Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

In the July, 1973, issue of mission messenger, edited by W. Carl Ketcherside, there is an article by F. L. Lemley entitled “The Alternatives.,” In this article Lemley maintains that we are not required to follow the scriptural pattern regarding. such matters as the organization, work, and worship of the church.

Says Bible is Unclear

Lemley blasphemously charges God with giving a revelation that is so unclear that we cannot understand it and apply it., He argues that since “all scripture must be interpreted,” different interpretations will arise and “we should long ago have made room for them.” The fact that the scriptures are not clear, he says, is proved by the fact that even “our Ph. D’s” err, as is demonstrated by the fact that they disagree. “If the pattern is all that clear,” Lemley asks, “why the discussion?” He then affirms that “if the pattern is clear surely the Ph. D’s ought to be able to agree on it . . .”

The fact that the educated men differ, Lemley assumes, is because the revelation is not clear. He then concludes that if the message is so unclear on certain points that even Ph. D.’s disagree on those points, we should not take such a strong stand on those matters.

But think: Ph. D.’s differ on such matters as the existence of God, the divine origin of the scriptures, and the necessity of baptism. According to Lemley’s reasoning, the fact that Ph. D.’s differ on these matters proves that the evidence concerning these matters is not clear and we should not take a strong stand on them. Will he accept this conclusion? It is the logical result of his reasoning, and if he rejects it he is inconsistent.

Of course, Brother Lemley’s position is not new. He is simply parroting the denominationalists who have long asserted that “we cannot all understand the Bible alike” and “everyone has a right to his own interpretation.” The refutation of Lemley’s contention, therefore, is the same as the reply that brethren have long been giving the denominationalists: (1) To say that the revelation of God cannot be understood is a reflection upon God-it is to say that God is at fault for our divisions because He gave us an inadequate revelation; (2) We are commanded to understand God’s will (Eph. 5:17), and God does not command us to do anything that we are unable to do; (3) If we cannot understand the Bible, then why did God give it to us? It is utterly useless if it cannot be understood.

“Fatal” Errors Vs. “Unimportant” Ones

Lemley goes on in the article to say that only certain mistakes are fatal, while others are “of little importance” and “innocuous.” He then says, “Now the question arises, ‘Who is to decide which truths or doctrines are indispensable, and which mistakes are fatal” Lemley evidently thinks that the one to make that decision is Lemley, for he then presumes to issue his authoritative pronouncements regarding just which mistakes are important. I suppose he figures that someone has to sit in judgment upon God’s word and decide just which parts of it are really important, so it might as well be him.

Thus, he offers some “guidelines,” saying that a mistake is fatal if it: (1) “contradicts the nature of God,” (2) “destroys faith in or discredits the work of Jesus as the Messiah and Savior,” or (3) “leads to immorality.”

For the second guideline he gives 2 Tim. 2:17 and 2 John 9-11 as scriptural references. For the third guideline, regarding immorality, he gives 1 Cor. 5. But does he not consider the fact that he has to interpret these passagess? He is grossly inconsistent when he uses scriptures to prove a point, for he has already said that since scriptures have to be interpreted we cannot be certain about their meaning. If Lemley is correct, we cannot know that immorality is a “fatal” sin, for I Cor. 5 and all other passages dealing with immorality have to be interpreted-and someone might not interpret them the same way as Lemley does! If Lemley can be so broad-minded as to make room for differing interpretations on the organization of the church, then why not allow for such differences on immorality. His inconsistency glares. The scriptures that pertain to church organization are just as clear as those that pertain to immorality (Acts 20:17, 28; 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

False Concept of Grace

Lemley then charges that those who insist upon strict adherence to the divine pattern are guilty of legalism and “allow no grace whatsoever.” Legalism has grown to be a dirty word in the eyes of many, and it is quite often used against those who love the truth. The popular idea seems to be that if you cannot refute the scriptural arguments a man presents, then the thing to do is to call him a legalist for invoking the scriptures-that’ll take care of him!

The concept that adhering to the scriptural pattern does not allow for grace is one of the absurdities that is gaining an ever increasing degree of acceptance among brethren today. Everyone who reaches heaven will be there because of the grace of God. This is because we all sin (Rom. 3:9-10, 23) and therefore deserve to go to hell, not heaven. But by God’s grace we can be forgiven of our sins so that we will not have to be punished for them.

God will graciously forgive us, however, only if we meet His conditions. Peter sets forth the conditions of forgiveness for non-Christians (Acts 2:38) and for the Christian who sins (Acts 8:22). Whether one is a Christian or a non-Christian, repentance is a necessary condition for forgiveness; thus, salvation by grace does not mean that one can persist in sin and expect God to overlook those sins. Whether it is a sin of immorality or the sin of ignoring the scriptural teaching regarding the organization of the church, it must be repented of if it is to be graciously forgiven.

