Truth Magazine

By Webb Harris, Jr.

It is fundamental to a proper understanding of divine revelation that we appreciate that the “popular” definitions of many words common to the Scriptures differ from the intended ideas of the inspired writers. The term “saint” is a case in point. Appearing 62 times in the King James Version of the New Testament, the word’s significance is lost to the common 20th-century connotation which is foreign to the scriptural intent. The point which I wish to establish and press in this article is that this inconsistency between original meaning and modern usage creates a problem that advances far beyond the difficulties of initial reading or comprehension. Even those Bible students with diligence enough to cut through the tangled undergrowth in order to uncover the pure etymology of the word will be fortunate to remain unspotted. The fact of the matter is this: When a Bible word is soiled by men’s misunderstandings of its meaning, that word (though clearly understood by faithful students) is relegated to the station of the “defiled.” There are many scriptural words and phrases which we have retired because of the way in which they are often distorted in the religious world around us. We reason that our use of these words will either, (1) cause us to be misunderstood, or (2) cause us to be classified with those individuals who have monopolized the term in question.

Examples of the above practice are numerous. Many Christians shy away from using “Holy Spirit” in their speech and prayers for fear that their meaning or their person might be misconstrued as Pentecostal. This is true with the term I ‘saint. ” We are painfully aware that when most people hear the word “saint,” their mental image is a far cry from what we mean to convey. So it is easier, and often the wiser, to use a more familiar parallel word.

There is a price to be paid for retiring scriptural words for whatever reason. This consequence might be more visible in an illustration. Imagine that a congregation studies their way through the New Testament once per year. They do so in a book-by-book fashion. However, they habitually omit the book of Acts (or Romans or Hebrews). Now many of the truths that they are continually passing over will be supplied somewhat by similar passages in other books. But, suffice it to say, they are subjecting themselves to vital deficiencies. God included Acts (or Romans or Hebrews) in the New Testament for a reason.

One word may seem far more insignificant than a whole book; nonetheless, that word has a meaning and that particular meaning is inherent in no other word. We might, for whatever reason, choose to use “body of Christ” instead of “household of God” whenever we speak of the church. After all, they’re the same thing, aren’t they? And don’t “redemption” and “propitiation” both speak of what Christ was doing on the cross of Calvary? Aren’t they interchangeable? In reality, it would be a tragedy to eliminate “household of God” and “propitiation” from our meditations and communications because these words convey concepts which are not adequately represented by other similar terms.

The same is true for “Christian” and “saint.” We might try to substitute the former for the latter because the latter is so often misunderstood. After all, a saint is a Christian and a Christian is a saint. Basically, anyway. But, oh, what we forfeit when we throw away this divinely-inspired designation of God’s people.

A Closer Look

The World Book Encyclopedia’s offering on “saint” illustrates boldly the modem understanding of the word. It suggests that a saint is a “holy person who becomes a religious hero by exemplifying a virtue . . . of his . . . religion. Many persons achieve sainthood because they played a major role in the history of their religion . . . (“St. Paul” is offered as an example, wch) [Others] are revered as saints because before or after death they performed miracles.” The same reference materials report that the Roman Catholic Church presently sanctions 58 international feast days in memory of 58 Roman Catholic saints. It further states that to “achieve sainthood” one must be nominated after one’s death, be beatified by the church after a close examination of one’s life and works and have had association with at least two miracles.

Most people’s understanding of the term “saint” is summed up in the above paragraph. Their conception might be illustrated by a tiny circle inside a larger circle which is itself inside an enormous circle. The enormous circle represents all the people of the world. The circle inside the enormous circle represents all the people of the church, or all good people. The tiny circle represents a special, elite class of good people: saints. It is not uncommon for people to treasure relics associated with this elite class, attributing magical powers to the relics; prayers to these “saints” are quite ordinary.

