Truth Magazine

By Luther W. Martin

One Thousand and One Years (529 A.D. – 1530 A.D.) From the Council of Orange (529 A.D.) when the Council quoted numerous passages of Scripture to support their conclusions, a millennium elapses. During that period of time, the Roman Catholic Church has developed, and the “Voice of the Church” plus “Oral Tradition” have supplanted the Bible, the Holy Scriptures, as the source of authority in matters religious. That which emerged as the Western Church or Roman Church, was not really interested in or concerned about the use of Holy Scripture as a guide.

Therefore, the initial Lutheran Confession at Augsburg, became prominent in directing its adherents back toward the Bible as a source of authority.

Augsburg Confession (1530 A.D.): This document was prepared at the request of the German Emperor, Charles V. In the early part of the Confession, it reads: “Wherefore, in dutiful obedience to your Imperial Majesty, we offer and present a confession of our pastors’ and preachers’ teaching and of our own faith, setting forth how and in what manner, on the basis of Holy Scripture, these things are preached, taught, communicated and embraced. . . ” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, p. 65).

The final sentence of the Augsburg Confession reads: “If anyone should consider that it (this confession) is lacking in some respect, we are ready to present further information on the basis of the divine Holy Scripture” (Ibid., p. 107).

Reformed Creeds

After Martin Luther’s break with the Roman Catholic Church, there were many nominal believers who desired to move a greater distance away from Rome, than did the Lutherans. Some sixty different “Creeds” were composed that may be classed as “Reformed.” The most reactionary Reformers were four classes of Anabaptists: (a) Swiss Brethren, South German Brethren, Hutterites and Dutch Mennonites; (b) The Anti-Trinitarians; (c) The Spiritualizers; and (d) Revolutionary Prophets. These four divisions were listed by Franklin Littell in his work, “The Anabaptist View of the Church.”

The Ten Theses of Berne (1528 A.D.): Huldreich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, had a prominent part in drafting the “Ten Conclusions” as they are sometimes called. We copy the second article: “2. The Church of Christ makes no laws and commandments without the Word of God. Hence human traditions are no more binding on us than they are founded in the Word of God” (Creeds of Christendom, by Philip Schaff, Vol. 1, p. 365).

The First Helvetic Confession (1536 A.D.): The purpose of this document was to try to bring about a union between the Swiss and German reformers. I copy a brief excerpt, in order to show their respect for the Scripture: “We wish in no way to prescribe for all churches through these article a single rule of faith. For we acknowledge no other rule of faith than Holy Scripture” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, p. 127).

The Edwardian Homilies (1547 A.D.): One of the actions of King Edward VI, of England, having to do with the Reformation, was actually enacted by his Council of Regency. Thomas Cranmer drafted these and proposed them as early as 1542. We copy the first two sentences: “Unto a Christian man there can be nothing either more necessary or profitable, than the knowledge of Holy Scripture, forasmuch as in it is contained God’s true word, setting forth His glory, and also man’s duty. And there is no truth nor doctrine necessary for our justification and everlasting salvation, but that is or, may be drawn out of that fountain and well of truth” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, p. 231).

Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1546-1564 A.D.): ” . . . The council follows the example of the orthodox Fathers and with the same sense of loyalty and reverence with which it accepts and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament, since God is the author of both, it also accepts and venerates traditions concerned with faith and morals as having been received orally from Christ or inspired by the Holy Spirit and continuously preserved in the Catholic Church.” It judged, however, that a list of the Sacred Books should be written into this decree so that no one may doubt which books the council accepts.

(Then follows the list of all the books accepted by the Hebrews in their Old Testament, plus those known as the Apocrypha and rejected by the Jews; plus the regularly accepted books of the New Testament.)

“. . . if anyone does not accept these books as sacred and canonical in their entirety, with all their parts, according to the text usually read in the Catholic Church and as they are in the ancient, Latin Vulgate, but knowingly and willfully condemns the traditions previously mentioned: let him be anathema” (The Church Teaches, Documents of the Church In English Translation, By Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary’s College, St. Marys, Kansas, pp. 45-46).

Notice how the Catholic Church asserts that “tradition” is equal to Holy Scripture, in authority and revelation! Notice, too, how they accepted the apocryphal books to the Old Testament, which the Jews had not accepted as canonical.

