Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Having given in my last article a brief overview of the historical development of the positive thinking philosophy, I want to call attention to some of the main doctrinal affirmations which have become popular as a result of the movement.

In case some might misunderstand me, I hasten to add that opposition to the positive thinking philosophy is not an affirmation of pessimistic thinking. Each of us needs to have as positive an outlook on life as reality will allow. However, there are certain doctrines of the positive thinking philosophy which need to be assessed. Let us consider some of them:

1. The deification of man. None of the movements that paved the way for the positive thinking philosophy directly affirm the deity of man. Nevertheless, affirmations are made which lead to that necessary conclusion.

Anything you can imagine, visualize, and develop a sincere desire for can be yours if you plan for it and work for it through a program of goal setting (Paul Meyer, Dynamics of Goal Setting, Lesson 2, p. 1).

You can make just about anything of your life – anything you will believe or will visualize, anything you will pray for and work for. Look deeply into your mind. Amazing wonders are there (Norman Vincent Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking, p. 176).

. . . God is willing to give you everything you ask for, if you but believe (Peale, You Can If You Think You Can, p. 12).

As I meditated on this, a thought came crystal clear, Whatever you can conceive, and believe, you can do! (Oral Roberts, Miracle of Seed Faith, p. 7)

In order for these statements to be true, man would have to be deity, for only deity can accomplish everything he imagines. That these are over-statements at best and outright deceptions at worst should be obvious. There are definite limitations on man. He is finite, not infinite; he is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. Consequently, there are things which no human being can achieve, though he believes that he can achieve them. The account of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11 is conclusive on that point!

Teaching this dogma deceives men and leads him into despair. A man who believes he can accomplish something but is unable to achieve it will conclude that the problem is his lack of faith. The Scriptures teach that “the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all” (Eccl. 9:11). Circumstances beyond human control contribute to whether or not men achieve their goals. A young couple who gives birth to a deformed baby should not attribute the deformity to lack of faith. Though they believed they would have a healthy baby, prayed about it, and visualized a healthy baby, sometimes a baby is born without an arm or leg. Experience, as well as the Scriptures, demonstrates the limitations of man.

2. Faith in mind power or “faith,” instead of faith in God. The positive thinking movement teaches faith in “faith” rather than faith in God. Some refer to mind power being released; others speak of the miracle of seed-faith. In either case, the power to accomplish begins in the human mind with unlimited potential.

When people begin to think that they can control what God does for them by prayer or faith, they have slipped into pagan concepts of God. In magic, men manipulate a higher power to obtain things for themselves. Those who promise success to those who believe teach that by believing one can bring God (or some other kind of power) under obligation to provide health, wealth and success. Do you want a raise in pay at the factory, desire a higher paying job, or wish your restaurant sold more food? Believe you can have it, pray, visualize, and receive it. “God answers prayer” ends up meaning “God is at man’s beck and call!”

Anthony Campolo, Jr., author of The Success Fantasy, wrote,

Will Herberg, a contemporary Jewish social philosopher, claims that Americans have “faith in faith.” They think believing in God assures them of economic prosperity and personal achievement. He may be right. But this kind of “faith” makes God a means to our own personal ends and declares that He is there to help us achieve things which society tells us are important.

The eternal God does not exist to serve our ends. He is not an instrument for the fulfillment of our wishes. We exist to serve Him. We are called to be instruments of His will.

Many sociologists differentiate religion from magic by pointing out that in religion people submit themselves to the will of a higher power; in magic, people try to manipulate a higher power to get things for themselves. Many people who think they have true religion transform the Christian faith into a primitive form of magic, treating God as though He were the genie of the magic Imp. Prayer becomes a litany for manipulating God into delivering what the petitioners want. Jesus’ name becomes a magical incantation that must be blasphemously uttered at the end of the prayer if God is to deliver the desired results (The Success Fantasy, pp. 137-138).

3. Eliminate the negative. Even as positive thoughts have power to create, negative thoughts have power to destroy. Hence, according to positive thinking, success depends upon eliminating the destructive power of negative thinking and replacing it with the power of positive thinking.

