Truth Magazine

By David E. Dicus

For several years I have had considerable contact with brother Charles Holt. Although we attended neighboring congregations, this association has been more of a social nature rather than religious. During some of the darker periods of my life brother Holt was “there for me.” His influence and encouragement is due a great deal of credit for helping me get turned around, both physically and spiritually. I shall always be grateful for his attention.

Like so many of our brethren, I had often wondered if brother Holt still espoused many of his old concepts in regard to the eldership, etc. So, in 1982, in all sincerity, I requested a discussion with him on a one-on-one basis (Matt. 18). Brother Holt’s answer consisted largely of a tirade, asking who was I to be calling him in question. Needless to say I was hurt and confused. Obviously, he considered me to be beneath his knowledge and position, and to grant me an audience would be a waste of time. However, it was perfectly clear that he still clung to his old ideas.

Within the past several months, I have been privileged to attend both debates between brother Holt and brother J.T. Smith. The first of these was in Lake Jackson, Texas and the second here in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In both of these brother Smith often chided brother Holt for failure to approach the issues as raised by the debate. (See Truth [April, 1986 issue] “News and Notes” by brother Elmer Moore.) Instead of complying, brother Holt repeatedly stated that his intent was to preach to the people in the pew.

Now this seemed to be a rather curious attitude for a brother who has agreed to debate certain specific differences of opinion. What about the audience? Some of us had come from afar, and at considerable expense, to hear these advertised issues discussed. Do you suppose they could have been short changed? At any rate, brother Holt did, in his very capable ability, deliver several elegant and emotional discourses, directed, as he says, to the people in the pew. It seemed to make no difference that they bore little relationship to the questions at hand.

Just who are these people in the pew? One could suppose that they are a cross section of Christians like you would find in most any local congregation. Sprinkled in among them would be elders, deacons, preachers, etc. These all occupy a seat in the pew. (It has been at least two generations since I have seen these elders etc. sitting down front in those old over-stuffed chairs. They now sit in the pew.) At any rate, brother Holt seems to have no trouble recognizing the average Christian. But his opinion of them has deteriorated greatly. Listen to what he has to say about them:

But even worse in my view, is the fact that “the people in the pews” are so ignorant of God’s word, so fearful and intimidated that they are in such slavery to men and an unscriptural corporate structure that they accept and bow to such treatment as this (The Examiner, 1:2, p. 15).

These average Christians who sit in the pews are viewed by Holt as ignorant, fearful, and intimidated. As such they should be fair game for most any precept that could be made plausible to them. Right? Is it possible that brother Holt hopes to build a following among a group like this? Does this pattern sound familiar? It ought to. Paul cautioned the Ephesian elders about it some 2000 years ago (Acts 20:29,30). No wonder he is trying to reach the people in the pew. And he is not the least bit subtle about it. He openly proclaims this to be his intention.

Now you would think that the admonition to the pew people to bolt from the shackles of congregational authority, would catch on. After all this is the age of “do your own thing” and E.R.A. (Holt issues a special appeal to Christian women to speak out and stand up for their rights.) So, where is the problem? After some 20 years, give or take a few, why are so few people willing to accept this concept? It is true that a small handful had adopted the idea, but then most any radical can get somebody to follow him, no matter how far out in “left field” he may be.

But the real reason these poor ignorant, intimidated, and superstitious people in the pew are not buying these ideas is that they have been “programmed” to investigate them in light of God’s word (Acts 17:11). They have been taught to ignore sensationalism and emotionalism and to stand on the Bible and the Bible alone. They have always been proud of this principle and have used it successfully down through the years to withstand error. So if brother Holt and his followers would cease these trite tactics and get down to the business of “chapter and verse” perhaps they could reach more people. On the other hand the results might turn out surprisingly different. The people in the pew might be able to reach them.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, p. 370
June 19, 1986

By Irvin Himmel

A Fool In Focus

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise (Prov. 12:15).

Here the wise man brings into focus the typical attitude of a fool. Let us ponder the proverb and think on its practical application.

