Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The leaders of the new Unity-Cult have charged that every Scripture that we have used to discuss withdrawing fellowship over doctrinal issues has been abused: In Restoration Review, Leroy Garrett has begun a study of these abused passages which is to last for two years. Having read his article “How Men Use The Bible To Justify Their Divisions” in Thoughts on Unity, I have a preview of what his objective is and some of the passages he will review. It is my plan to review at least some of these articles. So, save his journal and contrast it with what will be said in my replies.

Here is the “abused” passage for January, 1975:

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer In common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; lust as God said,

`I will dwell In them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate, says the Lord. And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. And I will be a Father to you; And you shall be sons and daughters to Me, Says the , Lord Almighty: Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

According to the Restoration Review, “It would be difficult to find a passage in all the world’s literature that is so grossly abused and misapplied than this one.”(1) Here is an example, according to Brother Garrett, of how the passage is being abused:

“One of our congregations in New York ventured into freedom to the extent that they invited some of the Christian Church folk to one of their gatherings. Then they went to one of theirs. Fellowship was becoming a reality between people that had so much in common, and in part of the country where they badly needed each other. But all this came to a screeching halt when word came from a supporting church in Texas, citing 2 Cor. 6:17. The faithful ones were told to `Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing.’

“One of our Texas preachers thought he would join the ministerial alliance in his town for reasons that seemed good to him. His elders approved of this behavior sad he soon found himself the beneficiary in many ways. But some of his fellow preachers read the clot act to him in the form of Rev. 18:4. `Come out . . : That is what the Lord says, so you have no business in, they assured him.

“This passage has been wrapped around the necks of our people all these years, and for what? Attending a Billy Graham revival or sitting in on a Keith Miller seminar. Visiting a Baptist Church or joining in a community Easter celebration . . .

“2 Cor. 6:17 is of the same general context, for It shows the absolute incompatibility of the kingdom of Christ with that of Satan. ‘Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers’ has reference to those who are unrighteous Instead of righteous, who serve Satan Instead of Jesus, who worship at pagan temples instead of God’s altar, and who love darkness rather than light, as the following lines Indicate. We can’t make a Methodist or a Baptist the ‘unbeliever’ with whom we are not to be yoked.”(2)

Quotations from Garrett

To understand Garrett’s objection to the “abuse” discussed in the above quotations, a person needs to know at least some of his presuppositions. Brother Garrett believes there are Christians in all denominations. Although he has never, to my knowledge, taken the time to explain how a person can become a Christian without obeying the gospel ‘plan of salvation, Garrett believes there are MethodistChristians, Baptist-Christians, and Catholic-Christians, as the following quotations demonstrate:

“Only recently I heard a reforming Methodist, laboring within his own context for that one, great, spiritual community of God on earth. Praise God that he is using this man where he Is! He is talking to Methodists, in their language and out of their history, of a better and more spiritual way. It would be folly for me to try to take him from his own people, converting him to the Church of Christ. He should paddle for the old ship Zion where God has dropped him down. And I think it would be equal folly for me to become a Methodist, even if I didn’t really become one, and thus cut myself off from my own roots. (Is this. his only reason for not becoming a Methodist?-MW)

“I met with a group of Roman Catholics a few times recently, some of them being business associates of ours, who are really turned on to Jesus. In their own ‘sanctuary,’ with their priest sitting with us, I laid before them a long view of the scheme of redemptfun in scripture, God’s eternal purpose in Christ. These folk want their people to get with it and turn to Jesus, and they are working to that end in various mini-meetings. How foolish It would be for me to try to bring them into `the Church of Christ,’ where they would become mere spectators of our own particular set of traditions.”(3)

“I also sat in on a mock drill for door-to-door evangelism. The man to be ‘converted’ described himself as a Baptist, but an immersed believer who had ‘enthroned Jesus as Lord in my heart.’ I later told some of the fellows that in that case there was no evangelism to do, for the man was already in Christ, that I would express my pleasure in meeting a new brother, and I would wish him well in helping bring his Baptist friends closer to Jesus and to the scriptures.”(4)

“It is in little ways that people reveal their love of freedom. A young sister at Wynnewood Hills expressed her hunger for more spiritual experiences. One of these concerned elders advised that she might visit a nearby Baptist church, which has been causing a lot of excitement with its dynamic services. That shepherd just happened to be more concerned for that little lamb’s spiritual growth than he was to keep her tied to a Church of Christ mentality. It was that kind of things that started it all at Wynnewood Hills. When you start thinking and questioning, when you put Jesus before the party, when you teach the Bible without Church of Christ glasses, when you really become free as the Lord’s man and not some sect’s man, you are different In most every way. So that’s the long and short of the story from south Oak Cliff: a bunch of our brothers and sisters tasted the liberty that Is in Christ Jesus, and for no party’s sake were they willing to be bound again to a yoke of bondage. The very Idea, an elder in the Church of Christ suggesting that one of his flock might visit a Baptist church! But things like that happen when folk are free to be themselves and think in terms of persons rather than party.”(5)

Possessing the view that the church is all denominations, obviously Garrett would be incensed (as would any other denominational preacher) to hear a preacher call upon someone to leave a particular denomination to become a part of the Lord’s body; he believes that they are already a part of the Lord’s body, even if they were sprinkled as an infant or baptized for the wrong reason.

