Truth Magazine

By Donald Townsley

The word of God has much to say about preachers and preaching. The New Testament says much about the qualifications of men who preach the gospel. Men who preach should be Christians in the fullest sense of the word. They must: (1) Be careful students of the word of God (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Tim. 4:13,16); (2) Be “apt to teach” (2 Tim. 2:24-25; Acts 20:20); (3) Be impartial in the dealings with people (1 Tim. 5:21); (4) Not seek the glory of men (Gal. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:6); (5) Be pure in life (1 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 5:2); (6) Not be lovers of money or covetous (1 Thess. 2:5); (7) Be blameless in behavior (1 Thess. 2: 10); (8) Be bold in their preaching (1 Thess. 2:2); (9) Be gentle and have affection for people (1 Thess. 2:7-8); (10) Not handle the word of God deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2); and (11) Rebuke sin in all its forms (2 Tim. 4:2).

The above is a partial list of what men who preach are to be and not to be. I also think we need some teaching on the subject of men who should not preach. Let us look at this subject and make a list, with the gospel as our guide, of men who should not preach.

1. Men who do not love God supremely and do not put Him first in their lives, should not preach (Matt. 22:37).

2. Men who do not know the will of God should not preach (Acts 22:14; Eph. 5:17).

3. Men who are afraid to preach the “whole counsel of God” should not preach (Acts 20:26-27).

4. Men who have a desire or need to please men (and strive to do so) should not preach (Gal. 1:10).

5. Men who see preaching as a way to make gain should not preach (2 Pet. 2:3; Tit. 1:11).

6. Men who will not pay their honest debts should not preach (Rom. 12:17).

7. Men who have “eyes full of adultery” (2 Pet. 2:14), who “creep into houses” (2 Tim. 3:6) and beguile unstable women (2 Pet. 2:14) into adultery should not preach (1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Tim. 5:2).

8. Men who do not set a godly example before others should not preach (1 Tim. 4:12).

9. Men who love to have preeminence and cannot work under godly elders should not preach (2 John 9; Heb. 13:17).

10. Men who do not love the brethren should not preach (John 13:34-35).

11. Men who are “eaten up with jealousy” of other preachers, elders, and brethren should not preach (Gal. 5:20-21).

12. Men who are given to hate, revenge, and bitterness should not preach (Eph. 4:31; Rom. 12:19).

13. Men who cannot learn contentment should not preach (1 Tim. 6:6-8; Phil. 4:10-11).

14. Men whose wives are discontent, worldly, jealous, carry gossip, or who have no real devotion to the Cause of Christ should not preach (1 Tim. 2:9-10; Tit. 2:4-5; 1 John 2:15-16).

15. Men who are not willing to make real sacrifice should not preach (Rom. 12:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:3).

16. Men who are not able to “bear up” under constant problems should not preach (2 Tim. 4:5; 2:3).

17. H. Leo Boles said: “No hypocrite can preach the truth of God with the power and persuasion that should ever accompany the preaching of the gospel.” “No preacher can preach the gospel as it should be preached unless he preaches because his heart is in the work, and not for ‘filthy lucre’s sake,’ but of a ready mind” (Gospel Advocate, March 31, 1932).

18. Men who are not willing to “take hold” and deal with vital subjects which directly affect his hearers in the workplace, in business, home, and social life – subjects like honesty, immodesty, fornication, drinking, cursing, divorce and remarriage, etc. should not preach (Rom. 12:17; 1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Cor. 6:18; Matt. 19:9; Gal. 5:19-21).

19. Men who cannot preach the vital truths of the gospel just as stern and unrelenting as they are written in opposition to error and sin, week-in and week-out, should not preach (2 Tim. 4:2-5).

20. Men who can be “bluffed off” preaching what needs to be preached by guilty members who “squirm” under the fire of the gospel of Christ, should not preach (2 Tim. 4:2-4).