Characteristics Of A Fool

(1) A fool refuses to listen to reason, No one can teach him anything. He will not listen. He is headstrong. He feels that others ought to listen to him, for he is “right in his own eyes. ” It is an insult to his intelligence to suggest that he might be in error on some point.

Advice is that which a fool never takes. He feeds on flattery. He had rather die than think or reason.

(2) A fool imagines that he is never wrong. He is “wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 3:7). Isaiah said, “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isa. 5:21) The fool sees all his ways as right. He despises others, especially if they attempt to convince him that he is wrong about anything.

How frustrating it is to deal with someone whose mind is like concrete – thoroughly mixed and firmly set!

(3) A fool is prejudiced by self-esteem. The root of his problem is conceit. “The greater fools are those that have the highest opinion of their own wisdom. Their self-esteem disposes them to neglect the advice of others, and to prosecute their own schemes, however foolish and dangerous, till they meet with fatal disappointments, which, after all, can hardly open their eyes, clean shut with pride and vanity” (George Lawson).

There is no bigger fault than blindness to one’s own faults. Prejudice is the fool’s substitute for thinking.

(4) A fool imprisons himself in his own ignorance. There is no greater hindrance to attaining wisdom than the notion that one already has all there is. How harmful is the folly that closes the door on the freedom that one could have through wisdom. Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). But so many of the Lord’s hearers acted as fools; they saw but they did not see; they heard but they did not hear (Matt. 13:13-15). Prejudice was the lock on their prison-house of ignorance.

The fool sees himself as an enlightened man; God sees the darkness that hovers over his heart. The fool considers himself to be free; God knows that he is enslaved by ignorance. The fool sees himself as right in his actions; God pronounces him wicked.

(5) A fool feels sufficient in himself. Not only does he reject advice from other people, he rejects the counsel of God. “True wisdom derives from God and is to be found alone in Him. To neglect the source of true wisdom leaves open only one other source, namely, the unaided human mind, and that wisdom which comes from the human mind does not originate with God” (Edward J. Young).

Jeremiah said it best: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). It is the part of wisdom to acknowledge that man does not have all the answers; we must look to God’s revelation, the Bible, to find direction for our faltering steps.

Value Of Counsel

A fool remains a fool because he will not admit the need for advice. In contrast, “he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.”

This does not mean that all counsel should be heeded. The Bible gives many examples of bum advice that people received. Job’s wife advised him to curse God and die (Job 2:9). Job had the good sense to reject such foolish counsel. Rehoboam did a foolish thing when he forsook the counsel of the old men and acted according to the advice of the young men (1 Kgs. 12).

All advice should be carefully weighed as to its source and its soundness.

“It is our wisdom to value the instruction and counsels of ministers, of parents and Christian friends, particularly of experienced and aged saints. But they must be able to prove the goodness of their advices by the Scriptures, which are the great and only rule to direct us to our chief end” (George Lawson).

The right counsel will bring needed reformation. Good advice will help us to avoid many pitfalls. The reception of sound suggestions and criticisms will aid in the solving of many problems and overcoming difficulties.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, p. 369
June 19, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

Have you had the experience of discussing a Bible subject with someone for several hours, both of you making argument after argument, until it dawns on you that this person does not believe the Bible is really the final word in such matters. The “bottom line” may even go deeper than that: he may not really believe in the God of the Bible. You finally realize that should you convince your respondent that the Bible teaches thus and so, his response would be a laconic “So what!” Frustrating, isn’t it! Frequently public debates are half over before it becomes apparent that the two disputants have differing concepts of a key word. Until this is settled, there is no way one man’s arguments can make sense to the other, or to hearers likewise divided by this basic difference. I am persuaded we give too little attention to basic concepts which are the foundations for various errors. We “beat the air” with the details of a matter on which there is a far more important division in principle.

