Seek The Old Paths

Vol. 13   No. 5                   May,   2002

This Issue...


Kent Bailey

          The battle for the cause of God's truth and the souls of humanity rages on! A case in point is noted in Al Maxey's article, “Restoring The First Century Church,” recently posted on the Grace Centered Magazine website.
        Mr. Maxey writes about being reared in what he terms as “the Church of Christ Church.” He further asserts that he was “raised up on this notion that we must `restore' the first century to present day America.” Maxey also stated that following a personal quest to confirm his beliefs he soon discovered that his cherished convictions came more from his forefathers in the faith than from his Faithful Father! He then decries the very concept of restoration.
        In response to such heresy we observe that Maxey's concept of the church is both fatally flawed and denominational to the core. The New Testament church is neither a denomination, nor is it a composition of denominations. In the Scriptures we note that the church of Christ is either the aggregate of all those who have obeyed the Gospel of Christ (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:38-47; Eph. 5:23) or a local group of Christians working collectively as a local functioning unit (Acts 14:23; Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 1:1-3). Maxey's straw man of a “Church of Christ church” is alien to the New Testament and demonstrates just how far his liberal thinking has led him from the truth. Our Lord has only one true church (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4). It stands opposed to the very essence of denominationalism (1 Cor. 1:10). To deny the need to restore the pattern of the New Testament in the lives of individuals and bring them into this one spiritual body of Christ flies in the face of all faithful children of God. We did not deduce such truth from our “forefathers in the faith,” but rather from the plenary verbally inspired Word of our “Faithful Father.”
        In his article, Maxey admitted that it is noble to desire to return to the Bible for our authority in matters of faith and practice; however, he stated that he does oppose the idea that Christianity must be forever frozen in the form of first century customs and methodologies. He affirms the importance of guiding principles but opposes the concept of a New Testament pattern.
        When one examines the New Testament it becomes obvious that such does constitute a pattern for all accountable individuals to follow. The term “pattern” (tupos) is properly defined as meaning: “standard, form, figure and example.” The scriptural use of this particular term carries with it the moral idea (Phil. 3:17; 1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7). The term tupos also carries with it the idea of “conformity to which a thing is made” (Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:5). Tupos is also used in a doctrinal sense regarding specific teaching (Rom. 6:17-18; 2 Tim. 1:13). To deny the “pattern” concept, as done by Al Maxey and all other liberals, in reality is a denial of the authoritative nature of the Scriptures themselves.
        Maxey wants to know where God has declared that unless we give, love, sing, or pray just exactly like those in Troas, Corinth, or Ephesus, that we will go straight to hell. His problem is based upon just how the Bible teaches or authorizes.
        While it is certainly true that all accounts of New Testament action do not constitute examples and/or patterns to follow, some indeed do. Such is not difficult to ascertain the pattern concept. When the background information of a given account of action demonstrates a spiritual significance of a universal application in the New Testament of Christ, such an account of a particular action constitutes an example that must be followed. Maxey's real problem is that he limits divine truth to that of explicit statements. However, let us remember that there are no explicit statements in the Bible that state that only explicit statements are binding. There are no direct commands that limit us to regard only direct commands as binding. There are no explicit statements that indicate that patterns are not bound. Furthermore, there are no instructions explicitly directed to anyone personally living today. Explicit statements are binding, but so are examples and implications!
        Because of the authoritative nature of the New Testament pattern, we thus know that Bible teaching regarding the contribution, the Lord's supper, and singing (including examples of such) apply to us today. Maxey likes to speculate if the Lord's supper and contribution was limited to the first day of the week. Based upon the totality of New Testament teaching including that of examples, yes indeed (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2).
        Maxey asserts that true churches of Christ are so removed from the practices of first century Christians that none of them would recognize much of anything we do today. He complains about “Sunday only” observance of the Lord's supper and that binding such “Patternistic nonsense” is nothing short of being “ludicrous.” He wants to restore love, evangelism, a spirit of honest inquiry, and benevolence; however there is no way that even these may be properly restored without a divine pattern. Maxey thus affirms a logical contradiction and proves his own position to be false. The Gospel according to Maxey calls for a pattern for love, evangelism, a spirit of honest inquiry, and benevolence. However, he basically rejects a pattern for all other truth.
        In consideration of Maxey's article about restoring the first century church, it is obvious that he rejects the very concept of the New Testament church in addition to the limits the Scriptures have placed upon its worship and work. May we all plainly see crucial issues that are involved in the on-going war with the change agents of our day and may we do our best in assisting others to see such insidious error and the eternal condemnation that it will bring.
                124 Executive Meadows Dr.
                Lenoir City, TN 37771

