Is Only One Church Right? (Part 1 of 2)

by Sewell Hall
www.cvillechurch.com

Probably no charge creates more prejudice against a group of people than the charge that they think there is only one church that is right. This fact clearly indicates that most Americans consider all churches right. Is it possible that only one church is right?

At least three other questions must be answered before this one can be answered intelligently.

1. Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Many who complain so bitterly about such a claim do not believe that anything is absolutely right or wrong. If there is no right and wrong, then obviously any claim to be the only right church would be ridiculous. However, if there is a God and if He created us, then He is the standard of right and wrong (Romans 3:4). His word is truth (John 17:17).

2. Is there a right and wrong in religion? Some who accept the concept of right and wrong in the realm of morals exclude it from religion. They seem to think that God is so loving and good that He will accept anything man may do and dedicate to Him. But Jesus warned of false teachers who would come in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15). He stated that worship was made vain by teaching the doctrines of men (Matthew 15:9). Paul informed the Galatians that anyone who preached any other gospel than what he had preached would be accursed (Galatians 1:8), and Peter predicted that there would be false teachers among us (2 Peter 2:1). So religious teachings can be false and religious practice can be wrong. Jesus also said, ``Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted'' (Matthew 15:13). This is equal to saying that churches not planted by the Lord will be rejected.

3. Has God designated any exclusives in religion? Consider Ephesians 4:4-6. ``There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'' The ``one'' in these verses obviously means ``one and only one.''

These verses do not allow for our modern broad-mindedness. Such broad-mindedness, however, is not really new; it existed in the first century among the Ephesians to whom this was written. Paul became the focus of a riot because he insisted ``that there are no gods made with hands'' (Acts 19:26). To put it another way, he preached there was ``one and only one'' God. The Ephesians were tolerant of many gods, but intolerant of anyone who said there was only one. Most of us would agree that there is one and only one God. But the same verses say, ``there is one body.'' What is this one body? The same writer says in Ephesians 1:22-23 that God has given Christ ``to be head of all things to the church which is His body.'' So if there is one body and that body is the church, this is saying there is one church. If one God means only one God, then one body means one body or only one church.

What is the one church? Without doubt, the one body (church) referred to in Ephesians 4:4-6, was the church than Jesus promised to build (Matthew 16:18). It was to be founded on the fact that He was the Christ, the Son of God. That church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), when Jesus was first publicly proclaimed to be the Christ, based upon the facts of His resurrection from the dead. Those who believed asked, ```What shall we do?' Then Peter said to them, `Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'...Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them...And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved'' (Acts 2:37-38, 41,47).

Please note that all who were saved were added to the church. It includes all who were saved, for the Lord added all who were saved to it. But if it included all who were saved it was not a denomination, for a denomination by definition is only one part of a whole. Neither was it a combination of all denominations, nor even an association of local churches known as ``churches of Christ.'' The one body was made up of individual members, not of local churches. It was the one true church to which all who were saved were added. It was that one body described in Ephesians.

How can this church be identified? Jesus said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church (Matt. 16:18). It must be in existence today. If it is, it has Jesus Christ as its only Lord and the gospel as its only faith. It is entered by the one baptism, it still includes all who are saved, and it is not one of many. It is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18), Christ's church (Matthew 16:18), the church of God (Galatians 1:13), the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15). It is the one and only church that is right.

Dial-A-Bible-Study(Recorded Messages)

(434) 975-7373

Free Bible Study Materials

Call Anytime!

www.cvillechurch.com

E-Mail: larryrouse@cvillechurch.com

Love Finds a Way

by Sewell Hall
www.cvillechurch.com

All Christians want to bring the lost to Christ. But each of us has some handicap which causes us to feel limited in our ability to do so. It may be a weakness of knowledge or difficulty in expressing ourselves. Perhaps it is a personality deficiency or even a lack of transportation. Whatever it may be, we tend to feel that it excuses us from responsibility. Actually, our most debilitating handicap is a lack of zeal. Once zeal is stirred, love will find a way to overcome all obstacles.

Take June McNeese as an example. Just 4 years ago, June held a responsible position with a Tennessee-based company which manufactured automobile hoses. She was, however, experiencing considerable throat trouble and the problem grew steadily worse, slurring her speech, until she could no longer function in the office. Doctors discovered that she had dreaded Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, more popularly known as ALS or Lou Gehrigh's Disease. Rapidly it began affecting the other parts of her body until all of her limbs were paralyzed.