21. Men who will not deal with vital issues that face God’s people should not preach (1 Tim. 4:1-6).

Let us conclude this article in the words of H. Leo Boles:

“If churches today are to continue their mission, they must be taught . . . by preachers who are clothed with the humility of Christ and have the courage of their convictions. All the churches should be praying that God will give us Godfearing, truth-loving, earnest, faithful men for preachers and teachers of His word” (Gospel Advocate, April 7, 1932).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 208
April 2, 1987

By Tom M. Roberts

Twisted passages and perverted Scriptures are nothing new, indeed they are essential to every position of error. Scarcely a passage of Scripture has avoided a re-definition by proponents of false doctrine. But true exposition of Scripture is the answer to every perversion. “Preaching another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9) must always be met by the “true gospel” (Gal. 2:5). Faithful exegesis of Scripture is a most ennobling and rewarding occupation of time and will put to rest the gainsaying of the boldest adversary. I fear that we preachers do not spend enough time in exegesis because of the demands it makes on our time, opting too many times for topical subjects in our preaching because it provides a handy short-cut for pulpit work. However, reserving the discussion of hermeneutics for another time, let us consider now the effect of twisting Scripture as it relates to our text, Hebrews 10:7. Remembering the warning of Peter concerning damnation to those who “wrest the scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16), let us learn what is meant of Jesus when He came to do the will of God.

Text and Context

Our text states: “Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God.”

This is set in the context of the entire Hebrew letter of comparing the Old Covenant with the New, the New being built on better promises, with a better mediator, etc. The immediate context deals with the fact that the new Covenant is built upon a better sacrifice, namely, the sacrifice of Jesus. In fact, if you will notice, the word is sacrifice” is found in 10:1, “they” refers to the sacrifices in v. 2, 40sacrifice” in v. 3, “blood of bulls and goats” in v. 4, “sacrifice” in v. 5 (tied directly to the prophecy of the body of Christ being prepared), “sacrifices” in vv. 8, 11, 12, and “offering” in v. 14. Thus, any position which ignores this context and leaps outside of it to teach something else is truly guilty of “wresting” the Scriptures. So we need to consider carefully what this verse is saying that Jesus was doing when He “came to do thy will, O God.”

A Body Prepared for Sacrifice

The Hebrew writer began chapter 8 by asserting that we have “such a high priest” (holy, guileless, undefiled, 7:26) who “needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself” (7:27). Rather, our high priest is sitting on the right hand of the throne of God, a “minister of the true tabernacle” (8:2). As a high priest, He must have something to offer, but Jesus could not serve on earth under the Old Covenant, so the covenant was changed (8:8-13) to permit Jesus to minister. But what is He to offer as a sacrifice for the sins of the people? Not the “blood of goats and bulls, but through his own blood, entered (he) in once for all into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption” (9:11-12). This blood also became the basis for the new covenant, showing the death of the testator (9:15-22). But while the blood of animals served well under the old covenant, it was necessary that the “heavenly things themselves” (9:23) be cleansed with “better sacrifices.” It was for this reason that Christ entered into the holy place (heaven), “having been once offered to bear the sins of many” (9:28).

It is with this background that we now approach chapter 10 which considers the sacrifice that Jesus ministered in the “true tabernacle.” To prove to his original readers (who had a Jewish perception regarding sacrifices) that the sacrifice of Jesus’ body was not some new and strange doctrine, the writer now quotes from the Old Testament, accepted Jewish Scriptures, to show that God had intended this from the first. No less an authority than David had stated by inspiration that God “had no pleasure” in “whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin” (10:5-6; confer Psa. 40-6ff). From this, the writer concludes that God took away the first covenant that He might establish the second (10:9), in order that Jesus might sacrifice something better than animals, namely, Himself. “To do thy will, O God,” quite obviously, in keeping with the context, was that Jesus offered His body instead of animals as this new sacrifice. God had no pleasure in animals, i.e., they did not satisfy the divine will for full redemption. As Isaiah foretold it: “Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied (emp. mine, tr): by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities” (53: 10-11). Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself did something which no animal could have done: provide reconciliation on the basis of atonement. “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (10:14). In this instance, in verse 7, “doing thy will” refers to Jesus submitting to death (Phil. 2:5-8) and becoming the sacrifice for sin. This is the text in agreement with its context.

