Truth Magazine

By Donald P Ames

According to the Post-Tribune (Gary, Ind. 8-6-76), a 1,000 year old, 4-1 / 2 foot, 263 pound, bronze “god” of the Hindus turned out to be a -fake and a fraud. The “god,” Siva, is the third in their trinity, and is supposed to be their god of dancing and creativity in the fine arts. The 4-armed idol was originally discovered in 1952 and placed in the temple to be worshiped by millions of Hindus. In 1954, it was sent to a restorer for treatment, and that is where the trouble began. Somehow a switch was made, and it was not until 1958 that they discovered they were worshiping a modern replica instead and that the original idol had disappeared. A search was launched, involving even the international police; now it has finally been found here in America, where the legal owner, having paid $900,000 for it after it passed through several previous owners, has been granted permission to display it until 1985 before returning it to their temple in India.

Reading the news item, I could not help wondering what must have been the reaction of those millions of Hindus who have bowed down to, prayed to and offered incense to the fake idol from 1954 to 1958, only to discover that it was not the real thing but a fake. It must have been a big disappointment to learn that it could not help their dancing skills despite the fact they had been convinced it could. I wondered how many might have even returned to thank it for the help they assumed they had received from it, before learning it was a fake. No doubt many were firmly convinced it had helped them before the exposure was made known.

Meanwhile, the real Siva idol was being passed through various hands and being bartered over like an old clay jug dug up in the tenth century ruins. No doubt this “god” resented (?) such actions, and those who had sold it into such. I wonder if it expressed such displeasure as God did in I Sam. 5? And imagine the displeasure it must have felt toward the Hindus for bowing down to a dumb modern replica and thinking it was as good it the real idol! I wonder if it reached out via prophets and warned them to repent, as God did with Jonah? I also wonder how the Hindus got along without this idol before 1952, and after 1954. I wonder if they ever noticed any differences?

Of course we know that such idolatry is without true knowledge. And we may feel sorry for those who have not learned “they have no knowledge, who carry about their wooden idol, and pray to a god who cannot save” (Isa. 45:20). We also know the modern replica was as capable of granting their wishes as the original-and that neither could do anything, since the image was formed by the heart and imagination of men. But, let us also remember it is our responsibility to tell them so. It is our responsibility to lead them (and others) from such idolatry and back to the true and loving God (Acts 17:24-31). And so, before we chuckle over such lack of understanding today, let us ask ourselves what we have done to teach them the truth on the matter. Yes, we need to hang our heads in shame!

But, it might be good for us to note that we have people who are pursuing idolatry just as strongly here in America. They are busy serving such to the very best of their ability, and some are even so hypocritical as to profess to also be followers of Christ as well. Paul says in Col., 3:5 that greed is idolatry, and serving such is just as “foolish” as those who bow in worship before a bronze “god” (1 John 2:15-17). 1 pray we may not convert these Hindus from one form of idolatry to another, but might succeed in leading all idolaters back to the true and living God-and we might best begin by working on those “heathens” right here at home!

Yes, sometimes “foolishness” is in the eye of the beholder! Are YOU worshipping the wrong “god”?

Truth Magazine XX: 48, pp. 759-760
December 2, 1976

By Johnny Stringer

There are hundreds of denominational organizations in the world today. One group of congregations is organized into one denomination, while another group of congregations is organized into another denomination. Each denomination has its own doctrines, its own headquarters or governing body, and its own brand name. They are all different, yet they all claim to be following the same Christ!

Denominationalism-Unscriptural

Such a situation as is described above cannot be found on the pages of the New Testament. There is quite a contrast between the church as it is described in God’s word, and the denominationalism that prevails today.

The word “church” in the New Testament is used in reference to the saved–God’s people. This usage is obvious from a consideration of the passages in which the term is found (Acts 2:47, 8:3, 11:26, 1 Cor. 1:2). Sometimes it refers to the saved universally-that is, without reference to locality (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23). Other times it refers to the saved in a particular locality who banded together to worship and work as a unit. Thus, we read of the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), the church at Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1), various local churches in the province of Galatia (Gal. 1:2), various churches which sent wages to Paul (2 Cor. 11:8), and a number of local churches which saluted the Romans (Rom. 16:16). Today, such local churches are commonly referred to as congregations.

