Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

(Editor’s Note: The following is the body of a tract of the Washington Avenue Church of Christ. The cover of the tract has the title-question, and the meeting times of the church. It was suggested that we print the body of the tract in case other churches might want to alter the title and change local references, thus making it usable to them.)

Perhaps we should ask “who” we are as well as “what” we are, for the church is people. Acts 8:1 refers to “persecution against the church … at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad.” Likewise, we are “the church” which meets on Washington Avenue in Russellville.

The word “church” means the “called out ones.” The church is comprised and composed of those who have been “called out” of the world by the gospel unto Christ (2 Thess. 2:14). The gospel tells of sin and of its wages of eternal death (Rom. 6:23). It tells of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It urges all to receive forgiveness of sins. When one obeys the gospel, when he heeds its call, he is then “called out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). So, the church is those who have obeyed the gospel, who have been “called out” of sin unto salvation.

In the New Testament, we read of “the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). This is a reference to the various congregations or churches in different localities. “The church of God … at Corinth,” and “the church … at Jerusalem” (1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 8:1) are two congregations; two local churches. We are the church which meets on Washington Avenue in Russellville. We endeavor to work and worship in the same way as did the “churches of Christ” in the New Testament.

What We Are Not

Negatively, we are:

1) Not a Denomination: We are not associated nor affiliated with denominationalism. Denominations such as we have in this area are not mentioned in the Bible. “The churches of Christ” are (Rom. 16:16).

2) Neither Catholic nor Protestant: We are not a Catholic church. We honor and revere no man or human authority such as the Pope (Mt. 28:18). We are not a “Protestant” church in the popular sense. We “protest” against sin, false doctrine, ungodliness and immorality, but we are not allied nor identified with Protestant denominationalism. Catholics and Protestants are not referred to in the Scriptures. Christians are (Acts 11:26).

3) Not a Social Club: The church was purchased with the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). The Son of God did not die for a social organization, but for a “spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5). We are not a glorified social center in competition with country clubs and the YMCA. We are the church. We worship God “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24), not in fun, food, frolic.

What We Are

Positively, we are:

1) The Saved: The church is the saved (Eph. 5:23). The church is not the Savior. Jesus is. But the church is the body of Christ. All believe and are baptized are saved (Mk. 16:16), that is, they are “added to the church” by the Lord (Acts 2:38, 41, 47). The church is Samaria consisted of the saved, those who had believed and been baptized after hearing an evangelist “preach Christ” (Acts 8:5, 12; 9:31).

The church which meets on Washington Avenue in Russellville is those who have obeyed the same gospel. Are we not, therefore, members of the same church?

2) Subject To Christ: Jesus is “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22, 23). We have no synods or conventions to guide us. We are not a part of any amalgamation or association of churches. We are subject only to the authority of Christ (Jas. 4:12).

In Summary: The church which meets at 309 N. Washington Avenue in Russellville is a group of Christians drawn together by faith in Christ. We are neither Catholic nor Protestant. We are simply men and women who have been saved from sin by grace through faith, that is, in obedience to the gospel (Heb. 5:9).

Our worship is simple because it is based on the New Testament. Prayers are led by men of the church and congregational singing allows each to make melody in his heart unto the Lord (Eph. 5:19). Observance of the Lord’s Supper “upon the first day of the week” shows the Lord’s death until He comes again (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:26). No solicitation for money is made. We engage in no church socials or recreational affairs to entertain nor to raise funds. Christians contribute only upon the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2).

We are an independent congregation with no earthly headquarters of any kind. Christ is the head of the church, and He rules and directs the church through His word (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Our allegiance to the Lordship of Christ moves us to endeavor to reproduce faithfully the church described in the New Testament. We do not follow any human creed. The Bible is our only guide (1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Now that you know who we are and what we are, please worship and study the Bible with us. A warm, sincere welcome awaits you. Feel free to call upon us if you have further questions about us or about what the Bible teaches.

