Truth Magazine

By Truman Smith

When we were asked to take this assignment, to deal with such an often debated topic, the admonition of 1 Peter 2:17 where Peter said: “Love the brotherhood,” came to mind. Peter’s use of the word “love” conveys the idea of care and concern. Though the exercise of it often leads to an emotional love, it is not, within itself, of that nature. But, it is the kind of love that the Father expressed when he gave his only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world (cf. John 3:16). Thus, if we know our own heart, and we think we do, and though we write with emotion, what we have to say here emanates from our love, care and concern for our great and wonderful brotherhood. However, since we wish to write so as to be clearly understood, we will therefore “use great plainness of speech” and make no apology for it (2 Cor. 3:12).

Brethren, we are being treated to the philosophies and ideologies of this age. Our first observation of these ideas came in the 1960s when we started hearing from the vulgar, long-haired marchers who were bent on change! They were protesters! Characterizing themselves as advocates of “love,” they protested against using the old math in the public school system; corporeal punishment of children in schools; dress codes in the schools, etc. You could depend upon them to be opposed to capital punishment for capital offenses. These were the folks that advocated children having the right to sue their parents in a court of law. It was about that time that we first began hearing: “It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it!” In the name of “love,” lest the atheists be offended, they pressed for no Bible reading or prayers in the public schools. And, though the teaching of evolution could have free course, they opposed the teaching of the Bible account of creation in the public schools. In the name of “love,” they viewed these as violating the law of “separation of church and state.” When it came to mercy, they tried to out-do God himself!

The spirit of “positivism” has come of age! It was in the days of the “old hermeneutic” that the church experienced its greatest growth. We never questioned the need for direct statement or command, apostolic approved example, or necessary inference in order to obtain authority from God’s Word for what we did. We challenged the denominations in debate on the basis of such authority and multiplied thousands were converted to the Lord. Indeed, it was that attitude toward Bible authority that led this scribe out of religious error many years ago! Now the cry is for a “new hermeneutic”! Yet, no one seems to want to spell out just what the “new hermeneutic” consists of, for one will tell you one thing while another will tell you something else. But let us tell you the truth about the matter: it is simple rebellion against the authority of the Scriptures. Not only do these people want to throw out the old hermeneutic and bring in the new, they also are attempting to rewrite the definition of just what constitutes a “false teacher.”

Here again, brethren, there was a time not so long ago that we all seemed to be in general agreement on the definition of a false teacher. In fact, it was only since we learned about brother Homer Hailey coming out publicly and teaching what we once called “the Fuqua position” on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Belen, New Mexico, then the 17 articles written by brother Ed Harrell in Christianity Magazine from November 1988 to May 1990 in which we were all encouraged to continue having fellowship with brother Hailey in spite of his false teaching on MDR, that this question has been brought to the fore. Does that not seem a bit strange? Generally speaking, our brethren understood that a false teacher is one who teaches false doctrine. It seemed, however, in this case that the definition of a false teacher needed to be changed in order to accommodate an old, beloved brother, and one who has done so much good back through many long years of Bible teaching at brotherhood colleges. Have we forgotten the words of Paul? “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

There is much said in Scripture about false teachers. No, the designation “false teacher” is not specifically mentioned  very many times, but the subject is! For example, Paul referred to false teachers in 2 Timothy 2:16-18; but spoke of their teaching as “profane and vain babblings.” Were these teachers of truth? Certainly not! Their “profane and vain babblings” made them “false teachers”! Apollos was a false teacher, though Luke does not use that terminology to describe him, until Aquila and Priscilla “took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24-28). Thankfully, our brother Apollos was honest and stood corrected and became a teacher of the truth. Just why are some folks so insistent in saying that they must find in the Bible the expression “false teacher” before they can consider them such? We often preach against the sin of dancing, of gambling, etc., though such are not condemned in Scripture by name. But many are saying today that to be a “false teacher,” one must fit the descriptions of 2 Peter 2:1-19, such as having “pernicious ways,” being “covetousness,” etc. One brother even says: “Being a ‘false teacher’ is not simply about doctrine but about character as well.” Granted such men as Pat Robertson and Billy Graham say a lot of good things in their sermons, yet are they not “false teachers” by reason of the error they teach? We dare say any of us would deny that such men are “false teachers.” However, can you name anything about their “character” that fits the description of 2 Peter 2:1-19? We think not! Is it not true that “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”? Do these men “privily . . .  bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them”? Honestly, is that an apt description of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham? We think not! But these are considered to be some of the most prominent “false teachers” of our day! What makes them “false teachers”? It is obvious that it is their false teaching! You see, the thing emphasized in the Word of God that makes one a false teacher is that which he teaches. Beloved, the same thing that makes the above mentioned men “false teachers” makes brother Homer Hailey a “false teacher.” If not, why not? This writer always had the utmost respect for brother Hailey and considered him one of the very best of scholars, especially of the Old Testament prophets.

