|
The intention of the articles on this page is to uphold and promote acceptance of "the doctrine of Christ" (2 John vs. 9-11). This is in contrast to "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:8-9). These articles are arranged in alphabetical order. If you have any questions or comments, you can contact us by e-mail at: defender@defenderoftruth.com.
BAPTISM AND INFANTS
by Wayne S. Walker
Of all the commentaries on the New Testament not written by our brethren, one of the better sets is that of R. H. C. Lenski, the great Lutheran expositor and Greek scholar. Even though Lenski obviously had a bias towards Lutheran doctrine, most of his comments are true to scriptural teaching and to his own scholarship. However, one place in which his prejudice shows through is his explanation of Matthew 19:14 where Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Of this verse, Lenski wrote, "The implication is that children, and this includes infants (brephe), are ready to come to Jesus and need only that men let them do so. And this coming has the same purpose as the coming to Jesus of any adult, namely to receive of him the Messianic salvation. Their affinity for Jesus lies in their need of him which is due to their inborn sin" (Interpretation of Matthew, pp. 742-743).
He continued, "It is also no more than assumption that at birth (or already at the time of conception) all children are made partakers of Christ's atonement without any means whatever; the scriptures contain no word to this effect. Because men have been misled by such thoughts, the little ones have been left outside the kingdom until receptiveness for grace has passed away and their salvation became jeopardized. Baptism, in particular, was denied them, and this sacrament itself was considered a symbol that did not give or convey anything but only pictured something. Baptism was regarded as an act of obedience (a law) that was possible only to an adult and not longer an act of the Triune God by which he adopted us as his children, deeded to us a place in heaven, gave us the new birth of the Spirit. Who can estimate the wrong done to helpless babes, even in the name of Christ, by denying them the one divine means by which they can be brought (v. 13) and can come to their glorified Lord?" (Ibid., pp. 744-745).
More could be quoted, but this is sufficient to show the trend of thought. Lenski's position is, evidently, that infants and children should be baptized (or rather, submitted to sprinkling and such called baptism) to receive the forgiveness of sins because this is the way they are to be "brought to Jesus" by their parents. First of all, I know of no diligent Bible student who believes that children have already been made partakers of Christ's atonement. Certainly the scripture contains no word to this effect. But neither does it contain any word that they even need atonement in the first place. In order for one to need atonement, he must have some sin which needs to be atoned. And it is impossible for little children to have any sin, for sin is not something you get but something you do (1 John 4:3). And if a person has "got" it, then that means he did it. In short, babies do not need atonement, nor that which procures it--namely baptism--because they have no sin to be atoned.
This brings us to the second point: that is, inherited or original sin. "It is in vain to deny original or unborn sin, the total depravity of our race, and to call babes 'innocent and pure' in the sense of 'sinless.' Every babe that dies contradicts this claim" (Lenski, op. cit., p. 744). When will men learn that human beings do not suffer and die primarily as a result of their own sin? Paul wrote, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). He is referring to spiritual death, not physical. The passage simply teaches that spiritual death has passed upon all individuals who are guilty of sin because of the sins they have committed. It is true that we all suffer physical death as a consequence of Adam's sin (Genesis 3:19; Exodus 20:5; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). But nowhere does the Bible indicate that anyone carries the guilt of Adam's sin, except Adam. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die [spiritually, WSW]. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father [or any other ancestor, WSW], neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20). There are some passages which, on the surface, seem to teach original sin (e.g., Psalm 51:5). But a more careful study of the context reveals that such is not so. And there are other passages (e.g., Ecclesiastes 7:29) which teach just the opposite.
In the third place Jesus said, referring to the children, "Of such are the kingdom of heaven." Mr. Lenski's comments would lead us to believe that these children were being brought to Jesus to be baptized; but, of course, this was not the case. However, a little common-sense thinking about this statement in connection with Matthew 18:3 would dispel any notion that children are born sinners and need baptism. If a sinner wants to be saved, he must enter the kingdom where salvation is to be found. In order for him to do that, he must be converted and become as a little hcild. But if a little child is a born sinner, then how would becoming like a little child be of any benefit to a sinner seeking salvation? And if the kingdom is made up of such as little children, and they are born sinners, what does it profit one to enter into the kingdom anyway, since he is already in the condition of being a sinner? False doctrine never makes sense. Because babes are "of such" as those who are in the kingdom, they are "safe" and do not need to be "saved," which is, after all, the purpose of baptism.
Finally, Lenski's view of baptism itself leaves something to be desired. He does say some good things about it, to be sure. Truly baptism is not merely a symbol which does not give or convey anything but only pictures something, an outward expression of an inward grace as many teach. Yet at the same time it is indeed an act of obedience (Romans 6:17-18, Hebrews 5:8-9). It is a law (Romans 8:2, James 1:25). It is possible only for an adult (note Acts 8:12). Nowhere do the scriptures even intimate that baptism is a sacrament, an act of God by which he adopts us as children. Rather, it is an act performed by an individual in response to God's word after he has believed and repented (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38). By this he meets God's conditions of pardon. This infants cannot do. Upon the person's completion of this act, then God has promised to perform His act of declaring that individual's sins forgiven. To use Lenski's own words, who can estimate the wrong thus done to helpless, screaming, kicking babies by bringing them to a "clergyman" at the front of some church to have a little water sprinkled on their heads, even in the name of Christ--especially when God's word does not authorize it in any way shape or form--since it may prevent them later in life from truly obeying the gospel?
There is no example in the book of Acts of anyone "baptizing" a baby (claims about the household conversions notwithstanding). Nor is there any such teaching to that effect in any of the instructional epistles of the New Testament. It indicates a very weak position for one to run to a passage like Matthew 19:14, that does not even mention baptism, in justifying a human doctrine that cannot be substantiated elsewhere. The Bible does not say that babies are sinners, that they even need atonement, that they are lost outside the kingdom (at least until such an age as they transgress the law of God), or that baptism is God's method of conveying His blessings upon them. Scripture is absolutely silent about baptizing infants and small children. Therefore, 'If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11). We should be satisfied with that alone. (taken from Faith and Facts; January, 1979; Vol. 7, No. 1; pp. 3-6)
BAPTISM AND REBAPTISM
by Wayne S. Walker
It has happened before and will no doubt happen again. Someone wants to become part of a local church of Christ, expressing that desire either by coming forward in the public assembly or mentioning it to a preacher in private. Yet this person admits that even though he has been "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (so he believes), he has been a member of some religious group practicing error--such as the Christian Church or other denomination. But now he renounces that error and wants to come out of it. The question is, was his baptism scriptural if he claims to have been "baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins" and then joined himself to a denominational organization, or does he need to be immersed again in order to be saved and added to the Lord's church?
Let us understand that this is not a matter of the qualifications of the baptizer. The Bible certainly does not teach that baptism is invalid unless performed by a preacher in the church of Christ. There is no such thing as "baptismal succesion" whether official or just assumed. Scriptural baptism does not depend upon any formal action by the church. Nor is it impossible for one to be baptized correctly, be saved, and then immediately join a denomination, although it does seem highly unlikely. Most denominations use the term "for the remission of sins" when they perform a baptism and will even practice immersion when requested. But their concept of "for the remission of sins" may be radically different from what the Bible teaches, either in theory or practice. Does their baptism put one onto the body of Christ or only into that particular religious organization?
Some object to saying that such a person as described in the first paragraph was baptized into a denomination because, they say, scriptural baptism (immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins) does not put one anywhere except into Christ and into the universal church, Christ's body of the redeemed. "There is one baptism," they quote from Ephesians 4:4. Of course, all that is true to a point. But it begs the question. Is such baptism truly scriptural baptism under the circumstances--is it the one true baptism? New Testament baptism includes not only the proper action (burial), element (water), candidate (penitent believer), reason (for remission of sins), and authority (in the name of Christ), but also the proper understanding (into the one body, 1 Corinthians 12:13). A person may have all the other points right (cf. John's baptism, Mark 1:4), but if he does not understand that his baptism puts him into the non-denominational body of Christ, it is highly improbably that his baptism can be considered proper. And if he thought some denominational church was the body of Christ, then it is extremely doubtful that his baptism accomplished much except to put him into a denomination.
Here is a parallel example. A person is taught by Mormon missionaries and requests baptism. To qualify, he must be old enough to understand the gospel, believe in Christ, and repent. Upon a confession of faith, he is then immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins--all just like the Bible says. Furthermore, the Mormon Church is one of the very few which believes that baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. These people teach truth on how people become Christians! But does their baptism, in spite of the fact that the person subesequently becomes a member of the Latter-Day Saints, put him into Christ? Or because of the error associated with it, did it put him into nothing but the Mormon Church? Then, does such a person, desiring to be united with the body of Christ, need to be rebaptized? These questions must also be asked of any other denominationally oriented baptism.
