Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill

“There is one body” (Ephesians 4:4)

The common conception among people in the religious world at large is that unity in organization-organic unity-is impossible. They talk about spiritual unity and organic division. As we have pointed out, the common idea is that all of the churches included in the broadest possible usage of “Christianity” constitute the “Church of Christ” or the “one body” of the scriptures.

One Head and One Body

The Bible usage of the term “body” as it applies to the church always carries the idea of singularity. In fact, it is even emphasized that there is “one body” and “but one body” (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:20). This “one body” is the church of the Lord (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18). This is the body which Christ has saved (Ephesians 5:23). It is the body over which He is head (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18). Is there more than one head of the body? Catholics say “yes” for they believe that both Christ and the Pope are the heads of the church. This is a monstrosity; for then there would be a two-headed body. But Protestant denominationalism is just as wrong; for they contend for one head-Christ-and about three hundred bodies. This would be a greater monstrosity, if such were possible. It is just as wrong to preach “many bodies” as to preach “many heads.” Both of them deny the Word of God.

Many Members but One Body

In Romans, chapter 12, and in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12, Paul compares the church to the physical body. He tells us that just as the physical body has many members and yet there is but one body, so the church is made up of many members but there is “but one body.” These members that constitute the body of Christ are not different denominations or churches! That would make the comparison or figure ludicrous and ridiculous. It would mean that each member of the physical body would have to be a distinct and separate unit organically with its own organization and government. This is contrary to the teaching of the Word of God. Paul points out that the “members” are so “tempered together” that there should be “no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). These members do not speak a different language, have a separate organization, worship and serve the head separately, but they are correlated under one head and authority, each with its own capacity and function, but each obligated to function for the good of the body as a whole. The very argument of the apostle in these passages is condemnatory of sectarianism and denominationalism or organic division. The members of the physical body are representative of the individual members of the body of Christ. Christians are the members and not churches.

“The Body” – Both Universal and Local

Like the word “church” in the Scriptures, “the body” sometimes designates the relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit enjoyed by Christians universally, and sometimes this figure designates the relationship between the members of the church in these passages. Paul was writing to local churches and had in mind the application of the lesson to the local church with its members. ‘ He was teaching that the members of the local church do not all have the same function but that each is essential to the good of the body as a whole and that in the local church there must be complete symphony or harmony or the body as a whole is injured. This application to the local church becomes clear and plain when we consider the functions performed by the members. In Romans, chapter 12, Paul tells us that some members are “prophets,” some “ministers,” some “preachers,” some “exhorters,” some “rulers.” These “ruling” members are the elders of the church (1 Timothy 5:17). But elders in the Lord’s church are not 11 ruling members” over the church universal. The Jurisdiction of elders is over the local church and its membership only (Acts 20:17-28; 1 Peter 5:2). If the elders, or “ruling members” in this passage, refer to local elders, then the body of which they are “ruling members” must be the local church.

In 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Paul uses the word “body” as descriptive both of the universal relationship and the local church with its organization. In verse 13, for instance, he says, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” This “body” into which all men are baptized by the direction of the Holy Spirit, when they obey the Lord, is the saved relationship universally of which Christ spoke in Ephesians 5:23. It is the body which the Lord has saved. But in the chapter he is dealing with dissension and division among the members of a local body, the church at Corinth, and is emphasizing that in the fellowship of the local body there must be no “schism” nor discord among its members. Each must perform his own function, whatever he may be able to do out of the ability given him, whether ordinary or extraordinary, and he must function in perfect harmony with all the other members just as the members of the physical body. The application of the principle was very definitely to the members of the local church at Corinth as the whole context shows. This does not disallow the fact that Christians universally enjoy the same faith, salvation, and relationship with the Lord but it points out that in the local church they have a unique relationship with one another.

Every Figure Demands Unity

There is not a picture of the church in the New Testament Scriptures that will allow the denominational concept of the church. When the church is compared to a bride, with Christ as bridegroom, there is but one bride! Denominationalism would picture Christ as the brideoroom with many brides and each wearing a different name (Ephesians 5:25-27; John 3:29). Then the church is described figuratively as the “household of God” or God’s family (1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:19). God is the father of the whole family (Ephesians 3:14-15). All of God’s children are in this family. God does not have any children outside of His family, and God does not have many families, each of them with a different family name. Denominationalism does not fit into the scriptural description of the church at any point.

