Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

At the Nashville Jubilee this summer, Rubel Shelly read a statement in which he apologized to the Christian Church for the division over the instrument of music in worship. Simultaneously, that statement was read before a convention of the Christian Church and received with great celebration. Division was caused congregation by congregation when the instrument was forced in over the protest of sincere Christians who could not worship with it without violating their consciences. Much controversy in the journals and in public debates explored the scriptural authority (or lack of it). When all was said and done, no divine authority had been found for it and the only real justification for it was, “I like it and I intend to have it, whether you like it or not.” It was granted by all that singing in public worship was authorized in the New Testament. So any division was not because of that. The instrument was the bone of contention. So important was it to the advocates for its use that they preferred it to the fellowship of their brethren. Church property was high jacked in various places over the country and devout brethren were forced to leave and start over in the school house, or court house, or a store front somewhere. And for this an apology is due? Rubel Shelly does not speak for me. He does not even speak for a large number of the institutional folks. You can expect papers like The Spiritual Sword and Firm Foundation to roast Shelly for his presumption.

Meanwhile, Paul said “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (Heb. 2:12). What does the New Testament say about instrumental music in worship? Absolutely nothing. If God said nothing, and we say something, then we have acted without authority and gone beyond the teaching of Christ (2 John 9).

All of this is a good lesson in what happens when men start drifting to the left. Men like Shelly are not just out in left field, they have run plumb out of the stadium.

Lucado on Baptism

One of the speakers at the Nashville Jubilee was the popular writer Max Lucado. The Nashville press gave considerable coverage to the controversy among Nashville churches of Christ over the Jubilee. Lucado was inter-viewed by a local television personality and questioned about baptism. The interviewer said something to the effect that churches of Christ have taught that baptism is essential to salvation and asked if that meant those who were not baptized were lost. Lucado hemmed and hawed and finally took the Baptist position that baptism in an outward sign of an inward grace. No wonder. I heard a radio sermon of Lucado which he delivered from San Antonio, Texas in which he asked the audience to pray the sinner’s prayer and claim their salvation, right then and then write him and let him know. He said he would send them some literature and urge them to find a good church and to be baptized, not to be saved, but because they already were. And this is the gentleman whose books line the shelves of the libraries of more and more preachers these days. Chapters from his popular books are being outlined and used for sermons in local work and in meetings. “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone” (Hos. 4:17).

Do What You Promise

“When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed. It is bettern not to vow than to vow and not pay” (Eccl. 5:4-5). Some folks are short on commitments. Their word means nothing. This is especially evident in terms of the vows made in entering marriage. Amid flowers and finery, in the presence of family, friends and before God, two people will promise to love each other and live together “in sickness and health, for better or worse” “til death do us part.” Then five or ten years later, none of that means anything. One or the other falls “out of love,” finds someone else, or just decides that marriage was a big mistake. Some simply say “I just don’t want to be married anymore.”

Now folks, listen carefully. Marriage is a lifetime commitment (Rom. 7:1-4). It is entered by deliberate choice, at least in our culture. You made vows. You gave your word. You made a commitment. Does that not mean anything at all? God considers the one who breaks a vow a “fool.” Look at Ecclesiastes 5:4 again. Don’t promise what you do not intend to deliver. Marriage is an honorable vow. There are foolish vows like having your tongue pulled out by the roots and your bowels cut asunder and scattered to the four winds if you should repeat MAH HA BONE to anyone who is not a lodge brother. Anyone who vows not to obey the gospel to please a parent has made a vow in opposition to the express will of God. But marriage is ordained of God and declared by him to be honorable in all. His divine law regulates it. To violate such a commitment is to frustrate the divine purpose of God for the human race. Those who cheat on their spouses, divorce their mates without scriptural cause, glide in and out of marriages are liars. They made vows which they would not pay. God shall call all of these to account in the judgment.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 3-4
November 6, 1997

By Frank Jamerson

If the priesthood did not change and Christ did not give a new covenant, how are we going to look to the New Testament as a pattern for our worship, organization, or work? This theory is indeed the “new hermeneutics” in different attire, and like any other rejection of New Testament authority will result in total departure from God’s pattern.