We have visited him in his home in Tucson. We have a picture of us both together! We have cherished our friendship for years! But since we learned of his false teaching on the subject of “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,” We must consider him a “false teacher”!

Why do men desire a “New Hermeneutic,” a new definition of a “false teacher,” and a new interpretation of Romans, chapter 14? What will be next? Will our children and grandchildren want to just rewrite the Bible? Already, we have every kind of “new revision” of the Bible on today’s market that one can imagine! All such things point up the fact that many in our society today have lost respect for the plain truth, and thus continue their search for something more palatable to their fancy. All of which reminds us of Paul’s words to the Galatians: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9).

We do not wish to sound too simplistic, but brethren, remember that the very nature of truth is that it is the opposite of that which is false; thus anything that is not according to the truth of God’s Word is antagonistic to truth. Is this not the reason God’s Word has so much to say about us coming unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4)? Surely we will be judged in that final day by that Word (John 12:48; Rev. 20:12). Conversely, just look at the warnings that reflect the need for the truth being taught in its purity and simplicity (cf. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19). Furthermore, we are warned not to have fellowship with false teachers (2 John 9-11). We are admonished to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15); so it is imperative that we know how to “rightly divide,” or “handle aright” the truth. This is one of the reasons James admonishes: “My brethren, be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1). And such complies well with the context of 2 Peter 2. Just observe the context prior to it and that also which follows. Oh, yes! This applies as much to this writer as to anyone else! Thus, if we teach “damnable heresies” then we are a “false teacher” also! And, even if one is sincere, yet fails to understand the consequences of his error, he is a “false teacher” as long as he teaches it.

One of the most significant parts to Billy Graham’s teaching is that one does not have to be baptized in order to be saved; thus, think of the consequences of such a doctrine! Just so, suppose every local church were to allow false doctrine to be taught on “marriage, divorce, and remarriage.” Think of the consequences! Every congregation would become a haven for adulterers! That certainly would qualify as being “damnable” (“destructive,” NASVB), would it not? But, brethren, the responsibility rests upon us to study God’s Word and teach only that which we know as true from the Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15). Indeed, the truth can be understood. Paul said: “Therefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is “ (Eph. 5:17). So, if I fall to understand it, I must study it until I do. How else can we carry out the directive of 1 Corinthians 1:10, where Paul said: “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.” Paul also said: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

In conclusion, let us plead with all of our brethren that since we are all required to be teachers of truth in whatever capacity is permitted in the Scriptures, let us study diligently to know the truth, then teach it with all the force within us! Let us teach it by every scriptural means available to us, whether by word or epistle; but when we discover, at any given time, that we have embraced destructive error, let us be like Paul and Apollos and give it up, so we can be teachers of truth and righteousness. At the same time, let us not guard and protect those who are teaching false doctrine, regardless who they might be; but let us hold up the hands of those who have the courage to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:2-4).

130 Audubon Ave., Florence, Alabama 35633

By Marshall E. Patton

The 14th chapter of Romans identifies a divinely authorized area of tolerance. It shows that some differences among brethren are to be tolerated without making such a test of fellowship. This area of tolerance is circumscribed and bound by divine law. The principles by which the boundaries are determined must be carefully learned and respected, otherwise, one is likely to be found going beyond the “doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). Unfortunately, some have done just that, including our brother LaGard Smith in his book Who Is My Brother? now under review in this special issue. While we must be careful to retain in our fellowship all whom God intends, at the same time we must not run roughshod over divine limitations. The design of this article is to establish in the light of the Scriptures those parameters beyond which some brethren have gone in their efforts to justify fellowshipping those unauthorized.