Her speech continued to deteriorate until now only a constant companion can understand anything she says, and then only when she uses the simplest of words. Often she must spell out very slowly what she is trying to say. Meanwhile, her sparkling eyes and the few words she is able to get across reveal a mind that is still keen and active.

If ever anyone would be excused from ``personal evangelism'' it would be June. Without use of her lower limbs she cannot go on her own. Without her arms and hands she cannot write. And with her damaged speech mechanism she cannot talk. But June does not look for an excuse. She looks for a way.

When a nurse was employed, one stipulation was that she would take June to worship just as long as possible. Patti, the nurse who was chosen, found the services strange and the sermons very different from what she was accustomed to in her own religious experience. Soon she was asking questions which June found very difficult to answer with the communication problem. To add to the frustration, Patti could never seem to remember her questions when Joe Olson, a gospel preacher, came to visit.

Somehow June had to find a way to get those questions answered, either by herself or by Joe. But all she had to work with were her neck muscles. Then an idea! An electric typewriter! One was borrowed to see if she could use it. Her father cut a wooden dowel rod and placed a rubber tip on one end. Placing the other end of the rod between her teeth, June happily began typing some answers for Patti and typing questions for Joe when he came.

Patti was not easily converted. She had already changed religion once and she wanted to be sure this time. But little by little the truth, adorned by the life of her cheerful patient, did its work. Patti was baptized into Christ.

Patti is not her only convert. A Christian couple who were in error visited her on occasions. She loved them and longed to see them come closer to the truth. She successfully used her limited opportunities to teach them ``the way of the Lord more perfectly.'' There are many others whom she hopes to reach before her time runs out. The limited life-expectancy characteristic of those with her disease makes her constantly aware, as Jesus was, that she is approaching a night ``when no man can work.'' This lends urgency to her efforts.

Perhaps all of us would be more zealous and more diligent if we could only realize how short is the time each of us has to accomplish whatever is to be accomplished in this life. I visited June recently in her Tennessee home. I did not understand a single word she said. But, at her usual speed of 5 words a minute, she typed a message for me, perfectly capitalized and indented. ``Dear brother Hall, I am very glad you could come to see me this afternoon.''

Dial-A-Bible-Study(Recorded Messages)
(434) 975-7373
Free Bible Study Materials
Call Anytime!
www.cvillechurch.com
E-Mail: larryrouse@cvillechurch.com

Hermeneutics and Modernism

by Frank Jamerson
http://www.cvillechurch.com/


The first time I heard anyone who professed to be a Gospel preacher advocate the new hermeneutic method was in the exchange between liberal (some ultra-liberal) and conservative brethren in Nashville in December, 1988. After the first ultra-liberal speaker had finished, I met one of the speakers who was going to speak on the liberal side and asked: Where did you all get that man? His response was: “Frank, that was rank Modernism.” One of the speakers said the first century Christians could not have looked upon apostolic teaching as a pattern because the New Testament canon was not accepted until the fourth century. Another said we should study the life of Jesus and do what we feel He would do in a situation.

I went home and got out my “Modernism – Trojan Horse in the Church,” written by James D. Bales in 1971. It amazed me that the “new” part of “hermeneutics” was basically the same old arguments that James Bales was answering against Modernists in the church back then. Certainly, the two positions are not identical, but the end result – denying the New Testament as an objective pattern for God’s people is identical. The Modernistic approach ended with those who advocated it leaving the New Testament pattern and joining denominationalism, which the New Testament identifies as a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:20). It does not take a prophet to foresee that the same end will come to those today who are embittered toward the New Testament as a pattern.

I am going to quote extensively from James Bales’ book, and it will be obvious that you can change a few words and have the same arguments for and against the new hermeneutics philosophy. He said: “One liberal said: ‘We must avoid the proof-text mentality in which statements of Paul addressed to a specific historical situation, are erroneously transformed into absolute statements valid for all times and appropriate for every circumstance…’”

“To this we reply: First, if texts do not prove anything for us today, it is futile to appeal to the Bible at all. If its text is not related to our times, and valid for our times, the Bible must be abandoned as God’s revelation to man and as our authority. Second, care must be exercised that a passage not be taken out of context and used to prove something which is not taught by the passage. Third, even when a specific local situation is being dealt with, it is important for us to accept and to utilize the principle which Paul applied to a specific situation” (p. 106).

