Watchman Magazine

One of the most vexing questions religious people face today is sorting out the truth about what conditions must be met before one can be saved. Many do not think there are any conditions. Others think that there is only one — faith. But I have found an interesting way to study this question. It is simple and leaves one with a very high degree of certainty about the matter.

If anyone can settle the matter for us, it is Jesus Christ Himself. When Jesus was preparing to leave the earth, He gave last instructions to His apostles. In three of the gospel accounts these last instructions are found, and they are generally called the Great Commission. Let’s look at these three accounts and merely ask: What did Jesus say?

The three accounts are Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; and Luke 24:47. If I were studying with you at the kitchen table, I would just have you get a sheet of paper and write these notes down as we go. As nearly as possible, we will conduct this study the same way.

• Continue reading

Alexander Campbell
Millennial Harbinger, 1846

Requests have occasionally, during several years, been made for the publication, in this work, of a discourse on the Law, pronounced by me at a meeting of the Regular Baptist Association, on Cross Creek, Virginia, 1816. Recently these requests have been renewed with more earnestness; and, although much crowded for room, I have concluded to comply with the wishes of my friends. It was rather a youthful performance, and is in one particular, to my mind, long since exceptionable. Its views of the atonement are rather commercial than evangelical. But was only casually introduced, and does not affect the object of the discourse on the merits of the great question discussed in it. I thought it better to let it go to the public again without the change of a sentiment in it. Although precisely thirty years after my union with the Baptist denomination, the intelligent reader will discover in it the elements of things which have characterized all our writings on the subject of modern Christianity from that day to the present. But as the discourse was, because of its alleged heterodoxy by the Regular Baptist Association, made the ground of my impeachment and trial for heresy at its next annual meeting, it is, as an item of ecclesiastic history, interesting. It was by a great effort on my part, that this self same Sermon on the Law had not proved my public excommunication from the denomination under the foul brand of “damnable heresy.” But by a great stretch of charity on the part of two or three old men, I was saved by a decided majority. This unfortunate sermon afterwards involved me in a seven years’ war with some members of said Association, and became a matter of much debate. I found at last, however, that there was a principle at work in the plotters of said crusade, which Stephen assigns as the cause of the misfortunes of Joseph.

• Continue reading

History The first work in modern times began in Bergen in 1957. It was off to a good beginning with quite a few conversions, but the success and rapid growth was short lived. Unfaithfulness of some of the members and additional problems caused by this resulted in many falling away. The church was never able to achieve the same rate of growth. There were a few faithful members and new members were added from time to time. I worked with this congregation from 1967 through 1969. This congregation existed until 1973, at that time there was no one working with them. The church consisted of two elderly members and one young family. When the family moved to England the church no longer assembled.

• Continue reading

La Biblia es un gran libro. También es un libro grande. Uno puede quedar bien perplejo al abrirla. Por eso, desafortunadamente, mucha gente nunca hace el esfuerzo de leerla a fondo. Con este artículo, espero disipar la noción de que la Biblia es algo fuera del alcance del la gente “regular”. La Biblia no fue escrita solamente para los “cleros”, sino que es el mensaje de Dios para toda la humanidad. Por eso, yo quisiera ofrecer unas ayudas y sugerencias que tal vez le ayudarán a Ud. en su estudio personal.

La Biblia fue escrita por unos cuarenta autores durante aproximadamente 1500 años. Esto en sí es una maravilla. Es decir, ¿cómo es posible que tantos autores pudieron producir una obra maestra como la Biblia. Todos ellos eran de etnos variados, hablaban diferentes idiomas, tenían diferentes niveles de educación, y vivían en distintos países bajo distintos gobiernos. La maravilla está en la milagrosa coherencia que la Biblia tiene en sí–no se contradice. Otro prodigio semejante jamás aconteció en toda la historia del mundo, ni antes ni después de la Biblia.