By the way, some dislike the word "rebaptize," saying that a person can be put under the water many times but "baptized" only once. However, the word baptize, as we all well know, simply means dipping or immersion. While it is true that a person can be baptized scripturally but one time, he can be immersed more than once; and if re-immersed, then re-baptized (cf. Acts 19:1-10). It is interesting to note that the same arguments used by some brethren to accept anyone from the Christian Church are used by Christian Church people to accept Baptists--i.e., they teach the truth on the action baptism (immersion). What would happen if a person from the Baptist Church joined the Christian Church, then wanted to become part of a local church of Christ? Must he be accepted simply because he came from the Christian Church, which just happens to teach truth on salvation?
I have know people desirous of leaving the Christian Church who felt that they definitely knew what they were doing when they were baptized, did it with the right purpose, and understood why. Thus they did not feel it necessary to be re-immersed. That is fine with me. It is their conscience they must live with. On the other hand, I have talked with people in the Christian Church wanting to break with it who, upon proper teaching, said they did not understand the correct design and intent of baptism but were merely immersed because their church taught it [even though it happened to teach truth]. Thus they asked to be baptized again to satisfy their consciences. There are some Christian Churches (even of the independent variety) who hold their candidates for baptism until they have enough for a baptizing. Does that sould like they are teaching the whole truth on baptism? It is not that one must understand everything about baptism or about the church there is before his baptism is valid. But there are certain basic facts revealed in the Scriptures, and he must know enough about them to appreciate the true Biblical nature and significance of baptism.
The point I am trying to get across is that it is wrong to demand that all from the Christian Church must necessarily be rebaptized, just as it is not right to teach that all such individuals were scripturally immersed and need only to "repent and pray." Both extremes should be avoided. Because the Christian Church in particular still teaches gospel truth on many points, each case must be examined individually. Some may decide to be baptized again to quench their doubts; this will probably be needful in the majority of instances, and if people reach this conclusion I encourage them to act upon it. But others may give sufficient indication that their former baptism was in order and need not go through the action again. Every individual must be persuaded in his own mind as he compares his faith and obedience to the Scriptures. Ultimately we will have to be satisfied with this. (taken from Faith and Facts; April, 1978; Vol. 6, No. 2; pp. 48-52).
BAPTISM AND WORKS
by Wayne S. Walker
I recently received an e-mail message with a question from someone who I assume had gone to Steve Rudd's www.bible.ca website, for which I was serving as a local contact. Here is the query, followed by my response.
Question: "I am interested in joining the Church of Christ, but somehow, I have come to an impasse when I came to their doctrine of Baptism. I am of the the belief that we are saved by grace or faith and not by works, and that baptism is classified as 'works.'
"I have read the section titled, 'Click onto your objection and learn why it is invalid.' Well, I looked up the word 'FOR' in Strong's exhaustive concordance and found the Greek word to be GAR. 'For' is Greek word 1063, 1063 is GAR which means 'because.' EIS means 'to' or 'into,' page 27 of the Greek section. EIS is not the Greek used in Acts.2:38 but GAR is, and GAR is translated 'Because.'
"From my understanding from Strong's concordance, the meaning of these two words are just the opposite in which this article claims.
"Could you please comment on this discreption?"
Response: I don't know how you determined that "eis" is not the Greek word used in Acts 2.38 (perhaps you misread or misunderstood Strong's--I checked #1063 in Strongs and it does give "for" as one possible meaning for "eis"), but you are simply mistaken. I am looking at my Greek text right now, and the Greek word "gar" is not there at all. The word translated "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" is "eis," which, as you note, means "to" or "into," although it is often translated "for."
Our English word "for" can have several different meanings depending on the context. We sometimes us it to mean "because of," as in "he was punished for his misbehavior." However, we sometimes use it to mean "in order to obtain," as in "I am going to the store for a quart of milk." The Greek language has different prepositions for those different meanings. As you indicate, "gar" means "because of" and is NOT used in Acts 2.38.
Although some scholars dispute this, most agree that the word "eis" carries the idea of "into, with a view towards, in order to." In fact, different translations read "that you may have your sins forgiven" or "into the remission of your sins" or "in order to have your sins forgiven." None that I checked read "because of the remission of sins." It is the exact same construction in the Greek as Matthew 26.28 where Jesus said, "For (here it is "gar"="because") this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for (here it is "peri"="concerning") many for (here it is "eis" just as in Acts 2.38) the remission of sins."
The basic same construction in the original "eis aphesin hamartion" (Acts 2.38 does add "ton" or "the" before sins, but that doesn't substantially change the meaning since it is part of the construction "the sins of you" meaning "your sins" since Peter was speaking to a specific group of people, whereas Jesus was speaking generally of all mankind) is used in both passages. Did Jesus shed His blood "because of" remission of sins, which would mean that man already had remission before His blood was shed? No, He shed His blood "in order to" make remission of sins possible and available.
Therefore, we are not baptized "because of" remission of sins, meaning that we already had remission before we were baptized, but we are baptized "in order to" receive remission of sins. Jesus explains what He did "for remission of sins"--shed His blood; Peter explains what mankind must do "for remission of sins"--repent and be baptized.
This brings me to your statement that "we are saved by grace or faith and not by works, and that baptism is classified as 'works.'" Truly, the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2.8-9--I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by "grace or faith," but if you mean what Eph. 2.8-9 says, then that is fine). However, Paul doesn't say by grace and/or faith alone.
Also, Paul doesn't say, "not by works" period. He identifies the nature of the works of which he speaks. He says, "Not of works, lest any man should boast." It is works of which man can boast. Fallible man has set up the claim that salvation is either by grace or faith (alone) or by works (period). The Bible does not teach either extreme. Yes, we are justified by grace (Rom. 3.24). Yes, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5.1). And it is true that "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us" (Tit. 3.5).
You say that "baptism is classified as 'works.'" By whom? Can you find a single passage of scripture where baptism is called "a work," especially a work "of righteousness which we have done"? I know that baptism is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself--Matthew 28.18-20, Mark 16.16. I know that it is a command given by an inspired apostle guided by the Holy Spirit--Acts 2.38, 10.47-48. And I know that baptism is identified in the New Testament as that which puts us into Christ (Romans 6.3-4, Galatians 3.26-27). However, I cannot find any passage which teaches, or even implies, that baptism is a work of righteousness which we have done.
I think the problem lies in how we define works. If you define works as anything that mankind does in the process of being saved, then I would deny that we are not saved by works, because that is not what either Eph. 2.8-9 or Tit. 3.5 is talking about. These passages are talking about works of goodness as determined by human thinking by which we seek to merit God's favor. We are definitely NOT saved by those kinds of works. But baptism is not that kind of work. It was taught by Jesus, commanded by the apostles, and revealed as the condition of our obedience which puts us into Christ.
If the definition of "works" is anything that a person does in the process of being saved, then what about faith? You admit that we are saved by faith or believing (exact same word in the original Greek). In Jn. 6.28-29 we read, "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." They asked what they needed to do to work the works of God. Jesus didn't say there's nothing to do. What did Jesus say is the work of God, that is, the work that God wanted them to do? It is to believe on Christ. Having faith or believing on Christ is something that WE do (Jn. 20.39-31, Acts 16.30-32, Rom. 10.17). Jesus Himself said that it is a work. Now, are we saved without works, period?
This helps to explain Jas. 2.14-26, where James argues, "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (v. 24). James is NOT talking about works of righteousness which we have done or works of which we can boast. He's simply talking about obeying the commands that God has revealed for us to do. Because God, through His Son by Holy Spirit inspired apostles, commanded us to be baptized for remission of sins, it's not a work of righteousness which we have done and of which we can boast. It is simply a condition that we must obey to receive the pardon that He offers by His grace through the blood of Christ.
I hope that these thoughts have been helpful to you. (---in Faith and Facts; Jan., 2008; Vol. 36, No. 1; pp. 78-82.)
CHOOSE YOUR BLEND
by Wayne S. Walker
Sometime ago at our home we received a flier from a nearby denominational church (which shall remain nameless). On the front, it said, "A church where you can Choose Your Blend," and pictured two cups of coffee, one "Smooth, Traditional, Inspiration, Rich," and the other "Robust, Fresh, Contemporary, Experience, Rhythm." The reverse side explained, "It's not the same old grind. You have your own style, and at --- you'll find a church service that's just right for you. The Celebration Service features casual dress, a full band and an informal style. At the Early & Late Services, you'll enjoy a classic, more traditional experience. Whatever your style, you'll find a spiritual connection that will enrich your week and your life. Come sample one of our 'house blends' this weekend. You now have a choice of worship experiences." There is something within me that reacts rather nauseatingly to the comparison of worshipping God with choosing a cup of coffee.
We used to hear people say, "Attend the church of your choice." Now we are hearing people say, "Seek out the 'worship experience' (whatever that is) of your choice." It is simply the idea of putting human preferences and wisdom ahead of God's revealed word, which has been around for a long time, gone to seed. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12). "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'" (Isaiah 55:8-9). "O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Corinthians 1:21).