Truth Magazine, XX:4; p. 10-11
January 22, 1976

By Dennis C. Abernathy

That faith is the principle by which man is saved is a fact beyond dispute (Acts 15:7-9; 26:15-18; Gal. 3:26; Jno. 3:16; Rom. 3:30; 5:1). But many in the religious world teach that a person is saved by “faith only.” To show this to be untrue all we need to do is turn to James 2:14-26. This deals the death blow and shows the fallacy of the false doctrine of faith only.

When we argue, debate, and discuss this point with denominational people, we use it with telling force. We make the proper application – “faith without works is dead” – But I am afraid we have missed the point in the every day living for the Lord. Let us notice!

1. Too often one’s faith in the Lord’s Supper is faith only: The Bible teaches we are to observe the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week (1 Cor. 11:26). “As often” here is explained in Acts 20:7. Since every week has a first day we conclude that we are to observe the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s day. My question then is, “Do you believe it?” Oh “Yes,” you say. But do you practice it? I am sure that most Christians believe it, and will argue for its observance, but many times their faith is void of action or works.-IS THIS NOT FAITH ONLY?

2. What about our faith in attending the assembly of the Church? Even a casual reading of Hebrews 10:25 and following verses convinces one of the necessity of regular attendance and the grave danger of neglecting such assemblies. Deep down, most believe this to be so-but is your faith void of action or works? What about attending classes and meetings? Do you believe, them to be scriptural? Or, do you believe them to be scriptural for somebody else? But what about the person who believes in “not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together,” and then comes half of the time-IS THIS NOT FAITH ONLY?

3. What about prayer? Do you have faith in prayer and in Him who hears our prayers? Do you pray regularly or “every now and then?” Do you pray in times of, trouble and distress ONLY? Do you blame God when you think your prayer is not answered? I fear many of our prayers are with FAITH ONLY-ALL FAITH AND NO ACTION. This is illustrated well, I think, by the following: D. L. Moody was crossing the Atlantic when the ship he was traveling on caught fire. A friend suggested to Moody that they retire to the other end of the ship and pray. Moody replied, “Not so, sir; we stand right here and pass buckets and pray hard all the time.” Yes, prayer and work go together. They are the two hands of one person.

4. What about the Gospel as God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16)? Surely we believe that it is. Did not the Lord tell us to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?” Is our faith along this line faith only? How many really do get out and try to teach the Gospel to others? Many cry, “I don’t know how,” and when personal work classes are set up these same ones do not try to learn how. The word is God’s power to save, only to those who “believe” it, and this involves teaching (Matt. 28:19-20).

5. What about loving brethren and doing benevolent work? The Bible teaches us to love our brethren. Do you do it? Do you treat them like you would like to be treated? Do you seek their best interests. Is your love genuine or is it by FAITH ONLY? We get after our liberal brethren because of their looseness in handling the Word of God. “They are not walking by faith,” we say. But what about us? That passage says “we walk by faith. . .” – This implies action-“WE WALK”-This cannot be done by faith only. People are not loved, fed, nor comforted by FAITH ONLY.

6. What about our children? I well know that the Bible does not place the young people in a special group as far as the church is concerned. We see “Youth Retreats,” “Timothy and Dorcus Clubs” and church-sponsored recreation on every hand and we know these things are not the work of the church. We know that recreation belongs in the realm of home work. But, I ask, where is our faith? Where is your faith, parents? What are you doing for your children? Are you going places and doing things with them? Or, are you putting the liberals down for doing the right thing in the wrong way and then neglecting to do anything in any way. Why not provide recreation and places to go for our young so that they can have that association with other Christians that they so badly need? Can this not be done by concerned parents who love their children? If there is a prom or school dance, to which our children cannot attend, why not provide some good, clean, and wholesome recreation to which they can go, with which to fill the void. I ask again – are we acting by faith only in this area?