The Body is One in Identity

Wherever the body of Christ, the church of the New Testament, is found, it is exactly the same in all of the salient features that identify it as the body of Christ. It does not have one name one time and another the next. It does not have a variety of organizations but always the same divine arrangement in organization. The only organization that can be found in the Scriptures is Christ the universal head, His word the divine law, and each congregation or local church with its elders, deacons and members (Philippians 1:1; Acts 14:23). There is no difference in matters of faith for the “one faith” of the Gospel must characterize all or they are not the body of Christ. They worship by the same pattern for they are guided by the same Spirit. Christ has but one body and the body of Christ is one!

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 503-504
August 12, 1976

By Philip S. North

The above question is often asked by Christians and non-christians alike. Hopefully, it is inquired of through sincerity of heart rather than maliciousness of attitude. Let us deal with it in this article.

To answer the question “point blank,” one only needs to turn in the inspired Word of God to James 1:13 where we read, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” God is not to be blamed for the sin that exists in this world today. Mankind is to be blamed (Rom. 5:12-14). One need not blame God for such sinful practices as adultery, murder, lying, stealing, homosexuality, drug abuse, etc.

However, swinging the pendulum the other way around, one also need not blame God for denominationalism, modernism, institutionalism, Neo-Calvinism, etc. God did not institute sin of any fashion in this world. Man did by his disobedience to God and his obedience to Satan. I often hear people speak of how God came and their child, or wife, or husband, or mother, and so on was a punishment to them. Such ought not to be in any way at all preached, practiced, or taught-or even believed one iota. I Jn. 4:8 teaches us that “God is love.” Then in 1 Jn. 1:5 we read that “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” John 3:33 tells us in the last part of this verse that “God is true.”

Certainly we can see that God is not one who would create evil things and cause us to turn from Him as His children! One can even realize in the book of Genesis in Chapters I and 2 just what God is the Creator, author, and finisher of. Time after time Genesis says, “and God saw that it was good.” Every, single, solitary being and thing that our Creator brought forth and formed was good, perfect, and clean. God does not cause evil. He merely allows it to happen. It is a test of our faith to see if we are the children that we profess and are supposed to be. Any individual that stubbornly persists on blaming the good Lord for his faults, shortcomings, and evil happenings is equal to a lying child (brat) that blames someone else for his naughty ways. To blame God is to blaspheme His name! It only shows signs of spiritual and physical immaturity! It is nothing more than using God for a scapegoat. But just how are we tempted and who is behind it all? Who or what is to blame for evil?

Notice James 1:14-17: “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. I beg of you, brethren. Do not err. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Now look at the four verses closely. First, it tells us that we commit sin when we let lust take over our spirit, and allow it to be drawn away. Lust simply means “evil and inordinate desire.” Adultery and fornication are not the only sins that are born out of lust. Your lust might be for the opposite sex, to rob a bank, to kill, to lie, or whatever! In John 8:44 Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees, “Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. . .” So we see here that we yield to sin when the devil places lusts before us and deceives us into partaking of it. Blame God? NONSENSE!! The devil is the author of all evil in this world, and not the good God of Heaven who created us and all the beauties of the heavens and earth. Shame bemoans us when we do what many children do when they do not get their way-I am speaking of “biting the hands that feed you.” Next, we see that when lust is born in our minds and is allowed to conceive, sin is the product. When sin takes and rules over, and continues to dwell there with no repentence of heart, then spiritual damage is the result-spiritual death, which is Hell. Third, James tells us that every perfect gift and every good gift comes from God. Let it not once be said of you, gentle reader, that we “bite the hands that feed.” We are to never do this to our Creator who gives us our food, clothing, shelter, children, our very life, and most important of all, His only begotten Son. We should not think God would desire to place upon us grief, hard temptations, harassment, and sins of any kind.

