Truth Magazine

By Keith Clayton

Don’t you think we ought to do as the first century Christians did! Doesn’t Acts 2:46 and 20:11 contain the authority for Saints’ gathering together for the purpose of consuming a common meal? What about the “love feast” that early Christians engaged in?

These are a sample of the questions that are received by myself from people who are used to the denominational social concept of the Gospel. Being a Congregationalist and Episcopalian for the first 24 years of this earthly life, I can understand why people will be disconcerted at the idea that the church does not engage in “dime a dip” suppers. If one were to rightly divide the whole counsel of God, he would find that there is no authority for the church collective to engage in suppers, or any other purely social events (such as, marriages, receptions, guitar lessons, funerals, etc.). I lump most social events that others would have the church of our Lord to be involved in as the social gospel, or a gospel other than the spiritual one delivered by Jesus. People today are socially conscious. In other words, people think that everything should be done in a mass societal effort (Boles Home, Missionary Society, Herald of Truth, et.al.). People within, and outside the church sometimes confuse the difference between what an individual’s responsibilities are, and what a particular group’s responsibilities are. The church is an organization, whose founder is God, that is designed to do His work-save souls-not socialize. There is only one, so far as I know, social purpose that the church collective can engage in, and that is relief of destitute Christians (and Christians only. The individual Christian has obligations to fulfill that the church cannot and should not be involved in (i.e. helping neighbors, giving blood, etc.).

The church’s meeting house is not sacred, as seems to be the present denominational thought, but rather, is an expediency for the Lord’s people to gather in and bring in alien sinners into an atmosphere conducive to learning the Word of God, unto salvation. We must stop at this juncture and think, if a meeting house is erected (at great cost) for doing God’s work, then dare we use it for any purpose that Jesus, our master, has riot authorized? Shall we be guilty of the sin of presumption? I pray not!

Let’s examine Acts 2:46 and 20:11 to see if therein contains a request from the word to have common meals at the assembly or if we (the church) should gather, as a matter of faith, for the consumption of a common meal. Notice in Acts 2:46 that a set of circumstances existed, peculiar to that time. It was the day of pentecost, or shortly there after, and the church was just being established. The Christians were going from house to house (as opposed to from assembly to assembly) and bringing their meals with them (each brought his own meal). These are clearly individuals rejoicing because of their recent salvation. This is not authority for the church to do the same. Example: A brother moves to Milton, Vermont, buys a house, and settles in to work for the Lord. I find out and go to his house, bring some food and rejoice and we edify one another in the Faith. Is that the church meeting for a common meal, or is it individual brothers in Christ?

In Acts 20:11 we have another example of the churches meeting to hear a portion of the word of God, delivered by the apostle Paul. Note, the church did not gather for the purpose of eating a common meal, but rather to hear of things pertaining to Godliness. It so happened that Paul preached an extended amount of time and the people were hungry, and Paul had to go on a journey, so they nourished their bodies, as was necessary to sustain life. It does not follow that since the church collective can plan their worship such that a meal will have to be consumed. It does follow that individual Christian families can, and should gather in such manner and should prefer Christian fellowship and association.

Now we arrive at the “love-feasts.” The love-feasts are a very nebulus sort of aspect of early Christian life. It is possible that early Christians were, as individuals, exhorted to favor members of the Lord’s body over worldly persons (Gal. 6:10). Not very much is known about these love-feasts and it is only merationed twice in the New Testement, and one of those two times there is negative consequences of the feast (2 Peter 2:13). We certainly do not know enough to definitely say that Jesus wants us to engage in lovefeasts, as the church of Christ collectively. Here is what I know of them. Jude 12 and 2 Peter 2:13 both make only passing mention of the fact that such a feast existed, but nothing substantial can be derived as to whether is was a function of the church or individuals. Any historical accounts and commentaries that I have read on the subject would lend support to the notion that these feasts were taken on by individual Christians and not the assembly of Saints collective. The love-feast was an effort of “rich” Christians to share their wealth with less fortunate brothers and sisters. One way they did this was to share their food with less fortunate brethren. When we, today, help out less fortunate brethren, we are doing the same thing, we just do not call it a “love feast.” It is notable to observe that in 2 Peter 2:13, the love-feast had turned into a blemish on Christians. The word for love-feast, in this passage, has been translated differently in different versions. The New American Standard, for example, renders it as carouse, which is not a spiritual thing that Christians should be engaged in, individually or collectively (Gal. 5:19-21). The context of Peter 2:13 has to be considered because it shows that although something may seem good, it may not be expedient because of what the possible future implications are (read 2 Peter 2:12-16).