It is important to note that no local church in the New Testament was apart of any denominational organization. Rather, each one was absolutely independent, for the only oversight was on a local level. Each local church had its own overseers, called elders (Acts 14:23, 20:17, 28, 1 Pet. 5:1-3). We do not read in the New Testament of any human oversight over a local church other than its own elders; thus, having no outside human authority over it, each local church was independent to direct its own affairs and was not a part of any organizational structure such as prevails in modern denominationalism.

In the New Testament we do not read about some congregations being organized into one sect while another group of churches was organized into another sect. Rather than finding denominational organizations, we simply find independent local churches, which formed when Christians in the same localities banded together to worship and to perform the work which God assigned the local churches. There was no such thing as one man’s being one brand of a Christian because he was in one sect, and another man’s being another brand of a Christian because he was in another sect; all were simply Christians.

The local church of which this writer is a part is not affiliated with any denominational organization. We have no ties with any denomination. We wear no sectarian brand names-we are simply Christians. We are merely an independent group of Christians who have banded together to form a local church, just as the Christians of the first century did. We follow the dictates of no ecclesiastical council, we adhere to no human creed book. We simply make an earnest effort to follow the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and to abide in the teaching of Christ (2 John 9). Like the local churches in the New Testament, we are a church of God (1 Cor. 1:2)-that is, one of God’s churches, a church belonging to God; we are also a church of Christ (Rom. 16:16)-that is, one of Christ’s churches, a church belonging to Christ.

“Church of Christ”-A Denominational Name?

Christ did not give His church any one official name. Men in human denominations must give their denomination its own official name in order to distinguish it from other denominations. The local church of which I am a part, however, does not belong to any such organization, hence wears no such denominational name.

Some mistakenly believe that the congregation of which I am a part is one member of a network of congregations which all together make up “The Church of Christ,” and that we call ourselves a church of Christ because that is the official name worn by all member congregations in that network. This is not so. We are an independent group of Christians, not tied to any denominational structure with a denominational name. We do not regard “The Church of Christ” as our exclusive official name. The phrase “church of Christ” simply describes what we are a local church belonging to Christ (Rom. 16:16). We are a church of God (1 Cor. 1:2) just as certainly as we are a church of Christ. I refer to us in both ways. I also refer to us as the Lord’s church; this is an accurate, scriptural description, for the meaning is the same as that of the phrase “church of Christ.”

When I use the phrase “church of Christ” in reference to the church universally, I do not refer to a denominational structure bearing that official name; I refer simply to the saved, the people of God. I call the saved the church of Christ, not because that is their exclusive official name, but because they belong to Christ (Matt. 16:18). I also call them the church of God, the Lord’s church, God’s people, the household of God, the body of Christ, etc. These are not official names, but scriptural descriptions.

While knowledgeable brethren understand this, it is difficult to get denominational friends and neighbors to understand it. Since most all of the Lord’s local churches use the designation “church of Christ” as the one they put on the sign in front of their building and the one they use in their advertising and business transactions, it is not surprising that denominational people think these churches compose a denominational structure called “The Church of Christ.” It is understandable that they think that all these congregations would not wear the same name if they were not member churches of a denomination by that name. They do not understand that each congregation is independent, and that the decision regarding what to paint on the sign is made independently by each congregation. Knowledgeable brethren know that a congregation could scripturally paint something else on their sign, but all congregations known to me have chosen to use the description found in Rom. 16:16. There are two congregations in the town in which I live which have “Church of Christ” painted on their signs. This does not mean, however ‘that these two congregations belong to the same denominational structure. In fact, there are no organizational ties between them, and these congregations are as different as daylight and dark.

Campbellites?

Some people think that congregations commonly known as churches of Christ constitute a denomination started by Alexander Campbell. This is false. I am in no organization founded by Alexander Campbell. I was baptized into Christ for the remission of my sins (Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:27). This made me nothing but a Christian. It did not make me a Campbellite any more than it made people of the first century Campbellites when they did it. I have attached myself to an independent group of Christians who have formed a local congregation like the ones we read about in the Bible. My affiliation with this local church does not make me a Campbellite any more than Crispus’ affiliation with the local church at Corinth made him a Campbellite. Christians today are in no organization which Alexander Campbell started and we teach no doctrine which originated with him. In fact, we disagree with him on some matters.