Another major “abuse” of this passage, according to the editor of Restoration Review, is to apply this passage to our brethren. Here are his comments:

“One wonders how sincere brethren ever came to apply such scripture as this to mean that we can have nothing to do with another brother in Christ because he has a piano in his church (or because he doesn’t!), or because he has a missionary society (or because he doesn’t, or because he is premBlennfal or.whatever. Brethren, consider what you are doing! To take a verse that calls God’s children out of pagan, Idolatrous, blasphemous Rome and apply it to a brother who loves Jesus like you do and honors him as the Lord is unthinkable. To do such as that comes nearer to the spirit of pagan Rome than does a sincerely mistaken view of baptism or an irregular celebration of the Lord’s supper . . .

“That is a call to all God’s children. It is a summons out of the carnal world, away from a secularistic philosophy, and all the corrupting influences of Satanic power. But It Is not a call to believers to separate themselves from other believers. It is not a call for conservatives to.walk out on the liberals or for the Inorganic brethren to leave the organic. Or for the `faithful’ to come out from the ‘unfaithful’ in the church. There are no such Instructions in the Bible. To use this passage in such a way is not only to abuse it, but It Is to make It teach the very opposite of what the scriptures consistently insist upon, which is that unity Is to be preserved with all diligence In spite of differences.”(6)

Although Garrett does not believe these passages should be applied by conservative brethren against the liberals and although he will not quote this passage with reference to contemporary incidents, he cites approvingly an example of some “free brethren in Christ” coming out from among the legalistic brethren in Dallas. Sixty-eight families apparently walked out of the Wynnewood Hills Church of Christ in Dallas “to become a free people in a new congregation.” (Did they come out from among them to be separate?) Garrett wrote,

“An exodus can be a glorious thing to folk who have been held down and fenced up by partyfsm, and there Is no Indication that our partylam is any better than the next church’s . . . . In a statement to the other Dallas churches, the new Southwest group explained that this `creed’ was the principal reason for the exodus. But this was not resorted to until every effort was made to dissuade the remaining elders from their creedal demands.”(7)

Notice how charitable Garrett is to the unity cult brethren who “came out from among them to be separate”! Wonder how our brother would have written had the sixty-eight families who left been protesting church support of orphan homes, the sponsoring church arrangement, or the organ? Every comment that Garrett has made regarding the abuse of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 must be tempered by the fact that he quoted approvingly this incident of some brethren “coming out from among” others in order to be separate.

Exegesis

Having read Garrett’s criticisms of current usage of the passage, let us now turn to an exegesis of the passage. As in any exegesis, we must begin with a look at the general context of 2 Corinthians. A background in 1 Corinthians is essential for understanding 2 Cor. 6:11-7:1; I shall make several references to 1 Cor. 8:10 in the following exegesis. Actually, some in Corinth had become alienated from Paul, perhaps because of his first letter. Therefore, he begins this section of Scripture with an appeal for the Corinthians to open their hearts to him even as he had opened his heart to them. Paul said, “Dear friends in Corinth! We have spoken frankly to you, we have opened wide our hearts. We have not closed our hearts to you; it is you who have closed your hearts to us. I speak now as though you were my children: show us the same feeling that we have for you. Open wide your hearts” (2 Cor. 6:11-13, TEV). There was a problem in Corinth which needed to be corrected and the free exchange of ideas was needed to correct it.

Here was the problem: the Christians in Corinth had not made a decided break with paganism-religious paganism as well as social paganism. (The expressions in 2 Cor. 6 cannot be limited to ethical problems; the problem involved a false religion as well as immorality.) Here are some comments on the problem at Corinth:

“In similar fashion Christian believers who participate in ritual feasts in honor of idols are In peril of being drawn into a mystic bond of unity with those who believe In them and who thus honor them. Just as the bread and wine are sacred emblems of the unity of faith and spirit among Christian believers, so meat sanctified to Idols and eaten in a ritual feast in some pagan temple Is emblematic of a mystical bond between those who partake of it and the idol to whom it was sanctified; or rather, In Paul’s view, the demonic forces or powers of which the Idol Itself Is a symbol (vss. 19-21). The essence of both feasts is a mystic bond of fellowship: on the one hand, that fellowship spells loyalty, devotion, and dedication to Jesus Christ; on the other hand, it spells obedience and devotion to the ideas and doctrines and practices involved in idol worship . . . . The consequences are similar with regard to,pagan feasts. In these feasts, celebrated In pagan temples, homage Is paid to the demonic powers associated with the idol. The idols themselves signify nothing that need disturb the Christian believer; but the supernatural agencies which Ifs behind them and which they represent are for Paul and for his contemporaries a very different matter: To eat food dedicated to them is to pay homage and to offer allegiance to agencies that are antagonistic to God and to the purposes of God . . . . But he goes further than that, and at first the apparent contradiction deepens. He states definitely that meat sold in the market place may be eaten with a good conscience (vss. 25-26). How can this be reconciled with what has preceded it? The point is really simple. Paul is drawing a distinction between a ritual feast held in a pagan temple in honor of some pagan deity, in the course of which a libation was offered-a few drops of wine poured out from the cup-in honor of that deity, and a private meal where meat was served that had once been sanctified to the idol )n some form or another. It was the ritual feasts which had the definitely religious significance that Paul had in mind. Probably with their elaborate ritual and ceremony they still held a certain fascination for one-time pagans who had become converts to Christianity. Old associations were as apt then as now to be pleasant to the recollection. Moreover, some members of the church in Corinth may well have held official positions in civic life and have been expected to attend such feasts and ceremonies. All of this held perilous temptations for such people. Paul therefore writes warningly against participation. There must be no compromise of the Christian conscience with potential evils.”(8)

Although these comments were drawn from the section on 1 Corinthians, notice that the same problem received Paul’s attention in 2 Cor..6:14-7:1. Compare these passages:

“For if someone sees you who have knowledge dining in an Idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?” (1 Cor. 8:101. “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing In the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers In the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No; but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?” (1 Cor. 10:14-22).

What agreement has the temple of God with idols? (2 Cor. 6:16).

Obviously, the problem in Corinth was that Christians were unwilling to make a thorough break with false religion. The problem discussed in 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 is the same as that discussed in 1 Cor. 8:10; 10:14-22. Most commentaries relate the passages to the one problem, as do the following:

“In the first epistle to the Corinthians the apostle had reasoned with the church, giving it Instruction as to the marriage ties between pagans and believers, and as to the social and other fellowships which tempted the Corinthians to take part in Idol feasts. In ail this his language had been careful and guarded, and be had recognized to the full every principle of Christian liberty involved fn these questions. He now .lays aside the argumentative reserve which charac. terized his first letter and tells them plainly that by thus going to the extreme limits of their liberty they are liable to make the grace of God in vain to them. : . . Then, by a series of short, ten questions he shows the utter folly, the Inconsistency and Incongruity of every form of alliance which entangles the children of God with the children of the devil: The world has not so improved, and Satan has not so repented, as to to any way nullify, or even weaken, the weight and applicability of this apostolic warning.”(9)

“Probably the alienation from St. Paul had its root to some tampering with unbelievers. Such might at any rate have been the case among the Gentile members of the Church, some of whom were even willing to go to sacrificial feasts In heathen temples.”(10)

“It is certainly most natural to make this passage refer to such participations in Idolatrous customs as are censured in i Cor. viii.10.”(11)

The problem in Corinth was that some were unwilling to make a break with.false religion. The quotations from the pen of Leroy Garrett indicate that some among us today are still unwilling to make a break with false religion; the warning of the apostle Paul is as applicable to them as it was to those at Corinth.

Understanding the problem, now let us notice what Paul said about it. Do not be bound together with unbelievers. The word translated “be bound together” is heterozugea: It comes from heterozugos “yoked with a different yoke; used in Lev. xix. 19 of the union of beasts of different kinds, e.g, an ox and an ass, to come under an unequal or different yoke . . . to be unequally yoked . . . to have fellowship with one who is not equal: 2 Cor. vi. 14, where the apostle is forbidding Christians to have intercourse with idolaters.”(12) The Old Testament Scriptures forbade plowing with an ox and an ass in the same yoke (Dent. 22:10) because it was an unequal yoke. Similarly, Paul commanded that Christians should not be yoked with those who practice false religion.

Having stated his thesis, Paul proved it by five rhetorical questions. For whit partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? Notice the parallels in these questions:

partnership righteousness lawlessness?

fellowship light darkness?

harmony Christ Belial?

in common believer unbeliever?

agreement temple of God idols?

The five Greek words for joint participation are methoche, koinonia, sumphonesis,(13) meris, and sugkatathesis.(14) All of these words emphasize the ideas of “sharing; communion, fellowship, association, concord, agreement, consent.” By asking a rhetorical question which expected the answer “none,” Paul emphasized the absolute incompatibility of the two systems-heathenism and Christianity. However, the terms used in antithesis (righteousness-lawlessness; light-darkness, etc.) show that righteousness and wickedness are never compatible, whether the wickedness is practiced by an immersed believer or an unimrnersed unbeliever.