“One of the signs of error and confusion which can lead into modernism or other types of error, is the charge of ‘legalism’ when someone insists on teaching people to do what Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:20)…These confused individuals, however, do not abandon law. They firmly believe and may even fiercely proclaim, ‘Thou shalt not be a legalist. It is wrong to be a Pharisee!’…One is not being a legalist in maintaining that we are in some sense under law to Christ. There are commandments which we are to keep (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 9:21; Heb. 8:10)” (p.112).

“There is a love of novelty which pants as it pursues the latest fad in theological circles. They are like those in Athens who ‘spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing’ (Acts 17:21). They want both to be different and on the frontier of what they consider to be the intellectual boundaries of the day. As Reuel Lemmons put it, in speaking of some being attracted to neo-orthodoxy, ‘It’s popular because it is something different from the centuries old fundamentalism; we are suckers for something new and different. We do not want to ‘parrot the party line.’ We want to know what it is to be ‘free.’ We want to ‘cast off restraints’ so we become suckers for neo-orthodoxy’” (p. 141). Does that sound familiar in the voices, and writings, of new hermeneutics advocates?

“What is called ‘new’ may be a new revival of an old error. Although there are new fads and wrinkles there are, basically speaking, few new errors. Even the modern errors in modernism are the results, as a general rule, of applications of old errors” (p. 145). “Many people assume that there is some sort of inevitable evolutionary process which is carrying man upward and onward. Therefore, the old is out of date or false and the new is relevant and true. These people overlook several facts. First that truth is not tarnished with the passage of time, and error is not turned into truth just because is it a new error.

Second, the new errors are usually not new errors, but new revivals of old errors. They may be dressed in some different verbiage but their nature has not been changed” (p. 149).
In the chapter entitled “Are Liberals the Only Scholars?” he said: “It is true that there is certainly a need for more scholarship amongst brethren. We must not put a kind of premium on ignorance. But scholarship is not to be equated with liberalism. If one cannot be a scholar without being a liberal, there is no place in the New Testament church for scholars. On the other hand, there is no place for the New Testament church itself if modernism is right” (p. 186). I would say the same is true of the new hermeneutics philosophy. If the New Testament is not a pattern, there can be no New Testament church, and history shows that when men give up the pattern they take up denominationalism and build by their own patterns.

A former college room-mate of mine, who later went to Harding College, has been caught up in the new hermeneutics, and in February of this year, he responded to a message I sent him with these words: “I can’t believe you’re still hung up on that ‘pattern’ nonsense! No, there is nothing wrong with instrumental music in worship (the N.T. is silent on the subject), observing the Eucharist once a month, or teaching the doctrine of salvation by faith only – depending on what one means by faith. And I’m quite sure there are good Christians who are members of that Baptist Church of Christ.” I wonder what present advocates of new hermeneutics among brethren would say to my friend, and why? The fact is, they have no hermeneutical principle by which they can say anything he believes is wrong. If so, what are they and how do they apply to his statements? They have accepted the cultural hermeneutic of our age which says whatever a person sincerely believes to be true is truth for him and this makes him free from legalism and able to fully develop spiritually!

In his conclusion, Bales talked about people criticizing “the traditional song-prayer-sermon-invitational service.” He accurately said: “It should be obvious that it is not just traditional, but is scriptural to sing, pray, teach, give and observe the Lord’s supper in the assembly on the Lord’s day…However, we should not be deceived. When ‘renewalists’ (he named one) speak of breaking with the past in so far as the ‘worship hour’ is concerned, they are out to change far more than the ‘worship hour.’ The influences of society, or some segment of society, rather than the influence of Scripture constitutes the decisive influence with this type of ‘renewalist.’” (pg. 226, 227).

When men are more impressed with the scholarship of the world than with the ancient order of the New Testament, they endanger their own souls and the souls of others. The canon of Scripture did not become authoritative in the fourth century (as advocated in the Nashville meeting in 1988), but what the apostles bound and loosed on earth was what God had bound and loosed in heaven and constituted a pattern before it was ever written. People knew the pattern on how to be saved before the book of Acts was written, and they knew when to observe the Lord’s supper before Acts 20 was written. God’s word was a pattern when it was spoken and we have that same message preserved for us in written form (1 Pet. 1:23-25). The principles of Bible interpretation did not begin with Francis Bacon (as so-called scholars argue), but has always been God’s way of communicating with men. Jesus used precept, example, necessary inference and generic and specific authority in answering the question about divorce in Matthew 19. The apostles used precept, example and necessary inference in revealing God’s will on whether Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15). When men lose their respect for what the apostles bound and loosed, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, they are following the wisdom of men, not the wisdom of God. It reminds me of a ship in a swift stream that has lost its rudder and has no paddle. It may drift safely for a little while because it had been guided into safe waters, but the end will not be pretty.

