Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

“I don’t get mad, I get even.” Who hasn’t seen that bumper sticker? It reflects the thinking of many people. There is a tendency to wish bad fortune on those who mistreat us. I am reminded of an old Irish prayer that says: 

        “May those who love us, love us. 
        And those who don’t love us, may 
        the Lord turn their hearts. And if 
        he doesn’t turn their hearts may 
        he turn their ankles, that we may 
        know them by their limping.”

Funny, but not God’s way. “Vengeance belongs to me, I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom.12:19). God settles some accounts at the judgment — others in life. He ordained government to settle those in life. 

Concerning rulers he says, “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil doers and for praise to them that do well” (1 Pet. 2:13).

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

In the late forties and early fifties, Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett and company opposed an evangelist locating with a church and preaching the gospel to it. They made a distinction between teaching and preaching. One could preach (herald the good news) to the world, but not to the church who already had the news. Thus, the gospel was to be preached to the world and doctrine was to be taught to the church. About a year or so before I began preaching, brother Garrett spoke at the congregation where I attended. I don’t remember whether he claimed to be preaching or teaching as he spoke, but this was my first experience with anyone who made the gospel/doctrine distinction.

In the Wallace-Ketcherside debate near Paragould, Arkansas, June 30-July 4, 1952, brother Ketcherside argued for this distinction repeatedly in his defense of the first proposition of the debate dealing with the located preacher issue.  Brother Wallace challenged brother Ketcherside several times  to teach five minutes and preach five minutes and show the audience the difference. According to their position, if he taught it would be doctrine and if he preached it would be gospel. Ketcherside and Garrett effectively narrowed their circle of fellowship by making this distinction in those days. Years later, after these fellows decided that nearly everyone was saved,  they appealed to the gospel/doctrine distinction to broaden their fellowship.

Distinction Becoming More Popular

Over the years, this distinction has become more and more popular with some brethren as a basis of broadening fellowship. The basic idea being that the gospel is the real basis of fellowship and not doctrine. One might be cursed for preaching a different gospel (Gal. 1:8, 9) but not for teaching another doctrine. So more and more brethren are calling for us to overlook our “doctrinal” differences, not only with those professing to be in churches of Christ but with all who profess to believe in Christ, and unite on the “gospel.” Though there may be some disagreement as to what constitutes the “core”  gospel, it is usually narrowed to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Some are willing to fellowship any who believe in the Christ based on these basic facts of the gospel. Others extend it a bit further and are not willing to fellowship those who merely believe these facts of the gospel, but insist that they must have “obeyed the gospel.” The idea is, while we should not tolerate a different gospel, we should and even must tolerate a different doctrine for the sake of unity.

Even if we could establish that a doctrine/gospel distinction is clearly taught in the New Testament, it would be rather arbitrary for us to decide which one should be the sole basis for fellowship. Where would we find the passage that clearly links fellowship to one and not the other? But, is there such a clear line of distinction found in the New Testament writings?

Gospel — Doctrine — Faith — Truth

We propose to show in the balance of this article that, not only is there no distinction between gospel and doctrine, there are four terms frequently used to refer to the same system. They are “the gospel,” “the doctrine,” “the truth.” and “the faith.”  Each term refers to the whole Christian system. They are all used interchangeably by the New Testament writers.

The Colossians, in the same verse, were admonished to continue in “the faith” and not be moved away from the hope of “the gospel” (Col. 1:23). Paul tells Timothy about things contrary to “sound doctrine according the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:10, 11). Paul wrote of “the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:5, 14).