In December 1988, there was an exchange in Nashville between conservative and liberal thinking brethren. Some of the liberal thinkers turned out to be ultra-liberal and advocated what has been called “new hermeneutics.” They said that the canon of the New Testament was not decided until the fourth century and therefore the teaching of the apostles could not have been looked upon as a pattern. One speaker said “precept, example and necessary inference is Greek to me.” Instead of appealing to pattern authority, they said we should study the life of Jesus and do what we feel he would do in the circumstances. After the first speaker, I asked one who was to speak later on the liberal side (though he was much more conservative than that speaker), the source of that doctrine. He said: “Frank, that is rank modern-ism,” and it is!

Since I wrote a review of the “One Covenant” theory, I have been corresponding with two men who are trying to defend the theory. Some brethren have started traveling this road when they do not know its destination! One of the writers, a chief advocate of the theory, has made the same statement to me that the ultra-liberal speaker made in Nashville. I will quote that later, but first notice the argument that the priesthood has not changed and Christ gave no new covenant.

In the conclusion of my review, I quoted Hebrews 7:12 and said, “If theywill convince me that there has been one continuing priesthood, I will accept the doctrine of one continuing law!” Both men who wrote me took issue with that statement and argued that since Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and that priest-hood does not change, I should accept their theory of one continuing law. One called it “proof-texting” when I said that this verse teaches a change in the Law. He said, “The preconception is that (1) the priesthood changed, and (2) the law changed. The text of He-brews 7:12 does not demand this conclusion, and so if I can show that there is one continuing priesthood, then you’ll have to, by your own statement, accept the truth of one continuing law. Hold on to your hat!” He said that the Holy Spirit should have said “the law of the priesthood” changed, not “the law,” and then argued that Christ’s priesthood “already existed in heavenly reality” in the Old Testament. Then he asserted that “change of law” does not mean “to do away with it. The Law of Moses was in the first century still there . . . still a tutor, bringing people to Christ.” (He ignores what Paul said about the “tutor” after faith came, Gal. 3:24, 25!)

Brethren, if they are wrong about Hebrews 7:12, their whole theory of “one covenant” is wrong, so let us look carefully at the Hebrew writer’s argument on priesthood and law.

First, the priesthood under discussion is the Levitical. The writer had just said, “Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that an-other priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek…” (Heb. 7:11). Neil Lightfoot commented: “When the author speaks of an inevitable change in the law, he is speaking of the whole Mosaic arrangement conceived of as sacrificial in essence. The law and the Levitical priesthood went together. One was integral to the other because on the basis of the priesthood the law was given. This is the meaning of the parenthetical statement in verse 11 (cf. NEB). Much of the law depended on the sacrificial system and could not operate without it” (Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, 142). Verse 11 says “the law made nothing perfect,” and verse 18 says “there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect.” “Change” in verse 11 means the same thing as “annul-ling” (declare void, invalidate, abrogate) in verse 18. The law was “changed” or “annulled” because the Levitical priesthood was “changed.” If the Old Law continues, so does the Levitical priesthood! If the priesthood changed, so did the law! Yes, if they will prove that we still have the Levitical priesthood, I will accept an unchanged law.

