Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

To worship God is to pay homage to Him, or to render reverence to him. People in every land attempt to adore some sort of God. All people worship something. The Christian has certain instructions given to him as to how, where, and when he is to worship.

The Divine Place

There is a place or state in which one must worship God. The Bible also makes it plain as to Whom reverence is to be paid. In Rev. 22:8, 9, John says, “And I John am he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed me these things. And he with unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with them that keep the words of this book: worship God.” God is the one to be worshiped. But worship of God is possible only when we sustain the right relationship to God. One outside the family of God cannot render acceptable worship to Him. In 1 Pet. 4:16, Peter says, “if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name.” It is in the name “Christian” that one can glorify God. Those that attempt to worship outside of the name “Christian” worship in vain.

In Ephesians 1:3, Paul declares that every spiritual blessing is in Christ Jesus. One certainly is blessed by being given the great privilege of worshiping God. Just as all blessings are in Christ, so also is all acceptable worship rendered through Christ. And Paul adds: “And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). So the man outside of Christ, the man outside the body of Christ, is in the wrong place to worship. There is a divine place to worship God, and that place of worship is in the body of Christ. In the Old Testament, God had a place where he would meet with those who worshiped him. That place was in the temple. Today the church is God’s temple. It is the place where God will meet those who worship him. Those therefore who worship God outside the church worship Him in vain. And when I use the word “church,” I am speaking of the spiritual body of Christ, and not of the material structure in which the church meets. The church may meet in a house of stone or brick to worship God, or under a tree, and yet the worship be acceptable. But outside the church, no worship is acceptable to God, even though it is rendered in the finest of houses.

The Divine Time

Not only is there a divinely specified place of worship, there also is a divinely appointed time for worship. One may render homage to God as an individual, but there are certain items of worship which are to be done at a divinely specified time. This time John speaks of as “the Lord’s day.” He says “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). This is the time God has set aside for certain items of worship. This is the time God has chosen for man to perform certain actions in adoration of Him. It is important that man worship God in the right place, but it is of equal importance that man worship God at the right time.

In the Old Testament there was a certain day set aside in which the Jews entered into a period of worship to God. This day was the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week or Saturday. But the day set aside for Jewish worship is not the divinely appointed day for worship in the Christian dispensation. The items of worship under the law were changed in the New Testament worship. We are not commanded to offer an animal sacrifice today. But not only was the type of worship changed, the time of worship was also changed. Sabbath keeping was a part of the Old Covenant, and in Eph. 2:14-16 and Col. 2:13-17, Paul says that the Old Covenant was done away in Christ Jesus. It was nailed to the cross. So after Christ’s death, and after the New Testament became effective, the Sabbath was no longer the chosen day of worship.

We read in Acts 20:7, “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed unto them.” The Lord’s Supper was observed on the first day of the week. This is not Saturday, but the first day of the week-Sunday. It is a mistake for people to speak of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. It is not that at all. The Sabbath is Saturday. In 1 Cor. 16:2, Paul says, “Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.” So the Scriptures specify a certain time for these things to be done in worshiping God. They are to be done on the first day of the week.

The Lord appointed a divine time for breaking bread or partaking of the Lord’s supper, and for taking a contribution. Denominational churches have had difficulty understanding what was meant when we read that the disciples met on the first day of the week to break bread. Some think this means on the first day of the week once a month, or every three months, or twice a year. But the Lord’s supper should be partaken as often as we have a first day of the week. It has always appeared a bit strange to me that these same people have never misunderstood the divine command to lay by in store on the first day of the week. Do any of these churches, which partake of the Lord’s supper but once every three months, take up a contribution only every three months? I never knew of one. Yet the commands to break bread and lay by in store both state the time: on the Lord’s day. We should take the Lord’s supper as often as we give of our means. The Lord’s day is the divine time of worship.

