Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Almost every church is faced with the problem of dwindling numbers each Sunday night and Wednesday evening. Brethren like to think of their congregation being as “strong” as the Sunday morning assembly. The real church in any given community might better be numbered on Wednesday night rather than Sunday morning.

Usually the reason for this drop in numbers is attributable to plain old, garden variety indifference. But recently, I came across a novel idea expressed by an unfaithful brother, that the Christian has no responsibility nor authority to meet an any other day than the first day of the week, and then only to take the Lord’s Supper. “You people are all the time talking about coming to every service. The only time we read about Christians meeting in the Bible is on the first day of the week. I don’t have to come all the time!” Is this true? Where does it say anything about coming together for any other purpose than to take the Lord’s supper? Are we correct in assembling at other times for other purposes? Let the Word of God speak to us.

There are several passages in scripture which record the church coming together for purposes other than the Lord’s supper, which by approved example, give us our authority for other meetings. In Acts 11:26 we find that Barnabas sought Paul in Tarsus, ‘And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people . . . .” While in Antioch, these men gathered together with the saints, and for what purpose? “And taught . . . . ” Teaching was the responsibility given Barnabas by the Apostles when he was sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22). The Gospel had been preached in Antioch (11:19), great numbers of gentiles had been converted (11a;20), the Lord approved of their conversion by the signs that he sent among them (11:21), and when Barnabas saw “the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all . . . then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul” (11:23, 25). Teaching and establishing the church in Antioch was the purpose of Barnabas and Paul in assembling with the saints. That teaching was a primary goal in “coming together” is further illustrated by the coming of Prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch (11:27). The results of their teaching, or “forth telling” was that a common collection was made to cover the responsibility of the church in helping the needy saints in Judea. “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren who dwelt in Judea” (11:29). In another instance, each man purposed in his own heart (2 Cor. 9:7), the collection was made weekly (1 Cor. 16:2), and was done as a church, or a collectivity, “As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye” (1 Cor. 16:1).

These passages do not state a time other than that which is inferred in 1 Cor. 16:1, “the first day of the week . . . . ” But these passages do establish that there was more than one purpose for gathering, i.e., edification, and weekly group contributing for benevolence. The saints met collectively to do more than keep the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week.

Another example of the saints gathering is found in Acts 4. Peter and John were arrested for teaching the resurrection (4:1, 2). The day following their arrest they were arraigned before the Jewish power structure (4:5, 6). After Peter and John had testified of the things they had witnessed, and the Jewish leaders perceived that neither of the two apostles was to be cowed, and they admitted that a miracle had been performed, “They could say nothing against it ” (4:13-14). They let the apostles go, `and being let go. they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests had said unto them”(4:23). The response of the church was to pray to God (4:24) “And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the Word of God with boldness” (4:31). They assembled for mutual encouragement, praise from the word of God, and prayer. God approved of their collective action by a sign, i.e., “the place was shaken . . . they were filled with the Holy Ghost.”

But there is an interesting thing that is connected to this event that bears with our discussion. In Acts 2:42 we find that the church “continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread and in prayers. ” Verses 46 and 47 continue, “and they continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. ” What did they go to the temple “in common consent” for? For what did the church give “daily attendance with one intent” in the courtyard of the temple? In chapter three Luke tells us that they went to the temple “at the hour of prayer. ” Their intent in going to the temple at that hour was to worship God with the saints. If we look again in Acts 2:46, 47 and remove the phrase which records what the brethren did apart from the place of worship, the passage reads, “and they continuing daily in the temple (were) . . . praising God, and having favor with all the people. “

It was while Peter ana John were on their way to the temple to worship with the saints, as was their daily custom that they were arrested. But, in Acts 4:3 we find that the two were arrested at eventide and held until the next day. After their trial they met again with the saints in worship. The question is this: Which day was the first day of the week? Obviously, the scriptures do not specify the day of gathering, merely the fact of their gathering: daily (Acts 2:46).

There are many other examples we might refer to. Paul’s 14th chapter in the first Corinthian letter discusses the manner of the Corinthian public assembly. Paul saw the gathering of the brethren as a place for edification (1 Cor. 14:26) in which every man was to take part. Women were excepted from public participation in teaching (14:34, 35). The assembly was not “closed” but open to outsiders for the purpose of evangelism (1 Cor. 14:23-25). These passages should prove to any right thinking Christian that we have authority to meet any day of the week, and are specifically commanded to meet on the first day of the week. Our gatherings are not solely centered about the Lord’s supper, but in acceptable worship and edification.

