Barnes church of Christ

For those who desire to be saved, what question is more important, than “How do we ascertain New Testament Authority?” Understanding, that the New Testament is “the teaching of Christ;” therefore, let us note the words of John the apostle of love: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). The danger of being outside “the teaching of Christ,” is seen in the words, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the teaching of Christ;” and what is their spiritual state: “hath not God.” The person who “hath not God” is in the state of being lost! Thus, the importance of “abiding” in “the teaching of Christ,” is abiding in the “Authority of the New Testament.”
Learning what the church did, under the oversight of the apostles, with their approval, are the only things that the churches of Christ may do today! Question, what would any saved person desire to do, other than obey by doing what the churches of Christ did under the oversight of the apostles? Here we are addressing the things the church must do, to continue to be saved! The idea of Martin Luther and authority was, “What is not against Scripture is for Scripture, and Scripture for it” (Newman 1902, 308). Newman then wrote: “How tragic it is that Luther’s course of doctrinal digression is now pursued by so many today.” These words state Luther’s view of authority! The wording is different from our earlier words. What I have being writing is, “If the New Testament does not forbid it, then, that is authority for it.” This does not mean that I was incorrect the first time, but that he may have said it differently at a different time!
Just what would be allowed, or shall we say, what would be authorized, if the church operated under the Lutheran view of authority? Let us go back to my favorite, “cornbread and buttermilk” for the Lord’s supper, is there a place, is there a scripture that condemns “cornbread and buttermilk” for the Lord’s Supper? No, but if we have the right understanding of “New Testament Authority” and how we ascertain it! We have taken a giant step forward and make it clear, that in the authority of Christ, the New Testament, we know what makes up the Lord’s supper. Paul to the Corinthians: “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). These words may appear puzzling at first, but when we get the context, Paul makes it clear, understandable! So, why did Paul write such? It was because some in the Corinthian church, “For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken” (verse 21). These folks had made what should have been a time to take the Lord’s Supper, they had made it a common meal, and even here they revealed their “un-Christ spirit.” Paul asked a declarative question: “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not” (verse 22). The Lord’s Supper should never, I mean, never, be made into a common meal; but even more so, a common meal should never, I mean, never be done in an “un-Christ” spirit! Here is the “forbidden” Martin Luther was looking for!
Paul now goes on with the subject of the Lord’s Supper. He wrote: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (verses 23-25). Here the Lord took Paul back to the introduction of the Lord’s Supper, and yes, Paul does call it the “Lord’s Supper.” It is Matthew that recorded the event, wherein Jesus introduced to the disciples, who would be his apostles, his “ambassadors” (2 Cor. 5:20) the “Lord’s Supper.” Matthew wrote: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28). Paul, of course, was not present at this time; thus, his words, “For I have received of the Lord.”
With this, we know what the Lord’s Supper is and we know that nothing else, and I mean, nothing else, is the Lord’s Supper! But, if we are working with the view, “that if it is not forbidden,” then, that is scripture for it; even though we know what the Lord said what the Lord’s Supper is, my “cornbread and buttermilk” is not forbidden! Do you now see what a real problem things become, when we use the Lutheran doctrine of authority?
This brings us to the question: “When must the Lord’s church take the Lord’s Supper?” There is no command that directly reveals the answer to this question, but there is New Testament Authority for the day when the Lord’s Supper must be taken! We will get into this subject in the next article.

