Truth Magazine

By Don R. Hastings

It was a very cold day the last Sunday in February 1969, in Saratoga, Arkansas. The wind was blowing hard and the sky was a dreary gray. The ground was covered with a light frost that morning, which made walking a difficult task.

I had begun preaching for the Negro brethren in October 1968. They did not have a preacher and were unable to support one. Therefore, through mutual agreement, I began preaching for them. We met at 9 a.m. in order that I might have time to get back and teach a Bible class and preach for the congregation, which was supporting me for my work as an evangelist.

As I got up and began to get ready for services, I thought of the hardship that would soon be facing me. The hardship was the coldness of the church building. It would not be properly heated. The overcoat, which I wore over my suit, would remain on me throughout the entire service and still I would be cold. As I preached, my breath would freeze. Although I knew this would happen, I wanted to preach for them because I felt as Paul did, ” . . . for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:16).

As I drove up to the building a few minutes before 9 a.m. that Sunday, brother John Olden came walking toward the church building. As I proceeded to enter the building, I thought about the great faith, and the great love for God. this man must possess. The hardship of preaching in a cold building was nothing compared to the sacrifice and effort that this child of God had made in order to worship his Creator with Gods sons and daughters.

What was so amazing about seeing this brother at services that morning? It was not because he was present. In fact, it would have been unusual if he had not been present. The amazing thing was that this brother, in the Lord, had walked nearly two miles through the woods, without even the benefit of walking on a road or a path. In spite of the distance, the coldness, the treacherous ground, and his age (you see, he was probably 80 years, or older), this brother was present with the saints. He loved God with all his heart and demonstrated that love in his life.

Oh, how foolish our excuses must appear to Him who sacrificed His life for us. Now, what was your excuse for not assembling with the Lords children in order to worship Him? You have an automobile to ride in, and it has a heater. Why were you late for services? This brother had to have left his house around 7 a.m. to arrive before time for worship service.

Are you willing to pay the price of discipleship? Are you willing to deny yourself and take up your cross and follow Him? (Matthew 16:24). -4722 Lark Ridge Circle

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, p. 2
January 25, 1973

By Keith Sharp

I have before me a pamphlet written by Brother Athens Clay Pullias entitled Where There Is No Pattern. Brother Pullias contends there is no revealed pattern for us to follow in the matters that have divided the church in the last twenty years. An entire generation of Gods children has been raised on such teaching. The result is the attitude expressed by J. P. Sanders, graduate of Abilene Christian College, who flatly declared concerning the Bible, “Nowhere, nowhere, do I find a consistent diagram or blueprint of what life should be or what the church should be.” (Restoration Review, March 1967, p. 51) This leads to a vital and timely question: Is there a divine pattern for the church?

We must surely realize our need for such a pattern. No reputable contractor would attempt to construct a building without a blueprint. Even the most talented seamstress realizes the need for a pattern. This is because the tasks they undertake are difficult. Of how much more infinite difficulty is the task of the church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth”? (1Timothy 3:15)

Indeed, concerning mans entire relationship to God, Jeremiah could cry in all truth, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). You need divine guidance.

And we can know assuredly there is such a pattern. Paul commanded young Timothy: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1: 13). The word “form ” means “an example, pattern . . . the pattern to be placed before one to be held fast and copied, model . . . “” (Thayer) This is a plain declaration that there is a pattern. This form, according to the inspired writer, consists of “words, which thou hast heard of me.” These are apostolic words. But, the apostles words are Gods words, received by revelation from the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:9-13) These words were written down by the apostles and constitute the New Testament, which we can read and understand. (Eph. 3:1-6) The term “sound” is defined thus: “to be well, to be in good health  true and incorrupt doctrine.” (Thayer) These are words that are conducive to spiritual health. Being the words of God, they are true. (John 17:17) But we dare not corrupt them.