It is important to eliminate from conversations all negative ideas . . . . Never use a negative thought in prayer. Only positive thoughts get results . . . . Suffice it to say that we manufacture our unhappiness by thinking unhappy thoughts, by the attitudes which we habitually take, such as the negative feeling that everything is going to turn out badly, or that other people are getting what they do not deserve and we are failing to get what we do deserve (Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking, pp. 33, 65, 69).

It was at this moment that I might be able to show him he had sowed seeds of doubt that brought him a harvest of needs, and more needs . . . . With faith you do something first and thereby make your faith an act and release it toward God . . . . On the other hand, doubt is just as real, in a negative way, as faith. Doubt (or unbelief) is the REVERSED FORM of faith. . . . In this negative spirit, you block the flow of God’s intervention in your behalf to turn the tide (Oral Roberts, Miracle of Seed-Faith, pp. 145-148).

As positive thinking has been applied to preaching, the result has been that preachers only preach what is positive. Preaching that condemns others creates a negative impression toward the church and should be eliminated. A “I’m O.K. – You’re O.K. ” disposition arose toward every religion and sin virtually passed from the vocabulary of the preacher. Instead of the preacher being a prophet who called man’s attention to his sins with a message of repentance, the preacher began delivering messages which made a person feel warm inside. Robert Schuller defined sin as “lack of self-esteem” (Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 98); consequently, his preaching was designed to build man’s self-esteem, feeling of self-worth. Anything which attacked the man as a sinner condemned in the sight of God damaged his self-esteem and should be eliminated. Preaching had to address the “human needs” of the non-Christian – to meet his deepest emotional needs.

One needs only to listen to radio and television evangelists or visit any religious bookstore to perceive the influence of positive thinking on preaching. Preaching has turned from theology to psychology. Many seminaries now have a larger staff for pastoral counseling than for biblical studies. Man is more interested in “practical” preaching than “doctrinal” preaching. Preachers rarely preach a “hell-fire-and-brimstone” sermon (indeed, some have renounced belief in hell and others who believe in it do not want to alienate those who might be listening). In the mainline Protestant denominations, any doctrinal belief is accepted, welcomed, or tolerated; only those who are so “narrow-minded” and “bigoted” as to assume “their little group is the only one going to be saved” are openly condemned. Intolerance of other religions and lifestyles is the ultimate – if not the only – heresy in the minds of most social commentators and even some preachers! Positive thinking has eaten the doctrinal heart out of the mainline Protestant denominations and all that is left is a denomination with no specific doctrinal beliefs. Many remain historically tied to their denomination but have no doctrinal ties to it.

4. A gospel of wealth. Men have been taught by the positive thinking philosophy that faith in God and adherence to His word will deliver wealth, power, and status – social success. Gordon D. Fee, author of The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospel, described this affirmation like this:

God wills the (financial) prosperity of every one of his children, and therefore for a Christian to be in poverty is to be outside of God’s intended will; it is to be living a Satan-defeated life. And usually tucked away in this affirmation is a second: Because we are God’s children, the King’s kids, as some like to put it, we should always go first class – we should have the biggest and best, a Cadillac instead of a Volkswagen, because this alone brings glory to God (The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels, p. 3).

While not explicitly saying what Fee has summarized, the television evangelists teach the same message when they bring celebrities to testify how the gospel changed their lives from abject failure to glowing success. They begin by describing the dismal level to which they had sunk – they lost their job, they were poor, they lived in a shack and drove a wreck. Then, they gave their lives to Jesus and since then things have changed. They now have a job paying twice what their former job paid, they have money in the bank, live in a mansion, and drive a Cadillac – because they had faith in Christ.

Another might “testify” that he sent in his donation as seed-faith and God blessed him materially. In Miracle of SeedFaith, Oral Roberts described how God sent his brother-in-law a job, arranged a loan for Oral, enabled two men to become Tulsa’s third-largest builders, etc. as they practiced the principle of seed-faith. Peale publishes many similar testimonials of success in Guideposts. The message of positive thinking is that if you have the proper faith in God, you will be living successfully. In The Success Fantasy, Anthony Campolo, Jr. wrote,

As a boy I remember attending testimony meetings at our church where Christians told how they were poor and beaten people until they accepted Christ as personal Savior and Lord. Then they would relate how, as a consequence of their new lives in Christ, they suddenly experienced prosperity. . . . Sermons from the pulpit, articles in magazines, and testimonies of successful Christian businessmen at luncheon meetings, all reinforce the creed that Jesus will prosper us if we just walk in His ways (The Success Fantasy, p. 11).