Frank R. Williams

Yes, here we are once more, writing under the same heading! The question still remains, how do we ascertain New Testament Authority for what the church of our Lord is required to, and allowed to, do? Let me simply state, that the church today is required to do some things the first century church did and may do some things the first century church did. If this is not confusing, good for you.
What is the difference between: 1) what the church was and is required to do and 2) what the church was and may do? How do we tell the difference? The obvious place to start our search is at the birth of the church. Let us remember, just here, that Jesus promised to build his church, Matthew wrote in quoting Jesus: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). While we are looking at this verse, we will cover a point that is often missed in the denominational world. The point here is that many people believe that Jesus is saying, he will build his church upon Peter, but the Greek text reveals the truth on this point! The Greek word for Peter is “Petros,” and means: “a rock or a stone” (Thayer) and “a (piece of) rock” (Strong). Now, for the word “rock,” as used by Jesus; the Greek being: “petra” and means: “a (mass of) rock” (Strong) and Thayer gives us this: “a rock, cliff or ledge.” First, one can see that Jesus used two different Greek words: 1) “Petros,” or Peter and 2) “petra” or “rock.” I have often used the South Dakota great mountain, that the four faces of Presidents are carved out. If you were to see the “rocks” that have been blasted off the mountain, and I have seen them, you might think it is a “big” rock, but when the same “rock” is seen at the base of the mountain, it appears as it is, a small rock. This is the idea of Jesus’ words, Peter, and rock. It was upon this massive rock (petra), like the mountain with the faces of the Presidents carved upon, that Jesus said he would build his church. The “rock” is the truth, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God!
Just when did Jesus build his church? This took place in Acts chapter two, and verse forty-one, which reads: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). It required the preaching of the gospel of Christ, to build his church; thus, the preaching of the apostles. Now, what is the first act of the church? Let Luke tell us: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (verse 42). The most natural act of those who have been saved from past sins, is to worship God who make it possible! This was done under the oversight of the apostles; therefore, it is required of the church today. It is unthinkable, that those who are saved, would fail to worship God who made their salvation possible! Did those who were baptized, just happen to worship God, or did they do so at the teaching of the apostles? One must keep in mind, that the worship of the saved on that Pentecost day, was not like what was done before Acts two, and verse forty-two. Prior to this day, they all had worshipped according to the Law of Moses; but now, a new time had arrived; it is now the age of Christ, and all actions would be done according to the authority of Christ, or as we have stated, “New Testament authority!”
Now, let us notice the difference between what is required and what is allowed. Both actions are recorded on the same Pentecost day. Following the worship of verse forty-two, these words appear in the text: “And all that believed (These are the ones who had been baptized in verse 41) were together and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart” (Acts 2:44-46). Here, Luke is writing of activity of those who were saved; outside of the worship done in verse forty-two. These activities were done, as Luke wrote: “continuing daily.” May the church worship daily? Of course, she may and the saved would desire to do just this but, as we shall see in future articles in our study, those who were saved also did other things. Let us notice what the saved did; they “sold their possessions and goods and parted to all men, as every man had need” (verse 45). Of course, the selling of their “possessions and goods” took place outside the assembly of worship. This is also seen in these words: “breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart” (verse 46). The apostles did not tell the saved to do such, but it was done as their heart directed! Just how long did these actions take, we are not told but it was not done in a day, as Luke used the word “daily.” This action is an act of love for each other! Might the saved today need to do such? Yes! There may come such a time but let us hope not!
With this, we see the saved in worship and outside of worship! This was a joyous time, and it was shared by all.

Frank R. Williams

One point before getting into this article. There is one text, that needs our attention. Here is the text: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Something does not have be put in the form of a “command,” for it to be a commandment! Paul said, “the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord!” When writing about the Lord’s Supper, he wrote: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, …” (1Cor. 11:22). This is not in the form of a commandment, but it is the authority about the Lord’s Supper. May I point out, that these words rule out “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper! Nothing else is the Lord’s Supper, other than that which the apostle wrote in the following text which followed.
So, we are going in search of what day the Lord’s Supper is to be taken! Is there a commandment given, as to what day the Lord’s Supper is to be taken? The answer is no! Not one of the inspired writers of the New Testament stated what day the Lord’s Supper is to be taken! This being true, how do we determine when we have authority to take the Lord’s Supper; that is if we have any authority. If we should follow Martin Luther’s method of knowing what we have authority to do, we are free to take the Lord’s Supper any day we please! Remember his view was: “If the New Testament does not forbid it, then, that is authority for it.” However, let us sweep the floor, of what we have been doing, clean it, so that nothing is on the page of authority! Here we will then add only what we see, through the writings of the inspired men who wrote the New Testament; thus, giving us examples of the activities of the church which operated under the oversight of the apostles. What the church did, with the approval of the apostles, then, the church today has the same authority!
Yes, it is true that the church did things which the apostles condemned; thus, even though the church did these things, as they were not approved by the apostles of Christ, then, there is no authority for us to do the same things! Someone may point out, that the church during the first century did miraculous things, this does not mean, that we can do the same thing! Why, you ask? Simply because there are no apostles to lay hands on us to impart these gifts. As there are no living apostles of Christ, then, it is impossible for us to have these gifts! You cannot do what you do not have the power to do! If we were to say, we want such gifts, an apostle would reply to us: “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:21). Yes, there is much that was done in the first century by the church, that we have no power to do! It is a disgrace, to see churches who would have us believe, that they have such power, but when the real test is made, the evidence comes up empty! Therefore, in learning what the church did, with the approvel of the “ambassadors for Christ,” (2 Cor. 5:20), let us keep our minds on that which the church may do today!
Let us now see what those activities were! Let us go back to the beginning of the church. This takes us back to the Acts of the Apostles, chapter two. This is the birth of the church, the called out of Christ. Having been baptized by the authority of the apostles (Acts 2:41); we see them doing, as Luke wrote: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). So, what was the first thing the church did; she worshipped the God who had saved them! This is the first activity of the church today! All other things the church may do, with the approval of the “ambassadors for Christ,” flow from this! The apostle Paul wrote this: “Let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Cor. 14:26). Edifying the church is the first “work,” if it may be called a work, is to “edify” the church! Here we are speaking, as the apostles spoke, as to what the church may do under the oversight of the apostles.
As we think on these things, let us remember, that the apostle Paul wrote: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). We are not in the guessing game but into the authority of the New Testament! We are searching the scriptures to learn what is true!
Here we have searched to learn what was the first thing the church did under the oversight of the apostles of Christ! May we do anything else and be pleasing to God? Therefore, the church today has New Testament Authority to worship God, while edifying each other!