In fact, God is the exact opposite of such an accusation. One day, He will completely and utterly destroy sin and its father. God will help us as Christians to flee from temptation and sin if we will but only go to Him. 1 Cor. 10:13 sums it all up for us: “There hath no temptation taken you but as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” Good reader, let us never, regardless of what any heady sinner, wayward Christian, agnostic, or vain philosopher says, blame our supreme, wonderful, matchless, and all-wise Creator for our everyday blunders, sins, and shortcomings.

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 502-503
August 12, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

1) In Acts 2, miraculous events, viz., “a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,” and “cloven tongues like as of fire,” in addition to Holy Spirit baptism occurred (vv. 2, 3). However, nothing like these marvelous, puzzling and perplexing sights and sounds accompanies a modern day Pentecostal service. Why not, if, as they claim, they exemplify the “Pentecostal experience?”

2) In Acts 2, the recipients of Holy Spirit baptism spoke tongues or languages which the audience could hear and understand (vv. 4, 6, 8, 11). Pentecostals of today babble like a baby and chatter like a chimp. None speak a language which the audience speaks as they did in Acts 2, yet they claim the “Pentecostal experience.”

3) The ones who received Holy Spirit baptism delivered a dignified discourse in Acts 2:14-41. Pentecostals shout, cry and moan incoherently. Their preachers deliver unorganized speeches which are full of philosophy and clever witticisms, but they rarely present an arranged speech on a given topic for any length of time as was done in Acts 2. Still, they avow, aver and avouch that they have the true “Pentecostal experience.”

4) The speakers, the preachers received Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2, not the audience, but Pentecostal preachers urge the audience to “get the Holy Ghost” at their services. This is the reverse of Acts 2, yet they claim they are duplicating the “Pentecostal experience.”

5) No one in Acts 2 was urged to “come to the front” and “pray through for the Holy Ghost.” This is always done at Pentecostal services, yet they claim they are imitating the “Pentecostal experience.”

6) Sinners were exhorted to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, but Pentecostals urge people to “reach out” and “feel the Spirit of God come into your heart.” Why not say what the apostles said if they are indeed reenacting the “Pentecostal experience?”

7) In Acts 2, the ones saved were added to the church of the Lord (v. 47; Acts 20:28). Pentecostal converts become members of various Pentecostal Holiness groups and sects which are unknown to the New Testament, yet they claim they are the direct result of the “Pentecostal experience.”

8) Not one of the recipients of Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2 told how he felt when he received it. None of them described it as a “thrilling, refreshing sensation that made me tingle all over.” They did not mention a single physical feeling, but one of the first things a Pentecostal wants to tell is how he felt when he “got the Holy Ghost.” Is this truly comparable to the original “Pentecostal experience?”

9) None of the ones who received Holy Spirit baptism on the day of Pentecost ever said that their experience transformed their drab, dismal life of sin into one of joy, beauty, happiness and forgiveness. Pentecostals of today often make this claim for what happened to them when they discuss their alleged “Pentecostal experience.”

10) No one in Acts 2 was told to “expect a healing.” No one was asked if he wanted to give his “testimony of healing,” but this is done at nearly every Pentecostal service today as they attempt to relive the “Pentecostal experience.”

11) In Acts 2, the miracles that transpired served to confirm the word preached (v. 33). But Pentecostal preachers expect that their word will confirm their claims of miracles. The apostles confirmed the word with miracles, but Pentecostals “confirm” their miracles with words; the exact reverse of the “Pentecostal experience.”

12) Those who received Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2 performed “many wonders and signs” that even their enemies could not deny (Acts 4:16). Pentecostal preachers say they cannot work miracles “because unbelievers are present with us.” Certainly, this is not the genuine “Pentecost experience.”

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 501-502
August 12, 1976

By Cecil Willis

In our last lesson we promised that we would devote this lesson to a study of the order of faith and repentance. We want to determine whether faith precedes repentance, or whether repentance precedes faith. The importance of this lesson is magnified to us if we consider the extremes to which members of the denominational world will go in order to prove their point. Denominationalism is vitally interested in proving that repentance precedes faith.