Our teaching programs, including sermon topics, may also fail their purpose, if we ignore “the bottom -line.” When we concentrate upon the outer circle of an issue, but do not get to the core, our hearers may accept our peripheral conclusions yet have little genuine knowledge of the fundamental truth. They may learn certain “dos and don’ts” without recognizing the basic principles of God’s law upon which the particulars are built, and which give the whole its perfect unity. When Jesus was asked, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” He went to the “bottom line” of the man’s problem. He cited a principle which embraced all of man’s relation to God. He then added a second principle “like the first” which showed man’s relation to his fellow men, and said that all the law and prophets hang here. McGarvey comments, “The lawyer went away with the idea not that one specific commandment of God is more important than another, but that the great thing is to have a heart for doing all that God commands.”

In this and several following articles it shall be our purpose to examine some fundamental questions, and two or more differing concepts of the principle involved in each. Our aim will be to promote a better understanding of principles of truth; and point out the basic fallacy in erroneous principles upon which many false doctrines have been built. And what better place to begin than to ask, How does one come to know the things of God?

The modernist denies an antecedent God. Karl Barth writes: “. . we are not thinking of some being existing in selfcontained form prior to his revelation to man. God is identical with his revelation.” Add to this the modernist concept of the Bible as simply the recording of religious experience, and God’s truth is no greater than man who conceived it. By “transcendental meditation” — contemplating nature, art, music, or even drug induced hallucinations — one is supposed to “know the things of God.” Religion becomes nothing more than a social and intellectual development of man. Ignoring this concept will not make it go away. We should know enough of the humanist way of thinking that we will recognize it in religious discussion, and either correct the basic fault, or move on to a more receptive audience. We . . . “must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6).

Then there are those who accept the Bible as inspired of God, but who put its interpretation in; to the hands of “the church.” Catholicism and Mormons occupy this position (differing in modus operandi if not in principle); and several cults claim to have the exclusive “Key” to the Scriptures. Before entering into a serious discussion with people of this persuasion one should make an effort to read their claims and “proofs,” for successful teaching will depend on getting to the “root” of the error. Did it ever occur to any of my readers to go to a Catholic priest, not to argue, but to ask him to “plain their concept of authority and Bible interpretation? Try it sometime. Also, it should be mentioned that many Protestants hold to a principle that is closely akin to the above. The “church universal,” made up of all denominations, is supposed to have a great central body of truth common to all, that is right and cannot be wrong. Even some of our brethren have said the “great middle section” of the church cannot err.

Bernard Ramm, in his Pattern of Authority (p. 28-29), discusses another basic concept which he calls “The Protestant Principle.” He calls the inspired Scriptures an “external principle,” but says it must be accompanied by an “internal principle,” the “secret witness of the Holy Spirit.” He thinks this illuminatory work of the Spirit counteracts “the darkening noetic effects of sin.” Citing theologian after theologian, he establishes the prevailing concept that there can be no “saving understanding” of the “Scriptures except by inward illumination of the Spirit, operating in conjunction with but separate and apart from the word. This is the concept back of the Evangelical explanation of I Corinthians 2:14, for they view the “natural man” as one who has not had “illuminating grace.”

When we are trying to convince a neighbor that a study of the Scriptures can bring understanding of God’s ways, produce faith, and lead him to salvation, we should watch for these “bottom line” needs. Without realizing it, he may have one of the above concepts in his religious background, and this must be corrected before we will get far in our teaching. He may not really believe in an Eternal God who has spoken; or he may believe that only some “authoritative interpreter” (church. or pastor) has the real meaning; or he may expect some “inner feeling” (better felt than told) to guide him, so that he accepts the Scriptures that accord with that feeling, and rejects the others. I am persuaded we assume far too much about the non-member today. We set out to “prove” baptism, the church, or some like matter, by reading Scriptures to people who are not ready for that step. Getting them ready is a far greater job than teaching them, once ready; and we are avoiding the real work.