Many popular evangelists today seem to promise the world if one will accept Christ. . . . We hear mostly the positive, what one will get: health, success, self-fulfillment, and even wealth, especially if one supports that particular evangelist (George Marsden, “Secular Humanism Within the Church,” Christianity Today Institute [17 January 1986], p. 14).

a. one result of this teaching is that it has sanctified man’s spending upon himself. One is not viewed as a greedy, covetous sinner when he makes a display of his Cadillac, mansion, and diamonds; instead, these displays of wealth become a badge proving that one has faith in God. The Scriptures warn of the danger of wealth (1 Tim. 6:6-10; Deut. 6:10-12). The positive thinking philosophy has made wealth a proof of faith and poverty an evidence of an absence of faith.

b. This gospel makes life’s physical blessings dependent upon faith in Christ whereas Jesus said that life’s physical blessings come upon the just and unjust alike (Matt. 5:45). One of the most distressing things to God’s saint is the prosperity of the wicked (cf. Psa. 73), itself a proof that prosperity is not conditioned on faith in God. Some of God’s most faithful servants were destitute (cf. Heb. 11:32-39).

c. This gospel makes the theology of giving selfish. One gives (plants seed-faith) in order to receive. By giving to the Lord and the poor, one is assuring his own prosperity, producing profit-motivated giving. Jesus taught that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35).

5. The gospel of good health. Another tenet of positive thinking is the belief that God blesses those who have faith in Him with good health. “God wills our perfect health” is a presupposition of many television evangelists. If one has enough faith in God, he will be healed by God through a miracle. Any failure to be healed is not the fault of God but of the one who lacks faith.

The Scriptures nowhere affirm that physical healing of the body is part of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Indeed, faithful saints of God suffered physically (cf. Job, Jesus). The Scriptures do not attribute suffering from heart attack or cancer to a lack of faith in God, nor should anyone teach a gospel which drives a man to this conclusion.

Conclusion

This brief summary of some of the prominent concepts promoted by those associated with positive thinking should alarm us of its dangers as a philosophy which will destroy us spiritually. Although every positive thinker does not teach or believe every specific item mentioned, those generally associated with the positive thinking philosophy teach many of the same doctrines. Becoming aware of the danger of these influences may help us avoid being taken captive by the positive thinking philosophy.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 8, pp. 226, 246-247
April 16, 1987

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Ask nearly any Christian: what is the one thing we (church, family, society) most need today? You will likely hear “love.” No doubt there is a shameful lack of love among many professed Christians. However, I would like to put in a plug for less love among brethren with whom I often associate. Yes, I really believe that there is too much love among Christians. It is a bad sign.

“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money . . . lovers of pleasure. . . ” (2 Tim. 3:14).

We need less love for self. We need brethren who will not think more highly of themselves than they ought to think (Rom. 3:3-8). Too many congregations are having problems caused by brethren who think far more of themselves than they need to. A great deal of harmony could be restored if each would esteem others better than himself (Phil. 2:3, 4).

We need less love for money among us. It is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:10). Brethren have trouble finding time to do anything special for the Lord’s cause because they are too tied up with making money. Men go without adequate support in hard fields because brethren love money too much to give what is needed for that support. Preachers sometimes neglect their preaching because they are too involved in money making sidelines.

We needless love for pleasure. Sin can be pleasant (Heb. 11:25). Let there be no mistake about that. Therein lies its appeal. To be sure, the pleasure is short-lived compared to eternity.

Too many brethren think that they should not be asked to forego very much pleasure in order to be a faithful Christian. I think this is at the root of much of the remarriage problem that we are seeing so much of today. Its seems almost unthinkable to some to expect an unscripturally divorced person to forego the pleasure of another marriage. It is almost as if such would be cruel, inhumane and unusual punishment. What is the problem? Too much love for pleasure.