Hebrews 10 relates to us what our responsibility is to these gatherings. The theme of the Hebrew letter is the supremacy of the life in Christ to the life under the Law of Moses. We understand the great sacrifice that was made on our behalf (Heb. 10:10). Under the Law of Moses the people only kept a shadow of that which we now enjoy in the church (10:1-4). In Jesus we have “a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say his flesh” (10:20). Recognizing this, Christians are to draw near to God acknowledging that they are free from sin by Christ’s sacrifice (10:22). We are to hold close the promise of our hope which is contained in God’s word (10:23). We are to take thought for our brethren continually exhorting one another to live worthy of the calling by which we have been called (10:24). We accomplish these ends by “not forsaking (neglecting, staying away from, holding apart) the assembling of ourselves together . . .” (10:25). The one who neglects God’s will in this can expect no different treatment from God than the way he treated those who neglected his will under the old law (10:28; cf. Num. 15:32-36). “Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy of who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, path counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was .sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the ,spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29)?

Indeed, when one wilfully neglects to assemble with the brethren each time they meet, he has poured scorn upon and spurned the One who died for him. He has treated the blood which was shed on his account as if it were of no account – common. He has affronted the Holy Spirit – given grave insult to the One who has delivered God’s unmerited favor to man. Certainly for such an one there remains only a terrifying prospect of judgment from the one he has spurned; a fury of fire which will consume all those who set themselves to oppose God’s will. There is no higher court that one may appeal to after one has rejected God (10:26-29).

The real problem does not lie in understanding the scriptures, but in doing them. In 2 Pet. 2:20, 22 Peter compares those who have fallen back into the world through neglect of service with dogs and pigs. “The dog is turned to his own vomit again: and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” It is not that the dog or the pig are untrained, or weak. The point of the proverb is that the dog enjoys its own vomit, and the newly cleansed sow prefers her mire. Solomon said, “The righteous man falleth seven times, and will arise again: But the wicked man will fall and come to mischief” (Prov. 24:16). We can encourage the weak, and teach the ignorant, but we must use the rod of discipline upon the one who prefers to spurn God and God’s people.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:27, p. 11-12
May 9, 1974

By Roy E. Cogdill

Attendance at the services of the church is the best index of interest in one’s own spiritual growth, and is a certain indication of one’s own interest in the Lord’s church.

One of the purposes for which God gave the church is that we might be edified as a member of the body (Eph. 4:16). The edification of the body as a whole depends upon each member contributing his individual part thereto. This is the object of worship and fellowship in the church. We need this strength for life’s problems and temptations, and we cannot successfully live the Christian life and render an acceptable service to God without it. Every one of us should be determined, therefore, to obtain it by attending every service that it is possible for us to attend. The services of the church are designed for this very purpose. They can be a blessing for our souls and make us stronger Christians. We must attend them, however, with the right attitude if we are to receive a blessing from them. No service can do us any good without our being present, no matter how much truth is preached. Every service will benefit us unless we come to it with an improper attitude-unteachable, and prejudiced in heart. We rob ourselves of the strength we need if we fail to attend with the right disposition of soul.

In these services, through study and instruction, and the worship ordained of God, we receive admonition and exhortation, and therefore strength. No member of the church can be the strong Christian that he should be without attending every service possible. It is entirely impossible for us to be Christians that we must be in order to please God, and grow as we should, if we habitually miss the services held for the very purpose of helping us. Neither is it possible for us to please God, and grow as we should, by merely attending on Sunday morning. Sunday morning Christianity is half-hearted Christianity, and the person who has it needs a whole-hearted conversion to the Lord.

When our services on Sunday evening present only about 60%’0 of our attendance on Sunday morning; when, on Wednesday night, we have only about half of those present for the breaking of bread on Sunday morning; when attendance at the Bible classes is less than the membership of the congregation; and when more than half of the membership of a congregation do not attend and support a series of gospel meetings to preach the Gospel; something is seriously wrong with the church. Such half-hearted devotion to duty and the interests of the kingdom can only be a reproach to the church, and be disappointing to the Lord. Where do you, as an individual, fit into the picture? If you have been attending only a part of the services, won’t you become a full-time Christian?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:27, p. 11
May 9, 1974

By Harry E. Ozment

Historical Background

One of the greatest periods of human history was the Protestant Reformation. Prior to this movement, the Roman Catholic Church held the world in a dark, corrupted, and stagnant mire. Out of this confusion arose great men of courage such as Martin Luther in Germany and John Knox of Scotland who were intent upon reforming the religious world. One of the greatest reformers and brilliant thinkers of his day was John Calvin. Although born in France, he had to flee for his life to Geneva, where he became a leader in the Swiss reform movement. At the age of 27, he wrote his famous Institutes, which set forth his particular theories of religion and introduced what we know today as “Calvinism.” Calvinism consists of five points of doctrine: (1) Predestination and Election; (2) Limited Atonement; (3) Total Hereditary Depravity; (4) Irresistible Grace; and (5) Impossibility of Apostasy. Although we may admire Calvin for his desire to reform the Roman Catholic Church, we cannot condone his “theorizing” in religious matters. Probably no set of doctrines could be found which is more destructive to faith in God’s word than the tenets of Calvinism. In spite of this fact, however, many churches teach Calvinism in their official creeds and many people hold to Calvinistic ideas.