Dial-A-Bible-Study(Recorded Messages)

(434) 975-7373

Free Bible Study Materials

Call Anytime!

www.cvillechurch.com

E-Mail: larryrouse@cvillechurch.com

"Arrogance, Humility and Truth"

By Brock Hartwigsen


When a person claims to know something as true he often is accused of being "arrogant." When a person says that he believes something to be true, but admits that he could be wrong, he often is called "humble." Is it arrogant to profess unquestionable knowledge of truth? Should a person always qualify his knowledge of truth with doubt?

A common conversation about truth often goes this way: Sam: "I know thus and thus to be true." Mark: "Could you be wrong?" Sam: "No, thus and thus is true." Mark: "Do humans sometimes make mistakes?" Sam: "Yes." Mark: "Are you human?" Sam: "Yes." Mark: "Then could you be mistaken about what you said was true?" Here is the supposed logical trap. If Sam denies that he is wrong, he appears to be contradicting himself and comes across as arrogant. If he admits that he could be wrong, then he comes across as humble.

Sometimes the conversation runs another way: Sam: "I know thus and thus to be true." Mark: "Could you be wrong?" Sam: "No, thus and thus is true." Mark: "Oh, so you are perfect and have never been wrong before?" Sam: "No, of course not, I ' ve been wrong before." Mark: "Have you ever believed that you were right and later found out that you were wrong?" Sam: "Yes." Mark: "Then how can you be so sure that you are right this time?" Here again is the same supposed logical trap. If Sam denies that he is wrong, he appears to be denying what he just said and comes across as arrogant. If he admits that he could be wrong, then he comes across as humble.

Are These Arguments Sound?

These arguments about humility and arrogance appear at first glance to many to be sound, but in reality they are not. Yes, it is true that humans make mistakes, and no one is perfect. Yet, it is also true that we can know some things without the possibility of being wrong. I know that I am male. No, I cannot be wrong about it. I know that I am writing this article. No, I can't be wrong about it. You, the reader, know without a doubt what sex you are. Don't you? You know that you are reading this article. Could you be wrong about either of these facts?

When it comes to religious facts, Jesus said, "Ye shall KNOW the TRUTH and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). It is true that there are difficult passages in the Bible and Christians do not always agree about all of them. It is also true that there are difficult concepts that Christians do not always agree on. Jesus said though, that we could "KNOW the TRUTH" that could "make" us "free." Understanding about what all the visions in Revelation represent is not needed to be "free." Fully understanding the concept of the Trinity, or what the thorn in Paul's side was, is not needed to make us "free."

We can "know" without any question or doubt "the truth" that will "make" us "free." We can "know" that no man can come unto the Father and be "free" except through Christ (John 14:6). We can "know" that no one can be "free" unless they believe (Mark 16:16). We can "know" that no one can be "free" unless he repents and is baptized (Acts 2:38). There are other facts that we need to "know" before we can be made "free" and Jesus promises that we can "know" them and be made "free."

It is not "arrogance" to say that you know truth when you are simply repeating the truth contained in God's word. It is not "humility" to say that when it comes to the truth contained in God's word that you could be wrong. No, just the opposite, it takes an arrogant person to say that no one can know the truth. Such a statement contradicts Jesus. Surely if anything is arrogant, it is believing that you know more than Jesus knew and that you are right and he was wrong. The humble man will accept the reality of what Jesus said and not contradict him.
Do you humbly know the truth, or do you arrogantly deny that it can be known?

Dial-A-Bible-Study(Recorded Messages)
(434) 975-7373
Free Bible Study Materials
Call Anytime!
www.cvillechurch.com
E-Mail: larryrouse@cvillechurch.com

Placing Membership

by James Dennison
www.cvillechurch.com



The word “church” in our English Bibles is translated from the Greek word “ekklesia”. This word is also translated as “assembly” in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41; Acts 7:38, R. V.; and as “congregation” in Heb. 2:12, R. V., as well as an alternate reading in Mt.18:17, R. V.
In relation to Christians, the word “church” is given two different applications in the New Testament. (1) The totality of all the saved (redeemed, saints, etc.) of the whole world. Such usage is found in Mt. 16:18, Eph. 1:22, Col. 1:18. We generally speak of this usage as the “universal church”. (2) A group of Christians who have united together to work and worship as a single unit. Such usage is found in Acts 20:28, 1 Cor. 1:2, Gal. 1:13,1 Thes. 1:1. We usually speak of this as the “local church”.



