Truth Magazine

By Joshua Gurtler

A young preacher in the south preaches a sermon on a common error taught by brethren today. Following the sermon, he is pulled aside by an older member of the church and instructed, “It’s OK to expose one’s error as long as you don’t mention his name.” When the evangelist pointed out that teachers of error were named throughout the New Testament, the member said, “True, but this was only done by apostles. And you, sir, are not an apostle.” (See Mike Willis’ multi-part series entitled “You Are Not An Apostle” beginning with the March 2, 2000 issue of Truth Magazine.)

A young preacher in the southwest delivers a lesson in which he discusses a common error taught on divorce and remarriage and exposes one prominent teacher of this doctrine. Following the lesson, on more than one occasion, the young evangelist was publicly castigated to the point of tears and severely threatened that from now on he speak to no man concerning this teacher of error. These members included deacons of that church.

Though the aforementioned events occurred to my brother and me, similar situations are being replicated by brethren all over our great land. In regards to the mentioning of a current teacher of error, a brother recently told me, “I think this brother has been beaten into the ground enough. Isn’t it time for a little relief?” Another brother told me he no longer wanted to hear me mention the doctrine and names of brethren in error. He said “listening to brothers bash other brothers in Christ is not encouraging to me.” Can you imagine Timothy telling the apostle, “Paul, I think we’ve beaten these poor Judaizers into the ground enough, isn’t it time for a little relief?” Or the disciples to Jesus, “Lord, listening to Jewish brethren bash their brothers is not encouraging to us.” Such would be unheard of in the Holy Writ, but is commonplace in the church today. In this regard, do we see approved apostolic examples for exposing error, the teacher of such, or both? If so, we then have the authority to warn others, as Paul said, “Let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. For many walk, of whom I have told you often (my emphasis jg) and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:16-18; 4:9). 

Exposing Error

The Scripture is replete with examples of exposing damnable heresy. This fact is abundantly clear to all good Bible students based on just one epistle. Paul’s letter to Corinth is full of examples in this regard (1 Cor. 1:12, 13; 5:1; 6:1; 8:7). Let’s bear in mind that Paul was not a member of this autonomous church to whom he was writing. Rather he was, as we are authorized, to lovingly, albeit harshly, expose and rebuke them concerning their present condition.

Exposing The Teacher And His Error

Even though good students of the Scripture are also privy to this fact, far too many church leaders and Bible teachers are either ignorant of, or have been deluded into thinking that Christians are forbidden from warning others about an errorist and his heresy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Notice the following teachers exposed by our Lord and other New Testament disciples.

• Matt. 15 and 23 — The Pharisees for binding traditions.
• Mark 6:18 — Herod for having his brother’s wife.
• Acts 13:8-10 — Elymas for withstanding teachers of the truth. 
• 1 Timothy 1:20 — Hymenaeus and Alexander for blasphemy.
• 2 John 9 — Diotrophes for refusing the apostles doctrine.
• 2 Timothy 2:17 — Hymenaeus and Philetus for error concerning the resurrection.
• Revelation 2:14 — Those in Pergamum for holding the teaching of Balaam.
• Revelation 2:20 — Jezebel for teaching people to commit acts of immorality.

Exposing The Teacher Himself

Although we have just as much scriptural justification for exposing the teacher of error alone as we do the previous two categories, Christians who do such are oftentimes opposed and exposed for this practice. This is commonly done by other Christians who will correct us for naming the errorist and then turn around and expose and name us to others in the process (Rom. 2:21-23). Such has been my experience. Let’s examine some teachers that were named without mentioning the error.

The Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod (Mark 8:15; Matt. 16:6)

In warning his followers about the teachers of error, Christ warned, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod.” Matthew includes also the Sadducees. What did their leaven, influence, and doctrine consist of? We, of course, know this from Christ’s subsequent teaching and it is quite possible that the disciples knew it as well. But the fact remains that there were certain situations that Christ deemed it important to expose the teacher without exposing his error on the same occasion.

The Party of the Circumcision (Phil. 3:2) 

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!” The NASB says, “. . . beware of the false circumcision.” Vine says this expression comes from the Greek katatome meaning concision or mutilation. It is understood that Paul was making reference to the Judaizing teachers who bound circumcision and other particulars of the Old Law. We know that was their teaching and no doubt the brethren in Philippi did as well. This does not, however, change the fact that Paul exposed this group of teachers to the Philippians alone without mentioning their error.

Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15)

The final example we wish to look at is the Apostle John where he warns the church at Pergamum concerning the Nicolaitans whose teaching was held by some of the members there. Who was this group of teachers and what did they teach? I have an idea. Many faithful brethren have varying ideas, and no doubt you do as well. Who is correct? Since there is no other mention of this group outside of history and tradition, and since John named not the error but only the group, it is impossible for us to ascertain exactly what they taught. Because John named not the doctrine of this group but the group itself, he made evident the fact that certain situations call for the exposure of the teacher without mentioning the error, with the goal of the saving of souls in mind.

While the Scriptures teach us to expose teachers of darkness and their error, let us not lose sight that it also teaches us to speak “the truth in love,” letting our “speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt that you may know how you ought to answer each one” and to “become all things to all men that I might by all means save some” (Eph. 4:15; Col. 4:6; 1 Cor. 9:26). Though the mockers may scoff and the heathen may rail, let us continue to expose that which is wrong in the hopes of snatching but one from the fire which will burn with an eternal fervor.

2520 Tallapoosa St., Notasulga, Alabama 36866

By Eric Keiper

In 1831, a remarkable event occurred in two cities in the state of Kentucky. Alexander Campbell’s “Disciples” were meeting with Barton Stone’s “Christians.” The purpose of their meeting was to bring the two separate restoration movements together as one. On Christmas weekend of 1831, the first meeting took place in Goergetown, Kentucky. It was followed immediately by another meeting in Lexington, Kentucky on New Year’s weekend. Garret describes it as a “festive occasion with the spirit of Christmas and New Year’s in the air, along with the dream of a united church.” 

At first, one might think that this unity was an easy proposition. It’s true that the Campbell and Stone groups both believed in the Bible as the only source for religious authority. In fact, Raccoon John Smith appealed in his closing comments at the Lexington Meeting, “Let us then, my brethren, be no longer Campbellites or Stonites, New Lights or Old Lights or any other kind of Lights, but let us all come to the Bible, and to the Bible alone, as the only book in the world that can give us all the Light we need.” 

However, the task of achieving unity was much greater than one might imagine. To many, their differences would seem insurmountable. Let’s just look at a few. One might guess already that there was disagreement over the name of believers. “The Stone movement was adamant in wearing the name Christian . . . while Campbell followers preferred Disciples.” There was a “rather serious conflict between Stone and Campbell over the doctrine of the pre-existent Christ. ” “The Christians had an ordained ministry and a higher concept of the ministerial office . . . The Disciples were actually anti-clerical . . .” “The Christians . . . were emotional even to the point of using the mourners bench . . . the Disciples . . . were more rational in their approach . . . and rejected the mourners bench.” “While they were both immersionists, the Christians did not emphasize it like the Disciples did, believing that one could be saved without being immersed and that it was not necessary to Christian communion.” “The Disciples served the [Lord’s] Supper every first day, the Christians observed it on an irregular basis . . .”  “The Christians had a broader view of the ministry of the Holy Spirit . . . The Disciples were inclined to limit the Spirit’s influence to the word . . .” “While both were unity conscious, the idea of uniting all men in Christ was predominant with the Christians. The Disciples were more concerned for a restoration of the ancient order.” 

Today, we look at these points of difference and may be aghast. Some may not be aware that such differences existed. Others, may be surprised that such a great gap could exist between two groups who claimed to use the Bible as their only guide. One can look at this list of differences and see the formation of points of doctrine that we believe today. However, note that neither side had all the truth. They benefitted greatly from coming together. Both were able to throw aside error and learn from each other. This was because they came together upon the foundational plea of both groups, “the Bible only.” 

How did such unity take place. Well, it was “fragile” at the outset. But, in the next 30 years it grew together toward the unity of the faith. One of the most important attitudes that permitted this to happen was a deep desire for unity. It was a commitment that guided brethren with carefulness in the teaching of God’s word and in diligent love towards one another. When Raccoon John Smith rose to speak at the close of the Lexington meeting he exemplified this careful attitude in all he did. “Smith arose with simple dignity, and stood prayerful and self possessed, before the mingling brotherhoods. He felt, as no one else could feel it, the weight of the responsibility that rested on him. A single unscriptural position taken — the least sectarian feeling betrayed — an intemperate word — a proud, unfraternal glance of the eye — might arouse suspicion and prejudice, and blast the hope of union in the very moment it was budding with so many promises. Every eye turned on him, and every ear leaned to catch the slightest tones of his voice.” Do you see the carefulness that brought unity? Do you see the diligence that allowed each group to see the good in the other and cast away their own error? It was an attitude of love combined with a commitment to be unified. I am aware of no better example than Raccoon John Smith at the Lexington meeting to keep the words of Ephesians 4:2-3. “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” 

Do you ever wonder why we lack in the unity department today? Perhaps, we’re not implementing the principles that unified the Restoration Movement — scriptural principles. 