Second, Melchizedek was typical of Christ, but if Christ’s priesthood was in effect during the Old Covenant, he was a priest without a sacrifice! We want to scan five chapters of Hebrews and note some facts about Christ’s priesthood. “Christ did not magnify Himself to become High Priest” (5:5). Notice that he was not eternally the High Priest, but he became one when the Father said, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You” (v. 5b). Paul said, “And we declare to you glad tidings  that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also writ-ten in the second Psalm: You are My Son, Today I have begotten You” (Acts 13:32, 33). Jesus had been “perfected” through suffering and was “called of God as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (5:8-10). If he was a high priest before suffering, he was an “imperfect” one! The seventh chapter describes Melchizedek as “king of Salem and priest of the Most High God” (v. 1). There is no record of his genealogy, birth or death, there-fore was “made like the Son of God,” who truly has no beginning of days nor end of life (v. 3). Verse 15 says “there arises another priest.” The arising of this new priest is identified with “the bringing in of a better hope” because the “former commandment” (the law) was “weak and unprofitable” and “made nothing perfect” (vv. 18, 19). This high priest does not need to offer sacrifices “first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Him-self’ (v. 27). Then he says, “For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son of God who has been perfected forever” (v. 28). The oath God made through David (Ps. 110:4) was fulfilled when Christ was “perfected through suffering” (2:10: 5:8, 9) and “seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens” (8:1).

These brethren are wrong when they say that the priesthood and the law did not change. The Levitical priesthood changed, and Christ became a priest after the order of Melchizedek when he was perfected and exalted. Every high priest must “have something to offer” (8:3), and “once at the end of the ages, He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself’ (9:26). Christ’s priesthood was prophesied in the Old Testament, but became reality in the New. He is the “Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (8:6), and that is not the “former commandment,” the “law that made nothing perfect,” which was annulled (7:18, 19). The “newcovenant” that Jeremiah prophesied is now established and “where there is remission of these (sins), there is no longer an offering for sin” (10:16-18). If the new covenant of Jeremiah was established when the Jews were re-stored to the land, as “one covenant” theorists claim, then sacrifices should have ceased in 536 B.C.! The Holy Spirit said they ceased when Christ made the “one sacrifice for sins for-ever” (10:12).

What are the consequences of this theory that we have no new covenant? In a letter from the author of the two books which are being distributed to advance this theory, he said: “For al-most four centuries after the cross, there was no definite closed NT canon of the 27 present books. The `church fathers’ did the best with what they had; this is the same standard today. These early saints had no pattern principle and were not into proof-texting. They concentrated instead on the nature and person of God, the Son as the Christ of longstanding hope, the Spirit, the LS, collective worship, benevolence and the love feast.” He went on to say, “None of my theology is de-rived from necessary inference, no, not even the frequency of my par-taking of the LS.” Does that sound familiar? The early saints “had no pattern principle and were not into proof-texting” (which, to him means “patternism”  giving precept, ex-ample or necessary inference for your practice), “instead they concentrated on the nature and person of God, the Son…”

Brethren, if the priesthood did not change and Christ did not give a new covenant, how are we going to look to the New Testament as a pattern for our worship, organization, or work? This theory is indeed the “new hermeneutics” in different attire, and like any other rejection of New Testament authority will result in total departure from God’s pattern.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 10-11
November 6, 1997

By J.L. McKinley

In Matthew 10:32 the Lord told his disciples, “Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him I will confess before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.” These words were spoken as Jesus prepared to send out the twelve disciples to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:6). There is no doubt that Christ was speaking in terms of both physical and verbal action in this discourse. A professed child of God can live and act in a manner that would deny Christ better than any word ever could. One’s very con-duct could cause the confession of Christ to be as meaningless as baptism is to someone who is unrepentant. The Lord said in Matthew 7:21, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Some have questioned whether the good confession should even be a part of the acts of conversion. Is it a step a person must take in order to become a child of God, or is it something one should do as a Christian? Faith and repentance are required be-fore one becomes a Christian, but are also necessary after conversion. Confession must be made before baptism to show that the person believes, but afterward as a form of witness. If a subject will not confess Christ before a congregation of Christians they won’t before a group of infidels. The chief rulers in Israel would not confess their belief in Christ for fear of being cast from the synagogues (John 12:42-43). Paul wrote, “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10).

Peter in Matthew 16:16 made the good confession as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37. Both men made them of their own free will, not a repeating of empty words as some preachers have their subjects do. Some act as if they believe the words in the good confession must be said in a certain order or the baptism will be of no effect. Peter and the eunuch made their confessions from the heart.

