WHY GOD MUST DEMAND CONFESSION (Part One)

By Bob Myhan

od must demand confession simply because that is the only suitable response to Jesus Christ. To "confess" is to say the same thing as, to agree with, what another has said. To "confess Christ" is to "say the same thing" about Christ that both God and Christ have said about Him - that He is the Son of God.

There are at least four reasons why this is the only appropriate response to Jesus Christ. First, the Son of God left heaven, came to earth, became a man, was tempted in all points like as we, resisted temptation at every turn, and - having never sinned - became a sin sacrifice for us, dying on the cross that we might have forgiveness of our sins and every other spiritual blessing, including the hope of heaven. The very least we can do in response to Him is to confess that He is who He claimed to be.

Second, we owe it to His Father. After all, God the Father twice introduced Jesus as His Son – at His baptism (Matt. 3:13-17) and at His transfiguration (Luke 9:28-35). Therefore, to fail [either through refusal or neglect] to confess that Jesus is the Son of God is to imply that we do not believe God's testimony concerning this essential fact.

The first time God spoke directly from heaven after the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai [ca. 1445 BC] was when He first said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." When Moses and Elijah appeared on the mount of transfiguration with Jesus, God repeated this introduction, adding the admonition, "Hear Him!" If the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and the fact that it is the duty of mankind to hear Him are important enough for God to reveal them publicly and directly, they are, indeed, essential facts! And when we confess His Sonship to God, we pledge ourselves to "hear Him." And if we do not so pledge ourselves, we are actually denying His Divine Sonship. Consider, also, the following passages.

“‘And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.’” (Matt. 10:28)

“Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:42-43)

It seems that these two passages say the same thing about motives and attitudes, although from different perspectives. If one loves the praise of men more than the praise of God, he will fear the disapproval of men more than the disapproval of God and vice versa. But what will the ultimate manifestation of disapproval be? With men it is putting your body to death on earth, but with God it is destroying both body and soul in hell. If we love the praise of God more than the praise of men, we will fear the eternal destruction of body and soul more than the mere temporal death of the physical body. And this, in turn, will lead the alien sinner to confess Jesus, verbally, and will lead the child of God to continue confessing Jesus, verbally and practically.

To confess Him, practically, is to confess Him in one’s practice; that is, to put into practice the principles He proclaimed. Jesus certainly confessed His Father, both practically and verbally (John 5:19; 8:29; 12:49). What would people have thought if, having claimed to be the Son of God, Jesus had been totally unlike God in His practice? He certainly could not have said, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?” (John 14:9; see also John 8:46). Jesus asks those who would confess him verbally, but not practically, “But why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46) &

[To be continued]

Why I Became an “Anti” (Part Three)

By Hubert C. Wilson [Deceased]

Following are the Bible areas which caused me to change:

1. The area of Benevolence.

God never intended for the Church to take care of the world. In every case in the Bible when we find benevolent work being done by the church, it was always for the “saints" (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8th & 9th chapters; 1 Tim. 5:16). Yet we are called "Anti" by liberal brethren who have set up human institutions to do general benevolence, a work on which the very silence of the scriptures should be sufficient to anyone with an honest heart. We do not oppose "or­phans" having a home. We do oppose God's church doing anything without Bible authority which can come only by direct command, approved example or necessary inference. None of these exists to authorize the church-supported human institutions the liberal churches advocate and sponsor.

They try to justify their actions by James 1:27, but if we study the passage, we find it is talking about the responsibility of an individual, not the church. The same "man" that is to visit the fatherless and widows is to (1) be a doer and not a forgetful hearer, in verses 22-25; (2) bridle his tongue and keep his heart undeceived, in verse 26; (3) keep himself unspotted, in verse 27. This is not the obligation of the church but of the individual. The problem with the "liberal" brethren is that most of them do not see any dif­ference between the individual and the church. We are told that the word "visit" means to help financially and so they build their "Homes." Well, the same word "visit" is in Matt. 25:36, so some of them now have "hospitals," and I guess the next step will be "Jails" (Matt. 25:36). How blind can people be?? Some well known preacher says “do,” and people follow men and not God.

2.    The area of Cooperation.

Churches cooperated in New Testament times concurrently and not through centralization or the sponsoring church set' up. Here is how they cooperated in Benevolence: (1) Antioch (Acts 11:27-30). The church in Antioch sent a contribution to the churches of Judea in time of famine. (2) Galatia sent to the poor “saints” in Jerusalem. The church in Jerusalem was an object of charity and was in distress because of famine (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Several churches sent directly to the place where the need existed. It did not go through a sponsoring church. (3) Macedonia and Achaia (2 Cor. 9:1-2); this shows other churches who sent to Jerusalem when they were unable to help themselves. These are the only examples in the New Testament of churches sending funds from their treasuries to other churches. No church ever contributed to another church unless it [the receiving church] was the object of charity.

Churches cooperated in evangelism in the following manner: (1) A plurality of churches sent wages to Paul as he labored in Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8). (2) Philippi sent once and again to Paul in Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15-16), and also to him in Rome (Phil. 4:10-18). (3) The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to preach and teach the word to the church and others in Antioch (Acts 11:22). (4) The apostles in Jerusalem sent letters to many churches (Acts 15:30; Acts 16:4). (5) The church at Antioch endorsed Paul and Barnabas and received a report of their work (Acts 13:1-4; 14:26-28).

In evangelism wages were sent direct to the preacher, not to or through another church. When churches cooperated in the support of the preacher, they sent directly to the preacher. No church in the New Testament made another church its agent in forwarding, delivering, handling or distributing its contribution. No church became a cen­tralized agency through which other churches cooperated in doing any work. There was no pooling of funds by the churches of the New Testament. No eldership exercised any control over the members, discipline, fellowship, resources, or activity of another congregation.

The greatest fallacy in all of the division is the false teaching (even though sometimes by practice only) concerning elders and their responsibility. Most people think a preacher cannot go preach unless he is under elders and if you support him you would be wrong. Anyone has a God-given right to preach the gospel, if he was never under elders. Elders are over the local flock (Acts 20:28; 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-4), and when men are qualified each congregation or church should have them (but not unless qualified). They cannot “oversee” a work that is bigger than the local church, such as is done in the Herald of Truth and World Radio. Here we have elders overseeing other churches' work and money, which is foreign to the Bible. Either Herald of Truth is Highland's work only and other churches just think it a part of their work or it is a "brotherhood" work and as such it is unscriptural. Over the years it has been difficult to pin anyone down as to whose work it is. Herald of Truth and World Radio are in a per­petual begging campaign for funds from other churches and all Christians, and God never intended for His Church to be a perpetual beggar. &

[To be continued]