The word of God has some things to say about our worship, both negative and positive. "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" (Matthew 15:8-9). "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). So God has had something to say about worship. And just as the Bible does not teach that we can attend the church of our choice, it does not teach that we can order the worship of our choice. Rather, we need to be more concerned with both the church and the worship of God's choice!
It has become increasingly popular among denominational churches (and even some "churches of Christ") to become more "consumer oriented" and to make changes in their worship to suit people's desires that they might draw larger crowds. One such church in Dayton, OH, a few years ago advertised "jeans and sneakers worship." In the past, when God's word was more respected even by people in error, churches put up signs advertising "Divine worship" because they understood that they were worshipping Divinity. Does the advertisement of "jeans and sneakers worship" imply that people are now worshipping denim pants and tennis shoes? The way some people promote this idea, I truly wonder!
In all the services at faithful churches of Christ, we shall not offer worship that is merely "traditional" (just because we have always done it that way) or "contemporary" (in tune with the desires of this present world). Rather, it is our intention to offer worship that is in spirit and in truth because it from our hearts and conforms to the teachings of the inspired scriptures which are given to equip us thoroughly for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We invite all who desire truly to please God in their worship to visit and join with us. "...Let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear" (Hebrews 13:15). (---taken from Faith and Facts Quarterly; January, 2006; Vol. 34, No. 1; pp. 72-74)
"CHRISTIAN COLLEGES"
By Wayne S. Walker
Nearly all the denominations, especially the Baptists and the Pentecostals, have what are called "Christian colleges, " as do also the Christian Churches and even some "churches of Christ." Practically every faithful congregation of God's people has received numerous requests from colleges run by members of the church and often identified as "Christian colleges" soliciting support in some form or another. In fact, every now and then someone will ask me whether certain schools operated by brethren are really "Christian colleges" or not.
The basic idea behind the "Christian college" concept is a school where "Christian young people" can be educated in both academic and religious subjects while associated with other "Christian young people" in a moral, or "Christian," environment, as it is sometimes stated. Many of the denominational schools require a "profession of faith" before a student can be enrolled, and they usually receive support from a certain denomination or a group of churches, being considered the educational centers for the supporting churches and the place where their preachers may go to train. The situation with many colleges among us is not that much different as sectarian ideas have a tendency to rub off on unwary saints. However, nowhere does the scripture speak of a "Christian college," either in fact or in principle. Any college that does exist has no scriptural right whatsoever to do certain things which many so-called "Christian colleges" do.
No college has the right to call itself or be called "Christian" to begin with. This word is found just three times in the Bible (Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Pet. 1: 16) and is used only of people, never things - including colleges. The only entity that may properly be referred to as "Christian" is a believing, penitent, confessing, baptized follower of Christ. Also, the word is found only as a noun, not an adjective. Some people talk about a "Christian man" or a "Christian woman." While this may not be necessarily wrong, why not just speak of men and women who are Christians and say, "He (or she) is a Christian," thus speaking as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4: 11) and avoiding any occasion for misunderstanding. But even allowing for that, it is absurd, not to mention unscriptural, to refer to "Christian" printing presses, literature, bookstores, markets, nations, and especially colleges. Christ did not die for them and they have no business wearing His name. There is no way a college can be thought of as being "Christian" in a true Biblical sense.
Nor does any college have the authority to receive funds from any church, at least according to the word of God, especially from a church that claims to be "of Christ." The use of the Lord's money in the church treasury is clearly outlined in the Scriptures - saving the lost through preaching the gospel (Rom. 1:15-16; Phil. 4:15-17), edifying the saints by teaching and worship (1 Cor. 14:26), and relieving the needs of indigent Christians in certain situations (Acts 4:34-37; 11:27-30). The mission of the church is spiritual, not physical or temporal (Lk. 19:10, Rom. 14:17). The purpose of a college, on the other hand, is to provide a general education in such disciplines as mathematics, language, science, psychology, etc., and to make available the proper social, recreational, and entertainment facilities as are needed, regardless of how much "Bible" may be included or how "Christian" the atmosphere may be. Churches have no business underwriting such secular education. In addition, churches of Christ simply have no Bible authority to supply financial aid to any human-founded institution in the first place. And although they denied it for years, it is now known that some churches have been secretly supporting many of the "brotherhood colleges" all the while.
Neither should the colleges try to usurp the work God has given the church nor exercise any influence upon it. Paul wrote that "the church of the living God (is) the pillar and the ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), not some manmade institution. When a college acts in such a way as to replace or supplant the work of the local congregation, it has overstepped its bounds whether it receives church money or not. It should then cease to exist lest it pervert God's plan further and corrupt the Lord's church more than it already has. Colleges have a way of becoming rallying points around which brethren will draw lines and form parties. They can exert an influence and wield power, in contradiction to the spirit of Matthew 20:25-28, of which we must be careful. And history reveals that most departures from the faith have begun in connection with church related schools.
There is nothing wrong with a group of brethren owning and operating an institution of higher learning to provide a general education for all interested young people in a moral environment, so long as that college refuses to accept church support and to usurp the work of the blood bought body of Christ. This writer has benefitted greatly from such a situation. However, let the local church, designed by God to be the support of the truth, and individual Christians also fulfil this obligation to ground young people in the Scriptures and train men to preach the word. Neither is there anything wrong with the college providing periods of instruction in the Bible and related topics as part of an eclectic ..curriculum; and even preachers may wish to obtain their schooling there. But this does not make the school a "Christian college," for in reality, there can be no such thing. (---taken from Guardian of Truth; October 20, 1983; Vol. XXVII, No. 20; p. 625)
COMMUNION EVERY SUNDAY?
by Wayne S. Walker
A few years ago, I received a letter from a lady who visited the services of the church where I was preaching one Sunday morning. Although she had many kind remarks, she also expressed some criticism. "I disagree with your church's policy of giving communion every Sunday, and on the basis of one of the points you made during your sermon, that we are to avoid vain repetition. I previously attended a church that sang 'Holy, Holy, Holy' as the processional EVERY Sunday, and meaningful as that song is, I cringe whenever I hear it, to this day. There was also the practice of repeating the Lord's Prayer every week, and it soon began to be quite meaningless to me. I wonder if the sacrament of the Lord's Supper might not be viewed in the same light. It might be interesting to ask the opinion of the individual congregation members. The weekly repetition, and especially without the warning of the consequences of taking the sacrament unworthily, would soon make the practice less meaningful to me personally, and of course, if we partake unworthily, while we have something against another, we are warned of damnation, correct?"
In my response to her, I first pointed out that our aim in the church of Christ is, in everything we believe, teach, and practice, to "speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11). Therefore, whenever a question is asked, we most cheerfully "give an answer to every man that asketh [us] as reason of the hope that is in [us] with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15). It does not bother or embarrass us for folks to criticize us. Indeed, we invite disagreement so that we can sit down together in a spirit of love, open the Bible, and see what God has said about that particular matter.
With regard to the question about our having communion every Sunday [the church of our Lord is not in the practice of "giving communion" but simply assembling on the Lord's day to partake of the Lord's supper], our reason is found in Acts 20:7. We are told that the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread, a term which is used in scripture to refer to the communion or Lord's supper [1 Corinthians 10:16]. I might also point out that nowhere does the Bible call it a sacrament--it is simply identified as a memorial [1 Corinthians 11:24-26]. Since every week has a first day, we necessarily infer that whenever the first day of the week came around, disciples came together to break bread.
Let me illustrate. Under the old covenant, God told the Hebrew people to "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8). Since every week had a Sabbath day, they were obligated to keep it every week. The fact that it was a weekly observance did not necessarily make it less meaningful to them just as our weekly observance of the Lord's supper does not necessarily make it less meaningful to us. We do not believe that we partake unworthily just because we do it every week. The meaningfulness of the observance is really in the mind of the partaker. It would seem to me that taking it just four times a year could be meaningless to a person as well if his attitude were not right. We do remind ourselves from time to time of the dangers of partaking unworthily.
Here is another illustration. I eat breakfast every morning. The fact that I do it so often does not make it less meaningful than if I did it less often. In fact, I need that breakfast every morning. The fact that God indicated He wants His people to break bread on the first day of every week is evidence that there is something about this weekly observance that we need. We believe that when we do what God says in the way He says to do it, it will not be meaningless. We simply try to obey His word and attach whatever meaning He has placed upon what He has told us to do. In addition, Bible scholars and religious historians unanimously agree that the practice of the early church was to have the communion every Sunday.
The suggestion that it might be interesting to ask the members' opinions on this matter is, in itself, interesting. The Lord's church is not a democracy, so we do not base our practices on the opinions of our members because the church is founded on the word of God, not the doctrines and traditions of men (Matthew 15:9). At the same time, I can assure you that our members are convicted that Christians should eat the Lord's supper on the first day of the week, or else they would not be here. We do not necessarily sing the same song or repeat a particular scripture such as the "Lord's Prayer" each week because God has not told us to do such. But He has said that the observance of the memorial feast is to be part of our worship every Sunday, along with singing and praying.