Frank R. Williams

By this time, you may be wondering, well, just how do we ascertain “New Testament Authority,” as there are no commandments? This is true even with the Lord’s Supper, which we will continue to use as an example. There are no commandments: 1) thou should take the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week; 2) there is no commandment as to the elements that make up the Lord’s Supper, such as the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine; and 3) who is to take the Lord’ Supper?
Remember, we are using Martin Luther and his view of authority: “If the New Testament does not forbid it, then, that is authority for it!” We have seen just how wide open this view is; as it would allow, “cornbread and buttermilk,” as the elements that make up the Lord’s Supper. Of course, no one is using “cornbread and buttermilk,” but we could as there is no place in the New Testament that says, that they are forbidden! Just think how wide-open Luther’s view of authority really is: “If it is not forbidden!
Throughout this series of articles, I have written: “If the church did it under the oversight of the apostles of Christ, then, the church may do the same things today.” This needs one qualifying point, as some people, who are always looking for some “new thing” that the church did not do, under the oversight of the apostles. Allow me with approvel to simply add to my statement, calling attention to the words: “with approval.” I have read, which church are you talking about, the one in Corinth? You see, the church in Corinth did, or allowed several things which they did without “approval of the apostles!” Just so you can understand what I am writing about, allow me to point out what is meant. The church in Corinth allowed a man to have his father’s wife: “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife” (1 Cor. 5:1). Just here, allow me to put before you, is there anywhere in the New Testament, other than the passage we just quoted, and even here, the words, “forbidden” do not appear; thus, the Corinthian church was within Luther’s view of New Testament Authority! Common sense, would tell us that what was allowed by the church in Corinth was truly forbidden! But, “common sense,” is truly lacking in some people! Paul corrected the Corinthian church, in these words: “And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (verses 2-5). I was once teaching First Corinthians in a Bible class, and made the point, that such a person, as written by Paul, that the Corinthian church was here commanded “To deliver such an one unto Satan.” Of course, I followed with Paul’s words, “for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved.” There was in the class, a man who had been a preacher of the gospel (By “had been” is meant that he was no longer preaching.), who became so full of anger with me, that for months he would not speak to me! Therefore, the point of this paragraph is to show, that yes, it might be said there were “two churches in Corinth;” the one who obeyed the words of the apostle and the one that did not; however, it is easy to see, that one was approved of by the apostle and one was not! It is a shame that some within the churches of Christ would dare to use such a foolish question: “Which church are you talking about?
Therefore, the qualifying words, “with apostolic approval!” Less we forget the statement under review: “There is New Testament Authority for the church today to do what the church in the first century, under the oversight of the apostles, with approval did. If we read the New Testament with this view in mind, we can reach the right conclusion about New Testament Authority!” We can also see, clearly, that this was the “view” of the early church, as they looked to the “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20). Before concluding this article, let me to show the Greek word translated “for” is the Greek, “huper” and means: “for the sake of, instead, regarding;” thus, the apostles, not every Christian,” spoke in the place of Christ! The apostles had such authority; thus, my words, “with approval under the oversight of the apostles!” Meaning, the church today, may do what the church of the first did, with the approval of the apostles of Christ!”
In concluding this article, let me say, most Christians understand my point, even when they do not express it, in so many words! So, do you view the church of today in this manner?