Then many congregations’ attendance suffers from people who are constantly out of town on pleasure trips. One is almost considered some kind of a nut if he suggests that such trips should not be taken if one cannot arrange to assemble with faithful saints on Lord’s day. It seems almost too much to expect a member of a local congregation to make out of town weekend trips extremely rare for the good of the work at home.

It is easy for Christians (young and old) to get up a party. It is not so easy to get up a serious Bible class. Could it be our love for pleasure?

We need less love for pre-eminence among brethren. Diotrephes caused a lot of problems because of this love (3 John 9). We have too many limelight seekers – even among, or maybe we should say especially among, preachers. This gives rise to jealousy and all its attending evil words and deeds. Often such characters will either get the attention they feel they deserve or they will form a wrecking crew for the church.

Elders sometimes prove by their actions they have sought and/or have accepted the eldership more for the ~’honor” than the work. Men often seek positions of leadership not for the opportunity it offers to serve the Lord and others, but as a means of satisfying their lust for “chief seats.” They love the attention that goes with the territory.

We need less love for the wages of unrighteousness (2 Pet. 2:15). The wages may be money gained from outright wrong doing or from soft peddling the truth. It may be human praise gained by the hypocrite (Matt. 6). It may be the approving gestures from those who have itching ears as we go about scratching them (2 Tim. 4:2ff). Too often we are prone to tell folks what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. The moral and financial support they give us in return is a wage of unrighteousness.

We need less love for this present world. Demas had that problem (2 Tim. 4:10). Paul seems to indicate that his love hurt the Cause. There is too much love for the material things of this present world. There is too much love for the sinful things of this world (1 John 2:15-17), too much lust of the flesh (cf. Gal. 5:19ff), too much lust of the eye, too much pride of life. Brethren need to be more spiritually minded, so that they would not attach so much value to the material and temporal things of this present world. They need more resolve to say “no” to sinful lusts. Too many churches (one would be too many) are filled with worldly minded people who see little need to resist such lusts. One only has to observe for a little while to see that materialism, immodesty, and general lack or purity of speech and discretion is wide-spread in certain congregations that call themselves “conservative.” Brethren, we definitely need less love for the world.

To be sure, we do need more love in some areas. However, surely you will agree that we need a lot less love in many areas.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 8, pp. 225, 237
April 16, 1987

By Randy S. Reese Sr.

The story of the Bible in Japan is a fascinating one. Many things that actually did happen seem improbable.

The Bible’s initial introduction to Japan came through Francis Xavier in 1549. Xavier brought with him a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, which had been translated by a young Japanese named Yajiro living in Goa India.

After Xavier’s arrival in Japan several attempts were made to translate the bible. However, no copies of these efforts are known to exist.

Karl Gutzlaff, a Prussian doctor, is regarded as the first Protestant Translator. In 1832, Gutzlaff came into contact with three shipwrecked Japanese seamen in the Port of Macao. Their junk had been blown clear across the Pacific Ocean in a fantastic journey lasting 14 months, only to be wrecked at the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon. From here they were sent to China and finally to Macao. With the help of these three men Gutzlaff translated the Gospel of John into Japanese and had it printed in Singapore in 1837. Unfortunately no copies reached Japan until 1859.

The first New Testament to be printed in Japan was made by Jonathan Goble, a marine on the Perry Expedition. In 1860 Goble returned to Japan this time as a missionary and in 1871 successfully printed this translation of the book of Matthew. Goble’s translation ‘was cut on wooden plates, all of this done in. secret as a prohibition existed against Japanese helping foreigners produce writings on Christianity in Japanese.

Between 1874 and 1880, a committee representing six Protestant denominations headed by Dr. James C. Hepburn, translated the entire New Testament. Dr. Hepburn also headed the committee that translated the Old Testament in 1888. Thus making the entire Bible available in Japan for the first time!

During the years 1910 to 1917 a committee produced a revised version of the New Testament, which with the 1888 edition of the Old Testament became and remained the standard Bible in Japan for nearly half a century!

After World War Il the Japanese language found itself in need of a new Colloquial Version of the Bible. (All previous versions had been in Classical Japanese.)

