Truth Magazine

By Colly Caldwell

The book of First Corinthians is the most comprehensive single study of the local church in all the New Testament. Perhaps the central characteristic of a local congregation is best described in Paid’s admonition: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be. no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. I: 10).

With that verse in mind, a local church may be defined as a group of Christians meeting in one place who have love for and fellowship with one another and who have agreed to speak and do together those things which God has given them to speak and do collectively.

The term “church” is a collective noun and therefore one Christian is not “the church” (universal) or “a church” (local) … (cf. I Cor. 12:12-14, 18-20). Each Christian is, however, a member of the body Q Cor. 12:15-17), and important to it as a working part (I Cor. 12: 2 1 27). Each Christian is given personal responsibilities to be done individually, and he is given collective responsibilities to be done together with other Christians. One may not isolate himself from other Christians in his general locale without avoiding many extremely important responsibilities given to him by God. The idea that I may be a Christian and not a member of a local congregation, if one exists near me, is false to the core. If faithful brethren are joined in the Lord’s work in the area where I live, I must fulfill my collective responsibilities.

If one does not exist near me, I must attempt to teach men the Gospel and thereby bring one about.

Not every responsibility of the Christian is in the realm of collective action; thus, one cannot say that every action of the Christian is the church at work … or at play … or in sin … or doing good. It is true, that my personal responsibilities sometimes affect the collectivity either for good or bad, but that does not imply that the church has done what I have done. Our brethren who have supported human institutions to do the church’s work on the ground that when the individual Christian acts the church is necessarily also acting must see this truth. I may murder a man and my family suffer tremendously, but the facts that I am a member of the family and that the family has been affected by my action do not legally incriminate the family unit.

Now, understanding that as a member of a body acting together, I must function with the others, and understanding that acting personally as a Christian my works may affect the church, I feel a grave responsibility to the local church of which I am a member. The book of First Corinthians will serve as a guide in viewing that responsibility.

1. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be free from divisiveness (I Cor. 1). Churches need so badly to be united within themselves upon the word of God. The church at Corinth was literally torn apart by the attitudes of the member parts. They wished to be divided. Theirs was not a question of doctrinal belief. They simply would not get along (I Cor. 1:10-16; 11: 17-21; 4:67; 6:1-7). Some are so self-willed that they will divide the body of the Lord over trivial, meaningless questions or over matters which are purely determined by judgment or expediency. The attitude of many is: “I will have my own way or I will tear up the church!” The words of Paul. . . Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3), are so very timely for churches today.

2. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to stand upon the revealed word of God (I Cor. 2). In matters which involve human preferences within the realm of lawful selection, the Christian must bend his desire many times to accommodate others; but in matters involving revealed Truth there can be no bending. Paul addressed the Corinthians with the proposition that faith is directed by the revelation of the mind of God and that the words of man’s wisdom can only destroy.

Many churches could have been saved from digression in the past twenty-five years if Christians had only been strong enough to stand upon the truths of the New Testament. I owe that to my brethren with whom I worship. They may not always appreciate it, but it will be to their good. I cannot be compromising in dealing with God’s revealed word. I may cause my brethren to be lost.

3. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to labor for the building up of the body (I Cor. 3-4). Paul uses first his own example, how that he diligently worked to build at Corinth (I Cor. 3: 1-10). He then turns to the responsibility of each man and woman there to build upon the foundation which is Christ. Their work should be an abiding one (I Cor. 3:11-15). And then in chapter four, he discusses further his stewardship and its place in their growth.

Saving souls by leading them to the Savior is the primary work of the church. We have been saved and we must help others to be saved. If any local congregation is to grow, each member must put himself to the task of talking to others about the Lord and teaching the Truth to all that we can. This takes persistent effort. It takes getting folks out to the worship services. It has often been suggested that every Christian try to convert one soul to Christ each year. This is not an unreasonable request. If we were all as interested in souls and giving our best to the task of converting them, we would be doing more than that. And if we did, the church would double in size each year.

4. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to lead a righteously moral life (I Cor. 5-7). At Corinth there was fornication (chapter 5), public defrauding of one another (6:1-14), more immorality (6:1520), and uncertainties about the proper marital and home-life requirements of God (chapter 7). Now how could the Corinthian church grow with the world seeing all that? If the church of which I am a member is to be what it ought to be, each member must be a Christian in every sense of that word. We want the congregation to radiate a wholesome influence in the community. We must show the light of Christ in our lives. None of us is so insignificant that our example cannot hurt. What we do reflects upon the other brethren either for good or bad. When the world sees our evil, they associate it with the church. When the other brethren see it, they are discouraged and some may even imitate us. Paul said that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump and therefore must be purged out before its effect may be felt. On the other hand, the influence of a godly life will do as much, for the well-being of the local church as any other single. — To be continued

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, p. 9-10
June 8, 1972

By Irven Lee

It is sad but true that the church is divided from coast to coast, and even in continents beyond, over church support of entertainment, and over central agencies through which the churches are encouraged to do their work. The division is already here, and it will evidently be permanent. There are two groups. The two groups will get further and further apart since the break down in the respect for the silence of the scriptures opens a flood gap for many innovations. Exactly the same principles were involved when the instrument and societies were added in the last half of the last century. These first innovations were only keys to open the flood gap, so that now the Disciples of Christ, so called, can work with Methodist preachers much more intimately than they can work with gospel preachers. The “far out” groups among us today just started a little earlier or traveled a little faster. Sister churches are going in the same direction if they have added some doctrines and practices beyond the authority of Christ.

There tends to be a high sound-proofed wall between the two groups. Neither hears the sermons preached in the others buildings. Even private discussions tend to become an exchange of insults. There are some exceptions to this closed door attitude. Some among the digressive churches seem to be getting awake to danger and apostasy. Let us all be thankful and hopeful when we see courtesy and respect shown over or around the iron curtain of former prejudice. Would it not be good for us to get together and hear each other more? Misunderstanding is involved. There are those who have been told and have believed that those opposed to doing benevolent and evangelistic work through boards or national elderships do not believe in preaching the gospel or in helping the needy. Control of temper, patience in teaching, humility, and all other good traits are needed.

Each group accuses the other of causing division. The Lord calls the game and keeps the score. There is no doubt that He will mark each error of doctrine or attitude against either team. When there is a break in fellowship, there are usually some things objectionable on both sides before things settle into permanent and hopeless division. Let each examine himself and walk circumspectly. Surely the serious and divisive influence will be charged against the group that brings in the unscriptural or unauthorized doctrines and practices.

If digression gains momentum with time, and certainly it does, efforts should be put forth in earnest to reclaim as many individuals as possible. A few whole congregations have turned around and come back. This is a rare thing, but many individuals who were at first deceived may be restored. Work hard because souls are involved. Even children of the restored will have a better chance to find the narrow way that leadeth unto life. Some who say that the church should not support institutions and entertainment continue to give financial and moral support to the churches that support both. They know that none would be allowed to warn of the digression in those pulpits. They should come out and stand.

It is not necessary to wait twenty or thirty years after digression has taken over the churches in an area before it is proper to start over on the rock of truth. Start while there are still those who can recognize the ring of a gospel sermon. Start while there is at least a remaining remnant for the nucleus of the true church. Be patient when the lies and persecution set in, and work heartily as unto the Lord.

There is that third group which has set up camp in the comfortable wooded area on the hill above the battle between truth and error. They are like the monkeys on the paper weight. They see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. They cannot keep from knowing that thousands of congregations have been divided but they see no reason to warn any one of danger. They may be more inclined to warn against concern, study, and conviction, rather than against addition to the scriptures. Preachers of this “see no evil” group can preach for the liberals in one place and then preach for the conservatives in another. They are a bit like the geography teacher in the old days who could teach the shape of the earth to be round or flat, according to the request of the board.