Our only desire is to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent; to call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways. We are striving for non-denominational, New Testament Christianity. We welcome all who are likeminded to join with us. Those who have questions should feel free to ask them. We would be more than happy to make whatever arrangements are convenient to discuss them. We are interested in nothing but the truth, for "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). Unfortunately, I never saw or heard from the lady again. (---taken from Torch; Oct., 1984; Vol. XIX, No. 10; pp. 19-21)
ETERNAL SECURITY
by Wayne S. Walker
One of the tenets of Reformed theology which John Calvin adopted and propagated was that of "the perseverance of the saints." Often it is referred to as the doctrine of "once in grace, always in grace." Or stated as a proposition, it reads, "A child of God cannot so sin as to lose his soul eternally." Much has recently been said, and needs to be, concerning the relation of Calvinism to modern heresies among our brethren, but it is my purpose to examine this particular doctrine as it would be presented by a sectarian preacher of the Calvinist persuasion.
The Arguments For
A primary argument made for this kind of teaching is an emotional one. It may be asked, "If your son did not do what you asked, would you completely reject him as you claim God will His unfaithful children?" The fact that many have been disinherited in times past does not seem to deter the inquirer. Nor does the fact that we cannot determine what God will or will not do by what man thinks or does, since God is not to be limited by human feelings. By applying a little reason to the situation, I think we can see a point that is overlooked. Suppose I were to make a promise to my hypothetical son--say a new car upon graduation from college. But if he should drop out his junior year, am I still obligated to give him the car? The obvious answer is no, even though he is my son and I still love him. The reason he would not receive the promise is that he did not complete the stipulations on his part. The application is that God has promised His children eternal life, if they remain faithful to Him and do His will. But if those conditions are not met, God is under no obligation to carry out His promise, even though it involves His own children.
Emotion is not the only basis for argument, however. Calvinists know well how to twist Bible passages in attempting to prove their doctrine, all the while wresting the scriptures to their own destruction. A favorite passage in 1 John 3:9, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." The word "commit" is not in the original language, and the present construction of the Greek verb indicates habitual and persistent sin. That is, a child of God no longer lives in sin. The word "cannot" does not necessarily imply absolute impossibility (see Gen. 19:19, 42:22) but rather conditional or permissive impossibility. Notice also that the one "born of God" is the one that "doeth righteousness" (1 John 2:29), that is, continues to do righteousness. Besides, if this verse taught the impossibility of apostasy, it would have John contradicting himself, for in 1 John 2:1, he said he wrote to his readers that they sin not. Why write this warning if it were not possible for them to sin, or be in danger of losing their souls through sin? John recognized the possibility of apostasy.
Other passages similarly perverted are John 3:16 and 5:24. We are told, "It says, 'shall not perish' and 'shall not come into condemnation.'" But note the condition of believing in both verses, again in the present tense denoting continuative action. No one denies that the true and faithful believer will not perish, but the question is, can a believer become an unbeliever? Hebrews 3:12 answers the question, "Yes!" John 10:28 is also misused: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But of whom is Jesus speaking? Verse 27 says it is His sheep who hear His voice and follow Him. The possibility exists that some of His sheep will not follow. Another misapplied verse is 1 Corinthians 10:13, where Paul said that God will make a way of escape for the Christian in temptation. This is supposed to mean that since God has provided a means of escape, therefore a Christian cannot sin. However, the verse in no way intimates that a Christian must take the escape route. All it says is that there is a way out of temptation for the Christian to take if he will; many will not, though, and will yield as revealed in James 1:14-15.
Two more passages worthy of examination are Ephesians 1:13-14 and Romans 8:34-39. According to this false doctrine, the seal of the Spirit is set upon Christians to make it impossible for them to fall. While it is true that the Holy Spirit is given us as a seal to guard and protect us, it does not discount the possibility of the seal being broken. Nowhere is it stated that the Holy Ghost must remain as a seal on someone who does not want to be sealed any longer. The Spirit can be grieved (Eph. 4:30). Then we are told, "Nothing can separate us from the love of Gold."' Not even unfaithfulness on the part of a Christian, I suppose. Something did separate Demas from God, though--the love of the world (2 Tim. 4:10). Something separated the Ephesians from the Lord, too; they left their first love (Rev. 2:4). What Romans 8 actually teaches is that one who truly loves God (verse 28) and keeps his Word will not be separated from the love of God.
What Saith the Scriptures?
Turning from the defensive, we now present scriptural teaching concerning the possibility of Christians falling. 1 Corinthians 10:12 warns, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." It is argued that the context concerns the Israelites before the cross who were not under the New Testament dispensation. This reasoning is a misuse of the context and unnecessarily restricts it. The point Paul is making is that those Israelites fell because of their sins; so you Corinthians take heed lest ye fall. In Galatians, Paul plainly tells some "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (3:27) that "Ye are fallen from grace" (5:4). The reason they were fallen was that they were "removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (1:6). There is no doubt the Bible teaches a child of God can fall from grace. The question now is whether that fallen Christian will still be saved.
In Hebrews 6:4-6, the writer spoke of some "who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of-the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come" who later fell away and became so hardened that it was impossible to renew them unto repentance. Their state was that they had crucified "to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Now, can one in that condition have a home in heaven, even though he was once enlightened? Again, we turn to 2 Peter 2:20-22 and read of some who had "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" but had again become entangled in them. Peter said that "The latter end is worse than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." If a person who has been born again yet falls in sin will still be saved, how is the latter end worse than the first? If one who has sinned in this manner is worse off than one who has never become a Christian, how can he go to heaven? Then in Galatians 6:1, Paul encourages his spiritual minded brethren to restore those who were overtaken in a fault. Why attempt to restore such people if they, as Christians, will be saved despite their sin?
Some Calvinist preachers have made statements to the effect that they could murder, rape, prostitute themselves, even commit idolatry, and it would still be impossible for them to go to hell because they are supposedly born again children of God and He could never go back on His promise to save them. Let us see what the Bible says. Can a Christian lie? Ananias and Sapphira did in Acts 5:3. Revelation 21:8 says, "All liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." No distinction is made between "regenerate" liars and unregenerate ones. Can a child of God get drunk? Evidently it is possible, for Paul warns the Ephesian saints against it in Ephesians 5:18. Yet of drunkenness it is said, "that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). There is no difference here between drunkards who are Christians and those who are not. Again, can one born again commit fornication? Yes, for a brother could be a fornicator (1 Cor. 5:11). But no fornicator "shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:10). Nothing is said about children of God who commit fornication as opposed to fornicators of the world. The Bible teaches that a Christian can commit sins that are worthy of eternal punishment, and if they do, they will lose their souls in hell.
Conclusion
The apostle Paul recognized the possibility of apostasy in 1 Corinthians 9:27. He realized that through his body, he could sin in such a way as to be rejected or cast away. The verse does not say he would be rejected by his listeners, as some claim. The word means "disqualified". in the original language. Disqualified from what'?--from running the race and gaining the prize of verses 24-26. The parable of the sower also shows that a child of God can fall from grace. In Luke 8:13-14, Jesus told of some who heard and received the Word, yet in time of temptation, or through the cares and pleasures of this world, fell away. Will they be saved eternally?
Someone might ask, "Well, do you believe in eternal security or not?" Yes, I believe in eternal security, but I believe what the Bible says about it, and that is, that it is conditional. In 2 Peter 1:10, after listing the characteristics that one must possess to be a faithful, growing Christian, the apostle said, "For if ye do these things, ye shall never fall." Note that well--"if ye do these things." "If" introduces a condition. Truly, Christ is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb. 5:9). The true Christian who constantly seeks to manifest godly qualities in his life shall never fall. But his eternal security is conditional on his remaining faithful. On the other hand, one who fails to meet the conditions and does not continue to obey, forfeits his eternal security, for God is no longer bound to keep His promise.
The teaching that a child of God cannot so sin as to lose his soul in hell is a false teaching invented by the devil and is a cop-out. It allows a person to soothe his conscience and "feel saved" in spite of the sin he may allow in his life. Certainly not all who believe unconditional perseverance of the saints actually think this way, at least consciously; but anyone who accepts the doctrine does not have to be so careful with his life as one who knows that when he yields to the temptations of Satan, his sin may cause him to lose his eternal security. Then, do I doubt my salvation? Not a bit. I know that as long as I act in harmony with God's will that I will be eternally saved. And the fact that if I get out of step I may be lost provides additional motivation to live as God would have me to. I would hope that all who teach impossibility of apostasy will come to recognize the teaching for what it is--a damnable departure from the teaching of God's Word. (---taken from Truth Magazine; January 13, 1977; Vol. XXI, No. 2, pp. 28-29)
THE GOSPEL
by Wayne S. Walker
The Bible teaches that a number of items are necessary for salvation, that we are not saved by any one thing alone. One of them is the gospel of Jesus Christ. "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13).
Good News!
