Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Like anyone else, Martin Luther King Jr. had a right to his own social and political views. This is not a political column and we leave everyone to his own thoughts in that realm. Neither is this an anti-black article. The gospel and the church of Christ invite all men to share in the service and salvation prepared by God (Gal. 3:26-29; Rev. 22:17). But in order for men to share these, spiritual blessings, the gospel must be preached in its original purity. Martin Luther King is hailed as one of the greatest preachers in American history. Churches celebrate his life. He is commemorated as a religious hero in ecumenical services including idolatrous groups like the Buddhists. Do such activities promote or pervert the pure gospel of Christ?

Did Christ and King preach the same gospel? Some things King said about love and non-violence are scriptural, but much that he taught destroys the Bible as the basis of true love for God and our fellow man. His message was a mixture of traditional denominationalism, modernistic infidelity, and human philosophies – not the pure and simple gospel of Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible.

Teaching Of Christ	Teaching Of King
Bible as God’s Inspired WordDefines True Love (2 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 22:34-40; 1 Jn. 5:1-3)	Deny God’s Direct Inspiration of Bible – Try to Define Love by Human Wisdom
Gospel Not to Be Changed by Philosophies & Doctrines of Men (Gal. 1:8-9; Col. 2:8)	Changed Gospel Many Ways – Follow Philosophies of Thoreau, Gandhi, Rauschenbusch, etc.
Jesus Christ Born of a Virgin, Fulfills Inspired Prophecy (Matt. 1:18-25)	Deny Virgin Birth & Prophecy – Said It Was All a Myth (King interview, National Observer, 30 Dec. 1963)
Accept Literal Deity of Christ or Be Lost in Hell (Jn. 8:24, 58; 14:1-6)	Deny Literal Deity of Christ – “Divine” Only in Moral Goodness (Ibid.)
Overcome Sin by Converting Each Soul With Pure Gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16; 10:8-10; Acts 2:38)	Overcome Sin by Converting Social Institutions & Governments With Demands, Marches, Boycott, Sit-Down, etc.
Concern for New Jerusalem of Heaven Above All Earthly Goals (Lk. 12:13-21; Rev. 21; 1 Pet. 1:3-5)	“I’m Not Concerned With the New Jerusalem” But With Social Reforms of “the New South” (King, Life, Nov. 1960, p. 134)
Adultery Destroys True Love for God, Our Mate, & Our Fellow Man – No Part in God’s Kingdom (Rom. 13:8-13; Gal. 5:19-21)	While Claiming to Advance God’s Kingdom, Had Many Adulterous Affairs (Time Mag., 19 Jan. 1987, p. 24)
Brethren in Christ Use No Titles to Elevate One Above Another (Matt. 23:8-9; 1 Cor. 3:6-9)	Preach Brotherhood & Equality But Wear Religious Titles Elevating Himself Above His Fellows: “Reverend Doctor”
Men Receive Pardon of Sin by Faith, Repentance, Confession, Immersed in Water (Mk. 16:16; Rom. 10:10; Acts 2:38)	Men Receive Pardon by “Faith Only” Before Baptism

“Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16) Earthly heroes are fine in their place, but look to Christ and not King for all spiritual truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, p. 180
March 19, 1987

By Laffy Ray Hafley

“In sundry times and divers manners,” the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate. Lands, peoples, nations, kings and kingdoms mentioned in the Bible have been challenged by skeptics. Over the past two centuries, discoveries have verified the biblical accounts. The Hittites were thought to be an imaginary people because they were only mentioned in the Bible. Today, one can get a degree in Hittite civilization! Luke, it was alleged, made numerous errors. Sergius Paulus, the prudent proconsul of Paphos, was, the infidel said, a “pro-praetor,” not a “proconsul.” But, alas, proof of Luke’s record has been unearthed. On and on we could go with similar results.

It is amazing how that the Bible is automatically assumed to be wrong when a conflict apparently exists. Unbelievers always assume the worst. What facts they have are accepted because their data is correct, but the Bible can never be accepted if it seems to go against their evidence.

