Truth Magazine

By Steve Wallace

Brethren in different places are preaching the “Gospel of Change.” They are calling things that churches have generally practiced “traditions” and feel a great need to alter everything they can. Such things as having an order of services, e.g., two songs and a prayer, or an invitation song are looked upon as dull, unwanted heritage from past generations. A brother who was once at the church here even advocated unstructured worship. While such change may be “the thing” with some brethren, we want to ask if it is wise and worthy. We question such change for the following reasons.

The Danger of Judging Hearts

The thought seems to be that, since a given church has held to a given order of services or a particular practice for a number of years, these things have become empty rituals and the brethren’s hearts are no longer in them. Hence, some have gotten the idea that “we need to stir things up a little around here!” Let us remember that acts of worship alone do not constitute acceptable worship. Rather, acceptable worship consists of God-ordained acts springing forth from the heart of the worshiper (cf. John 4:24; Matt. 15:8). It is not our business to judge whether or not someone’s heart is in the worship, neither do externals alone indicate such (John 4:24). The heart is God’s province and he will decide if our worship is acceptable (1 Sam. 16:8). Brethren who advocate such change may be saying something about the state of their own hearts (Matt. 15:8).

We May Change Something that Has

Lost its Meaning to Us That is Still

Meaningful to Someone Else

Some brethren are saying we should do away with the invitation at the close of services. “It’s just a tradition,” they tell us. First of all, is the church (the “bride”) not saying, “Come” by extending the invitation (Rev. 22:17)? Just as importantly, what might that invitation mean to a lost sinner who stops by our services? I know a story of a young man who had been raised a Roman Catholic. After leaving that religion and spending some time in the world, he started searching for the right way. Bible in hand he talked and studied with different religions. It was while he was attending a Baptist church that he became convinced he ought to be baptized in order to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5 was the verse that hit him). Upon requesting baptism, the Baptist preacher told him that they would baptize him in a few months. That did not set real well with him. Not long after that he was invited to visit services at a church of the Lord. When they extended the invitation that night, it could have been meaningless to everyone in the building  but it was not meaningless to him! “That’s the way it ought to be!” he thought. The reason I know this story so well is because that young man was me! I am glad that the Knollwood Church of Christ in Dayton, Ohio, had not fallen prey to the “Gospel of Change.” The invitation means a lot when you are lost!

The Things We Change To Will Become Traditional

Imagine visiting a church which has been having unstructured worship for five years. Upon seeing the proceedings you ask the one next to you, “What’s going on?” The reply? “That’s the way we’ve always done it!”

Conclusion

Change for the sake of change is not wise and it can actually produce bad results. Biblically based things that we have always done as a church are good and often need no changing. Some may even be part of our eternity (Rev. 7:9-12).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 5
December 4, 1997

By Jim McDonald

Wisdom teaches that “tools” to do a work may become antiquated and ineffective. For decades radio preaching here in the States was a great tool through which many learned the gospel. “Running debates” were conducted with various denominational preachers in many locales and in some instances, formal debates were conducted over the air. While it is not true that no good today comes from radio preaching, we readily acknowledge that it is no longer as effective as it once was.

Wisdom also teaches that what does not work in some places may be the very thing needed to accomplish work in another place. Radio preaching may not be very effective in the U.S. but it is highly profitable in the Philippines  at least in some parts. Four men who were recently baptized were all denominational preachers who were converted through listening to a radio program aired each Sunday afternoon from Davao City, southern Mindanao. Jerry Casa directs the program and is helped by Julie Notarte and Wilfredo Canas, as well as other men of the region. The picture shows Ken Marrs speaking on this program during our most recent visit to this region, June 1997.