An overview of the whole chapter together with a brief exegesis of some key verses are essential to a clear understanding of some particulars in the chapter, some of which are pertinent to this study. The thrust of this chapter is to show brethren who differ in certain matters how to have fellowship with each other in spite of such differences. As a means to that end three primary matters are discussed, namely, clarity of conscience, individual action, and offending a brother.

Paul begins in verse one by exhorting brethren to “receive” (into fellowship) one that is “weak in the faith” (KJV), which also may be translated “weak in faith” (ASV, NASV). If understood according to the former, the reference would be to objective faith, i.e., the gospel (Acts 6:7; Jude 3). In this instance the weak brother would be lacking in knowledge. If understood according to the latter, the reference would be to subjective faith, i.e., one’s own faith in or toward the action or object under consideration. In this instance the weak brother would be lacking in conviction so that he could not partake of that in question believing it to be right. Since the expression of itself admits either translation, its contextual setting should be the determining factor. Also, since clarity of conscience is emphasized throughout the chapter as a primary objective in all that one does (vv. 5, 23), I conclude that the weak brother lacked faith to eat meat or to esteem “every day alike.” Hence the word “faith” in verse one should be understood in the same sense as in verse 23, i.e., in the subjective sense: “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” The weak brother’s problem was likely threefold: a lack of knowledge, and, consequentially, a lack of faith (subjective), and consequently, a conscience that would not allow him to do what others were doing.

The church in Rome was made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Some found it difficult to leave off some of their former beliefs and practices after their conversion. The Jews found it difficult to lay aside the restrictions of Judaism respecting meat eating, the observance of days, and other rituals of the law of Moses. No doubt some in order to be safe and for conscience sake pursued the course of a strict vegetarian. However, the “weak” brother of our text pursued the course of the vegetarian while “judging” others (condemning them) to the point of making it a test of fellowship. Obviously, he believed that such was a part of the gospel, and, therefore, binding upon Christians. The Gentile had a similar problem in regard to eating meat sacrificed to idols. Thus, we find under these conditions, when a transition was being made from their former religion, both the “weak” and “strong” among the early Christians. These were nebulous matters among them. Remember, the church in Rome was yet without the information Paul gave the Corinthians (1 Cor. 8; 9), nor did he tell them to settle the issue on the basis of which was right or wrong. Rather, Paul commanded both the “weak” and the “strong” to leave off judging each other (3, 4, 13) and to “receive” (fellowship) each other, “but not to doubtful disputations” (for the purpose of wrangling, condemning, and creating strife).

In verse three, Paul gives another reason for this fellowship: “for God hath received him.” The “for” (Gr. gar) is a causal conjunction which introduces the reason for the two-fold exhortation (to both the vegetarian and the meat eater). The “him” in the last phrase of verse three has for its antecedent both or either of the individuals in the exhortation just given — depending on the one under consideration at the time. The reason for both exhortations is the same. This shows that at some time in the past (aorist tense) God had received both individuals under consideration; that they were brethren, and, therefore, worthy of better treatment from each other than being received unto “doubtful disputations.” Right here we learn more of the limitations placed upon this area of tolerance, namely, the fellowship authorized applies only to those who are Christians — those who have been “received” of God, and who are, therefore, brethren in the Lord. Doctrinal differences over what is necessary in becoming a Christian are excluded.

In verse four Paul deals with their present practice: “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (present tense). Here we learn another limitation placed on this area of tolerance, namely, only individual matters are included. By “individual matters” I mean actions that involve only the individual in contrast to actions that involve joint participation or group action. Thus, the vegetarian could act according to his conscience and the meat eater could act according to his conscience without either one violating his own conscience. I realize that a clear conscience does not guarantee the action to be right (Acts 23:1; 26:9; Prov. 14:12), but all should remember that keeping the conscience clear is a basic requirement of all Christians (vv. 5, 22, 23; 1 Tim. 1:5).

This explains why issues that involve joint participation — group or church action — bring about division, e.g., instrumental music in worship, sponsoring church, church support of other institutions, the social gospel concept, etc. In such cases the one who conscientiously opposed the practice would have no alternative but to violate his conscience or separate. On the other hand, issues that involve only the individual do not or should not divide churches, e.g., the covering of 1 Corinthians 11, the war question, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, observance of Christmas, etc. Each can act according to his own conscience and “unto his own master stand or fall,” yet, participate in unison with all Christians in every function of the church. Our “liberal brethren” have a hard time understanding why we can differ over these individual matters and still fellowship each other, while we cannot do as much with them in relation to the matters that divide us. They do not understand Romans 14. One is in an authorized area of tolerance and the other is not.

