Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

The March 1980 Good Housekeeping reported a study by Mr. J. Gordon Melton as to the number of religious faiths in America. At that time Mr. Melton reported about 1200 religions in America.

According to an article in the Saturday, November 26, 1988 Port Arthur News entitled “Research Indicates New Faiths Growing,” Mr. J. Gordon Melton of Santa Barbara, California said 835 new religions have been formed since 1940. Mr. Melton is director of the Institute for the Study of American Religions and editor of the Encyclopedia of American Religions. Melton is a United Methodist.

A new edition of the Religious Encyclopedia to be published in December of this year will list 1,586 United States faiths according to Mr. Melton.

There seems to be no end to the starting of new religions. As we read such reports of the formation of new religious bodies, one is surely made to stop and ask, “Does the Word of God authorize the formation of all these religious bodies?”

Old Testament Prophets Foretold One Church

One would think that the Old Testament is full of prophecies concerning the establishing of many religious bodies, as we see so many in existence today. But this is not the case. The prophets wrote by inspiration and told of the coming of only one religious body. The Lord said through the prophet Zechariah, “Therefore thus saith the Lord; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem” (Zech. 1:16). Here Zechariah saw the coming of only “my house” – one house. The Lord’s house is the Lord’s church. Paul told Timothy, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Isaiah saw the establishing of only one religion. “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:2-3). “The Lord’s House” (singular) is predicted in the words of Isaiah! Remember the Lord’s house is the Lord’s church (1 Tim. 3:15). This religious body was to have its beginning in the city of Jerusalem, in the last days as all nations flowed unto it, according to Isaiah.

The New Testament Reveals Only One Religious Body

As we leave the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the establishment of the Lord’s House and look into the New Testament to find its establishment, we find that only one church was established. The church foretold in the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament. Acts 2 records the beginning of the Lord’s house, the church. It is on the day of Pentecost, the first day of the week (Lev. 23:15-16) about 9 a.m. on a Sunday morning as the Holy Spirit guided the apostles of our Lord to preach the truth in its fulness for the first time. On this occasion the gospel was preached to the Jews. “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). This event took place in “the last days” (Acts 2:16-17) just as the prophets had said (Joel 2:28-29; Isa. 2:2-3). The gospel was preached, men heard it and the preaching of the ‘gospel convicted the sinners of their sins as the word pricked their hearts. As a result of this preaching, they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” As believers, they were told to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). About three thousand were baptized and Acts 2:47 says, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Did you notice the phrase, “the church” which means only one.

The Lord Established Only One Church

The simplest way to see that there is only one church revealed in the New Testament is to notice what the Bible teaches about the body. Paul said “there is one body” (Eph. 4:4) and he told the Colossians “for his body’s sake, which is the church” (Col. 1:24). There is one body and the body is the church, so there is only one church established by the Lord; if not, why not?

There Is One Faith

Paul wrote the Ephesians and said, “There is one faith” (Eph. 4:5). Mr. Melton reports there are 1,586 faiths in the United States. There is quite a difference in what the Bible says and what actually exists. The word “faith” in Ephesians 4:5 refers to a body of truth, the gospel. Galatians 1:23 says that Paul “preacheth the faith” while Paul told the Corinthians that he preached “the gospel” (1 Cor. 15:1-2). To preach the faith is to preach the gospel and to preach the gospel is to preach the faith. Jude said, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Jude refers to “the faith” and that means only one faith! By the way, all of it has been delivered and there are no new revelations.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, p. 45
January 19, 1989

By Michael Garrison

You may have had a knock at your door, answered it, and found two well-dressed young men wanting to give you their “testimony It about what a “modern day prophet” revealed. They claim to be elders, but the New Testament shows that an elder, bishop, overseer, and pastor is to be “the husband of one wife . . . having his children in subjection … not a novice” (1 Tim. 3:2,5-6). So, just because someone makes the claim of being an elder does not make him one!

These young men will also want you to think they are Bible believers. Yet, after you talk and study with them for awhile, as I did, you soon find out just the opposite! I studied with some of these young men for about 10 hours over a four or five week period and they brought me a list of what they alleged were Bible “contradictions.” If they believed the Bible to be the inspired word of God, they would have tried to harmonize these so-called “contradictions” rather than try to cause people to have less confidence in the Scriptures.