Table of Contents

 Guest Editorial...
Gary Colley

        The following reasons, concerning why churches of Christ do not use mechanical instruments of music in worship to God, were given recently in our Denominational Doctrines class. It has been requested that they be in our bulletin for the help of all.
        It can be stated without fear of successful contradiction that there is no command, approved example, or necessary inference in the New Testament (which is the way to establish Truth), for churches of Christ ever, with authority, to use instrumental music in worship. We are not desiring just to be different, nor are we financially unable to have mechanical instruments, nor is our reason for not using this in worship simply that we do not like musical instruments. The basic Scriptural reason for not placing an instrument in the Lord's church is simply that we have no authority from Heaven.
        In the nine Scriptures which mention the kind of music to be used in New Testament worship there is no mention of any kind of music except singing (Matt. 26:30; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12: James 5:13).
        Hence we do not presumptuously place mechanical instruments in worship because:
        1. Jesus never taught it (Acts 1:1).
        2. The Disciples of Christ never practiced nor taught it (Matt. 28:18-20).
        3. Peter and the other apostles who had the keys of the kingdom did not authorize it (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).
        4. The Holy Spirit never instructed it (John. 16:13).
        5. One cannot speak as the oracles of God and teach its use in worship (1 Peter 4:11).
        6. Instrumental music is not “in truth” (John 4:24; 17:17).
        7. It does not pertain to life in Christ and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).
        8. It is not a “good work” in God's eyes (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
        9. To preach its use is to teach another Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).
        10. By admission of most, such teaching is an effort to please the ears of men (Gal. 1:10).
        11. It did not come by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12).
        12. It is no part of the counsel of God (Acts. 20:27).
        13. It is not according to sound words (2 Tim. 1:13).
        14. It is not in the better covenant (Heb. 8:6).
        15. It is not of faith (Rom. 10:17; 2 Cor. 5:7). Where there is no testimony, there can be no faith!
        16. It is not a blood-sealed practice (Heb. 10:28-29).
        17. Instrumental music in worship is a doctrine of men (Matt. 15:9).
        18. It is an addition to the worship prescribed in the Word of God (Rev. 22:18).
        19. It is offering “strange fire” in worship unto God (Lev. 10:1; 1 Tim. 3:14-15).
        20. To use such is not to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11).
        21. It is will worship (Col. 2:20-23).
        22. It is a substitute for the God-given system of religion (Acts 2:42).
        23. It cannot be done in the name of the Lord (Col. 3:16-17).
        24. Preaching the use of it is not preaching the word faithfully (2 Tim. 4:2). It should not be contended for by the faithful (Jude 3).
        25. One cannot walk in the light and support its use in worship (1 John 1:7).
        26. The practice of such departs from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).
        27. Introduction of it causes division (John 17:20-21; 1 Kings 18:18).
        28. Its addition constitutes the sin of presumption (Deut. 18:20; Psa. 19:13).

Table of Contents


Mike Hogan

Many today are bent on redefining absolute truth and morality.