Modern Examples

Though the following facts and examples are not exhaustive, they will show the kind of problems that might develop in the future over facts that we are fully satisfied with.

This first cause is not exactly parallel to the rest of the items we shall use, but perhaps it will be helpful. The news media has said two things about the bombing of Libya by the United States: (A) Khadafy has become more adamant, more determined to oppose the U.S. with terrorism; Khadafy has hardened his heart. (B) Reagan has caused Khadafy to be more deeply set against the U.S. Reagan has hardened Khadafy’s heart. Can both statements be true? Did Khadafy harden his heart, or did Reagan harden his (Khadafy’s) heart? Yes, one can see how both statements are true. Why, then, should one have a problem with the fact that the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 7:13; 8:15; 10:1)? In a sense, it might be argued that Reagan hardened Khadafy’s heart by bombing Libya. It is equally true to say that Khadafy hardened his own heart. There is no contradiction. Yet, when certain men read the Bible, they pounce upon such statements as these and seek to discredit it. Would one be thought a scholar if he challenged the statements regarding Reagan and Khadafy?

The following facts could cause some problems two or three thousands years from now. Yet, they are details with which we are perfectly conversant. There is no reason for attacking the accounts of the matters we shall present. But imagine that some one is trying to piece together these items ten or twenty centuries later. Imagine that the United States is a remote flicker in the history of the world. Imagine that it perished and that its civilization was violently overthrown, its records destroyed. The facts that follow might become troublesome to scholars. One might accuse the other of inaccuracy, of fraud, of writing error, of making up events. Here is how it could occur:

Grover Cleveland served as President in 1885-1889 and 1893-1897. What if the fact of one of his terms of office was lost? What if a history written in the twenty-first century was found to contain a reference to that lost term of office? Would researchers consider it a mistake since it was the only known reference to such a term? After all, no President, save Cleveland, has had two separated terms of office. Can you see how such a thing might be possible? In just such a manner, certain facts of the Bible are questioned by scholars and opponents. The Bible is never given the benefit of the doubt. It is easy to see how that Cleveland’s divided terms of office might become obscured or even lost. Similar things doubtless occurred in history that is ancient to us. So, why immediately charge the Bible with error? If, as in this case, all the facts were known, it can be very easily explained.

We all know of Cape Canaveral, Florida, a space and rocket center. Do you remember that during the 1960’s its name was changed to Cape Kennedy? It was. Do you remember that a few years later its original name was restored? So, it is again known as Cape Canaveral. This name change might be lost to historians several thousand years from now, especially if the United States is lost in antiquity. Next, suppose that someone writes of Cape Canaveral and calls it Cape Kennedy. For a few short years, it was correct to do so, but in a few centuries this name change may be lost and the author charged with error. Do you see how such a thing could occur? Again, such events were as likely to be true in Bible times as in our day. Yet, men automatically charge the Bible with error and attempt to smear its reliability.

Franklin D. Roosevelt is the only President to serve more than two terms. He was elected four times. The Constitution has been amended so that no one can serve longer than two consecutive terms. We all understand how President Roosevelt served those terms. But twenty centuries from now it might seem to be an error to state that someone was President of the United States for four terms. If the Bible contained such facts, it would be immediately labeled with factual error and oversight. It would be called untrustworthy. However, we can well understand how that a thing that is clear to us might seem wrong to later generations.

Then, there is a matter of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. We have no problem distinguishing the two men. But if the first Roosevelt’s term of office is lost to history, and a scholar finds a reference to President Theodore Roosevelt, he might think the writer meant to say “Franklin,” but said “Theodore,” by mistake. At least, if it were in the Bible, that is what unbelievers would conclude! But we can see that there is no real cause for such misunderstanding. A similar thing occurred regarding Lysanias in Luke 3:1.