Each term just emphasizes a different feature of the same New Testament system of Christ. Gospel emphasizes it as a system of good news. Gospel and evangelist are translated from the same root word meaning good news or glad tidings. The gospel is the good news and an evangelist is the bearer of that good news. Our English word, gospel, is a contraction of two Middle English words: god (with a long “o,” pronounced “good”) and spell (a story). The “d” was dropped from god and the last “l” from spell and the two combined became gospel — good story. The faith emphasizes it as a system of belief (in the Christ). The doctrine (meaning that which is taught) emphasizes it as a system of teaching. Anyone who causes divisions and offenses contrary the doctrine are to be marked and avoided — disfellowshipped (Rom. 16:17, 18). The truth emphasizes it as the system of spiritual truth as opposed to the false systems in the world. Any other system is a lie (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

Obedience is demanded no matter which term is used. The gospel must be obeyed (2 Thess. 1:8). The form of doctrine must be obeyed (Rom. 6:17). One must be obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; 16:26). One must obey the truth (1 Pet. 1:22).
Each term refers to the whole of Christianity and not a separate department of the system. Each term embraces instructions for becoming Christians and living as Christians.

“The gospel” includes the news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the salvation that this brings to mankind (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It also includes walking uprightly as a Christian (Gal. 2:14). Paul proposed “to preach the gospel to you that are in Rome” (Rom. 1:15), with the “you” being those “beloved of God, called to be saints” (v. 7).

“The doctrine” includes the form of doctrine one initially obeys to become free of sin (Rom. 6:17, 18). It also includes various duties in the lives of Christians (Tit. 2:1-10).  Notice that in verse one Titus was told to speak “things which become sound doctrine,” then a list of things follow that have to do with duties as Christians.

“The truth” includes what is obeyed to become a Christian (1 Pet. 1:22). It also includes what is obeyed as Christians (Gal. 1:3; 5:7).

“The faith” includes what we sometime call the fundamentals (Acts 6:7), but it also includes even a Christian’s duties such as domestic responsibilities (1 Tim. 5:8). Each term includes all the points included in any of the other terms.

The consequences of departing from or disobeying the system is the same whether it is spoken of as “the gospel,” “the doctrine,” “the faith,” or “the truth.” The Lord will take vengeance upon those who “obey not the gospel” (2 Thess. 1:8). Those who abide not in “the doctrine of Christ” and follow “another doctrine” do not have God (2 John 9-11; cf. 1 Tim. 1:3). Indignation and wrath await those who “do not obey the truth” (Rom. 2:8). Paul said one must be obedient to the faith (Rom. 1:5) and tied his assurance of eternal salvation to his having kept “the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7-8).

Conclusion

So, one needs to be very careful about trying to isolate any one of these descriptions of the system into a separate entity and making it the sole basis for fellowship. Whether the system is spoken of as “gospel,” “doctrine,” “truth,” or “faith,” it must be taught or preached, obeyed, and continued in to please God. Anyone who teaches or acts contrary to it, regardless of which term is used to describe it, should not be received into fellowship. Anyone already in our fellowship, but departs from the faith/doctrine/truth/gospel, either in teaching or practice, should not be retained in    fellowship after all proper steps have been taken to restore him have failed (see Tit. 3:10-11; Rom. 16:17, 18).

So, the gospel/doctrine distinction has no basis in Scripture. It is an artificial distinction invented by men to serve whatever agenda they might have at the time.

By John Isaac Edwards

In the last few years, Internet use has exploded. An estimated 10.1 million people are surfing the Web today. At present, one in ten households is connected and many other people use the Internet at work or as students.

The benefits of the Information Superhighway are many. As an educational tool, users can learn about virtually any topic. The Internet is also an effective outreach medium. It can be used for much good in spreading the gospel of Christ “in all the world” (Mark 16:15).

But, as with the real world, there are dangers lurking in the virtual world. This writing points out some Internet dangers, so we can avoid getting caught in the World Wide Web.

Accessability and Anonymity

One thing that makes the Internet so dangerous is that everything is so accessible, so immediate, just inches from our eyes. Sin is just a “point-and-click” away!

The anonymity of Cyberspace poses another threat. The feeling of being alone and unknown may tempt some to do things they might not otherwise do. But, you may not be as anonymous as you might think! You leave information behind every time you visit a site. Try visiting Anonymizer.com to get a glimpse of the sorts of information you present, often without knowing it, every time you surf the Net. It is also possible to check the addresses people have been visiting through history facilities on some browsers. Of course, God is aware of what we do on our computers. The Holy Spirit revealed, “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13).