After these young men gave me the list of “contradictions” I prepared some answers which I wish to share with you at this time.

1. Acts 9.7 versus Acts 22:9. Did the men with Saul hear or not? In his Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine says (p. 204), “Thus in Acts 9:7, ‘hearing the voice,’ the noun 6voice’ is in the partitive genitive case . . . whereas in 22:9, ‘they heard not the voice,’ the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of voice (this they did not hear).” So, an honest investigation shows there is not any contradiction here!

2. Lying spirit (1 Kgs. 22:20-23 versus Tit. 1:2). God cannot lie, yet he is accused of doing so by the Mormons. I quote from Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by J.W. Haley (p. 98): Quoting a Mr. Bahr, Mr. Haley says, “Because Ahab, who had abandoned God and hardened his heart, desired to use prophecy for his own purposes, it is determined that he shall be led to ruin by prophecy. As God often used the heathen nations as the rod of his wrath for the chastisement of Israel (Isa. X. 5), so now he used Ahab’s false prophets to bring upon Ahab the judgment which Elijah had foretold against him.” Then, Mr. Haley says, “God for judicial purposes suffered Ahab to be fatally deceived.” And as E.M. Zerr points out, God used various agencies to accomplish the results necessary to his plans. Again, there is no contradiction.

3. Matthew 20.-20-28 versus Mark 10.35-45. Who went, mother or her sons? “The Bible often tells of something being done by proxy, that is, by another. Examples – David killed Uriah (2 Sam. 12:9); but the Ammonites killed him (2 Sam. 11: 17). The priests bought the potter’s field (Matt. 27:6,7) and Judas purchased it, that is, furnished the occasion for its purchase (Acts 1: 18). So it is with the passages under consideration – he who does a thing for another, does it himself” (Haley, p. 347). No contradiction here, either!

4. Age of Ahaziah – 2 Kings 8.26 versus 2 Chronicles 22.-2. “According to the latter text, Ahaziah must have been two years older than his own father! The perfectly simple explanation adopted by Gesenius and most critics is that the copyist mistook one numeral letter for another” (Alleged Bible Contradictions, p. 398). (Note: if you see the original Hebrew for 20 and 40, you could see how the mistake might have occurred.) Scribes (those who copied the manuscripts) were not inspired men and a worn and faded copy of the Scriptures could be misread by anyone. Again, the problem is solved and no contradiction exists!

5. Matthew 28.-2 and Mark 16.-5 versus Luke 2434 and John 20.12. How many angels were at the tomb? When we compare the texts in their contexts, we will learn there are different people and different times under consideration. Some did see two angels; others saw only one angel There is not a discrepancy when one studies the matter honestly!

6. John 1:18; Genesis 32.30, John 6.46 and 2 John 11. Was God seen by men or not seen by men. To see God’s face is death (Exod. 33:20). In what way can it be said that one has “seen” God? Certainly not in a literal sense. We would be dead if we did! So, we see God figuratively. It can be said that we “see” God in the sun, moon, and other of his creations – that is, we see the evidence of his handiwork. There is no contradiction here!

7. In Matthew 27.,9-10, Jeremy (Jeremiah) is quoted, but the prophecy is found in Zechariah 11:13. “. . . the difficulty may have arisen from abridgment of the names. In the Greek, Jeremiah, instead of being written in full, might stand thus, ‘Iriou’; Zechariah thus, ‘Zriou.’ By the mere change of Z into I, the mistake would be made” (Alleged Bible Discrepancies, p. 15 3). This problem is solved, also!

8. Acts 7.22 versus Exodus 4.10. The only contradiction here is in one’s lack of reading and understanding. Who said one cannot be mighty in words and at the same time not be of slow speech and of slow tongue? The words spoken in slow speech and tongue can indeed be mighty ones! There is no contradiction here, except in the desperate attempts of false teachers and false prophets to discredit the word of truth!

We must never be guilty of twisting the holy word of God to our own destruction (see 2 Pet. 3:16). Nor should we call that which is good, evil (see Isa. 5:20-21).