This third group should be ashamed to claim ignorance and uncertainty as to where the truth lies. There have been twenty-five years for a study period after the contest was thrust upon us. All should search the scriptures to see. Do members of the churches of Christ not know that it is a sin to go beyond the teachings of Christ? (2 John 9-11; 1 Peter 4:11; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1: 3; 2 Cor. 5:7.) Is it all that hard to see that there is no denominational machinery authorized in the Bible? Nothing larger than the local church is mentioned in the good Book. Where does it authorize church support of central agencies or entertainment?

These things are authorized or they are not. They are right or they are wrong. We should warn and rebuke when error blows by to destroy. (2 Tim. 4:1-5; Titus 1:13; 2:15; Acts 20:29-31.)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, p. 8-9
June 8, 1972

By Grant B. Caldwell

The use of external sources is not the only means by which we may show the Bible to be the word of God. In fact, the Bible is its own best proof as to its authenticity. Surely, if it is the word of God, the Lord will give ample demonstration of it in the book itself. And so He does!!! Notice some of these internal demonstrations.

The Survival of the Bible

The Bible says that the scriptures, the word of God, would endure forever. (I Peter 1:23-25) In almost every period of history, however, there has been some effort to do away with the book of God. Jesus said, “My words shall not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35) You might also note such passages as John 12:48 and Rom. 2:16 which place the scriptures in the judgment.

Notice some of the extreme efforts which have been perpetrated against the Bible:

1. In Jeremiah 36, King Jehoiakim endeavored to destroy a portion of Jeremiah’s prophecy.

2. About 100 B.C., Antiochus IV burned all the copies of the Old Testament that he could find.

3. Emperors such as Claudius (A.D. 41-54), Nero (64), Domitian (81-96), Trajan (98-117), and Septimius Severus (193-211) along with others are known for their murderous nature in regard to those who would believe in the divine book.

4. Diocletian (284-305) is said to have made a hobby of killing Christians and burning their Bibles.

5. We read of the soldiers of Mohammedanism and their efforts to destroy all Bibles and kill all Christians.

6. Under the hand of the Roman papacy, the Bible has suffered much.

a. Innocent III had the French Bible burned in 1199.

b. The Council of Tarragona under Pope Gregory IX in 1234, ordered the people to submit their Bibles to be burned.

c. Wyclif was condemned for translating the Bible in 1383.

d. Charles IV issued a papal edict against the German Bible.

e. Ferdinand II burned Ten thousand Bibles in 1600.

f. The Jesuits burned 60,000 Bibles in 1637.

g. And pope after pope condemned Bible reading for Christians.

7. Even today, scoffers attempt to give up the Bible and have us do the same under the guise that it is not the word of God.

Imagine the odds against the unlearned (for the most part) and uneducated writers of the Bible penning a book that would not only withstand such treatment, but go on to become the best known and loved, most widely read, and most influential of all of the works penned by men. Can you explain it, if the Bible is not the word of God?

The Unity of the Bible

Consider, if you will, these facts: The Bible was written by about forty different men. These men did not live all at the same time but over a period of at least 1600 years. They were not all the same kind of men for some were rich, some poor, some learned, some unlearned, some kings, some common laborers. They did not necessarily know each other personally, nor did they know what the others would write. They lived in different areas, spoke different languages, and wrote under a great variety of circumstances.

We bring all of these writings together into one book known as the Bible, and yet for all the differences in the writers, there is not one mistake or contradiction in the entire writing. They indeed constitute a unit.

Though every work of man — including the most scholarly — contains errors, this one does not. Can you explain that, if the Bible is not the word of God?

The Character of the Writing

The character or style of writing in the Bible is another proof of the authenticity of the Bible. The book is unlike any written by man and yet it contains its own style.

1. The literary style, though differing somewhat from writer to writer, has some very definite points of style indicating a common author. The use of long but easily understood sentences is a feat not readily accomplished by even learned men, but common to the pages of the Bible. The continuity of thought and wording indicates likewise. This is easily explained when we remember that even though there were some forty different writers, the Holy Spirit guided the thinking of each of them.

2. One very interesting factor in the Bible is the complete impartiality of the writers. All of the weak points of even the heroes are never minimized.

