Truth Magazine

By Anthony Wayne Goforth

In the barren old age of Abraham and Sarah, God promised a seed heir (Gen. 15:4). We usually think of Abraham as the great example of living faith, and so he was for the most part, but faltered with this difficult-to-believe promise of God.

As we read Genesis 16:1-2, we find that Abraham tried to help God out by taking Sarah’s Egyptian maid. A child did indeed come from this relationship, Ishmael, the father of the Arab nations today. By helping God out, he brought many future problems among his descendants, for Ishmael was not the seed of promise, but rather his descendants have been the enemy of the Jews to this day.

Man has continued to “help God out” over the years, which comes from a lack of faith in what God has to say.

A. The Genesis account of creation. Many theories have been established to harmonize the Bible’s version of creation with modern science. Everything from the day-age theory to theistic evolution has been proposed by the modern critics who live on the faith of their parents.

If Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, then why any of it? Any attempt to “help God out” by doing anything less than taking God’s account of creation as literal will do nothing more than wave doubt over the rest of His divine revelation, and does nothing more than create an enemy for God’s people as Abraham did of old.

B. The Virgin birth. Isaiah 7:14 gives us a prophecy concerning the birth of Christ – the virgin birth of Christ. Yet, some modern translations since the RSV have translated virgin as “young woman.” After all, a virgin cannot have a baby -which is exactly the point, she cannot by any normal natural means be with child. What kind of a sign would it be for a “young woman to conceive and bear a child”? It might be the sign of many things, but not divinity. The RSV translators had reason to translate the Hebrew almah as young woman rather than virgin. Harold Orlinsky, the prime translator was an unbelieving Jew who would certainly wish to discredit the virgin birth of our Lord. In fact, he even said that Abraham and Moses were just Jewish legends in his translator’s preface! Yet, as we read the New Testament, we find Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23 as “virgin.” Notice verse 25, “. . . Kept her a virgin until she gave birth. . . ” and notice the odd wording of Galatians 4:4, calling Christ the seed of woman. Do we give credence to those who would call into question the deity of Christ?

C. The organization of the church. Man, still believing that God is not able to carry out what He has said He would and in the manner and through the organization He has established, has further continued to “help God out” by changing the patterns of the New Testament church and by creating other organizations to do what God has specified only for His church. But, it is argued, “These organizations are doing the work of the church for them.” Funny, for Hagar was doing the work of Sarah for her as well!

Conclusion

God is well able to fulfill all He has said. There is no need to “help God out” as we have suggested in this study. Where God has spoken we can rest in full confidence knowing what promises He has made, He can fulfill, in the organizations He has ordained, whether it be the home or church; they can do all God requires each to do without the aid of outside organizations to do their work for them. As we attempt to help God out, we compromise His Word little by little.

It is as the story of the fish monger who opened his business with the sign out front reading, “Fresh Fish Sold Today.” Someone asked him, “Why the word ‘fresh’ in your sign? Your integrity should vouch for that. ” Another asked, “Why the ‘today’? We know it’s not yesterday or tomorrow.” Another said, “You should remove the ‘sold’ for everyone knows you’re not giving it away.” This left him with the one word “fish,” to the which someone remarked, “Don’t bother with that, for we can smell them a block away.”

Little by little we are told we cannot take God at His word and must compromise by helping Him out. Instead, let us put up our sign as the fish monger and refuse to remove one iota from it, contending earnestly for the faith which was once and for all time delivered, never to be repeated (Jude 3).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 14, pp. 419, 439
July 17, 1986

By Irvin Himmel

Neat But Negative

Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox (Prov. 14:4).

Oxen were used for a variety of purposes in Bible times. They furnished the power for pulling a plow. Elisha was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen when the mantle of Elijah was cast upon him (1 Kgs. 19:19-21). They were used for treading out grain (Deut. 25:4). They were suitable for sacrifice under the law of Moses (Num. 7:17; 1 Kgs. 8:63). Their flesh was good for food (I Kgs. 1:25). Their strength made them useful in pulling carts with heavy loads. The wealth of a man was sometimes measured, at least in part, by the number of oxen he owned. Job had five hundred yoke of oxen (Job 1:3).

Cheaper Not To Own Oxen

Suppose a farmer in ancient times had reasoned, “My supply of grain is abundant. My ground is rich and fertile. My supply of corn will last longer if I don’t have to feed oxen. I’ll save money by getting rid of every ox I own.”

How would this farmer plow his ground? By what means would he move heavy loads? Disposing of his oxen to save money would prove costly in time, for “much increase is by the strength of the

Some people are penny wise and dollar foolish. One may pay dearly for a small saving. Often in the Lord’s work, we pinch pennies and thereby waste dollars. Many expensive replacements would be unnecessary if quality had been given more consideration than cutting costs at the outset. Thrift has its limitations.