What is happening in Davao City is being duplicated in Cordon, Isabela, northeast central Luzon. Domie Jacob, preacher in Cordon, has a Saturday program and from it many have been baptized and at least two congregations of the “one-cup” persuasion have come to a better knowledge of the truth. I met two former “one-cup” preachers in May in Ilagan, Isabela who had given up their errors on that doctrine, both of whom had come to a more perfect knowledge of truth through the radio, although one had learned the truth through Domie’s preaching and a second led to a better understanding through a program directed by Romeo Torreliza in northwestern Luzon.

There are likely 40 congregations in the Cagayan Valley (northeast Luzon) many of which are the result of radio preaching. Rody Gumpad conducted a radio program for many years in Tuguegarao and in our visits to that area we met many people who had been converted through hearing his pro-gram. Two other programs have been or are still being heard in Tuguegarao  one is conducted by Neo Aglugub and Robert Gamiao and these have borne fruit for the cause of our Lord. Within the last year a program has been broadcast in Manila, the only one in this vast city of 10,000,000 people. Ben Cruz, Fred Agulto, and Jaime Bobis are the most frequent speakers, but others also from the Manila area speak on the program. Much interest is being fueled through this program.

We do not claim that every program conducted in the Philippines has been a success as in these instances we record. Some have met with minimal success. Several factors enter into successful radio preaching, not the least of which is the state of the heart of the hearer and the ability and knowledge of the speaker.

For those places where the gospel is aired, there are dozens of other places where there is no such voice  places which desperately need an avenue to sound forth the Word. Three such places presently come to mind where we believe a radio program would help greatly promote the cause of our Lord.

Mindoro

The island of Mindoro is the home of brother D. Menor, a pioneer preacher who was widely known in past years. Brother Menor’s health and age do not permit him to be very active now, but there are some strong, faithful and able men who live here. In past years the work was more prosperous than now. According to brethren there, there are 17 congregations still active but several congregations which once met, no longer assemble. The preachers are older, perhaps more mature men, but there are very few younger preachers preaching on the island. The work could be helped, we believe, through a program that would reach all over the island. Elesio Sikat of Aurora is well respected and has the capability and knowledge to handle an effective radio program.

Cebu City

Cebu City is the second largest city in the Philippines. There are just two or three congregations in this huge, sprawling metropolis and these are extremely weak and small. Cebu City is in the center of the Visayas and a radio program radiating from here would be heard in many other islands, as well as Cebu. Cirilio Sumabol is one of the preachers in Cebu City and has been searching out stations from which the Word might be sounded forth.

Mindanao

Ben Libertino lives in Poblacion 5, Midsayap, Cotabato, in the midst of southern Mindanao. Brethren in this area have suffered much and still suffer in this region afflicted by Muslim rebels. Homes and church buildings have been burned, as well as crops. Some brethren have been killed. Others have fled, but Ben and Virgil Vilanueva and other preachers remain to preach to their people. Ben believes a program would be highly effective, aired from Cotabato City. Not only could the lost hear the gospel but distressed brethren could be encouraged and given strength to stand amidst their trials and persecutions.

No one knows what might result should these broadcasts materialize. God’s word is “quick and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword”; it is God’s power unto salvation (Heb. 4:12; Rom. 1:16). Thousands have already been converted in the Philippines. Thousands, hopefully millions, can be. Are you interested in helping to preach the gospel via radio in either Mindoro, Cebu City, or in southern Mindanao? I will be happy to provide further information about whom you may contact for those who have such a desire.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 8-9
December 4, 1997

By Marc W. Gibson

Ever since the recent death of the Roman Catholic nun known as Mother Theresa, I have heard numerous comments on television and other places to the effect that if there ever was a person of whom there could be no doubt that she would be in heaven, Mother Theresa was the one. It could make one stop and wonder if, in spite of some errors, the grace of God would allow someone like her to be judged righteous in the end. I am aware that this topic may be found controversial and troubling to some, but I believe it to be important. When discussing such matters, too many rely on their gut-instinct or inner feelings rather than the clear teaching of God’s word. This can be spiritually fatal. The Lord will judge all souls by the standard of his word (John 12:48). I am not at-tacking any person living or dead, but only desire that we examine our beliefs in light of God’s revealed word.

