Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

To what, can we attribute the tremendous growth of the church in the first century? If what so-called scholars and liberal theologians have said be true, then the uncanny growth can only be explained in terms of a widely-held delusion or deviously conceived lie. The center of the gospel was, is, and always will be the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The resurrection is either a fact or it is not. Upon this question rests the veritable meaning of life and death. If that tomb was empty that glorious morn, then indeed life is significant! But… if He was there… in that tomb, dead C then as Paul said, “We are of all men most miserable.”

The consensus of modern liberal “scholarship” notwithstanding; what is the most sensible explanation for the rapid spread of Christianity in the first century? Mere delusion must be ruled out from the outset. Not even the most well-planned ruse could enlist as many followers with as much dedication and loyalty as these early Christians possessed. No trick could have motivated the likes of the disciples-men who deserted Christ at His arrest-to begin the preaching of the Resurrection message. Those three thousand who submitted to baptism on the Day of Pentecost were some of the same group which had crucified Him only fifty days earlier; they were in a position to evaluate the evidence. They overwhelmingly decided that indeed the Master had been raised from the dead!

The only sensible, reasonable explanation for the faith of men and women who would lay down their lives for Jesus is that He really did rise from that grave. No other rationale can explain the sudden character change of the weak and cowardly men who became vocal, outspoken proclaimers of the gospel. No other rationale can account for the behaviour of Paul and others like him who suddenly “left all and followed Him.” When one considers all the evidence, noting its effect in the lives of New Testament Christians, we must, even as the formerly skeptical Thomas, cry out, “My Lord and my God!”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 14
October 3, 1974

By Robert Wayne LaCoste

Not long ago I decided to visit a neighboring community where East Texas State University is located, and to investigate a building which wears the name “Church of Christ Bible Chair.” As I entered the front of the building, my eyes immediately bugged out in bewilderment. In the entrance there appeared a hippy like cross, which I suppose was to remind people of the cross of Christ. As I turned to enter the side portion of the establishment, I saw another of these crosses on the wall, except it was done even more in a “psychodelic” style. Turning aside from these things I strolled across the room and began to take a look at their bulletin board. Located on it were some jokes, hippy-like symbols and other things which made me wonder all the time I was here, “What would the Lord think or say to all of this.”

Within the confines of the building, located in various areas, were cokes, candy and other food machines. And of course, as I expected, there was a ping-pong table to be used while anyone was inside. A television and stereo system with records blanketed the North wall. Now surely there is nothing wrong with ping-pong, records and such like. No evil is present with cokes, candy, etc. but whenever these things are a calling card to get people interested in the church, what you have is a “social gospel”-a gospel which will not save! What is worse, all of these “goodie-goodies” are furnished in many of these “Bible Chairs” at the Lord’s expense, with money taken from the treasury of the church. The church of Our Lord and every member of it is’ surely to teach the lost at every opportunity, but let us make sure we win them through the Word. Those won by socialism will not stay converted for long. As soon as the goodies are gone, many of them are gone as well. And where have they gone? Some of them go next door to the Methodist or Baptist Center where the supply of “goodies” never runs low.

Churches can scripturally teach the word on any college campus or anywhere else for that matter, as long as they follow the simple New Testament pattern. Now what was that pattern? It surely was not the enticement of men’s souls through their bellies. Nowhere will any of our erring and liberal brethren find where the church taught the truth using recreation or social practices as a drawing card. They used the Word, and went everywhere, yes even into the Jewish temples to win the lost. (Acts 14:1; 17:1) So the pattern called for each congregation not only to do it’s own work, but to do it through the Word, creating a spiritual appetite in people, not a physical one!

As I turned to leave the building, a tear formed in my eye. Surely these are our brethren, but they are as physical Israel so long ago, “They have sown the wind, and now they must reap the whirlwind.” I sadly shuffled outside, refusing to look back at the building which wore the name of Christ on the outside. As I drove away I thought of the words of Jesus, ..Woe unto you. . .for ye are like unto whited sepulchres which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness” (Matthew 23:27).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 11
October 3, 1974

By Jimmy Thomas

I have debated Baptists who gave Romans 4:4; 11:6, and other passages, trying to prove that if one does anything, then the blessing received from God is no longer by grace, that it becomes “a matter of debt, not favor.” It never seemed to occur to them that in no way could man ever put God in debt to him. Every blessing from God is by His grace (Jas. 1:17).

Now, to my amazement, along come teachers in Israel offering the same scriptures for the same purpose. They deny the necessity of complete obedience to the commands of God both to the alien sinner and especially to the child of God. Their line of argument is pure Calvinism in a new dress.