At the time (1546) of the Council of Trent, when tradition was raised to an equality with Scripture, Pietro Bertano, the Bishop of Fano, objected with the following statement: “For there is a vast difference between Scripture and tradition. For the Holy Scripture is altogether indelible, while many of the apostolic traditions are variable, and can be changed or taken away according to the will of the Church.”

Another prelate in attendance at the Council of Trent, was Marco Medici, Bishop of Chioggia; he had this to say relative to tradition and Scripture:

“In vain we are now looking for traditions handed down to us verbally and by the observance of the whole Church, when we have the Gospel, in which everything necessary to our salvation and to the Christian life is to be found in a written form” (Romanism: A Doctrinal and Historical Examination of the Creed of Pope Pius IV by Robert Charles Jenkins, p. 57).

The Thirty-Nine Article (1563 A.D.): The Thirty-Nine Articles are based upon various English creedal statements, coming primarily from the time of King Henry VIII, who reigned from 1509-1547 A.D. The Authorized English Text was adopted in 1571. An American “revision” was made in 1801. From that text we copy as follows: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that is should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” The Thirty-Nine Articles then continued with a listing of the sixty-six canonical books of the Bible, excluding the apocryphal books. These Articles serve as the doctrinal foundation of the Anglican Church and its American counterpart, the Episcopal Church (Creeds of Christendom, by Philip Schaff, Vol. 3, p. 489).

.The Second Helvetic Confession (1566 A.D.): (Canonical Scripture) “We believe and confess that the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the true Word of God, and have sufficient authority in and of themselves, and not from men; since God himself through them still speaks to us, as he did to the Fathers, the Prophets, and Apostles. They contain all that is neccesary to a saving faith and a holy life; and hence nothing should be added to or taken from them (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).

“From the Scriptures must be derived all true wisdom and piety, and also the reformation and government of the Churches, the proof of doctrines, and the refutation of errors (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 2:13; Matt. 10:20). The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, though they may be read for edification, are not to be used as an authority in matters of faith” (Creeds of Christendom, by Philip Schaff, Vol. 1, p. 396). It may be noted that this was the first creedal exclusion of the Apocrypha, by a major Confession of Faith. Up to this time, the Lutheran Confessions had left this question open.

The Dortrecht Confession (1632 A.D.): Although this Mennonite Confession contained one hundred and sixty-six specific references to Holy Scripture, it has no statement dealing with written revelation.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646 A.D.): “. . It pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare his will unto the Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

“II. Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:

(Then follows a list of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.)

“All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.

“III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are not part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings” (Creeds of Christendom, by Philip Schaff, pp. 600-602).

The Cambridge Platform (1648 A.D.): This document was drafted in Cambridge, Massachusettes. It represented the views of colonists who were no longer content with Presbyterian Church government, and who decided to revise the Westminster Confession of England. They were Calvinists who began using the name “Congregationalists.” Thus, this group endorsed the principle of Holy Scripture as the source of religious authority.

The Confession of Dositheus (1672 A.D.): This paper was drafted by a synod of the Greek Orthodox Church which met in Jerusalem. The Patriarch Dositheus convened this synod. We copy as follows: “We believe the Divine and Sacred Scriptures to be God-taught; and, therefore, we ought to believe the same without doubting; yet not otherwise than as the Catholic Church hath interpreted and delivered the same” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, p. 486).

Theses Theologicae of Robert Barclay (1675 A.D.): Barclay’s views began with Scottish Presbyterianism, and ended with the establishment of the Quaker movement. He wrote against formal education in these words: “School divinity, (which taketh up almost a man’s whole lifetime to learn), brings not a whit nearer to God, either makes a man less wicked, or more righteous than he was.” In the third proposition of Barclay’s Theses, he wrote: “. . . the Spirit is that guide by which the saints are led into all truth: therefore according to the Scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader. And seeing we do therefore receive and believe the Scriptures, because they proceeded from the Spirit” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, pp. 325-326).

The Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675 A.D.): This document was the last of the doctrinal Confessions of the Reformed Church of Switzerland. It was one of a long series of Calvinisitc Creeds, and was composed 111 years after Calvin’s death. This Consensus made specific reference to fifty Scripture passages, thus showing the esteem and respect that these people held in regard to the authority of Holy Scripture. We copy only a brief excerpt: “I. God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have His word, which is the ‘power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth’ (Rom. 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to the present time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes it to His singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a ‘sure word of prophecy’ and ‘Holy Scriptures’ (2 Tim. 3:15), from which, though heaven and earth perish, ‘one jot or more tittle shall in no wise pass’ (Matt. 5:18)” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, pp. 309-310).

The Articles of Religion (1784 A.D.): These Methodist Articles are developed from the original Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563 A.D.), and are also know as the Twenty-Five Articles of Religion. Under Article V., entitled “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation, ” we copy as follows: “The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation” (Creeds of Christendom, by Philip Schaff, Vol. 3, p. 808).

In a following paragraph, this creed then lists the canonical books of the Old Testament of the Hebrews, prior The New Hampshire Confession (1833 A.D.): This document was drafted by John Newton Brown. The text is taken from the Baptist Church Manual, published by the American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia. We copy the first article: “I. Of The Scriptures. We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.”

Abstract of Principles (1859 A.D.): This creed is a Baptist interpretation of the Westminster Confession (1646 A.D.), and was adopted by the Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, in 1859; and also adopted by the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1950. We copy the first paragraph:

“1. The Scriptures. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, pp. 340).

Statement of Baptist Faith and Message (1925 A.D.): The 1925 Southern Baptist Convention issued this statement, and in it, included the following:

“In pursuance of the instructions of the Convention and in consideration of the General denominational situation, your committee has decided to recommend the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, revised at certain points, and with some additional articles growing out of present needs, for approval by the Convention, in the event a statement of the Baptist faith and message is deemed necessary at this time.

“(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.”

Under the heading “The Scriptures, ” we also copy:

“1. We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, pp. 344-346).

The Barmen Declaration (1934 A.D.): The German Evangelical Church is a federation of reformed churches which developed out of the Reformation. This document was adopted May 29-30, 1934, at Barmen, Germany.

“Article 1. The impregnable foundation of the German Evangelical Church is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is revealed in Holy Scripture and came again to the light in the creeds of the Reformation” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, p. 518).

“IV. The Word of God. We believe and confess: The words written in the Bible, the Old and New Testaments, are truly the Word of God. (2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 are then written in this Confession, LWM.

“With this we emphasize: The Holy Scripture is completely sufficient to reveal God’s being and his will, and the Holy Scripture is also completely sufficient to teach what man must believe in order to receive eternal life. The Holy Scripture is the beginning and the end of all thoughts, wisdom, and activity in the congregation (Church) and with the believers.

“With this doctrine we refute and reject any wisdom and cleverness of men which differs from the Word of God” (Creeds of the Churches, by John H. Leith, p. 558).

Conclusion

In the foregoing quotations, we have shown that most of the denominations men have started, claim to revere the Holy Scriptures; yet, with the drafting of each additional “creed from man” more religious division results. The Scriptures instruct us to “walk by the same rule,” but instead, man chooses to make his own rules. How under God’s heaven can men presume to speak where and when God has spoken? “Every Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, for refuting error, for providing correct guidance, for instruction in right living: That the man serving God may be well prepared, adequately equipped for all good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, pp. 584-585, 596-597
October 6, 1988

By Ron Halbrook

The Bible commends debating and teaches the proper attitudes to guide us in this good work. Many people including some so-called “gospel” preachers have watered-down concepts of truth and watered-down convictions against error. Therefore, we frequently hear it said that it is not right or proper for the Bible to be debated. We hear that gospel preachers should avoid it at all cost. We hear Christians should stay away from all debates. We hear it said that two subjects should never be discussed in “polite” company: religion and politics. It is said that debating is not approved by the “meek and mild” Christ – that the inspired apostles do not authorize it – that true Christian attitudes forbid it.

To Debate Or Not To Debate?

Paul said such a time as this would come, and it has! “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). As the New American Standard Version says, they will want “to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires. ” As Moffatt translates, “. . . people will decline to be taught sound doctrine, they will accumulate teachers to suit themselves and tickle their own fancies.”