The preacher who is willing to work for the lowest wages may prove to be a costly mistake. Cheap class room material may prove worthless. The cheapest building contractor may do shoddy work. Replacing a cheap sound system may cost substantially more than a good system would have cost at first.

Oxen Are Much Trouble

Suppose a farmer in the ancient past had decided that he wanted his crib or fodder-trough to always be clean. “The oxen make such a mess. I abhor the sight and smell of my barn. Oxen are just too much trouble.”

As the proverb says, “Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but. . . . ” Before deciding that oxen are too bothersome, the farmer needs to remember that “much increase is by the strength of the ox.”

Benefits often outweigh disadvantages, but sometimes we allow the inconveniences to blind us to desired results. Which is preferable, a clean crib or the increase resulting from the use of the ox?

The Cost of Increase

Labor and increase go together. No ox, clean crib. No ox, no increase. Better keep ox!

Without planting there can be no harvest. Without diligent study there will be no increase in knowledge and understanding. Without faithful effort there can be no growth in the kingdom of God.

The price of sowing is negligible in comparison with the value of what is reaped. Many want to see growth in the church without work. Some want discipleship without paying the price. A lot of folks want heaven without overcoming the world. Some young people want a successful career without preparation.

Getting rid of the ox makes for a clean crib. It also excludes a valuable means of increase. Some like things neat … and negative.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 14, p. 427
July 17, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is a specific command for a weekly collection for poor saints in Jerusalem. How can this be used as general authority for a weekly collection that is not used to help needy saints, but is used to pay the preacher, missionaries, utilities, literature, etc.?

Reply: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay be him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1,2).

There are several things to consider in these verses. This collection, which was to be made upon the first day of the week, was specifically for the poor saints in Jerusalem. The convenience of this collection as stated in the latter part of verse two, “that no collections be made when I come,” precludes the idea that the collection was laid by at home. If this were true, gatherings or collections would have to be made. The purpose of the common treasury was to avoid such. James Macknight, in his commentary on the Apostolic Epistles, makes this appropriate comment: “The apostle’s meaning is, that every first day of the week each of the Corinthians was to separate, from the gains of the preceding week, such a sum as he

could spare, and put it into the treasury; that there might be no occasion to make collections when the apostle came” (Vol. 1, p. 291). The expression, “lay by him in store,” suggests a treasury. Thesaurizon, the Greek word that is translated “in store,” is a present participle which means literally, “putting into the treasury.” The laying up in a common treasury was done upon the first day of the week because this was the time that Christians assembled for worship (Acts 20:7).

The contribution in 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 was to relieve the poor saints in Jerusalem, as we have noted (see v. 3, also Rom. 15:26). The church at Corinth was instructed as to how to meet a specific need. Other passages show clearly that churches supported gospel preachers (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15,16). As the church at Corinth met a need, so it would logically follow that other needs of the church would be met in the same way – by members contributing upon the first day of the week, the time when the saints assembled. When Paul took wages from other churches (2 Cor. 11:8), it is reasonable to conclude that the money was supplied from the treasuries of these different churches and sent directly to him. Thus, there is a pattern in the New Testament for churches meeting their needs. Corinth relieved the need of destitute saints in Jerusalem by contributing money that was laid up in the treasury upon the first day of the week. Other churches supplied the need of Paul by supporting him in the same way. The Scriptures therefore authorize the local church to meet its legitimate needs by means of a contribution upon the first day of the week. Thus it can support preachers, pay utility bills, purchase songbooks, communion supplies, provide a building and purchase Bible class material. This authority is established by churches meeting their needs (1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15,16).

We take note that there is no scriptural authority for local churches to do their work through a sponsoring church. We do not make a demand for a “detailed” description in the New Testament when we reject the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions, etc., but we do make a demand for their scriptural authority. We have book, chapter and verse for local churches meeting their proper needs, but we do not have book, chapter and verse for a sponsoring church and church support of human institutions. The former is authorized by the New Testament but the latter is not.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 14, p. 421
July 17, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

We are seeking to explore the “bottom line” of some doctrinal differences that exist in the religious world — differences in basic ideas which affect the particular details of conflicts. An earlier article discussed various fundamental concepts of how we can know the things of God, and even before we began this series our article on “Two Concepts of God’s Grace” (G. 0. T., Mar. 20, ’86) presented “bottom line” arguments on that subject. Now, we move attention to “Faith.”

If you are already familiar with the Evangelical concept of Faith you know that in many debates on the subject the chief difference is overlooked, and pseudo arguments are made. We argue as though they were using “faith” in the same sense as we use “faith, repentance, and baptism”; and they argue as though we were saying one earns redemption by doing three or four things. They complain about man lifting himself by his own boot straps; while we say faith is a work; and both of us may be confusing the use of the word “faith.” Justification by faith is stated in a context which contrasts it with justification by meriting or perfect works; and indicates right-standing with God depends upon our trust in Jesus Christ rather than in ourselves. Rightly understood, justification is indeed by faith and not by works; but to say by “faith only” evokes a different concept of faith, and leaves a very erroneous impression.