On and on we could go, but I am sure that you get the pont. It is still true that “faith without works is dead” – this is the reason we have so many sick and “nigh unto death” Christians. Remember, “. . . be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 9-10
January 22, 1976

By Mike Willis

In reviewing these articles by Leroy Garrett, I have become progressively impressed at how wide-spread our differences are. I think the article presently being reviewed will demonstrate the utter incompatibility in our ways of approaching the Scriptures. In perhaps the most significant statement of this series, the editor of Restoration Review wrote, “I do not accept the view of patternism.”1 No little attention needs to be given to such a statement. If Garrett denies patternism, he denies that there are any patterns of organization, work, worship, etc. Paul wrote, “. . . but where there is no law, neither is there violation” (Rom. 4:15). Where there are no patterns, there can be no violations; therefore, God has given no rules with reference to the church if there are no patterns.

The consequences of no patterns are far reaching. With reference to the organization of the church, if there are no patterns, any kind of organization is legitimate. Thus, though we may not prefer any of these organizational arrangements, the papacy, synods, councils, associations, mother church, sponsoring churches, etc. are not unscriptural organizational arrangements. With reference to the worship of the church, if there are no patterns, any acts of worship are legitimate. Therefore, although we may not prefer any of these types of worship, using light bread and water as emblems in the Lord’s Supper, observing it monthly or annually and on any day of the week, counting beads in prayer, using “holy” water, using choirs in singing, accompanying our singing with mechanical instruments of music, etc. are no unscriptural forms of worship. The only reason why we do not use these forms of worship is our own prejudices, if there are no patterns of worship. My brethren, remember that where there are no patterns there can be no violations of those patterns. Garrett has categorically stated, “I do not accept the view of patternism” and, therefore, puts himself in the camp of those who deny rules for the church. In former years, such a position was called antinomianism; I know of no reason why it should be called anything else today.

Denying that there are any patterns, Leroy Garrett certainly has no appreciation for the assertion that the churches of Christ “are a true representation of the primitive church in name, organization, doctrine and practice.” Thus, he wrote,

“In no way have we abused the scriptures so grossly than in our claim that we are a true representation of the primitive church ‘in name, organization, doctrine and practice.’ The Sunday morning assembly especially illustrates this abuse of the scriptures. We can only conclude that it is a rip-off, being hardly a faint likeness of what it claims to emulate. Moreover, it is in some instances a rank denial of what the scriptures reveal as crucial in the corporate worship of the early church.

“The rip-off comes when any of us presume to be the church to the exclusion of all other believers. We are only playing the counterfeit role when we claim to be the exact reproduction of the primitive church at work and worship, when in fact we take as many liberties with what is actually in the scriptures as the next people. No group today is the New Testament church in the sense that it is an exact likeness of what the scriptures reveal-if for no other reason because the scriptures yield no one, composite picture of what that church was. We all choose what we like, and then reject the other fellow because he selects things that we neglect.”2

To illustrate the way in which we “ignore some of the things practiced by the primitive churches,” although we claim to have restored the New Testament church, Garrett cited the following items: (1) the love feast, (2) speaking in tongues, (3) deaconesses, (4) holy kiss, (5) kneeling in prayer. For,one who writes so extensively about abusing the Scriptures to boldly assert that the early church had a love feast and deaconesses-matters concerning which biblical students are quite unwillingly to categorically assert existed-is rather ludicrous. The other matters have been treated frequently enough that they deserve no reply. Garrett is obviously grasping for straws to prove his untenable position.