People’s ears are itching for easy, soft, smooth teaching. There are plenty of preachers willing to supply the necessary compromised, watered-down, lenient teaching which tickles the itching ears! As in the days when Israel mixed human teaching with divine law, the preachers today say, “Peace, peace: when there is no peace,” and the “people love to have it so!” (Jer. 6:14; 5:31) A “gospel preacher” is no longer expected to challenge error in its strongholds and its citadels; instead, he is expected to grin and play dead like a possum in the face of error. It is “unchristian” to debate, so we must either pretend that issues between truth and error do not exist or else that such issues do not matter very much. Ignorance is considered bliss by the people, and silence is considered golden by the preachers.

The modern idea about what is “Christian” or what the Lord approves is a far cry from Bible teaching. Jude 3 still teaches us to “earnestly contend for the faith” or for the gospel of Christ. The dictionary says to debate is to contend in words, to discuss a question by considering opposing arguments or views. Since the gospel contradicts every form of sin and every system of error, debate is necessary to save souls. It may or may not include formal propositions and rules of procedures. It may be public or private, written or spoken. Debate is a verbal study, answer, defense, or discussion. Paul was “set for” it, Peter said to be “always ready” to engage in it (Phil. 1:17; 1 Pet. 3:15). All Christians engage in debate from time to time in their efforts to spread and to defend the gospel.

Some people quote Romans 1:29 (King James Version) in an effort to prove all public debate sinful. But the word “debate” (Greek word eris) here does not mean a public discussion in which two sides of an issue are presented clearly and defended with a sense of urgency. The word indicates malicious fussing and feuding which seeks, not the salvation of souls, but harm and destruction to others. Envy, brawling, and deceit are bound up with such bitterness and ugly strife. A standard dictionary of Greek words explains “debate” in Romans 1:29 as “the expression of enmity” or hatred. It might be translated “quarrel” – an unfriendly, angry, or violent dispute. Any type discussion (family, religious, business, etc.) can degenerate into such malignant wrangling when men lose sight of love for truth, for each other, and for the Lord. But a debate or discussion which is centered around a desire to know, believe, and obey divine truth, and which therefore is an expression of love, is in no way related to the expression of enmity condemned in Romans 1:29.

Debaters in the New Testament

Our Lord debated, disputed, and discussed the things concerning his kingdom throughout his ministry. He did it in a spirit of genuine love, but that kind of love is poorly understood today. Men have always been amazed, even dismayed, at such love. “And his disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (Jn. 2:17).

On Pentecost after Jesus arose, “the wonderful works of God” for man’s salvation were preached in many languages by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-15). Some who heard the Good News challenged the speakers (vv. 12-13). They were debating – offering verbal arguments. After hearing both sides of the discussion, hearts and minds were 40ff). From this time on, repeatedly the preaching of the gospel included debating – striving against the arguments raised to question the gospel, striving for the whole counsel of God.

“The gospel does not have to be debated, it can take care of itself,” we sometimes hear. It is true that none of us is indispensable to God, but God himself gave Christians the responsibility to spread the truth in the face of all opposition. That includes even the duty to be militant, to be aggressive, i.e., to debate! Paul was not indispensable, but notice how he fulfilled his duty. He disputed or debated concerning the gospel “in the synagogue,” and “for three months” at one place, even “daily in the school of one Tyrannus” (Acts 17:17; 19:8-9).

Every New Testament epistle advocates the truth and specifically disputes some error concerning the gospel. Not one of them identifies earnest and sincere discussion as wrong or useless. Paul and Barnabus had “no small” disputation with erring brethren at Antioch. They traveled to Jerusalem, where the matter was vigorously debated with “much disputing.” Peter put his hand to this good work with Paul (Acts 15). The text uses the word “disputing” and Greek dictionaries use the word “debate” in defining that action. See other examples in Acts 24:10-25:8 and 26:1-2, 24.

Proper Debating

Cars, guns, Bibles, and debates can be abused – that does not make the thing itself wrong. The Bible warns against the abuse of preaching and debating. (1) Philippians 1:15-17 shows that wrong motives and attitudes must be avoided. Love of truth, souls, and Christ must prevail. (2) Wrong propositions should be avoided (1 Tim. 1:4). “Fables and endless genealogies” are not proper subjects for preaching or debating. Matters that do not affect Bible doctrine should not be debated.

