Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Christians are vastly outnumbered by those not Christians. It is to no fault of the Bible that many are not converted to Christ. As one goes forth and endeavors to preach the Gospel in such a way to get people to obey, he confronts many of the excuses men give for remaining disobedient to the commandments of the Lord. In this article, we want to investigate the validity of the excuses men use in their attempt to justify their disobedience. If you should be one of those persons hiding behind an excuse, we hope to be able to remove your blindness so that there will be nothing standing between you and your Lord.

We read of some other people who offered excuses for not doing something they did not want to do. There is a great difference between an “excuse” and a “reason.” One can give no reasons for not obeying the Gospel, though thousands of excuses have been offered. Jesus said, “A certain man made a great supper; and he bade many: and he sent forth his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a field, and I must needs go out and see it; I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them; I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. And the servant came, and told his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and maimed and blind and lame . . . For I say unto you, that none of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper” (Luke 14:15-24).

These men had been invited to a supper, but obviously did not want to attend very badly, else they would not have offered the flimsy excuses they did. The first said, “I have bought a field, and must go and look at it.” Should we imagine that he bought this field without having first looked at it? Would a man buy a field he had never seen before? Not likely. But if he had, could he not have later looked over the field he had already bought? Would it not have still been there? Certainly. This man just did not want to attend the feast, and was looking for some excuse to justify his absence.

Notice the excuse given by the second man: “I have bought five yoke of oxen, and must go try them out.” Would a man buy oxen or horses without first trying them? We never did in my part of the country. But suppose a man were to have done so. If the man had already purchased the oxen, would not the next day have been as suitable a time to try them, if he had really wanted to attend the feast.

The next man’s excuse is amusing. He simply said, “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.” He did not feel that he needed any other excuse.

There are millions of people that are just like these three men. They do not really state why they do not want to do what Jesus has commanded, but try to hide behind something else. So they fill the air with many excuses for their disobedience. We want to look at some of these excuses offered, and we will find that they are no better than the ones mentioned in this chapter.

Denominationalism

There is a very great problem that confronts so many honest people; that problem is denominationalism. One church teaches one thing and another church teaches another. The person seeking to learn what God requires is told one thing by one person, and something else by another. So he does not do anything. Some do not obey the Gospel because there are so many different doctrines taught that they do not know which to obey. So they do nothing. The person seeking the truth reasons, “If men much wiser than I cannot agree upon the truth, how can I ever know what to do?” But my friends, do you think that God gave us a message that we cannot understand? Is He going to send us to hell for not obeying a message that is impossible for us to understand? God is not that kind of a God. A serious Bible student will never hide behind this excuse. The people of Berea were said to be more noble than those of Thessalonica “in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). If by an examination of the scriptures the Bereans were able to tell if Paul were preaching the truth, why cannot we also decide whether men today are telling the truth?

Many of these men who are anxious to guide us are blind leaders, and will cause us also to fall into the ditch. They are simply preaching what their parents believed, and only because their parents believed it. Let us not decide a certain doctrine is true just because a forceful speaker says it is. We should study the scriptures daily whether these things are so. God clothed His message in language which you can understand. The Bible plainly says we can. Jesus said, “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself” (Jn. 7:17). And Paul said, “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)” (Eph. 3:3,4). Paul said we can understand. There is no need for our being hesitant to obey the will of Christ. If we study our Bibles and do what it says, and we will be right. We should not accept any statement as the truth just because some reputable and well-liked person tells us it is. We should search the scriptures daily whether these things are so.

Condemning Ones Parents

Another thing that holds many back from obeying the Gospel is that they feel that if they should become Christians, they would be saying that their parents are lost. But my friends, we must be as good as we think our parents were. If your parents had learned that a certain thing were untrue, would they have continued to believe it and to practice it? I am quite sure they would not. And one should be willing to follow the truth as he finds it in the Bible, regardless of its implications. If in the next generation, my sons should find that I had been in error on some points, as they very likely will, I would be a very disappointed parent right now, if I, for a moment, thought they would continue to teach what they know to be erroneous just because I believed it and taught it. They would be going contrary to my sincerest wishes if they should not preach the whole counsel of God regardless of my shortcomings.

We do not like even to think about such things as this, but to face the facts we must. But if I knew that my parents were going to be lost because they did not obey the Gospel, knowing my parents as I think I do, I know that they would not want me to follow them to a like destruction.

So what “Mom” and “Dad” believed should not be my criterion. It should be, like Samuel of old, “Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth” (1 Sam. 3:9). We should say, “Command, and I will obey.”