On the other hand, he denied that the five acts of worship, which we say were the acts of worship of the New Testament church, form a pattern at all. (I would surely have expected for Garrett to admit that all of the early churches prayed and studied God’s word; however, no such admission appeared in the article.) Thus, regarding the collection, Garrett wrote,

“There was almost certainly nothing like our `Sunday morning offering’ and probably no collection at all in the assemblies, except perhaps occasional gestures toward the poor-though it cannot be proved that this was done ‘at church.’ The collection in 1 Cor. 16:2 was provisional, which means that they had not been doing this before Paul asked them to and probably did not continue it after he came and took the money away. It was for a special emergency. Besides, it was laid aside at- home, not in the assembly, as most every Greek scholar will point out.”3

In reply to what Garrett wrote, I would like to quote the comments of the Calvinist commentator, Charles Hodge on 1 Cor. 16:2,

“Every one was to lay by himself, i.e. most commentators say, at home, par’ heauto. Compare pros heauton in Luke 24:12; see also John 20:10. The direction then is that every one should, on the first day of the week, lay aside at home whatever he was able to give, thus treasuring up his contribution. To this interpretation it may be objected that the whole expression is thus obscure and awkward. ‘Let every one at home place, treasuring up what he has to give.’ The words do not mean to lay by at home, but to lay by himself. The direction is nothing more definite than, let him place by himself, i.e. let him take to himself what he means to give. What he was to do with it, or where he was to deposit it, is not expressed. The word thesaurizon means putting into the treasury or hoarding up, and is perfectly consistent with the assumption that the place of deposit was some common treasury, and not every man’s own house. If Paul directed this money to be laid up at home, why was the first day of the week selected? It is evident that the first day must have offered some special facility for doing what is here enjoined. The only reason that can be assigned for requiring the thing to be done on the first day of the week, is that on that day the Christians were accustomed to meet, and what each one had laid aside from weekly gains could be treasured up, i.e. put into the common treasury of the church. The end which the apostle desired to accomplish could not otherwise have been effected. He wished that there might be no collections when he came. But if every man had his money laid by at home, the collection would be still to be made. The probability is, therefore, Paul intended to direct the Corinthians to make a collection every Lord’s day for the poor, when they met for worship.”4

Garrett’s position regarding the collection has been answered on a number of occasions. First of all, no one has said that 1 Con. 16:1-2 gives the exclusive pattern for spending the funds of the church; therefore, his comments about the purpose of the collection at Corinth are beside the point. Secondly, we know that churches had funds from which they carried on their programs of work (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8). Thirdly, the passage in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 was given to the churches in Galatia as well as to the one in Corinth, thus, leading one to believe that this was a universal practice of the early church. Fourthly, the passage in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 is the only passage which shows how and when the churches raised funds. Thus, it constitutes the pattern: for raising church funds (and not for spending them).

If 1 Cor. 16:1-2 does not furnish a pattern for the raising of funds for the church, there is no pattern. If there is no pattern, there can be no violation. Thus, the church could begin business enterprises to raise its resources. Hence, the pie suppers, rummage sales, and full-fledged business enterprizes entered into by denominations would not be unscriptural. Brethren, are you ready to admit these things?

Regarding the singing, Garrett said,

“There was probably no congregational singing as we practice it, if at all, though they may have chanted to each other antiphonally (back and forth), as an early historian indicates. They did have solos, for any brother that ‘hath a hymn’ was encouraged to sing it (1 Cor. 14:26). None of the scriptures about singing are related per se to the assembly, but to the personal life of the believer, and they call for addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,’ which is hardly a description of congregational singing. So, If we can’t establish congregational singing, we cannot establish a musical accompaniment. It is likely, however, that if a brother in the early church chose to ‘sing a psalm’ (Col. 3:16), he might well have used one of the many instruments available in that day, especially if he were a Jewish believer,.,for a. psalm to him meant playing as well as singing. The Selahs in the Psalms were probably the cue for a musical interlude. The Jewish. brother, If not the Gentile, would be inclined to ‘Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp!’ as Psa. 150 would instruct him. So, in giving his psalm to you in either his home or at the assembly he would likely accompany ft or intersperse it with melodious touches of the harp or the gentle sounds. of a lute.” 5

In reply to this, let me begin by showing the authority for congregational singing. Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 show that singing was for one another; a person speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs demands some kind of gathering. 1 Cor. 14:26 shows that singing was a part of the congregational worship of the church inasmuch as this entire chapter of 1 Corinthians was dealing with the congregational assembly. Brother Garrett is flagrantly in error when he wrote, “None of the scriptures about singing are related per se to the assembly. .: . .” Now, if Garrett believes that instrumental music meets God’s approval, we shall wait to see his proof. The proof from the word psalmos has been answered many times before. I remain appalled at how authoritatively our brother speaks regarding things which outstanding biblical scholars say cannot be positively known such as his comments on selah in the psalms.