Although we may admire the zeal of the young men who go from door-to-door teaching their false doctrine, we must realize they are in error and need to know the truth. Let us at least try to teach them when they come to our house. No, they may not be convinced by our teaching, but at least we can do our best to point to Jesus, The Way.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, p. 44
January 19, 1989

By P.J. Casebolt

We are filled with righteous indignation when we think about the way of truth being evil spoken of because some ungodly church members follow their pernicious ways (2 Pet. 2:1,2). And, while the hypocrite argument is used as a scapegoat, all too often there are times when the charge itself is justified (Rom. 2:24). However, there is no justification for remaining in disobedience, just because some children of God engage in hypocrisy (2 Cor. 13:7).

But I have seen people obey the truth in spite of hypocrites and other highly visible obstacles. I once baptized a boy whose father had threatened to whip him if he went near the waters of baptism. I have witnessed uncommon courage on the part of those who confessed the name of Christ, knowing full well what persecutions and hardships would follow that confession.

Still, I believe there is a more difficult obstacle to overcome, both by the teacher and the one being taught. It is the obstacle of trivial pursuit as played by many church members.

I have never played a popular game by that name, and know little about it, but I do know what the term “trivial” means, and I know what the term “pursuit” means. And I know that some church members are playing a game of trivial pursuit.

These members will forsake the assemblies of the church and other duties while pursuing things which are trivial by any definition, and much more so when compared to seeking first the kingdom of God (Matt. 6:33). Some are simply “lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:4), while others allow company, vacations, social activities and a host of other trivial things to keep them from their appointed rounds of delivering their spiritual mail.

Such trivial excuses for absenteeism and failure would not be tolerated one minute by our public school system or by an employer. Yet, professed Christians either think that they are fooling the Lord, or that he will just wink at such glaring irresponsibility. God no longer winks at ignorance (Acts 17:30), much less deliberate acts which are ,either pernicious or trivial in nature.

I still remember the picture of Don Quixote on the lefthand page of my elementary reader. He was arrayed in full armor, his lance at the ready, and his steed at full gallop as he charged the hapless windmill. Maybe it was all just a fable, but at least, in his own sight, Don’s, mission and purpose were meaningful. I doubt that some members have any goal or purpose whatever as they follow their trivial pursuits in life.

Personally, I believe that those members who pursue the trivial things of life are more of a hindrance to the truth than those who follow their pernicious ways. Let me explain.

Jesus told the church at Laodicea that he would they were “cold or hot” (Rev. 3:15). You can gauge a thing by a hot or cold standard, but the quality of lukewarmness leaves no means of comparison.

Furthermore, I know what this lukewarm, trivial attitude does to my spirit, and I can hardly be classified as an alien sinner, a novice, or a babe in Christ. Nothing discourages me anymore than this indifferent attitude displayed by those who are supposed to be a converted, peculiar people.

I turned my back on denominationalism, and never once looked back. I have been “in perils among false brethren,” even at times having to withstand the very brethren who taught me the truth and encouraged me to preach the gospel, but I “gave place by subjection, no, not-for an hour” (Gal. 2:5).

Like Paul, “none of these things move me,” but I readily confess that the trivial pursuits and lukewarm attitudes of some church members discourage me more than any other thing. It’s like trying to fight a faceless, nebulous enemy upon whom even the sword of the Spirit seems to have no effect.

I understand more and more why the apostle exhorts us to “be steadfast, unmoveable” (1 Cor. 15:58), and to “not be weary in well doing” (Gal. 6:9). And, if the seasoned soldier is subject to discouragement, how much more the one who is seeking for, or has just recently found the truth?

Once the salt has lost its savor, there is no leavening influence left. Only God knows how many prospective converts have looked at some lukewarm church member, gotten a fuzzy picture of the pure and undefiled religion of Christ, and turned away sorrowfully.

The Lord gives us a distasteful picture of the lukewarm church member (“I will spue thee out of my mouth”), and such a picture is discouraging even to those rooted and grounded in the faith. How much more are those still in bondage to sin apt to remain in that bondage, when they see careless, professed Christians engaged in trivial pursuits?