Cyberstalkers and Child Predators

In a September 16, 1999 White House press release, Vice-President Al Gore said, “Cyberstalking is a very serious new problem confronting us in the information age.” Cyberstalking is unwanted, obsessive pursuit of an individual. At its worst, it becomes real-world stalking, with potentially dangerous and even deadly consequences. The most common forums for Cyberstalking are chat rooms and e-mail. In chat rooms, predators can pose as anyone, even as other children. Predators assume the personae of other kids who share the interests of those in the room. They may lurk for awhile, getting a sense of the various participants and picking up the rhythms of conversation. When they make their move, their words and phrases will be childlike. Whatever the approach, the goals are the same: to learn the child’s interests, win the child’s confidence and ensure the child keeps it a secret. Eventually the predator will suggest a meeting, and by then, it may be too late.

Safeguards such as being careful about to whom you give your e-mail address and never giving out your real name, home address, or phone number to strangers are important. Parents, be alert to any changes in your children’s behavior regarding the computer and time spent online. Have they become hesitant to use the computer when you are nearby? Do they become evasive when you ask about their computing activities? Do you know their passwords and screen names? As President Bill Clinton said in a radio address following the deadly Columbine school shooting, “Parents must know what their children are doing on their computers.” Monitoring your children’s computer time is simply a part of “bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

The most important thing to remember is that when you’re online in any kind of public forum, anyone can read whatever you post. You should also remember that people you meet in Cyberspace may not be who they seem to be.

Cults and Hate Groups

In the wake of their mass suicide, the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult remain the focus of a great deal of speculation, commentary, and concern over the role of cults on the Web. A cult is a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian or charismatic leader. There’s no question that cults have found homes on the Internet. We must make sure that our children can tell the difference between the Lord’s church and cults.

A host of conspiracy sites are cropping up on the Web, aimed at encouraging violence against a government portrayed as increasingly concerned with restricting our rights. New hate groups pop up every day, with new victims, new ways of demeaning and insulting familiar racial and      religious targets, and new appeals to other lonely, disenfranchised people to join in the abuse. The Web is being used as a vehicle for gathering followers. If we’re not careful, we may be lured in.

E-Porn

Pornography is a huge and growing Cyberspace draw! There are now at least 40,000 sex oriented sites on the Web, and probably thousands more. According to Nielsen Net Ratings, 17.5 million surfers visited porn sites from their homes in January, a 40 percent increase compared with four months earlier. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material is big e-business! Overall, Web surfers spent $970 million on access to adult-content sites in 1998, according to the research firm Datamonitor, and that figure could rise to more than $3 billion by 2003. A recent study by researchers at Stanford and Duquesne Universities claims at least 200,000 Americans are hopelessly addicted to E-porn.

Pornography is lasciviousness, “excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness; . . . the prominent idea is shameless conduct” (W.E. Vine), and Paul said, “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19, 21). Pornography also violates the principle taught by Jesus in Matthew 5:28: “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Time Consumption

According to National Web Demographics, 43.6% access the Web one to four times a day during a typical week and 36% spend seven or more hours on the Web during a typical week. A GVU WWW User Survey shows that 34% use their Web browsers 0-20 hours per week and 21-22% use them 21-40 hours. Some people’s online habits make it hard for them to be off-line. According to a study by Dr. Kimberly Young, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, the Internet can have the same addictive effects as gambling or drinking. We must be careful not to become Cyber-addicts.

We must remember to use our time wisely. Paul wrote, “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:16). Spending too much time on their computers, many may neglect spiritual responsibilities such as Bible study, prayer, personal evangelism, hospitality, visiting, and the like. How much time do you spend on the Internet?

Cyberchurch

A 1998 survey from Barna Research revealed 16% of teens said that, within the next five years, they expect to use the Net as a substitute for church-based religious experiences. The report also mentioned “a Cyberchurch that will bring people together on line.”
I have some questions for those seeking to launch a Cyberchurch:

1. How would you go about observing the Lord’s supper? A reading of 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 will show the scriptural manner of observing the Lord’s supper requires the church coming together “into one place.”