When someone is about to be baptized into the Lord’s body, they should be taught to understand the significance of their confession. What is meant when a person says, “I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God”? The eunuch affirmed his faith to Philip by the words “I believe.” There is no doubt that the inspired evangelist heard that the Lord said faith was a prerequisite to baptism (Mark 16:16), therefore he asked, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (Acts 8:37). In this study we will look at the significance of the confession and its relation to what Christ has done and continues to do for us today.

His Offices

“Christ” is the Greek word meaning “anointed.” In the Old Testament there were three classes of servants that were anointed; priests, prophets, and kings. Elisha was anointed a prophet (1 Kings 19:16), as was Aaron a priest (Lev. 8:12), and David a king (2 Sam. 2:4). The Old Testament is full of prophesies of Christ’s filling these positions.

Moses told the children of Israel before their entrance into the promised land that God would raise up a prophet from among them like him (Deut. 18:1 5-18). We who have been baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27), like the Israelites “were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor.10:2), are also on a journey to a promised land and Jesus is our prophet. When I confess Christ, I admit that I do not know all the answers, but rather I need someone to guide me to all truth. In acknowledging him as my Creator and Savior, I deny the wisdom of man with regards to our origin, purpose, and destiny. I refute the theory toward sin that we are only human, and I realize that I was originally created in God’s image but have fallen. By accepting the word of God as my only creed, I am able to dispel the spiritual darkness that has engulfed the truth and lead others to the light.

Psalm 110:4 says that Jesus would be “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” All mankind has fallen into sin (Rom. 3:23; 5:12), and cannot escape the consequences of his iniquities (Rom. 6:23). I confess Christ because he is the only priest who can atone for my sins. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb.9:12). The Levitical priests could not offer a perfect sacrifice because they themselves were imperfect. It was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could be sacrificed to take away man’s sins because animals be-long to God in the first place. “. . . every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills” (Ps. 50:10). Only by the blood of his perfect sacrifice will I be able to stand justified before Jehovah who cannot look upon iniquity (Hab. 1:16).

The Bible says that this same priest and prophet will reign as king. “Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever” (Isa. 9:7). By confessing Christ I proclaim that the kingdom has been established and Christ is now in power. In my submission to his Lordship, I put myself under his ordinances, and by faith I “try” to follow the example he set before me. Man cannot walk in his own steps without going astray (Isa. 53:6).

New Testament History

Hebrews 1:1-3 tells us of the threefold work of Christ. “God . . .hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son When He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (vv. 2-3). We see by the Scriptures that Jesus is fulfilling all three positions for us, all we need to do is recognize and put our faith in him.

His Deity

In Matthew 16:13-19 the Lord took his disciples into the idolatrous city of Caesarea Philippi among the pagan gods and put them to the test. “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” Their response shows us that men two thou-sand years ago are no different than men today. Instead of believing Jesus was the Messiah, whose coming had been prophesied for centuries, they chose to believe the ridiculous. Today men refuse to believe in God, the only obvious explanation for our existence, in exchange for the belief that we are all a product of evolution. Some act as if not accepting God’s existence will cancel our appointment with destiny. “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Rom. 14:10).

Then Jesus asks ” . . . whom say ye that I am?” Peter answers, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” As they stood in the shadows of Philippian’s pagan god “Paneas,” Peter recognized the difference between the gods who were only alive within the vain imaginations of men, and the one living God called Jehovah. In his response Pe-ter confessed what the Lord wanted to hear.

People are quick to proclaim their allegiance to entertainers and athletes, while Jesus, the sweetest name of all, is a source of embarrassment or humor. While paying homage to their human idols they forget they too will one day be bound by the chains of death. Christ, who arose from the dead to crush the head of Satan and conquer death is worthy of all praise (Rev. 5:12). Those who are in the spotlight do not desire the well-being of their worshipers, but would rather the people give them their money, then leave them alone. While the Lord may expect our total devotion, he will never disappoint us or leave us destitute (Heb. 13:5). “He is our help and our shield” (Ps. 33:20). While the rich and famous of this world can’t even save themselves, Christ can save “them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). He is our “help in a time of need” (Heb. 4:16).

