Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

I think it likely that few, if any of jis, have the ability to examine our own motives and conduct with absolute fairness and honesty. Burns, the Scotcb poet, recognized this fact when be expressed the desire that we might have the gift to “see ourselves as others see us.” This might not be flattering, but I dare say it would make most of us more humble. However, the important thing is not so much how others see us, but how God sees us. And be sure that God sees us as we really are. A pious air and ontward show may conceal our sins from the multitudes for a time, but they are only a transparent veneer through which God sees a wretched hypocrite.

There are several reasons why it is difficult for us to examine ourselves without partiality. One is our inclination to measure ourselves by others. The man, for example, who lacks the moral courage to turn his back on the world and obey the gospel, can always find a convenient hypocrite to hide behind.

The unfaithful Christian who no longer finds happiness in the fellowship of the saints, and who finds church attendance boresome and tiring, can always find some brotber who beats his debts or takes a few drinks. Then he begins to look at all Christians through this shabby specimen and derides that church attendance can add nothing to his righteous life. If we must compare ourselves with others, why not pick the. best ones? This is seldom, if ever, done for two reasons. (1) It would not serve our purpose. (2) One who is sincere enough to make such a comparison as this would not long be out there with the devil’s goat. They are measuring themselves and comparing themselves among themselves.” and “are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).

Again we hesitate to sound the depths of our own souls because we fear the results. In this we are like the man who refuses to submit to physical examination, because he fears the diagnosis, as if refusing to face the truth could cure the disease. I am, convinced, from my own past experience, tbat many members of the church could not live with their consciences if they should, in all honesty and candor, search their own hearts in the light of truth. Man at his best cuts a sorry figure when measured by God’s standard of righteousness. And man is seldom at his best.

Once more, we shrink back from an impartial self-examination because of our pride in our own strength. Human vanity is a powerful influence. It takes more spiritual and moral courage than some people can ever muster to say, “I was wrong.” However if we but knew it, man is never really strong until his strength gives way to the strength that comes from above . .. . . . for my strepgtb is macle perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Cbrist may rest upon me. Therefore, I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:9-10).

Truth Magazine XX: 44, p. 690
November 4, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From the Republic of the Philippines: First of all let me state the following; Division in the churches of Christ, originated in your country (&.S.A.). The issues are purely American principles. I mean, as far as I know, the churches of Christ in the United States are the only ones who are practicing these issues, the church’s money, how it is to be used. Now, my questions are:

1. Is there a division between the so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ churches of Christ here in the Philippines?

2. Are they who are members of a certain congregation (the so-called liberals) to be condemned in the judgment though they are not practicing and will not be practicing beyond the things which are written (1 Cor. 4:6)?

3. Is there a pattern for us to follow in congregational cooperation in helping the needy and spreading the gospel?”

Reply:

Comment On Opening Remarks

Our brother’s opening remarks need some clarification. Yes, historically, division in churches of Christ “originated” in the United States, but “the issues” are not “purely American principles.” The issues are purely New Testament principles. Anywhere the Lord’s people are located, the use of the church’s money is an issue. There may not be digression and division as there is in America, but it is an issue. “How?” you ask. By the very fact that it is part of New Testament teaching, it is an issue. That Scripture implies “church money” and that it was used and is to be used, makes it an issue wherever and whenever Christians congregate and commune.

The division “originated in the United States,” but New Testament teaching and practice regarding the church’s money and how it is to be used did not originate in the United States. Our brother confuses these two items and mixes them as one. Thus, he concludes, “The issues are purely American principles.” Again, division “originated” in this country, but New Testament principles and practices concerning “church money and how it is to be used” was originated by the Lord, revealed by the Spirit and propagated by the apostles.

1. Answer to First Question: Yes, there is division among churches of Christ in the Philippines, Unless our brother is extremely isolated, it is inconceivable that he could ask this question for information’s sake. His other inquiries are evidence that he is aware of division.

2. Answer to Second Question: This question is difficult to answer because it begins with a premise. which is denied in the last segment of the sentence. If a church does not go beyond the things which are written (1 Cor. 4:6), it is not a liberal church.