2. What do you do with Hebrews 10:25? The apostle to the Hebrews penned, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” To launch a Cyberchurch, you would have to throw Hebrews 10:25 out the window! There’s just no way we could assemble on a computer and worship God acceptably. The Internet must not become a substitute for assembling with the saints.

May each of us learn to be “street smart” on the Information Superhighway.

115 N Brandywine Ct., Salem, Indiana 47167

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

While talking with sister Polly Phillips recently, she related an incident that happened during one of her beloved husband, H.E. Phillips’ hospitalizations shortly prior to his death. It was a Sunday morning and brother Phillips was alert enough to realize that it was the Lord’s Day, so he decided that he needed to get up and go to worship services. Of course, he was not able, but in his mind he was. As I recall, one of his daughters was attending to his needs that day. Anyway, after announcing his desire to attend worship, he ordered the one staying with him to bring to him his “Testament and tie.”

Those of us who knew brother Phillips well know how important those two items were to him at worship time. He needed his Testament because he respected its authority and relied on it check to see “whether those things were so” (see Acts 17:11). He needed his tie because he considered the worship service a solemn and dignified occasion that required him to be as dignified as he could possibly be, both in behavior and appearance. Many could profit from the example of brother Phillips’ love for his “Testament and tie.”

Brother Phillips believed that we should “make all things according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5). He believed that the New Testament is the pattern for the Christian. To him it was quite simple. If it is authorized in the New Testament do it, if it is not don’t.

We should always consult the New Testament when ordering our own lives and when teaching others how to live. One should listen as others teach with an open mind, but always consult the New Testament to see if the things are so. It matters not what the subject is. It may be the structure, work, worship, or organization of the church. It may be marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It might be the kind of daily life a Christian should live. Whatever the topic, the New Testament is needed to get and keep one on the right track.

Brother Phillips also believed that the public worship of the Creator of the universe was an occasion that required dignity. His tie was a symbol of that dignity. After all, if one attended a public meeting in honor of a world leader he would want to appear in the most dignified manner possible. How much more should it be when one attends a meeting honoring the “King of kings and Lord of lords”?

As I observe many who attend gospel meetings at various places and regular services at home, I wish more would be more considerate of the occasion. It is not at all unusual for brothers and sisters (not just babes in Christ) to attend services dressed more fitting for a wiener roast, hay ride, or hog killing than for a service honoring the Savior of the world — even some of the men taking a “public part” in the service. Am I saying that a man must literally wear a tie to services to appear or to be dignified? No, not at all. But at the same time, it should seem obvious that when one dresses as sloppily and casually as some habitually do that they need to give more consideration to the solemnity and dignity of the occasion.

It is axiomatic in our society that events have varying degrees of solemnity and dignity and that people show their regard for the nature of the event by the way they dress and behave. Dress and behavior appropriate for a ball game is quite different from that of a funeral service honoring a friend. Maybe the problem would be solved if we would just stop and reflect upon the special place that a worship service should have in our hearts.

I realize that my thinking along these lines may be influenced by the way that I was brought up. As a youngster growing up in the country, with limited financial resources, we had “everyday” clothes and “church” clothes. Sometimes the difference in the two was the age of the garment. At “church time,” whether the “regular” Sunday services or the “big meeting,” we were expected to dress up in the best that we had. Sometimes it was the newest pair of Liberty overalls that we had, but by wearing our best we were showing our regard for the occasion. If the President of the United States had come to town and we would have had the privilege to meet with him and hear him speak, we would have worn those Liberty overalls, washed and neatly ironed — it was the best that we had. We felt that we could do no less when meeting with our Lord around his table and hearing his word proclaimed.

Yes, it might do all of us good to follow brother Phillips’ example as we prepare to attend services and ask for our “Testament and tie.”

223 First St., Russellville, Alabama 35653 edbragwell@juno.com