          The word pragmatism is not used in our every day language, although its meaning has been adopted in our thought process and culture. Pragmatism is a method of philosophy developed to determine the validity of truth by its outcome, “What works for you is truth.”
        Three men historically are attributed as champions in the development of this philosophy, Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914), William James, and the well-known John Dewey (1859-1952). Mr. Pierce is considered the founder of pragmatism, holding that “an intrinsic connection exists between meaning and action, and that meaning of an idea is to be found in its conceivable sensible effects, truth is defined by the outcome of action.” Working as an astronomer at the Harvard Observatory, Charles met William James. Mr. Williams took this thought and further refined it to include matters of religion. William James revealed his thoughts about religion in works such as, “The Will to Believe” and in the still famous, “Varieties of Religious Experience.” These works were devoted to an attempt at understanding belief as the result of psychological or natural causes. Although deep down Mr. James might have been sympathetic to religion, his own position was one of doubt and skepticism. These writings were an instrumental part of psychology's general undermining of religious faith.
        A third champion of this atheistic cause was a man by the name of John Dewey (1859-1952). Mr. Dewey teamed up with William James in a book entitled “Pragmatism” (1907). They argued, “truth depends on corresponding reality, and therefore is truth if it is successfully employed in human action in pursuit of human goals and interests.” In other words, if it feels good, and you desire it, you can have it, employing whatever means necessary. It is easy to see a direct link between Macro Evolution and Pragmatism. Human thought and philosophy, aside from divine inspiration (God's word, 2 Tim. 3:16-17), cannot answer the questions: “What is the origin of life, and where are we going?” When Charles Darwin came out with his book “The Origin of Species” (1859), fuel was added to this philosophical fire storm. Mr. Darwin's theory of natural selection had a great impact on the direction and approach of the naturalistic theory of knowledge. Darwin's theory renounced supernatural explanations, and adopted human philosophy as the only rule. Mr. Dewey concluded using all the new and available science of his day, “Interaction of organic and environment, and knowledge acted upon each other to produce the outcome.” This he called, “Instrumentation.”
        Is it any wonder, when the “Humanist Manifesto One of 1933” was being drafted, we find Mr. Dewey's name as one of the signatories?
        Time and circumstance was not the only link to these three men. Next came the birth of secular humanism adopted as the rule in the collegiate societies of higher learning -- main stream science, human thought (philosophy) contemplating the meaning of life and the need for religion and moral ethics. The “Humanist Manifesto One,” was their answer to these questions. Rather than following divine authority, they chose to follow men of renowned higher learning.
        Humanism is self defined and varies from source to source. Is it any wonder you find disclaimers at the bottom of many web sites in case their statements of belief differ with their site or group? If truth is relative to a group or groups of people defining truth and what is morally right, in my eyes, it is a paradox (a statement contrary to common belief). Who are they to define truth? If they do not agree with another group, how can they define what is morally right? Where does it end?
        The inspired pin of David defined this matter very clearly in Psalm 14:1: “...The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good....” In fact, this is the very design of Humanism.
        We can quote the “American Humanist Association” with saying: “Humanism is a progressive life stance, free of supernaturalism, which affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful ethical lives that add to the greater good of humanity.” They will define for you and me what is “ethical” and “meaningful” rather than the God of life and truth (John 1:17; 17:17).
        The Bristol Humanist Group affirms, “Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.” These are bold and self-centered remarks of mere men. Remember God created man, not the other way around (Gen 1:1; 2:7). How can the humanist recognize moral values when human experience shows man has the propensity to follow after lust and the god of self (Rom. 1:18-32)?


        1. The Bible starts with God as the creator and man as the created (Gen. 1:1,26,27; 2:7). It was God who set the boundaries of right and wrong, “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17).
        Adam and Eve were forced to make a choice, serve their lust and it's desire or serve God and keep his commands (1 John 3:4). The outcome of their choice can be seen every time you pass a graveyard, abortion clinic, drug rehabilitation center, or a church of Christ building. Man suffers from the consequences of sin, not the guilt of Adam (Rom. 6:23). They were expelled from the garden and physical death had become a reality. A need for an atoning sacrifice for their sin was the result (Gen. 3:1-24; Heb. 9:22).
        2. Cain and Able offered sacrifices to God, but Cain's sacrifice was not pleasing to God. It is understood, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb. 11:4). This being the case, we know faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Therefore, Abel obeyed God's will and Cain substituted God-approved items of worship with what he wanted (Gen. 4:1-8). Did pragmatism pay off in this case?
        3. David tried to force the outcome of his choosing. The vehicle used (pragmatism) was premeditated murder (2 Sam. 11-12). David's flirting with adultery and a murderous coverup proved to be disastrous. God was able to see all David did, costing him a great deal more than adultery and lust could have offered, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife” (2 Sam. 12:10). Pragmatism does not pay, it costs!