The Divine Manner

We must worship in the right place, at the right time, and in the divinely appointed manner. The Bible describes how we are to worship. In John 4:24, Jesus says, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” One’s worship, to be acceptable to God, must be done in spirit, and according to the truth. We will, in a moment, notice what the truth is concerning what we should do in worship. The divine manner of worship is “in spirit.” This expression at least means that one should put his spirit into his worship. A mere formalism will not please God. Going through prayers mechanically or mathematically is not that with which God is pleased. God wants sincere praise from the heart.

Paul says, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also” (1 Cor. 14:15). In describing how one should sing to please God, Paul says “singing with grace in your hearts unto God” (Col. 3:16). The divine manner is that one should worship from the heart.

The Divine Acts of Worship

The Bible tells where we are to worship, when we are to worship, and how we are to worship. It also tells us what we are to do in worship. The divine acts of worship are enumerated.

(1) Prayer is a divinely appointed item of worship. We find that the early church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42) They continued in the prayers. The New Testament church was a praying church They worshiped God by talking to Him, praising Him in prayer.

(2) When the New Testament church met for worship, they also studied the word of God. In Acts 20:7 we find that when they gathered to break bread, Paul preached unto them. Not only did they speak to God through prayer, but they let God speak to them through studying His word. God is praised when man thinks highly enough of His word to meditate upon it night and day (Psa. 1:1, 2) and when we let the word of Christ dwell in us richly or abundantly (Col. 3:16).

(3) The breaking of bread was also a divinely commanded item of worship. We have already observed when this was done. It was done on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). The early church continued steadfastly in the “breaking of bread.” The expression “breaking of bread” in the New Testament frequently refers to the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Paul commands that they eat “discerning the body,” else they eat and drink condemnation to themselves. This is another comment upon the “manner” of worship. For if one did not worship in sincerity, his worship was void. They ate of bread, and drank of the fruit of the vine in observing the Lord’s Supper. This eating of bread and drinking of the fruit of the vine meant something to Christians; it reminded them of the body and the blood of Christ. In 1 Cor. 10:16, Paul says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?” It also reminded them that Jesus would come again. 1 Cor. 11:26 says, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.”

(4) The New Testament church was a singing church. There are many statements in the scriptures that indicate that the early church sang as a part of its worship. Paul commands, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God” (Col.. 3:16). And in a very similar passage, the same writer says, “speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). There are several other commands and statements in the Bible which indicate that singing was a part of the worship in the early church.

People today seem to think it is a matter of little consequence to change God’s prescribed order of worship. What would people think if I were to suggest that we have bread and the fruit of the vine on the Lord’s table, but that we also have something else. Suppose I suggested a third item to be used in the Lord’s supper. All would object to this for it would be changing a divinely given ordinance. But men and women today seem to think nothing at all is wrong when they add something to God’s command to sing. When mechanical instruments of music are employed in worshipping God, man has added something other than that which God commanded. To man, this would likely be a matter of little importance, but it is of grave importance for one of us to add to the commandment of God. God commanded that the music in the church be singing, and that only.

(5) Giving was also a part of the worship in the church one can read about in the Bible. Luke says they continued stedfastly “in the fellowship,” (Acts 2:42). Almost all commentators take this expression, “in the fellowship,” to mean that they continued to give of their means, their money, on the first day of the week. We have already read from 1 Cor. 16:2 where Paul commanded them to lay by in store on the first day of the week as God had prospered them.

Conclusion

The church is a divine organization in which man is to worship God. So the worship is divinely appointed. It is to be rendered in (1) the divinely appointed place-the church; (2) at the divinely appointed time-“The Lord’s Day;” (3) in the divinely appointed manner-in spirit or from the heart; (4) and yet we must do the divinely appointed acts of worship: Praying, tudying the Scriptures, partaking of the Lord’s supper, singing, and giving. In the divine church, we must worship according to the divine pattern.

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, pp. 195-197
February 6, 1975

By John McCort

Some of our brethren have begun marching inexorably toward an eventual rendevous with Calvinism. They have accepted the basic presuppositions of the Calvinistic theology. With the basic premises from which they are now operating, these brethren will eventually become full-fledged Calvinists, if they take their basic presuppositions to their logical extension.