In Acts 14:23, and Phil. 1:1, we find that the “local church” is given a plurality of elders whose task is:

(1) to “oversee” (Acts 20:28, I Peter 5:2) ; literally, “to look over — or after —a flock”. (2) To “feed (or tend) the flock” (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter5:2). (3) Teach­ing (1Tim. 3:2). (4) Protect (Tit. 1:9). (5) “Rule” (I Tim. 5:17, Heb. 13:17); literally, “To stand be­fore” or “To be at the head as leader”. (6) To be an example, or pattern (1 Peter 5:3). (7) To watch after, and give an account to God for, souls in their charge (Heb. 13:17).

If elders adequately perform their God-given tasks, and discharge their responsibilities to the flock, they must know who are members of the “local flock — church”, which they oversee. This necessitates what is generally called “being identified” or “placing membership”. By this process the elders know that you are not “just a visitor” but that you intend to “work and worship” as a member of that congregation, and to be under their oversight.

The scriptures indicate that Christians should be not only a part of the “universal church”, but also a part of a “local church”. When Paul arrived at Jerusalem, he endeavored to “join himself” to the disciples there (Acts 9:26). Paul and Barnabas later became “identified” with the church at Antioch (Acts 11:26, 13:1).

Though it is conceivable that conditions may exist, where for a time one is a member only of the “universal church” (Acts 8:35-39), he should, as soon as possible, become “identified” with a “local church”, as did Paul and Barnabas (Phil. 4:9). If there is not a faithful congregation of the Lord’s people meeting in that area, he should begin one. Thus, the idea that one can be a member of a “local church” where he has not worshipped for weeks, months, and sometimes years, is denominational in origin and unscriptural in concept.

Some, to avoid responsibilities and discipline will become “floating members”; just visiting around from place to place, never “identifying” with any one congregation. If these people become needful of discipline, and are approached by the elders of any of the congregations where they attend, their immediate reply is; “but, we’re not members of your congre­gation!” Therefore, to eliminate this, when we move to another town, or permanently sever our connection with a congregation, we should find another faithful congregation of the Lord’s people and “join” our­selves to them; settle down and go to work.

Also, we should not lightly sever our connection with one congregation and “place membership” with another. Naturally, if we move from one town to another, it becomes essential that we do so at once. Sometime we may deem it necessary to become part of another “local church” within the same general area where we have previously worked and wor­shipped because: (1) We feel it necessary for our own spiritual growth. (2) We feel that such will enable us to be more effective and useful for the Lord. (3)There are unscriptural doctrines and/or practices in the former congregation which we are unable to correct. However; let us be sure that we can sub­stantiate our claim of such. (4) There is such a strong difference of opinion as to the advisability — not scripturalness — of a particular work or activity that we feel it is better for peace and harmony that we work and worship elsewhere (Acts 15:36-41). If this is the reason, when at all possible, we should “forbear” with one another (Eph. 4:2). (5) We have been unscripturally and unjustifiable “withdrawn” from and are unable to get the mistake corrected. This sometimes happens. But let’s be positive it is they that are wrong, and not us! Also, that we have done ALL in our power to rectify the error!

When we leave one congregation and become “joined” to another, we should be ENTIRELY POSI­TIVE that our motives are honest and justifiable. It should never be done: (1) To put pressure on the former congregation to honor our particular whim. (2) Because the truth has been preached and our toes thereby stepped on. (3) To escape discipline or re­sponsibilities. (4) Through jealousy and envy be­cause we have been passed over for some particular work. If it be for such reasons as these, we will soon be dissatisfied with the new congregation!

When one “identifies” himself with a congregation, he should be admitted into the fellowship of that “local church”. If there seems any reason to doubt or question his previous faithfulness, the elders should exert every effort possible to satisfy them­selves that this person is faithful and not in need of restoration. If it is found that he has not been faith­ful, or transferred membership to escape needed discipline, then the church should institute disciplinary action against this new member just as they would against any other. Likewise, if we seek to sever our connection with one congregation that we may be “joined” to a religious body in error, the elders have no course open but to begin disciplinary procedure.

Dial-A-Bible-Study(Recorded Messages)

(434) 975-7373

Free Bible Study Materials

Call Anytime!

www.cvillechurch.com

E-Mail: larryrouse@cvillechurch.com