Teaching on this Subject

In teaching men and women the gospel, we must strive to show them the truth regarding denominationalism and the Lord’s church. We must not give them the impression that we want them to leave one denomination and come into another denomination because it is better, We should stress that they should obey the gospel to be saved, and that they will then be in the Lord’s church. We should teach them that after they have obeyed the gospel, hence become a part of God’s church; they should attach themselves to some local church of the Lord, as is taught in the New Testament. We should stress that they ought to be extremely cautious in choosing a local church to become a part of. They should be certain that it has no organizational ties with any denominational body; such ties are unscriptural and sinful. They should be certain that it is composed of those who have met God’s conditions for becoming Christians; some independent congregations are not composed of people who have complied with those conditions. They must be certain that it is strictly adhering to the scriptures in all its activities.

Truth Magazine XX: 48, pp. 758-759
December 2, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Previously we studied various cases of conversion. We studied about the fiery persecutor of the church in Jerusalem, Saul of Tarsus, later called Paul the Apostle. We have considered the salvation of the Ethiopian nobleman on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. We have traveled with Paul over to Philippi to witness, by divine revelation, the transformation of a business woman from Thyatira, named Lydia. We have gone to Caesarea to witness the redemption of a subordinate officer in the Roman army, Cornelius by name, the first Gentile convert. Last week we stopped in Jerusalem to see what the three thousand did to become Christians. Thus we have studied the cases of conversion of individuals in various places and occupations.

This week we want to study a rather sad case-a case of n on -conversion. Not all the sermons preached by the apostles received the desired results. For that matter, not all the instructions given by our Lord were obeyed by His hearers. In every instance in which one comes face to face with the teaching of God, there are but two alternatives. When one understands the teachings of the Word of God, he may either accept them or disobey them. There is no middle ground. The Bible impartially records instances in which individuals accepted the teaching and obeyed it, but it equally as plainly sets forth the account of those people who rejected the Word. Theirs was a case of non-conversion.

Felix Before the Gospel Came

Felix was a Roman Procurator at the time that the apostle Paul came before him for his judgment as to an accusation made against him by the Jews. The Bible tells us little of the background of this man, but historians have a great deal to say of him. With information taken primarily from Josephus, the Jewish historian, and from Tacitus, the usually impartial Roman recorder, we can see something of the character of the man, and why he was not converted. Felix, before he was appointed Governor of Judea, was one of the household slaves of Agrippina, the mother of Claudius then the reigning Emperor. He was a slave in a heathen court which was known for its lude and licentious living. This certainly was no place to develop a good character. He became a favorite of Claudius Caesar, and when Caesar became Emperor, he appointed Felix to the headship of one of the provinces in the empire.

His wife, Drusilla, is also mentioned in the Bible. Drusilla was previously the young and beautiful wife of Aziz, the king of Ernesa. But Aziz was king over a very insignificant kingdom, so with the offer of greater honor and power, Felix persuaded Drusilla to leave her rightful husband and become his wife.

We see another insight into the character oil Felix when we read the inspired statement that the reason Felix had called Paul before him was because he had hoped that Paul would give him money, or would try to bribe him into giving a favorable decision. Even after Felix said that Paul had deeply moved him and that he would call him unto him later, the Bible says that again and again he sent for Paul hoping to receive money from him (Acts 24:25-27).

So in order for Felix to have been converted, he would have had to make a tremendous change, which Felix was obviously not willing to do. He was reared in an heathen home, married to an adulteress, and seeking to better himself by bribery. He was not willing to make the change necessary to becoming a Christian. Hence Paul’s preaching did not convert Felix.