• Continue reading

The objective of this article is to study the marriage covenant from the woman’s perspective. We will examine how a woman should approach this covenant, a woman’s responsibility to this covenant, and what a woman should look for in a mate for this covenant.

 

Women and MarriageIn order to study how a woman should approach the marriage covenant, we should first examine how God views it. From Malachi 2:10-16, we can see that God views marriage as a “holy institution which he loves” (NKJV). Also God calls marriage a covenant in verse 14; “Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.” In the beginning, we see that marriage was part of the first covenant God made since He created them male and female on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26-31): “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, `Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’.”

• Continue reading

(Matthew 5:32)

In Mt.5:32 Jesus stated His position on divorce and remarriage. “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

His message is clear and authoritative. It is a message of His covenant that needs to be accepted and followed by all. The thrust of this article is to explore the question, “Did Jesus teach Old Covenant Law on marriage in Matthew 5:32?” The reason for examining this passage from this vantage point is the “one covenant” teaching that has been promoted by some brethren. This “one covenant” position leads some to say that God had one universal law on marriage from the beginning. The practice of the patriarchs and teaching of Moses only clarified the original intent of God. Jesus did not teach anything different from Moses or patriarchs but sought to reiterate and reconfirm what was always true. Those who are teaching this “one covenant” doctrine seem to be trying to loosen the marriage, divorce and remarriage law of Jesus by grabbing hold of any deviant behavior concerning marriage practiced by the patriarchs and/or the Jews, whether God’s approval is stated or possibly implied, and applying that to Jesus’ marriage law.

• Continue reading

A reader asks: How does Hebrews 13:20 relate to the discussion about “One Covenant” or “The Eternal Covenant?” Does this passage give credence to the idea that God has only had one covenant?

First, the book of Hebrews abounds in points of contrast. Indeed, contrasts are the fiber and fabric of the letter. If one doubts it, let him take them away and see what he has left!

Second, the thirteenth chapter, true to the nature of the book, is soaked and saturated with sure and certain contrasts. (a.) There are two sources of strength (v. 9). (b.) There are two altars, and, by implication, two tabernacles (v. 10; Cf. 8:2; 9:2). (c.) There are two bodies of sacrifice, the “bodies of those beasts (animals),” and the body of Christ (v. 11; Cf. Col. 1:22). (d.) There are two “end-results” of those sacrificed bodies. The “bodies of those beasts…are burned without the camp,” while the body of Jesus was “brought again from the dead” (vv. 11, 20). (e.) There are two “bloods,” the blood of animals and “his own blood,” the blood of Christ (vv. 11, 12; Cf. Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:18-23). (f.) There are two high priests, the Old Testament high priest and, by implication, Jesus, our high priest–someone had to bring the offering into the sanctuary; in the Old Testament, it was the high priest; in the New Testament, it is Christ (vv. 11, 12; Cf. 3:1; 5:1-6; 9:25, 10:10-14). (g.) There are two cities. One is earthly Jerusalem; the other is “the heavenly Jerusalem” (v. 14; Cf. 11:16; 12:22). (h.) There are two covenants. One is “everlasting” (in contrast to that which is temporary) having been established “through the blood” of Christ (v. 20; Cf. Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:18-10:14).

• Continue reading

“Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call’” (Acts 2:38-39).

I have often heard Acts 2:38 referred to as “our passage,” meaning that this verse of scripture is one that is uniquely accepted and applied by members of the church of Christ. I am not certain that I would argue with that premise, as most denominationalists do not teach the truth on the passage, holding to the premise that remission of sins precedes baptism and that eternal security is preserved at the point of faith that Jesus is Lord. I remember one Sunday morning while living in Houston, Texas, watching a young Baptist preacher on television, named Phil Arms. I regularly watched Arms as he was a really fine preacher, one of the best moralist sermonizers I had ever heard come out of Protestant Denominationalism. On this particular Sunday morning, Arms did a verse by verse exegesis of Acts 2. It was quick, but thorough. He did it over two Sunday morning half hour program segments. I was impressed, to say the least. He preached the truth on the Holy Spirit baptism of the twelve, which really surprised me. He had a good grasp of the chapter as recording the beginning of the church age.