What is the gospel? Our English word "gospel" comes from an Anglo-Saxon term which literally means "good news." The word in the New Testament translated "gospel" means "good message" or "glad tiding" (Romans 10:15). "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:10). The gospel in essence is the good news of salvation in Christ by divine grace through man's obedient faith (Ephesians 2:8). "...Preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who doe snot believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16).
Content
What is the content of the gospel? "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you....For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The gospel contains these facts which one must believe to be saved. However, the gospel must also be obeyed (Romans 10:16). Facts themselves cannot be obeyed; commands can be obeyed. Thus, the gospel also contains commands. This is why Jesus said that preaching the gospel includes commands to believe and be baptized (Mark 16:16). Furthermore, the gospel has preciuos promises, as the hope laid up in heaven (Colossians 1:5).
God's Gift
What is God's part in the gospel? First of all, the gospel is the good news of salvation in Christ alone, adn God has made all the provisions to grant us salvation by His grace. Paul preached "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24). Additionally, God has revealed all these provisions in the gospel--both what He has done to make salvation available, and those conditions upon which we can receive it. Paul says "that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ through the gospel" (Ephesians 3:3-6).
Man's Responsibility
What is man's part in the gospel? To be saved from sin people must believe the gospel (Mark 1:14). Before people can believe the gospel, they must hear it (Acts 15:7). Then they must obey the gospel, because those who do not obey the gospel will be punished with everlasting destruction for their sin (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8). Both those who hear and those who preach the gospel must not accept a perverted gospel (Galatians 1:6-11).
Gospel and Doctrine
What is the relationship between the gospel and doctrine? Some affirm a distinction between the gospel, to be preached only to the lost, and doctrine, to be taught only to the church. This distinction has been the basis for several false ideas, including unscriptural "unity in diversity." Such a distinction is not scriptural. Paul was coming to the saints (church) at Rome to preach the gospel to them (Romans 1:7-15). At the same time, these Romans were Christians because when they were lost they"obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine" by which they were freed from sin (Romans 6:17-18). Sound doctrine andthe gospel are co-extensive in the saving and sanctifying of man (1 Timothy 1:10-11).
Conclusion
Jesus has given us marching orders: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). We sing, "Of one the Lord has made the race, Through one has come the fall; Where sin has gone must go His grace: The gospel is for all" (J. M. McCaleb). The gospel is for all, because all have sinned (Romans 3:23). The fact that people must hear and believe the gospel means that those who are saved have an obligation to preach the gospel to a lost world (1 Corinthians 1:17). Let us confidently say, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). Let us believe it, obey it, preach it, and defend it with all our might. (---taken from Christianity Magazine; Sept./Oct., 1999; Vol. 16, No. 9-10; p. 21)
MIRACULOUS DIVINE HEALING
by Wayne S. Walker
There is no doubt that Jesus healed people miraculously (Matthew 10:1), as did other inspired men of the first century. However, we do not have nor need healing of a miraculous nature today for three reasons.
I. Its purpose was fulfilled
A. The purpose of Jesus's miracles was to produce faith (John 3:2, 4:53, 5:36, 10:37-38). How is faith produced today? By the wrotten word (John 20:30-31, Romans 10:17; see also John 17:11-20).
B. The purpose of the apostles' miracles was to reveal and confirm the world (Mark 16:17-20, Acts 2:43, 1 Corinthians 2:1-6, 2 Corinthians 12:11-12, Ephesians 3:3-5, Hebrews 2:1-4). Since the word has already been confirmed, there is no need for further confirmation (Galatians 3:15).
C. The purpose of miracles inthe early church was for edification and teaching before the New Testament was finished (1 Corinthians 12:7-12; 14:1-4, 22-26). But today we have the completed scriptures for teaching and edification (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
D. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 affirms that when the perfect revelation came (James 1:25), the "in-part" methods of revelation would pass away.
II. The means by which it was obtained passed away
A. Jesus promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit directly to the apostles (Acts 1:2-8, 26; 2:1-14; cf. John chapters 14-16). It was also given to Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48, 11:13-18), but offered to no one else.
B. In every other case, all supernatural gifts came through the laying on of the apostles' hands, not by prayer or direct bestowal from Christ (Acts 6:5-8, 8:14-18, 19:6; Romans 1:11; 2 Timothy 1:6).
C. Since we do not have living apostles today (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 15:8), whatever measure of the Holy Sprit we have comes by faith, not miracle (Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13).
D. The evidence of the Spirit in our lives today is not miraculous activity, but the qualities and characteristics that the Spirit teaches us in the word to have (Galatians 5:22-23, Ephesians 5:18-21; cf. Colossians 3:16).
III. The nature of New Testament miracles is not and cannot be duplicated today
A. They were distinctive and identifiable. People could see and tell they were not by natural means (Acts 8:6-12, 19:11-17).
B. They were plainly visible and testable, not internal, emotional, or psychosomatic. Nor were they done in far away places and simply reported (John 9:1, 6, 7).
C. They were undeniable, not subject to debate. Enemies opposed them but had to admit their existence (Matthew 12:22-32; Acts 2:22-23, 4:16, 14:9-12).
D. They were complete, not partial. No one was ever told to come back for futher healing (John 5:5-9).
E. They were immediate and instantaneous, not gradual. Niraculous healing never took place over a period of time (Acts 3:7-8).
F. They were universal. All manner of diseases were cured and everyone who came was healed (Matthew 4:23-25, 12:15; Acts 5:16).
We believe that God answers prayers and that He works today through His providence to heal the sick (James 5:13-15). But there are no miracles today as in the Bible. (---originally written for the bulletin of the church of Christ in Medina, OH, and reprinted in Torch; May, 1981; Vol. XVI, No. 5; pp. 13-15)
THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION EVER ASKED:
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
(Acts 16:30)
by Wayne S. Walker
In the sixteenth chapter of the book of Acts, the apostle Paul had come to the city of Philippi in Macedonia, the northern part of Greece. While there, he and his co-worker, Silas, cast a demon out of a slave girl. Her masters were upset that they would no longer be able to use her fortune telling powers to gain money, so they had Paul and Silas put in prison.
That night, while Paul and Silas were singing and praying, a great earthquake shook the prison, the doors were opened, and the prisoners' bands were loosed. The jailor awoke, saw the condition of the jail, and, assuming that the prisoners had fled, drew his sword to kill himself. However, Paul shouted, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here."
The jailor then fell down before Paul and Silas, brought them out, and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They told him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and then preached to him and his household the word of the Lord that they might know what to believe. He took them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and was immediately baptized with his family.
We do not know exactly what was in this jailor's mind when he spoke to Paul and Silas. He may have heard something about their preaching. He was undoubtedly influenced by the terror of the earthquake and his close brush with death. He may have noticed the demeanor of Paul and Silas in prison. In any event, he asked the most important question anyone can ever ask. "What must I do to be saved?"
The Need to Be Saved
This question implies that there is a need to be saved. A man who cannot swim and falls in water needs to be saved from drowning. A child who is kidnapped by a person threatening to kill it needs to be saved from murder. As tragic as these situations are, there is something even worse from which every responsible person needs to be saved.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). If one can understand this pamphlet, he has sinned. What does this mean? Sin is defined as "lawlessness" or a transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4). We sin by committing "unrighteousness," that is, doing something that is not right in God's sight which He condemns (1 John 5:17). And we sin by omission, that is, failing to do something that God commands (James 4:17).
"All have sinned." Some people respond, "How dare you call me a sinner!" Yet, we all know that we do things that are wrong and fail to do things that we should. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). We need to be saved from the punishment attached by God to sin.
What is that punishment? "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23). Just as the drowning man or the kidnapped child is in danger of physical death, so those who are guilty of sin will suffer spiritual death, which is separation from God both in this life and in eternity. It is from this that we need to be saved.
The Possibility of Being Saved
The fact that this question is recorded and answered in the Bible also implies that even though we have all sinned and deserve death, it is possible to be saved. How? "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
God loves us, whom He created in His image, so much that He does not want to see us suffer punishment for sin. Therefore, He gave His only begotten Son. "...Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3). We deserved death because of our sins. However, Christ, who did no sin and thus did not deserve death, suffered this punishment for us.
Therefore, just a child who is kidnapped might be redeemed by the payment of ransom, so a price has been paid for us to be redeemed from sin and its punishment. Paul wrote of Christ, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7). It is the blood of Jesus that makes it possible for us to have our sins forgiven.
Once these sins, the wages of which is death, are forgiven, then we no longer deserve death and are given life. "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:12). Thanks be to God who has made it possible for us to be saved from our sins by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us that we might have redemption and life!
Things We Must Do to Be Saved
This question implies as well that there is something which we must do in order to be saved. Certainly, there is nothing that we can do to make atonement for our sins. "For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). No amount of good works can make up for the wrongs that we have committed. We are dependent on God's grace and mercy for salvation.
However, this does not mean that there is nothing for us to do. God has extended the free gift of His pardon to all mankind with certain conditions attached. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). We cannot earn salvation by doing these things, but to receive salvation we must meet God's conditions.