“Luke 3:1 mentions Lysanias as the tctrarch of Abilene in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Ceasar. A Lysanias is mentioned by Joscphus as having reigned over this province in 36 B.C. and as having been killed by Mark Anthony. It therefore seemed for some time as though Luke had made a mistake here in placing Lysanias nearly sixty years later. However, inscriptions have been discovered which show that Luke was right and that the Lysanias mentioned in the Bible was a descendant of the one Joseph mentions, thus establishing Luke’s accuracy” (Hamilton, The Basis of the Christian Faith, p. 192).

For nearly thirty years, Andrei Gromyko was the Foreign Minister of Russia. In that capacity, he was met by every President from Truman to Reagan. Several months ago, however, his title was changed. He is now the President, not the Foreign Minister. Imagine years and years from now that someone should find an obscure and remote reference to Gromyko as “president of Russia.” History will likely remember his many years as Foreign Minister, but it is possible that his years as President will be lost to history over the next few millennia. During the Presidency of Reagan, Gromyko has been Foreign Minister and President. What if one sees an “apparent discrepancy” between the two references to Gromyko during the Reagan Presidency? We can see no reason for any question in the matter, but if the record of his last few years as President of Russia are lost, one can see how that a difficulty might arise in the eyes of critics. It has happened many times concerning the Bible.

“The title politarch, which Luke here applies to the chief magistrates of Thessalonica, is nowhere else found as an official title in all Greek literature; and it is easy to see what a clamor the enemies of the faith would have made over this use of the term, but for the fact that an ancient triumphal arch of marble until recently spanned the principle street of the city, with an inscription in which this very title is applied, and the names of the seven of the politarchs are preserved. When the arch was torn down, the slabs containing the inscription were secured by the British consul then at Thessalonica, and they are now kept in the British Museum. Three of the names of Sosipater, Secundus and Gaius, the names of three well known fellow laborers of Paul” (McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts, p. 113).

The Bible, the word of God, is reliable and trustworthy. Do not wait until the day of Judgment to find it out.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 176-177
March 19, 1987

By Paul K. Williams

This morning Leslie Maydell phoned and gave us the unwelcome news that brother and sister David Hurst were not able to raise support to come to South Africa and will not be coming at this time.

What disappointment for us and all the South African brethren who met David when he was here in July! And what disappointment in the hearts of David and his wife. A note on his November 4 letter to me said, “My wife and I have sold much of our furniture and have been selling other things as well. If we see God’s answer as being no, we feel we still have not lost as our treasure is in the world to come.”

But, my brethren, my disappointment is not only for what David could now be doing in South Africa. It is concerning the attitude of brethren in America which allows such a situation to occur. Brother Hurst wrote, “So far, I have sent over 500 letters to friends, fellow preachers, and churches and will be sending more. I have made trips to Indiana, Ken~tucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas traveling over 5,000 miles seeking additional support. I have made numerous phone calls.” But his efforts were in vain!

Did all these brethren and churches decide that David was not worthy of support? Or did they decide that the Lord does not want the gospel preached in South Africa? Or were they all so poor that they could not have fellowship in this work?

My opinion is that it was none of those things.

I see a parallel between my experience in 1956 and David’s in 1986. In 1956 I traveled from Oregon to Alabama seeking support to come to South Africa. I do not know how many churches I spoke to, but it was a great number. I finally had to give up my plans because churches were not willing to obligate themselves for my support.

I felt that there were three major factors which caused the churches not to support me at that time. First, I was 25 years old and unknown among the larger churches because the preaching I had done was in the Northwest. Second, and probably most important, churches were splitting over institutionalism. Preachers would tell me that they did not know what was going to happen in the congregation the next week. In such an atmosphere, churches were not in a mood to commit themselves to long-term support of a gospel preacher. Finally, there was then, and has been as long as I have been old enough to be aware, a lack of urgency concerning preaching the gospel in any place except in the United States. Preaching the gospel overseas comes last in the budgets of most churches. This attitude has been constant through the years.

In David’s case the first and third causes worked against his getting support plus a third factor which was as effective as the church split which hindered in 1956.

First, he is older than I was and he is, I think, better known among larger churches,,but he is still young and not a well known preacher. Churches don’t get very excited about supporting a man who is not well-known to them. They don’t trouble themselves to investigate and find out about him when he appeals for support. There are other pressing matters, and the brethren leave him begging.