Faith is used or applied in many different ways in the Scriptures. (1) It may mean simply a mental acquiescence, an agreement to the truthfulness of testimony; and of that “faith” it is said, “devils also believe,” and “faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:19-20). But (2) the “believer” is sometimes contrasted with the “disobedient” (1 Pet. 2:7), and that I faith, I obviously includes obedience. The church consists of (obedient) “believers” (Acts 4:32). If baptism puts one into the church, baptism is necessary to be a “believer.” By metonymy of effect for cause (3) “the faith” is sometimes used to designate the word, the gospel message that must be believed. When Jude wrote “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered” (1:3) he referred to the truth, that which produces belief on our part. It is called the “revealed” faith in Galatians 3:23; the message of the new covenant. Then (4) in Romans 14:23 “faith” is used subjectively, in the sense of conscience. “He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. . .”

But when justification is the subject, we must take another look at faith. The early chapters of Romans are devoted to showing that God is just in condemning all men, for “all have sinned” (3:23). We are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (v. 24), on the condition of faith (vv. 25-26). But Paul is not saying there is a “sole” condition, namely mental acceptance. Using a Greek text, note the absence of the article in Romans 3:20, as well as its insertion in portions of verse 21. “Because by works of – law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through – law cometh the knowledge of sin. But now apart from – law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets” (emphasis and indications mine, rt). This contrasts the Christian system with Judaism; but also with any system which requires perfect obedience to any law for justification. We are “free of guilt” (justified) by way of mercy, or forgiveness.

To seek justification via works of law is to be under a curse: namely, “Cursed is everyone who continueth not in all things . . . to do them” (Gal. 3:10). But Christ freed us from “the curse” (v. 13) (i.e., of having to be perfect in our obedience), by dying for us. This makes it possible for man who is less than perfect in his doing, to have forgiveness — or justification — through the mercy of God. But this forgiveness is conditioned upon a faith that obeys — that seeks to do all possible in the service of the Lord. There is law in Christ, just as there was law under Moses, but the difference is far more than in the things commanded. Christianity is a system of faith – it is possible to so strive, from the heart, to serve the Lord, that He will forgive us even though we are less than perfect.. Such was not possible without Christ -for the Jew, or for anyone. This is not “automatic” (i.e., without conditions). It is ours by virtue of our faith — and because it offers forgiveness for sin, it is far superior to a system of law which justifies only upon perfection or merit. That is why “trust” in Christ more correctly identifies this “faith.”

Basic Concepts Concerning Faith.

But we have yet to get to “the bottom line” of faith arguments. The basic concept of Evangelicals, though sometimes unrecognized by adherents, is that the descendants of Adam are so depraved they can not of their own will move toward God. They must be “regenerated” by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit before they can have a saving faith, and therefore “faith” itself is a gift of God. They so interpret Ephesians 2:8 although this is not grammatically correct, for “that” is neuter, while “faith” is feminine. They deny the free will of man, and contend that faith which is generated by the word alone is “human faith.” We might ask, is it man’s faith? If so, of course it is human. They have confused man’s trusting in the source of the message (as he must), and in man accepting only that which he can prove by human wisdom (a lack of true faith). But if it is not, then they must accept the dilemma of God’s arbitrarily selecting those to whom He will give faith, and therefore save. Calvinism, though wrong in its premise, is consistent in these points.

The basic opposing concept treats man as a free moral agent; considers the Holy Spirit fully capable of presenting God’s message so that its intended hearers (the whole world, every creature) may understand and be moved to believe; and places no special, unwarranted definition on faith but accepts the word in its ordinary meaning. “Faith” is that which is believed: “believe” is to hold as true. It is the acceptance of testimony or evidence. First there is the fact which must be witnessed, then witness bearing testimony, and then belief of the testimony. The resultant faith may range from faith only, to acting upon that faith, and confident trust; but it all depends upon testimony. The Scriptures put it simply: “How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?” and “So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:14-17).

The difference in these to concepts is so fundamental as to cause a division in the ranks of Baptists: some saying there was no need for missionary work for God would save, without preaching, those whom he had predestined. It should be noted that Baptists who say preaching is necessary must be inconsistent with pure Calvinist tenets. Further: if man does indeed do the believing, then there is no consistency in crying “boot straps” when we point out that saving faith involves obedience to that which God says is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Getting to the bottom of “faith” is absolutely fundamental to a proper respect for an understanding of the gospel of Christ. It is on this basis that “the seed (of the kingdom) is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11); and church identity and succession is in the seed, not in rattling the chains of organized churches. We would like to encourage more “bottom line” preaching on this and other truly fundamental subjects.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 14, pp. 423-424
July 17, 1986