When the people on Pentecost realized that they were sinners, they cried out, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). When Saul of Tarsus came to see His need for Christ, he asked, "Lord, what do you want me to do?" (Acts 9:6). They understood that there was something for them to do. No one can be saved without doing what Christ says we must do to be saved.
The Gospel is God's Power for Salvation
We must hear the gospel of Christ. The word "gospel" means good news. Jesus told His apostles, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:16). Why? Because Paul said of the gospel, "It is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Romans 1:16). The gospel is God's revelation of salvation.
Why is important that we hear the gospel? "For 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' How then shall call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?...So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:13-17). Because Jesus Christ gave His life as a ransom for our sins, He wants us to listen to His word.
We must also believe the gospel. The basic message of Jesus was, "Repent, and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14). This means believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. "For if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). The scriptures were written "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31).
This is why the jailor was told, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your household" (Acts 16:31). "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
Repentance and Confession Necessary to Salvation
We must repent of our sins. Jesus told the people of His day, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:8). In preaching the gospel, the apostles preached repentance. Paul said, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). We cannot continue in a sinful life and expect God to save us.
What is repentance? The word signifies a change of mind or heart. "For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted" (2 Corinthians 7:10). Repentance is a change of mind produced by godly sorrow for sin that leads to a change of life. It is a turning away from sin and a turning toward God.
We must also confess Christ. Jesus said, "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32). This simply means having the courage and conviction to acknowledge publicly that Jesus is the Christ, as did the Ethiopian eunuch who was willing to confess, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37).
Why is this so important? Paul explained, "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:9-10). We cannot be saved without openly pledging ourselves to Christ.
Obedience to the Gospel of Salvation
We must be baptized. Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). As the apostles preached the gospel, they said, "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" (Acts 2:38). The Bible never says that we are saved then baptized because our sins have already been forgiven. It says that we are baptized "for the remission of sins."
When we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death (Romans 6:3-4). Jesus shed His blood in His death; therefore, we are baptized into the cleansing power of His blood. When we are baptized, we put on Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). All spiritual blessings, including salvation, are in Christ, so we must put Him on in baptism to have salvation. "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism" (1 Peter 3:21).
Why must we do these things? Again, it is not to earn salvation by good works but to obey God's terms for salvation. What if we do not obey? When Jesus returns, He will come, "taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8).
However, if we obey, we are promised a reward. Jesus Christ is said to be "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Hebrews 5:8-9). He is the source of salvation not just to those who believe Him, but to all who obey Him. Have you obeyed? (---taken from The Preceptor; March, 2005; Vol. 54, No. 3; pp. 12-14)
"POSITION AVAILABLE"
by Wayne S. Walker
Several years ago a letter marked "Position Available" came to the congregation with which I was laboring from a group in another state identifying itself as "Church of Christ." They were looking for a "minister of the Church of Christ at _____." I know nothing personally about them, but the letter contained a number of statements that are indicative of the difficulties faced by Christians today concerning the denominational concepts that tend to creep in among us. There are some important lessons that we should learn in this regard.
The letter began, "The _____ congregation of the Lord's church is seeking a new pulpit minister." Right away there is a problem. If we are going to speak where the Bible speaks and call Bible things by Bible names, then we must realize that the Bible does not speak of a "congregation of the Lord's church." This is a diocesan concept of the body of Christ similar to the one which led to the development of the Roman Catholic Church. It is "the language of Ashdod" (Nehemiah 13:24).
We need to understand that the church universal is not divided up organizationally into many local congregations. Rather, it is made up of individual Christians who then form themselves into local congregations. It is this idea of the local churches as units of the universal church which has led to attempts at mobilizing the universal church by missionary societies, sponsoring churches, and brotherhood institutions. Furthermore, while the Scriptures use the terms evangelist, preacher, and minister to describe proclaimers of the word, the term "pulpit minister" (does it distinguish from some other kind of minister?) is not found. All Christians are to be simply "ministers of Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:1).
Under "Duties/Responsibilities" are listed "Preaching, Teaching Bible Classes, Conduct home Bible Studies and other types of evangelism, Counseling and Visitation, Edit and Publish Weekly Bulletin." Of course, many of these are duties that most, if not all, preachers have performed in their work. But why single out arbitrarily certain items? Churches have a right to expect preachers they support to discharge all their responsibilities as revealed in God's word (cf. 1 Timothy 4:6, 2 Timothy 4:1-4).
Under qualifications, the first mentioned is "B.A. Degree in Bible preferred." Certainly, there is nothing wrong with a preacher's having a college education and it can even be helpful from time to time. But where did people get the idea that a fellow can learn more about the Bible from a university professor than from studying it on his own? The apostles would not qualify, for as to formal education they were "ignorant and unlearned men" (Acts 4:13). Also, I wonder of these folks would prefer a B. A. Degree from a "Church of Christ" college over one from a denominational seminary.
Other qualifications are "Demonstrated experience in soul winning, Bible class teaching experience, Ten (10) years experience as a pulpit minister desirable, Successful experience working under the direction of elders, Experience in the Northeast U.S. preferred, Experience in editing and publishing a church bulletin desired." Certainly no one would minimize experience. It is a great asset to possess. But if all churches demanded as much experience as this one (and it is only "7 years old with about 70 in attendance on Sunday"), where in the world would preachers obtain any? In time, there would not be enough experienced men to go around. I wonder how much experience Timothy had, seeing he was still a youth (1 Timothy 4:12).
One more qualification requires "experience or training in counseling." Now if this means counseling from the word of God, any knowledgeable Christian could fill the bill. But if it refers to specialized counseling, such as for troubled marriages, alcoholics, juvenile delinquents, etc., that is something different. Any preacher is willing to help in these situations by applying God's word. But in the past, only denominational "pastors" were expected to have experience or training in psychology, therapy, and such like. Such is not a part of the work of the evangelist (or the church, for that matter) as described in the New Testament, although it is becoming increasingly popular among "Churches of Christ" infected with the social gospel (see 2 Timothy 4:5).
Last of all, "conditions of employment" include "Commitment--five (5) years to the _____ congregation." Yet, at the same time, the congregation does not want to make the same commitment to the preacher. It offers only an "initial one (1) year contract renewable six (6) months prior to expiration." Jesus said, "Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them" (Matthew 7:12). If this church expects a preacher to make a five-year promise, it should be willing to make the same guarantee.
Obviously, churches and preachers need to arrive at a mutual understanding in their relationships. But I, personally, do not htink that I would want to touch this "position" with a ten foot pole--or two ten foot poles for that matter. I have a feeling that this congregation is probably among what we would call "liberal" or "progressive" churches. But we who claim to be more "conservative" in our approach to the scriptures need to be careful that we do not begin to look upon gospel preachers as professional hired employees of the church, but as servants of the Lord who deserve the support of the Lord's people. (---taken and slightly updated from Faith and Facts; Apr., 1982; Vol. 10, No. 2; pp. 30-32)
THE RESURRECTION WAS ON SUNDAY
by Wayne S. Walker
One of the arguments made by Sabbatarians against Christians' worshipping on the first day of the week is their claim that the resurrection of Christ was not on Sunday. They place the historical observance of the resurrection on Saturday, the day they have chosen to revere as "God's eternal sabbath." Often when they assert that the seventh day of the week, the Old Testament sabbath, is the day Christians should assemble for worship, they run into some resistance. Most of so-called Christendom tends to regard the first day of the week, Sunday, as the day to which it attaches any religious significance. This practice has generally been the result of the belief that Christ rose from the dead on that day. Thus, any mention of Saturday worship turns many off. Sabbatarians have chosen to deny the Sunday resurrection in an attempt to persuade people to cease their recognition of Sunday as a "special day," and to present a better case for sabbath observance. It is not the desire of this writer to deal with false teaching concerning the sabbath since there are many good scriptural refutations concerning it. I mention it here merely to give some background.
Three Days and Three Nights
The first passage to be considered in our study is Matthew 12:38-40. In this text, Jesus compares Jonah's three day and three night stay in the belly of the sea creature to His own three day and three night stay in the grave. It is a mistake to conclude that the particular sign Jesus was giving here to prove His Messiahship is the three days and three nights in the sepulchre, no more and no less. One writer has declared that the evidence of Christ's deity was not the fact of the resurrection itself, but the length of time He would repose in the grave before His resurrection. However, this concept comes into conflict with the apostle Paul in Romans 1:1-4. The inspired writer did not say that Jesus "was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness" by the amount of time spent in the grave, but "by the resurrection from the dead" itself. Although if Jesus said He would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, He was of course, the language of Paul indicates that the length of time is not so important as the actual event.