It is not within the realm of this article to fully argue the fact that the Roman Catholic church is an apostate religion. Suffice it to say there is no scriptural authority for its existence, organization (hierarchy), and most of its practices and beliefs. The orders of monks and nuns are unauthorized in Scripture, as is calling someone on earth “Father” or “Mother” in a spiritual context (Matt. 23:9; I use the name “Mother Theresa” accommodatively because that was the name she was best known as, mwg). Whatever else may be said about Mother Theresa, she was still a lifelong practicing member of a human denomination that was devoid of the teaching and practice of truth. She was not a member of the body of Christ, wherein the saved dwell (Eph. 5:23).

The main argument concerns moral goodness and the grace of God. Mother Theresa was a person of high moral character and work. Her labor among the poor and dying in Calcutta, India, is legendary and worthy of honor. But will this alone place her in the good graces of God and his salvation? Will the grace of God cover other faults, though unrepented of? Consider the case of Cornelius, “a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always ” (Acts 10:1-2; see also v. 22). Here is a good, upright, moral man. If he would have died in this condition, many would argue that the grace of God would save him regardless. But is this how God saw his condition? Cornelius was visited by an angel of God who told him that, while God had taken note of his good character and deeds, he needed to send for a man named Peter who “will tell you what yet must do” and “tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved ” (vv. 3-6; 11:13-14). As good and as moral as Cornelius was, obviously something was lacking in his life. Later, when Peter arrived, Cornelius told him, “Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God” (v. 33). Peter taught him that “in every nation whoever fears [God] and works righteousness is accepted by Him ” (v. 35). This included being baptized for the remission of sins (vv. 47-48; Acts 2:38) and all other works commanded in God’s word. We may do good, moral works here on earth yet not be in a right condition with God. The case of Cornelius proves that moral goodness alone will not save. One must be saved from sin by the blood of Christ and then live by God’s moral and doctrinal will.

Jesus will render final judgment at the last day (2 Cor. 5:10). In teaching his truth today, righteous judgment is rendered on our present condition (John 7:24). If I could have talked to Mother Theresa, I would have told her what I tell others  leave the denominations of men and put on Christ in baptism, being added by him to his one church. Still, she had full access to the truth in God’s word. On the other hand, you or I must never presume to say what God will do separate from what he has already revealed (1 Pet. 4:11). To say that God will judge differently than what he has revealed is to speak where God has not spoken. Be careful! To assume and teach that God will make exceptions to his revealed way will lead to a disregard for the authority of his revealed word. Maybe we should be busier teaching and obeying the truth instead of trying to figure out ways to get people into the kingdom of heaven without them doing “the will of the Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s grace is accessed by faith (Rom. 5:1-2), and true faith is a faith that obeys God’s will (Jas. 2:17-26). Fear God and work his righteousness today for your salvation!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 1
November 6, 1997

By P. J. Casebolt

Now the king sat in the winter house in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning be-fore him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth (Jer. 36:22, 23).

God’s word had been revealed through Jeremiah the prophet “against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations” (Jer. 36:2). These words had been written in a book by Baruch the scribe, read “in the ears of all the people” (v. 10), before the princes (v. 15), and finally before the king. The authenticity of this revelation had been well con-firmed and acknowledged. Even after Jehoiakim cut out and burned all of the first book, all of the former words were written again, “and there were added besides unto them many like words” (v. 32). Even the penknives and fires of kings cannot make void the word of God.

Atheists, infidels, and other enemies of the truth have made concentrated efforts to keep all of God’s word out of the ears and hands of the people. Even God’s own people have attempted to discredit or destroy those portions of truth which expose and rebuke their errors. Whether we attempt to destroy the entire text of the Bible at one cutting and burning, or whether we do it piece-meal, “here a little, and there a little” (cf. Isa. 28:10), the end result is still the same.