Frank R. Williams

On what day is the Lord’s Supper to be taken, according to NEW TESTAMENT AUTHORITY? Of course, all who read this article will answer: “On the first day of the week.” Now where did you and others get your authority to answer in this manner? Is there a text that says, Christians are to partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week? No! So, the question remains, where did you get New Testament authority to take of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week – Sunday? Can you read the passage, that says so? No!
We need to understand, that the manner that is used to arrive at the conclusion, that there is New Testament authority for taking the Lord’s Supper on Sunday, is arrived by properly using the method that is used for other things as well. How is that? We study and see what the church did, under the oversight of the apostles of Christ, and understand this is New Testament authority for it. It is not true, as Martin Luther and many others today, would tell us that New Testament authority is found in that it does not “forbid” something. Over the years, I have said, “If God had to tell us all the things we are not to do, and to tell us when a thing is to be done, we would need U-Haul truck to carry the New Testament. God in his perfect wisdom, avoided all that, by revealing what we are to do and when we are to do it! This is true of the Lord’s Supper and when Christians are to partake of it. God simply had Luke record the history of the New Testament church; thus, revealing for us, both the things authorized, and the things not authorized.
Therefore, we are able to read the inspired history of the church and in doing so, we read these words: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). Now, let us notice a few things that gives us the event under study. First, we notice, that some of Paul’s company, went before him and tarried at Troas. Luke even gives us the names of those who departed from Paul and waited for him in Troas: “And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus” (verse 4). Luke, desiring, that his readers understand, what was taking place, filled us in; as he wrote: “These going before tarried for us at Troas” (verse 5). There are things going on here, that are important to our understanding of the text and the event that took Paul and his company to Troas. Something that was important to Paul; thus, important to the Holy Spirit who guided Paul.
What was it? Paul desired to worship with the Lord’s people in Troas! But, in so doing, Luke, guided by the Holy Spirit and as the historian, would write: “…where we abode seven days” (verse 6). Why did they “abode seven days?” Let Luke tell us why they “abode seven days.” The next verse reads: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, …” (verse 7). This would be Paul’s last time to see these good brethren on this earth! The phrase, “to break bread,” is not a common meal, though they would have such a meal following their worship; this is seen in the events, as Luke put it: “Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, ..” (verse 9). But we have overlooked the event which has our attention; that being, that Paul and company waited seven days, so he could “break bread” with these brethren, whom he loved! In this assembly of worship, Paul preached, as Luke put it: “Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; …” (verse 7). We do not know at what hour the church “came together,” but we do know that Paul preached until the midnight hour.
So, I ask you again, “Where do you get New Testament Authority to take the Lord’s Supper, here described as “to break bread,” on the first day of the week?” If we are reading Luke’s words with an honest mind/heart, it is right here in this historical event, written by the inspired Luke! We have not looked for a “thou shall take the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week,” but we have searched the historical record and found what the Lord’s people did! We have not looked for a “thou not take the Lord’s Supper on Friday;” we have not searched for what is “forbidden” but we have searched to see what the Lord’s people did under the oversight of the apostles of Christ!
When you read the New Testament, what are you looking for? Are you looking for: “If it is not forbidden, that is authority for it?” Or on the other hand, are you looking for what the Lord’s people did under the oversight of the “ambassadors for Christ?”