We need to do more preaching to non-members on basic concepts of why we believe in God, free moral agency, logical consequences of divine revelation. If God has spoken (a postulation I accept), He must have used human channels of communication to reach man (1 Cor. 14:9). To remain “no respecter of persons,” He must have made His message understandable (Eph. 3:3-5). The Holy Spirit guided chosen messengers, the “we” who speak and write, not the hearer or reader (1 Cor. 2:13-14). Faith is man’s response to the testimony; it comes by hearing the word (Rom. 10: 14-17). When we have convinced our neighbor that there is an Eternal God, Creator and Judge of all; and that His treatment of the message of God is in reality his treatment of God (1 Thess. 2:13); and that by this message he will be judged in the last day (Jn. 12:48); it will be a fairly simple matter to show him what he must do to be saved. We will have taught the bottom line.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 13, pp. 391-392
July 3, 1986

By Mark Mayberry

In the New Testament, the word 44peace” is found at the beginning or end of every epistle except for James and I John. The breadth of its meaning is apparent when it is linked with “grace” (Rom. 1:7), “life” (Rom. 8:6), and “righteousness” (Rom. 14:17). It is used in benedictions like 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 13:20; 2 Peter 3:14. What are the different shades of meaning of this wonderful word?

Webster defines “peace” as “l. freedom from war; 2. a treaty or agreement to end war or the threat of war; 3. freedom from public disturbance or disorder; 4. freedom from disagreement or quarrels; harmony; concord; 5. an undisturbed state of mind; absence of mental conflict; serenity: in full, peace of mind; 6. calm; quiet; tranquility.”

The Greek word which is translated “peace” is defined by Thayer as ” 1. a state of national tranquility; exemption from the rage and havoc of war . . . 2. peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord 3. security, safety, prosperity 4. spec. the Messiah’s peace. . . 5. the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ. . . 6. the blessed state of devout and upright men after death” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. eirene). Shalom is the Old Testament equivalent of eirene. It carried the idea of “completeness, soundness, wholeness, or well-being. ” It was a typical greeting among the Hebrews.

Peace With God

Our first priority should be to find peace with God. Sin brings unhappiness, conflict, and chaos into our lives (Psa. 1; Isa. 57:20-21). It causes fellowship with God to be broken (Isa. 59:1-2). If we are to avoid eternal condemnation, we must make peace with God. This cannot be accomplished on our terms; obedience to the Lord’s will is the key (Isa. 55:7-9)!

The Old Testament prophets spoke of the Messianic age as a time of peace (Isa. 2:2-4; 9:6). The New Testament reveals the fulfillment of this hope (Lk. 1:78-79). Peace expresses the reconciliation that was made possible through the shed blood of Christ (Isa. 53:5; Rom. 5:1; Col. 1:20-23).

Peace With Self

Today, peace of mind is a quality which is hard to find. The evidence is around us: delinquency, divorce, drug abuse, alcoholism, and suicide. Witness the physical signs of stress: hypertension, ulcers, heart attacks, etc.

Peace of mind cannot be found in drugs or alcohol. It does not come in capsules. The secret is not found in reading self-help books. We achieve peace of mind by applying the gospel to our lives and letting the God of Peace rule our hearts (Rom. 8:6; Col. 3:15). Inner tranquility is the result of faithful submission to the Lord (Matt. 11:28; Gal. 5:22; Phil. 4:7).

Christians should be the happiest and most well-adjusted people in the world. We may face difficult problems, but the peace of God enables us to maintain balance. Through Christ, we can overcome any adversity (Jn. 14:27; 16:33).

Pence With Others

In one sense, Jesus came, not to bring peace, but a sword (Matt. 10:34-36). This describes the struggle between righteousness and evil. At times we will experience conflict with the world, but as a rule, obedience to the Lord will improve all our relationships (Prov. 16:7; Rom. 12:18).

Christians must actively promote peace (Psa. 34:14; 133: 1; Matt. 5:9; Heb. 12:14). This not only means that we should avoid strife and discord; we should put positive effort into building up the body of Christ (Rom. 14:19; Eph. 4:3). If we are to achieve peace with others, we must have the attitude Paul speaks of in Philippians 2:1-8. He said, “Do nothing from selfish or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (w. 3-4, NASV). Selfishness will destroy peace and unity. We need to seek the good of others. We can be at peace if we have the mind of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 13, 385, 408
July 3, 1986