Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote Bill Humble, The Story of the Restoration (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation, 1969), p. 74.

The most serious issue that churches of Christ have faced in this century is church cooperation and “institutionalism” . . . . a substantial number of churches, have come to oppose such cooperative programs of evangelism as the Herald of Truth and the homes for orphans and aged, as they are presently organized. During the past fifteen years, many debates have been held, churches have divided, and fellowship has been broken. This is the most serious division, numbers-wise, that churches of Christ have suffered. Whether the division is final, or whether it can yet be healed, is yet to be determined.

This assessment of current conditions among Churches of Christ, written by a professor at a “Christian college,” is interesting for a number of reasons.

First, unlike many of his fellow observers, this author seems to take seriously the division among the churches, and seeks to state accurately the cause for it. There is no ridicule, or slander, no attempt to dismiss the division as unworthy of serious attention (as in “anti churches dying on the vine,” “drying up and withering away,” “only a few isolated pockets of anti-ism meeting in run-down buildings,” etc.), so often characteristic of attempts to describe the dreaded “antis.” Of course, thoughtful students recognize that the relative numerical strength or social prominence of a group has little or nothing to do with the validity of positions it may espouse or propound.

Again, the writer is fairer than most in pointing out that the objections of those who oppose the projects described are objections not to the work itself (that is, preaching the gospel or assisting legitimate needy cases) but rather to the organization of such projects currently active among the churches. Though there may be other questions involved (including who is responsible for certain works, who are the proper recipients, poor attitudes, high-handed coercion, blacklisting, ostracism of those who object, etc.), the main objections in this controversy have always been to the manner of organization – centralization of control among the churches, and human institutions encroaching upon the Divine body, the church.

Finally, the author seems to wish almost wistfully for some sort of future resolution to the controversy. It does not require astute perception of the past decades to realize that this is a futile hope, so long as those who promote such projects persist not only in pursuing everything labeled “good works” without any attempt at scriptural justification, but do so in a manner wholly inconsistent with a proper attitude toward those of us who may decline to participate. So long as such conditions exist, unity will be something, unfortunately, only to be written about, rather than actually obtained.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, p. 563
September 15, 1988

By Donald P. Ames

In the fall of 1956, York College (York, Nebr.) opened its doors to the public as a junior college. I had a part in working on the campus to prepare the school, and attended my first two years of college there. Already there was much discussion as to whether York College was a “church school” and whether or not churches would be allowed to contribute to it. I remember the strong (but compromising) stand the school took against church support, declaring the need to make the public understand that the church and school were two entirely separate organizations (and even how upset some of the school officials got when some of the early mail arrived addressed to York Christian College). Yet, because some on the board favored church support and they did not want to turn them against the school, it was written into the By-laws that the school would not accept church contributions (the By-laws can be changed – the charter could not).

During my two years at York College, I had quite a few discussions on what was the work of the church, as I studied my way out of liberalism (not knowing there were others of similar conviction at that time). I also participated in a debate among “preacher students” on whether or not York College was a “church school.” I remember it well, because Roy Lanier was head of the Bible Department and the two of us studied many topics together. He had loaned us his workbook (published by the Gospel Advocate) on the church to help in our opposition to the “church school” concept. We (David Gulley, Ron Anderson and myself) opposed not only church contributions to private colleges, but also rebutted his position on the sponsoring church as well. The discussion did not go very well for those in opposition, and at the end of the discussion they felt called upon to ask brother Lanier for some assistance. He had to back us up – after what we had done to his sponsoring church concept in the discussion. I felt then though that trouble lay ahead for the school on that subject in the future.

Over the years that followed, rumors erupted on several occasions of churches sending funds to the school – some pretty pointed. Dale Larson (then president) replied to such in a letter, flatly denying that the school was accepting church contributions. Finally one day while in Nebraska (having left there after my sophomore year), I got a chance to visit the school and asked brother Larson face-to-face about the obviously contradictory facts. It was then admitted that while the college was not accepting church contributions (“and have even sent some checks back because they were made out to the college”), they were accepting church contributions to the Bible department (that is about parallel to ear-marking a check to the United Fund for the Red Cross and trying to convince yourself you had not sent a contribution to the United Fund. All that does is free up money committed to that department, and hence more is available to the college. The end result is the very same, and you’re only kidding yourself.)