If a person has talked much about the subject of “eating in the meeting house,” I’m sure 1 Corinthians 11 was mentioned. Of course, the main thrust of verses 17-34 is abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Paul gives some precautionary advice on the subject and that is to not eat common meals at the assembly. I believe that a secondary application can be inferred. I think that we can infer that since Paul gave advice to eat at home, the mission of the church is not social, but rather, spiritual. If it were permissable to eat common meals at the assembly, Paul would have said to separate the Lord” Supper from your common meals, but, he did not! He said to eat your meals away from the assembly, at home (vs. 22 & 34).

Truth Magazine XX: 28, pp. 439-440
July 15, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

Our Lord prayed for unity (John 17:20-23). Unity, therefore, is His will and should be the desire and prayer of every Christian. We need to examine this prayer, however, to be sure we are interested in the kind of unity and upon the basis that will please Christ. Anything other than that will be a waste of effort. For men to cry aloud for the religious world to unite and disregard the principles that Christ has laid down as His will is to be guilty of hypocrisy. Are we interested in unity? Will we accept the basis laid down by the Lord in order to attain it or aren’t we that much interested?

Scope of Unity

Firstly, notice the scope of the prayer for unity Jesus prayed. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” When the gospel preached by the apostles of our Lord makes believers-genuine believers-Christ’s prayer is that they might be “one.” Unity among all true believers should be the objective of all who are interested in doing the will of the Lord and who are willing to pray “Thy will be done.” This does not mean those only who already had believed or just those who would believe in the First Century but it means just what it says: “them that shall believe on me through their word.” Just as long as faith is being planted in the hearts of men through the gospel preached by the apostles, the Lord’s prayer is that they who have such faith may be united. This means in this generation and all generations to come.

Extent of Unity

Secondly, the kind or extent of unity which is the Lord’s will, is made evident in this prayer. “As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” Jesus wants believers in Him to be united even as He and the Father are united. Unity in any other case or to any other extent will not meet the requirement. This is why “union without unity” will not fill the bill. Federation is the order of the day in this generation. More and more, politically, power is being centralized in the federal government. In economic institutions also, centralization is the order of the day. Even so in religion, the interest people have in unity and their efforts to attain some sort of compromise so that money, control or authority, and cooperative arrangements can be combined on a compromise basis and federation-union-can be accomplished. But in all modern movements it is union without unity and certainly does not begin to approach the kind of unity for which Christ prayed. Men who differ in conviction, spirit, purpose, and as to method, cannot be united in organic federation and have the unity described by Christ, “that they may be one, even as we are one.”

Purpose of Unity

Thirdly, the purpose to be accomplished by this unity is also specified in the prayer. “That the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” Division creates unbelief. The very hotbed from which infidelity and atheism arises and in which it flourishes is the division, denominationalism, and sectarianism that exists in the world today among the professed believers in Christ. No wonder that those who have not studied for themselves and committed themselves to the Word of God as their only rule of faith and practice should be confused by the contradictory claims of over three hundred religious denominations, each of which claim to be the “church of Christ” and to be built by a divine pattern. There is absolutely no room in the prayer of Christ for such division. God condemns it and Christ prayed that it might not exist. We cannot be deceived into thinking that religious denominationalism is all right, if we have any respect for the Word of God.

God’s plan is plain and specific. You will find it in Ephesians, chapter four, verses one through six. As we pointed out in the article last week, the first fundamental in unity upon God’s plan is One God and Father of all. The second indispensable principle for unity acceptable to God is One Lord.

We have no difficulty determining the identity of this “One Lord” whom all believers must recognize in order to partake of the unity of the Spirit and be acceptable in the sight of the Lord. Christ is Lord! He is the only Lord that believers can recognize. Unity cannot be pleasing to God if this principle is compromised. But there must be universal recognition among “all who believe through their word” that there is one Lord, only one, and that all must bow before the same Lord if the unity of the Spirit is accomplished. There can be no compromise here.

Christ accepted this title during His personal ministry (Matt. 7:21, 22; 9:38, 22:21-45; Mark 5:19; Luke 19:31; John 13:13). Peter declared on the day of Pentecost “God hath made Him Lord” (Acts 2:36), and at the house of Cornelius, “He is Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). Jude speaks of men denying “the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Paul speaks of him repeatedly as the Lord Jesus (Acts 30:35; 1 Cor. 11:23; 1 Thess. 2:15, 5:9, 10; 1 Thess. 2:19). Thomas confessed Him as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

This expression “Lord” signifies having power or authority. In accordance with it being used in connection with Jesus Christ in New Testament Scriptures Jesus said, “All power-is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). Paul declared that Christ is “the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Peter preached that the Jesus whom they had crucified had been made both “Lord and Christ” and commanded that they believe it assuredly or beyond a doubt. James tells us that there is but “one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy” (James 4:12).

