Truth Magazine

By Gordon J. Pennock

I once read an amusing story about a farmer who told his wife, as he tumbled into bed, “I’ll plow tomorrow.” “The next morning,” as the story goes, “he started to lubricate the tractor. But he needed oil, so he went to the shop to get it. On the way, he noticed that the chickens had not been fed. He started for the crib to get some corn, but he found some sacks there which reminded him that the potatoes needed sprouting. He headed toward the potato-pit. En route, he spotted the woodpile and remembered the shortage of kindling at the house. But he had to chop it first, and he had left his axe in the chicken coop. As he went for his axe, he met his wife who was feeding the pigs. With surprise, she asked, “Have you finished the plowing already?” “Finished?” the farmer bellowed, “I haven’t got time to get started!”

This story illustrates what happens to too many of us on too many days-especially preachers. We plan a day’s work, but then, we get an unexpected telephone caller or visitor who wants to discuss with us some personal problem or Bible question. And of course it is important that we do so. So the work that we planned must be set aside for the present. Or, it may be that we are informed of someone who is sick or hospitalized, so the planned activities must be postponed in favor of such missions of kindness and helpfulness. These interruptions are of course gladly and cheerfully accepted, because we recognize that priorities must always play a part in every plan.

What we must avoid is the upsetting of meaningful and important plans by trivial incidents or matters which are mundane and of but momentary value. An interesting Biblical lesson along this line may be drawn from the record in Luke 10, verses 38 through 42. While visiting in the home of Mary and Martha of Bethany, Jesus saw contrasting dispositions in these two women. While Mary “sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word, . . . Martha was cumbered (distracted) about much serving.” Poor Martha! She was so concerned and preoccupied with the details of entertaining that she failed to take advantage of Jesus’ presence in her home by sitting down and listening to His word, like Mary did. And, thinking that what she was doing was so important, she felt unjustly treated by her sister and complained to Jesus about Mary’s indolence, as well as His apparent indifference toward it. He responded in words. which need to be heeded by all who are faced with the sometimes perplexing problem of priorities. He said, “Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful; for Mary hath chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

Yes, it is also necessary for us to make careful evaluation and give proper priority to the many worthwhile demands upon our time. Surely, we will never have the time to do all the things which can and should be done. Consequently, we must use discrimination in choosing what we do. Like Martha, we need to be careful to choose “the good part” or that which is “needful.”

When we speak of priorities we refer to matters all of which may be proper but only of relative value when compared with others. It was in this vein that Jesus was speaking when He said: “Seek ye first his (God’s-GJP) kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things (food, drink and shelter) shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). Note, that Jesus did not say, seek ye only God’s kingdom and righteousness, but rather seek them first.

Jesus certainly knew as well as we do that man has certain physical needs which must be satisfied if he is to survive. Spending time and energy to provide for these needs is not only proper but a serious obligation, as spelled out in such passages as these: “If any (man) will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10); again: “Let him (the Christian-GJP) labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have to give to him that hath need” (Eph. 4:28). Plans and provisions to supply these needs nevertheless become sinful whenever we allow them to subordinate and displace our obligations to God and the neglect of our spiritual needs.

Friend, let us keep our values unmixed and our priorities straight. Put God, His kingdom and His will, first in your life and everything else that is needful will be enjoyed as a bonus.

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 757
October 16, 1975

By William V. Beasley

It has often and rightly been preached that the Holy Spirit bears witness “with” and not “to” the spirits of God’s children (Rom. 8:16). The Holy Spirit has given us God’s commandments (telling men how to become and be children of God) and the spirit of man, upon man’s learning the truth, can answer “Yea,” or “Nay.” The Spirit, through the writings of inspiration, revealed the words of Jesus, “. . . except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). Our spirit can answer “Yes, I believe,” or “No, it is nothing to me.” The Holy Spirit has also revealed that man must repent (Luke 24:47; Acts 17:30), confess the name of Jesus (Matt. 1p:32; Rom. 10:10) and be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27) in order to be saved. The spirit of man can answer “Yes, I’ve done these things; Hallelujah, I’m a child of God,” or it may answer, “What nonsense!”