The idea that Paul intended to limit the application of this verse solely to non-Christians is unfounded. Christians can be guilty of lawlessness (anomia). Actually anomia is used to describe some in the kingdom of God (Mt. 13:41), ignorant worshippers (Mt. 7:23), and sin of any sort (1 Jno. 3:4). Righteousness (dikaiosune) is incompatible with lawlessness (anomia) whether the lawlessness is practiced by some who call themselves Christians or by unbelievers. Similarly, children of light can decide to walk in darkness (Eph. 5:8-11; 1 Jn. 1:6); baptized believers can decide to become followers of Belial (Acts 5:3); a believer can become an unbeliever; brethren can turn aside to false religion (Acts 15:20; 1 Cor. 12:2; 1 Jn. 5:21; Rev. 2:14, 20). Garrett’s assertion that this verse has no application to brethren is true only if brethren are never guilty of lawlessness, walking in darkness, etc. When brethren become guilty of these sins, we must separate ourselves from them as Paul commanded in 1 Cor. 5.

If Garrett believes that this passage can never have application to brethren, he must believe that brethren cannot be guilty of the sins listed here. Does he believe in the perseverance of the saints? Does he employ one standard of conduct toward unbelievers guilty of these sins and a different one for Christians guilty of them? Obviously, Christians sometimes are guilty of these sins. Paul said that Christianity is incompatible with them and that we should, therefore, separate ourselves from them. The reason Garrett does not believe that this passage has any bearing on the use of instrumental music, supporting missionary societies and benevolent societies, the sponsoring church, and premillennialism is because he does not believe that they are sinful!

“For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, `I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate, says the Lord. And do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you. And I will be a Father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty.” Paul listed several blessings which are ours, if we separate ourselves from wickedness, as motivating forces to encourage the separation from wickedness. We are “the temple of the living God;” therefore, one should not defile the temple where God dwells with uncleanness. God will dwell in us and walk among us-i.e. He will associate with us and be our companion. We sustain a Father-Son or Father-Daughter relationship to Him. Having these promises, we should not touch what is unclean. Brethren can and do touch what is unclean, or else Paul would not have warned against touching it. He wants us to separate ourselves from the unclean things and those who engage in them, whether they have been baptized or not. After all, our fellowship with one another is contingent upon us walking in the light (1 Jn. 1:6,7). In conclusion, Paul said, “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the Lord.” “Righteousness must therefore be forever separate from unrighteousness in doctrine as well as in practice.”(15)

Conclusion

From these comments, we see that Paul called for a separation of light from darkness whenever and wherever the two were mixed. All of the comments I have heard about the wickedness in the church at Corinth being an acceptable mixture of light and darkness. ignore the fact that Paul wrote to them commanding them to get rid of the wickedness which was in them or else, when he came, he would not spare anyone (2 Cor. 13:2). Paul did not close his eyes to the problem in Corinth; he did not believe that God was pleased with them as a church filled with such wickedness. The very purpose of the letters to the Corinthians was to correct these problems so that they could be pleasing to God. Paul’s manner of handling the problem at Corinth is the antithesis of the manner the Unity-Cult is suggesting for handling the problems of instrumental music, the sponsoring church concept, missionary and benevolent societies, and premillennialism. Paul said to correct the problem or else withdraw from the brethren practicing them. The Unity-Cult suggests that we have fellowship with one another without trying to correct the sinful practices. Actually, they are suggesting the very practice employed by the Corinthian church, which practice Paul sought to correct. The Unity-Cult wants a “unity iii diversity” like they had at Corinth. Paul told the Corinthians to separate themselves from wickedness.

2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 is a call for the separation of true religion from false religion. It is applicable to any false religion whether it be paganism, denominationalism, or false religion inside the church. The passage is not simply a call for moral purity. Like 1 Cor. 15:33 which called for a separation from “some among you” (15:12) who held that the resurrection was already past because of the influence they would have on other believers, 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 calls for a similar separation from false religion, whether it be among or outside the believers!

Actually, the issues which need to be discussed are: (1) Is denominationalism false religion? (2) Is the organ a perversion of worship? (3) Is the sponsoring church a. perversion of the organization of the New Testament church? and (4) Is premillennialism false doctrine? If it can be established that they are, 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 is applicable to these issues, the assertions of Leroy Garrett notwithstanding. If not, of course, it is not applicable. There is no way that we can have unity without discussing the issues which originally divided us. The idea that our divisions occurred because of ungodly attitudes is unfounded.

“The separations which have always taken place under the preaching of the Gospel have been produced, not from a factious spirit on the part of God’s people, not because they, despised their fellow-men, not because they fancied they were better than others, but simply because they were anxious to avoid what is wrong.”(16)

Garrett might want to cry “foul” whenever someone applies 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 to the organ, institutional, or sponsoring church controversies but if these are lawless practices, as I believe they are, the referee will only award him a technical! The issue is whether or not these practices are sinful; Garrett says they are not and many of us disagree with him. If they are sinful, then 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 is applicable to the, situation.

Endnotes

1. Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . ‘Come Out From Among Them and Be Separate,’ ” Restoration Review, XVII, No. 1 (January, 1975), p. 2.

