Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

The history of “Christianity” is inseparably linked with the births and deaths of almost countless, human I movements –all professedly aimed at bringing errant believers back into line with the “eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Each of these movements should be judged objectively by the student on the basis of its own merit. The criteria which should form the basis of such judgment should be: (1) Does it or does it not conform to the principles of Divine truth revealed in the Scriptures? (2) What were the circurmstances, which gave it birth? (3) Is the proposed solution, which it poses, not only consonant with Scripture, but does it in fact offer a practical solution to the problems which obtain? (4) If it is a movement of the past, what were its fruits; what significant contribution has it made to the furthering among men of “the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” as revealed to us through the inspired apostles and prophets of the New Testament era?

That God in His infinite wisdom had, from eternity, a well-defined purpose (plan or scheme) for man’s redemption which, “in the fullness of time,” was to be consummated in Jesus Christ is a fact of Scripture too ell known to Bible students to admit of controversy. It is also a fact just as well known t at the details of the Divine purpose were kept secret in the mind of God from the sin of man (Gen. 3) until the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 2), and were made known to mankind, during that period of time, only in dim outline through shadowy types, generic promises, and prophecies, the interpretations of which were earnestly sought but not definitively determined either by men or angels.

“For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ in behalf of you Gentiles,-2 if so be that Ye have heard (if the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; 3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, 4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my undervanding in the mystery of Christ; 5 which n other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to wit, that the Gentiles are fellowheirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7 whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given to me according to the working of his power. 8 Unto me whom am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things; to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, II according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: . . . ” (Eph. 3: 1 -11).

“receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. 10 Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them. 12 To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angels desire to look into ” (1 Pet. 1:9-12).

“. . . when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons ” (Gal. 4:4,5).

In a previous article, mention has been made of The Restoration Movement” of the

nineteenth century. It is my settled conviction that this movement, though humanly generated, was a completely valid movement-scripturally, historically, and pragmatically. This is simply to circumstances of historic say that the “Christendom” of that time justified its birth, the movement was launched on principles entirely scriptural, and it resulted in a practical restoration of “the ancient order of things” which was its principal aim. Contrary to popular belief and destructive modern propaganda, unity of believers was a secondary aim and was related to the principal aim as effect is related to cause.

Personal Testimony

The value of purely personal testimony is at best doubtful, yet even so great a disciple of the Lord as Paul, the Lord’s apostle, felt on certain occasions the necessity of indulging in it, and his expressions along this line quite obviously had the approbation of the Holy Spirit. My spiritual roots are anchored deeply in “The Restoration Movement.” A great-great grandmother was baptized by Moses E. Lard in the Missouri River in 1847 or 48; a great-grandfather and grandmother were baptized by H. H. Dunn in Franklin Co. Alabama in 1844 and moving to Texas in 1850 were among the early disciples on the frontier west of the Nueces River; a great-great grandmother was a disciple in Lincoln Co. Kentucky in 1836 naming her first child after Alexander Campbell. In a direct and most intimate sense, I consider myself an heir of the faith and the labors of the stalwarts who in great sacrifice and suffering gave birth to and nurtured to maturity “The Restoration Movement. ” To this I confess without apology.

A Sense of Personal Obligation

Believing as I do in the validity of “The Restoration Movement,” and recognizing as I must the fact that I am a spiritual heir of its scriptural, historic, and practical fruit in the realm of religion, I feel a deep sense of personal obligation to the preservation in my time and for generations yet unborn the Divine, and, therefore eternal and immutable principles upon which it was launched. Since the plea of “The Restoration Movement” was a plea for a return to the belief and practice of the original gospel, I feel justified in regarding myself as a debtor to men of the past, the present, and the future in this regard. Paid felt the same sense of debt. He said, “I am debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1: 14-16).