Second, the apathy of churches toward supporting preaching of the gospel overseas is a terrible thing. My educated guess is that there are no more than two dozen American gospel preachers preaching in countries outside the United States. The attitude toward supporting preaching in the United States is considerably better. But the real interest of most congregations is in themselves.

Unfortunately, that interest is not a burning desire to take the gospel to the people of their own area. The lack of attendance at gospel meetings, the shortness of the gospel meetings, and the lack of other real concentrated effort to reach the people of the community betray unconcern. The real interest of the brethren is in themselves. They want a good preacher to preach to them, a comfortable building with air conditioning and a paved parking lot. Most of us preachers who depend upon support from churches in America have lost out to air conditioning repair and paving for parking lots! So I am not making this charge lightly.

Therefore when David wrote the letters, made the phone calls and spoke to the churches, he was talking to people who were only politely interested. If his plans fitted nicely into the surplus in their budget, maybe they would be considered. If in any way the congregation would be inconvenienced by supporting him, his appeal had no chance. Brethren, this is fact and I don’t think many will dispute it!

Then the thing which finally killed even the small spark of interest which his appeal might have kindled was the bad publicity which the country of South Africa has been receiving. The perception is that South Africa is a racist country (“Racism” is the world’s current “worst sin”!) where rioting is out of control and the country is blowing up. Somehow this has made brethren feel that it is not worthwhile to send a preacher to such a country. The fact that brother Hurst came to South Africa for a month and toured all over it, talking to black ‘and white brethren about the situation, seems not to have had much effect. The fact that we preachers in South Africa are continuing with our work with more preaching opportunities than we can possibly take advantage of and that our families are quite content to be living in South Africa also seems to count for nothing. Those TV pictures of riots, the countless documentaries analyzing the terrible situations in South Africa, and the publicity given to the UN’s continual condemnation of the country have together caused an unreasoning rejection of the idea that churches should send preachers to such a country.

What can I say? I can say that Christians who have so little love for souls elsewhere (and even where they are!) are going to reap a bitter harvest. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. We love the world so little that we sometimes give a little of our surplus!

Joseph’s brothers were so interested in themselves that they sold him as a slave. They thought by so doing they would insure their own inheritance which seemed to be threatened by the partiality of their father toward Joseph. But they reaped a load of guilt which plagued them all their lives. Even after Joseph had saved their lives from famine, they were afraid he would kill them when their father died. Just so, my brethren, the load of guilt which uncaring brethren take on when they spend their resources for themselves instead of for preaching the gospel to the world is a heavy burden. I detect it in the touchiness of preachers when approached about going to a foreign country. One is trying to save the brotherhood from error, and another is trying to save the brotherhood from the first man. All are too busy with great works to think about moving to a hard place in a foreign country. But they are defensive! Why? Is there a nagging conscience? Frankly, I hope so, because if there is no conscience trouble we are in real trouble!

I am thankful that God is able to accomplish His purposes in spite of the evil intentions of His people. Joseph said to his brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result” (Gen. 50:20). I am not discouraged about the preaching of the gospel in South Africa. We cannot see the pattern which is now being woven, but I have confidence that in years to come we will be able to see how God has worked His purpose.

But, those who now are acting in such a selfish manner, who are interested in their own comfort at the expense of souls, will bear their own guilt. They who could be a wonderful part of God’s plan to take the gospel to the world will be like Joseph’s brothers who sinned against God but were not able to hinder God’s plan.

Where are you, my brother? Have apathy and love of comfort blinded you to the condition of the world? Have you forgotten why you are a Christian? Wake up! Repent! And do the deeds you did at first (Rev. 2:4).

Oh how I pray for my brethren.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 181-182
March 19, 1987

By Elmer Moore

The negative took the liberty of ignoring the major part of the first affirmative, choosing rather to completely ignore what was written by declaring that the material was “ridiculous and totally without biblical authority.” I know that he understands what the negative is supposed to do. I guess he thinks that all he has to do is just assert something and the reader will accept it without question. I don’t believe it. I urge you to read the first affirmative and then examine the first negative to see if he answered the arguments. He didn’t even try. Even though I am in the affirmative, I will examine what he wrote in the order he presented it.