        The philosophy of today is, if it works for you then do it. If it will cause people to come, it must be the truth and therefore right -- pragmatism at work! Remember, what draws them keeps them. When compromise, tolerance to sin, no leadership, and entertainment are the drawing power for people, truth will have no place in their hearts (John 6:44-45).
        Examples of this atheistic philosophy can be seen in attitudes toward truth, morality and purity in the Lord's body.
        1. Rather than search in God's word for the truth on any given matter, many put it to a vote. Has the church become a democracy or has she adopted the denominational doctrine of voting? Is it the case that Truth is literally hanging in the balance of a vote? Does not the Word continue to guide, lead, and direct God's people (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 4:12)? Pragmatism says, what works for you is the rule, not what God has said.
        2. Abortion is an abomination to God, and yet some murder their children, why? They didn't plan for this pregnancy, the child was a mistake. This mistake would get in the way of their future plans or goals. This is nothing more but the sacrifice of one's soul to the god of this world for greed and lust. Shame on them (Matt. 16:26)!
        3. Sexual relationships outside marriage have become commonplace today. The world supports this ungodly practice, but God still calls it sin (1 John 3:4). Rather than preach against it, some have chosen to ignore the issue. Why? Too many are involved in it, and it would rock the boat. This approach will exact a great price. Fornication is still fornication, and therefore a work of the flesh. Paul wrote, “they which do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21).
        4. Some have decided not to preach the one church, but instead to preach Christ only. I have no idea how this can be achieved. To preach Christ, one must preach His church (Matt. 16:18; Acts 8:12; 20:28; Eph. 1:22-23; 2:14-16; 5:23,25). Christ is the saviour of the body and the church is the place of the redeemed; therefore, it is part of the Gospel message. If the Gospel message is the power of God to save man, how much power would there be in a message without the church of Christ in it? Their watered-down messages would produce watered down members, drawn by something other than the Gospel. Paul said he was not ashamed of the Gospel. Are we ashamed (Rom. 1:16)? Pragmatism will have devastating effects on the church!
        5. Cheerleading is an issue troubling many of our young people today. Parents are closing their eyes, and elders are looking the other way. Why? To keep peace and unity, but at what cost? -- truth, for lies, holiness for worldliness, everlasting life for damnation. How can anyone omit modesty and godliness for the gain of popularity? I will never understand why brethren support undressing our precious young girls and parading them in front of lusting men and women! “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say” (Luke 6:46; Eph. 6:4)?
        6. Worship is under attack. Some think, “If we could just make it more exciting or dramatic we would draw people that way.” If worship is not good enough for others as God designed it, what about other things, such as, Doctrine, Heaven and Hell, Social drinking, etc. Where would it all end? What a price to pay for numbers. Jesus said, we “must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Can the church afford the cost of pragmatism? It is a price too costly (Matt. 10:28; Heb. 12:28-29).


        Many are far removed from biblical authority for the sake of numbers. Acceptability and tolerance to the religious world is their rule. The Bible still declares matters of morality and religion. Life everlasting is by the authority of Christ, not men (Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17). The word of God will approve our actions and choices in this life, not man (Jer. 10:23; Acts 10:34-35; 2 Tim. 2:15; 3:16-17).
        We are reminded to be on guard at all times (1 Peter 5:8). This article is an attempt to warn us that Satan, the father of all lies (John 8:44), is still around seeking to devour us. If Adam and Eve were tempted in the beginning, so shall we be tempted today. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).
        As pragmatism seeks to devour the church, I would like to commend the faithful defenders of absolute truth. There are many who will not bow a knee to Satan, because they are strong and willing to defend the Lord's church (Jude 3). Their labors will not be in vain, God sees their works, and their works will follow them (1 Cor. 15:58; 2 Cor. 5:9-10; Rev. 14:13). It is important to remember, many are doing things right, such as “Seek the Old Paths,” and many others. As we fight the fight of faith, may we never forget faithful workers: Elders, Preachers, Men, Women, Parents and Grandparents in Christ, “whose names are in the book of life” (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 2:10).
        The vain philosophies of the world can claim all they wish, but life and hope and all spiritual blessings are in Christ, and no where else (Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:3).
        Thus, all people must appeal to the authority of the Scriptures, regardless of the subject. Man has no right to redefine God's will, but to obey and follow (Matt. 7:21-23).
        Remember, philosophy and pragmatism place science, nature, animals, monkeys, Darwinism, feelings, lust, man, and Satan in the driver's seat, NOT GOD! David said, “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psalm 119:11).
                12020 Peavine Road
                Pocahontas, TN 38061

Table of Contents


Wayne Jackson

Many denominationalists have long argued that “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 can mean “because of” (i.e. -- be baptized because your sins have been remitted). But the same term is found in Matthew 26:28 -- clearly indicating the meaning of the term.