They say that one must repent before he believes, and the reason for their efforts is this: Members of several large denominations believe that one is saved either by faith only, or at the point of faith. They virtually all used to say that one is saved by faith only, and affirmed this in debate many times, but here of late, they have almost universally quit affirming the doctrine of faith only. Now they affirm a modified form of the doctrine, still calling it the doctrine of faith only. They now say that one is saved at the point of faith, before and without water baptism. The reason for their saying that repentance comes before faith is because if they say that one is saved at the point of faith, and if repentance came after faith, then they would be saying that one was saved before he repented, which they refuse to admit. The seed of the whole doctrine was an effort to get as far removed as possible from the doctrine of baptism’s having anything at all to do with one’s salvation.

Actually, if salvation is by faith only as some denominations still affirm, it matters not whether repentance comes before or after faith, for salvation by faith only means that one is saved without anything else. Regardless of the order of faith and repentance; the doctrine of faith only excludes repentance. ‘Whether it comes before or after does not alter the case. Salvation by faith only still excludes repentance.

Many preachers, still believing the doctrine of faith alone, but realizing themselves to be caught in a verbal dilemma, have tried to solve the dilemma by putting repentance before faith. In view of their belabored efforts, one can see certain admissions that these denominationalists make. When they become so concerned about “getting” repentance before faith, they already have repudiated their doctrine of salvation by faith only. They are saying that repentance is also essential. Most of them will deny that they ever said that it was unessential, but nevertheless, they still have the doctrine taught in their official creeds, manuals, and disciplines. They say one is saved by faith only, and the word “only” excludes everything else, repentance included. They deny this doctrine when they admit that one must repent, but since they now teach that one is saved at the point of faith, they say repentance must precede faith. Repentance must precede faith or their doctrinal position collapses.

Psychological Impossibility

First of all, let us note that for repentance to precede faith would be a psychological impossibility. One cannot possibly repent before he believes. There are so many foolish, absurd, and impossible tenets connected with this doctrine, that it seems almost vain to have to refer to it. Let us notice some of these absurdities.

Suppose you were trying to convert an atheist, one who does not believe that God exists. What would you do first? Would you try to persuade him to believe or to repent? It would be impossible to get the man to repent in the Biblical sense of the term. We saw last week that repentance is produced by godly sorrow, for one thing. How could this man have godly sorrow before he believed in God? Further, it was seen that repentance should be produced by the goodness of God, but this man does not believe that God lives, and therefore he would be wholly ignorant of the goodness of God. He might know something about the things that the Bible says are given us by God’s goodness, but he certainly would not attribute these things to God, but to insensate matter. The fear of judgment and punishment could not prompt him to repentance, because he does not believe that the Lord exists who could judge him. The desire to be saved could not be that which motivates him to repent, for as an atheist, he does not believe that man has a soul to be saved, nor that there is a God to save it. None of these forces which the Bible says produces repentance could operate on an atheist or an infidel, for they are unbelievers, and all these forces can have effect only upon believers. In the true sense of the word, only a believer can repent as God commands, and so repentance could not precede faith.

In Luke 15:7, we read that there is joy in the presence of the angels of heaven over one sinner that repents. One could repent without believing if repentance precedes faith. If he could not, then to repent and to believe must be one synonymous act, and if it is, then all the lengthy discussions by denominational preachers have been foolishness, for there could be no order of faith and repentance if they are the same. If they are not the same, it is possible for one to do one of them, and not do the other. The Bible says that there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of heaven over one sinner that repents, but the writer of Hebrews says in the eleventh chapter and sixth verse, “that without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he that cometh to God must believe that fle is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” We have this dilemma, if the doctrine be true. We have angels rejoicing over a man because he has repented, but God not pleased with him because he has not believed. One should repudiate any doctrine that makes such folly of God’s Holy Word.

Further we read in Jas. 2:19 that the devils believed. Now, if repentance precedes faith, then it must be admitted that these same demons had repented. According to denominational dogma, repentance and faith is all that could possibly be required of anyone. According to this doctrine, the demons had believed and repented, and so they should have been saved, but we know they were not.

Alleged Proofs

When one has the gospel preached to him, and learns that he must repent, why does he repent? It is because he believes the message that is brought him. Were it not for this, he would not repent.

