that God hath worked miracles at his intercession, either during his life or after his death, and That, consequently, he Is worthy to be honored as a saint, which implies permission to exhibit his relics, to invoke him, and to celebrate mass and an office in his honor.’ . . . The worship of `canonized saints’ is enjoined by the Council of Trent” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. II, pp. 90-91).

No one can become a saint until at least fifty years after his death, according to Roman thought.

That Catholic usage is not the same as the New Testament usage of the word “saint” is obvious from Rom. 1:7. In that passage, Paul addressed the church at Rome as follows: “to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints.” Obviously, he was not writing to the local graveyard! Hagios, the Greek word from which “saint” is translated, is defined as follows: “In the plural, as used of believers, it designates all such and is not applied merely to persons of exceptional holiness, or to those who, having died, were characterized by exceptional acts of saintliness” (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. III, p. 315). Thus, “saint” is another term to be considered in any series which considers the descriptive names of Christians. But, what is the significance of being called a saint?

To Be Set Apart

The primary thrust of the word saint is the idea of being set apart to God, as it were, exclusively His. Hagios is the same word which is translated “holy” in other passages. The main idea is drawn from the Jewish usage of the Hebrew word godesh. Some places were set apart as sacred by God’s presence (cf. Ex. 3:5, the place of the appearance of God to Moses). The Temple was a holy place set apart to the worship of God; it was not to be used for profane purposes (cf. Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple, Jn. 2:13-22). All of the furniture inside the Temple was set apart in a similar fashion. The priests who served in the Temple were “holy unto the Lord” (Lev. 21:6) because they were set apart to His worship. In a similar sense, the whole nation of Israel was holy, not in the sense of moral purity, but in the sense of being separated especially to God (Jer. 2:3; Ex. 19:5,6; Dent. 7:6).

When the word hagios is applied to Christians, the first implication from the word is that Christians are “set apart to the service of God.” They are not common people; they “are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). Everyone who has been obedient to Jesus Christ is a saint, a person set apart to God. As Paul described the change in the life of the Corinthians, he intimated that they were sanctified and justified when they were “washed” (baptized). He said, “And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

Thus, every individual who submits to baptism in obedience to the Lord enters a special relationship with God. He has been “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2). “But the thought lies very near, that what is set apart from the world and to God, should separate itself from the world’s defilements, and should share in God’s purity; and in this way hagios speedily acquires a moral significance” (R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, pp. 331-332).

Ethical Connotation

The verb hagiazo and the noun hagiasmos are related to each other. The English conveys the same relationship with “to sanctify” and “sanctification.” Sanctification refers to the process by which one eradicates evil from his life and incorporates righteousness into it. Thus, a saint is not only one who is set apart to Christ, but also is one who is living a morally pure life (not a sinlessly perfect life). Thus, the Hebrew writer said, “Pursue after peace with all men, and after the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord” (6:12). All of the passages which speak about the Christian’s separation from the world are relevant to this point. We cite only a few of them: 1 Jn. 2:15-17; Rom. 12:1-2; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Tit. 2:11-14; 2 Tim. 2:22; Rom. 6:17-18. Thus, the second idea to be conveyed when Christians are called “saints” is that they are in the process of moving toward moral purity. This does not mean that they have already arrived at sinless perfection but that they are aiming for it. At this point, a couple of other passages become relevant.

The Process of Sanctification

Jesus said, “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). In just what way is sanctification related to the word? Actually, the word of God is related to the process of being set apart and the process of moral purification. But, let us consider how this is done. A person is led to Christ through the teaching of the word of God (Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22-23; Jn. 6:44-45). One learns of God’s will, believes it, and obeys it, causing him to become set apart to God.

The process of moral purification works in the same fashion. Consider what Paul said concerning the Scriptures in 2 Tim. 3:16,17. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Notice some of the usages of Scripture: (1) Reproof. The idea is that the person is convicted of the sinfulness of his conduct. (2) Correction. Correction is the restoration to an upright state. Thus, the Scriptures do not leave a person convicted of sin, they straighten him up. (3) Instruction in Righteousness. Having demonstrated that the wrong manner of life must be corrected, the Scriptures also point the way to the right kind of living. The Scriptures do not stop with the “Thou shalt not’s;” they add the “Thou shalt’s.” Thus, the sanctification process is related to the Scriptures in this way. Through them we learn of our misconduct, the way to correct our lives, and the right way of life. Thus, the sanctification of the believer “is not vicarious, i.e., it cannot be transferred or imputed, it is an individual possession, built up, little by little, as the result of obedience to the Word of God, and of following the example of Christ” (W. E. Vine, op. cit.). Paul said, “But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life” (Rom. 6:11).

Conclusion

Thus, the word saint is one of the most significant words applied to the Christian. It testifies to both the unique relationship sustained between him and God and his moral character. Needless to say, many who call themselves Christians are not reflecting the moral character of a saint. Such a person is self-deceived if he believes that he can walk in the ways of the world and sustain a right relationship to God. Since a Christian is sanctified and in the process of sanctification, he can be called a saint. Are you-a Christian?

Truth Magazine, XX:14, p. 9-1
April 1, 1976