The judgment will be on an individual basis. Congregations, as such, will not be condemned in the judgment. Individuals will be (Matt. 25; Gal. 6:9; Rev. 2:18-23). Churches are judged by the Lord in this life (Rev. 2:5; 3:1-5), but not all individuals in a “dead” church will be lost (Rev. 3:1-5). The Lord did not tell the saints at Sardis to stay where sin was advanced or where false doctrine could not be exposed. He did not tell them to leave, but other passages require this course (Phil. 3:16, 17; 4:9; Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Jn. 9-1 Eph. 5:11; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 5:20).

Some churches are termed “liberal” even though they do not engage in any open and overt unscriptural action. “We don’t support human organizations; we don’t send money to another church to oversee and do our preaching work; we don’t use the church’s money for entertainment; so, why are we called liberal?” This is their lame lament, their plea for pity. But the question is, do they oppose or applaud the above mentioned practices? Do they preach against institutionalism and the sponsoring church brand of ecclesiasticism? These are crucial, critical questions. Preaching the whole counsel of God, reproving and rebuking error, and exhorting men to walk in the word is a part of soundness. Our querist mentioned “a certain congregation.” Perhaps, he has one in mind. If so, does it actively and aggressively deny liberal doctrine and digression? Does it use liberal preachers or their sympathizers in its evangelistic labors? A church may be liberal or loose because of what it fails to do, by reason of what it refuses to “earnestly contend” against (2 Cor. 10:35-, Jude 3). There is no greater enemy to the cross of Christ than those who refuse to extinguish error and expound truth.

3. Answer to Third Question:

Preliminary Thoughts to Ponder

If there is no pattern to follow in congregational cooperation, how can a church say it is not going beyond that which is written (1 Cor. 4:6)? If there is no pattern in spreading the gospel, how can brethren 11 make all things according to the pattern” (Heb, 8:5)? if there is no pattern, then there is no perversion, no law, no guide. If that is true, men are free to do as they please without fear of divine censure or judgment. Can you name any other areas of work and worship in the church of the Lord where there is no pattern? If what was done in the New Testament does not constitute a pattern in cooperation and preaching the gospel, can we not also say that what they did with respect to giving and taking the Lord’s supper does not comprise a pattern” If you can deny the pattern of evangelism and cooperation in the work of the New Testament church, why cannot I deny the plan for giving and the taking of the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2)?

The New Testament Pattern

The New Testament pattern of congregational cooperation in “helping the needy and spreading the gospel” is a compilation of all that the Bible says about those activities. Accordingly, we shall notice several texts.

1) In Evangelism: The “church of the Thessalonians” “sounded out the word of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:1, 8). The “church which was at Jerusalem . . . sent forth Barnabas” (Acts 11:22). The Philippian church “sent once and again unto my (Paul’s) necessity” (Phil. 4:15,16). This work was that of “giving and receiving.” It was the “care” of the church at Philippi for Paul (Phil. 4:10). In each of these citations, each church acted, but each worked separate and independent of the other.

“Here, too, we see the simple manner in which the church in Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no ‘missionary society’ in evidence, and none was needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized the church to do. When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold of apostasy. Let us be satisfied with the Lord’s manner of doing things” (Guy N. Woods, Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary, Published by The Gospel Advocate Company, 1946, p. 341).

In 2 Corinthians 11:8, Paul said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” Two or more churches sent “wages” unto Paul. The ending of these churches, so far as each one was concerned was a separate act. Observe that Paul, not a local church. was the recipient of the “wages.” There was no sponsoring church which served as the disbursing and dispensing agent of other churches. In the New Testament, churches were never joined or harnessed as a unit to evangelize.

2) In Helping The Needy: In Acts 6, the Jerusalem church ministered to their neglected widows. In 1 Timothy 5:16, Paul charged the church to “relieve them that are widows indeed.” So, local congregations have benevolent responsibilities.

Acts 11:27-30 describes a need in Judea which arose because of a “great” famine. There were “constant unfruitful seasons” (Life of Claudius, by Seutonius, quoted in New Testament Documents-Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce, p. 119). “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:29,30). The Antioch disciples did not send relief unto a sponsoring, overseeing church, nor to a Judean Relief Organization. What they did we ought to do when similar circumstances arise.