2. Ibid., pp. 2-3, 4.

3. Leroy Garrett, “Shall We ‘Hang In’ or Leave?,” Restoration Review, XVI, No. 9 (November, 1974), p. 367.

4. Leroy Garrett, “Meeting With Church , of Christ Editors,” Restoration Review, XVI, No. 9 (November, 1974), p. 375.

5. Leroy Garrett, “A Massive Walkout in, Dallas,”, Restoration Review, XVI, No. 10 (December, 1974), p. 387.

6. Garrett, op. cit., Restoration Review, XVII, No. 1 (January, 1975), pp. 4,5.

7. Garrett, op. cit., Restoration Review, XVI, No. 10 (December, 1974), pp. 385-386.

8. John Short, The Interpreter’s Bible, George Arthur Buttrick; ed. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953), Vol. X, pp. 114115, 115-116, 116-117.

9. J. W. McGarvey, The Standard Bible Commentary (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Foundation, no date), p. 203.

10. F. W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. XIX, p. 147.

11. Christian Friedrich Kling, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), Vol. X, p. 118.

12. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), p. 254.

13. Sumphonesis is from sumphoneo which relates to the harmonious sounds of musical instruments. The English word symphony is derived from this Greek word.

14. Sugkatathesis is from the verb sugkatatithemi which means “to deposit one’s vote together with another; Mid. prop. to deposit one’s vote in the urn with another. . . , hence to consent to, agree with, vote for” (Thayer).

15. Kling, Ibid., p. 122.

16. Ibid., p. 121.

Truth Magazine XIX: 31, pp. 488-492
June 12, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

Since only the truth can make men free, it is important for us to know exactly how the truth may be determined. By what standard can it be established? There is no substitute for truth butt error. Truth is narrow and is always consistent. There must be some rule or rules by which truth can be determined.

One God?

Modernistic unbelief takes the attitude that truth is a relative thing and cannot be absolute in any respect and especially do they insist that this is true in religious or spiritual matters. This sort of an attitude would entirely destroy faith and create such uncertainty that an effort to serve God and reach Heaven eventually would be so confused, one would not know in what direction he was traveling. Is the fact that there is one true and living God indefinite and relative? Is there a chance that there may be Gods many, instead of only one? Is the fact that there is one true and living God, a kind and loving heavenly Father interested in the salvation of every one of us and not willing that any should perish, only relatively true or is it possible that He may be a despotic, cruel, unmerciful, and tyrannical destroyer of the souls of men?

Can we know and be sure about it?

An Immortal Spirit?

Does man have an immortal spirit? Can we be sure of it or is it only a relative matter about which we may eventually learn that we have been wrong? Is there but one Lord and lawgiver, one Savior and King, or shall we allow for the fact that truth is relative and that we may eventually learn that there are really many Christs to serve and to save? If these are matters of absolute faith and confidence, why hold that any other revealed truth should be considered only relative? There are, to be sure, many things that God has not revealed arid about which, we cannot know. Moses said, “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). This division must be recognized and we should not try to be certain and dogmatic in our attitudes about those things that God has not revealed. But about those things which are revealed, truth can certainly be determined and must be believed and followed if we are to be made free by it (John 8:32). Men who would come to God must believe that “He is and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him” (Heb. 11:6). We must believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of God or we will die in our sins (John 8:24). Again, we must believe the Gospel, the truth, or we will be damned (Mark 16:15-16 2 Thess. 2:12). How can a man who believes not the truth be justly damned, if he cannot determine what the truth is which he must believe?

One Faith?

If there is just one faith, and Paul by the Holy Spirit so declares (Eph. 4:5), then there is no room for uncertainty or variation in what we believe and if we believe differently about any revealed thing, some one does not believe that truth. This is so simple and self-evident from the premises that only the wilfully ignorant cannot see it. Truth is narrow, and hence right belief must be narrow also.

But many reason within themselves that if they “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto- then-saints,” they will give offense to others who do not believe the truth as it is revealed in Christ Jesus and, because they do not want to appear dogmatic and give.. offense to others, they compromise with error. This is offensive to God and evidences to the world that we think more of our friends and our standing with them than we think of God and His Word. Such people argue that if we stand for the truth and preach the truth uncompromisingly that we will make ourselves unpopular; be accused of having the wrong attitude and being bigots, and drive those away who do not agree with us. They quote Eph. 4:15, “speaking the truth in love,” and condemn, sometimes severely, those who are bold in “contending for the faith” and condemning error. But we are to preach the truth in love for what? Are we to love and honor God above men? God demands first place in our hearts and also demands that His Word must be honored above all. Can we be vacillating and uncertain, compromising and unfaithful in “contending for the faith” and yet give God and His Word the consideration that is due? When we put the feelings of men and their friendship for us above the truth, we are unfaithful to God and condemn ourselves.

Jesus taught the truth and condemned error even when men became so offended at him and what he taught that they wanted to crucify him. Upon one occasion when the Pharisees were offended. at what he taught, the disciples became very concerned about it and came to him with the matter. “But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Matt. 15:12-14). This should be our pattern.