“The Real Issue”

In discussing what he thought was the issue he reflects an improper attitude toward Bible authority. He states, ” Thus he must either find a command demanding their use or some passage that necessarily infers their usage” (my emp., em). If such were the case it would not be a matter of liberty. Yet the proposition states “may”! However, the language reflects a basic mistake of the negative and his brethren, that of demanding specific authorization for our practice, while neglecting such for their own.

“Assertions of the Affirmative”

He charged me with insisting that “container is never under consideration when the cup is used in the Lord’s Supper account.” What I said was “that a vessel or container is necessary to contain liquid is not denied.” The negative is fighting a strawman. He is arguing against something that I have never denied. You see it was easier for him to address himself to this false issue rather than the arguments made.

His Definition of “Cup”

Surely the negative knows that a word is always defined literally! Never is one given a figurative definition!

“What Did Jesus Do?”

The negative tells us that they do what Jesus did. Do they? Jesus, on this same occasion ate the supper in an upper room and washed the disciples feet, and told them to do as He had done (Jn. 13:3-14; Lk. 22:12). In this section of his article, he takes the liberty of changing the Lord’s statement “drink ye all of it” to “drink ye all from it or out of it.” Read the passage! Mark says no such thing. This is just a case of the negative making it say what he wants it to say. However, if he could prove this, it would not prove that a plurality of drinking vessels is wrong.

He repeatedly asserted that the statement of Mark 14:23, “They all drank of it. . . ” demands that all who drink must “drink from or out of it.” In other words, all who drink “of” something must touch their lips to the container. This is just another assertion of the negative. Let him try his hand on 1 Corinthians 9:7. The same preposition occurs referring to drinking the milk “of” the flock. Does this mean that one’s lips must touch the container of the mild to “drink of the flock”?

“Parallels”

The negative fails in his so-called parallels. He takes the language of Jesus which is obviously metaphorical, and compares it with his coffee illustration that is literal. Note the following comparison:

Jesus: “This (fruit of the vine) is my blood.”

Negative: “This (coffee) is good coffee.”

It doesn’t take Solomon to see the difference in these. Jesus is using a metaphor: one thing (cup) is said to be something else, His “blood” (Bullinger’s Figures of Speech, p. 741). In the negative’s illustration there is no metaphor. “Coffee is (good) coffee.” Our brother applies the general laws of language and grammar to figurative language. This is one of his basic mistakes and is the same one that the advocates of the doctrine of transubstantiation make. It is the same basic mistake.

Effort to Reply to Argument – “Bible Authority”

The negative asserts that my argument that, “every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine, is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels (Lk. 22:19),” is “ridiculous and totally absurd without biblical foundation.” He states this without showing why! Does our brother think that he can just assert and assume Matters without offering proof? It would have been interesting for him to have advanced an argument showing the fallacy of my reasoning. This he did not do! He says that my argument, if applied to the support of preachers, would authorize indirect support. Why did he not formulate an argument to show this? He further asserts that my argument, if applied to benevolence would justify the support of the non-saint. Again he made no argument, just asserted it. I deny this categorically. You will recall that I stated, “When the Lord authorizes an act to be performed, whatever is necessary to carry out that direction, and whatever is expedient, is contained in the authorized action, unless what we do violates otherprinciples of Bible teaching.” I illustrated this point in the matter of singing. Our brother saw fit to ignore it, as he did most of what I wrote. He certainly recognizes this fundamental principle. I know he believes that it is scriptural to preach the gospel by means of television. Where is the “example” of such being done? Where is there a “command demanding such practice or some passage that necessarily infers its use”? Remember this is what he demands of me? If he leveled the same criticism at his own practice, that he does to others, he would have to give it up. Concerning the “support of preachers” and “benevolence,” the total context of Scripture will reveal that “indirect support” and “non-saint benevolence” will “violate other principles of Bible teaching.” Let our brother deny it!