Any program of unity then that would recognize more than one Lord, or source of authority, or law, would be contrary to the divine will and, therefore, would be worse than no unity at all. Shall we accept some compromise between Catholicism and (so-called) Protestantism that recognizes both Christ and “Lord God, the Pope”? Catholics have held their long ecumenical conferences and have made the impression in the world that they are liberalizing their religion and are moving toward a recognition of other religions and perhaps even a federation with certain other religious bodies in the future. Does anyone think that they will discard “Lord God, the Pope” and unite with those who believe there is “One Lord Jesus Christ” and all authority and law giving power belongs to Him? This would destroy Catholicism in its entirety for every doctrine and practice peculiar to the Catholic religion has come from the councils of men and not from Christ and the Apostles. This can easily be proved by their own historians. They are not about to give up “The Pope” and their claim that he is the “Vicar of Christ” and “Lord God, the Pope.” They expect someone else to do the compromising, as they always have.

But the same thing is true of Protestant denominations. They each have their centralized authorities and their human creeds that they do not expect to surrender. Will the Methodist Episcopacy accept the authority of the Presbyterian Synods and surrender their own form of governing authority? Who can expect it? And even if they did, what would be accomplished? There can be no compromise on any human form of authority, government, or organization. All human sources of authority and forms of governnient must be discarded, if we are to be Christian. The acceptance of any human compromise means the rejection of Christ as the only Lord. The recognition of any human authority means the rejection of the completeness of His power and authority in the Church.

It appears that brethren who know anything about New Testament teaching could see this and know that when they affect their federations and amalgamations in the guise of “cooperation” when Christ has authorized nothing of the sort they have rejected the Bible principle that “He is Lord of all” and “head over all things to the church.” Some loose, liberal thinking brethren even talk today about “we do not need authority for everything we do” and go merrily on their way in affecting such organizations as “The Herald of Truth,” “World Wide Radio,” “Campaigns for Christ,” benevolent societies, educational societies, and everything imaginable. Who is Lord of all these human enterprises and organizations? Christ is not!

Truth Magazine XX: 28, pp. 438-439
July 15, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Our lesson this week is stated in the form of a question. It is “What must I do to be saved?” This is perhaps the most important question that an individual ever asks in his life, and yet one that is answered by more conflicting, and contradicting answers than any other single question.

In answering this all important question, it is not a matter of what one might think he ought to be required to do to inherit eternal life. The answer to this great query rises far above mere speculation and opinion. The truthfulness or the falsity of the answer given to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” will determine both the destiny of the inquirer and he who replies. Therefore, one must be positive that this question is answered with the same answer with which inspired preachers answered it. In spite of the claims to the contrary, no man today is inspired, and therefore it is absolutely unimportant as to what answer any individual might think should be given in reply to the question. The important point is, what does the Bible teach that one must do?

We are not the first to ask what we must do in order to receive the forgiveness of our sins. This specific question is propounded a number of times, several of which are recorded in the Scriptures. So in order to find what we must do in order to have our sins forgiven, we should open our Bibles, turn to the places in the Scriptures where the question in which we are interested was asked, and then very plainly and calmly read the inspired teacher’s answer. This should solve the enigma beyond any dispute.

A Philippian Jailer

First, let us turn to Acts 16, for we find an honest inquirer asking what he must do in order to be saved. The apostle Paul had gone for the first time into Europe to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. The first European city in which he preached was a city called Philippi. Paul, and Silas, one of his helpers in the gospel, had gone into this city. There they chanced to see a young maiden who was possessed by a spirit of divination. Certain men were using this maiden to make money. But Paul commanded the evil spirit to come out of her. This antagonized her masters for they saw that their hope of gain was gone. Consequently, Paul and Silas were committed to prison. After being securely put in stocks, about midnight they began singing praises unto God, and were praying in their cells. God sent a great earthquake so that the bonds were loosed, and the doors to the cells in the prison were opened. The jailer, who had been asleep, suddenly awoke, and seeing the prison doors all open, supposed that all his prisoners had escaped. The law stated that if the jailer should permit his prisoners to escape, he would forfeit his life. Therefore thinking that those committed to his charge had escaped, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself. “But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. And he called for lights and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16: 2830). He asked the very question that we have asked and are seeking to answer in our lesson. If any of us are to get to heaven, it is a question that we must both ask and have answered.