Thus far, we have observed four fundamental restrictions limiting this area of tolerance: (1) Nebulous matters (vv. 1, 2), (2) Limited to brethren (v. 3, “for God hath received him”), (3) Conscientiousness (a requirement of all Christians at all times, vv.1, 5, 23; 1 Tim. 1:5), and (4) An individual matter (v. 4 “to his own master he standeth or falleth”).

It should be observed, however, that not all individual matters fall into this area of tolerance. None of us would be willing to tolerate lying, stealing, murder, or any specified sin (clearly established) regardless of who or how many were involved. Yet, there comes a time when men of knowledge, who are conscientious, differ over whether or not a transgression is involved in the action in question. Such are comparable to the differences in our text. It should also be observed that all four of these limitations are to be respected in determining a matter of tolerance.

Brother LaGard Smith’s book Who Is My Brother? ignores these divine limitations, and consequently, misapplies the command “Let us not therefore judge one another any more” (Rom. 14:13). Smith arbitrarily sets up a human standard for measuring who is to be fellowshipped. This standard (including five levels of fellowship) permits him to separate from brethren with whom he differs doctrinally for conscience sake, yet continue in fellowship with them in what he calls the “extended family,” or “in Christ fellowship.” Other articles in this special issue will show more in detail how this is done.

The New Testament teaches that fellowship with God that is synonymous with salvation is based upon the declared message of the holy apostles and prophets; that this fellowship is with God, Christ, the apostles, and the faithful (1 John 1:3; Eph. 3:5). Any doctrine (unless within this authorized area of tolerance) outside this inspired revelation will separate one from such fellowship. Proof follows: Paul taught that any other gospel would remove one from Christ, and whoever taught it would be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9). Again, Paul said, “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness . . . from such withdraw thyself” (1 Tim. 6:3-5). Concerning Hymenaeus, Paul said, “I have delivered unto Satan,” an expression referring to the withdrawal process (1 Tim. 1:20; 1 Cor. 5:3-5,13). Why was this done? Paul answers when speaking of him and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2:18: “Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” False doctrine breaks fellowship with God, Christ, the apostles, and the faithful. This is done in its twofold sense: (1) Removes from the state of fellowship (1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:14), (2) Precludes joint participation (2 Thess. 3:6).
2 John 9 is perhaps the most pertinent verse in the whole Bible on this particular issue. It deals a death blow to LaGard’s argument which is the same as that made popular by the New Unity Movement (NUM) a few years ago. Because what I wrote then in reply answers now LaGard’s argument in his book now under review, I submit the following : “The NUM affirms that ‘doctrine of Christ’ (2 John 9) refers to doctrine about Christ (v. 7). They say the context demands it, and, thus, they exclude sincere brethren in error from the condemnation of verse nine. However, a more careful examination of these verses shows that verse seven is the exception (a specific of the whole) to the contextual theme (the whole body of truth) which runs throughout this short chapter. The ‘truth’ (singular) — the whole body of truth (vv. 1, 4); the ‘commandment’ (singular) — inclusive of all commandments (v. 6), and ‘doctrine’ (singular) — not one of the doctrines (v. 9) identify the theme of the context. Thus, the NUM’S view is arbitrary, out of harmony with other passages (e.g., Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10,11; 2 Tim. 2:15-18), and at variance with scholarship in general. Consider the following:

‘Of Christ’ is the subjunctive genitive: the doctrine Christ taught and still teaches through his apostles’ (R.C.H. Lenski).

Thayer defines the word ‘doctrine’ as ‘that which is taught, one’s teaching, i.e., what he teaches, 2 John 9.’

‘The doctrine which, proceeding from Christ, was proclaimed by the apostles. The doctrine of Christ is the truth; he who has not the truth has not God’ (H.A.W. Meyer).

‘Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the Christian’s walk (1 John 2:6)’ (A.T. Robertson).