Our Present Situation Again

Many leading figures of “The Restoration Movement” were individuals who had abandoned Presbyterian and Baptist affiliations with their Calvinistic doctrines and practices to embrace a return to the faith and practice of primitive, New Testament “Christianity.” They viewed their position as a “restoration of the ancient order” of things-a return to apostolic doctrine and practice, and it was certainly their sincere purpose to make it so. Hence, they adopted as their watchword the slogan alluded to in our previous article: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent; we are silent.”

Neo-Calvinism: it is paradoxical that modern-day heirs of the accomplishments of these stalwarts of days gone by-members of professed churches of Christ-should now give birth to a modified form of Calvinism under the delusion that they are God-called deliverers of His people from spiritual enslavement to historical “legalism.” Upon a neo-Calvinistic view of “salvation by grace” and a Lutheran concept of “salvation by faith only” (“sola fide”), they project a plea for the “unity of immersed believers” which is so permissive and pervasive in that which it allows as to render nonsensical, superficial, and sectarian divisions emanating from any divergence in faith and practice among such persons in matters relating to their worship of God through Christ and their work as members of the body of Christ (assuming they are indeed such) in reference to their personal edification and sanctification and their rescuing from the toils of sin and Satan God’s lost and recreant children (Acts 17:29) who have not accepted Jesus as Savior. It is also ironic that this newborn brainchild should come from the far right as well as the far left and from seasoned veterans as well as precocious neophytes. In our next article, attention will be paid to the sources from whence emanates this newborn “movement” within a “movement.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, pp.5-6
March 22, 1973

By Cecil Willis

One of the most tenaciously held tenets of many religious organizations is called the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy. This doctrine simply teaches that once a person has become a child of God, his eternal salvation is guaranteed. It declares that no child of God can be disinherited. It is commonly expressed by such expressions as “once saved, always saved,” or “once in grace, always in grace,” or the “security of the believer.” This doctrine is taught by Baptist and Presbyterian Churches, as well as by several others.

Sometimes the falsity of a position is best seen by drawing some logical conclusions from it. Denominational preachers have themselves reduced this false doctrine to an absurdity in their effort to defend it. Gospel preachers have often encountered these denominational preachers in religious debate. One proposition discussed reads as follows: “The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one cleansed by the blood of Christ, cannot so live as to be finally lost in hell.” A Baptist preacher affirmed this statement. It teaches that a child of God could not go to hell if he wanted to. It takes away a man’s freedom.

It furthermore teaches that regardless of what kind of a life one lives after becoming a child of God, he will go to heaven anyway. That you may see the extremes to which these false teachers go trying to defend this false doctrine, note the following statements from Baptist preachers. “Rev.” Sam Morris, who at the time was preacher at the First Baptist Church in Stanford, Texas, said “We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people has nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul. All the prayers a man can pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, and all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform, will not make his soul one bit safer. And all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder, will not make his soul in any more danger.” Can anyone really believe this? Yet this is a very logical consequence of the doctrine of the impossibility of falling away.

Other Baptist preachers have made equally as ridiculous statements. Mr. Vernon L. Barr, one of their outstanding debaters of this subject, says “Baptists teach that a child of God can do anything he wants to do, and go to heaven anyhow.” The reason why many people are Baptists is because they simply do not know what the Baptist Church teaches. Baptist friends, do you really believe the above statements? If not, you should not be in the Baptist Church, for this is what it teaches.

Dr. Albert Garner, President of Florida Baptist Institute and Seminary at Lakeland, Florida, in a religious debate with Brother Marvine Kelly were given a series of questions by Brother Kelly. Notice these questions asked by Brother Kelly and the answers given by Dr. Garner. “If a child of God dies while drunk, will he go to heaven?” Answer: “Yes.” Yet the Bible plainly says that no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21). Another question. “Can a child of God lie?” Dr. Garner’s answer-“Yes.” Again, “If he dies before he repents of the lie, will he go to heaven anyhow?” Dr. Garner’s answer: “Yes.” (Kelly Garner Debate. pp. 116, 117). We see what Dr. Garner says about it, but what does the Bible have to say? “All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” (Rev. 21:8). Does this sound like heaven? This doctrine teaches men that it makes absolutely no difference whether one lives a godly or an ungodly life after he becomes a Christian. It promises you that you will go to heaven anyway. But the Lord never so promises. You must be faithful unto death to receive the crown of life (Rev. 2: 10).