Frank R. Williams

“I propose that in the Lord’s Supper, that we use cornbread and buttermilk!” Yes, not many would agree to use these two items for the Lord’s Supper, but I ask why? If as Martin Luther proposed, that if the Bible does not forbid it, then, that is authority for it. No where in the New Testament does it forbid the use of cornbread and buttermilk in the Lord’s Supper! Do you get it? Yes, I am using the absurd, to prove the fallacy of the idea, that if the New Testament does not forbid it, then, that is authority for it!
The real question before us is how we ascertain New Testament authority. This question is as old as the church of our Lord. Paul used the absurd to prove New Testament authority when he wrote his first letter to the church in Corinth. The context is Paul’s statement: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). In the body of Christ, the church of our Lord, there is to be no divisions! Period! Therefore, Paul arises questions: 1) “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” (1 Cor. 1:12). If there is to be no divisions, and there is not, how is it that some of you, say “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos,” I am of “Cephas,” then, finally, some rightly said, I am “of Christ.” Only one of these is correct, it is “I (am, frw) of Christ.” Of course, this comes on the face of his words, “that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” There is no room in Christ for divisions! How is it then, that ye say, I am of Paul, I am Apollos, I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ? This is division clear and simple! But the absurdity of their state is in the following, as Paul wrote: 1) “is Christ divided?” 2), “was Paul crucified for you?” 3) “or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (verse 13). The state of the Corinthians was totally outside the realm of logic! Here the apostle puts forth two questions: 1) “Is Christ divided?“ and 2) was “Paul crucified for you?” If you do not know the answer to Paul’s questions, then, there is need that you be taught the gospel of Christ!
What is all the above about? It is about “absurbity!” Using it to show how foolish people can be! Using “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper is foolish, but no more so than saying “I am of Paul!” But the question is: 1) “Why is it foolish?” and 2) How do we show that there is no New Testament Authority for “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper? Do we have a passage that “forbids” it? If we think like Martin Luther and an ever-growing number of our brethren, we can use “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper. I challenge you to find the text that “forbids” the use of “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper! Did you find it? Of course, you did not find a text that “forbids” the use of “cornbread and buttermilk” in the Lord’s Supper. What we do have is Paul’s inspired words as he tells us what the Lord’s Supper is; here are his words: 1) he gives his authority: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, 2) That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed…” 3) he now gives the first item in the Lord’s Supper: “he took bread: “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me” (verse 24) and; 4); it is here that the apostle gives us the second item in the Lord’s Supper as he wrote: “after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (verse 25). There is the Lord’s Supper, and it is nothing else! Please note, that Paul said that Jesus prayed: “when he had given thanks (This is the prayer, frw). The Lord’s Supper as revealed in the New Testament, is the only authority which we have for it! The fact that the Lord’s Supper has been revealed, removes everything else from being part of it! This is how we ascertain New Testament Authority, for all things! We search the scriptures, to ascertain, what we are to do. If the church under the oversight of the apostles did a thing with approval, then, we have authority for doing the same thing!
Yes, it is extremely limited! We do not look for a “thou shall not,” but we search for what is revealed. This same method, must be used in other areas, as we ascertain New Testament Authority! How do we ascertain New Testament Authority? We search to see what the church did under the oversight of the “ambassadors for Christ,” (2 Cor. 5:20) did with approval, then we may do the same!
Look forward to ascertaining. how we know what day to take the Lord’s Supper, as this will be the subject of the next article on “New Testament Authority!”