 Perhaps, now, we go about purposefully causing suspicion and prejudice among brethren. Perhaps, now, we are filled with pride, giving “the unfraternal glance,” and toss flippant “intemperate words” towards brethren. Make no mistake about the truth of God’s Word! When we re-    embrace “lowliness,” “meekness,” “longsuffering,” “forbearing love” as we work to the unity of the faith, then we’ll have unity. Maybe with careful words and tempered demeanor we can see the good in one another and cast away our own error. Maybe with humility, love, and truth we can be the answer to the Savior’s prayer, “that they may be one.” 

May we all draw from this pivotal point in our history and learn from the good example of faith. References: The Stone Campbell Movement, Revised and Expanded, Garret, Leroy, 1997, College Press,185. As quoted from Williams, “The Life of Elder John Smith,” 183, 193-194.

2032 Wrens Nest Rd., Richmond, Virginia 23235-3664     

By Donnie V. Rader

The story of Moses and his spokesman Aaron going before Pharaoh with the demand of God to let his people go is rich with principles that drive home practical lessons.

The texts we are considering are Exodus 7-10. Moses and Aaron go before Pharaoh and demand the release of the children of Israel who were being held captive and used as servants by the Egyptians. With each denial of the request, God sent a plague upon the land of Egypt. Nine plagues are delivered by the end of chapter 10.

Let’s consider some lessons from these chapters.

1. Wrong on the part of others can be used to demonstrate the power of God (Exod. 7:4). Each time Pharaoh rebelled and stubbornly refused to heed the demand of God, it simply gave God an opportunity to demonstrate his power with another plague.

God used the apostasy of the Jews to bring the Gentiles in and the jealousy it created to win back some of the Jews (Rom. 11). Today, God can use (not cause) the depth of the sin of man to demonstrate this power to forgive (Col. 1:20-22). However great the sin, there is that much more grace (Rom. 5:20).

2. Our obedience should be just as we have been commanded. God had commanded Moses and Aaron to go before Pharaoh. “Then Moses and Aaron did so; just as the Lord commanded them, so they did” (Exod. 7:6). Our obedience should be “just as the Lord commanded.” Partial obedience is not true obedience. We cannot be selective in which commands are important and which are not. We must obey just as we have been instructed.

3. When the heart is not moved, it is hardened. After the first plague Pharaoh’s heart was not moved (Exod. 7:23). The verse before says his heart grew hard (v. 22). Thus, I conclude that when one will not allow his heart to be moved by the message of God, his heart becomes harder. With each rejection it gets harder and harder until the gospel no longer can prick the heart (Acts 2:37).

4. The absurdity of waiting until tomorrow. When the second plague (the frogs) came upon Pharaoh’s land, he called upon Moses to entreat the Lord to take away the frogs (Exod. 8:8). Moses told Pharaoh to pick the time he wanted to frogs removed (v. 9). Pharaoh said, “Tomorrow” (v. 10). Why wait? Why not removed them now? In essence he said, “Let us spend one more night with the frogs.” Sound strange? Yet, there are people in sin (non-Christians and Christians alike) who want to be forgiven, but put it off for a week, a month, or a year. Though God is ready to forgive, they are saying, “Let me have one more week or month with my sins.” I’d rather have the frogs.

5. God takes care of his people. With the fourth plague (the flies) God specifically excluded the land of Goshen (where his people lived) so that they did not suffer like the wicked Egyptians (Exod. 8:22). I must conclude that God takes care of his people. He promises to put his eyes over us and have his ears attuned to our prayers (1 Pet. 3:12).

6. Some make promises and pleas only when they are down. Pharaoh cared little about God and his people. Only when the plagues had him in a corner did he cry out to God for deliverance and promise to release the children of Israel (Exod. 8:29ff). Yet when the plague was lifted he returns again to his stubborn rebellion against God. Today, there are those who continue in their lives of sin until all is out of their control and only then do they make promises of doing better if their situation is improved.