“Better Than Some In The Church”

We sometimes hear a person say, “I would become a member of the church, but I am better than some in the church already.” I am sorry to have to confess that there are some people outside the church who live more upright lives than some within the church. But if you, reader, should happen to be one of these persons voicing the excuse we have justmentioned, you choose the poorest example of Christianity, and then declare that you are better than the worst in the church. Do you really think you are paying any compliment to yourself? Why not choose the best person in the church and compare yourself to him. Are you better than the best within the church? Let me, without hesitation reply, “you are not.” You are living in open rebellion to God. You are unsaved. Peter commanded the household of Cornelius to be baptized (Acts 10:48). Jesus commanded that baptism be preached to every creature (Mk. 16:16). If you have not been baptized for the remission of your sins, you have not obeyed Christ. Now, is the person who refuses to obey Christ a better person than the one who obeys?

Paul said, “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the Savior of .the body” (Eph. 5:23). If one has not obeyed the Gospel, he is not in the body, and therefore has not enjoyed the saving power of the blood of Christ. Now let me ask this: Is the person, who has obeyed Christ’s commandments and who has been saved, a more pleasing person in the sight of God than the person who stubbornly rebels, and therefore who is lost? Certainly so.

So, my friends, though one may be better than the sorriest in the church, be reminded that one can never he as good as the best in the church until he obeys Christ. And when that one obeys Christ, He adds him to His body which He purchased with His blood. Though he may be better than the worst of mankind, he still is not good enough to be saved unless he has obeyed the Gospel. And if he has any interest at all in the place Jesus has gone to prepare, he had better become a member of the body that Jesus saves. As long as he is outside the church built by Christ, he is unprepared to meet the Lord Jesus.

Cannot Remain Faithful

Many times I have been told by people, that they would become a Christian, but they were afraid they could not hold out faithful until death. People have told me that when they become a Christian, they want to live like one. But they feel that they could not live up to the high ideals of the Christian. Therefore they will not even profess the name of Christ.

In a way I can respect these people. The Lord wants people who take up the wearing of His name with a strong resolution that they will never drag it through the filthy pits of sin. He wants His people to be spotless and without blemish in His sight. In fact, His people, if they are to be saved eternally, must be like this.

But in another way I cannot respect these people. You know, there is a vast difference in saying that one cannot remain faithful, and in saying that one will not remain faithful. Most of these people who postpone becoming a Christian are people who know that they are not yet ready to quit sinning. It is not that they feel that it would be impossible for them to live a Christian life. It is simply that they are not yet ready to leave the pleasures of sin that they might enjoy affliction with the people of God. Sin is too enjoyable, too enticing for them to give it up. It has too strong a hold on them. They have sold themselves to the passions of sin, and are enjoying sin so much, they cannot see the beauties and the joys of righteous living. If you are one of these people, you have my sympathy.

But if there should be one who thinks he cannot remain faithful to Christ, he is indicating a lack of faith in the Lord. Did the Lord make him the kind of person that cannot cease from sin? If He made him this way, will He send him to hell for being what He made him? No, my friends. Jesus plainly teaches through Paul that “There hath no temptation taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will, with the temptation, make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13). That is a sweet premise from the Lord, and it has never yet failed. There has never been one who has sinned, but that could have refrained from the sin. I have never committed a single sin that I could not have kept from committing. We are able, through the Lord’s strength, to endure. So, do not postpone your obedience to Christ because you think you lack strength to endure. The Lord will help you day by day. Do all you can, and trust Him.

Truth Magazine XIX: 56, pp. 883-885
December 11, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Alabama: “Would it be sinful to change the time, or even perhaps the day of the week, of the midweek Bible study so as not to conflict with an athletic contest, such as the Orange Bowl?”

REPLY:

This question is from an Alabama brother, and in case you have forgotten the Alabama Crimson Tide played Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl on a Wednesday night, January 1, 1975. I suspect there is more to this query than meets the eye. I have no way of knowing or judging the situation or circumstances of the questioner. Both he and his particular position are unknown to me.

There are indications in the Bible that the first disciples met frequently, but there is no binding precedent for a mid-week service. It is a matter for each local church to decide. Many American churches have mid-week study sessions on Wednesday. Some churches have their “Wednesday evening Bible study” on Thursday night! Scripture does not regulate this matter as to the day or the time of day the saints may meet during the week. There is no contention over what day a church may set aside for mid-week worship. It is left to the discretion of each congregation. Since it is true that the church is not scripturally obligated to meet during the week, as it is on the first day of the week, then each church must determine what day or days will be most suitable. Should the brethren elect to alter their usual practice, if it be done with consideration and without overbearing rule, I see no reason why they may not meet earlier or later than usual as circumstances may make expedient.

Some churches have changed their mid-week services so as not to conflict with graduation exercises. I do not think they did wrong. Their services are conducted a day earlier or later as they choose. It is more convenient for many in the church and others agree to live with the disruption of their normal routine for sake of others.