“The relief was sent, we are told, ‘to the elders . . .’ We might call them pastors. They had charge of the congregations in all their church affairs and attended to the services, the teaching, and the spiritual oversight . . . Here Luke speaks of the elders in Judea” (Lenski, ‘comments on Acts 11:27-30, pp. 462, 463). “Unto the elders, either those at Jerusalem, who could easily forward the supplies to the destitute elsewhere, or those in Judea at large, whom the messengers visited in person, The latter idea presents itself very readily from Judea, just before . . .” (Hackett, comments on Acts 11:30, p. 142). The relief was sent to the brethren in Judea, i.e., unto the elders of the brethren in Judea. Each church had elders, so the relief was sent to the elders of the respective churches in the province of Judea.

Romans 15:25-27,31; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, tell of the “contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.” At least five churches assembled their “alms” and “offerings” (Acts 24:17). This was by “order” of the apostle Paul and was performed with “zeal” (1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 9:2). Each church chose its own messengers who brought the gift of that church unto Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:19-23). There was no intermediary, sponsoring church or agent to oversee the work. Churches simply laid aside a contribution for the needy saints in Jerusalem, selected men to take the contribution, and sent them to Jerusalem with the gift.

Guy N. Woods’ Comments On 2 Cor. 8:18-21

“In line with the fact that our lesson today deals with the autonomy of the church, we point out that the contribution here alluded to was raised wholly without the high pressure organizational methods characteristic of today. There was no organization at all; the churches, in their own capacity, raised the funds, and they were gathered by brethren specially appointed for the purpose. This is the Lord’s method of raising money, and it will suffice in any case. There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people today to do. Two practical lessons follow from this section: (1) The simple means used to raise these funds; (2) honest measures followed to avoid suspicion” (Guy N. Woods, Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary, Published by The Gospel Advocate Company, 1946, pp. 340, 341),

Truth Magazine XX: 43, pp. 684-685
October 28, 1976

By O. C. Birdwell

Some time back I was asked to discuss the following question: “Does John 10:28, where Jesus says ‘and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand,’ not teach that a child of God can never be lost?”

In dealing with this question, let us notice the context of the verse upon which the question under consideration is asked. The verse quoted above is 28. The one just before it in the passage says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:” (v. 27). Then after the verse in question we read, “My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (v. 29).

Is the phrase “and they shall never perish,” contained in verse 28, conditional or unconditional? Please read the context again. Notice that Jesus said that they hear His voice and follow Him. The eternal life promised is based on the conditions given. The inference by some is that sheep cannot be led astray or caught. If this be true, why is there need for a shepherd? Paul said, “I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29). Will such drawn away disciples be lost? Obviously so, or else Paul would not have been so concerned, Hence, the sheep must continue to hear His voice, and continue to follow Him in order to receive the reward.

Does the statement “No one shall snatch them out of my hand” mean that ‘ man cannot separate himself from the salvation that is in Christ? Jesus does not say this. He says, “no one shall snatch them out of my hand.” There is a big difference.

Another favorite proof text of those who teach the impossibility of apostasy is Romans 8:35. This passage asks, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” Paul continues and says, “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” It is quite clear, therefore, that nothing can separate us from the love of God. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. His love, and the love of God (John 3:16), was shown before, and apart from, any response of our own. Hence, His love toward us is not dependent on our action in any sense. But will man be saved solely through the love of God and Christ? If so, there will be universal salvation, because God’s love is for all men. If anyone is lost, he will be one whom God loves, for He loves all the world.

From these passages it is seen that nothing can separate us from the love of God and Christ, and that no one can snatch us from the hand of God. But does this teach unconditional salvation and the impossibility of apostasy? It does not. Read the following scripture: “Behold Jehovah’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save: neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1,2). Now hear the New Testament writer James: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: but each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death” (James 1:13,15). Notice the order: (1) drawn away by own lust; (2) lust bringeth forth sin; (3) sin bringeth forth death. Our own sin and iniquity can separate us from God and Christ, and bring forth death.