After denying patternism, Garrett turned right around to assert a pattern of mutual ministry rather than having a preacher working with a congregation. He said,

“Conspicuously absent would be `the minister’ or `the pastor, a position that we have taken more from our religious neighbors than from the scriptures. The primitive churches were nourished by the elders or shepherds of the flock (Acts 20:28), while evangelists were out breaking new ground for the Lord.”6

Brother Garrett, you cannot have both ends of an either/or proposition. Either there are no patterns or there are. If there are no patterns as you said, the “pastor system” is not unscriptural. (For a refutation of Garrett’s anti-located preacher ideas, see the Humble Garrett Debate. )

Conclusion

Actually, my brethren, Leroy Garrett has the old denominational concept of the church as illustrated by this quotation:

“When I sit with the saints on Sunday morning in a typical ‘Church of Christ,’ my view of things is rather simple. These too are God’s people, I say to myself, They are my brothers and sisters and I love them. But in saying that I realize that God also has some children at the other churches in town, not because they’re Methodists or Baptists, but because they too have been saved by ‘the bath of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit’ (Tit. 3:5). Even if I am non-instrumental music by preference, I realize that the kingdom of God does not consist of such matters. And I allow no one to deceive me into believing that ‘we have restored the primitive church’ in the way we worship. I would have to smile at that, for in a lot of ways I know we haven’t, and that others have done better at this In some areas than we have.” 7

Garrett sees no differences in the churches of Christ and the denominations. This is the theological basis from which he advocates his mini-ecumenical movement. I know of no better passage to describe what has happened to Leroy Garrett than 1 Jn. 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.” Our position differs so radically from that of Leroy Garrett that I cannot understand how he continues to worship with the churches of Christ. Garrett thinks and acts more like the denominationalists than he thinks like us; I cannot understand why he does not go ahead and pitch his tent with them-unless it be that he is bent on taking us with him!

(Note: Once again the editor of Restoration Review attacked the errors of the churches of Christ. I cannot help wondering whether the Christian Church preachers abuse any scriptures! Surely when a man shoots only at those whom he calls his friends and never at the enemy, :someone must eventually ask, “Could this be a wolf in sheep’s clothing?” Indeed, Garrett is!)

Footnotes

1 Leroy Garret, “The Word Abused … The Sunday Morning Rip-Off,” Restoration Review, XVIII (October, 1975), p. 145.

2 Ibid., pp. 142, 145.

3 Garrett, op. sit., p. 143.

4 Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapists: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974 edition), pp. 363-364.

5 Garrett, op. sit. 6 Garrett, op. sit.

7 Garrett, op. sit., p. 146.

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 7-9
January 22, 1976

By H. L. Bruce

Bondage is mentioned in many ways in the Bible. The Christian is Christ’s servant. The union of marriage constitutes a bond. A servant of sin is described as a slave to sin, etc.

The word as used in 1 Cor. 7:15, merits considerable study and inquiry. What is the bondage under consideration? Bro. R.L. Whiteside thought that the marriage bond was the indication. Consequently, he reasoned, the person under consideration who was not under bondage when the unbelieving companion left him because of his faith, was as free as if he had never been married. As a result, the party thus abandoned was at liberty to remarry (see The Gospel Advocate, Nov. 11, 1937).