Suppose for a moment that the wording in Romans 8:16 was “The Spirit beareth witness to our spirit . . .” Would this really make a great difference in what the verse says? I think not. If it so read, we should next ask, “How does the Spirit bear witness “to” someone or something?” The Bible tells us how the Holy Spirit bears witness “to” man: “And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he said . . . ” (See Heb. 10:15-17). The Holy Spirit bears witness “to” man the same way we have been preaching He bears witness “with our spirits,” i.e., through the word.

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 756
October 16, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

When Paul wrote the Roman Letter and said to the Roman brethren, “The churches of Christ salute you,” he was talking about independent, autonomous, churches in their own locality. They were of the same faith and order. They had been planted by the preaching of the same doctrine, “The doctrine of Christ,” and where the same seed had been sown it produced always the same fruit. The same gospel produced the same kind of Christians and the same kind of churches wherever it was preached.

These “churches of Christ” were not only of the same faith and order, they were equal and each of them perfectly, completely, and sufficiently constituted the church of Christ. They were identified, and can be today wherever the gospel is preached, by the same designation, teaching, worship, organization, and work. But they were not federated into anything. They did not pool their resources and join themselves together either in a human organization or in an amalgamated relationship of any kind. No local church can delegate any part of its resources, work, or responsibility to another local church and have all of its independence, autonomy, and its sufficiency left. This is just as certain as the fact that it takes all of the parts to constitute the whole of anything. Give a part of the parts away and the whole does not remain. Even our “brain trust,” Roy Deaver and Tom Warren, would have to agree with that.

The organization that characterized these local churches of Christ was as simple and unpretentious as all other elements of the scheme of redemption. God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound and bring to nought them that are wise, indeed! (1 Cor. 1:27). We do not have to presume or guess about the organization of the church any more than we do about the plan of salvation or the simplicity of its worship.

In each congregation or church it was God’s order that there should be elders, a plurality of them (Acts 14:23). This divine order was for every church. If every church had an eldership in God’s divine arrangement, then no eldership had the oversight of anything that belonged to more than one congregation. The only jurisdiction that God ever gave any eldership is the oversight of one church. This is abundantly established by the divine injunctions; “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts 20:28); and “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed; feed the flock of God which is among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed; feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof” (1 Peter 5:1-2). This identified the elders who were to take the, oversight and it identified the flock which those elders were to oversee. When elders act in any other capacity, they are acting without authority (ultra wires) and are therefore guilty of lawlessness-“iniquity.”

Whenever any eldership anywhere plans a program of work, either in evangelism, benevolence, or edification, that involves in any way another congregation than the one which they are to “oversee,” they are acting without divine jurisdiction and therefore in defiance of divine authority. We believe with Brother E. R. Harper, of the Herald of Truth, when he said a good many years ago in the Tulsa Lectures, which are in print, that no congregation as the right to plan any kind of a program of work for which it is unable to pay. He does not agree with this now, but it is still the truth none the less. All such programs as present day “area rallies,” “area campaigns,” “area workshops,” “area conferences” or on a still bigger scale “brotherhood conferences or lectureships” are intercongregational activities and therefore bigger than God authorized anything to become. When congregations combine their resources, amalgamate their work, or centralize the oversight of their work under any arrangement, something bigger in the way of an organization than a local eldership is essential to direct it. Brethren may put it under an eldership, but when they do that eldership ceases to be a “local” eldership and becomes either an “area eldership” or a “brotherhood eldership.” This is just as disrespectful toward divine authority as it could be to form a human organization to do the work of the church.

This means that such programs as those promoted by the San Fernando Church, viz., The Valley-wide “Teacher’s Training Program,” or the Valley-wide “Women’s Meeting” are completely without New Testament sanction or authority. It means that any kind of “brotherhood wide” conference planned either by a local church or ‘by a “Christian College” is completely unscriptural. There is nothing wrong with people attending the services of a meeting held by another congregation when they are invited to it, Neither is there anything wrong with a meeting in which different speakers do the speaking or preaching. But when plans are made for a program to involve either the membership, resources or facilities of other congregations, someone has transgressed, and is exercising too much authority. It means also that a “brotherhood wide conference of preachers and elders” such as that recently held by the Herald of Truth Missionary Society in Abilene is as unscriptural as an “interdenominational ecumenical conference” and for the same reasons. It means that a “city wide or county wide conference” among the elders or “workshop” for them goes beyond (transgresses) the doctrine of Christ and therefore leaves God behind.