From 1951 to 1955, the Japan Bible Society produced a new Translation. The translators creed was, “To translate the Bible faithfully and correctly from the Greek originals, and to do it in simple colloquial style.”

This was the first translation done solely by Japanese scholars. All previous work had been done under the leadership of foreign missionaries.

In 1961, the New Bible Retranslation Publishing Committee was founded and once again the Bible was brought up to date. This is the translation that we use here in Japan today.

According to the Japan Bible Society more than 2,269,000 copies of the Bible were sold last year by them. (This does not include the Catholic versions.) Since 1871 more than 100 different translations of the Japanese Bible have been done.

When people humbly study, believe, and obey Bible commands as God’s Word, they become Christians (Acts 11:25), who enjoy peace here (Phil. 4:7), and eternal salvation hereafter (John 5:39).

Information Sources:

1. Takeshi Ankyu’s “Mikotoba,” Osaka, Japan, May 1982,

2. Otis Cary D.D. A History of Christianity in Japan, Tuttle, Tokyo, Japan, 1982.

3. Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, Vol. 1, p. 150.

4. Japan In Review, J.E.M.A. Tokyo, Japan, 1970.

5. Japan Bible Society Pamphlet, Tokyo, Japan, 1986.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 210
April 2, 1987

By Forrest D. Moyer

II. The “Author” of Bible Authority.

A. We cannot talk about “authority” without talking about “author” from which our word “authority” comes. The real question concerning religious practice is, “Who is the author of the practice?”

B. The prime authority is God (1 Cor. 15:27). He has the right to command and to enforce obedience. When He gave the ten commandment Law in Exodus 20, He began by saying, “I am Jehovah your God.” That showed His right to command! That showed His authority! Observe v. 5: “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, Jehovah your God, am a jealous God. . . . ” No man could rebel against His authority without dire consequences (v. 5).

1. This principle is seen over and over again in the Old Testament.

a. The man who violated the Sabbath law was stoned to death (Num. 15:35-36).

b. Nadab and Abihu were destroyed because they brought strange fire.

c. Uzzah perished because of His violation of God’s law.

2. Further, we must observe that the laws of a dispensation are in effect throughout that dispensation. We see this when after several hundred years, Ezra and Nehemiah brought the Israelites back to the law that had been given on Sinai (Neh. 9:13ff). Then when Jesus came on the scene, He emphatically told the people to do what Moses in the Law had commanded them. Now, this principle will help us when we come to consider the covenant under which we live that began on Pentecost. The laws of the New Covenant will last until the end of time and we absolutely must observe them.

C. Jehovah has now given all authority to His Son (Mt. 28:18).

1. Jesus has the right to command (exousia) and expect obedience (Lk. 6:46). Thus, He stressed the necessity of our “hearing these sayings of mine” (Mt. 7:24). It was then that the people were astonished at His teaching because He was teaching them as one having authority (v. 29).

2. Contrasted with Jesus, man has no right to command, for man is not the author of religious doctrine. This was clearly recognized by Jesus and by the religious leaders of His day. The chief priests asked Jesus, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” (Mt. 21:23) They may not have been thinking about the authority of God, but they recognized the necessity of authority to act. Jesus responded, “I will ask you one thing too, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” They refused to answer His question for obvious reasons. What He placed before them must constantly be in our minds. Is our practice from Heaven or from men? Is it authored by God or by man? This is a legitimate question. If it is authored by God, then it will be in the book that He authored. If a practice is not in the book, it is not authored by God and it is from men. We shall proceed to application of this as we continue.

D. But another vital question is, what about the silence of the Scriptures? Or putting it another way, what is authorized by the silence of the Word? To be even more elementary, what is authored by silence? When there is no sound, there is no echo; and the echo that comes from the silence of the Scriptures is thunderous in its own silence. Nothing whatsoever is authorized by the silence of the Scriptures.