• Continue reading

2 Chronicles 34:15

BackgroundAfter the death of Solomon, Israel and Judah were divided into separate kingdoms. Both had periods in which they were in rebellion to God, but Israel’s existence was continuously characterized by idolatry and ungodliness. Because of her rebellion, Israel was the first of the two kingdoms to fall under the judgment of Jehovah God. She was taken into Assyrian captivity in approximately 722 BC, and ceased to exist as a nation .At the time of Israel’s destruction, Judah was benefitting from the reign of Hezekiah. It is said of Hezekiah, ” … He did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done” (2 Chronicles 29:2). Hezekiah reigned for 29 years in Judah, and during his reign cleansed the temple (29:3-19); restored temple worship (29:20-36); kept the passover (30); and accomplished many reforms in Judah (31).However, after his death his son Manasseh took the throne. It is said of Manasseh, “But he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel” (2 Chronicles 33:2). Manasseh’s reign of 55 years, together with the short (2 year) reign of his son Amon, was characterized by idolatry, human sacrifice (of his own son), witchcraft, and immorality (cf. 2 Chronicles 33).

• Continue reading

Jeremiah predicted the following in Jeremiah 31:31-34: “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.”

This prophecy figures prominently in the present controversy of whether there is one continuous (Eternal) covenant from Abraham, through Moses, through the New Covenant of Christ or whether the covenants given to Abraham (Gen. 12;2f); to Israel through Moses (Dt. 5:1-3) and to spiritual Israel through Christ (Heb. 8:7-13) are distinct, separate covenants. Those who hold to “one covenant” argue that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant of Jesus were “renewals” of the Abrahamic Covenant; insisting that the prophecy uttered by Jeremiah actually was fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile (circa 536 BC). Hear them:

“Indeed, Jeremiah’s famous new (renewed) covenant of 31:31-34, first prophesied in about 593 BC was realized about 60 years later when God’s people in the houses of Judah and Israel, to whom the covenant oracle was specifically addressed, returned from Babylonian exile”

(Stanley Paher, The Eternal Covenant, p. 78).

• Continue reading

“Clarifying the Law of Moses?”
or “The Constitution of Christianity?”

Most people agree that the Sermon on the Mount is one of the most eloquent and profound sermons ever, if not the most eloquent and profound. We can learn numerous lessons concerning that which is good and right. The question has arisen, however, “Is the sermon on the mount a clarification of the Law of Moses or is it the Lord’s preparation for the kingdom which was yet to come?” We deny the former and affirm the latter. Yet, there are those who disagree with us and say that the sermon is just Jesus’ attempt to set the Jews straight on the real meaning of the Law of Moses. Is this true? Can the argument be sustained? Let us investigate.

• Continue reading

Much error has been taught in the denominational world due to their failure to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). They see little need in distinguishing between the old and new Covenants. They are as likely to go to the Old Covenant for authority as to the new.

Churches of Christ have faithfully taught that we must rightly divide the old from the new and that we are to follow the new and not the Old Covenant. We have correctly taught that the New Covenant is our guide and authority. We learn from the Old Covenant (Rom. 15:4,) but it is not our guide and authority. We have taught this because the Bible clearly teaches it.

There are several reasons why this is so.

• Continue reading

Back to Basics – Christ and the LawWhen brethren are confused about whether Christ came to fulfill the law and prophets or to perpetuate them, it is time to get back to basics! One brother said, “Continuity of law is evident in Matthew 5:17, in that there is nothing about following Jesus that would be obnoxious to Moses.” He further said that Jesus did not “dismantle the law and give a new one,” He only took away the ceremonial aspects of the law. My affirmation is that Jesus fulfilled the promises, the prophecies and the law, and all of it passed away. We can please God only by following the New Covenant revealed through Christ and ratified by His blood.