Those who engage in public debate should require of themselves the highest possible standards of conduct. They should not deviate from the format agreed upon, simply because they see in this a way to escape the job of defending some belief which has come under severe review. Mere wrangling can be avoided by devotion to learn and know the truth, rather than devotion to creating excitement or a reputation. Personality contests can be avoided by sticking to the issue at hand, though this may involve reference to the person who teaches the error, rather than attempting to cloud the issue by personal references designed to create prejudice, hatred, or suspicions regarding matters unrelated to the issue at hand.

Propositions should be worded carefully and examined fairly by both parties. In order to have the clearest possible presentation of both sides of an issue, each man should be willing to affirm his own position – i.e., to sign an affirmative proposition in the event of a formal debate. It may be difficult at times to agree to the wording of two, opposite affirmative propositions, or a single proposition may suffice for other reasons. When in the negative, each speaker should attempt to deal with the material presented by the opposite party, rather than simply making his own affirmative speech or passing off the opposite arguments with ridicule or laughter. Each person should try to present his points clearly and with force, and personal offense should not be taken when the opposite party presses his point with all his might. In all matters relating to such discussions, both parties should conduct themselves as gentlemen. In keeping with the “golden rule” of Jesus, each should treat the other as he wishes to be treated (Luke 6:31).

Just as all conduct should be regulated by the “golden rule,” the format of public discussion should be regulated by the honorable standards suggested in Hedge’s Rules of Debate or similar formulations. Hedge’s seventh rule is especially appropriate: “As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.” The second rule urges each person to sincerely seek for truth and to regard his opponent as having a sincere “desire for the truth.” If our opponent’s conduct proves to be “unreasonable and wicked, ” we should not be thrown off balance, over react, or return evil for evil (2 Thess. 3.2). We can rebuke and repudiate such conduct and still be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16; Acts 13:10).

The perception and propagation of divine truth must be our unalterable goal in controversy; whether it be public or private, formal or informal. When such is the case, and the goal of personal victory is laid aside, only good can result. Gospel preachers and all Christians should encourage t he honorable defense of sound doctrine, rather than trying to suit the fancies of those who have itching ears.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, pp. 586-587
October 6, 1988

By Fred A. Shewmaker

A member of a certain college faculty reportedly made a habit of advising young men, who expressed the desire to become preachers: “Don’t preach, if you can keep from it.” By that advice he sought to do two things: Discourage those who were not driven by a compelling desire to win souls, and encourage those who were motivated by a true desire to win souls to make preaching their life’s work.

Today, when gospel preachers are in short supply, we may be tempted to encourage every man showing the slightest interest in preaching to become a preacher. It may require considerable restraint to overcome that temptation, but overcoming it will be worth the effort. Those not highly motivated by a desire to win souls may have the ability to become excellent speakers, but it is not reasonable to expect them to become effective gospel preachers.

If you are entertaining the desire to become a preacher, give careful consideration to the question: “Why do I desire to preach?” If your desire arises out of an observation that preachers drive late model cars, wear nice clothes, receive a good salary with no deductions taken out of their checks and receive many compliments on their sermons as they speak to those who are leaving the building: forget it! A careful examination of the work of preaching would have dispelled the idea that preachers live glamorous lives.

A member of a local church where I was preaching moved to another state to begin “full-time” work as a gospel preacher. A few months later he and his family returned for a visit. As we talked he tried to explain certain problems he was encountering. I was totally unacquainted with the church with which he was associated and could scarcely comprehend the enormity of the problems which he was describing. After listening for some time, I sighed, “It doesn’t take long for the glamour to wear off, does it?” I will always regret making that remark. I had encouraged that man to make preaching his life’s work, but at that moment a suspicion had formed in my mind that my encouragement had been given to a glamour seeker. In the years that have followed, his work as a gospel preacher has completely erase that suspicion from my mind.

Every child of God should encourage faithful men to preach the gospel (2 Tim. 2:2). Some who have received my encouragement are making preaching their life’s work. One of them is the dear brother mentioned above. Others are doing appointment or fill-in preaching. Before we encourage a brother to make preaching his life’s work, we should be convinced that he is driven by a desire to win souls.

As a preacher’s work takes him from place to place, it is not unusual for him to meet some brother for the first time and immediately be informed by his new acquaintance, “I would like to become a preacher myself.” Too often preachers with the best of intentions extend immediate encouragement, without knowing a thing about the brother’s motive or background. It might be that the preacher has not even caught the brother’s name.