If one were to add a pinch of arsenic to wholesome wheat flour, death would result. If one adds a pinch of opinion to the wholesome apostolic words, damnation will result. (Gal. 1: 6-9) Thus, the divine blueprint for the church consists of the sum total of everything the New Testament says about the church, nothing more or less. Equipped with this pattern, we “may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:17, ASV)

The aged apostle enjoined an obligation to this pattern. He commanded Timothy to “hold fast” the form. The words “hold fast” mean to “keep,” “retain ” or “be consistent with.” Under the Old Covenant, if one brought into service to God that which was unauthorized, punishment was swift and severe. (e.g. Lev. 10: 1-2) Under the New Testament we must “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (by His authority, Col. 3:17) lest we be without God (2 Jno. 9-11) and thus lose our hope of life eternal. (Rev. 22:18-19)

Indeed, there is a divine pattern for the church, the New Testament. Will you not lay aside human opinion and by faith be conformed to the divine pattern ? -Pruett and Lobit

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, p. 13
January 18, 1973

By Bill Reeves

One of Max Kings “big guns” is Rom. 4:13. “According to Paul, a promise was given to Abraham that he and his seed would inherit a world.” A-33 . . . he did not look for inheritance in the Jewish world, but rather the Christian world . . . This truth is manifest in Heb. 11:8-16.” A-34 “This city he looked for, which hath foundations was the – heavenly Jerusalem – Heb. 12:22. or the Jerusalem which is above (Gal. 4:26). This is the new heaven and earth promised to Abraham and his seed, of which the Jewish world (old heaven and earth) was a forerunner. The New Testament saints, born of Abrahams spiritual seed, looked for this new world (2 Pet. 3:13), in anticipation of the time Ishmael would be cast out, or the old heaven and earth would pass away. The time was drawing near when the Hebrew letter was written. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13).” A35

To this King adds Matt. 5:17,18, making Jesus say that the “heaven and earth” of that passage refers to the passing away of Judaism in A. D. 70, at which time “all things would be accomplished.” Also, the “heaven and earth” of Matt. 24:35 apply to the “Jewish world” (as he calls it for convenience sake  oh, how he plays with words!) to pass away in A. D. 70. He sees the word “world” in Rom. 4:13, and so he gets “earth” out of Matt. Ch. 5 and Ch. 24, “land,” “country,” and “city” out of Heb. 11 and 12, and “world” out of Eph. 3:21 (KJV!), and runs them all together into his fanciful theory. Lets analyze these texts.

(1) Rom. 4:13. The Greek word here for “world” is kosmos. We do not read in Genesis of a promise stated in this style, but the context of Rom. 4 makes it clear that the reference is to his becoming the father of many nations in a spiritual sense. See especially vv. 16-18. See Gal. 3:29. The faith of the gospel is for all the world (Phil. 1:27; Mk. 16:15). Abraham, then, inherited the world as his spiritual children, for in his seed (Christ) all the world can be blessed, and the church is made up of all nations. Paul did not say that Abraham would inherit “a world.” Thats Kings lingo. Abraham inherited the world as Jesus inherited the nations (Ps. 2: 8; Heb. 1: 2). Abraham was made a father of many nations in that he was the father of the faithful, of those with faith in Christ. They were spiritual progenitors. Thats why Gal. 3:29 is so!

(2) Matt. 5:17,18. There is no “world” (kosmos) in this text. Jesus did not say that heaven and earth (Greek, GE) would pass away when all things were accomplished. King sees the word “earth,” which is somewhat suggestive of “world,” and away he runs with it! What does a context matter to him? Jesus is saying that his purpose in coming to the earth was not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. Furthermore, he says, until that is accomplished it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or one title of the law or prophets to fall. See Lk. 16: 17. Or, to put it another way, as long as heaven and earth stood, that law would be fulfilled without the least particle of it going unfulfilled. He came to fulfill it, and fulfill it he would, and heaven and earth would not pass away first! If the law was not fulfilled till A.D. 70, Christians were under it until then, and Paul says, “no” (Rom. 6:14).

(3) Matt. 24:35, Here Jesus speaks, not, as King does, of a “world” (kosmos), but of the same earth (GE) as in 5:18. The physical heaven and earth are temporary; they shall pass away (Kings spiritualizing to the contrary. He says that he does not know “what the destiny of this physical world is that were living in”), but Christs declarations are not temporary, but are absolute of fulfillment, irrespective of time and temporal things. That is Christs point, but King plays with the word “earth,” and equates it with his “world” of Rom. 4:13.