One replies, “Well, surely these people must have something by which they prove their doctrine, or they would not teach it. What do they use to substantiate their contention that repentance precedes faith?” To those who view their arguments only lightly and casually, they seem very plausible, but when they are examined -more closely, one can see that they do not teach, at all, what these men say that they do. They have perverted the passages. But let us now notice some of the passages offered in favor of this contention.

First of all, “Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:14, 15). In this passage the word repentance comes before the word believe, and therefore men infer from this that it means that in obedience to the gospel repentance precedes faith. On this occasion “Jesus was preaching to persons who already believed in the true God, and in the revelation which God had already made, and his object, at this stage of his ministry, like that of John, was to bring them to repentance as a preparation for faith in himself and his kingdom. This accounts for the order in which repentance and faith are here mentioned. To repent toward the God in whom they already believed, but whose revealed will they were violating, naturally and properly took precedence over believing in him whom God was about to reveal” (McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark, pp. 267, 268). This passage, then, does not teach that repentance precedes faith in obedience to the gospel.

Another passage used is Acts 20:21, which reads: “testifying both to Jews and Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Let us think just a little bit about what this passage really teaches. Paul was talking to a group of people who had saith in God. They were familiar with a part of the law of God at one time, but they had become disobedient to the laws of God, and indifferent to their responsibilities to Him. Paul was telling them that before they believed in Christ they needed to repent toward God of the way that they had acted toward Him. They needed not to repent of following the laws that they had been given, before they were to be taught anything else. These men needed to repent toward God, and then they would be in better position to believe in Christ. The order here was: faith in God; and then repentance toward God. The gospel order differs from that in that we are commanded to have faith in God, and also in Christ as the Son of God, then repent toward Christ, and then to be baptized into Christ.

What someone needs to find in order to prove this doctrine is an instance in which one was told to repent toward Christ before he believed in Christ, or an instance in which one is told to repent toward God before he believed in God. Acts 20:21 is an instance of where one, who is a believer in God, is told to repent toward God, and then to believe in Christ. These are not the passages that these people need. There are some other passages that teach the same thing, and that they often use, but they do not add anything else to the argument and so we will omit them. Both of these passages tell one, believing in God to repent toward God, and have faith in Jesus Christ, but no passage tells one to repent toward Christ before he believes in Christ, or to repent toward God before he believes in God. They must look elsewhere if their doctrine is to find support.

Scriptural Order

The New Testament has examples of the order of faith and repentance. Study the events that occurred and are recorded in Acts the second chapter, On this occasion Peter, the key speaker was addressing a group of Jews that he accused of having slain the Lord of Glory. He used several arguments convicting these people of their crime. They believed the charges that he made against them. By Peter’s arguments they became persuaded that they had crucified the Son of God. The Scripture says that they were cut to the heart by these things, “and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles. Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37, 38). Why did they ask the question? It was because they believed what Peter has said unto them, and that they were persuaded that the one that they had crucified was God’s own Son. They were believers. Had they not been believers, surely they would have rushed upon Peter and the other apostles and would have killed them for bringing this charge against them. They knew that what Peter said was the truth. We know that they were believers. But what did Peter tell them to do when they asked him “what shall we do?” Peter told them to “repent ye and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Where did repentance come in this case? Did it come before or after faith? Certainly we all know that it came after their faith, and even after they asked what they must do to get forgiveness for killing this one who was God’s only Son. If there were not another case in all the Bible, this would be enough to silence the gainsayers, and to prove conclusively that repentance comes after faith.

Another illustration though: “The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold a greater than Jonah is here” (Matt. 12:41). All of us know that they would not have repented under the threat of punishment by God, if they did not believe that there was a God that could punish them. They repented because they had faith that God would keep his promise, and that he would punish them if they did not obey. Their faith preceded their repentance, rather than repentance preceding their faith.

Conclusion

We can well see the extremes to which men will often go to avoid the teachings of God’s Word. They strive to put repentance before faith in order that they might not have to obey the commandment of the Lord to be baptized for the remission of sins. It would be much better, more pleasing to the Lord and easier for man, if one would humbly submit to the commandments of Christ, rather than try to figure out some way to get out of having to do them.

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 499-501
August 12, 1976