Other Baptist preachers teach that the body sins, but the soul cannot, and that God will take the soul to heaven regardless of what the body does. Dr. Ben Bogard was probably the greatest Baptist debater that ever lived. In the Ilardeman-Bogard Debate, pp. 309, 310, Bogard says “My soul sin? No. Has Brother Bogard ever sinned? In my soul I do not. I am as perfect as God himself, as far as my soul is concerned. Then what about my body? It does sin.” ‘File Bible teaches the spirit can be defiled. Paul says “let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit” (2 Cor. 7:1). And he also teaches that at the judgment we will be rewarded according to what we have done in the body (2 Cor. 5: 10).

On the possibility of apostasy, notice these three passages of Scripture written to Christians, and with these we must close this article. “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10: 12), “Take heed brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). Finally, notice Paul’s statement in Gal. 5:4. He not only says it is possible that you might fall, but that you are fallen. “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, pp. 3-4
March 22, 1973

By Dudley RossSpears

In most all of the discussions in the last several years over the divisive question of institutionalism has been the subject of the work of the local church. While the question of authority is the basic reason for all of our divisions in the church today, the work of the church has become a vehicle for expressing different attitudes toward Bible authority.

The work of the church to many in the church today consists of “any good work” without qualification. This includes the relief of humanity in general, improving the ghetto conditions, trying to eliminate illiteracy and a multitude of other humanitarian endeavors. Kitchens in church buildings indicate that many think that the work of the local church can be expedited by the culinary arts. Some congregations have gone into the cultural fields with flower shows, reading clubs, art clubs and the like. I know of one congregation that has a modified “lonely hearts club.”

In the study of what is the work of the local church it is always necessary to know what the Lord has revealed about the subject. Has the Lord revealed anything about His local churches and their work? If not, then we have nothing to study. If so, we must always operate within those things He has revealed. (Read 2 John 9; 1 Cor. 4:6; Acts 15:24). God’s mind and His eternal purpose are manifested even to the high order of “principalities and powers in heavenly places” through the church. (Eph. 3:10).

By definition, the local church is the saved people who meet together and work together in a specific place to do the work God has assigned the church. The local church is the place where worship of God’s people collectively is to be offered. The local church is a body of the saved who agree to work together under qualified elders whom they select and who pool their resources in order to finance their common objectives. Basically the local church is a cooperative of the saved who are dedicated to doing God’s work in the way God has appointed.

To further study this, let us look at some definitions given by scholars to the word church. Edward D. Morris wrote, Kuriakos: The term Church, (German kirche: Scotch, kirk, and the Teutonic and Scandinavian languages generally) is derived from the Greek word, huriakos,… a derivative from kurios. It came, however, to be employed at an early date to designate the religious organization inhabiting such a building, and engaging statedly in such joint devotions; and this is the use and meaning here to be retained.”

Again, he discusses Ekklesia. “The term applied in classic Greek to any assembly of persons called out, or called together, for any specific purpose (Acts 19:32,39), this term came early to designate a religious or a Christian assembly, and such an assembly, not as convened on a single occasion, but rather as in some way organized and having permanent existence.”

On the word Sunagoga, Morris says. “The same transition appears in the parallel word, sunagoga, often employed in the Septuagint like ekklesia, to describe not merely the place of assembling, but a company of persons brought together for religious purposes, thus gradually coming to indicate a permanent religious congregation.” These quotations are from his book, Ecclesiology, Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1890. pages 13-14.

The definition given earlier is here defended. The local church is God’s order. Paul wrote to Titus telling him he had been left in Crete to “set in order things wanting and ordain elders in every city.” (Titus 1:5). When a thing is set in order, it is organized. It becomes a “set” or if you please. While Paul seems to be telling Titus that things needed repair in Crete, still the inevitable conclusion that the church is a set order is irresistible.