God’s Attempt to Save Felix

This man Felix was of such disposition that he would not go seeking to learn the truth, God’s terms of pardon. Yet God made a special concession to him in that even though Felix did not seek out the truth, yet in God’s benevolent providence, Felix did have opportunity to hear gospel preaching from the mouth of God’s servant, Paul. Paul had been maliciously treated by a mob who protested his preaching. Had it not been for the intervention of a Roman official, Claudius Lysias, with his soldiers, Paul would likely have been killed. This man who interceded in Paul’s behalf addressed Felix as follows: “Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix, greeting. This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain by them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him down unto their council: whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or bonds. And when it was shown to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to thee forthwith, charging his accusers also to speak against him before thee” (Acts 23:26-30).

The Bible reveals one of the reasons why Felix listened to Paul. There is no indication that it was with a sincere desire to learn the truth, but he expected Paul to pay for his release, but instead Paul preached a good gospel sermon to Felix and his wife, Drusilla. Possibly, also, Felix wanted to hear this man who was causing such a stir throughout the country. A lot of people will go out to hear some sensational preacher, not with the interest of learning what the Bible teaches, but to say, I have heard him preach. We have some denominational preachers today who travel far and wide whose audiences, though vast, are primarily composed of curiosity seekers, rather than seekers of truth.

Paul’s Sermon

What should Paul preach to his auditors, Felix and Drusilla, who held Paul’s hope for release? There are many subjects that Paul might have chosen upon which he could have gained their agreement. But preaching with Paul was never a matter of preaching materials; to him it was a matter of preaching to people. He intended to preach what these two people most needed. In beginning Paul denied the charges alleged against him, and challenged his accusers for proof. But he readily admitted that the source of the entire controversy was over his belief in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. The account reads: “Or else let these men themselves say what wrong-doing they found when I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day . . . But Felix, having more exact knowledge concerning the Way, deferred them, saying, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will determine your matter. And he gave order to the centurion that he should be kept in charge, and should have indulgence; and not to forbid any of his friends to minister unto him. But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his w1fe, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned of righteousness, and self-control, and the judgment to come Felix was terrified” (Acts 24:20,21,24-25).

Paul’s subject to these people consisted of three points. He spoke first of righteousness. The Bible defines righteousness in Ps. 119:172; “all thy commandments are righteousness.” To preach on righteousness to these people was to speak of the opposite of all things prevalent in their life. Felix, through a sorceror had persuaded Drusilla to leave her husband, and begin living with him. They must have considered Paul’s preaching insulting, and personal. When he spoke of self-control, he condemned them on many points. And the third point in Paul’s sermon was a projection into the future, at which time God would call them before his throne of justice to give account for all of their unrighteous and profligate living while here on the earth. Some preachers today do not believe in searing people into repentance. Some time ago I read where some church had asked a preacher to delete the word “hell” from his vocabulary. It sounded too uncouth, and unpleasant. But on another occasion Paul said, “Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11).

Effect of the Sermon

Notice the effect of the sermon: “Felix was terrified” (Acts 24:25). The King James Version reads, “Felix trembled.” This was the very effect that Paul intended his preaching to have on this sinful man. There are some people that cannot be moved to repentance but by the preaching of punishments of a hell of fire and brimstone. On other occasions Paul said, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God” (Heb. 10:31), and “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). This occasion when Felix was terrified by righteous preaching is about the only statement worthy of commendation in Felix’s behalf. When he reflected on his past life, he well knew he had ample reason to be in terror. There is not a sinner on this earth but that would be terrified by what God has in store for him if we Could really make him believe there is a God who will punish him in hell for eternity because of his sin.

Felix’s Fatal Mistake

While Felix should rightly be in terror, his fatal mistake was in his manner of responding to the righteous demands of gospel preaching. He said to Paul. “Go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call thee unto me” (Acts 24:25). He could see what was implied by Paul’s preaching. Perhaps he thought of the woman at his side whom he could not rightly have as his wife. She could not easily and conveniently be put away; so instead he put away the preacher. Think of the thousands of people, who through sin have gotten themselves entangled in alliances, marriage, business, and otherwise, who unserstand the gospel demands, but find it inconvenient at the present time to do what is required.

When is a convenient season to put away sin? Will such a time ever come when one can easily turn aside from that which is wrong? It takes a person who is willing to put God ahead of everything else in this world to rightly obey the gospel. It takes sacrifice. And if you are waiting for a time in your life when you no longer will find it necessary to give up anything to become a Christian, you are waiting in vain!