But one may respond by saying, “I thought we were kept by the mercy and loving-kindness of Jehovah.” Yes, but such is to those who “fear him,” and “such as keep his covenant” and “remember his precepts to do them” (Ps. 103:17, 18). Again, another objection goes something like this: “What about the power of God? Are we not kept by His power?” Surely, but the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and the gospel must be obeyed (2 Thess. 1:8). Also, one may turn from “the gospel” unto a different gospel (Gal. 1:6). When such is done the benefits of the gospel are forfeited.

Many claim that man cannot fall, that there is no danger; but in trying to prove it they always quote passages about the promises of God, every one of which are based upon the condition that one hear the voice of the Shepherd, obey Him, and abide in His teaching. Such is the case with the passage in John 10:28.

Truth Magazine XX: 43, p. 683
October 28, 1976

By Arthur M. Ogden

Many have concluded, that if 1 Corinthians 14 is binding today, Christian women could not scripturally teach a class of other women or children when the church is arranged in various Bible Classes to study God’s Word. This they conclude because Paul said, “Let your women keep silence in the churches” (v. 34). They assume that “in the churches” means any assembly or class the church may arrange, and upon the basis of this assumption either (1) forbid Christian women to teach Bible Classes, or (2) deny the binding force of the chapter, depending upon which way their reasoning takes them.

The conviction of this scribe is that both conclusions are wrong, and have been reached without proper contextual considerations. To extend a passage beyond its legitimate boundaries is error indeed, but to fail to recognize the right to extend a passage to its lawful limits is likewise error. We must “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). 1 Corinthians 14 defines for us the proper realm of its application in such a way as to show that the Bible Class arrangement is not and cannot be considered as the realm of its specific application, arid that those who would so apply it must take it out of its context and apply it contrary to its context. In this article, I shall show its proper place of application, and why it cannot be applied to the Bible Class arrangement.

It, our last article, we pointed out that Paul was regulating order “in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:26, 31, 33, 40), But what does Paul mean by “in the churches?” Common sense tells -us that Paul is not talking about the church in either the universal or local sense, because if he were any woman obeying the gospel, being added to the church and identified with a local congregation, would have to shut up and never open her mouth again as long as she lived, and he is not talking about the church building because the word church is never used in the Bible to identify a church building or meeting place. The only other sense in which the word ekklesia (church) is used in the New Testament is to identify an assembly that has been called together, and that is the meaning of the expression “in the churches” in this text. It means in the assemblies that God has called together.

Look now at the context of 1 Corinthians 14. In verses 4, 5, and 12, Paul discusses the “edifying of the church.” When we come to verses 18-19, we find the expression “in the church” first used, “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in art unknown tongue.” In verse 23, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?” This is where Paul defines “in the church.” It is the whole church come together into one place. It is further identified and regulated in verses 26-35.

According to this chapter, three acts of worship are identified as practiced in this assembly: (1) edifying (v. 26), (2) praying, arid (3) singing (v. 15). Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 11, “when ye come together in the church” (v. 18), and “when ye come together therefore into one place” (v. 20), indicates that this is the same kind of assembly in which the Lord’s Supper was observed; that is, an assembly of the whole church together in one place. We also conclude that it is in this same assembly that we contribute on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Other passages use the same kind of language to describe an assembly of the whole church (Acts 20:7-8). We have always concluded, and rightly so, that in the absence of other Bible authority, the Lord’s Supper and The contribution are to be observed on the first day of the week when the whole church is together. We understand that by Bible authority, edification, prayer, and singing may be engaged in at other times other than the first day of the week, and at times other than when the whole church is together, but we do not understand that this is true of the Lord’s supper and giving. They are to be done upon. the first day of the week in air assembly of the whole church. We defy any man to change it.

This is the place where Paul said he would not speak in tongues (v. 19), and in which he tells all tongue speakers to “keep silence in the church” if no interpreter is present (v. 27-28). This is the same assembly in which Paul instructs certain prophets to hold their peace (v, 29-30), arid the same assembly in which the women were to “keep silence” (v. 34-35). The place where Paul said for them to “keep silence” is the place where the whole church is together in one place.