3. There are amazingly intricate details given in the Bible. These are things it would seem unlikely to invent. Peter outrunning John to the tomb; the napkin being by itself; the woman wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair; etc., are all the reading of an honest and truthful account.

The Moral Standard of the Bible

Men have never placed upon themselves a moral code of such strictness as that found in the Bible. Pagan Rome and Greece were baptized in immorality, practices shocking to contemplate. (Romans 1) Christianity claims a moral standard for all people and all times, without causing the people grief in so doing.

We have but to look at the nations where the Bible is not the standard of morality to see that men would not have devised such a plan to govern their lives.

Conclusion

We cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God when we are faced with such a variety of evidences as those mentioned here. No other writing has so many evidences as to its authenticity.

I readily admit that I cannot explain these, if indeed, the Bible is not the word of God. I believe that it is.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, p. 6-7
June 8, 1972

By Cecil Willis

The history of man is the history of his digressions from Gods divine will. Man has, at one time or another perverted and polluted every divine provision of God. He has corrupted the sacred worship, distorted the organization of the church, and perverted the divine mission of the church. Again and again, man has changed the unchangeable. Herein has been the source of a multitude of digressions.

In discussions of digressions, we frequently have been content to walk around the outer edges, and snip off a few leaves or small branches from the digressive tree. In this article, and three others to follow, we want to discuss the real taproot of digression, and to discuss the appearance of this digressive principle in the past and its recurrence among us again at this present day.

The Basic Assumption

The basic assumption of the digressive is that there is no New Testament binding pattern. In 1940, A. T. Degroot, the now famous Disciple of Christ historian, wrote a book entitled The Grounds of Divisions Among the Disciples of Christ. Degroot charged that the assumption that there is a pattern revealed in the New Testament is the ground of the various divisions among professed Christians. Degroot stated his intention in the book as follows: “It is the purpose of the present work to trace the genesis and exodus of the divisions which have come to pass in the Restoration movement. In the process of this uncovering we shall endeavor to ascertain the generating cause of these schisms. Having made our investigations in advance of the writing of this Introduction, we are ready to set forth our thesis, namely: that the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive” (pg. 8).

Degroot is perfectly willing to admit that the early leaders in the Restoration effort believed that the New Testament contained a normative pattern. In speaking of the position of Thomas Campbell, as declared in the Declaration and Address, Degroot said: “It was the underlying assumption of Thomas Campbell that the New Testament contained the pattern of a one-and-only primitive Christian Church” (pg. 4). Indeed, it would be a contradiction in terms to speak of a Restoration movement and then to deny that there was anything normative about the New Testament church to restore. Degroot admits that Alexander Campbell, in his early years, shared his fathers concept about the New Testament containing a divine blueprint.

The Anti-Complex

Degroot spoke of what he called the “anti complex,” and by this he meant the disposition to look upon the New Testament as a blueprint for the church for all times to come. The “anti complex” was the disposition and belief “that the New Testament contains the blue prints and specifications of a one-and-only primitive Christian church.” (P. 50). Since Alexander Campbell, in his early years, shared this belief, Degroot therefore says, “In the formative years of the Disciples Alexander Campbell became the spiritual father of the present day Churches of Christ, or conservative branch of the Restoration Movement” (p. 51). What was there about Campbell in his early years that made him to be called “the spiritual father of the present day Churches of Christ”? It was the fact that he then believed the New Testament was for all time a divine pattern.

This so-called “anti -complex” Degroot referred to as “the conservative or more literalistic forces. . .” (p. 93). Of this conservative group of brethren, Degroot said: “It was the tendency resident in every religion of a Book to interpret that religion in a very literal manner, involving an exact reproduction of the forms and methods of the ancient faith.” (P. 92). This “anti complex” resulted in the “habit of demanding chapter and verse as authority for every office and work in the church. . . .9 (P. 123). Later when mechanical instrumental music and missionary societies were introduced (which admittedly were no part of the New Testament church), Degroot said conflict was inevitable. “Only an abandonment of the proof text method could ease the tension created by these different practices” (p. 184), and back then a host of our faithful brethren were unwilling to give up the “proof text method.”