In 1947, in the Houston Lectures, bro. Roy Lanier, Sr. concluded that the bondage was a personal one in which the unbelieving would subject the believer. He said, “If the unbeliever makes such unreasonable demands, let him depart rather than be in such bondage to him; such bondage we owe only to the Lord” (Houston Lectures, page 37).

Yet another view was expressed by brother Harvey Floyd. Bro. Floyd’s view is that the Christian, when placed in the dilemma of either renouncing Christ to satisfy his companion or loosing her, that he has two alternatives. If he renounces Christ, he is in bondage to sin. If he remains faithful to Christ, at the expense of losing his companion, he is free from said sin. Consequently, he is not under bondage to sin on the one hand, on the other, he would be! Therefore, the Christian’s obvious alternatives would be either to be in bondage in sin or, to be in no bondage to sin in the service to Christ (see Spiritual Sword, Vol. 6, no. 2).

Still another view was expressed by bro. Maurice Barnett in the following, “The point Paul makes is verse 15 then is that if the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the believer, because of their faith, then the believer is not obligated from God to fulfil their responsibilities toward their spouse. The subject is one of whether they are to serve the other, not of whether they are `bound’ or not. They are released from marital RESPONSIBILITIES” in such cases.” (The Pear Ridge Bulletin, Vol. 1, no. 22, May 29, 1963).

I believe that all admit that the word “bondage” is the key word to an accurate understanding of the text. If the bondage is marital bondage then the marriage bond is loosed. If, however, it is some other bond, it is quite dangerous to apply it to the marriage bond, and even more so to say that one is authorized to contract another marriage. As a matter of fact even if the marriage bond is thus spoken of as broken, where is the passage which authorizes the person thus released to precipitate another union during the lifetime of the previous mate.

The word “bondage” as here used is a very interesting word. It .comes from the word “douloo” which Thayer defines to “make a slave of-reduce to bondage-to subject to.” (page 158). Please note how it is used in some other texts: “. . . they should bring them into bondage. . .” (Acts 7:6); “. . . ye became the servants of righteousness . .” (Rom. 6:18); “. . . and became servants of God, ye have . . .” (Rom. 6:22); “. . . I brought myself under bondage to all . . .” (1 Cor. 9:19); . . . were held in bondage under the rudiments . . . (Gal. 4:3); “. . . not enslaved to much wine . . . .” (Tit. 2:3); “. . . of the same is he brought into bondage . . . ” (2 Pet. 2:19).

The word “bondage” in verse 15, is not of the same design and strength as the word “bound” in verse 39. Here the apostle says, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” In this text the word “deo” is the word for “bound”. It means to “bind or tie together . . .” “to bind-to fasten with chains” (See Thayer, p. 131). It is used in this connection in: “. . . except he first bind the strong man. . .” (Matt. 12:29); “. . . bind them in bundles to burn . . ” (Matt. 13:30); “. . . Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:19); “. . . the Jews took Jesus and bound him. . .” (Jno. 18:12); . . . which hath an husband is bound by. . .” (Rom. 7:2). “. . . . Art thou bound unto a wife? . . .” (1 Cor. 7:27). (see The Pear Ridge Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 22).

Many other passages of scripture could be brought forth to help in further indication of the obvious contrast. But these are sufficient. The word “bound” in verse 39 is speaking of a “tie”. The word “bondage” in verse 15 indicates’ servitude. The person escapes the servitude unto which he would be subjected if he would cling to an unbelieving companion to the forfeiture of his faith. Yet to say that one is free to contract another marriage is to extend privileges not contained in the text. The person is free in Christ. He is free from the servitude of sin in his decision to serve Christ. He is free from servitude that would otherwise be involved in relinquishing his faith in pursuit of an unbelieving companion. However to state that he is completely released from his marriage and at liberty to take another mate is to take a position not merited in 1 Cor. 7:15. (Next week: Aliens, Adultery, and Alternatives.)

Truth Magazine, XX:4, p. 6
January 22, 1976