Ambitious elders thatr promote themselves into any such position establish of themselves a “hierarchy” just as certainly as if they were Roman Catholic Bishops. Give them time and they will grow into it. It also is true that “promoting preachers” who lead elders and congregations into such activity are worse than denominational pastors, they are parish priests and do not resemble either .in attitudes or work a plain Gospel preacher. Brethren, we should either practice “speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent” or we should give up the claim and quit talking about it.

God’s organization in form includes “elders in every church,” “Saints, Bishops and Deacons” in the local church. In function it calls for the elders over the local church overseeing only the affairs of the local church and no more than that. When they take upon themselves any other function they pervert . God’s organization and that is just as sinful as changing the form of it.

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, pp. 755-756
October 16, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From the Republic of the Philippines: “We say that the household of Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism. We determined this according to the context of Acts 10. But did they not also receive the power to perform miracles which accompanied Holy Spirit baptism? There is no record in the Scripture that they did perform a miracle. Pentecostals will say, Cornelius was not able to perform miracles, but he did receive Holy Spirit baptism, and so with us (Pentecostals). So that not all who received Holy Spirit baptism can perform miracles.”

Reply:

Who said “there is no record in the Scriptures that they (Cornelius’ household) did not perform a miracle?” The Scripture says they did “speak with tongues.” That is a miracle as even Pentecostals will admit. So, their contention is false, and their alleged baptism with the Holy Spirit is not parallel. If they received Holy Spirit baptism, and no miracles are attendant, what is the purpose of their baptism in the Spirit?

Holy Spirit baptism was:

1) NOT given to remove inherited sin or total depravity. Cornelius was, prior to baptism in the Spirit, a good, just, God-fearing, devout, prayerful man (Acts 10:2, 22).

2) NOT given to purify his heart or soul. Our hearts are purified by faith in obedience to the gospel-“Seeking ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth” (Acts 15:9; 1 Pet,. 1:22).

3) NOT for remission of sins. Forgiveness of sins is to every one that believeth “through his name” (Acts 10:43). Cornelius was commanded to be baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:48). Water baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

4) NOT to save. Cornelius was to send for Peter “who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14). They were to be saved by words told them. They were told to believe and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:47, 48). Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Holy Spirit baptism was not given to save. The gospel was (1 Cor. 15:1, 2; Rom. 1:16).

Now what is the modern day purpose of Holy Spirit baptism if it does not involve the miraculous? What use, what benefit is it? Cornelius’ household was baptized in the Holy Spirit to convince the Jews that the Gentiles “had been granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18), to convince the Jews that the Gentiles were gospel subjects who should not be hindered from baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins (Acts 11:1-8; 15:711). Peter was called in “on the carpet” by the Jews in Judea because “Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them” (Acts 11:3). Peter defended his actions by saying he could not refuse them lest he “withstand God.” The Gentiles are gospel subjects by reason of the fact they received the “like gift” “as” the apostles did “at the beginning.” The Jews contending with Peter were convinced, not by another enactment of Holy Spirit baptism before their eyes, but by Peter’s testimony to that effect. In Acts 15:7-11, Peter again concluded that God put no difference between Jew and Gentile (Cf. Acts 10:34, 35). So, Holy Spirit baptism is not needed today to show that all men are gospel subjects. That was accomplished when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius.

Again, what is the Pentecostal’s purpose of Holy Spirit baptism today if it does not involve the miraculous? It is not to remove depravity, not to purify souls, not for forgiveness, not for salvation. It is not needed to convince us that “in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him.” And if, as Pentecostals say, it is not necessary for miraculous gifts, please tell me what profit it is. And cite Scripture when you tell me-book, chapter, and verse.

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 754
October 16, 1975