Brethren, be not deceived by those who would make distinctions where God’s word makes none, who place a restricted meaning on passages to accommodate their peculiar doctrine, especially when at variance with other passages and the scholarship of the world in general. We must always speak that which becometh sound doctrine (Tit. 2:1)” (Answers For Our Hope, 304, 305).

There is one statement I feel compelled to make before closing this study of a portion of Romans 14. I do not believe that the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question qualifies for this area of tolerance. It is not an individual matter! Others are always involved. Adultery itself is always with one and against another (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11).

1024 Coronado Ave., S.E., Huntsville, Alabama 35802 mepevang@aol.com

By Lewis Willis

Just before the holidays last December, I got into “a reading mode.” I was about to do some flying, and I don’t “just sit” very well on an airplane. So, I read. I finished one book on the trip and started another. By then I was back home, but nothing on television interested me, so I kept buying books and reading them. Even sports did not attract my attention. (I guess I have tired of seeing the latest episode where a famous, wealthy athlete decides he can commit a crime and everyone will accept it because of who he is.) So, I have continued to read in my spare time. 

I have frequently been amused by the comments and commentary of a CBS 60 Minutes contributor named Andy Rooney. Much of what he says has been enjoyable. Therefore, I was anxious to read his new book, Sincerely, Andy Rooney, which Joyce recently purchased for me. The book is a collection of letters he has written to friends and to people who have written to him, about newspaper and television pieces he has authored through the years. I enjoyed the book until I came to the next to last letter he wrote; a letter he had written in 1989 to his four children on the subject of God and religion.

Now, I want to be careful what I say here, so I shall not quote his copyrighted statements in the slim possibility he might accidentally see what I am about to write. Several of his letters in the book concerned things like this article written in response to his writings, in which he threatened lawsuits. I certainly don’t want to get sued!

Let me just list some of the things Rooney thinks about God and religion:

• He wonders who created God.
• He believes religion is so popular because people are afraid of things they don’t know.
• He attributes war and its violence to religion, more than to anything else.
• He thinks God is a cousin of Santa Claus.
• He thinks religion is a hoax, resting on myths aimed at proving something which is not true. (Unfortunately, he failed to tell his readers how he knew it was not true, but being as smart as he is, he just has to be right!)
• He ridicules the idea that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses at a location unknown to Rooney called Sinai. After this profound announcement, he proclaims himself as Romania’s Queen!
• He wrote of things that existed before religion came along.
• He is of the view that religion is a trick people play on themselves, which they should realize to be nothing but a trick.
• Rooney does not believe that rational people could possibly believe in religion. Needless to say, Rooney regards himself as rational, but you couldn’t prove it by me!
• He believes man evolved by adapting himself to the earth. Not surprisingly, he forgot to tell us how that happened.
• Rooney thinks the Bible account of Adam and Eve is a myth which died with the arrival of Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. This sounded like rather wishful thinking to me, as in the fellow who whistles his way through the graveyard at night.
• He thinks he sees a retreat by theologians in the face of scientific proof that the earth is round instead of flat. I wonder where this fellow has been. I haven’t seen a need for retreat on this question, have you?
• Rooney told his children he thought the Bible, while a myth, has much good in it, though there are unexplained events and contradictions in it. Oh, thank you Mr. Rooney for telling us some of it is good! (By the way, who decreed that Rooney has to understand everything anyway?)
• He thinks Christ was a good man but that he had no relation to God. I suppose Rooney thinks he is the first to believe this. There were multitudes of unbelievers like him in the days of Jesus, just as there are today,  who also will be in hell (John 8:24).
• He thinks people who believe the Bible to be God’s Word are not thinking. Of course, Rooney is a thinker. If you don’t believe so, just ask him.
• He thinks worship must be offered to God in the belief that God lacks security and responds to such flattery.
• Rooney believes God and the Loch Ness monster have a lot in common.

Then, if all this were not bad enough, Rooney had the audacity to sign his letter to his children with “love.” There is no evidence of love for his children that I can see in what he wrote. He has done all he can with his ridicule of the Bible to prevent their obedience to the Lord’s commands. Only by obedience will his beloved children be saved (Heb. 5:9). Please, Lord, deliver this man’s children from his perverted “love!”