Probably the most common religious question asked is “Why can’t we?” The full form of the question is “Why can’t we do this thing not mentioned in the Bible?” “Why can’t we baptize babies?” “Why can’t we use instrumental music in worship?” The apparent motivation that prompts this question is the desire to have as broad a liberty as possible to do as many things religiously as we possibly can. If we are permitted to do those things which are not mentioned in the Bible, then we can do not only the few things which are mentioned in the Bible but also the thousands of things not mentioned in the Bible. There are two basic answers to this “Why can’t we?” question: (1) “You can do anything not mentioned so long as it is not specifically forbidden in the Bible.” (2) “You cannot do any unmentioned thing since one specific thing forbids the thing not specified.” For example, the command to sing excludes the use of an instrument. The “why can’t we? ” question is an appeal to the silence of the Scriptures, and there is no authority based on silence.

(To illustrate: you can’t quote an authority on something if that authority has never spoken on that something. For example, you could not quote C. S. Lewis on some matter regarding which he has never said or written anything. Jesus is our great authority. He is our Lord and Master. We cannot quote Him or His word as authority to act religiously if He has not spoken on the matter in question. Things that are outside of the Bible are things in the area of which God has not spoken; therefore, they are outside of the realm of the authority of the Bible. God’s silence is really nothing at all – that is, it is not a creative act of God. God authorizes by speech – by His written word.

“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). There are two classifications of things set forth in this passage: (1) the things that are secret and (2) the things that are revealed. The secret things belong to God and must remain with Him. Man is out of place in authorizing things God has not made known. Our business is involved in the things which are revealed. Silence is not revelation! What He has revealed is ours and we need to diligently study what is revealed and be guided by it. We have no revelation by silence!

Silence is not above speech. Silence is not equal to speech. Silence is not even under speech except all the way to the bottom at zero, for it is nothing. If your religious practices are in the realm of silence, there are two very significant problems: (1) The non-permissiveness of silence versus the permissiveness of speech. (2) The worthlessness of silence versus the pricelessness of speech. We might further observe that there are only two possible reasons for God’s leaving anything out of the Bible: intentional omissions or inadvertent omissions. If God deliberately left something out, by what authority do you dare to put it in? One would hardly want this alternative. The other is certainly no better. To say that God inadvertently left some things out of His word would charge Him with being incompetent – He didn’t know what He was doing. But the God of the Bible is the Almighty! He won’t let even one thing in that He doesn’t want in, nor will He leave a thing out that He wants in. If a thing isn’t in the Bible, then we must know that God left it out for good, divine reasons, and that we must not meddle with things left out of the Bible. Our options form an either/or situation. We must either show that our practices are in the Bible, i.e. authorized by what is said or admit that those that aren’t are not there and give them up.)* To say, “the Bible does not forbid it” is sectarianism gone to seed! The Bible authorizes by what it says not by what it does not say. In fact, there can be no faith without there being the spoken or written word (Rom. 10:17). We cannot believe that something is from God unless God has authored it! We cannot speak religiously unless there is faith (1 Pet. 4:11). As it is written, “I believed, therefore I spoke” (2 Cor. 4:13). One cannot truly say, “I believe in counting beads in worship” since there is no word of God to that effect. Since the New Testament does not authorize instrumental music, one cannot truly say, “I believe in using instrumental music in worship.” “I believed, therefore I spoke.”

1. But brethren have often turned to the silence of the Bible to seek to justify their practices. In the Otey-Briney Debate, brother Briney said in defense of the missionary society:

I allege that where the Scriptures require this to be done, and are silent in regard to the method by which it is to be done, this silence authorizes these men, whether they be many or few, whether it be one congregation or a hundred congregations, to meet in the name of the Master, and under the commandment to go, inaugurate such a work and carry it on; and whenever you have that, you have a missionary society (Otey-Briney Debate, p. 169).

Brother Pendleton in defending the society said: “You say, ‘Your Missionary Society is not scriptural’ – and you mean by this, that there is no special precept in the Scriptures commanding it. We concede this without a moment’s hesitation. There is none; but what do you make of it? Is everything which is not scriptural therefore wrong?” (W. K. Pendleton as quoted by Earl West, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol II, p. 50)

Brother Otey responded to brother Briney: “He says that the ‘silence of the Scriptures authorizes these societies. . . . that these societies are ‘authorized by the silence of the Scriptures.’ It (the proposition) says that these organizations are ‘authorized in the New Testament Scriptures.’ How is he going to prove it? By silence? We can prove anything by silence, so far as that is concerned, that is not specifically mentioned in the New Testament” (Ibid., p. 204).