(4) Matt. 5:5 is also cited by King and referred to his “Christian world” of A. D. 70. He says, “The residence of Gods people today is in the new earth promised, which is just as spiritual as everything that belongs in it. Of this earth and this inheritance, Jesus spake in Matt. 5:5…” A-26 Jesus is speaking of no such invention! The 37th Psalm (vv. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34) shows that the expression “inherit the earth” means to benefit from its physical blessings. The beatitudes refer to a specific class of people and to what benefits they have because they are that class of people.

(5) Heb. 11:8-16. The Hebrew writer was no “A.D. 70 Advocate.” He tells us to follow Abraham in seeking for a “city” (residence) which is heavenly. (King wishes it said: “spiritual!”). Here (on this earth and in this life) we do not have an “abiding city,” or

permanent residence. We seek after the one that is to come. (Heb. 13:14). It is in the “Fathers house,” in. 14: 2. King equates the word “city” (of Heb. 11:10, 16) with “heavenly Jerusalem,” which is his perfect state of things as of A. D. 70. King is the only authority for that! The Hebrew writer is contrasting a heavenly country with the earthly one in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived as strangers and sojourners. One was on earth; the other in heaven. Thats where Peter says that the eternal inheritance is reserved “in heaven” (I Pet. 1:4).

(6) Heb. 12:22. “The tense of the verb are come shows that he was speaking of things that were transpiring at the time he wrote the Hebrew letter.” “But ye are come … present tense! And we have the new world today.” Brother King needs to check the Greek text; it is not present tense, but what is even worse for him the perfect tense! They had already arrived at that “city” (the heavenly Jerusalem) at the time the Hebrew writer wrote! “Are come” is not present tense; if present tense, it would read “are coming,” and that is precisely what King advocates: that something was presently coming and would arrive in A. D. 70! The Hebrew writer used the perfect tense, as he did in v. 18, and tells the Hebrews that they had already arrived and were there. The perfect tense in the Greek emphasizes action in the past with present consequences. The Hebrew Christians did not pertain to the Old Covenant, but they did (already) to the New! Thats the point of the inspired writer. King plays with words and makes “are come” are coming, and hopes we will not see the difference. Paul made the brethren come to the “city,” and King makes the “city” come (just a little later on) to the Hebrew brethren. Berrys Interlinear, as does the NASV, reads: “you have come,” which is the clearest way to express the perfect tense in English.

Heb. 12:22 is present perfect tense, and, by contrast, in. 14:3; 2 Tim. 4:18; and 2 Pet. 1: 11 are future. How King would like for the four texts to all be in the same tense!

(7) Gal. 4:26. The Jerusalem of this passage, as that of Heb. 12:22, are the same and refer to the New Covenant. Of course Christians had arrived, having arrived at the New Covenant of Christ. Of course perfection was there found (Heb. 10: 13). Thats where they pertained. To go back to the Old Covenant would have been apostasy and perdition. Thats the inspired writers point. But King would like for Gal. 4:26 and Heb. 12:22 to say “new heavens and new earth,” which phrase applies to the redeemed as viewed in heaven and in eternity, but not upon this earth. The New Testament views the saved as the kingdom of heaven now, on earth, and pertaining to the heavenly Jerusalem, and it also views the saved throughout eternity as the heavenly or eternal kingdom. King rejects this N.T. concept completely!

(8) 2 Pet. 3:13. Future tense, Brother King! The Hebrew Christians were already arrived at the heavenly Jerusalem City, but were looking forward to “new heavens and a new earth.”

(9) Heb. 8:13. King says: “He nailed it to the cross to this extent: that he came to fulfill it and when he died upon the cross he did that and then Heb. 8:13; it took some forty years before the whole thing was completed.” “The New Testament saints, born of Abrahams spiritual seed, looked for this new world (2 Pet. 3: 13), in anticipation of the time Ishmael would be cast out, or the old heaven and earth would pass away. The time was drawing near when the Hebrew letter was written. (Heb. 8:13).” A-35 King cites Ps. 102:25-28, and says, ” Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment: does not this figure of speech sound familiar? See again Heb. 8:13; Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Could Paul and David be talking about the same event? The author believes so.” A-41 (Heb. 8:13). The words ready to vanish away are very significant in this passage, showing that the old dispensation continued several years after the cross. Its final end came with the fall of Jerusalem … and this event marked the passing of heaven and earth.” A-184, 185 “This natural body, receiving its death blow at the cross and beginning then to wax old and decay (Heb. 8:13), became a nursery or seed-body for the germination, growth, and development of the spiritual body by means of the gospel. Thus, out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christianity, that became fully developed or resurrected by the end-time. Hence, this is the primary meaning of Pauls statement, It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. ” A-200