Materially speaking, trivial pursuit may be a harmless game for those who wish to rest the physical body or exercise the mind. Spiritually speaking, such an exercise can turn out to be a morsel traded for a birthright, or the husks which swine eat, when compared to seeking first the kingdom of God and eternal life.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, p. 43
January 19, 1989

By Luther W. Martin

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, page 657, we copy as follows:

Musical Instruments in Church Services. For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant; without any instrumental or harmonic addition, was the only music used in connexion with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant. . . .

The primitive Christian Church was, on account of external circumstances, very much restrained in its religious manifestations, and the adoption of the music of the Temple, in so far as it had survived, would have been difficult on account of the converts from paganism. Furthermore, the practice of religion on the part of the early Christians was of such a purely spiritual nature that any sensuous assistance, such as that of music, could be for the time easily dispensed with. Nevertheless, the words of St. Paul, even if only taken in a spiritual sense, remind one forcibly of the conception of music in the Old Testament: ‘Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord’ (Eph. v, 19) (Ibid., p. 648).

Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets (P.G., Vill, 440). St. Chrysostom sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians at the time when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament (Ibid., LV, 494-7). Similarly write a series of early ecclesiastical writers down to St. Thomas (Summa, II-II, Q. xci, a. 2).

In Carlovingian times, however, the organ came into use, and was, until the sixteenth century, used solely for the accompaniment of the chant. . . . (Ibid., p. 651).

Richard Wagner says a vigorous word in favor of purely vocal music in church: “To the human voice, the immediate vehicle of the sacred word, belongs the first place in the churches, and not to instrumental additions or the trivial scraping found in most of the churches pieces to-day. Catholic Church music can regain its former purity only by a return to the purely vocal style” (Ibid., p. 651).

That vocal music is in general more expressive than the mechanically produced tone of instruments is undeniable.

Religious feeling finds its most natural expression in vocal utterance, for the human heart is the source of both devotion and song (Ibid., p. 651).

The development of congregational singing is of early origin. St. Augustine tells us (Conf. vii, 9) that St. Ambrose

introduced it in his own diocese from the Orient, and that it soon spread throughout the Western Church (Ibid., p. 653).

The Catholic Church was not interested in following the practice of the primitive (New Testament) church, so, she soon accepted the music of the theater. But note two more comments:

Song preludes and intermezzi during liturgical functions are forbidden. The organ must be subordinate to the singing, must support and now drown it. The purely vocal style is the ideal of the Church. The papal choir, the sistine, has always excluded instrumental music (Ibid., p. 655).

The wisdom of these restrictions has been cheerfully recognized by such unprejudiced authorities as Wagner and Beethoven – a fact which cannot be too often stated. The former maintained that ‘genuine church music should be produced only by voices, except a “Gloria” or similar text. As early in his career as 1848 this master ascribed the decadence of church music to the use of instruments’ (Ibid., p. 655).

Next, we copy from Voices and Instruments In Christian Worship, by Joseph Gelineau, S.J., and Clifford Howell, S.J., and published by The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn.:

Christian worship makes no provision for mere ‘hearers’ or ‘spectators’; each one is an agent and a participator. That is the reason why the Church forbids the use of ‘mechanical music’ (produced by record-players or tape-recorders) in the liturgy (p. 71).

From the standpoint of ritual action, liturgical music can only be monodic and vocal. Throughout nearly ten centuries of its history, Christian worship was in principle, and nearly always in fact, celebrated una voce and a capella (one voice, unanimously; and without instrumental accompaniment, ‘as the chapel’ – LWM) (Ibid., p. 142).

The progress of instrumental music swept the choirs along in its wake, and there was an ever increasing tendency in the great religious musical compositions of the baroque age to treat the voices as self-sufficient parts, like the instruments themselves. Once again the text was drowned. In vain did Benedict XIV recall the golden rule of the primacy of the audible text (Ibid., p. 147).