But hard times have hit York College in the last couple of years – financially and otherwise. Many of the teachers were laid off, law-suits were threatened, board members replaced, and other internal struggles contributed to a real crisis. A new board was selected and goals were set to “restore” the college to good standing. In the Christian Chronicle (July 1988) progress is reported as the school sought to put its troubles behind it. “More than $360,000 was raised in a June collection by more than 460 congregations in 36 states,” the article said (emphasis mine – DPA). “Gardner (the new president – DPA) expects proceeds to climb to about $400,000,” it went on to state.

Thus York College apparently has come full cycle and joined the other schools run by the liberals that openly are after church contributions to finance schools. Some people are apparently guided more by “situation ethics” than convictions, and the drift of the school into full liberalism is now well documented. How churches can justify supporting colleges and orphanages under boards separate and apart from the church and still object to contributing to a missionary society organized exactly the same way is beyond me. But, given a little more time and maybe they will be ready to swallow that as well. After all, look at what happened to York College! Brethren, you have drifted!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, p. 567
September 15, 1988

By Luther W. Martin

Why do men write “creeds”? Why not be content with Holy Scripture? Why substitute man written-creeds, in place of God-inspired Scripture? The word “creed” is not found in the Bible. But let me correct that by pointing out that “creed” comes from a Latin word credo, meaning “I believe,” So, one can find the word credo in the Latin Vulgate.

Synonyms for “creed” are such expressions as “rule of faith” or “symbol.” Now the word “rule” is a biblical word, in English. “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Also, “Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (Phil. 3:16-17, underscoring mine, LWM).

If one’s faith or belief is strong enough, then that one may be prompted to speak forth his “creed.” “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34; Luke 6:45).

Actually, each true Christian-to-be, expresses his “creed” . . . his, “I believe,” when, in the course of obeying the Gospel of Christ, he confesses his faith in Christ as the Son of the living God! But this all comes from Holy Scripture, not the writings of mere men! “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33). Or, in Romans 10:9-10 – “That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.”

The man from Ethiopia asked: “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:36-37).

The Apostle Peter expressed a God-given creed, when he responded to Christ’s question, by affirming, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:18). The church of Christ was founded upon belief in Christ’s divinity. Here again, it was and is, a God-given “creed.” So, you see, this writer is not opposed to a “creed,” as such; just so long as it is God-breathed by way of Holy Scripture, and not a “creed” based upon the commandments and doctrines of men (Matt. 15:9).

The sad fact about creeds of men is that they are divisive. You subscribe to your creed and I’ll subscribe to mine, and never the twain shall meet! A Baptist creed produces Baptists; a Methodist creed produces Methodists; while the New Testament produces Christians!

“For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name” (1 Cor. 1:11-14). Paul condemned divisions among the brethren at Corinth. Among the seven things God hates, is that of “one who sows discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:16). I affirm that writers of men’s creeds, sow discord among those who would otherwise be brethren!

How Scriptures Were Respected Before Roman Catholicism

Clement of Rome (Died ca. 99 A.D.): “You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them” (Letter to the Corinthians, Chp. 45).

Justin Martyr (Died 167 A.D.): “But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing (that the Scriptures err); and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext (for saying) that it is contrary (to some other) since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself” (Dialogue With Trypho, Ch. 65).

Irenaeus (Died 202 A.D.): “. . being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit” (Against Heresies, Bk. 2, Ch. 28).

Clement of Alexandria (Died ca. 215 A.D.): “I could adduce ten thousand Scriptures of which not ‘one title shall pass away’ without being fulfilled; for the mouth of the Lord the Holy Spirit has spoken these things” (Exhortation To The Heathen, (Ch. 8:82).

The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) was convened by Emperor Constantine. The “creed” which was drafted by this Council, did not mention the Scriptures. The twenty canons or rules drafted by this Council, make reference to two excerpts from Scripture without identifying them. This Council was attended by 315 Greeks and 3 Latins. Its proceedings were in the Greek language. Both the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church claim this Council as “theirs.” Rome’s claim is really “too little, too late.”