Many Jews of the first century sought to hold onto the law of Moses as Christians. They even tried to force the Gentiles to “be circumcised after the custom of Moses” (Acts 15:1). Paul argues, (especially in the books of Romans and Galatians), that none can be justified by the law (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16). He shows that we are saved “by grace . . . through faith” “apart from the works of the law” (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 3:28). Now, all are under “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” which makes “free from the law of sin and of death” (Rom. 8:2). He does not teach that when one obeys the commands of the Lord that he annuls God’s grace.

Jesus is the author of eternal salvation “unto all them that obey Him” (Heb. 5:9). He asked, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say’?” (Lk. 6:46). Again He said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt. 7:21). Obedience is a proof of our love (Jno. 14:15, 23). Those in Christ must be “doers of the word, and not hearers only” (Jas. 1:22, 25). Peter admonishes brethren to “give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). Why would the Lord and His apostles teach that we must do certain things if our doing them would annul God’s grace?

I have often illustrated this from the physical realm. God gives our daily bread but we must work for it (Mt. 6:11; 2 Th. 3:10, 12). If a man could live longer than Methuselah and work every day and night; his daily bread would still be by the unmerited favor of Him who made the earth, supplied the sunshine and rain; who put the power of regeneration in the seeds, and gave to him life and strength to plant, till and reap. God gives us air to breathe, but just try not breathing for five minutes and let someone else see what happens!

God said to Joshua and Israel, “See, I have given into thy hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valor” (Josh. 6:2). Yet, in the following verses they were commanded to compass the city for seven days. When the priests blew the trumpets and the people shouted, the walls fell flat; “and they took the city” (v. 20). It was by God’s grace through man’s faith that the walls fell down, only “after they had been compassed about for seven days” (Heb. 11:30). If they had not done all that God required of them, the walls of Jericho might be standing today. When one does that which God commands he does not annul His grace, he just meets the conditions of grace which He has laid down.

Our salvation from sin is the same, whether alien sinner or saint. We are saved by grace. It could never be by debt. Yet, we cannot be acceptable to God if we do not work righteousness (Acts 10:35). The alien must hear, believe, repent, confess his faith and be baptized unto the remission of sins. Anything short of this or in addition to this is not from God and will not bring His favor. When a child of God sins he is cleansed by the blood of Christ, but not without confessing his sins (1 Jno. 1:7). He must do something in order to be pardoned by Divine grace.

If one could be saved by the law of Moses, (a system of works), or by some meritorious works of his own devising, then he would indeed annul God’s grace; but this he can never do. When one obeys the voice of the Lord and keeps His commandments he can never make void His grace. Such requirements in no way could be interpreted as works of merit. Even faith is a work, yet not of merit (Jno. 6:29; Gal. 5:6).

“Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.”

Refighting Old Battles

Have you ever noticed how battles fought years ago have a way of springing back to life again? At the turn of the century brethren thought that the institutional issue and the instrumental music question had been whipped out of the church. Their attention was turned to the problems of “sect baptism” and later to premillennialism. During this lull the institutional problem stealthily emerged occupying much of our attention for the past generation. Now, while we were busy fighting on that front the devil has been at work sowing the seeds of error in other areas. A large number of young people have grown up not having been taught clearly just what the church is and what one must do to be saved so they are ripe for the Neo-Calvinism that has become more than a little ripple in the church. Some are now advocating openly fellowship with those who use instrumental music in worship, and others who teach and practice things not authorized in the New Testament. A growing number are saying that the instrument is only a matter of opinion. Now it seems that we are faced with the unpleasant, yet necessary, task of refighting some of these same old battles C instruments in worship, premillennialism, “sect baptism,” etc. If we get so involved in these matters that we neglect to keep vigilance, then we might as well expect the institutional issue to flare back up in a few years. There is never any time or place where we can afford to drop our guard for one moment no matter how battle weary we may become.

Brethren, it is a constant fight to the finish, but be not “weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 10
October 3, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

There has been controversy stirred up by a few brethren over the interpretation and application of 2 Jno. 9. The thinking goes’ that contextually John can only be referring to the doctrine concerning Christ, i.e., that Jesus is not a gnostic phantom, or a spiritual Superman, untouched by temptation, but indeed was humanity and deity at he same time. In the context, of course Christ’s deity and mutual humanity is what is under consideration, but must we deduce that this is all that John had in mind when he referred to the “doctrine (teaching) of Christ?” Do we disservice to the text to claim that what John meant was the “doctrine from Christ” as well as the “doctrine about Christ?@

Normally, this controversy would be of little importance, except for the fact that those who would limit 2 Jno. 9 do it in an effort to avoid the import of the succeeding verses: ‘”If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (teaching), receive him not into your house,. neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” This passage in 2 John puts limits on our fellowship and sharing with those who do not abide in the “doctrine of’, Christ.” Therefore it becomes of great importance to those who would bring in all manner of leaven to our “passover feast” (I Cor. 5:5-8) that the scope of the doctrine of Christ be limited to “one fact.”