Our brother wrote that Jesus could have solved the problem if He would have said, “He took the cups,” or “He took the fruit of the vine.” No, if Jesus had said “cups” my brother would have demanded a plurality and refused the use of one. Jesus did say in no uncertain terms that He was talking about the fruit of the vine. As I pointed out in my first article, Jesus used a metaphor and explained His metaphor. He declared that He was talking about the fruit of the vine. The negative is so wedded to his literal approach that he refuses to see it (see first affirmative on “How many elements of significance?”).

“Spiritual Significance”

The negative states, “We have no right to demand that a matter lacking spiritual significance be preserved. ” He then endeavors to show that the drinking vessel has “spiritual significance.” First, he makes an argument by changing what Jesus said to what he desired Him to say. Jesus said, “Drink ye all of it”; the negative changed it to read, “Drink out of it.”

Secondly, he argues that there are three elements of significance, including: the “fruit of the vine” referring to the Lord’s blood; the “bread” referring to the Lord’s body; and the “cup-vessel” referring to the New Covenant. About one fourth of his article was devoted to giving a lesson on the laws of language. Again, he ignores the fact that Jesus used highly metaphorical language (Dungan, Hermeneutics, p. 253, and Bullinger’s Figures of Speech, pp. 738-741). This is a mistake that a man of brother Wade’s background ought not to make! After one reads what he writes, one may be impressed with his ability in the field of grammar, but what does he prove: That there was literal bread, juice and a vessel? Who denies it?

Strip his argument of all the excess verbiage and we have him declaring that the statement “this is my blood of the New Testament” (Matthew and Mark) and the statement, “this is the New Testament in my blood” (Luke and Paul) are not teaching the same thing; that they are advancing two different ideas. This is the result of his literalizing this account in the way he does. These two statements are teaching the same thing. Both are teaching that the cup, the fruit of the vine, represents the blood of Christ that ratified the New Testament. This statement is comparable to Hebrews 9:20 that indicates the ratification of the Old Covenant by the blood of animals. The difference in the order of record does not necessarily indicate a difference in the teaching. Our brother knows this. He stated, “The order of mention is not necessarily the order of occurrence” (Wade-Knowles Debate, p. 35).

To further show this I call attention to Romans 10:9-10. One verse records confession before belief while the other records belief first. Are they teaching two different concepts? Matthew and Mark record the statement in one order while Luke and Paul reverse that order. It is important to note that both Paul and Luke are using the figure of speech of metonym, i.e., the container for the contents. A casual reading will reveal that the “cup” was to be “divided,” and they were to “drink” it (Lk. 22:17; 1 Cor. 11:25-28; cf. Thayer p. 533). It is evident that both of these writers are talking about the contents and not the container. Hence, in whatever sense that the “cup” is the New Testament, it is not the “container,” but the “contents.” My brother is wrong about this.

Two Elements of Significance

I call your attention to an argument that I made in my first affirmative, that the negative totally ignored. Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 10:16 that the “cup of blessing” was a communion of the blood of Christ,” and that the “bread was a communion of the body of Christ.” Do you not see that there are two elements of significance, which are the bread which is a fair representation of His body and the cup, the fruit of the vine, which is a fair representation of His blood?

“Implicit-Explicit”

The negative argues that the number of vessels is explicit, only one, because the Bible speaks of “a cup,” “the cup,” etc. This he declares “leaves no room for a plurality.” I suppose that one should be extra careful not to give more than one cup of cold water in the name of Jesus since He said “a cup” of cold water (Matt. 10:42). Please note that the term “the cup” was used to describe what the church at Corinth and at Ephesus both blessed (1 Cor. 10:16; 16:8). Even if we grant the negative’s contention that there was only “one” container used at each place, you still have “two,” one at Corinth and one at Ephesus. If the term “the cup” can mean two it can mean a plurality, contrary to the argument of the negative.

Please read my first article and note the argument made on “The Design of the Lord’s Supper.”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 145-146
March 5, 1987