Frank R. Williams

“If the New Testament does not forbid it, then, that is authority for it!” Have you ever heard this? Well, think about it for a while; no, really give some thought to it! More than likely you have never heard anyone ask this question. Sometimes it is not put forward in this strong a statement but a growing number of brethren, no, they do not say it, but they believe it.
How far reaching is this kind of authority: “If the New Testament does not forbid it, then, this is authority for it?” It has an exceedingly long arm. Let us take a subject that is dear to our hearts, the Lord’s Supper. Let me ask four questions, while numbering each one:
1) Do you know what the Lord’s Supper is?
2) Do you know when the Lord’s Supper is to be taken?
3) Can you name the elements that make up the Lord’s Supper? And,
4) Do you know who is to take the Lord’s Supper?
Now, let me answer each question in the order listed.
1) “Do you know what the Lord’s Supper is?” The answer to question number one is, it is the remembrance of the Jesus’ death.
2) “Do you know when the Lord’s Supper is to be taken?” The answer to question number two is: the Lord’s Supper is to be taken on the first day of the week.
3) “Can you name the two elements that are the Lord’s Supper?” The answer to question number three is: the Lord’s Supper has two elements: 1) Unleavened bread and 2) fruit of the vine.
4) “Do you know who is to take of the Lord’s Supper?” The answer to question number four is: the Lord’s Supper is to be taken by the saints.
Now, that was not ridiculously hard, was it?
However, is there a bigger word, a word that has more in it, than the word “however?”
Putting that aside, let us get to the point of this article: New Testament Authority. Would it surprise you to know, that each of the answers given, is a subject of debate? Most people would answer that simple question, “no!” In this article, number two, we will not try to debate each question and each answer given above but each one will be noted. The first question, “Do you know what the Lord’s Supper is?” Is often misspoken, the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance of Jesus’ death and is not a memorial of his resurrection, as is so often stated. If you desire to follow through a series of the events, and end it with the Lord’s resurrection, or even his ascension into heaven, at the “right hand of the Majesty on high,” there is no problem, as it ends in the victory! However, here is that “big” word again; using the point of this series of articles, New Testament Authority, does the New Testament “forbid” the use of something other than, unleavened bread and fruit of the vine? The answer is, No, it does not! Using the test of: “If the New Testament does not forbid it, then, that is authority for it!” If a person desires to use “cornbread and buttermilk” and call it the Lord’s Supper, where is the New Testament authority that condemned it? You cannot find where “cornbread and buttermilk” are forbidden! Now, take this question, where in the New Testament is it forbid for a congregation, for taking the Lord’s Supper on Friday night? You got it, no where in the New Testament does it forbid taking the Lord’s Supper on Friday night, are for this matter, at any other time, day, or night! Now, look at the fourth question: “Do you know who is to take of the Lord’s Supper?” Well, do you know? Of course, we would answer, the saints. Do you know any place in the New Testament where it reveals, someone other than a saint took of the Lord’s Supper? No! But do you know where in the New Testament it forbids someone other than a saint to take the Lord’s Supper? Once more, the answer is no.
Now, you are beginning to understand the problem, that some bring with them when the subject is “New Testament Authority!” If we ascertain New Testament authority by the rule of Martin Luther and the denominational world on the subject and there is a growing number of our brethren who would try and get their New Testament Authority the same way: “Where in the New Testament is it forbidden and the list of subjects just goes on and on!
We are beginning to see why there is so much division in “Christians.” It is my hope as I continue to write on this subject: New Testament Authority, that our eyes will be opened to the problems.

Frank R. Williams

Yes, it is true, that I was only going to write five articles but I have decided to write one more thus article number six. In this last article about love, this question is before us: “What is love?” For all the married folks, go back to the time you were dating your present mate. What was it, that you called love? What caused you to give a second look at the girl or boy, that was so great in that person, that made you desire to see her or him a second time?
As we try to answer the question, “What is love?” Was it the good looks of the other person, that made us “fall in love?” Was it only looks or was there something deeper? I guess, before we really get to answering our question, we need to know, if we can actually remember that far back. If we try hard enough, we will be able to take that look, that made us give a “second look” at the one we finally married. Many times, it is only the “good” looks of the other person, that caused us to give a second look; that made us go on that second date.
So, what is love? Were you “in love” at the first sight of the other? More than likely, looks did play apart in our making the decision to go on that second date. After all, most of us were young at this time in our lives. As we look at our mates today, we understand neither of us look like we did when young. We may look at photos of the two of us, and say, “I don’t remember you looking so young!” Therefore, we still have the question before us: “What is love?”
Here we will notice once more the words Paul wrote on love; first Paul covers the negative part of love: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1-3). Here the apostle gives us some very striking information. If I, at the time the letter was written, could “speak with the tongues of men and of angels (messengers), what good does it do for me? I am only like “sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” Let us understand just here, that speaking in “tongues,” the languages of men, was very desirable. Yet, Paul says, “nothing more than “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” Maybe just a “blowhard!” The apostle takes us to “the gift of prophecy,” and being able “understand all mysteries, and all knowledge and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, … I am nothing.” Third, even if, I gave all “my goods to feed the poor;” which is truly a good thing; nevertheless, “it profiteth me nothing.” Then, if for some “reason,” that I perceived as good, “it profiteth nothing!” So, what is the qualifying thing that is missing in these points? It is “charity!” Did I hear someone say, so love is most important in all our deeds! There may be many reasons that a person does something that is “good” but if love is not the motivating factor, I may receive the praise of men, but not of God! What did you do to get the attention of your “first love?” It may have really impressed him or her, but did it impress God?
Now, looking at Paul’s positives, here taking them one by one; as he wrote: 1) “Charity suffereth long,” Now many of us are old and have many needs, which we cannot do for ourselves? Is it not good to know that our mate will endure them. That is how our mate is forbearing with us! But not only so, Paul added, “is kind!” What is this “kindness?” It is understood in the words, “act benevolently.” Is it not a joy to know that our mate is “benevolent” toward us when we cannot help ourselves? 2) “charity envieth not;” that is to have warmth against us, as we become more and more helpless. 3) “charity vaunteth not itself;” that is to say, our mate is not a braggart. When we are near helpless, just think of what we would have to endure, if our mate was a “braggart!” I can just hear one say, I don’t need you but you are dependent on me! Of all the things we might need, to hear such words just makes it harder to endure! 4) “is not puffed up,” and these words mean: “sense of blowing; to inflate.” Here you are, after many years of marriage, and now you are so dependent on your mate, and all you hear, day after day, in your mate “inflate” their importance to you!
Let us here conclude this series of articles on love, with Paul’s last words: “Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth!” As you read these words, please think of your mate and what he or she may think of you! The good looks are gone, and what we have left, is love! So, what is love?