One of the primary doctrines of Calvinism is the doctrine of the unconditional imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Some of our brethren are now taking the position that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ will unconditionally cover such doctrinal errors as institutionalism, premillennialism, instrumental music and other such sins of doctrinal ignorance or weakness of the intellect. It is very interesting to read what Benjamin Warfield, the great Presbyterian apologist, had to say on the subject of imputation. “But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to ones’ account; and the act of setting to one’s account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account …. the threefold doctrine of imputation-of Adam’s sin to his posterity, of the sins of His people to the redeemer, and of the righteousness of Christ to His people-at last came to its rights as the core of the three constitutive doctrines of Christianity-the sinfulness of the human race, the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and justification by faith. The importance of the doctrine of imputation is that it is the hinge on which these three great doctrines turn, and the guardian of their purity.” (Warfield, Biblical And Theological Studies, pp. 263, 266)

Warfield made two very important statements. He said that imputation can be made either on the credit or debit side of an account. In other words, imputation of sin is just as logical and easy to prove as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. If God can unconditionally impute the righteousness of Christ to whom He chooses, He could just as easily and logically unconditionally impute sin to whom He chooses, which, in reality, is the Calvinistic doctrine of election. War. field further stated that the doctrine of imputation is the whole basis for Calvinistic theology. The whole Calvinistic system is based upon the presupposition of unconditional imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Our brethren who have adopted this false premise might eventually swallow “the whole thing.”

The doctrine of predestination arises from the unconditional imputation premise. If God will unconditionally overlook sins, then one of two things must follow. Either all people will be saved (universalism) or God must arbitrarily forgive the sins of some unconditionally and hold others guilty of their sins unconditionally, which is the basic premise of the doctrine of limited atonement. If God unconditionally forgives the sins of some but does not unconditionally forgive the sins of others, He then becomes a respecter of persons. This is where the doctrines of unconditional election and predestination come from.

Let’s look at this line of thinking. Our brethren are teaching that God will unconditionally overlook the doctrinal sins of institutionalism, premillennialism, instrumental music, etc., because of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. These brethren state that God will overlook such sins if they are done in sincere ignorance. What I do not understand is why they draw an artificial Line of Demarcation at baptism. Why would not God just as logically overlook sincere ignorance on the purpose of baptism? Why could not God overlook sincere ignorance on the mode or action of baptism? Why couldn’t God overlook sincere ignorance on the subjects of baptism and accept infant baptism? Why wouldn’t God overlook sincere ignorance on the nature of Christ or the inspiration of the Bible? Why wouldn’t God overlook sincere ignorance on the nature of God himself, which is all that idolatry is?

This unconditional imputation position leads logically to the premise that we are not saved upon our obedience to Christ but upon the unconditional election of God. Our salvation is not merited by our obedience, but salvation is conditioned upon our obedience. The grace of God hath appeared to all men (Tit. 2:11). Not all men are going to be saved. Salvation is conditioned upon our obedience to Christ (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Unconditional remission of sin removes obedience as the condition of salvation and places salvation upon the free will of God to determine arbitrarily which sins He will overlook and which sins He will not overlook.

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, p. 194
February 6, 1975

By Samuel F. Carter

The disciples of Christ had difficulty in understanding the words of their Master in this passage, and it seems that many today are equally confused. I am speaking of these sayings: “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord. . .” (Col. 3:17); “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do” (Phil. 4:9); and “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

These verses are quite simple and explicit as regards the law of divine guidance. Whatever is written by way of commandment, teaching, and approved example is what one is authorized to do. At least this is my interpretation, and I can not see any other interpretation which may be gotten. Of course, I am not an English scholar, so if I am wrong in this point, will someone out there please correct me? Now if my conclusion is correct, then everything done which is not authorized must then be unauthorized. With these principles and scriptures before us, I am completely amazed at the “bus ministry” now plaguing the Lord’s body.