The Orange Bowl

(Unless you know a rabid Alabama football fan, you do not appreciate the pressure this question creates!) Two churches known to me altered their mid-week services on Christmas Day, 1974, .and New Year’s Day, 1975, because both fell on Wednesday. They did this because of many factors connected with such holidays. It was strictly a matter of judgment, convenience, and expedience on their part. They did not make the decision with regard to an “athletic contest.” But what if they had? Would it be sinful? Technically, it would not be a sin for a church to revise their usual schedule, but doing it on account of an athletic contest goes against my grain.

Once a church begins to change their services for the benefit of football fans, they will have to do so for the convenience of basketball and baseball fans. Where will it end? It does not appear to be wise to initiate such a practice. I recognize that what I have said may appear arbitrary and self-serving. However, we must be careful lest matters of liberty are used as a license to circumvent other principles. In all things the Lord comes first. “But seek ye first the kingdom of God,’ and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). “Set your affection on things above and not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:2). God comes before graduation exercises and before football Bowl games. I cannot say it is a sin for a church to schedule its own worship to edify itself, but an attitude that puts carnival festivities before spiritual activities is a step to disorder, confusion, and strife.

Truth Magazine XIX: 56, p. 882
December 11, 1975

By Daniel H. King

I do not think that anybody would hesitate to admit that times have changed greatly since the great meetings held by brethren like J. D. Tant, Hardeman, Harding Nichol, Keeble, Larimore, and others. Huge crowds and many responses seemed always to be characteristic of those efforts. No doubt television and a thousand other preoccupations have begun to take up the time that once was spent listening to gospel preaching and debates. In that by-gone day entertainment was not so easy to come by because there was not as much money around; most of the people were farmers and in the summer when the crops were laid-by, then it was meeting time. Most of the countryside turned out for a meeting because it was far more than just an opportunity to hear the gospel, it was also a time for courting by the young people, for good-natured conversation and exchange of ideas, as well as a time for excitement, controversy and worship. Today crowds are not so easily drawn as they were then. Likewise, responses do not even begin to compare. I am sure that there are a multitude of reasons that this is so. Moreover, we could spend a great deal of time listing the various explanations. But one of our current problems is that we are already spending far too much time looking at the negative aspects of the thing and far too little time preaching the gospel. Many of us are like the one-talent man. We know all of the good reasons why not to do anything. So we spend much of our time talking about the reasons why people do not come to meetings anymore, and why we do not get the kind of results that we once did, and why it is a waste of time to have meetings “these days”-and we end up doing nothing. Our friends, relatives, and neighbors are heading for hell and damnation and we stand around making excuses!

I recently held a meeting with a church that had not had a meeting in ten or fifteen years (no one knew for sure, because it had been so long that nobody could remember exactly when the last one was). I hear of more and more churches that are moving toward this kind of thing. Today there are many, many of us who will hold protracted meetings if given the opportunity-with or without compensation-just for the sheer pleasure and privilege of proclaiming the glorious gospel of the Lamb of God as well as being a part in the saving of the lost and the up building of the kingdom. By and large I do not think that preachers are at fault in this, although we will be at fault if we sit idly by while brethren become more and more listless and insensitive to the cry of a lost and dying world. We need to awaken the brethren to the danger that is looming ever more ominous and foreboding, that is, our own indifference to the need of the damned of this world. Our meetings in many parts are getting ever more poorly attended and are therefore being cut shorter. Meetings fifty years ago sometimes stretched to forty-five and even sixty days, with preaching twice or even three times daily. Now a meeting continuing through two consecutive Sundays is an oddity. The order of the day is the quickie-the week-end meeting. There is nothing wrong with these in some cases because several services are held and several opportunities are thus given to hear the truth. But in others only a couple of services are held and very little preparation is made. When will this shrinking of public exposure to the gospel stop? Most of us are still convinced that the gospel meeting is the best means to give people who are members of the sects and unsound churches a chance to hear the unadulterated truth without missing their own services (which most sincere ones refuse to do). Our trimming-down of our meetings, however, is certain to be limiting our potential.

What we are moving toward appears frightful to me. I think we are going in the wrong direction. And all the while I think that the Devil is sitting back and laughing with many an eldership or entire church in his grip under the guise of “logical surrender to our time and circumstance,” reasoning something like this: “When we hold a meeting we can hardly get anybody out for it,” and “We never see any results from one,” and “People just have too much to do these days.” Instead of making excuses, we need to hold more .meetings and work harder to make the ones we have successful. Sure, there will be times when we are not successful. Even in the old days meetings sometimes flopped. Many a preacher moved his tent after a couple of days of preaching to an empty tent. What we need to remember is this: The Bible tells us, “A sower went forth to sow . . . .” That is our work. It also says, “It is God that giveth the increase.” That is God’s job. If we put out the effort and do our part, we can be assured that God is going to do His. But what if the sower stays home, discouraged by the excuse that there seems to be an overabundance of rocky ground and other obstacles to a healthy crop? When the harvest season comes it will be a sad day for the church of God. The fields will be desolate. The barns will be empty. And the Lord of the harvest will be a disappointed and angry landlord.