What was this Philippian jailer told to do in order to inherit eternal life? Paul and Silas told him to “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.” This was the answer that was given to an unbelieving Philippian jailer. Certainly Paul would not have instructed this man to become a believer if he was already a believer. So what must an unbeliever do in order to be saved? He must become a believer. Now some people think that this is all that one has to do in order to get to heaven, and they sometimes use this very incident to prove that all a person has to do to get forgiveness is believe. But doesn’t it seem rather irrational to use a passage to prove a doctrine which it emphatically denies? Paul and Silas told this man to believe, but they did not tell him that this was all that he had to do. Read the next few verses and you will see what this man was instructed to do in order to be saved: “And they spake the work of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God” (Acts 16: 32-34). You will observe that the Jailer did not think he had done all that was required when he believed. He did two other things of which this passage tells us. He repented, for he now washed the stripes that he had been at least instrumental in inflicting, indicating that he had changed his mind and his attitude toward these two servants of Jehovah. As an unbeliever, he was commanded to believe, as a believer he was therefore instructed to repent, for he did repent. And then as a penitent believer, this sinner was told to do something else. He was baptized. Verse 33 tells us that he went even the same hour of the night and was baptized immediately. This is what the jailer had to do to be saved. The jailer asks the question with which we have entitled our lesson: What must I do to be saved? Paul answers it. You must believe, repent, and be baptized.

Regardless of whether this might be in harmony with what I had rather do, this is precisely what the Book says do. There is no way to argue around it. One can but obey it.

A Jewish Audience

But this question is asked again in the New Testament. Let us study those asking the question and the answer they received. In Acts 2 we find a record of the preaching of the first gospel sermon. On the first Pentecost following Christ’s resurrection from the dead, there gathered in Jerusalem a multitude of Jews from every nation under heaven. The Holy Spirit had been promised to the apostle, and at this time, He came, enabling these apostles to speak to this Jewish multitude in tongues which they had never learned.

On this occasion Peter was the main spokesman, and he argued logically and forcefully from the Old Testament prophecies, and from what these individuals had seen and heard that Jesus was actually the Son of God. Some in Peter’s audience had been influential in procuring Christ’s death, even so that Peter charged that “Ye” have with wicked hands crucified and slain the Lord of glory. They believed his charge and admitted their guilt. After the presentation of Peter’s forceful proof, they were persuaded that they were the actual murderers of God’s own Son.

“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Here again we find the very question which we are seeking to answer asked. “What must we do?” These men recognized that the blood of the Son of God was on their hands. They were guilty of one of the most heinous crimes of which one could be charged. It was not a matter of convicting them of their guilt. They recognized and admitted it, but what could they do to clear themselves in God’s sight of such a great sin? Remember that Peter was not speaking to unbelievers. When Peter began preaching, perhaps they were unbelievers, but by the time the sermon was completed, they knew and believed that the one whom they had slain was God’s Son. So Peter did not tell them to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, for they already believed Him to be God’s Son. Notice what Peter told these believers. He did not tell them that they were alright now, that they had become believers. Some preachers would have told these Jews that you are already saved, for you are believers, and there is nothing else for you to do in order to get your sins forgiven. Not so with Peter. “And Peter said unto them Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (or, for, K.J.V.) the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). They were told to do two things: repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. You will remember that this is precisely the instructions given to the jailer. What did these Jews have to do in order to be saved? They had to believe, repent and be baptized.

A Militant Jew

There is yet another instance in which a pointed question is asked concerning what one must do in order to be saved. You will remember that Paul was not always favorable to the truth. At one time he was a very militant and violent persecutor of the church. He had done all he could to stamp out the church in the city of Jerusalem, and had even received papers authorizing him to go to Damascus to find all that he could that were Christians in order that he might bind them, punish and even kill them. While on the road to Damascus, Jesus Christ appeared to him. After Paul had fallen to the ground following the appearance of the great light, Jesus said, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” And Paul ails vered, “Who art thou Lord?” and Jesus answered, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” Saul then asked, “What wilt thou have me do?” And the Lord said, “Go into Damascus and there it will be told thee what thou must do.”

So once again we are told that the question of what one must do in order to be saved is raised. Jesus told Saul that he is to go into the city of Damascus and there it will be told what he must do. You will find these details recorded in Acts 9, 22, and 26.