The 50 – 50 Brethren

As the various new practices were introduced, conflict was inevitable between those who believed the New Testament contained a once-for-all-time pattern, and those who did not believe the New Testament was normative Back then, they even had their “middle-of-the-road” brethren, who parallel the effort of the present day Firm Foundation and its enigmatic editor to stand in the middle of the road. Some of the brethren (notably J. W. McGarvey, Moses E. Lard, Robert Graham, W. H. Hopson, and L. B. Wilkes of the Apostolic Times) sought to defend missionary societies and yet strongly oppose mechanical instrumental music. They had the same problem with consistency that the Firm Foundation now has as it attempts to condemn the church support of orphan homes under boards and the church support of colleges, even while they attempt to defend sponsoring churches.

Degroot said the “50-50” brethren (as he called them) had the least defensible position. He said, “A case could be made for a legalistic design of the church . . . if one accepted the premise that the purpose of the New Testament was to reveal the blue print and specifications of unchanging modes of work and worship.” (p. 121). Or, one could deny the New Testament was intended to reveal a pattern, and some justification could then be found “for new experiences in religious life and labor” (p. 121). But neither position could justify entirely those who “took a 50-50 position.” But the tide a century ago was against those who contended that the New Testament was a divinely given blueprint to be reproduced in every age. Degroot said such brethren were “a progressively diminishing constituency.” (p. 121).

Division Comes

Eventually there was an open rupture in the church. The division followed the lines of those who believed the New Testament was normative, and of those who did not believe the New Testament pattern was binding. Degroot said, “From the time of the 1906 Church of Christ lapse into an unrelieved worship of as (sic) assumed pattern church in the New Testament, the Disciples have been free to explore the field of unity with a more experimental mood.” (p. 194).

The taproot of digression was the assumption that there is no pattern. The early leaders of the Restoration effort believed in a pattern. Degroot admitted: “The orthodox teaching of the Restoration leaders was that the New Testament contained perfectly discernable blue prints and specifications of a one-and-only church. This remains as the assumption of the present day Churches of Christ” (p. 217). More correctly, it might be stated that this was the posture of the Church of Christ in 1940. Soon thereafter the digressive spiel of “no pattern-ism” was to be heard throughout the land, even among certain ones in the Churches of Christ, as I propose to show in later articles.

The thesis of Degroot in his book is that there is no pattern for the church revealed in the New Testament. This is the ground of Digressivism, and whoever holds that premise is digressive, regardless of whether he wears the label “Disciples of Christ” or is called a member of the “Church of Christ.” Degroot concluded, “If more than a century of demonstration may be termed historical proof, it should be clear that there is no blue print of a single church in the New Testament.” (p. 219). While Degroot, like so many other digressives (both past and present), did not like the label “liberal,” at least he said: “. . . the non-conservative Disciples have come to view as illusory the idea that a Golden Age of perfect men and institutions existed in the past. They distrust lets-go-back defeatism.” (p. 220).

Degroot then stated again, in closing, his premise: “It is, to the writer at least, evidence in abundance that the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive.” (p. 220). Now, why have I devoted so much time to this discussion of Degroots book? It is in order that you might see that “no patternism” is the basic digressive principle. A century ago a small group of brethren took their stand that there was a divinely revealed New Testament blueprint for the church, which should be reproduced in every century. The “non-conservative” (Liberal!) digressives maintained that the New Testament did not contain a divine pattern, and therefore that the New Testament was not normative at all. It was this basic disagreement that aligned the Churches of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ in their respective camps.

In the articles to follow, I want to show that there are now among us once again those who deny that the Scripture reveals a pattern which we should follow in all ages. Such pattern deniers (which cause them to result in being pattern-perverters) also do not like to be called “liberals.” But they are the logical and historical descendants of the Disciples of Christ of a century ago.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, p. 3-5
June 8, 1972