The fact that we must adhere to the scriptural pattern (2 Tim. 3:16-17) does not nullify grace; for regardless of how conscientiously brethren follow the scriptural teaching in worship and in the work and organization of the church, they still have not lived sinlessly and must be forgiven of their shortcomings by God’s grace upon compliance with His conditions of pardon. Thus, to say that adhering to the divine pattern on these matters does not allow any grace is utterly ridiculous.

Furthermore, I cannot understand why it is that adhering to scriptural teaching that pertains to church organization nullifies grace, while adhering to scriptural teaching regarding immorality does not. Yet, Brother Lemley says that immorality is a “fatal mistake.” In Lemley’s view, evidently, grace takes care of some sins which are persisted in, but not others; and Lemley has presumed to decree which sins grace will overlook and which ones it won’t. The scriptures, however, do not indicate that grace will overlook any sin of any type that is unrepented of.

Brethren, do not be deceived by those who would lead vou to believe that God will overlook the sin of ignoring His teaching regarding the organization of the church-or anything else.

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 726-727
November 18, 1976

By Cecil Willis

This week we want to study the conversion of the woman, Lydia, found in Acts 16:5-15. This woman, Lydia, was a remarkable person. She has some very outstanding traits, which we must understand if we are to properly understand what follows. “And on the sabbath day we (that is, Paul, Silas and Luke) went forth without the gate by a river side, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down, and spake unto the women that were come together. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped God, heard us” (Acts 16:13, 14).

Paul and Silas were now in the city of Philippi. You will remember that Paul was now on his second great evangelistic tour. They had preached over the greater portion of Asia Minor, and now, by the direction of the Lord they had been brought over into the district of Macedonia, unto the city of Philippi. They had come there to preach, and when they arrived, they began seeking out those that might be receptive to their message of the gospel. So they went down to the riverside where there was a place of prayer, and there they met this woman, Lydia. Philippi, though, was not the home of Lydia. She was on a business trip, as we would say it. Actually, her home was in the city of Thyatira. “Thyatira, the home of Lydia, was a city of proconsular Asia (Rev. 1:11), situated on its northern border; and Paul’s company, in ‘passing by Mysia’ on their way to Troas, had probably passed near it. It was noted for the excellence of its purple dyes, and it is still a pleasantly situated town of about ten thousand inhabitants” (McGravey, Commentary on Acts, pg. 88). Lydia was on a business tour and had come over to Philippi to sell some of her goods. Her hometown, Thyatira, was almost three hundred miles away.

You will notice that the text says that she was a seller of “purple.” Purple, was not a material or a certain kind of cloth, but it was a dye. So expensive was the dye, that only the very best qualities of materials were dyed purple, and so instead of wearing the name of the material, the goods wore the name of the dye put in them. Rich kings were often described as being “wearers of purple.” In considering the very expensive product which she sold, the probability is that Lydia was at least comfortably fixed financially.

The outstanding trait of her character is that she was a faithful worshiper of God, as best she knew how. It is not often that one finds a successful, or wealthy business person that is a faithful servant of God. One frequently will find businessmen who attend the services of some church thinking that it might better their business prospects, but not very many of them are truly devoted to the Lord. But here we find this businesswoman, Lydia, in a city almost three hundred miles away from her home, and when the Sabbath day came, she put aside her business cares and went down by the riverside to pray. It was while she was by the side of the river praying that the apostle Paul, came to her with the message of God.

There are several incidentals regarding the conversion of this woman which has been used improperly to try to prove some doctrines that are not true. But before we notice some outstanding examples of this, let us call attention to one other point.

In this present series of studies, we have looked at what the Bible says about the conversion of Paul the Apostle, the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius the Gentile convert, and now of Lydia. If you will think back over the record of each of these individuals, you will remember that they were worshipers of God according to some manner before their conversion. In other words, they were religious people, yet unsaved people. Yet, in most cities, there are many, many preachers who will tell you that it does not matter how you worship, just so long as you worship God, yet here we have four Bible examples of where either men or women worshiped God, yet were not saved. If Lydia was alright in the eyes of God, why did Paul preach to her? There would have been nothing he could have told her if she was already doing what God would have her do. To worship God is not enough. It must be worship of God as He has commanded. You must worship as He said do it, or else it will be in vain.