Saul went on into the city of Damascus. In the meantime the Lord appeared unto a preacher in Damascus, Ananias by name, and told him to speak to Paul and tell him what he must do. Remember the Lord had told Paul, while on the road, that in the city he would be told what he must do. Before we read what he was told to do, let us inquire into the condition of Paul when the preacher came to him in Damascus. He was now a believer, for the Lord had spoken to Him on the way, and Paul knew that he had been wrong in fighting against Jesus, for He was no imposter, but truly God’s Son. He had also repented, for Paul went three days with neither food nor drink. He had fasted, and even when Ananias came to him, he was praying. He was a penitent believer, so Ananias came to him and said, “The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous one, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name” (Acts 22:14-16). What was he told to do? Paul was commanded to be baptized to have his sins remitted. It is very plain, then what Paul did in order to be saved. Paul believed, repented and was baptized.

Conclusion

In summary, what must one do to be saved? The unbelieving Philippian jailer was told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and was then taught to repent and be baptized. The believing Jews on Pentecost, were told to repent and be baptized. To the penitent believing Saul came the instruction to be baptized. These are plain teachings. One must believe Jesus Christ to be God’s Son, repent of his sins, and be baptized in order to have his sins forgiven. All of us can understand this simple procedure. I have not written what I think about this matter, but have only recorded what the Bible teaches. Those who really want to go to heaven will not try to reason around these commandments, but will be glad that they learned them, and will readily obey them. Study these passages answering this all-important question and then obey what they teach immediately!

Truth Magazine XX: 28, pp. 435-437
July 15, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Maryland: “In your ‘That’s A Good Question’ column, would you give an exposition of 2 Tim. 2:25, Gal. 6:1, Col. 4:6 in relation to rebuking sin? When one is accused of being ‘harsh’ and ‘too strong’ these passages readily come to mind. How do they fit in with 2 Tim. 4:2, Tilus 1:13; 2:15?”

REPLY:

The passages in question are:

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:25). “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

“Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6).

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15).

A part of our querist’s difficulty is that he imagines reproof and rebuke are out of harmony with meekness. Meekness is not weakness. Christ was meek and gentle (2 Cor. 10:1), and his reproof and rebuke was performed sharply (Matt. 23). This is not a contradiction. Nine verses before Paul said to instruct “in meekness,” he scathingly denounced Hymanaeus and Philetus as purveyors of “profane and vain babblings” (Cf. 2 Tim. 2:16-18; and 2:24,25). In the Colossian letter there is subtle sarcasm directed at a form of Judeo-Gnosticism (Col. 1:28; 2:2, 3); yet, in this letter Paul says speech should be with grace “seasoned with salt.” Some foods require more or less salt than others. Salt has different reactions on different foods. Salt makes bland foods sharp and softens pungent tastes.

Jude says, “And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Vss. 22, 23). Pulling one out of the fire requires quick and decisive action that may upset the one that is being snatched, but it is the spirit of compassion that impels one to pull another out. Why snatch something from the fire you care nothing about? Similarly, Paul says, “that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” This indirectly implies that not every man is to be answered in the same way. Some require a different approach than others. The hearer’s attitude and posture should determine the measure of our words. Jesus is a classic example of this. To some he was short and curt; to others he was more patient and deliberate. A child requires discipline of varying measures. This is determined by the seriousness of the offence and the child’s attitude. Our discipline of our children does not show lack of love if the situation demands strong punishment.

Though I am not giving an exposition of each particular text in question, one suggested by our querist has the difficulty within it. Look again at 2 Tim. 4:2–“reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” Some would say that it is not possible to reprove and rebuke with longsuffering. The idea is to continue in reproof, rebuke, and exhortation and to do so with patience, longsuffering. Paul would not urge us to do the impossible.

Our attitude is to be one of meekness. “The spirit of meekness” is the attitude of meekness. “It is the quality of the man whose anger is so mastered and so controlled that be is always angry at the right time and never at the wrong time. It describes the man who is never angry at any personal wrong or insult or injury he may receive, but who is capable of righteous anger when he sees others hurt and injured” (Barclay).

To be “soft” when sharpness is needed is as big a sin as being harsh when gentleness is needed. I am not an infallible judge of temperance in word and speech. Let every man speak the truth with a pure heart. Be motivated by love for God, for truth, and for all men. The nature of your speech should then take care of itself.

Truth Magazine XX: 28, p. 434
July 15, 1976