Some Twist This Verse

“To do thy will, O God,” is taught by some to mean that Jesus lived a. perfect life, honoring the law which sinful man could not do, and providing perfect obedience for (and instead of) man, this moral perfection being transferred to the account of man. That Jesus lived a perfect life and that this sinlessness honored God and His law, none will deny. But this verse does not teach it, nor does any verse teach that Jesus lived perfectly in my stead and that His obedience is transferred to my account. All of this fanciful doctrine is but an extension of the Calvinist’s belief that man is corrupted in nature, unable to think or do any good. Since man cannot do any good, God must do it all for him. It is with this view of man that the error affirms that Jesus came to fulfill law-keeping for man and uses this verse as a proof-text. Their faulty conclusion is that “doing thy will” refers to perfect law-keeping instead of offering Himself as a sacrifice. But, I ask you, in the light of the context, what is the Scripture teaching?

“TO DO THY WILL, O GOD”
Perfect Obedience	Perfect Obedience
For (instead of )Man’s Faulty Obedience	As God’s Son (servant) Which “Perfected” The Sacrifice On The Cross
Law-keeping As That “Offering”	His Body: The Offering
No SCRIPTURE	Perfect Obedience: Heb. 5:14-16; Heb. 7:26-27 Perfect Sacrifice: Heb. 9:11-14; 9:23-26; 10:12-20

Quotations

So that all might realize that these faulty concepts are not a figment of someone’s imagination, I offer the following quotations in evidence to prove that people have the wrong concept of the life of Christ.

“By our sins we became God’s enemies rather than his friends, and this broken relationship left us with a double burden. We had not given God His demanded perfection as creatures; we had brought on ourselves the death penalty for our sins. And we could not remedy either situation ourselves. Jesus, the eternal Son of God, came as our Savior to do both” (A Certain Salvation, Edward Fudge, p. 38).

“The sinner can be justified on no other basis than perfect obedience to the law (Rom. 2:13). The Law Giver Himself came to this world to render that perfect obedience in man’s behalf. By His own perfect living in human flesh He magnified the law and made it honorable (Isa. 42:21)” (Present Truth, Special Issue, “Justification by Faith,” p. 27).

” . . . man is guilty before God – legally. That problem had to be solved before man could be free of his moral pollution. One had to come and magnify the law and make it honorable” (Persuader, 11/8/76, p. 1).

Many more quotations, with much greater detail, could be given to illustrate how Scriptures are twisted with regard to this matter. Many passages of Scriptures are used by Calvinists as proof-texts for their contentions, but each is twisted rather than exegeted. I heartily recommend Bill Reeves’s work in Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ, “Proof texts Examined” (pp. 206ff), as he takes passage after passage and shows its true meaning, especially as it ,regards this subject.

Just Accept the Truth

Brethren, there is no need to make more, less, or something else of any Scripture than what God intended. We have a full salvation provided by God through Jesus Christ. We can accept the gift of God’s grace without pushing and pulling it out of shape to try to conform to the creeds of men. Why not just accept the fact that Jesus offered His body on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. Jehovah could accept the sacrifice because it was without spot. When we accept Jesus, we receive the benefits of that sacrifice and are redeemed. Our sins are not transferred, but forgiven, through the precious blood (1 Pet. 1:19). A “certified gospel” (Gal. 1:11) needs no improvement.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 195-196
April 2, 1987

By Weldon E. Warnock

Paul wrote, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient” (1 Cor. 6:12). Obviously, this verse means, “All things are lawful that are lawful, but not all of these lawful things are expedient” (useful, advantageous, profitable). Paul is not including sinful and unauthorized acts in “all things.”

Brethren have had (and are having) difficulty in differentiating between the lawful and unlawful and the expedient and inexpedient. Some of us erroneously oppose inexpedients on the basis of being unlawful and others erroneously advocate unlawful practices as being justifiable expedients. Among those things wherein our thinking is warped are:

1. Eating in the meeting house. God never gave any legislation on this matter. In fact, the first century churches did not have the kind of buildings in which to meet as we do. Hence, the usage of “church buildings” was not a problem with them. Those who met in their private homes would, of course, eat in the place where they assembled.

The nearest the New Testament comes to dealing with this issue is in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 where Paul condemns the abuse of the Lord’s Supper. The apostle states in this regard, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?” (v. 22) It is apparent that Paul is teaching the Corinthians (and all other brethren, including those who meet in private homes) to separate home functions (common meals) from church functions (observing the Lord’s Supper). There is no prohibition of eating a common meal in the meetinghouse, or else a preacher could not. take a sandwich to his office and eat it, or men working on the building could not sit down on a pew and eat their lunch. Surely, no one would go to this extreme.