It is interesting that the majority of the scholars who have written commentaries dismiss this misuse of 2 Jno. 9, and use “the doctrine of Christ” in a broad sense to include everything Christ taught. Even the Anglican commentator and translator William Barclay, ecumenical advocate par excellence, does not permit his personal feelings to color his interpretation and commentary on 2 Jno. 9. “Verse nine is an interesting and significant verse. We have translated the first phrase of it everyone who goes too far. The Greek word is proagon. The verb means to go on ahead, or to go out in advance. The false teachers claimed that they were progressives, that they were the advanced thinkers, that they were the men of the open and adventurous mind. John himself was one of the adventurous thinkers in the New Testament. But he insists that however far a man may advance, he must abide in the teaching of Jesus Christ, or he loses touch with God… He is saying that Jesus Christ must be the touchstone of all thinking, and that which is out of touch with Jesus can never be right. John would say, ‘Think but let your thinking be led by Jesus Christ. . .’ Christianity is not a nebulous, undefined, uncontrolled Theosophy: it is anchored forever to the historical figure of Christ.” No wonder our “progressive thinkers” must destroy the import of 2 Jno. 9: It so adequately and completely condemns them.

But, truth seldom is supported by one scripture alone. Truth complements itself in different ways. So it is with the “doctrine of Christ.” One reason 2 Jno. 9 is rejected as a text which puts responsibility upon man to know all the doctrine from Christ, is because the “New Unity Movement” denies man’s ability to know truth. Put another way, these “new lights” claim that man’s intellect is limited and since each man has differing degrees of ability to comprehend, we ought not to require that all men “Speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement” (1 Cor. 1:10). Why stigmatize a brother as a sinner who does not look upon the church and its function in the same way we do? Why withdraw from a brother who insists on using an organ to worship God? Why cut off the false teacher? As Brother Edward Fudge put it, “We dare not therefore, patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference… it is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect” (Christian Standard; July 8, 1967).

Now if we understand this correctly, according to the “doctrine of Christ” we may withdraw from a brother if he denies the humanity of Jesus, but not if the brother corrupts the teachings from Jesus. Why is it that we are considerate of the “imbecility of intellect” of the man who cannot “comprehend” worship in spirit and in truth, but we cannot appreciate the “imbecility” of one who can only view Christ as impeccable? One kind of attitude we reject, but not the other.

What is basically wrong with this use of 2 Jno. 9 is that the basic assumptions just are not true. Man is capable of knowing truth – all truth – all the truth that is revealed – all the truth that is necessary to save one’s soul. Every aspect of John’s writing deals with man’s intellectual capacity to know God’s will and understand it.

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith T know Him,’ and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whosoever keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: Hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him (Jesus) ought himself also so to walk, even as he (Jesus) walked” (1 Jno. 2:3-6). The man who claims a relationship to Christ to whom Jesus is mere “Exegesis,” “Contextual Criticism,” and “Christological Theology” is a liar, and there is no truth to his claim of oneness with Christ. A man who dwells in the good favor of God is one who keeps the words of Jesus. Which words? “Howbeit when he the spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. . .he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jno. 16:13; 4:26).

“But,” one may say, “That was to the Apostles. We cannot have that all-encompassing knowledge.” Yet John reminds us that in matters of faith (Rom. 10:17) the humblest Christian need have no feeling of inferiority to the most learned scholars. The essentials of faith are in the possession of every man, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (1 Jno. 2:20). The man who does the good revealed in the word of God, and follows the pattern given by God for all things has a confidence and an assurance that the “grace-alone” folks cannot touch. “And hereby (in doing the truth) we know that we are of the truth: and shall assure our hearts before him” (1 Jno. 3:19). The man who follows God’s revelation as revealed by the Apostles need not fear deception or any false prophet. “We (the inspired apostles) are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us; He that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error@ (1 Jno. 4: 1.6). The things which God has given us. once read; digested, and put into our life give us a full assurance of heaven. “These things have been written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life; and that ye might believe on the name of the Son of God” (Jno. 5:13).

To speak of Christ in 2 Jno. 9 and attempt to divorce what Jesus taught from who Jesus is, is legalism and scholasticism gone to seed. Jesus tried to get hard-hearted Jews to realize that accepting his person was not the same as accepting his message. The Jews that ate the free meals would have crowned him king, but Jesus cried out, `Yam the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. .. verily, verily I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (Jno. 6:35-58). This drove away many who had no faith in Jesus or his way of doing things. Jesus made it plain that the “doctrines of Christ” was not something intellectually understood, but something which was spiritually eaten, digested, and used. Jesus is teaching for those who love him. “It is the spirit that makes alive; the flesh profiteth nothing: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jno. 6.63).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 8-9
October 3, 1974