The First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) was convened by Emperor Theodosius. The “creed” drafted by this Council, contained in part: “He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures” (underscoring mine, LWM; The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Translated by Roy J. Deferrari, from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, p. 35). The four canons drafted by this Council made no reference to Scripture. There were 151 delegates in attendance; 150 were Greek, I was a Latin. This Council was also conducted in the Greek language.

Augustine, in a letter to Jerome (394-395 A.D.): “I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie. . . . If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author” (Letters, No. 28).

Ambrose (Died 397 A.D.): “And for this reason the divine Scripture all is called theopneustos because God inspired what the Spirit has spoken” (On the Holy Spirit, Bk. 3, Ch. 16).

Augustine, in a letter to Jerome (405 A.D.): “For, I admit to your charity that it is from those books alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it” (Letters, No. 82).

Jerome (Died 420 A.D.): “. . A am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired; but the Latin manuscripts of the Scriptures are proved to be faulty by the variations which all these exhibit, and my object has been to restore them to the form of the Greek original, from which my detractors do not deny that they have been translated” (Letters, No. 27).

Augustine, in his Reply To Faustus the Manichaean (Died 430 A.D.): “If we are perplexed by an apparent contradicton in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. . . . But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an en to that authority altogether, or involves it in helpless confusion” (Book 11, Ch. 5).

Theodoret (Died 460 A.D.): “They said, however, that all of the Psalms were not by David, but some were by others. But I say nothing about those; what do I care? . . . since all of them were written by the divine inspiration of the Spirit” (On the Psalms, Preface).

Council of Orange (529 A.D.) whose 25 canons or rules contain 44 specific references to Holy Scripture, and I only, reference to the Apocrypha. In the last portion of their proceedings, we copy as follows: “And thus according to the statements of the Holy Scriptures written above, or the explanation of the ancient Fathers, God being propitious, we ought to proclaim and to believe. .

“Innumerable are the testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures which can be brought forward to prove grace, but they are passed over out of the desire for brevity” (Enchiridion Symbolorum, by Denzinger, page 80). (See also The Church Teaches, Documents of the Church In English Translation, By Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary’s College, St. Marys, Kansas pp. 225-228.)

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 18, pp. 564-565
September 15, 1988

By Larry Ray Hafley

Prayer is a precious privilege. Like all of God’s blessings and benefits, it is given and guided by his infinite wisdom. It has his sanction and approval, and is, in common with all Divine duties, commandments and responsibilities, governed by certain rules, restrictions and stipulations. More detailed and elaborate comments on prayer are in order, but they do not belong in the parameters of this assigned topic nor do they fit in the confines of limited space.

Items To Remember

When God says, “No,” the Christian must remember:

(1) That God will do right. “He is . . . a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he” (Deut. 32:4). One may not see, he may not, as Job did not, understand, but God will do right. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:24)

(2) That God’s ways are not ours. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8,9). God sees the beginning from the end. Nothing is hidden from him. “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it” (Psa. 139:6). As a little child cries in protest when his mother pulls him from the road (It is such a great place to ride a tricycle!), so we may cry when God says, “no,” but he, like the child’s parent, knows danger the child may not be fully able to comprehend or appreciate.

(3) That prayer has a chief purpose. Prayer should not be an attempt to manipulate the will of God. “Not my will, but Thine be done,” the suffering Savior cried. But when God says, “no,” we often forget that fact and complain in effect, “not Thy will but mine be done. ” Perhaps the supreme purpose of prayer is to seek God’s will for our lives, our wants, our needs, our desires. It will help to remember that when God says “no.”

(4) That a “no” may be a “yes” in embryo. A present “no” may be a “yes” in development. Paul was told that he was going to Rome (Acts 19:21; 23:11). But the bars of incarceration, the shackles of servitude and the jaws of death seemed to say otherwise. Two years of confinement were not convincing evidence of a trip to Rome, nor was a hopeless sea voyage (Acts 24:27; 27:20). However, as we all know, Paul went to Rome (Acts 28:16)!