In reality, those who teach us the truth, love our souls far more than those who would leave us in error and allow us to be condemned in the last day. We should not count any man our enemy who tries to teach us the truth. He may be wrong in what he teaches but we should appreciate his concern for us evidenced in wanting to share with us what he believes to be the truth. People who resent the effort any one makes to teach them the truth, and become ugly in their attitude toward them, are wrong in their attitude even though they may be right in what they believe. When our interest in truth is as great as it should be, we will be willing to hear, and appreciate any opportunity to learn.

Standard For Truth?

But by what standard shall we determine what is right and what is truth? There are many false standards but there is but one right one and that is the Word of God. Jesus answered the question that heads this article by the statement, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). This is the standard and the absolute test. Does God say it in language plain enough to reveal to us the truth? By no other test or standard can the truth of anything be established. Paul declared, “For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:3-4).

Truth Magazine XIX: 31, pp. 487-488
June 12, 1975

By J. Edward Nowlin

There are some relationships in life from which one may just pick up his hat and walk away. For instance, one who is employed to work on a job may find the work or the working conditions unsatisfactory to him, and simply quit after due notice. This amounts to unilateral severance of the employer-employee relationship. If the employer is unhappy with the arrangement, he may terminate the employee, preferably with adequate notice, in which case the result would be the same.

Membership in the church is quite another matter. It seems that some wish to operate here on the basis of the worker-employer relationship, and just check out at any time they wish. This cannot be done with honor to all. Membership in the local church is a family-type relationship. It carries obligations with its privileges. What father or mother or child in a family is free to just “up and walk away?” Even if one tires of the privileges of a home, he has responsibilities which must be adjusted before leaving it. The State is interested in such matters and has laws which govern such actions. Again, what citizen can just default his obligations to his government with impunity? His government gives him protection in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and he must pay his taxes to his government which provides these. Then, in case of military service a relationship is established from which one cannot simply walk away. What soldier may go AWOL from his Army base any time he wishes? The Army does not take such actions lightly, and any soldier who does so is subject to discipline, court-martial and imprisonment.

Neither does time wash out such responsibilities. A father may be gone from home and family five years, but the judge is unimpressed when he says that he has withdrawn from the family. A citizen may not pay his taxes for ten years, but the IRS man takes a dim view of such neglect. An Army deserter may not be caught for many years, but he still has to “face the music” when apprehended. Should it be any less important that the church member who just walks away be subject to reminders of his obligations in the local church?

Letters of Commendation

When church members wish to leave a congregation and become members of another, they should let their intentions be known to the church and leave gracefully and with the consent of the brethren. This would pave the way for their return at some future time, fi they so wished, and would end their relationship on the same mutually friendly terms it was established upon. Letters of commendation should be more commonly used among churches of Christ than they are. Once in a “blue moon” a member who has moved into town will come forward with a letter in hand from the church of which he was formerly a member, and present it with his request to be “identified” with the local church. This is in keeping with the practice of Paul and others in Bible times. In writing the Corinthian church, Paul alludes to such a practice (2 Corinthians 3:1), and when he wrote to the church at Rome he included such a commendation on behalf of Phoebe (Romans 16:1,2). Also, when Apollos went from Ephesus into Achaia, the church at Ephesus wrote a letter of commendation for him (Acts 18:27; 19:1).

The usual practice (and a bad one it is). is to accept into local churches any stranger who comes along claiming to be a member of the church of Christ somewhere. Certainly, we should trust people and not have suspicious hearts, but some churches have been dealt deadly blows by accepting at face value someone who was a false teacher, hypocrite, or immoral person, when a little investigation and caution on the part of the elders might have prevented it. Some good brethren who do not know the difference between the local church and the universal church are heard to object to the use of church letters ‘as “denominational.” If the Lord accepts one, why should we not do so? The simple answer to this question is, the local church has no word from the Lord that He has accepted a given person! It is true that the Lord adds to the church (universal) those who are saved (Acts 2:38-47), but membership in a local church is obtained by mutual consent; not by baptism, as the Baptists teach. Paul found this out at Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-28).

What Of Members Who Stray?

In addition to leaving the local church to become members of another of the same persuasion, there are some who stray away into sinful living and quit the church. There are others who stray away into error and become members of some digressive church or denominational body. Most of these never announce their intention. They just do it. They are found absent from their usual places of duty and worship, and when investigation is made they are found worshiping and working in a situation of religious error. In either case, those who stray should have the attention of the brethren they have left.

To begin with, every effort should be made to show them the unscriptural and sinful situation they are in, and to get them to renounce such and return in penitence to the fellowship they have left. This means that every member of the church should join in a concerted effort to restore them in the fear of God. Paul laid down this rule in Galatians 6:1: “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering

and become members of another, they should let their thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” One visit by the preacher and another one by one of the elders is not sufficient. This is one of the hardest things to get members of the church to do, but every member should show an interest in the one who has strayed.