This Assembly Further Identified

Careful examination of the context of 1 Corinthians 14 will reveal a number of things that must be remembered which identify this assembly from other arrangements the church might use to carry out its mission. (1) The arrangement of 1 Corinthians 14 is a Divine Arrangement regulated by commandments (14: 37) in which Christians are to do together the things commanded to be done together in an assembly of the church. (2) It was an arrangement where the whole church was together, with the unlearned and unbelievers welcome (v. 23). It was not restricted in attendance. (3) It was an arrangement where only one was to speak at a time (v. 27-31), and (4) all other were to keep silence (v. 28, 30). (5) The design of this arrangement was that all (the same as the whole of verse 23) learn and be comforted (v. 31). With only one speaking at a time, all learned the same lesson in this arrangement. (6) Here the women were to “keep silence” (v. 34-35). They were not permitted to speak; even ask a question. They were not to address this assembly, but rather to be under obedience.

The Bible Class Arrangement

Having considered the identifying features of the assemblies described in 1 Corinthians 14, and the governing principles of these assemblies, let us now seek to apply them to the Bible Class arrangement. We are told by some that the Bible Class arrangement is the same assembly as that of 1 Corinthians 14. If it is, we should be willing to treat them as the same in all points. If one of the commandments apply to Bible Classes, then all must apply. Let us see if we are willing to accept the consequences.

(1) Since it is claimed that both arrangements constitute the assembly of 1 Corinthians 14, then we ought to be able to observe the Lord’s Supper and take up the contribution in the Bible Classes. Can we? Can the Adult Class observe the Lord’s Supper and contribute when they see fit, and the Young Men’s Class and the Young Women’s Class do the same? If you answer that question “No”, you have recognized and admitted that the Bible Class arrangement and the assemblies of 1 Corinthians 14 are not the same, and if you answer that question “Yes,” you have admitted that we can take a human arrangement, for that is what Bible Classes are and substitute them for the Divine Arrangement. The consequence is that you have done away with God’s arrangement. If we can substitute one human arrangement for God’s arrangement, we can substitute another arrangement and put all the requirements of worship in the home, and thus do away with any assembly. We have fought the Bible Class contribution all of our lives, and the reason for it is that there is no Bible authority for its practice. While the Bible Class arrangement may scripturally be used as an expedient in carrying out the mission of the local church, it may not be substituted for any God ordained arrangement, nor may the regulations given to govern commanded things be used to regulate the realm of expediency.

(2) If the Bible Class arrangement is the same as the assembly of 1 Corinthians 14, then all regulations placed upon that assembly must apply to the Bible Classes. Only one could speak at a time therefore, and all other teachers would have to remain silent while all learned from the one speaking. If not, why not? If christian women must keep silent because Bible Classes are the assembly of 1 Corinthians 14, then likewise only one may speak at a time. We must keep the lamb’s legs equal.

I suggest that the Assembly of 1 Corinthians 14 and the Bible Classes are not the same, and for the following reasons: (1) One is a Divine Arrangement, while the other is a Human Arrangement. (2) Bible Classes are restricted in attendance, while the assembly (1 Cor. 14) is not. (3) Only one may speak at a time in the assembly, while many may speak at the same time in the various classes as each teacher teaches. (4) All other teachers except the one who has the floor must keep silence in the assembly, while no teacher remains silent during Bible Classes. (5) All learn the same lesson in the assembly, while each unit learns a different lesson in the classes. If the Bible Class arrangement is different in these five points, what makes one think it is the same when it comes to christian women? I (you) have no right to so abuse the Word of God, and extend it beyond its legitimate boundaries.

One of the stoutest advocates of tile “No Women Teacher” theory is on record as saying, “they did not have Bible Classes in the Corinthian church.” I do not know how he knows that, but since he does, I wonder what it is that makes him think 1 Corinthians 14 regulates Bible Classes? How could Paul have regulated something that did not exist?

Conclusion

It is my conviction that the truth will destroy every false doctrine. Every false way will fall before the sharp edges of this two edged sword (Heb. 4:12), but you must handle the sword right (2 Tim. 2:15). You may cut the other fellow if you take hold of the wrong end of the sword, but you will also cut yourself. This is true of every passage, and expecially true of 1 Corinthians 14. The truth on this passage supports my position that a woman may teach classes of other women and children, and it destroys the position of those who oppose it, and there is no way that I am going to turn loose of it.

Our next article: 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Its Truth And Its Power.

Truth Magazine XX: 43, pp. 681-682
October 28, 1976