I call your attention to the Sept. 19, 1974 issue of the Gospel Advocate, page 596, an article written by Gynnath Ford entitled Bus Evangelism Or “Playing Church. ” The article deals with the apparent successful bus ministry carried on by 4 congregations. They have attributed to the bus ministry 115 converts plus great attendances over a one year period. But please notice the justification for this bus ministry. “If you are not engaged in bus evangelism we want you to answer this question truthfully. Are you reaching the people of your community for Christ or are you just baptizing your children…?” This principle of justification of the practice evades me. Where do the scriptures read, “go ahead if the results are good?” I see no oracle of God with this import in the Word of God.

If the bus ministry is authorized by this means, then let us look at what else we may engage in. The attendance at the Gettysburg church would increase if we would only add a piano. I have been told this. Wouldn’t that be a good work to get some lost families to attend the Lord’s church, and not a denomination? Would having a Christmas program increase attendance? What about a pie supper after Sunday evening services? We could get the young children to come by building a recreation hall, so they could engage in games between services, at about the same cost as those 12 buses. We could also contribute to the Herald of Truth and sponsor a program on the local radio station. That would really get the gospel into a lot of homes.

Yes sir, we could do so much good work in so many different ways couldn’t we? But the verses still read, where is the authority for the buses, pianos, parties, pies, and games? The scriptures are silent on these points. Therefore, being silent, they are not authorized; we cannot engage in such practices. When will people realize that going beyond that which is written is a sin? The church has never been authorized to replace the gospel with a bus for the drawing power to God. Since when did the individual Christian begin to feel that his responsibility of personally getting his neighbor to attend the Lord’s church could be handled better by a gas-eater than by a warm invitation and the personal association and contact?

It may also be added that the argument to justify the bus ministry is the same one used to justify the Herald of Truth, Missionary Society, and pianos: They are just aids! As falls one, so fall all the others. There certainly are some hard sayings in the Bible, but they are only hard to those who have hardened their hearts to the truth. 2 Pet. 3:16 tells us they will go to their destruction.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, pp. 189-190
January 30, 1975

By Lowell Blasingame

I like the American system of trial by jury, yet I recognize that juries do not always render fair and equitable verdicts. In the May-June, 1974 issue of Herald of Truth International Brother, Reuel Lemmons writes under the heading of Broadcast Evangelism in defense of Herald of Truth. Several statements merit comment, but the paragraph that is most striking to me is the one next to the last which reads as follows:

“Highland and Herald of Truth have been through some rough waters recently. The case went to the brotherhood jury for judgment through scores of inflammatory articles and `statements.’ The jury has been out long enough now to signal a verdict. And it has. Receipts for Herald of Truth January 1, 1974, through May 1, have been roughly $100,000 more than for the same period a year ago-up 20 per cent. The brethren have decided that this program should go, on-and by the grace of God it will.”

That Highland and Herald of Truth have gone through some rough waters is not denied. I have received and read some of the articles and statements that Brother Lemmons calls “inflammatory.” Which side; if either, has completely told the truth about the degree in which liberalism has infiltrated the Highland church, and the charges relative to control of Herald of Truth, is a matter which I have not been able to determine. Whether Highland’s elders “watergated” the matter and told us only what they had to, or whether we received the full story, are matters open to question.

Brother Lemmons thinks that the brotherhood has served as jury and decided as reflected in a 20 percent increase in contributions that Herald of Truth should continue. I, for one, am a wee bit leery of allowing the brotherhood to serve as a jury in deciding whether the sponsoring church arrangement for cooperation of churches should continue. I believe that church history will verify that a little. over a century ago a brotherhood jury gave its endorsement to the missionary society and the use of instrumental music in worship. Neither do I consider an increase in financial support a safe rule for determining the Scripturalness of a project. By this same rule, we might build a defense for the “Oral Roberts Show,” “The Hour of Decision” or “The Lutheran Hour.” These, too, have experienced an increase in financial support over that of last year.

There are still some brethren who are more concerned about Bible verdicts than they are about brotherhood verdicts. They are still interested in what the oracles of God say (1 Pet. 4:11) and in refraining from going beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9). For some strange reason, I still like that attitude and do not feel badly about questioning a jury’s verdict when it differs with the oracles of God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 189
January 30, 1975