As mentioned earlier, the word “saint” appears frequently in the New Testament, However, the above understanding of the word is foreign to its New Testament meaning. Rather than signifying an elite class of special disciples within the church, or a selection of dead Christians officially “sainted” by church leaders, the word is a designation of all Christians. Paul addresses his epistles to the saints in any given locality (Rom. 1:7; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2). When Paul persecuted the Christians in Jerusalem, he was said to have done harm “to the saints” (Acts 9:13). And when Peter visited the Christians of Lydda, he was said to have “come down also to the saints who lived [there].” To observe its use throughout the New Testament is to see it clearly as a designation of all Christians. But this is not to suggest that “saint” and “Christian” have equivalent definitions. This is why it is harmful to utilize one word to the exclusion of the other.

The term “Christian” denotes a connection with Christ. Though scholars may disagree on just what kind of connection is implied (some say the word means “followers of Christ,” some say the word means “little Christ,” etc.), the term speaks of a person who is linked with Jesus. The term “saint” applies to the same individual, but tells us something different about him. The term “saint” tells us that this individual is “holy. ” Indeed, the Greek word which is translated “saint” in our Bibles is hagios, which means holy. The NASB bears this out by continuously footnoting “saint” with “holy ones.” The Latin word for “holy” is sanctus and this is where our word “saint” comes from. It is also apparent that our term “sanctify” comes from the same Latin word. Verily, to speak of something as being “sanctified” is in essence to speak of it as being “made holy.” (See this connection in 1 Cor. 1:2.)

What does it mean to “sanctify” or “make holy”? The pat answer is “to set apart.” This seems to be as good a definition as any, however, it might be useful to elongate this definition to include that the “sanctified” object is set apart for a special use. When tabernacle utensils were “sanctified” in the Mosaic system, they were being set apart for a special use (i.e., they were not to be utilized for common, or “profane,” purposes; they were off-limits for anything but their designated aim). In this way, they were “holy.” If, then, the Scriptures tell us that a certain individual has become “holy,” what does that tell us about said person? He has been set apart for a special use.

What Are You Getting At?

I believe that many Christians have lost a part of their identity. Particularly, the “saint” part. It is one thing to technically understand the original intent of the term; it is another matter entirely to practically apply its force to oneself. To live up to such a designation would demand that we “cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1).

If one tiptoes around the concept of “saintliness” long enough, he will come to envision it little differently than does the majority. Though he long ago learned the true derivation of “saint” and in theory recognizes that it ought to be applied to all children of God, he still thinks in terms of “ordinary Christians” and the “elite.” He does not apply God’s call to total separateness to himself. He does not see himself as an instrument set apart for God’s special use; an instrument not to be subjected to the profane. He feels that it is acceptable for him to be a little less righteous than those church-members who have committed themselves to a Christianity of heroic, “saintly” proportions. It would be unseemly for them to lose their temper, get a little tipsy, swear mildly, but not so for himself. He knows his limits.

Somehow we have got to blaze our way past the World Book concept of “sainthood,” the Roman Catholic doctrine, the common mind-set. This will mean ignoring the suggestions of numerous Bible publishers who insist that Luke’s record of Christ’s work is the gospel according to “Saint Luke.” It is quite certain that Luke was a saint, but he was no more a saint than you or me. But, friends, it’s so easy, is it not, to think of men like Luke as being in a “cream of the crop” corps of disciples that was over and above our humble heads.

All in all, what I am trying to say is that there is, indeed, a higher “code of conduct” worthy only of “holy” people. The twist is that if I am a Christian, I am one of those “holy” people and I need to begin living like a person whom God has set apart from the profane to be utilized for his purposes according to his blessed will. Paul wrote to the Christians of Rome, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in a manner worthy of the saints.” There is a certain way that “holy” people would receive this woman; my brethren, you must live up to this station. In Ephesians 5:3, Paul writes, “but do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints.” There is a special way that “holy” people conduct themselves; my brethren, you must submit yourselves to this degree. Why.) Because, through Christ our Lord, you are saints. That is the truth which we must grasp.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 402-403
July 7, 1988

By Robertson L. Whiteside

So often the announcement runs about as follows: “We are anxious to secure a preacher. He must be a good mixer, and ” But no matter about the rest. Anything else is of secondary importance, whether the call comes from Bat Creek or from Progressive Hollow. No others need apply.