The word “decayeth” (KJV of Heb. 8:13) is imperative to Kings argument. He cannot use Berry here, or the ASV or NASV. They do not say “decay,” and his fanciful theory needs a putrifying body for a period of time. But there is no decaying process of a dead body anywhere in the Greek word of this text, or in the context. Notice the Greek text here: to de palaioumenon kai geraskon. Berry gives this literal word-for-word translation: “But that which grows old and aged.” The ASV says: “But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged.” The NASV reads: “But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old.” Palaioumenon, according to Thayers Greek Lexicon, means, “to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated,” and the second Greek word under consideration, geraskon, means, “to fail from age, be obsolescent.” The Hebrew writer does not say that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete and growing old, but that whatever (neuter) is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear! Thats his point; such is true of anything like that. It is a statement of general application. Thats why the neuter is used: “that which,” or “whatever.” And, theres no decaying in the word!

Now, notice Ps. 102:25-27. There is no direct reference at all in Heb. 8: 13 to this passage. There is a similar phrase there, and King jumps on it to make a play on words! The phrase “wax old” in Ps. 102:26, in the Septuagint (Greek version of the O.T.), is from the first of the two words noted above, meaning become old, or grow old. No “decaying” in Psa. 102 nor in Heb. 8! Even the KJV, in Psa. 102, does not say “decay” for the same word which appears in Heb. 8:13.

The Hebrew writer indicates that God considered the Old Covenant as obsolete in Jeremiahs time! When did God say that He would make a new covenant? Back in Jeremiahs time! What did God do to the first covenant when He said that? He made it old. What about anything old and obsolete? It is near to disappearing. This is what Heb. 8:13 is talking about! “When God announced a new covenant he proclaimed the insufficiency of the old, and the promise of a new covenant carried with it the promise of the abrogation of the old.” (Vincent Is Word Studies in the N. T., p. 1135).

The Hebrew brethren would be foolish to abandon the New Covenant for one done away! The Jews for six centuries knew, from Jer. 31: 3 ff, that the Old Covenant was in the aging process, and therefore would be abrogated in time. King gives the Law a “decaying” process six centuries too late! -Rt. 3

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, pp. 9-11
January 18, 1973

By C.G. (Colly) Caldwell, III

The ground on which the subjectivist most often chooses to defend his cause is the question of fellowship. “To whom may a Christian deny fellowship?” he asks. Those among churches of Christ are answering their own question by saying that they can deny fellowship to no one who has come into Christ through scriptural baptism. Almost without exception their major proof-text is Romans 14. The appeal is that we all differ on some things and since that is true we should agree to disagree on all points of difference (except perhaps on the deity of Jesus) and fellowship each other in spite of our doctrinal problems.

First, the philosophy called “unity in diversity” in matters upon which God has revealed his mind is not only unscriptural: It is anti-scriptural (1 Cor. 1:10). What the subjectivist is really arguing is that it is all right to differ with God. That is why I have called the fellowship issue a “smokescreen.” Suppose we do agree to fellowship all baptized persons. Does that mean that all baptized persons are right with God, walking in the light? If not, we are walking with those in darkness. If so, Gods word on any point other than the deity of Jesus is not worth the snap of your finger, certainly not worth contending for earnestly (Jude 3). Now get in mind what the subjectivist is doing. He is not really arguing for fellowship. He is arguing against a strong stand on the word of God. He will “scream and holler” (no, probably he will smile, fold his hands, say that he loves me and in a whisper affirm) that he is not, but that is exactly the whole point of the whole thing!

Romans 14

Now, let us look at that proof-text, Romans 14. It is a great chapter and at first hearing the position on it sounds wonderful. One question, however, brings the picture into focus: “On what kind of difference does Paul tell brethren they may disagree.” (See also 2 Cor. 8; 10: 14-11 :1)? I affirm that Paul is talking: (1) about matters of personal scruple (that is, matters that clearly affect the Christian personally and which may be participated in without involving any other Christian), and (2) about matters which both the weaker brother and the stronger brother ought to understand are left by God to personal application at the individuals own discretion.