You will observe that Paul said “eat and drink” (emp. supplied). However, I know of no person who opposes a drinking fountain in the building. We are told a drinking fountain expedites a public assembly (indeed it does) and, therefore, it is permissible. But though a drinking fountain is expeditious, it is not absolutely necessary. Where I grew up we had no drinking fountain in the building, nor a water bucket. Brethren somehow, someway, got by without a drink of water.

Now then, if there is a need to eat in the church building, then eat. There are situations where a family or two may travel a long distance to worship, like the northwest, spread their meal in a classroom after worship, have another religious service after lunch, and then go back home. What is wrong with this? Not a thing I can see.

Furthermore, there is nothing inherently sinful about “dinner-on-the-ground” at an all day meeting. These proved to be uplifting in the past and enhanced brotherly affection. But times have changed and in most places such would be inexpedient and unwise. The trend today is toward the social gospel. Kitchens and “fellowship” (banquet) halls are the modern fads in many churches of Christ. Any practice that would encourage churches in the direction of building kitchens and banquet halls, yea, toward the social gospel, is wrong and should be abandoned. Wisdom teaches us not to use the church building and grounds for pot-luck-dinners, but to obtain other facilities for such social and individual activities. We are now seeing the evil fruits of congregations which have gone too far. (Parenthetically, I have never known a water fountain to encourage brethren to build “fellowship” halls and kitchens.)

2. Busing. We are hearing a lot about the “bus ministry.” This has been, in not a few places, a fiasco. Children gathered up in the neighborhood and bused to “church” have created a disciplinary problem for those involved. Some have discontinued the “bus ministry” because of the various difficulties encountered.

Too, there are many abuses associated with the so-called “bus ministry.” If an outing is planned at an amusement park the buses are used to haul the children to the park. Churches also use their buses to take senior citizens shopping or on excursions of various sorts. These are abuses! Also, to offer candy, cookies, cokes and money to entice children to ride the bus is a carnal ploy that is contrary to the holy appeal of the Lord’s church. Gimmickry is beneath the dignity of the heavenly kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, we need to realize that a bus owned and operated by a church is not wrong in and of itself. Many of us have become prejudiced against churches owning buses for any reason simply because brethren have abused their use. Some equate owning a bus to liberalism. By and large, I do not see any practical use for churches, having buses (or vans), but if a church has a need for a bus or van, to preach and edify, then it is their prerogative to buy one. I see no difference in a church putting a preacher on a bus and sending him to people to preach than the church putting the people on a bus and bringing them to hear the preacher.

3. Singing solos, quartets, etc. Through the years I have preached against “special singing,” such as solos, duets, quartets, etc., because of the danger they propose of making worship theatrical entertainment and the worshipers nothing more than spectators. I doubt there have been many preachers in the last 25-30 years who have been more outspoken against choirs, quartets and other “specials” in the church than I have.

I know by experience what is involved in, “special singing” as I. used to do it when I was 17 and 18 years old. I sang in a quartet, and even sang solos, in some Christian Churches of eastern Kentucky. I was offered a scholarship, everything paid, by a Christian Church to attend Kentucky Christian College at Grayson, KY. I know what the Christian Church was and what it is. I know why I oppose this kind of singing and I know why it is practiced. I have no sympathy toward the false doctrines of the Christian Church.

However, objection to solos and quartets can be only opposed, reasonably and logically, on the basis of inexpediency. 1 Corinthians 14:26 plainly shows solos were sung in the assemblies of the first century church, even at the same time that Paul wrote Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These passages in Ephesians and Colossians did not condemn and preclude what 1 Corinthians 14:26 allowed, namely, solo singing, and neither do they today.

But somebody says, “1 Corinthians 14:26 does not apply today because it is regulating spiritual gifts which are no longer in operation.” Are we to believe that nothing in 1 Corinthians 14 applies today? The first verse states, “Follow after charity.” Does this apply today? Verse 5 says, “. . . that the church may receive, edifying.” We still need this. Verse 15 reads, “I will pray with the understanding. . . . I will sing with understanding.” You suppose this has no bearing on praying and singing for our time? Verse 33 states, “God is not the author of confusion.” May not this verse still be used to show that God is not the author of confusion? Verse 34 says, “. . . but they (women) are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Did this principle cease with the miraculous age? “Let all things be done decently and in order” (v. 40) is certainly timely today.