To the church in Colossae. Paul wrote of his joy in beholding their “order”, (Col. 2:5). This is a word that signifies a definite organization. Vine says, ” – – is used in Luke 1: 8 of the fixed succession of priests; of due order, in contrast to confusion, in the gatherings of a local church, 1 Cor. 14:40: of the general condition of such, Col. 2:5 (some give it a military significance here).” Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. III, p. 145.

The local church is to be under the oversight of elders. (Read Titus 1: 5; Acts 14: 23; 1 Peter 5:2-3). These verses show that each church in each city is to have elders appointed who are charged with the duty of overseeing all functions of that church. Their oversight is limited to that congregation only and they have no authority to oversee any part of the work, worship or members of any other congregation.

The local church is to finance its own work and make up those finances by the members contributing regularly into a common treasury. (Read Acts 2:44; 4:34-35; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 1 Cor. 9: 7). These verses teach that on the Lord’s Day, evidently during worship, each member is to give as he or she has been prospered, cheerfully and with liberality, that the work may be financed. They agree to pool their resources.

The work assigned to each local church is the same and the degree of responsibility in each local church is based on the same principle, viz. ability and opportunity determine responsibility. There is to be equality in this respect among all congregations. Paul writes the Corinthians and says, “For if the readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a man has not according to what he does not have. For this is not for the case of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality.” (2 Cor. 8: 12, 13. NASB).

The work of the local church consists of three things. The first is evangelism, or causing the gospel to be preached. (Read 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:7,8; Phil. 2:14-10; 4:13-17). These verses all show that it is the local church that is given the responsibility of seeing that the gospel is preached. Churches either sent preachers (Acts 1: 22) or they sent directly to a preacher (Read 1 Tim. 4: 13- 17) and in this way caused the gospel to be preached.

The second work of the local church is benevolence or providing physical necessities to those who are poor. Read Acts 6: 1-4; 1 Tim. 5: 16). Churches of Christ in the first century provided for the needs of their own members when those members were in need. The work of benevolence is limited by its very nature.

A third and last work of the church is edification, or strengthening the members of the church. (Read Acts 9:31; Rom. 14:19). This is accomplished by employing teachers, both men and women, to teach the word to members of the church. Paul told the “aged women” to teach the younger women matters that are included in “sound doctrine.” (Titus 2:1-5). Elders are to “feed the flock” with the sincere milk of the word. (Acts 20:28). By this the church grows stronger. Edification is the way members of the church are encouraged and exhorted to do more personal work for the Lord.

In a complete survey of the New Testament there is a conspicuous absence of any information about social or political work being done by churches of Christ. There is no indication that they ever engaged in recreational activities such as parties, banquets and games. Can you imagine James or John endorsing one of the political candidates of their day? Paul never encouraged young Timothy or Silas or any other man of God to lead marches or demonstrations against civil injustices.

The work of the local church is different than the work that is given every individual Christian. It is different in its nature. The individual has duties that are civic and domestic but the local church does not. An individual Christian has social obligations that the local church does not. We, as individual Christian parents, are to train our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, but it is not the local church’s duty to do so.

The work of the local church differs front individual work in finances. The only authorized way of getting money into the treasury of the church is the contribution of the members of the church on the Lord’s Day. (1 Cor. 10: 1-4). There is no authority for local churches to have car washes, cake sales or hold profit-making businesses. But there is nothing wrong in an individual working in a car wash, bakery or holding a profit making business “to be able to give to him that needeth.” (Eph. 4:28).

The work of the local church differs front individual work because there are specific statements of inspiration showing such to be true. “If any man or woman that believeth (is this not individual Christian believer here? DRS) have widows let them relieve them and let not the church (Does this not have to be the local church here? DRS) be charged . . .” (1 Tim. 5: 16). Paul clearly shows the difference in this passage between individual Christian duties and in congregational work.