The Lord Opened Lydia’s Heart

Many have misunderstood, and misapplied the teaching of Luke concerning the opening of the heart of Lydia by the Lord. The passage says, “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Our problem is, “What does the expression, the Lord opened Lydia’s heart mean?” Does it mean what denominationalists say it means? They teach that one is so totally depraved that he cannot even so much as listen to the preaching of the gospel until there has been some miracle wrought upon his heart to open it in order that he might give heed to what is spoken. But this passage not only does not teach this; it denies it. Before any mention is made of the opening of the heart of Lydia by the Lord, she is said to have heard the preaching of the apostle. The opening of the heart of the woman was not to make her in such a condition so as to be able to hear the preaching of the Word, for she heard the preaching before her heart was opened.

Well, what does it mean to open her heart? “The statement that the Lord opened Lydia’s heart implies that previously her heart was in some way closed. It was certainly not closed by the hardness of a sinful life, or by inherited depravity; for such a supposition is forbidden by the steadfastness with which, under great temptation, she had previously clung to the worship of God. It was closed in the sense in which the pious and earnest heart of a Jewish worshiper might be closed. Every Jew, and every Jewish proselyte, was at that time so wedded to the belief that the coming of Christ would establish an earthly kingdom, as to have the heart very tightly closed against the conception of a crucified Christ, whose reign as a king is purely spiritual. It was this that had caused the mass of the Jews to reject the Christ while he was still on earth, and it continued to be their ‘stumbling block’ (Jn. 5:44; 1 Cor. 1:23). Whether Lydia was a Jewess or a proselyte, this was ‘the home of Israel’ in which she had been instructed, and for which she had been taught to devoutly pray; and if the natural effect of it had not been removed from her heart, she must have rejected the gospel, as did the mass of those who bad been her teachers. The statement then that the Lord ‘opened her heart’ means that he removed this mistaken conception which would have prevented her from receiving Christ” (McGarvey, Commentary on Acts, pg. 90, 91). It simply means that the mistaken view that she had of Christ was taken away, so that she might receive him as Savior, and thereby be saved. The reason for her heart’s being opened, or cleared of mistaken conceptions of Christ was in order that she might “give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul” (verse 14).

Not only have men been mistaken as to what was meant when the Bible says that the Lord opened her heart, but they have been mislead as to how the Lord opened her heart. This instance is often used to show how the Lord must perform some direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the sinner in order that the sinner might hear the gospel sermon, but this is not what happened here. Truly, the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, but it was done through the word of this great preacher. If you will remember, Paul had been concentrating his efforts in preaching to Asia Minor, and had made no preparation to go over into Macedonia where Lydia was at the time, but the Lord sent him to Macedonia. “And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not; and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: There was a man of Macedonia standing, beseeching him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. And when he had seen the vision, straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them” (Acts 16:6-10). So you see, Paul had not intended to go into Macedonia to preach, and therefore would not have contacted this notable woman, Lydia, but the Lord Jesus sent him there. It was by the work of the Lord that the preacher was instructed as to where to go preach, and consequently, it was the Lord that opened Lydia’s heart, through his chosen and sent messenger, the apostle Paul.

Our purpose in studying this case of conversion is to learn all that we can that pertains to one’s conversion today. Notice, this woman did the same things that every person who becomes a Christian today must do. Upon hearing the word of Paul, she must have believed them, even though it is not so stated, for she obeyed what he commanded. Certainly she would not have obeyed the commands that he gave had she not believed what he said. Second, she repented. In studying the important subject of repentance, it was seen that to-repent simply means to change one’s mind. It is a change of mind preceded by godly sorrow, and followed by a reformation of life. She must have repented also, for she changed her mind about living the life as did the Jew, and consequently she changed her action. She quit being a Jewish worshiper, and became a Christian. Then thirdly, she obeyed the gospel by being baptized. The Scripture says, “and when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there” (Acts 16:15). She did three things. She believed, she repented, and she was baptized. This is exactly the same thing that you and I must do in order to be saved from the sins of our past lives. If you are not willing to do these things, you do not have enough faith to be saved by obedience.

Lydia’s Household

But there is another matter with which we must concern ourselves for the remainder of our time this week. It is also related to the conversion of Lydia, and it is also a point on which many people are confused, and many more deceived. Verse 15 says, “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us saying This passage says that Lydia and her household were baptized. There are many denominations who practice “baptizing” of infants, or at least they sprinkle babies. When called upon for proof for their action, they will cite this instance, and one or two other similar ones, in which a household is said to have been baptized, and they surmize from it, that therefore there must have been some babies baptized. It should be apparent from the very outset that this argument from this instance seeking to justify infant baptism is based wholly upon conjecture. The Bible says absolutely nothing about infants in this household.