A brother who, when meeting a gospel preacher for the first time, blurts out, “I would like to become a preacher, myself,” displays a lack of maturity. It is probable that he expects his declaration to be received with enthusiastic approval. Possibly he even has an unreasonable and unjustifiable expectation that the preacher will be transformed into a fountain of effervescent enthusiasm, gushing out encouragement.

A gospel preacher caught in such a situation should neither discourage nor encourage the expressed desire. Probably the most appropriate response that can be made is simply to ask: “Why?” That response avoids the discourtesy of ignoring the brother’s declaration while calling for the information one needs in order to determine whether to encourage or discourage him. At the same time it calls upon the brother to give some consideration to what it means to do the work of a preacher. Any brother, who cannot satisfactorily explain “why” he desires to become a preacher, should not be encouraged to make preaching his life’s work.

One brother, with whom I was acquainted in years gone by, frequently said, “Some can preach and some can plow; those of us who can’t preach need to be plowing and supporting those who can preach.” An older preacher said, “We need the small churches. They provide a great service. They cannot afford to have a full-time preacher working with them, but they are a great training ground for those who desire to become gospel preachers. When a man expresses a desire to become a preacher, they are willing to give him an opportunity to try. If he does a decent job, they will ask him to come back. If he continues to do well, other churches will hear about him and call him to preach to them. If he grows in knowledge and increases his ability to clearly present the word, his services will be in demand. On the other hand, if a man does not do well, he will not be asked back. He will have some opportunitites at other places, but after a while they will dry up and he can forget about becoming a preacher.”

So you still want to preach. If you are driven by a compelling desire to win souls and will humble yourself in the hands of God, it may be possible for you to become an effective gospel preacher. Men with very little speaking ability have become outstanding gospel preachers. It takes hard work and lots of it, but if you truly have a compelling desire to win souls, you probably will thrive on the work and most likely will have opportunities to scatter the precious seed far and wide.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 20, p. 591
October 6, 1988

By Dennis Abernathy

Not too long ago there appeared a razor blade advertisement with the slogan: “Take it off; take it all off.” The advent of warm weather made many people apply this slogan with regard to their dress. As the weather warms and heats up, we begin to see the shorts and halters, tank tops, and scanty swim wear, which makes modesty a vanishing virtue. Perhaps this is to be expected from worldly people who either do not know the truth or who do not care what the truth is, but we should expect more from Christians. I’m afraid immodesty is creeping (running in some areas) into the church, and not too much is being done to check it.

The time was that the truth was preached plainly and forthrightly on this subject. Elders took a stand with regard to the matter. Church members who wore short shorts and such in public were not allowed to feel comfortable in doing so. It was frowned upon by good people and they heard about it from the pulpit. But today young people wear their shorts, majorette and drill team outfits, short tennis skirts, all clearly displaying the flesh for all to see, and it is done with the church’s blessings (or to say the least, with their silence). The public swimming pools and beaches are frequented by Christians or by their children where immodesty is rampant, ignoring the warning to “flee youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22), turning a deaf ear to the admonition to “Pure thinking” (Phil. 4:8). How can a young person be an example of what a true believer really is in “conduct” and “purity” (1 Tim. 4:12) and ignore the principles of modesty?

It appears to me that when the children of gospel preachers and elders are seen in public places with shorts (to the mid-thigh and shorter) on, that the church is not going to hear much preaching on the subject of modesty. It is sad when you must put “No shorts allowed” on an invitation for a gathering where those who gather are Christians. Brethren, have we given up the fight? Have we grown tired of preaching on subjects so unpopular? Have we taken the attitude that “no-one will listen anyway”? Because some “will not endure sound doctrine” will we ignore the charge to “preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rubuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:1-3)?

The Word still reads: “In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety (shamefacedness) and sobriety. . . . But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). The Christian who recognizes the destructive power of lust, the error of immodesty, and God’s view of sin, and who loves to please God will dress in a manner becoming of the gospel. He or she will try very hard to be separate from the world (cf. 1 Jn. 2:15-17; Jas. 4:4; Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). Brethren, God determines modesty (which stems from character) and not the world. The Christian who allows the world to set the standard for him has become worldly-minded. He has conformed rather than being transformed by the renewing of his mind. Think on these things.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 19, p. 589
October 6, 1988