The local church is limited in organization to operating in and through the framework God has given. There is no authority in the Bible for any other organization than the local church through which this work is to be done. No Missionary Society, Benevolent Society (Orphanage under a board of directors) or College has the right to do the work God gave the Church and no right to expect one cent out of the local church treasury. No separate organization can scriptural become an agent for the execution of local church work.

The local church work cannot be done by one congregation trying to work through another. The sponsoring church practice is an offender in this case. A sponsoring church acts as agent for all the contributing “interested” churches. This destroys the equality and independence of all congregations in this cooperative. When one church becomes the “agent” for other churches, the agent must be subject to the principal. When a sponsoring church depends on contributing churches for money and contributing churches depend on a sponsoring church to spend the money, the independence of all these churches involved is destroyed. If not, why not?

An old preacher once wrote in the Gospel Advocate, “Brethren, the word of God is still the seed of the kingdom. If we want this cooperation of churches and organizations, let us then plant the seed and be satisfied with the crop that comes tip. Those are excellent sentiments to follow today. Doing so will bring is back to the local church doing the work that God wants done, nothing more or less.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 19, pp. 11-13
March 15, 1973

By Mike Willis

Despite his vociferous cries against the evils of legalism, even Carl Ketcherside is legalistic. When Brother Ketcherside begins to tell what is required for sonship and, therefore for fellowship, he becomes very legalistic. Here is Brother Ketcherside’s position:

“In God’s plan there is only one fact which must be believed and one act which must be performed, to bring one into that glorious fellowship of the redeemed. The fact is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and the Anointed One, and that act is immersion into the relationship expressed by the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 8, P. 115).

In this statement, Ketcherside becomes extremely legalistic—-even to the point of excluding every person who does not accept the fundamentalists’ concept of the deity of Jesus. Even among those who do accept the deity of Jesus, Ketcherside excluded from fellowship everyone who has not been immersed. Is he not in this appealing to a unity in doctrine instead of a unity in diversity?

Whether Brother Ketcherside is willing to admit it or not, he has become legalistic in his concept. Perhaps, he has even become too legalistic for F.L. Lemley, who writes occasionally for the Mission Messenger. Here are Lemley’s comments:

“Why make such an issue of being sure the subject knows that baptism is for the remission of sins and being sure that every hand, foot and lock of hair is immersed? … Do the commands involved in conversion fall within the sphere of God’s grace or must one make a grade of 100 percent on all of them in order to reach the sphere of grace?” (“Heart Circumcision,” Mission Messenger. Vol. 34, No. 5, p. 73).

“A legalistic view of baptism has led to an exclusive position that only those immersed with the knowledge of its being ‘for the remission of sins’ are Christians (“Fact or Fiction,” Mission Messenger. Vol. 34, No. 10, p. 150).

Brother Lemley has backed off the “legalistic” position regarding the purpose of baptism. Now, Brother Lemley is only 2/3 legalistic with regard to baptism. He now legalistically believes that a person must be immersed -have the right action- and that the person must be the proper candidate for baptism-a penitent believer. Now Brother Lemley, you should not legalistically exclude a penitent believer just because he was sprinkled instead of immersed in water. Must a person make 100 percent on the subject of the action of baptism before he receives the blessings of God’s grace?

One of Brother Ketcherside’s favorite expressions is “All truths are equally true but all truths are not equally important.” Now, we are told that the knowledge of the purpose of baptism is one of those truths, which is not really that important. Why? Because Brother Lemley said so. And surely, Brother Lemley could not be wrong! Brother Lemley, why be legalistic in saying that a man must believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Why be legalistic in saying that a man must repent? Why be legalistic in saying that a man must be immersed?

Yes, the writers of Mission Messenger are as “legalistic” as I am, but they have just chosen to draw the line in a different place. I am not quite sure they even know where they draw the line, but that they draw lines is obvious. “You therefore who teach another, do you not teach yourself?” You who preach that one should not be legalistic, are you legalistic?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 19, p. 9
March 15, 1973