What is a good mixer? Can’t define the term? No matter; every one knows a good mixer when he sees him in action. A person may be courteous and in every sense a gentleman without being a “good mixer.”

The Bible gives us an account of one good mixer, only that is not what the historian calls him. This man, the son of the favorite king of Israel, had led a rather wayward life. He was selfish, devoid of sympathy for others, and without interest in their welfare. He killed his brother Amnon, and fled to Geshur, where he remained in exile three years. David finally brought him back. Now this man Absalom was more than a good mixer; for “in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him” (2 Sam. 14:25).

Absalom had a big selfish purpose to accomplish. He set his heart on dethroning God’s anointed king, his own father, that he might obtain the kingdom for himself, even if he must murder his own father to accomplish his purpose. But he could never do this without first winning the people. He knew the value and utility of being a good mixer. He formulated a plan. “And Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him. And on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment: so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (2 Sam. 15:16).

Of course he kept his purposes in the dark, while by the arts of flattery and deceit he was working himself into the good graces of the people. He made them believe he was so kind, so sympathetic, so unselfish – such a good man! When they came to believe him to be the best man in the kingdom, they were then ready to support him in a move to gain the throne, even if God’s king and his own father must be murdered to accomplish the purpose. Thus Absalom, the finest-looking man in the kingdom, was also the best mixer in Israel, and – the basest scoundrel!

But is it not strange that a man could be so selfish and base, and yet be the most idolized man in the kingdom? It is not strange that he practiced the arts of flattery and became a good mixer. That was a part of the game, without which he could have made no headway. But the people love to be flattered, and they love a good mixer; and Absalom knew it. In that line he was an artist. I never read a call for a good mixer without thinking of Absalom; and if he were living, I would recommend him for the place. And would he not make a great showing as a modern pastor, or “located minister”? He was such a fine-looking man, so entertaining, seemingly so unselfishly interested in every one’s welfare, that he would have captured the whole town or city. And had he discovered that the elders were growing suspicious of him, how easily he could have stirred up his enthusiastic supporters, deposed the old elders, and appointed some who would retain him as their preacher and be thoroughly submissive to him.

Be courteous, of course – truly, genuinely, sincerely courteous. If a man loves God and man, neither bigotry, impudence, self-will, nor any of the other unbecoming traits of character will find a place in his heart. He will be considerate and forbearing, gentle and forgiving, kind and sympathetic, toward all, rich and poor. But genuine love will prompt one, when occasion demands, to do a thing that, under ordinary circumstances, would not seem courteous. To rescue a child from immediate danger may require you to snatch him in a way that under ordinary conditions would seem extremely rude. And to rescue a man from sin may require you to rebuke him in such way as to destroy your reputation for being a good mixer; but genuine love, true courtesy, requires it. A physician will not flatter one concerning his prospects for a long life and good health, when he knows that a serious operation is the only means of prolonging his life; only a quack would console him into the idea that he needed only mild treatment.

Some people are naturally more demonstrative than others. Extreme friendliness seems to be a part of their nature. It is not strained and professional. They have the fluidity of spirit that mixes in easily with others; and, for that reason, they cannot be leaders. A good mixer mixes easily and gracefully with his surroundings, and catches the spirit of the crowd. How can one possessing such fluidity of spirit lead others? He is more likely to be affected by them. As Brother D. Lipscomb said: “A good mixer is easily mixed.” You would have to change human nature for it to be otherwise. But it is certainly no sin to be naturally a good mixer, though this trait so highly prized by some may really be a liability instead of an asset. Neither is it wrong to cultivate a friendly, sympathetic disposition. In fact love for man creates sympathy and a desire to be helpful. If genuine love masters a man, he will be kind and courteous to all, neither fawning on the rich nor patronizing toward the poor, recognizing that all are God’s creatures upon whom is engraven or may be engraven the image of the divine nature. This is the true courtesy.