The Law and The Prophets“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-19).Most of the material in this article is taken from a book written by James D. Bales in 1973, entitled: “Christ: The Fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.” (It is out of print now. All quotations will be from this source.)

• Continue reading

(Editor’s Note: This article is written by Thomas G. O’Neal)

The weeping Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah, said, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, said the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, said the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying `Know the Lord’: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, said the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (31:31-34).

• Continue reading

People generally think of a covenant as an agreement where two parties contribute to the terms of the covenant on an equal basis; the covenant is then equally binding on both. Though that’s one meaning of the English word covenant, it is not the only one. This is especially true when viewing covenants God has made with mankind. In those covenants, there is no equality between the parties; they are covenants between unequals. We view one party to the covenant, God, who is superior to the other and is the only one who can set the terms of the covenant. The second party, either one man, selected men or mankind in general, has only the choice of abiding by the terms or rejecting them.

Two Types of CovenantsThe Hebrew word, berith, is thought to come from the Akkadian biritu, which means “fetter” or “bond.” So, we may derive from that the meaning of something binding. However, the attempt to delve into etymology and derivations may be an interesting exercise but is little more than that and quite unnecessary. Whatever the roots, berith covers a full range of what covenant means in the Old Testament, primarily, an agreement that binds the parties involved. It might refer to two parties who both contribute to the terms of the agreement and then are equally obligated to meet those terms. This is called a parity covenant, one made with bilateral obligations on the part of both parties.

• Continue reading

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says, `Behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, `when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in my covenant and I disregarded them’ says the Lord” (Heb. 8:7-9).

But Not All Accept This Truth

“The foundation of the Sabbatarian error, I believe, is the idea that `the law,’ in all the strictness of the old letter, is binding on Christians. Hence, their constant theme is the law, law, law. They preach it ten times as much as they preach Christ. Unfortunately, a false theory of the law taught by some other churches has led them into this sad error. For twenty-eight years I was held in that `bondage.’ Now that I have found my way out, if I can help others, I shall rejoice” (Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced, D. M. Canright, published by B. C. Goodpasture, Nashville, TN, 1889, p. 305).The God of Heaven has bestowed no greater blessing on mankind than to permit him to draw near Him in a covenant relationship. “What is man that thou art mindful of him” (Ps. 8:4; Heb. 2:6) has been answered to some degree by God’s willingness to engage man in covenants. Such covenants with Jehovah are revealed throughout Biblical history. In Genesis 6:18, God made the first stated covenant with Noah, though even Adam and Eve had a close relationship with God in Eden (not specifically named a covenant). Other covenants ensued, most of which were broken by man, though God always remained faithful.

• Continue reading

(Editor’s Note: The following article by brother Hafley is the second of four appearing in the January, February, March and April issues of Watchman Magazine. Each article consists of 3 sections [or smaller articles]. Combined, they systematically answer the Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Individual Predestination. I commend them to you.)

(Section 1)

MAN’S FREEWILL, HEADACHES, AND DIABETESIn this series on the free will of man, we again quote from Wayne Camp: “Scripture further shows this doctrine that all men have a free will to be a lie by showing that there are some things the natural man cannot do. Augustus Toplady also wrote, ‘A man’s free – will cannot cure him even of the toothache or of a sore finger, and yet he madly thinks it is in his power to cure his soul.’ I awoke this morning with a sinus headache. I was unable to will it away. I finally took some sinus medicine and soon my headache was gone. I am a diabetic. If I could, I would will it to be gone so I need not … take insulin or pills. But, will as I might, it is there. If I cannot cure a headache by the power and sovereignty of my presumed free will, how could I expect to change a stony heart into a heart to know God? How could I expect to will to come to Christ when every thing in my nature is against doing that? Thank God for his quickening, regenerating, calling power” (The Grace Proclamator and Promulgator, August, 1995, p. 3).

• Continue reading