Brethren, we still sing. That did not pass away. It is strange to me that solo singing was scriptural for the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church, but sinful today. It is also strange that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 allowed solo singing then, but not now. Indeed, it is strange! Brethren, let’s oppose “special singing” for the proper reason; not homemade ones.

4. Announcements of social events. Announcements in conjunction with the assemblies of the church have become a problem. This is also true with our bulletins. Some brethren contend that no social occurrences should be announced from the pulpit or put in the bulletin. For example, if there is going to be a picnic (on an individual basis) it will have to be made known by word of mouth before or after the service. Such cannot be announced publicly before the assembly.

Others will allow selected social announcements from the pulpit or bulletin. They will permit birth announcements, but they will not permit announcements of a baby shower for the mother. Women will stand in the vestibule and hand out shower announcements to the other women as they come, in or leave. Also, they may announce deaths, but nobody may announce the arrangements for food to take to a home during the interim between the death and the funeral. A few places dismiss and then tell everyone to remain a few minutes for a special announcement. Such narrow restrictions and convoluted reasoning curtail us in rejoicing with those who rejoice and in weeping with those who weep. This kind of thinking does not permit us to share to the fullest in the joys and needs of our brethren in Christ.

Certainly, some brethren have gone overboard in announcing every little frivolous matter that has nothing to do with church function or a Christian’s responsibility, but let’s not deny ourselves what is beneficial for our own good because of the abuse of others. We can, and do, paralyze ourselves to our own detriment. Some of us have become so rigid that the salutations of the epistles, some highly personal and social in nature, could not be read in our own assemblies without violating our self-devised rules. This is tragic!

In conclusion, let us seriously take to heart what Paul said, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient, ” and follow it, applicably. Some good common sense needs to prevail.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 198-199
April 2, 1987

By Forrest D. Moyer

(With a deep sense of awareness of my responsibility to God and to you, I send forth this message on Biblical Authority. I am doing so with a sincere desire to help “heal the hurt” of God’s spiritual Zion. That God may truly bless our efforts to be drawn closer to His will and to one another is my earnest prayer for this day. FDM)

One of the grandest chapters in the annals of our nation’s history is that of the great Restoration Movement that took place in the previous century here in America. American historians have not given to it its rightful place. The only movement that has overshadowed it was that of the beginning of the kingdom of Christ in the first century when Jesus had called and commissioned a few humble men to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostles began to declare the divine message throughout the world. The kingdom grew and spread throughout all lands captivating the hearts of thousands upon thousands of men and women.

But as time passed and the apostles died, men who did not respect the authority of our Lord began to substitute human wisdom for the divine and to institute human practices for the God-ordained worship and work. The church departed from the faith and went into a dark period in which the beauty of Jesus and His plan was no longer seen. As centuries came many valiant men arose in efforts to reform the church of that day. Most of their efforts resulted in the formation of human denominations.

It was not until the nineteenth century that we see genuine efforts to restore the original plan and purpose of God for His church. Godly men, determined to “speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent,” advocated a return to the New Testament pattern of doctrine, worship, work and organization. They recognized Jesus as the only head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23) and the Bible as truly the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13) and therefore, the only guide in religious matters. The result was that thousands of people obeyed the simple plan of salvation and the kingdom was spreading across this nation like a blazing prairie fire.

Even more tragic than the hideous civil war of the United States was the division that came in the ranks of the churches of Christ. Instead of brethren marching arm in arm in the mighty conflict against sin, swords were turned on one another as a result of the innovations that crept into the church. I think that A. W. Fortune in The Disciples in Kentucky summed up the causes of the division as well as anyone could. He wrote:

There were two different interpretations of the church which inevitably came into conflict. There were those who believed the church should move on with the world and adapt the spirit of the New Testament to conditions that were ever changing. They held that, when not forbidden by the New Testament, they were free to adapt their program to changing needs. On the other hand, there were those who believed the pattern of the church was fixed for all time, and the fact that certain things were not sanctioned was sufficient ground for rejecting them. The men on both sides were equally honest, but they had a different approach to these issues that were raised (A. W. Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky, pp. 364-365).