7. Those who fear God regard his word and obey.  Exodus 9:20-21 shows a contrast between those who fear God and those who do not regard his word. Thus, those who fear God are those who regard the word of God. Later Moses told Pharaoh that he knew he would not fear God (9:30). The context shows that he meant he would not obey God.

8. God expects us to pass the knowledge of him on from generation to generation. God told Moses that as he showed his power and might in the plagues, he wanted told “in the hearing of your son and your son’s son the mighty things that I have done among them, that you may know that I am the Lord” (Exod. 10:2). The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Moses and Aaron should have been just as impressed with the mighty plagues as they were. God expects us to well inform our children so they will know the Lord God and be able to do the same for their children.

9. Stubbornness has consequences. No one has been any more stubborn in dealing with God’s requirements than Pharaoh was. However, his stubbornness led to the destruction of his land, his people, his power, and himself. Today there are people who are so stubborn that they refuse to obey the gospel lest someone get the impression they are being “pushed” or “forced” into doing what they don’t want to do. One who will not swallow his pride and submit to the Lord in obedience is stubborn. Stubbornness has consequences.

408 Dow Dr., Shelbyville, Tennessee 37160

By W. R. Jones

One piece of wisdom I have given to young preachers who have sought advice is this; “Don’t preach in glittering generalities.”

One of the many remarkable things about the teaching of Jesus is seen in the fact that it was always simple and to the point. The same for the most part can also be said of Paul. In writing to the church at Corinth, Paul said, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with ex­cellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God” (1 Cor. 2:1). Both Jesus and the inspired apostle demonstrated the importance of simplicity of speech. Sometime it is easy for preachers to preach in such “generalities” that no one knows for sure just what they are talking about. And sometimes worldly-minded members like it that way, be­cause that kind of preaching really never bothers anyone. I might add that it also accomplishes very little, if anything. A preacher may impress his audience with a wonderfully worded speech, but if his lesson doesn’t teach and touch the hearts of his hearers, the time has been wasted.

This reminds me of the story about some people who came as visitors to hear a preacher, noted for his “excellency of words.” When the service had ended some friends inquired concerning their impression of the preacher and the lesson. Whereupon, one young fellow responded, “that must be the smartest man in the world, I never understood a thing he said.” This was meant to be a great compliment, but it was far from it. Lost and dying men today stand in need, not of high sounding lectures centered around the projects of men, but the simple gospel of Jesus Christ. Our pulpits should ring with the sound of truth, but it is easy  for the pulpit to become nothing more than a “promotional podium” for pet projects and the monetary resources to support them

I am told the story of two candidates who had engaged in a very hot campaign for the office of governor. Most of the things in each man’s platform were identical. The incumbent had been content to plainly set forth his platform time and again. Meanwhile, his opponent had loosed quite a few implicating “glittering generalities,” making sure that he did not commit himself plainly and specifically to anything. He made it plain enough to do harm and vague enough to sound innocent. In the incumbent’s last campaign speech, he said, “The issue in this campaign is really very clear. When all the glittering terms are stripped of their glitter and my opponent’s speeches have been set out in their light, the one and only issue between us is this: I am the governor of this state and he wants to be.”

In preaching, “Glittering Generalities” are mighty effective for easing the sting of truth, and keeping the preacher uninvolved, but not for setting forth the saving power of the gospel. There is an old East Texas saying which says, “You have to put the salve where the sore is.” Applying the remedy round about will not get the job done. As preachers we should desire to preach, and as members, we should desire to hear only the “truth of God” in all simplicity. Perhaps we would all do well to ask ourselves the following question: “What kind of spiritual food am I receiving where I worship? As preachers we need to ask ourselves the question, what kind of diet am I offering my listeners? Our mission is to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. We would do well to remember, you can’t make a strong church with a weak diet!

Where I preach I am constantly pushing for more in attendance. However, I must be careful that my quest for numbers does not influence me to present a “please everybody, watered down message.” It is a great temptation to alter the lesson when you fully know that your lesson will hinder your desire for great numbers. But remember, “telling it like it is” will also win some lost folks to Christ and prepare them for eternity. We have but one choice: preach the word in season and out.

From The Messenger, Decker Prairie, Pinehurst, Texas