Definition

The root of Calvinism is the doctrine of “Predestination and Election.” Before we can consider the doctrine at all, we must first have some idea of its nature and what it teaches. The word “predestinate” simply means to plan or determine beforehand. All will agree upon this. Therefore, the issue is not the meaning of “predestination” but rather the object of predestination.

It might be a surprise for some to know that the Bible does indeed speak of predestination and election. Paul states in Rom. 8:29-30: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Paul speaks of the same idea in Eph. 1:4-5, 11: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, . . . in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

The Bible doctrine of predestination is a very simple one. In the beginning, God foresaw that man would sin. Man, of course, would not have the power to save himself from sinhe would need the grace of God. God realized this, and He formulated a scheme of redemption. In this scheme, God predetermined to save a collective group or body of people (otherwise known as the church). Any person can now become a part of this body by obedience to God’s scheme of redemption. That this is the Bible doctrine of predestination is proven by Paul in Eph. 3:9-10: “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God (this is what is involved in predestination-HEO), who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church (the object or fulfillment of God’s predestination, HEO) the manifold wisdom of God.”

The Bible doctrine of predestination, however, is not the predestination of Calvinism. Whereas Bible predestination involves an elected body or group to be saved (which any person can be added to), Calvinism’s predestination involves the election of individuals to be saved (which is exclusively limited to those persons chosen by God Himself). We read in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished …. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby he extendeth or witholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to obtain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.” (Chapter 3) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in commenting on Calvin’s theory, states: “Calvin’s mode of defining predestination was as the eternal decree of God, by which He has decided with Himself what is to become of each and every individual. For all, he maintains, are not created in like condition; but eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal condemnation for others.” (p. 2436)

Errors of the Doctrine

Such a doctrine, even on the surface, seems preposterous to any Bible believer. Indeed, this doctrine destroys the Bible picture of our all-perfect God. This Calvinistic theory:

1. Makes God a respecter of persons. In chapter 3 of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, we read: “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving Him thereunto.” That, my dear friend, is respect of persons-pure and simple! A judge in our court system today would not be tolerated long at all employing these tactics. But the same denominational “scholars” who would condemn an earthly judge for showing respect of persons will, in their next breath, accuse God of the same thing and praise Him for it! Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!

The fact of the matter is that God’s infinite justice would not allow Him to act accordingly. This is emphasized again and again in holy writ. Peter said to Cornelius, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.” (Acts 10:34) Peter was trying to show Cornelius that he, as a Gentile, had a perfect right to obey the gospel and be saved. If God did not elect a particular nation for eternal salvation, how could he have been so unfair as to elect a particular person for salvation? Paul emphasized the same point in Rom. 2:11-12, “For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” Now this is what we would expect from a fair and just God. It makes no difference if you are a Jew or Gentile (Acts 15:9; Rom. 10:12), bond or free (Eph. 6:8-9)-you will receive justice at the hand of God. Peter sums it up in I Pet. 1:17: “And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.”

2. Makes the invitation of God foolish. The invitation of God is found in Rev. 22:17, “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Jesus expressed it this way: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am ,meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:28-30) Beautiful words, aren’t they? But absolutely senseless-if Calvinism is true. Why should God invite the lost to come to Him if they are to be lost anyway? Moreover, why should the lost accept God’s invitation if it would be of no benefit to them? My, what a doctrine-it robs God of His wisdom and robs Christianity of its beauty! Heaven forbid!

3. Makes the work of Satan unnecessary. The Bible reveals that there is a real person named Satan, and Peter explains his work in this way: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (I Pet. 5:8) But why is this “devouring” necessary if Calvinism is true? In the case of the lost and “unelected” person, Satan already has full possession of his soul. It matters not how morally good that person might be nor how much he might desire to obey God-God has already consigned this person to the clutches of Satan! Why should Satan do anything in this case? On the other hand, in the case of a saved and “elected” person, his glorious fate is sealed and cannot be altered. It matters not how sinful and ungodly Satan might tempt him to be, he is bound for heaven because he was “elected.” Question: Why should Satan seek to “devour” this man if such is impossible? If Calvinism is true, there is no need for Satan to stalk about as a roaring lion, seeking to lead all down the broad way to damnation-God has already done his work for him!