It is also a mistake to define "three days and three nights" as seventy-two hours. Some have compared Genesis 1:13 where Moses said, "And the evening and the morning were the third day," with John 11:9-10 where Jesus asked, "Are there not twelve hours in a day?...but if any man walk in the night, he stumbleth." They erroneously conclude that since God "divided the light from the darkness...(and) called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" (Genesis 1:4-5), that three days and three nights must include three twelve-hour periods each of light and darkness, hence seventy-two hours. This is clearly a mishandling of scripture by joining two totally unrelated passages and using modern definitions to interpret them. I do not believe that the Bible writers nor the Holy Spirit who inspired them was too interested in our arithmetical method of figuring time. We do err when we try to force our own Western measurements into the Spirit-breathed words of men of Oriental thought. What we must do instead is determine what was meant in first century Palestine by "three days and three nights" according to what the scriptures reveal.
Comparing Matthew 12:39-40 with Mark 8:31, 9:31, and John 2:19-21, one must conclude that the terms "three days and three nights," "after three days," "(on) the third day," and "(with) in three days," all cover equivalent periods of time, or else Jesus contradicted Himself. It is accepted by practically all reputable authorities who have a knowledge of the original languages of the Biblical text that the Jews in all periods of Bible history used the expressions "after three days" and "on the third day" as equivalent, even though in our parlance, they would mean different things. (See Gen. 42:17-18, 1 Kings 12:5-12, 2 Chron. 10:5-12, and compare Matt. 16:21 with Mark 8:31.) The same is true of the phrases "within three days" and "on the third day" (Genesis 40:13-20). Notice again that a feast lasting "three days, night and day" (equal to three days and three nights) ended "on the third day" (Esther 4:16, 5:1) not on the fourth, and that a period of "three days and three nights" began "three days ago" (1 Sam. 30:12-13), not four. In addition, the Pharisees, recognizing that Jesus had said while alive, "After three days will I rise again," asked Pilate to "Command therefore the sepulchre to be made sure until the third day" (Matt. 27:62-64). According to our terminology, if Jesus were to rise after three days, we would guard the tomb until at least the fourth day; but not so with the Jews. A final note on Hebrew time measuring is found in 1 Sam. 20:12 where Jonathan told David he would sound out his father "about tomorrow any time, or the third day," making the third day equal to "the day after tomorrow."
Sabbatarians say that expositors impose upon their credulity in arguing that the expression "three days and three nights" may include any part of a day or night. Even some evangelical Protestants are not satisfied with this explanation and consider it a weak makeshift at best. Besides the scriptural testimony in the previous paragraph, please note the chronological timetable in Acts 10 as corroborating evidence. In verses 1-8 Cornelius received a vision in which he was instructed to send for Peter. In verse 9, it was the morrow when the men journeyed to Joppa and when Peter had his vision. In verse 23, two days later, Peter accompanied the men to Caesarea, and in verse 24 they all arrived at Cornelius's house three days after Cornelius's vision. But Cornelius himself put it "four days ago" (verse 30). Why? First, in the expression "four days," any part of any day from the original day was included; and second, the ancients figured in the day on which an event occurred when counting time from that event. Thus, Cornelius's vision was on the first day and Peter's arrival on the fourth day--a total period of four days according to first century reckoning, event though we would consider it "three days" in our way of thinking.
The point to be understood is that it is folly to restrict the phrase "three days and three nights" to an exact period of seventy-two hours. This is simply not what the Holy Spirit meant to say. In their reasoning, Sabbatarians put their own meaning upon the construction. They usually assume the crucifixion was on Wednesday, then try to establish this using either the modern Hebrew calendar or supposed astronomical observations, both of which are suspect and shaky evidence. Following this trend of thought, if "three days and three nights" were literally seventy-two hours, then this period would have ended on Saturday. This hypothesis fits amazing well with their sabbath worship. But the whole theory is based solely upon supposition, human wisdom, and perversion of Bible passages. There is not one shred of Scripture to substantiate it. We might pause here to state that if Sunday be the "third day" after the crucifixion, then Saturday was the second, and Friday was the "first day," which would have been the day on which the crucifixion must have taken place according to the Jewish mode of calculation used by the Bible writers. This is the only tenable conclusion to be drawn from the Bible record.
Objections examined
The Bible indicates that Jesus was crucified on Friday, for the next day was called "the day that followed the day of preparation" (Matt. 27:62). It is not mere assumption to say that the day of preparation was Friday, because the term "preparation" was, and still is, the common method of referring to the sixth day of the week by both Jews and Greek-speaking people. From what we have studied concerning the Hebrew expression "three days and three nights," a Friday crucifixion would have necessitated a Sunday resurrection. However, some will invariably ask, "Which preparation is Matthew speaking of?" as they try to devise a week with two preparations in it. Their attempted explanation is that Wednesday was the preparation for the Passover and Friday was the preparation for the regular sabbath. In this way, they can return to their idea of a Wednesday crucifixion, but it is merely a guess, and a poor one at that.
Although it is admittedly difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct the exact chain of events according to day and time in the last week of Jesus's life, there are certain statements which help us understand what did happen when. The Bible, in referring to the day following the crucifixion, explains, "That sabbath [regular term for seventh day] was an high day" (a special occasion or feast, John 19:31). This explains why the day of the crucifixion was "the preparation of the passover" (John 19:14), as well as the preparation of the weekly sabbath. What this means is that the passover feast that year fell on the seventh day of the week. Jesus was crucified on the day before this occasion, on Friday, the preparation.
Furthermore, the Bible clearly reveals which day Jesus rose from the grave. In Mark 16:9 we read, "When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons" (NIV). Amazingly, we are told that this verse does not say that the resurrection was on Sunday. It is argued that the verb is in the perfect tense, and that Jesus's condition early on the first day of the week was "risen" because He arose the afternoon before. This is admittedly the normal meaning of a perfect verb in the Greek New Testament. However, even if the information about the tense were correct, it would not uphold the argument because the perfect form of that particular verb (anistemi) has the sense of a present. But the tense of the verb is not perfect! The form of the verb is anastas, which is a second aorist active participle. If it were perfect, it would be anestekos. The verse literally reads, "Now having risen early on the first day of the week," or "Now after (or when) he had risen on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." There is no doubt what the verse says--it says that Jesus did rise on the first day of the week. The only doubt might be as to its canonicity since some of the more ancient [but questionable] manuscripts omit it. But I believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant accepting this passage as authentic scripture.
Another statement concerning the first day resurrection is Luke 24:21, "Today is the third day since these things were done." The first day of the week is specified in verse 1; the events transpiring in this section of the chapter happened "that same day" (verse 13); and that day was the third day. An objection is raised to this that "these things" included the seeting of the seal and the watch over the tomb which occurred "the next day" (Matt. 27:62). The desired conclusion is that Sunday was the third day since the day this was accomplished (which would be the day following the crucifixion) but not since the day of the crucifixion itself. Yet when we examine the speech of Cleopas in verses 18-20 of Luke 24, it is clear that he did not include the events which transpired on the day after Jesus was crucified, but ennded his account with "The chief priests and our rulers...have crucified him." Besides, Cleopas was not intending to give a detailed, chronological account of all the events surrounding Christ's death. All he was saying was that Christ had predicted that He would die, be buried, and arise the third day. And "Today [the first day of the week] is the third day."
Conclusion
The scriptures, written by holy apostles and prophets who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, which reveal the very mind of God, plainly teach that the resurrection of Christ from the dead occurred on the first day of the week, the day we call Sunday. To deny this is to deny the Biblical record. Sabbatarians teach otherwise, however, proclaiming that Christ arose on the sabbath, the day we call Saturday. They say, "The seventh day;" God says, "The first day;" the Bible says, "Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:2). I shall let you draw your own conclusions.
References
Armstrong, Herbert W. The Resurrection Was Not on Sunday (Pasadena, CA: Ambassador College, 1972), pp. 4-5, 12.
Machan, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners (n.p.: MacMillan Company, 1923), p. 216.
Marshall, Alfred. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 216.
McGarvey, J. W. Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Dallas, TX: Eugene S. Smith, 1875), p. 112.
Torrey, R. A. Difficulties in the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1907), p. 101.
(---taken from Truth Magazine; May 5, 1977; Vol XXI, No. 18; pp. 279-281)
THE SELLING OF THINGS IN THE CHURCH BUILDING
Wayne S. Walker
(Author's note: In the meeting house of a congregation with which I used to labor, there was a question box. It was not used very much, except as a depository for lost items, but once there was a question in it. I thought that the question and my response to it might be of general interest since it is a topic that I have heard discussed at various times and places. Yet I have seen very little written on it.)
Question: "I believe something should be done about the selling of Avon, Tupperware, House of Lloyd, and Home Interiors (to name a few) in the church during services. Is there a lesson that can be brought concerning this situation?"
Answer: Such a subject probably could not be worked up into a full-fledged sermon, but I believe that perhaps an article might be appropriate. The Bible does not deal with this issue specifically, so it must be handled by the application of general principles. Furthermore, some judgment must be involved, so no one answer is going to satisfy everyone. Some are rabidly opposed to any private commercial transactions between individuals on church property whatever, while others make their living by discreetly providing products and/or services to other members when seeing them at the church building.