          Carroll Osburn, a Bible professor at Abilene Christian University, wrote a book titled, The Peaceable Kingdom. This volume is saturated with error from beginning to end.
        One of the points argued is the notion that it is inconsequential as to whether one believes that “baptism is 'for' or 'because of' the remission of sins” (p.90). The allusion, of course, is to Acts 2:38, where the inspired Peter instructed his auditors to repent and be immersed “for [unto -- ASV] the remission” of their sins.
        For years, denominationalists have tried to minimize and alter the purpose of baptism. Is immersion essential for obtaining pardon from sin? Or is baptism a mere “outward sign” of a salvation already received -- at the point of “faith alone?”
        Osburn suggests it really doesn't matter. In this assertion he has surrendered every inch of ground gained in those noble encounters for truth.
        The phrase “for the remission of sins” translates the Greek eis aphesin ton hamartion. The preposition eis points to a goal that is as yet unreached. Never, in any reputable translation, is this expression rendered “because of the remission of sins.” Compare, for instance, the use of the phrase in Matthew 26:28. In that text, Jesus declared: “For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for [eis] the remission of sins.”
        Now here is an appropriate question: Does it matter whether or not one believes that the Lord shed his blood “to obtain” remission of sins, or if he died “because of” pardon already effected? Is what one believes regarding the efficacious nature of Christ's death important?
        How can one possibly hold the view point that opposite constructions are equally valid? Such is a wholly illogical position. How can one conscientiously ignore inspired grammatical forms that were designed to convey precise religious ideas?
        Unfortunately, this is the extreme to which some appear to be driven in their irresponsible attempts to extend Christian fellowship across the borders of modern denominationalism.
        Underline the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38, and in your margin make this notation: See Matthew 26:28 -- same purpose phrase.
                The Christian Courier on the web

Table of Contents


Marvin L. Weir

          In His infinite wisdom, God has declared that “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). The Old Testament Scriptures reveal in a remarkable way the utter folly of trusting in man instead of God. One must choose to follow either God's plan or man's plan.
        Long ago Isaiah was instructed to remind God's people of the foolishness of forsaking God. The Holy Scriptures thus say, “Now go, write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever. For it is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of Jehovah; that say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits” (Isa. 30:8-10).
        Judah was under the false impression that a foreign alliance would be just the help she needed in a battle against Assyria. Judah was so confident in her own wisdom that she rejected God's leadership and His Word to make an alliance with the nation of Egypt. It proved to be a disastrous decision as man's thinking proved to be far inferior to God's thinking.
        Judah was willing to forget God and His plan and trust other nations for military strength. God revealed His disdain of Judah's decision in saying, “Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek Jehovah"(Isa. 31:1)!
        We live in a nation today that for the most part has chosen to ignore God and His Word. Folks today are more than willing to trust in human wisdom and military strength to solve any problems that arise. In the minds of most, Jehovah God is not needed and in far too many instances He is not wanted. A nation becomes ripe for the taking when “they look not unto the Holy One Of Israel, neither seek Jehovah” (Isa. 31:1).
        The remedy then and the remedy today are one and the same -- a profound respect for and an allegiance to the Word of God! Moses charged his people long ago, saying, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). The same charge is echoed for the Christian dispensation in Revelation 22:18-19. The wise man warned, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:6).
        The all-sufficiency of the Word of God has been made abundantly clear in Holy Writ. Paul reminds Timothy that the Holy Scriptures are given so that “the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good word” (2 Tim. 3:17). Peter states the same truth by saying, “seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3).
        An alliance with denominationalism is not needed to worship, serve and honor God! Christ built His church (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2) and another one is not needed. He is the head of His church which is His body (Eph. 1:22-23). There is only one body (Eph. 4:4) and to make an alliance with a man-made body is to trust in that which cannot save (cf. Eph. 5:23).
        An alliance fashioned from the wisdom of man will lead to destruction! The one and only Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9) has the power to save a soul from sin (Rom. 1:16). First, man-made creeds add to the Word of God, thus, we don't need them. Second, man's creeds are powerless to save one's soul.
        An alliance with and dependence upon gimmicks and entertainment will not save one's soul! As the apostle Paul said, “For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). Preach the Word (2 Tim. 4:2).
        Wrong alliances will cost you your soul. Avoid the smooth talk. Place your trust and confidence in the Word of God. Obey the Gospel. Live the Christian life.
                5810 Liberty Grove Rd.
                Rowlett, TX 75089