2. But what is wrong with an appeal to silence? I believe that we should give an answer to this vital question. The writer of Hebrews illustrates this point vividly. In Heb. 1:5, he asks, “For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘Thou art my son, today I have begotten thee?… The silence of God on this subject proved that no angel could occupy the position of being the Son. He proved it by showing that there is silence concerning the matter. God never authorizes by silence!

3. The Hebrew writer continues in 7:14. “For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” His argument was that Jesus could not be a priest on earth because He was of the tribe of Judah. And there is silence concerning the priesthood of those from Judah. There was no Old Testament authorization for one from Judah serving as priest. The silence of the Scriptures not only did not authorize it, but did not allow it.

4. Another salient point along this line is seen in Acts 15:24 in regard to circumcision of the Gentiles: “Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment. . . . ” The absence of apostolic commandment meant that it was wrong for these teachers to teach what they did. The fact of silence authorized nothing and they were in error in presuming to teach something on which the apostles had not taught. So likewise today! We dare not teach or practice anything that is not taught in the Scriptures. Absolutely nothing is taught by silence. Nothing is authorized by the silence of the Scriptures!

F. Those under this age must follow the authority of Jesus. Brother Wayne Jackson wrote it so well:

“In the New Testament, scores of passages demand adherence to the divine pattern. Consider the following:

1. The early church is commended for ‘continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine,’ etc. (Acts 2:42); moreover, as a consequence of such, ‘the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul’ (Acts 4:32). These passages suggest a unity of practice in religion.

2. Paul reminded the brethren in Rome that they had been made ‘free from sin’ due to the fact that they had been obedient to a certain ‘form [pattern] of teaching’ (Rom. 6:17-18). That is ‘pattern theology.’

3. The saints in Rome were admonished to ‘mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them’ (Rom. 16:17). If there is no set pattern of New Testament doctrine, how could one ever be required to ‘turn away from’ those who do not practice it?

4. The inspired Paul taught those at Corinth that they were not to go ‘beyond the things which are written’ (1 Cor. 4:6, ASV). This clearly shows that spiritual activity is circumscribed by the Word.

5. To the brethren at Thessalonica and also to Timothy, Paul warned of a ‘falling away,’ indeed, a ‘departure from the faith’ (2 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:1ff; 2 Tim. 4:1ff). The expression ‘the faith’ denotes that body of doctrine proclaimed by inspired teachers (cf. Gal. 1:23; Jude 3). If the church has the option of continually modifying biblical truth, how could one ever fall away from the faith?

6. The apostle informed Timothy that there is a ‘pattern of sound words’ (2 Tim. 1:13), and the young evangelist was to abide in the things he had learned from Paul (2 Tim. 3:14). Timothy was to commit that same to other faithful brethren (2 Tim. 2:2), and charge men not to teach a ‘different doctrine’ (1 Tim. 1:13). Paul states that those who digress from the ‘sound words’ are merely ‘puffed up, knowing nothing’ (1 Tim. 6:3,4).

7. The writer of Hebrews affirms that Moses, in constructing the tabernacle, was warned by God that he must ‘make all things according to the pattern,’ which was showed to him at Horeb (Heb. 8:5). Do we, as recipients of the ‘better covenant’ (Heb. 7:22; 8:6), have a lesser responsibility as we minister to God in his church, of which the tabernacle was but a type (cf. Heb. 9:1-10)? It is unbelievable that anyone would even suggest such!

8. John plainly declares that those who go beyond the ‘doctrine of Christ’ have no fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9).

In view of the foregoing passages (and a host of others), the notion of an ‘evolutionary church,’ a sort of plastic Christianity, is demonstrated to be totally false. The plea for a restoration of first century religion is valid. It is thoroughly biblical, and those who repudiate it have sorely drifted from the Holy Scriptures” (Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier, May, ’86).

Brother Jackson and I may differ on some applications of authority, but we are totally agreed on the points just quoted, and I appreciate what he had to say.

*(Some of these thoughts from an outline by Abnon Williams.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 8, pp. 232-233, 248
April 16, 1987