First of all, I seriously doubt that there is "the selling of" anything "in the church during services." If I saw buying and selling going on while the congregation was singing, praying, listening to the sermon, taking the Lord's supper, or giving, I would be among the first to oppose it. I have an idea that the question concerns "the selling of" things at the church building before or after services.
We all recognize that the meeting house of a church is an expediency. It is authorized by general authority under the command to assemble (Heb. 10:25). The church is commanded to assemble. Thus, a place to assemble is necessarily authorized. The church building itself is not "sacred" in the denominational sense. It is not a shrine or a sanctuary. Rather, the church itself, made up of saved people, is God's temple or sanctuary (Eph. 2:19-22).
At the same time, the building should not be used as a public auditorium for just any and every purpose. It exists as a place for the church to do what God has authorized it to do. Therefore, whatever activities are planned and promoted within the church building must be authorized by God for the church to do. This, of course, prohibits the church from using its facilities for that which pertains to social affairs, recreation, and entertainment (cf. Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 11:22,34).
However, we also recognize that there are incidental uses of the building. It is not a highway rest stop, but we do have restroom and drinking facilities. Their use is incidental to our assembling for study and worship. Also, the church building is not a lounge, but we do take the opportunity to visit with one another before and after the services (and in between, too), to talk about our children or grandchildren, the weather, sports, and many other subjects. Again, such is incidental to our coming together as God commanded.
Normally, in the instances contemplated by the question, very little actual selling goes on at the building, although sometimes this is the case. Usually, orders are taken at a party in someone's home or over the phone. Then members use the opportunity of seeing one another at the building before or after services to deliver the merchandise. Even if orders are taken at the building, these are private transactions between individuals and really have nothing what ever to do with the planned activities of the church in the building. They are simply incidental to what we have come together for.
The only passage which I can imagine that someone might use to condemn this kind of thing is John 2:13-17 where Jesus drove the money changers from the temple. But remember that this was done while the old law was still in effect, in the temple which was indeed a sacred or holy place under that law. The situation then is simply not comparable to individual transactions before or after services today. The lesson in this passage for us is not to take that which is spiritual and make it into something which is purely physical or material.
Certainly, anything can be carried to an extreme and thus become wrong. It may be that some brothers and sisters have been over zealous in promoting some product before or after services. But the same can be said for some of the visiting that we do at the church building before, after, or between services. For the life of me, I cannot see how a group of people can be standing around at one minute before worship time talking and even arguing about football, business, politics, or whatever, then run to their seats and a minute later be ready to praise God.
But such abuses do not make the visiting wrong in and of itself. And the fact that some may not have been as discreet as we might like in taking orders or delivering merchandise at the building does not necessarily make all such private transactions sinful. On the one hand, let us remember that we are coming together for a spiritual purpose and not let any incidental business that we end up doing get out of control. On the other hand, let us exercise love and tolerance for our brethren in such obviously individual matters. (---taken from Guardian of Truth; April 2, 1992; Vol. XXXVI, No. 7; p. 211)
"THE WAY INTERNATIONAL" (PART I): ITS HISTORY
by Wayne S. Walker
Several years ago, when I was working with the church at Medina, Ohio, I was at a shopping center in a nearby town when my attention was caught by a flyer posted on the window of one of the store. It was printed by "The Way Ministry" of Brunswick, Ohio, and the headline read, "The Way Is Jesus Christ (John 14:6). " A note near the bottom said, "We of The Way are a Biblical Research (Acts 17:11), Teaching (2 Cor. 5:17-21) and Fellowship (Heb. 10:25) Ministry. You, too can be a true follower of The Way... Jesus Christ."(1)
What caught my attention was the use of Scripture. Most religious organizations today make no appeal to the Bible for their beliefs, teachings, or practices whatsoever any more. The flyer claimed, "As Jesus Christ responded when tempted by the devil, so The Way, today, responds with `It is written."' There ensued five concepts, each followed by Scripture citations, four with which, if I understood them correctly, my study of the Bible forced me to disagree.
So far as I could remember, I had no knowledge of this group before I saw the flyer. So I wrote the address included with the advertisement seeking clarification of the points made. I received a telephone call from a gentleman who suggested we set up a meeting. So we met at a convenient restaurant. Although we did discuss some of our differences, my purpose was not to "argue" but merely to seek information. He explained the flyer, talked about his involvement in the movement, and gave me some more literature. I responded by giving him some tracts as well.
Seeking still further information, I found several interesting facts. "The Way," which takes its name from Acts 9:2, et. al, originated between 1942 and 1953 when Victor Paul Wierwille, a former United Church of Christ (Evangelical and Reformed) minister, began teaching his Power for Abundant Living class, a thirteen-week course which cost $45 in 1971, $85 in 1975, and $200 in 1981.(2) It should be noted that Jesus and His apostles never charged a single penny for any of their services. Wierwille studied at Mission House College, University of Chicago Divinity School, and Moody Bible Institute, has a master's degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, and received an honorary doctorate from Pike's Peak Bible Seminary, a reputed degree mill.(3)
In 1957, Wierwille resigned his VanWert, Ohio, pulpit to launch an independent ministry. The Power for Abundant Living course spread to other areas, but "The Way" was largely confined to a few adults in Ohio until 1968 when two former drug users from the Jesus movement, Steve Heefner in New York, and Jim Doop in California, joined Wierwille to take "The Way" to both coasts. Soon the movement gained a conservatively estimated 20,000 adherents, distributed among all fifty states and thirty-three foreign countries, say its leaders.(4) By 1980, the followers were numbered at 40,000.
"The Way" has no official membership. Most participants are young people, although some parents have joined also. The organization is carefully structured, according to Allan Wallerstedt in a book, Victor Paul Wierwille and the Way. The trunk is the international headquarters at New Knoxville, Ohio, near Lima. The limbs are statewide organizations of which there are about twenty. The branches are city areas. Twigs are home or campus meetings of which there are over fifteen hundred. And leaves are individual members.(5)
Although chapel is conducted each Sunday night at the world headquarters, there are no formal worship services, just home Bible fellowship meetings. Other institutions associated with the movement are The Way Magazine (which increased in circulation from twenty-five hundred to ten thousand in just three and a half years), the American Christian Press publishing house, The Way College in Emporia, Kansas, and a national convention in Ohio called the "Rock of Ages Christian Music Festival," plus a training center in Rome City, Indiana.(6)
The doctrine of the group is based on instruction Wierwille claims the Lord revealed to him directly in 1942.(7) According to Ellen Whiteside in a book, The Way, published by the organization in 1972, Wierwille reported, "I was praying . . . And that's when he spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said he would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others." One of his converts is quoted as saying, "I see Dr. Wierwille as the next man of God to rise up after Paul's death."(8)
This doctrine is a blend of many different ideas. It includes typical denominationalism - salvation entirely by grace; Calvinism - once saved, always saved; dispensationalism - the church began with Paul's epistles; Pentecostalism -tongue and healing are stressed; Unitarianism - the trinity doctrine is contrary to Scripture; and materialism - human beings do not have immortal souls.(9) Members believe in God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, salvation, and eternal life, but define these terms differently from the way we would. For this reason, James Bjornstad, executive director of the Institute of Contemporary Christianity in Oakland, New Jersey, said, "Probably the closest counterfeit to orthodox Christianity we have today is The Way International."(10)
According to a publicity folder, "The Way" is "not a church, nor is it a denomination or a religious sect of any sort." Yet the organization's fifty ordained clergy (as of 1975), five of whom are women (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-14), are authorized to perform marriages. A strong missionary effort is emphasized. In 1974, one thousand thirty-three "Word over the World" ambassadors were commissioned to herald the news about "The Way" in the United States, and two-thousand seventy-seven more in 1975 in both the United States and foreign countries, plus one-hundred four "minute men" or seasoned troops. The group began to grow appreciably when they began foraging for leaders among Jesus-movement converts.(11)
Shirl Short has written in the Moody Monthly, "The individual who has some religious or biblical background but no strong church ties or convictions is easy prey of The Way. So is the person who is down and out, feels rejected by his family, doesn't have a good self identity, or lacks love. He is very likely to find appealing the loving, positive approach of The Way.(12) Wierwille also convinces some with his claim of scholarship. He often makes a point of saying, "Now in the Sanskrit it says . . . ." There are no Sanskrit manuscripts, but he uses that language to prove his unique interpretations. To anyone who has no scholastic background, it sounds plausible.
The group is often accused by critics of mind control of its recruits, who are usually young, white, and with "Christian" backgrounds. It is suggested that members be approached in the same manner they were approached by "The Way" - in love. It is best to begin with the Scriptures and the deity of Christ. If it can be demonstrated that Christ truly is God and the passages shown that reveal it, Wierwille's theology crumbles. It is also helpful to show that his scholarship is faulty and how the Bible refutes "The Way's" doctrines. These will be studied in the next article.
Endnotes
1. Flyer published by The Way Ministry, 660 East Dr., Brunswick, Ohio.
2. From articles in Christianity Today (3/26/71, 12 |