Table of Contents


          For many years I have had to say “no” to an organization which widely is accepted and expected in many communities where I have preached. I have never considered this as a tool to help in the work. But, have learned through the years it is a hindrance to the Lord's work. The organization of which I am speaking is called the ministerial alliance. This is alliance or a collection of denominations, which supposedly are working for the common good of Christendom. They talk of unity, which in reality is unity in diversity, which is not unity at all. The members pull together for certain religious activities. These include Easter with all its activities, Christmas and all its activities, etc. I have even observed the conducting of Gospel Meetings (if you could call it such) together, schools for Bible teaching among other activities. What happens is each teaches their peculiar doctrines and expects the other to agree there too. In my travels, I have observed the exchange of pulpits among the members of the ministerial Alliance, which is a strange situation considering their differences.
        This has become a rather interesting situation especially with the fact that compromise of doctrine becomes a fruit of these activities. I have noticed they refuse to preach baptism for remission of sins, the weekly observance of the Lord's supper, singing without instrumental music and on and on the list could go. There are many total differences in spite of the toleration of some doctrines, which we ought not tolerate.
        Some rather strange situations begin to appear among those who are party to this alliance. This compromise has come to such a point that there is a melting of doctrines into one, which can not be found in the Bible anywhere, but it is agreeable to men. Because of this spirit of tolerance, plain clear doctrines are rejected because somebody objects to it. Many in this alliance are just going along to get along.
        No faithful Gospel Preacher could be a party to such an alliance. As faithful preachers we have always been taught to never compromise the truth. According to John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Jude 3 and 2 Peter 1:3, we have all the truth “once and for all” given to the saints. Any organization, doctrine or individual not found in this truth is unscriptural and not authorized. Because there is no authorization, faithful Gospel preachers reject the ministerial alliance. Faithful preachers must not and can not join with the ministerial alliance or accept membership there in.
        When we preach sound doctrine as faithful Gospel preachers, we reject and renounce their compromises and brand of unity which is not found in the Bible. It is evident that the preachers of the first century church did not try to get into an alliance with the Jews. They rather went about to convert the Jews to Christ. From their example, it is evident we must walk after this example today. Instead of joining the Ministerial Alliance, we must convert the members to the truth and the unity found in the Scripture.
        I have been invited. I have been pressured to join the ministerial alliance several times. To join would be a rejecting of the distinctive New Testament church, and the divine given Doctrine. To compromise will cost my soul, which is too high a price to pray for unity.
                --Lyndal Lee Werner