This is the last time the Bible mentions Felix. So far as we know he died waiting for a convenient season; thousands of others have and will do likewise. His fatal mistake was in putting off doing what he understood God demanded of him. It was not that he could not grasp the import of gospel teaching, but he was not willing to obey it just then. It required giving up too much.

We have been, and shall continue to study cases of conversion. Regardless of how much you may learn that you should do, if you like Felix, put if off until a convenient season, your’s also will be a case of nonconversion rather than conversion. When is the acceptable season for obeying the gospel? Paul said, “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). Please do not gamble until tomorrow the most priceless possession you will ever have entrusted to your care, your soul, lest you like Felix put away the only opportunity you ever have.

Truth Magazine XX: 48, pp. 755-757
December 2, 1976

By Keith Clayton

If one were to peruse the classified ad section of his local newspaper, he would find a section entitled “Situations Wanted.” This writer can certainly think of many situations listed in that column that a Christian should have no part of. In reverse, I can think of some situations that a Christian should desire.

A Christian man should desire the companionship of a mature Christian woman who knows and practices the duties and responsibilities God has given her. There are few things worse than a woman who is continually remiss in her domestic duties. The situation of a mother not mothering and a wife not caring for her husband is one of the more unprofitable circumstances to which a man could be confined. The woman who does not live according to God’s word is a stumbling block to her kindred’s spiritual development; therefore, single Christian men should seek a single Christian woman who shows her faith by her works.

Wives should be domestically oriented, taking heed to the workings of the household and being responsible for the domain God has given her. “Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach” (1 Timothy 5:14). The wife of a Christian is to “keep house” and not be given to running around town, neglecting her duty to keep the house in order. Thus, no one can bring reproach upon her or the household she is supposed to maintain. God has given the wife this important responsibility to fulfill to the best of her ability, as to the Lord.

Another duty of the Christian wife is to love her husband and help him improve himself in all seemingly good aspects of life, even inspire him to a more fruitful life,”. . . that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands . . .” (Titus 2:4). Wives are to love their husbands. This is a commandment from the Lord that should not be received lightly. It is sometimes difficult for women to love us error-prone men, yet Scriptures list loving imperfect men as a godly duty for the woman. That implies abiding love needs to be continually nourished, lest it wane. Love can, and does, languish if not viewed as a God-given duty. This love should motivate a wife to seek the improvement of her husband’s well being before the Lord. “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior” (1 Peter 3:1-2). It may be difficult to love an ungodly husband, but God expects the woman to love him and the Lord. Thus, she can improve her husband by the righteous example she lives, a model life, derived from the love she has for God and her husband. A husband with such a wife could possibly be inspired to a more fruitful, faithful life.

A Christian man should seek a woman who will pledge her fidelity to only him, until death do they part. In Hebrews, chapter thirteen, we are told by the inspired writer that only the marriage bed is held in honor. Infidelity transgresses God’s law and defiles the marriage relationship. A woman who is loose with her favors is an adulteress and a fornicator, which things God will give just recompense. Purity is not optional; it is a prerequisite for righteous living in Christ.

A very important, godly duty is that of the woman’s bearing children. So many times this writer hears such comments as, “Having children will limit our freedom,” “I am afraid I will not be able to rear them properly” or “Children make me too nervous.” The word of God does not allow optional child bearing; indeed, from the time of Eve women have borne children. “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint” (1 Timothy 2:14-15). If a woman is capable of bearing children, then she must give birth to her lawful husband’s children, in order to be pleasing to God.

Men need to be more careful in choosing a marriage partner because of the situations a man can find himself in if he is not more discerning about the “help meet” he chooses. Christian men must realize that a Christian woman who knows and practices her God-given duties is an asset in a marriage. Care in the selection of a wife will pay many dividends in the years you spend with your chosen partner. You will appreciate God’s plan for the family, and you will discover it is much easier to love, praise and cherish a godly woman. “An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. Her children rise up and bless her; her husband also, and he praises her saying: many daughters have done nobly, but you excel them all” (Proverbs 31:10-11, 28-29).

Truth Magazine XX: 49, p. 754
December 2, 1976