He further stated:

The controversies through which the Disciples have passed from the beginning to the present time have been the result of two different interpretations of their mission. There have been those who believed it is the spirit of the New Testament Church that should be restored, and in our method of working the church must adapt itself to changing conditions. There have been those who regarded the New Testament Church as a fixed pattern for all time, and our business is to hold rigidly to that pattern regardless of consequences. Because of these two attitudes conflicts were inevitable (Ibid., p. 383).

We should do well to ask, “Were our brethren in error who believed that the pattern of the church was fixed for all time, and the fact that certain things were not sanctioned was sufficient ground for rejecting them?” Were they right in their contention that it is our business to hold rigidly to that pattern regardless of the consequences? Or were those who formed the Disciples movement correct in their advocacy that we adapt the spirit of the New Testament to conditions that are ever changing? Were they right in saying that it was the spirit of the New Testament Church that should be restored and in our method of working the church must adapt itself to changing conditions? Which of these attitudes was really responsible for the division that took place? Do we see both of these attitudes in the churches of Christ today?

After the division had taken place, the churches of Christ were often left without buildings to meet in. Virtually, they had to begin again. But the brethren believed implicitly in the power of the gospel and they preached that gospel with fervor. The churches grew as a result of that gospel preaching. In 1906 the government reported 2,649 congregations with 159,658 members. By 1926 there were 6,226 churches with 433,714 members. By the 1950’s churches of Christ were the fastest growing religious body in America. (The 1984 census reported over 13,000 congregations.) But once again the ominous clouds of division loomed on the horizon. Once again, there were two differing attitudes toward authority and the application thereof. It becomes absolutely compulsory that we look once again at Bible teaching concerning authority and to the proper application of it to our practices. How important is it for us to have Bible authority for all that we do? When we ask for Bible authority, is it “pattern theology”? Let us address ourselves to this issue.

I. Authority Must Begin With God.

A. 1 Cor. 2:9-13.

1. God’s will for our lives is in the mind of God. It has not by any natural means come into the mind of man. Man did not think of it; man did not originate it.

2. The only way we can know the mind of God what God thinks – about any subject is by a divine revelation. The Holy Spirit reveals what is the mind of God on any subject.

a. How could I know how God feels about baptism without a divine revelation?

b. How could I know how God feels about the worship He desires unless He reveals it?

c. How could I know how God feels about the work and organization of the church unless He reveals it?

3. Therefore, in order that man may know God’s mind, God has revealed what He wants us to know by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through His apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:3-5). This has been revealed in “words taught by the Spirit” (v. 13). By verbal inspiration, God has made known His will for us. Without that revelation I could know nothing of what God wants His people to do in serving Him. I cannot reason that “surely God wouldn’t care if we did this.”

B. What we have observed in 1 Corinthians 2:9-13 is in complete harmony with John 16:12-13.

1. Jesus had not taught the apostles everything’ that was in His new covenant. Even if He had done so, they would not remember it all.

2. So He promised to send them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. Thus, what Jesus taught plus what was revealed to the apostles would constitute “all truth” – the all-sufficient message for our-spiritual guidance. They wrote by divine guidance what was revealed and we have “all truth” in the pages of the New Testament. We can say with all confidence that if something is not in the New Testament, it is not a part of “all truth” or “all things that pertain to life and godliness” or that which “completely furnishes us unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Unless something is revealed in the New Testament, then it is not a “good work” for the church to engage in.

C. These passages help us to understand Matthew 7:21-23. Jesus tells us that in order for us to go to Heaven, we must “do the will of our Father who is in Heaven.” Those people who considered themselves servants of Jesus will be ghastly disappointed on the judgment day when they are sent away into hell. When they argue that they had done many wonderful works in the name of Jesus, they only hear Him say, “Depart from me . . .”

1. I suggest to you that this becomes a very serious matter to each of us. How tragic to labor all of our lives in that which we believed was pleasing to Jesus and yet go to Hell. There is no practice so humanly precious that is of greater value than our souls! However dear these “many wonderful works” may seem to us, unless they are in “the will of God,” we cannot, we dare not, practice them! Brother, we cannot just apply these points to denominational people! We must apply them to ourselves as well. We sometimes think that only the denominations are subject to religious error!

2. Therefore, we need to carefully examine our every practice to make sure that it is in “the mind of God” or “the will of God” or in “all truth.” The only way to make sure of such is to be able to read it in the Bible.

(To be continued.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 193, 214-215
April 2, 1987