The point of the passage is stated in verse three. First, “Let not him that eateth set as nought him that eateth not.” The instruction given here is to the stronger brother who knows that he can eat privately without religious significance and not sin. His attitude toward his weaker brother (who, regardless of weakness in personal strength on this point, is stringently trying to follow Gods revealed will and thus will not do anything which bothers his conscience) is one of love and good will, not condemnation. You will note that the weaker brother has not violated Gods will nor has he presumed to do anything apart from Gods word.

“. . . And let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth.” This is the instruction to the weaker brother who will not eat meat which has been offered to idols at all. Why, because he strongly believes it is wrong to eat any meat offered to idols? No, he knows that “God hath received” the man who eats and he knows that God does not receive the man who continues in sin. Do not let the subjectivist dodge here by saying that God received this stronger brother when he was baptized. Paul is not talking about his reception upon the basis of baptism. He is talking about acceptance of both men regarding the matter of eating meat. The stronger brother eats and God accepts him in it.

Why then does this weaker brother not eat? He does not eat because, in spite of Gods granting him the liberty to eat, he cannot without compunction of conscience bring himself to eat. The Lord says that he does not sin if he refuses to eat so he does not eat. Nothing is involved but an innocent personal privilege. Paul is not speaking on a point which affects the work or worship of the collectivity. If he were the man would be expressly prohibited from interjecting his views into the affairs of the church (Col. 2:20-23; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; Matt. 15:1-6).

God also, however, tells him not to judge the man who does eat. Why, because God desires that he not firmly takes a stand on a point of faith? No, God never asked any man to overlook sin, compromise truth, or fellowship men in darkness. If so Jesus and the apostles failed to set the proper example for they did not condone sin or fail to judge the sinner who would not recognize the word of God and turn from his evil. Why then must he not judge the man who eats? Look at the text . . .” For God hath received him.” Even the weaker brother is to do what he does because he recognized Gods wishes in the matter. Why receive the other man? Because God says that He has received him and approved his action and thus the weaker brother must receive him too.

The subjectivist identifies the “weaker brother” in this passage with one who has not come to know Gods will and thus acts (or does not act as the case may be) in the matter at hand apart from Gods revelation. That is not the case. Paul has told him what God says about his freedom to eat meat or not to eat. He understands that. He is not refusing to accept Gods word. He may be overly cautious but he has committed no presumptuous act. If he had, and not turned from it, God would not have received him, and I take it that he, too, is received by God since God told the stronger brother not to judge him either. Suppose for example that this brother began to eat meat as a religious act of worship. Would Pauls instruction be the same? Certainly not. The man would then be in sin and that is a different matter altogether (1 Cor. 10:20-22).

Scriptural Disagreement: The Rule

On what then may we scripturally disagree. Answer: (1) on those matters on which God has not revealed his mind and (2) on matters of personal concern left by God to the judgment of individual Christians to be determined within the framework of personal spiritual strength and private circumstance. It is true that we should be patient, considering one anothers shortcomings (especially on difficult points of scriptural study) in the application of these guidelines to the subject of fellowship. But to add to these guidelines the realm of revealed New Testament authority and precedent which involves collective action is to leave the question of fellowship and to affirm allegiance with the lawless one (2 Thess. 2:8-12). Again, the fellowship issue is a smokescreen. It is designed to hide the marriage ceremony of the subjectivist (divorced without cause from the word of God) to worldly, human rationalism.

One more time and we will conclude this series. Who is the subjectivist? He is the man who rejects strong responsibility to an objective written standard, the New Testament. He exalts personal elements in experience and feeling (his own and others) as ultimate criteria on which to judge whether a man is in relationship with God. He refuses to challenge those subjective standards with the objective word of God. His preaching leads to the abandonment of real conviction (except perhaps on the topic of his subjectivism). He is a dangerous man because he does not properly love the revealed truth of God (though he, like the cultists, professes strongly his allegiance to the Bible). He is a vulnerable man because he is open game for theological liberalism and skepticism. Be aware of him. Study his doctrines and philosophy. Study the truth. Pray for wisdom to be able to overcome the subtle, lying, workings of Satan (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, p. 7-8
January 18, 1973