In case such group effort to restore is unsuccessful, more drastic measures are to be taken as a last resort. The straying member is unresponsive. There is nothing left but for the church to exercise disciplinary action of a more formal kind. This is commanded by Paul (2 Thessalonians 3:6) in order that such person “may be ashamed” (verse 14) and hopefully will repent. “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (verse 15). This applies to the backsliding member. Those who stray into error “contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned,” and have caused divisions and offenses should be marked and avoided (Romans 16:17); yet, James teaches the importance of trying to “convert” such a person “from the error of his way… in order to “save a soul from death” (James 5:19,20). Although no apostolic example of the mechanics of this action is given in the Bible, it involves using’. the most appropriate method of notifying the straying member of the action of the church toward him. His walking away affects a great many members of the church. It is not just his “own business.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 31, pp. 486-487
June 12, 1975

By Cecil Willis

One of the claims which the Bible makes for Itself is that It can never be destroyed. The abundance of copies of the Scriptures now available is abundant proof that It has made good Its claim. In many passages the indestructibility of the Scriptures is pronounced. In 1 Pet. 1:24, 25, we read: “All flesh is as grass, And all the glory thereof as the flower of grass, The grass withereth, and the flower falleth: But the word of the Lord abideth forever.” It will never cease to be. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). When the heavens shall have passed away with a great noise, the elements melted with fervent heat, the earth and the works therein burned up, the Bible, the word of the Lord, will yet remain. Isaiah said, “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand forever” (Isa. 40:8). The Scriptures teach that the word of the Lord -must remain until time is no more, and even through the Judgment, for by the word of God we shall be judged. Jesus said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48). As John tells of the Judgment scene, he says, “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works” (Rev. 20:12). The Scriptures teach that from the time that the word of the Lord was put in written form, until the Judgment, they shall never be destroyed.

An Indestructible Kingdom

The Bible again asserts this same truth in a slightly different manner. It asserts that the kingdom of God shall never be destroyed. As the prophet Daniel predicted the building of the Messiah’s kingdom, he said it would endure forever. “And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Dan. 2:44). After Daniel had said the kingdom to be built could never be destroyed, Paul said that the kingdom which was built will endure forever. “And this word, Yet once more signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe: for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:27-29).

But what are the implications of these statements that the kingdom can never be destroyed? Simply that the Word of God can never be destroyed. As Jesus gave a parable concerning the kingdom of God, He explained it saying, “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God” (Luke 8:11). So long as the kingdom remains, the seed of the kingdom which is the word of God, must remain. But the Kingdom will last forever, so the Word of God must last forever. If It lasts forever, It is indestructible. So long as the Bible remains, the kingdom has not been destroyed. It may be suppressed for a while, it may not be apparent, but as long as God’s word remains, the kingdom has not been destroyed. When the seed of the kingdom is sown, men and women can become Christians; Christians make up the kingdom. One cannot cause wheat to cease to exist merely by pulling up all the wheat plants he can find. If he leaves just one seed of wheat, in which is the germ of life, he has not destroyed wheat. This single seed can be planted, a plant will come forth, bear its fruit, and wheat remains. So it is with the Word of God. One can fight the church, kill its members, but God has said that his Word cannot be destroyed. And until one can figure out how to destroy the Word of God, which he can never do, the kingdom cannot be destroyed because as the seed of the kingdom, the word of God, is sown into the hearts of men and women, it will bear fruit; they will become Christians and the kingdom will remain. It cannot be destroyed!

The Antiquity of the Bible

The Bible is a very ancient book. Its antiquity is a wonder. It is a marvel that the Bible has remained until the present time. I am quite sure It would not have, had it not been that God had purposed that It should never be destroyed. Relatively few books survive the decade in which they are printed. Very, very few survive for a century. Their make-up is such that the elements tend to destroy them. Age and water rot them, insects eat them, careless handling destroys them, ink fades, covers pull loose. But the Book of God remains.

The last book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written about 1875 years ago. Portions of the Bible, of course, are much older. The first five books of the Old Testament were written by Moses about 1500 B.C., making them nearly 3500 years old. The Book of Job was written even earlier, probably at least 2000 B.C. The Bible probably is the oldest antique you have, even if you are a collector of ancient and very rare objects. Go to your library, choose your oldest volume, and compare its age with that of the Bible. God has seen to it that His Word has not perished from the earth, because He has willed that It should abide forever.

Efforts to Destroy the Bible

The antiquity of the Bible would be a marvel had men throughout the ages cherished It, and taken the very best of care to preserve It. But such has not always been the case. The enemies of Christianity have realized that the kingdom of God could not exist without the seed of the kingdom. Therefore, they have concentrated their efforts against Christianity in the direction of destroying the Scriptures.