4. Makes accountability to God impossible. If the parable of the talents teaches anything, it teaches that man one day must give an account of what he has done in this fife. “After a long time the lord of these servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.” (Matt. 25:19) There will indeed be a day of reckoning. Paul said, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Cor. 5:10) Calvinism, however, denies this is going to happen, for man has no control over his own fate and therefore is not responsible. If a man is not responsible, he cannot be held accountable. According to these denominational theorists, the judgment took place before the beginning of time in the mind of God. If Calvinism is true, why should there be another judgment at the end of time in which man gives account of something he had no control over?

5. Makes love for God impossible. The Psalmist once wrote, “O love the Lord, all ye his saints.” (Ps. 31:23a) This was important under the Old Covenant. Jesus said, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” (Mk. 12:30) However, how can man love God if Calvinism’s concept of Him is true? In I Jn. 4:19 we read, “We love him, because he first loved us.” But how much love does God show to that person who is consigned to the depths of hell even before he has a chance to draw his first breath? Yes, who could love a God who arbitrarily, despotically, and tyranically chooses some to be saved and others to be damned?

Calvinism is so destructive to the Biblical picture of God that it needs to be opposed with all the strength of Godfearing men. Even the Calvinists themselves admit how terrible their theory really is. Theodore Parker said, “The God of Calvinism is an almighty he cat, playing with the mice until he is ready to destroy them.” (The Christian, May, 1879, p. 3) It i, reported of Calvin himself: “Calvin confesses that this is a ‘horrible decree.'” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 2436) How could any Bible believer believe in Calvinism’s theory of predestination and election?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:27, p. 9-10
May 9,1974

By John McCort

Some of our brethren are beginning to accept and teach theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is the theory that God created life, but that He chose to create man and the various species of animals through a process of gradual evolution. This dangerous theory is gaining more popularity than many brethren are willing to admit.

Many accept evolution because they have been brainwashed to think that evolution is a proven fact rather than an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Many are under the mistaken impression that scientists have proven that man has inhabited the earth for many millions of years. Theistic evolution is nothing more than an illegitimate, hybrid compromise between infidelity and faith. The offspring of this illicit union is modernism in its rankest form.

Biblical Consequences

Acceptance of theistic evolution leads to a modernistic view of the Bible. One would be required to deny that God spoke man into existence and that the world was created in six days. The creation of Eve out of the rib of Adam would have to be denied. The Scriptures also teach that God created the animals and that they were to reproduce offspring after their own “kind.” Again, another portion of the Bible must be rejected, if evolution is to be accepted.

Those who accept theistic evolution must adopt an allegorical or symbolic view of certain portions of the Bible. In order to keep from rejecting the Bible completely, many theistic evolutionists take an allegorical view toward the six day creation, the special creation of Eve, animals reproducing after their own kind, and many other features of the Bible which contradict evolution. This is the beginning of modernism. Pandora’s. box has been opened, leading the way to an allegorical view of the resurrection of Christ, His virgin birth, His miracles, Jonah and the sea monster, and all of the supernatural events in the Bible.

Theistic Evolution And Faith

The moral and spiritual effects of accepting theistic evolution are devastating. Thomas Huxley once said, “It is clear that the doctrine of Evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. As applied to the creation of the world as a whole, it is opposed to that of direct creative volition. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.” (American Addresses, p. 10, quoted in the International Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1048-B). Charles Smith, former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, said, “The theory of evolution bankrupts the Bible . . . . If we descended from apes, we do not need a Savior . . . . If you accept evolution you must give up the Bible . . . . The theory of evolution is atheism; it substitutes the natural law for supernatural intelligence.” (Oliphant-Smith Debate, p. 112)

Moral Consequences

Acceptance of theistic evolution will ultimately lead to the acceptance of many immoral political and social philosophies. The most ignoble dictator mankind has ever known, Adolph Hitler, derived his basic political philosophies from the evolutionary theory. Hitler wanted to develop a “super-race” through “selective breeding.” He reasoned that all of the weak, crippled, retarded, and feeble needed to be exterminated because they would impede the development of his fabled “master-race.” This is an exponent of the survival of the fittest concept. Hitler’s diabolical career was the result of a life-long love affair with Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Mercy killing, selective breeding of human beings, and the killing of societies’ incapacitated are natural outgrowths of the evolutionary theory. Many people are now beginning to accept this social philosophy. Charles Smith said, “Weakness of mind and body are now transmitted to increasing numbers in each generation, when, Nature left alone, would weed them out.” He proposed that we just let the incapacitated die off like animals. He further states, “The crowning glory of evolution is to have shown how to improve the human stock-not by prayers to God; not even by education, but by selective breeding. “(Ibid, p. 76)

How long is it going to take us, brethren, to realize the spiritual crime we commit when we allow our children to accept this theory? How long are we going to allow them to be brainwashed while we meekly stand by? How many Hitlers will mankind have to produce before we take a stand? We hand our children the gun of spiritual suicide when we say nothing.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:28, p. 8
May 9,1974