Table of Contents


“I haven't received my paper, Seek the Old Paths, in, I believe, two months. Please put me back on your list. I really enjoy reading a paper that really stands up for the truth. I like all the articles you write” ...Ruth S. McGee, McMinnville, TN. “I want to thank you for STOP. What a blessing to one to be informed about the errors in our brotherhood, what a shame. May God continue his blessings upon you and the good work you are doing” ...Georgia Dashner, Verona, MO. “Thank you so much for publishing STOP. It has been a source of information and enlightenment both for my wife and myself. In these days of rampant liberalism it is nice to know there is another beacon of truth out there for us. I am enclosing a list of names that I would like you to add to your mailing list. The list contains the names of several family members, the small congregation we now attend and the elders of the congregation we recently left, and several well grounded friends. The elders that I refer to really need STOP but if they will accept it into their hearts I do not know. Please keep up the good work as we continue to pray for you” withheld. “Counting your publication as an asset to the work here, I humbly request that you add these men to your mailing list. I must confess that we need much teaching here, more I fear than I can do alone in the years ahead, we need godly influence from all possible sources, and I naturally thought of your paper” ...A. J. Zenthoefer, Elizabethton, TN. “Our elders would like our deacons to receive STOP. Please sign up the following people to start receiving STOP as soon as possible” ...Benton Harbor church of Christ, Benton Harbor, MI. “I pray you will continue to uphold God's Word before the digressive element in the church. Who knows, perhaps some of them will repent and return to their first love. Let us pray to that end. Thank you and may God bless!” ...Jack Lawyer, Conway, AR. “Please take me off this mailing list. Thank you” ...Judy Akins, Memphis, TN. “Please send your monthly publication. A friend sent us a copy and we enjoyed it. Keep up the good work. We are members of the Beltline church in Decatur. Thank you” ...Hugh Lauderdale, Decatur, AL. “I attend West End Church of Christ in Nashville and would appreciate being added to your mailing list for Seek the Old Paths. I have heard so many good things about it. Thank you” ...Dorothy Ketchum, Nashville, TN. “Brethren, we thank you for sending us Seek the Old Paths. It really has some good articles. We enjoy them very much and look forward to them. 3 John 2” ...signed by 50 members of the Tiptonville church of Christ, Tiptonville, TN. “We want you to know that you are an encouragement to us to keep the faith. The work you are doing is MUCH APPRECIATED” ...Tom & Marilyn Cope, Sierra Vista, AZ. “Kindly note our new address as we would love to continue to receive your excellent paper” ...Lee Beth DeGraeve, Daphne, AL. “I am moving. Would you please send my Seek the Old Paths paper to this address? I enjoy reading it. Thank you” ...Mae Smith, Casselberry, FL. “We recently obtained a copy of the November 2001 publication. We were very impressed with the timeliness and accuracy of the articles. We were wondering if there is any way to get 10 copies at a time sent to the address of the church. We are sending a check to help offset the expense of the postage and hope you are able to do this for us. Thanking you in advance for sending the publication” ...Carroll Priddy, for the members that meet in Falfurrias, TX. [EDITOR'S NOTE: We mail to congregations and individuals in multiples of 10. You may have as many as you like.] “Keep 'em comin.' I'll plaster southern Arizona with 'em. God's blessings” ...Martin Bedford, Tucson, AZ. “We enjoy Seek the Old Paths very much. It seems there is more digression in the congregations of the church every day and it is so insipid that it is not detected until too late. One congregation that I know of does not give the plan of salvation anymore. I'm afraid that many elders will have the Lord deal harshly with them for their inaction on correcting these problems when judgment day comes. Keep up the good work” ...Carl Thomsen, Texarkana, TX. “We appreciate your stand on the truth. We are glad to help in a small way. We pray that, always, people in the Lord's church, will always contend for the truth” ...Donald White, Purcell, OK. “One of the members of the local congregation recently loaned me a recent issue of Seek the Old Paths. I would much appreciate being added to your mailing list. (I have been a minister for over 46 years, and have served the Main Street Church of Christ for the last 12 years)” ...Bobby Stewart, Troy, TN. “Would you please put us on your mailing list? Thank you” ...Pat McMahan, Carlsbad, NM. “We respectfully request that you send to the congregation here at Allenhurst, GA., twenty-five copies of your publication Seek the Old Paths on a regular basis. Enclosed is a check to assist in publishing and mailing this outstanding publication. Thank you in advance for your kindness. May God continue to bless you in your good work” ...Church of Christ, Allenhurst, GA. “I want to thank you for sending us Seek the Old Paths” ...Samuel J. Roney, Thonotosassa, FL. “Parkview Drive Church of Christ is in the process of opening a Christian Library which will benefit both the church family and the community. Our church family, as well as the community, will greatly benefit from the information provided by your publication, Seek the Old Paths. Therefore, we would like to be placed on your mailing list to receive your publication monthly. We thank you in advance for sharing your knowledge with us as we continue the uplifting of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” ...Parkview Drive Church of Christ, Monroe, LA. “A friend of mine gave me this paper. I enjoyed it very much. Can you please send me the booklet? Thank you” ...John J. Elkins, Indianapolis, IN. “I truly appreciate receiving Seek the Old Paths very much and am very pleased to observe the publication's firm stand on the issues facing the church today. It is very informative, as well as beneficial to my studies” ...Cade Somers, Pensacola, FL. “Thanks very much for your past generosity. I have saved your publications, and the Lord willing I am going to bind them. Thanks again for all you do, and may God bless you and all your loved ones richly, and in every good way, always” ...Robert R. Page, Coshocton, OH. “As a concerned Christian I do appreciate your stand for the truth and exposing error. I am afraid it is on a rampage” ...Mary Winstead, Crestview, FL. “A friend introduced me to some old articles of your STOP literature. I really like what I've read so far. In fact, I would love it if you would put me on your mailing list. Thanks for standing up for truth” ...Donnie Henderson, Tucson, AZ.

2002 Lectureship Schedule
Divine Authority

The 2001 Bound Volume can be ordered from:
Old Paths Publishing
304 Ripley St.
Corinth, MS 38834
$5 postage paid

Home | Table of Contents |Bible Page |
Seek The Old Paths | East End Church of Christ |
Lectureship Books

Hit Counter