In Christian worship the playing of an instrument all by itself has never constituted a religious rite property so called. A musical sound which accompanies no words is equivocal; even though capable of exalted spiritual meaning, it eludes the discursive intelligence if it be left alone. Now, as St. Paul observes (1 Cor. 14), everything which is done in the assembly should be done for the ‘edification’ of all (v. 26). What does this mean? The Apostle goes on to explain. Each one may have a psalm to sing (v. 26); but if this imparts no revelation, no knowledge, no prophecy, no instruction, ‘Thou, true enough, art duly giving thanks, but the other one’s faith is not strengthened’ (v. 17). In this case, as in glossalaly (tongue-speaking – LWM), the musician is ‘strengthening but his own faith’ (v. 4). And the Apostle concludes: ‘What, then, is my drift? Why, I mean to use mind as well as spirit when I sing psalms’ (v. 15). Already the irrational meaninglessness of his music is not overcome except with the aid of the logos (word – LWM). But above all, its mythical ambiguity is not eliminated except by the revelation of the Christian mystery. That is why Pius X, before discussing instrumental music, recalls the ‘the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music (Ibid., p. 148).

Music expresses the sentiments, but is not capable of defining them, and without the commentary of words, which are absent from instrumental music, the hearer always remains somewhat vague about the nature and object of the sentiment by which the musician is inspired (P. Lanerre, Philmophie du gout musical [Paris, 19221, p. 43)” (Ibid., p. 148).

On the other hand, Canon 74 of St. Basil (Egypt, 4th-5th century) forbids the use of the lyre to every reader – even, it seems, outside worship – under the pain of censure: ‘Whenever a reader falls into playing a harp, he must confess it (?); if he falls repeatedly he will be excluded from the Church (W. Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien, p. 267) (Ibid., p. 150).

Nevertheless the abundance and clearness of the texts in which the Fathers of the Church have discussed the questions can leave us in no doubt about the content and firmness of their teaching: musical instruments are to be excluded from the worship of the New Alliance.

The motives adduced for this prohibition are of two kinds. The first motive for excluding musical instruments comes from the role they used to fulfill in ancient civilization and from their inseparable connection with idolatrous worship and depravity in morals. Even though the lyre could be accepted as respectable, the flute and the oboe were erotic instruments, the trumpet was bellicose and the organ, theatrical. Thus, it was to reject the profane and to defend the sanctity of Christian worship that the Fathers excluded all the instruments in use in their day. . . .

Another and more fundamental reason is developed by the Fathers: the use of material instruments was conceded by God to Israel, just as were sacrifices of animals, as a pedagogic measure to help their religious sense, which was still carnal. With the coming of the Word and the imparting of the Spirit, the worship of the New Alliance consists in the sacrifice of the lips and the heart; it is expressed completely by the word and song. . . Never can the vocal and spiritual praise of the Word of God be supplied or supplanted, in worship in spirit and in truth, by the sound of musical instruments alone (Ibid., pp. 150-152).

The organ, which had been mainly a solo instrument in earlier times, became the usual instrument of accompaniment during the nineteenth century. Pius X ‘permits’ it, provided it does not drown out the voices (Ibid., p. 154).

Any kind of instrumentation which is sensuous or redolent of the dance, which relegates the words to the status of mere sounds, every profusion of timbres which drowns out the voices, is incompatible with spiritual worship (Ibid., pp. 155-156).

From Concilium Theology In The Age of Renewal Liturgy (Vol. 2 – The Church and The Liturgy, Paulist Press):

It is true that the Council (Vatican II – LWM) has decisively reminded us of what was clearly the practice in the days of St. John Chrysostom or St. Augustine, but gradually declined during the Middle Ages, namely, that the Church’s prayer and praise included the voice of all its members and not merely that of a group of clergy or singers (p. 62).

In the East the Church, does not use the organ, and in the Latin Church its use is neither always possible nor opportune in every part of the world (Ibid., p. 122)

Conclusion

From the foregoing quotations, it can be readily demonstrated from Roman Catholic sources, that the use of manmade musical instruments in the worship of Christians, is an addition by men, subsequent to the, writing of the New Testament.

Roman Catholicism assumes that she has the right and authority to make sure additions and changes. Nevertheless, her forthright admissions as to what constituted the original and primitive practices of the New Testament church, provide us with ample evidence, in harmony with the New Testament, as to what our doctrine and practice should be.

These quotations and their sources cannot be denied!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 51-52, 56
January 19, 1989