We do not need to sell the gospel with gimmicks. We cannot do that and please God anyway. Parties, puppet shows, bus brigades and other social gospel tactics are better left to the denominations (who are devoid of the saving gospel), and some of our digressive brethren who have not the sense to get in out of the rain. What we need is more instead of less of the Old Jerusalem Gospel. Whatever we do, let us not quit or diminish the preaching of the Gospel.

Truth Magazine XIX: 55, pp. 876-877
December 4, 1975

By Rod E. Cogdill

The Catholic Church grew out of an organizing. of the churches. In the debate between Harper and Tant in Lufkin, Texas, on the Herald of Truth, J. Early Arceneaux, veteran preacher and Bible scholar, wrote a note to Yater Tant, when Harper contended that the Herald of Truth was not another organization, reminding him that the apostasy that grew into the Roman Catholic Church was brought about not by forming another organization outside of the church, but rather by an organizing of the churches.

The apostasy in the Nineteenth Century that resulted in the development of the Christian Church denomination began with an organizing of the churches but grew into a giant organization outside of the church-The United Christian Missionary Society.

No Bible Authority for Church Supported Human Societies

The same thing is wrong with some benevolent societies today, such as Boles Home, Ontario Children’s Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, etc., that is wrong with the Missionary Society. Many brethren do not know, however, what is wrong with the Missionary Society. Some of them do not know or believe that it is wrong. J. D. Thomas, for example, of Abilene Christian College Bible Department and School of Religion, states in his book, We Be Brethren, that there is nothing wrong with the principle of the Missionary Society, but it is wrong because it usurps authority over the churches that support it. Of course, the Missionary Society president denies that the society controls the churches at all. The orphan homes, the Herald of Truth, and the colleges like Abilene and Pepperdine, deny that they control the churches, but they control all of them that they can, and would destroy the rest if they could. But it is not the control of the churches that makes them wrong as church institutions. They are wrong because there is no Bible authority for their existence as church institutions.

Men like Gayle Oler have tried every device they could manufacture to satisfy the minds of the brethren and keep them supporting the benevolent society of which he is the head. He used to argue that such institutions are “Kingdom business,” the work of the church, and should be supported by the church. Guy N. Woods has affirmed six or seven times “The scriptures authorize the churches of Christ to build and maintain such benevolent organizations as Boles Home.” He has had the support of Gayle Oler and others in such work. But, out of the other side of their mouths, these same men contend that such institutions as Boles Homes are not church institutions, but “Homes” and are not part of the church. They are insincere one time or the other, and deceitful in their contentions, for both could not be true. The fact is, as we have pointed out in previous articles, they are not “homes” in any sense of the word, so far as the organization itself is concerned, but benevolent societies maintaining asylums or institutions to care for children and they are supported and function as church institutions. They have no scriptural right to exist in such status. There is no scriptural authority for the church to build, maintain, or do its work, through human societies.

It is immaterial whether such institutions are under a board of directors or under a brotherhood eldership. They are unscriptural either way and cannot be justified. The church has an obligation in the field of benevolence, but whatever that obligation is, it cannot be fulfilled through human societies. God specified an organization through which the church is to accomplish its mission and that organization is the local church with its elders. The local churches did their own benevolence without any human organization outside of the church organization within the churches. Each church took care of its own destitute, out of its own resources, and under the supervision of its own elders (Acts 2; 4; 6). When there were more destitute in its membership than the local church could care for, other churches contributed to them to enable them to care for their own. These contributing churches made up their own contribution from their own members, they selected their own messengers-individuals-and sent their contribution by these messengers to the elders of the churches where the need existed (Acts 11:27-30; 2 Cor. 8; 9. 1 Cor. 16:1-4). There were no outside organizations involved in this work in any instance and there was no federation of churches, pooling of resources, or centralizing of authority in any way. What the churches today are doing cannot be defended by the Word of God. These liberal brethren have been challenged to show Bible authority for their Human Institutions. They have not done so, they cannot do so, and they have even quit trying. They have divided the churches of Christ over their unscriptural promotions and now choose no longer to try to defend them by the Word of God and think it more profitable to ignore all opposition. This is the course of sectarianism. They are becoming another distinct denominational movement in the world and will take their place among those who no longer profess to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 55, pp. 875-876
December 4, 1975