(5) That God’s laws prevail. The laws of nature are laws of God. God does not will that one fall off a cliff, but if certain physical laws are broken, he will. God has biological laws. Disease may be contracted and suffering and death may follow. One may pray, “Give us this day our daily bread, ” but if he does not use God’s laws to procure it, or if he contradicts God’s means of acquiring it, he will not receive it. As painful as it is to accept, we frequently are victims of earthly laws in the various and diverse orders of physical life. Of course, the reverse is also true. We often are blessed by material laws of God (Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:17; 1 Tim. 5:23).

Why And When Does God Say, “No”?

God says, “no,” when:

(1) Sin is in the heart. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Psa. 66:18). “The face of the Lord is against them that do evil” (1 Pet. 3:12).

(2) One’s attitude is unforgiving. “Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye may receive them, and ye shall have them. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses” (Mk. 11:24-26).

(3) “Ye ask amiss. ” Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your own lusts” (Jas. 4:3).

(4) We ask without faith. “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea. . . For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord” (Jas. 1:6,7).

(5) Our family life is ungodly. “Likewise, ye husbands, . . . giving honor unto the wife, . . . that your prayers be not hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7).

Those To Whom God Said “No”

God said no to Moses. “I pray thee, let me go over, and see the good land…. But the Lord … would not hear me: and the Lord said unto me, Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto me of this matter” (Deut. 3:35,26).

God said no to Israel. “And ye returned and wept before the Lord; but the Lord would not hearken to your voice, nor give car unto you” (Deut. 1:45).

God said no to Paul. “And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:7-10).

In accordance with the request of this assigned topic, let us focus our attention upon prayerful Paul’s acceptance of God’s “no.”

First, acceptance does not mean that the problem does not exist. Paul accepted God’s “no,” but stiff he had the “infirmities.”

Second, acceptance does not mean woeful resignation. Paul “besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.” We may (yea, we should) be persistent, even when God’s answer is not forthcoming (cf. Lk. 18:1-8).

Third, God’s “no” may be necessary to avoid a greater evil or infirmity. Twice Paul says the thorn in the flesh was given “lest I should be exalted above measure.” Unlike Paul, however, we may not know the express purpose for God’s “no,” but we can be assured of his faithfulness and goodness. With Paul, we, too, may have to endure one thing, which means accepting God’s refusal, in order to achieve a higher purpose or benefit.

Fourth, Paul’s weakness, as a consequent result of God’s “no,” made him strong (2 Cor. 12:10). The sorrow and suffering some endure has indeed made them strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. As witness thereto, see the articles in this special series.

Fifth, Paul’s infirmity allowed the power of Christ to rest upon him. God’s strength was complete, was sufficient, was made perfect in weakness. His strength, his sustenance and support, was seen to be of God. Therefore, Christ, not Paul was glorified. Paul’s endured infirmities revealed the power, not of Paul, but of God.

Sixth, God explained his answer of dino,” saying, “My grace is sufficient for thee.” God’s love and acceptance of us, his strength and power to assist us in our infirmities and with our weaknesses, is sufficient and complete.

Seventh, Paul gloried in his infirmities, but only after he accepted God’s “no.” Paul ultimately saw that this allowed God’s power to rest upon him. Paul’s weakness displayed and magnified Divine power in a manner that human adequacy and personal sufficiency could never accomplish.

Eighth, unfortunately, for him, Paul was the vessel, the sufferent, who had to endure afflictions that God’s grace, power and glory might be truly reflected, but he was glad to bear it for those purposes (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7-11; Gal. 4:13,14; 6:14,17). Until we are ready to do the same, we cannot accept or understand God’s “no.”

Finally, Job of old bore the lashes of unparalleled human calamity and agony and torture of mind, body and soul. His faithfulness and steadfast endurance has blessed thirty centuries of sorrowing humanity. Stephen and James met untimely, violent deaths (Acts 7,12). They died when we would have had them to live. By their suffering and death, the early disciples were shown the power of the new faith, that men could die and yet live in victory. Hence, multiplied millions have been emboldened and have accepted torture and death rather than denounce their faith and hope of eternal life.

Deliverance came. No, not to Stephen and James, nor to suffering servants of like precious faith, but it came in unquenchable hope, in the hope that maketh not ashamed. It came through him that is able to deliver us who through fear of death are subject to bondage. “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 17, pp. 537-538
September 1, 1988