Even in the New Testament, we read of those who violently sought to overthrow the cause of Christ. We read of disciples dying a martyr’s death because of their faith. Early in the history of Christianity, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Many martyrs are daily burned, crucified, and beheaded before our eyes.” For many years Christianity was outlawed by the Roman government. From the time of Trajan (reigned 98-117) until Constantine (c. 300), virtually every one of the Roman emperors was opposed to Christianity. It is true that not all of them actively tried to suppress it, but few of them encouraged Christianity in any way. Many of their efforts were directed toward destroying the Bible. Of Diocletian (284-316), the ruler immediately preceding Constantine, Eusebius, the historian said, “royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures destroyed by fire” (Church History, Book VIII, Ch. 1). Diocletian went on to say that if one had a copy of the Scriptures and did not surrender it to be burned, if it were discovered, he would be killed. Furthermore, if any other should know of one who had a copy of the Scriptures, and did not report it, he also would be killed. During this time many, many copies of the Bible were burned, copies laboriously written in longhand. Of this period. the historian Newman said, “Multitudes . . . hastened to deny the faith and to surrender their copies of the Scriptures; many more bore the most horrible tortures and refused with their latest breath to surrender the Scriptures or in any way to compromise themselves” (Newman, Church History, p. 169). After this edict had been in force for two years, Diocletian boasted, “I have completely exterminated the Christian writings from the face of the earth!” (Rimmer, Seven Wonders of the Wonderful Word, p. 15). But had he completely destroyed it?

History tells us that the next ruler, Constantine, became a Christian. He requested that copies of the Scriptures be made for all the churches. But alas! Diocletian had completely obliterated the Word of God. After Constantine offered a substantial reward for a copy of the Scriptures, within 25 hours 50 copies of the Bible were brought to him!

The Bible has had many enemies. Even those that professed on some occasions to be Its friends under other circumstances turned enemy to It. During the middle ages, for example, the Roman Catholic Church burned thousands of copies of the Bible. But in spite of it, the Bible lives on. Voltaire, the noted French infidel, who died in 1778, made his attempt to destroy the Bible. He boldly made the prediction that within one hundred years the Bible and Christianity would have been swept from existence into oblivion. But Voltaire’s efforts and his bold prophecy failed as miserably as did those of his unbelieving predecessors. In fact, within 100 years, the very printing press upon whicli Voltaire had printed his infidel literature, was being used to print copies of the Bible. And afterward, the very house in which the boasting Voltaire had lived, was literally stacked with Bibles prepared by the Geneva Bible Society. Voltaire and all his cohorts had miserably failed.

A few years ago H. L. Hastings in a book entitled Will the Old Book Stand? said, “The Bible is a book which has been refuted, demolished, overthrown, and exploded more times than any other book you ever heard of . . . . They overthrew the Bible a century ago, in Voltaire’s time,Tentirely demolished the whole thing. In less than a hundred years, said Voltaire, it will have been swept from: existence, and will have passed into history . . . But the Word of God ‘liveth and abideth forever’ ” (p. 5). The failures of these believers, and failures they must inevitably be, for they are but mere men fighting against the cause of almighty God, reminds me of a short poem written by William Blake:

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rosseau!

Mock on, mock on, ’tis all in vain;

You blow the dust against the wind,

And the wind blows it back again.

Man cannot destroy the Bible. “We might as well put our shoulder to the burning wheel of the sun, and try to stop it on its flaming course, as attempt to stop the circulation of the Bible” (Collett, All About the Bible, p. 63).

“Men have died on the gallows for reading it, and have been burned at the stake for owning it. Tortures too fiendish to describe have been visited upon delicate women and tender children for looking on its pages. Yet in spite of the strongest forces that Hell could unleash and in the face of the animosity of tyrants and despots, there are more Bibles in the earth today than there are copies of any other book ever written by the hand of man!” (Rimmer, op. cit. p. 15).

The Bible’s Popularity

Each year literary men throughout the world are expending their most strenuous efforts to produce what men will call a “Best Seller.” But the “best seller” of all times is the Bible. Each year the Bible outsells all other books. Its critics have railed and ranted, and then died to be soon forgotten. But the Word of the Lord has lived on. It will continue to be the world’s best seller. So long as there are men and women who are willing to let the blessed words of the Bible guide their life, the Bible cannot be destroyed. And even if all shall turn aside from It, God will yet preserve It. For He has said it will last till heaven and earth shall be no more and that all of us shall meet It in the Day of Judgment. We must read it with understanding now, obey Its every commandment, live by It, die by It, and we can thereby share the great promises contained in It.

As I summarize this lesson on the indestructibility of the Bible, a poem that I ran across some time ago says what I have been trying to say.

“Last eve I paused beside a blacksmith’s door

And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;

Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor

Old hammers worn with the beating years of time.

“`How many anvils have you had,’ said I,

`To wear and batter all these hammers so?’

`Just one,’ said he; then said with twinkling eye,

`The anvil wears the hammers out you know.’

“And so, I thought, the anvil of God’s word

For ages skeptic blows have beat upon,

Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,

The anvil is unharmed-the hammers gone.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 31, pp. 483-485
June 12, 1975