Rooney doesn’t understand religion, so he doesn’t believe in it. Interestingly, in his last letter in the book, he writes about a voyage he took to celebrate the 50th anniversary of D-Day. He crossed the Atlantic on the Queen Elizabeth II. He could not understand how something so big as that ship could float! Since Rooney does not believe in things he does not understand, I have to conclude he does not believe in ships! 

If you think you might want to read this infidel’s diatribe, please don’t buy the book! Just rent it from me. I’m trying to recoup the loss of Joyce’s money! 

491 E. Woodsdale, Akron, Ohio 44301

By Greg Groves

Jesus said in John 4:23, “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.” What does worshiping in spirit and truth entail?

First of all, to worship “in spirit” involves two things. First, it involves “spiritual worship.” In John 4:24, Jesus went on to say, “God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”  The word “spirit” stands in contrast to the external worship of the Old Testament.  In the Old Testament, the worship had to do with the external man, the physical. It consisted of a physical structure (the tabernacle), special clothing for the priests, lamp stands, burning of incense, instruments of music, and animal sacrifices. All of this had to do with the physical.

The New Testament worship has to do with the inward part of man, his spiritual makeup. All Christians are priests who offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Pet. 2:5). Our prayers are as sweet incense rising up to God (Rev. 5:8). Our music is making melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19).

Secondly, worshiping God “in spirit” involves worshiping with the right disposition. “In spirit” has to do with the condition of one’s mind when he worships. The worship of God must come from the heart, with genuine love for God. We need to make sure that our worship does not come from a desire to be noticed and praised by men. Jesus said that is what the scribes and Pharisees were doing in Matthew 23. They continued to comply with all the outward ordinances, but not for the right purpose. We need to make sure we have the right frame of mind in worship.

To worship God “in truth” means to worship God in accord with truth, as the truth directs. The truth (God’s word, John 17:17) is the only authority by which we can acceptably worship God. Many people stumble in their service to God because they are disobedient to the Word. Again, we use the Jews as a classic example of vain worship. In Matthew 15:7-9 Jesus said of them, “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, Saying: These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” They failed in both parts of true worship. When one worships with the traditions and doctrines of men, it is a hypocritical worship. If we truly loved God, we would not use the traditions and doctrines of men. We are only hypocrites when we claim otherwise.

The truth authorizes five items of worship assemblies.

• The Lord’s supper is to be observed every first day of the week in memory of the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:23-26, Acts 20:7).
• We are to give of our means as we have materially prospered (2 Cor. 9:7-14).
• Prayers are to be offered in praise and thanksgiving to God (1 Cor. 14:15).
• We are to glorify God in singing (Col. 3:16).
• The teaching of God’s Word is to be done (Acts 20:7).

All the sincerity in the world will not justify one act in religion unless truth is present. Why are there so many varying forms of worship today? Because people have taken liberty with God’s word. They have added their own wishes and desires rather than what God himself wants.

The Bible instructs us repeatedly to beware of men. In  Matthew 7:15, Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”

One of the saddest stories in the Bible is found in 1 Kings 13:15-24. God sent a young prophet to King Jeroboam with a message and God told the prophet not to eat bread or drink water in that land and not to return the same way he came. The prophet followed these commands until an older prophet told him a lie that God had told him it was all right for the young prophet to eat with him. The young prophet died, not because of wickedness or lack of sincerity, but by believing a lie.

Believing a lie has terrible consequences. We must realize that we can be deceived too and that we should always test what is said like the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Paul tells us to “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5: 21). We need to read and study for ourselves instead of relying on someone else to spoon-feed us our beliefs.

We cannot judge a thing to be true just because a fellow man said it. The young prophet took the word of another man; a fellow prophet and it cost him his life. We need to realize that preachers can be wrong. Apollos stands as a good example of that. In Acts 18:24-26, we are told of Apollos that he was “an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures.” He was “fervent in spirit” but “he knew only the baptism of John.” And Aquila and Priscilla heard him and took him aside and taught him “the way of God more accurately.” Despite the fact that Apollos was a good, if not great speaker, he had not been taught the whole truth of God’s word and had to be taught. Elders can be wrong also. Paul told the elders from the church in Ephesus, “Among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:30). That can still happen today just as it did then. Men have many differing ideas on what constitutes true worship. However, Jesus summed up true worship in one simple statement. “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Are you striving to be a true worshiper of God?