But let us not forget that courtesy may be put on as a cloak. There is such a thing as professional courtesy. What may be genuine fruit in one may be merely artificial trimmings in another. And here is the danger. The preacher who is a good mixer is in demand. Seeing this, a young preacher may cultivate it as an ornament, as a means of making a success in his calling. Hence, he flatters that he may please, and seems interested when he is not, because both contribute to his success. He shakes hands with everybody in his own meetings; but when he attends another’s meeting, he does not. Thus he makes courtesy a professional matter. Such a course is rotting to character and makes one the basest of hypocrites.

Flattery, an essential trait of the professional good mixer, is insincere praise, and is a product of selfishness. No one ever flattered another for the other’s benefit, but for his own. Hence, David classes the flatterer among his enemies (see Psa. 5:8,9). And no wonder for the flatterer seeks to use others for his own selfish ends. I like true courtesy; but when a new acquaintance is too sweet to me, I wonder what he is priming me up for.

Flattery is an evil, a great sin, and is severely condemned in the Bible. And yet a young preacher said: “People like flattery and being bragged on, and I am going to give it to them. ” All such should read and ponder the following: “Help, Jehovah; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak falsehood every one with his neighbor: with flattering lip, and with a double heart, do they speak. Jehovah will cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaketh great things” (Psa. 12:1-3). “A flattering mouth worketh ruin” (Prov. 26:28). “And in his place shall stand up a contemptible person, to whom they had not given the honor of the kingdom: but he shall come in time of security, and shall obtain the kingdom by flatteries” (Dan. 11:21). “And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he pervert by flatteries; but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits” (verse 32). Rather than be a contemptible flatterer, let us follow the example of Paul: “For neither at any time were we found using words of flattery, as ye know nor a cloak of covetousness” (1 Thess. 2:5).

– Reprinted from Doctrinal Discourses, pp. 35-40.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, pp. 418-439
July 21, 1988

By Wayne Greeson

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Psa. 19:1).

With the increase of man’s knowledge comes the constant confirmation of the Psalmist’s statement. The evidence continues to build that this universe is not the product of chance but a system of order and design. The design of the universe points to a designer.

The argument from design is a powerful argument that proves the existence of God. Atheists feel the force of this argument in discussion and debate and they are often compelled to take a rather strange position. To refute the argument from design, the atheist will often assert that there is as much disorder in the universe as order. The conclusion is drawn that the existence of randomness and disorder in the universe disproves a total system of order and design, thus there is no designer.

This argument was presented in the Bales-Teller debate by the atheist Woolsey Teller. Mr. Teller repeatedly argued that the world and the organisms in it are so poorly made that this world could not have been designed, thus there is no designer. Mr. Teller said, “Any comment on the God idea and design in nature would be incomplete if we failed to consider the arrangement of the planets in their relation to the sun, that is, their placements in point of distance, and what occurs because of their positions. Now, if the universe was designed (and the universe includes our solar system), it was designed in a very peculiar way” (Bales-Teller Debate, 1947, p. 49).

Mr. Teller proceeded to argue that the lay-out of the planets of the solar system was “ridiculous” because of its lack of order; thus the universe could not be the creation of a divine being. This general line of argumentation has been used by atheists in numerous debates.

While the atheists’ “argument from chaos” sounds impressive, it is built upon a faulty premise. The assertion that there is chaos or disorder in the universe is an unproven and false premise. Recent scientific studies have concluded that what superficially appears to be random behavior in systems, closer observation reveals complex patterns and design!