After leaders of the Reformation had made a successful effort to get the Bible out of the prison bars of Catholicism and back into the hands and vernacular of the people, some of those very same liberators of the printed text borrowed Jehoiakim’s penknife and began cutting on the word of God. That penknife has been used by practically every religious group, and it is still being passed around to-day. When others aren’t using it, God’s own people take turns using it.

Martin Luther excised the entire epistle of James because the text of James 2 did not conform to his doctrine of justification by “faith only.” Luther’s zeal to expose the corrupt works or indulgences of Catholicism caused him to reject even the works of God as “spurious.” The “new hermeneutics” had begun.

Because the text of Mark 16:9-20 was not included in some earlier Greek manuscripts, some have tried to exploit this omission in their efforts to eliminate baptism as being essential to salvation. What James 2:24 did to Luther’s doctrine of faith only, Mark 16:16 did to the enemies of baptism. But as with the subject of faith and works, there are many other passages of Scripture be-sides Mark 16:16 which confirm the importance of baptism with respect to salvation.

In an effort to justify the practice of ordaining women preachers in the Lord’s church, one champion of that practice told me that Paul was a “prejudiced old bachelor that didn’t like women,” and therefore anything he wrote was suspect. Well, that position would eliminate 13 or 14 books of the New Testament, and would probably brand Christ as a “prejudiced old bachelor.”

I hadn’t been preaching long before I experienced my first “baptism” with the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question. Older preachers told me that the question surfaced “about every 20 years or so,” brethren would eventually return to the language of Matthew 19:9, and things would settle down for another 20 years. Since that time, I have decided that a new generation comes along about every 20 years, somebody or somebody’s children get involved in an unscriptural marriage, and new positions on the subject are invented to justify the existing practice.

In this first encounter of mine circa 1950, an influential and respected preacher in the Ohio Valley changed his position on marriage/divorce, preached a special sermon in a meeting at Parkersburg, West Virginia, and concluded that there was no cause for divorce or remarriage. His reasoning was that Matthew 19:9 belonged to the law of Moses, as did everything else in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The next day, I went to his study and reasoned with him about that portion of these epistles which we call the Great Commission. Should we leave this out of our preaching? He conceded that he and others may encounter some “in-consistencies” with this new position, but those would have to be worked out.

This preacher was much older and more experienced than was I, but I wanted to know the truth, and what I should do. Some were influenced by his teaching, some “came out of the closet” who already held that position, but in fairness to this preacher and his memory (he still lives the last I heard), he renounced his newly acquired doctrine and short foraywith Jehoiakim’s penknife, and returned to Matthew 19:9 as the pivotal passage on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

My last encounter with Jehoiakim’s penknife came as I was trying to reason with a brother about the function of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as members of the Godhead (1 John 5:7, 8). I do not know where this brother got his information, but his understanding was that this passage of Scripture was not inspired. If this is true, what about Mat-thew 28:18-20, and the charge of Jesus to baptize “them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (v. 19)? Or, when Paul (that “prejudiced old bachelor”), tells us that “the unity of the Spirit” includes “one Spirit,” “one Lord,” and “one God and Father” (Eph. 4:1-6), is this passage also uninspired? Why must we feel called upon to use Jehoiakim’s penknife in order to advocate some position with reference to the Godhead? Since some brethren have already cut out Matthew-John to justify some position on divorce, Paul’s epistles have been assigned to the ramblings of a prejudiced old bachelor that didn’t like women, and the rest of the Bible has been cut out by some-one else, that only leaves me, 1 John, so I think that I will hold onto it for awhile.

If we attempt to understand and apply a passage of Scripture while at the same time acknowledging that it is inspired, that is one thing; to reject the inspiration of the Bible in order to defend some doctrine or practice of human origin is another thing entirely.

Jehoiakim has long since departed this world, but his penknife was not interred with his bones.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 22-23
November 6, 1997