Frank R. Williams

At times, our words deceive us! What is meant by this? Think about the word “love” under which we are writing. Have you ever heard, or said, “I love my dog?” Then, later you say, “I love God.” This has never seemed to be right to my feeble ears! How about your ears?
Let us look back at the three Greeks words translated “love.” First recalling the three Greek words, they are: 1) “agapao” 2) “phileo,” and 3) “storge”. First, looking at the verse which everyone knows, “For God so loved (agapao) the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). This “love” coming from God is the highest kind of “love,” and used here to embrace the greatest number of people. Here John wrote, “God so ‘agapao’ the world,” and the Greek word for “world” is “kosmos,” here meaning all those who live upon the earth. Second, the Greek word “phileo” is used when Jesus said to Peter: “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (phileo) thou me more than these?” The change of words in the text is lost in English but is important in the Greek. You see, the Lord did not use the same Greek word three times, as Jesus said in verse seventeen: “He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (phileo) thou me?” Here Jesus used the Greek word “phileo;” it is clear in the Greek text that Jesus changed words from “agapao” and it appears that Peter is very upset. Strong gives this as the meaning of the Greek word “phileo:” “to be a friend to (fond of that is, have affection for.” “Phileo” is clearly a lesser word the “agapao,” which Jesus had used the first and second time he spoke to Peter. To which Peter replied: “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.” Now, which word did Peter use in his reply? The text will answer our question as it has the Greek word “phileo.” Here is a question that I have never heard nor read from anyone; is Peter “grieved,” as the text says he was, as it reads: “Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?” So, what is my question? It is, was Peter “grieved” because Jesus said unto him, “lovest thou me more than these?” Or was he “grieved” because Jesus changed words, and used a lesser word than “agapao?” You can study on this for yourself! The third Greek word translated “love” is “storge” and is used in these words: “Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection (astorgos), implacable, unmerciful” (Rom. 1:31). The “a” at the beginning of the word reveals that it is used “as a negative particle” (Strong). We will not study this word, as it has nothing to do with our study.
Now, when you say: “I love my dog” which of these two Greek words: 1) “agapao,” or 2) “phileo’”would you be using if spoke Greek? I trust that you and I would use the Greek word “phileo,” as we would be expressing I “have affection for” my dog. But, we speak English, so how do we express a difference, that is expressed in the Greek but not in English? Maybe we should say, “I like my dog” but “I love God!”
Of course, the greatest passage which expresses the true meaning of “love” are in Paul’s words to the Corinthians; when he wrote: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Cor. 13: 1-3). Now, just how is love truly expressed: “Charity (agapao) suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: …” (verses 4-8). Love cannot be defined any better than in the words the Holy Spirit gave to Paul. Each time the word “charity” is used in these two texts (1Cor. 13:1-3 and 1 Cor. 13:4-8), it is the Greek “agape.” Thus, the apostle is using the greatest Greek word for “love.”
In the above two texts, Paul has given us a lifelong challenge! How are you doing, in everyday life, in measuring up? It is hoped that we all are improving! I trust that in these five articles on “love,” that I have taken you into everyday life as we deal with our fellows! It is understood that some people, appear to have been born in the “negative” mourned; thus, making it hard to follow Paul’s words. Yes, but let it not be us, that makes others have a hard time loving and living with us!

Frank R. Williams