In fact, one might have a household comprised wholly of servants or helpers, and Lydia might well have had this inasmuch as she was a business woman. We do not even know that she was married. Furthermore if she was married, we do not know that she had children. This must also be supposed to justify infant baptism. One must also assume that she had them with her. Remember, Philippi was not Lydia’s home, but a city almost three hundred miles away was her home, a city called Thyatira. It is hard to conceive a woman’s carrying an infant or several small children three hundred miles while on a business trip. But not only must one suppose that this woman was married, had children, had them with her, he must also assume that these children were infants. So you see, any argument drawn from this text seeking to prove that there were infants baptized in this household has to be read into the text. It says absolutely nothing about any infants. Men are very hard pressed when they make such an unfounded argument. The Bible plainly teaches that only penitent believers are fit subjects for baptism, and an infant can be neither a penitent, nor a believer. It cannot be penitent, for it had done no sin of which it needs to repent, and it cannot be a believer, for it has not yet acquired the mental strength to examine the testimony, and yield mental assent to the propositions stated in the word.

This conversion of Lydia, is but another instance in which God sent a preacher to preach to an individual, the preacher preached, the sinner believed and obeyed the commands sent of God by this messenger. You too can be saved by obeying the gospel. Resolve to do it immediately.

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 723-725
November 18, 1976

By George Welsh Tyler

The congregations of the churches of Christ need not only the enlargement resulting from evangelism, but also the edification resulting from Christian nuture in truth. They cannot grow in one direction alone. They must grow both within and without. They must reach out to win the unsaved to the Lord Jesus Christ, and also edify those who have found salvation through the Son of God. They cannot afford to sacrifice either of these important tasks in the interest of the other. Both of them are plainly included in the Great Commission which Christ gave His disciples.

Both the vision and the zeal of the local congregation are indicated in a large measure by the type of evangelistic program which it adopts and carries on, according to its resources and ability. What a pity it is when a church with five talents performs like one with only two! It is a terrible tragedy when congregations bury the talent which the Lord expects them to use to the best of their ability. No church can expect to really prosper when it neglects using all the talents which He has placed at its disposal. Too, no congregation can expect to find life if its attention is directly, solely and selfishly centered upon itself, and especially on the progress and prosperity of its material organization. I once heard an elder of a congregation say, “We will have to get in some new members, with money, to help us pay off our church debt.” This is far different from the Spirit of Christ who told His disciples to evangefize in order that men might be saved! No church which tries sincerely to carry on the Lord’s program of evangelism will find itself without the blessing of the Lord, no matter bow difficult to carry on its work. Neither churches nor individual members will receive a real blessing from the Lord if they neglect the Lord’s program of evangelizing regardless of how prosperous they are from the worldly viewpoint. It is ‘Evangelize a n d Edify ” or die.

It is very unfortunate that many new born Christians are immediately neglected after they have been won to Christ Jesus as Lord. It is no wonder that there is a “falling away” of many! Brethren, the obligation of the church is Dot fulfilled when a convert has been buried with his Lord in baptism. He must be taught to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” This includes working in the vineyard of the Lord. His character must be transformed, his understanding of ihe gospel enlarged and his attitudes brought into harniony with those of Christ. Paul wrote to the Corinthiali church, “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). Again, brethren, the work of edification, like that of evangelism, never ceases. When the convert has been trained to be an active worker in the church and given opportunity to use his talents for the Master and for the salvation of men, he is not going to become a lost convert-“a fallout.”

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 722
November 18, 1976

By Dennis C. Abernathy

There is an attitude among us today that is growing ever more prevalent. It is manifest by statements such as: “I don’t like to worship there, they are too critical.” “There is too much name-calling in their preaching.” “Just preach the truth and leave everybody alone.” Now just think about this for a moment. Is the truth ever critical? Yes, when applied to error. Was there any narne-calling done by the Lord and His apostles? Yes, when false teachers and their errors were rebuked and exposed. Can we preach the truth and let everybody alone? Yes, if we preach with flowing generalities and never apply it to the individual.

Now this attitude is against “hard preaching.” These loving brethren want to “love” folks into the church. Their idea of preaching is this: “If you are critical of some denominational doctrine, don’t come right out in the pulpit and say it-just allude to it somehow.” “If vou want to preach on immodest dress, or the hair question, don’t ever say that this is what the Bible says-just give your opinion of the subject.”

Friends and brethren this is a sick attitude. It is a compromise. It is weak. It leads to acceptance of error and the fellowshipping of anything that comes along. Let us wake up and be watchful!

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 722
November 18, 1976