When Christians understand what exactly it means to confess Christ it will become more than mere words. Just as he fulfills our every physical need, he wants to fulfill our spiritual need. The wall of iniquity that has separated man from his God has one door. Jesus said, “If any man enter in, he shall be saved” (John 10:9).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 13-14
November 6, 1997

By Joe R. Price

Pain and suffering exist in this world because of sin. According to Genesis 3:16-19, they are the clearly stated consequences of sin entering into the world. We have experienced the words of Job as he says, “Man, that is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of trouble” (Job 14:1). Suffering is inevitable because sin is present in this world.

The Bible reveals several different types of suffering. Here is a brief overview of some of them.

1. Punitive suffering results when one violates established laws. Whether it be the natural laws (like gravity), moral laws (such as do not murder) or civil laws (paying taxes), one cannot violate the laws under which he lives without experiencing some degree of punishment. We have sufficient incentive to obey law to avoid punishment (Rom. 13:1-4).

2. Disciplinary suffering occurs to warn us and to improve our lives. It is true that men often respond favorably in times of adversity to what they would reject in times of prosperity. The adage, “there are no atheists in a foxhole” speaks to this point. Suffering can be to our good  if we will learn from it (Ps. 119:71; Heb. 12:10-11; 1 Pet. 1:6-7).

3. Consequential suffering is the sort where innocent ones suffer due to the actions of others. The drunk driver kills an innocent victim, the unborn baby’s life is taken by abortion. Millions suffer daily in this world through no fault of their own (Gen. 3:17-19; Mark 14:7; John 9:1-3). But, as we have already noted, sin is ultimately the root cause of it all.

4. Persecutionary suffering occurs when one is afflicted for what is right (Matt. 5:10-12). Those who live godly can expect to undergo this form of suffering (2 Tim. 3:12). Just as the world hated Jesus, his followers will also be hated (John 15:19; 17:14). Although this kind of suffering is unjust, Jesus teaches us not to fear man and what he may do to us (1 Pet. 3:13-14, 17). We must fear God and always serve him (Matt. 10:28).

5. Sacrificial suffering occurs when one willingly suffers in the place of someone else. This is the essence of love (Rom. 5:6-8). Jesus suffered on our behalf, leaving us an example to follow (1 Pet. 2:21-24). Having been the recipients of Christ’s tremendous love and sacrifice, Christians are to be ready to suffer for others (1 John 3:16).

Following is an outline of additional thoughts from God’s word on suffering, with special attention being given to rejoicing in spite of the tribulations which we face. Please open your Bible and study God’s word, and commit your-self to the joy of suffering for the sake of righteousness (Matt. 5:10-12).

Rejoicing in Tribulations (Rom. 5:3)

1. Seems contradictory, yet possible.

2. Matthew 5:10-12  Blessings as we rejoice through trials.

3. We must learn to rejoice in tribulations.

I. What Is Tribulation?

A. Defined: Pressure (thlipsis).

B. Illustrated (John 16:21; Matt. 24:20-21).

C. Defining Characteristics (John 16:33; Mark 4:17; Acts 20:33; 2 Cor. 2:4; Acts 14:22).

II. How Do We Rejoice in Tribulations?

A. Develop the spirit of early Christians who counted it an honor to suffer for Christ’s sake (Acts 5:41; Col.1:24; 1 Pet. 4:13-16).

B. Recognize that suffering can prepare us for greater usefulness in the kingdom (Rom. 5:3-4; Jas. 1:2-4; 2 Cor.12:10).

C. Understand that suffering will make us long for heaven with greater intensity (Matt. 5:12; 1 Pet. 1:6-7; 4:12-13; 2 Cor. 4:16f).

D. Remember that God’s grace is sufficient to sustain us (Rom. 5:2; 8:35f; 2 Cor. 12:9).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 12
November 6, 1997