Within the last decade, a number of scientists have studied apparent random behavior of various systems such as air turbulence, the development of sunspots, the spread of flames, water dripping from a faucet and water movement in the oceans. Studies in this area have been advanced to the point that last year there was a scientific conference on the subject in Monterey, California, the International Conference on the Physics of Chaos and Systems Far from Equilibrium. Scientists involved with these studies have concluded, “There is order in chaos. Underlying chaotic behavior there are elegant geometric forms that create randomness in the same way a card dealer shuffles a deck of cards of a blender mixes a cake batter . . . Random-looking information can be explained in terms of simple laws” (Scientific American quoted in the Miami Herald, Jan. 14, 1987).

The atheists’ “argument from chaos” is an argument from ignorance. For an atheist to declare that a particular system or organism is without order, design or purpose simply reveals that the atheist is ignorant of the order, design and purpose of that system. Closer examination and study of what appears to be without design or purpose can often expose design and purpose.

A good example of the atheists’ argument from ignorance is the once weighty “evidence” of vestigial organs. A vestigial organ is an organ or structure of the body that has no apparent purpose and has supposedly degenerated because of lack of use. One hundred years ago, science listed over 186 organs of the human body as “vestigial organs,” organs with no apparent purpose. These “useless” structures were seen as evidence of evolution and disproof of the existence of God. Today, only five organs remain on the list of vestigial organs and even the classification of these five as vestigial organs is hotly debated by the scientific community. The problem with “vestigial” organs was not that they had no purpose, but that men were ignorant of their purpose.

Order, design and purpose, not chaos, rule throughout the universe. Even seeming chaos is carefully ordered. Order and design demand a Designer. That Designer is the God of the Bible. “Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One . . . I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded” (Isa. 45:11-12).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, p. 424
July 21, 1988

By Dennis C. Abernathy

It is sad that local churches have problems, but the fact of the matter is that they do from time to time. Local churches in the New Testament had internal problems and churches today will have them. At times problems are stirred by certain individuals and the flame of turmoil is fanned until it reaches an inferno. More often than not these flame-fanners (trouble-makers) hide behind the cloak of anonymity. In situations where strife is thick, try asking a few pertinent questions.

Who are the “they” in “They say the preacher isn’t doing his job”? Who is the “we” in “We think the elders ought to step down”? Who is “someone” in “Someone told me that no one is friendly to the new members”? Who are the “many” or “A lot of people” who complain about this or that anonymously? Well, usually “many” means “one or two,” “someone” means “me,” “we” means “me, myself and I,” and “they” usually can’t be found anywhere!

The critic may say, “A large number of the brethren feel this way.” When asked to name a few of the brethren, he responds: “I don’t want to name names.” How can problems be solved or disgruntled members of the church be corrected if names are not mentioned, especially if “a large number of people really do feel this way”? In most cases one must have specific information to solve problems. The reason so many churches have internal problems and also problems with neighboring congregations is the failure in getting specific information. Some brethren (preachers included) believe any and everything without bothering to check out the information. May I suggest something for your consideration? Anonymous critics who relay gossip and slander and who create imaginary supporters have no desire to resolve anything! They just want to cause trouble and that they surely will do if we listen to them!

The simple solution for not getting caught in the middle of a situation where we are asked “not to tell who said it” or where someone is heaping their disgruntlement of the brethren on you, is to point the anonymous critic to Matthew 18:15-17. Let us all read that passage over and over, and when properly applied, it will stop a lot of the critics who bask in anonymity!

Brethren, as hard as it may be, let us all resolve not to listen to someone gossiping about a problem they have with a brother or sister and treat anonymous complaints like we treat anonymous letters to the editor . . . just don’t publish them! The Bible warns against slander and malicious gossip. David said to the Israelites: “Whoso privily slandered his neighbor, him will I cut off” (Psa. 101:5). If someone won’t sign his name to a complaint or qualifies his remark with “don’t use my name,” one of two things is usually true: either he has no good reason to complain or he is just lying!

Brethren it is possible for us to allow ourselves to be a pawn in some brother or sister’s effort to hurt someone through malicious gossip or slander. Don’t do it!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, p. 399
July 7, 1988