My Answer To An Inquiry

By Irven Lee

I recently received a letter from a lady in another state asking some questions concerning elders. Her main inquiry was whether a man may be an elder if he has only one child. This, in part, is my answer to her. I hope that it may be of benefit to someone else as well.

“I like the spirit of your letter concerning an elder with one child as you indicated your desire to know the truth. This question about whether an elder must have more than one child has been a matter of controversy among good brethren for all of my lifetime and before. I have preached for a little more than fifty years. No one now living could write a well-prepared scriptural letter that would settle the question for all, even if all the brethren should see and carefully consider the remarks. I do not write as one who will be able to remove all controversy. There is a correct answer, and it is proper to search, but I would offer a word of restraint in one’s being too dogmatic for his understanding.

“Chapter 21 of Genesis tells of the birth of Isaac, so it is not about elders and their qualifications. It does give an example of an inspired writer’s using the plural form of the word ‘child’ in reference to one son. Sarah said, ‘who would have said unto Abraham, tha t Sarah should have given children such? For I have borne him a son in his old age.’ She had only one child, and yet the word children is used in reference to this one. One of the brothers mentioned in Matthew 22:23-30 would have had children if he had one son. Note Matthew 22:24.

“If one visited my father sixty years ago in taking a school census and had said, ‘Do you have children who will be in school this fall?’ he would likely have said, ‘yes, I will have one boy in the second grade.’ Would that have been the correct answer? My father had only one child.

“There are several examples of the plural form of sons or children in referring to one child in the first few chapters of 1 Chronicles (e.g., 1 Chron. 1:41; 2:7, 31; 3:22; 4:13). It is my impression that the plural form – children – is used to refer to one or more. As a young preacher, I was convinced that an elder must have more than one child, but verses such as those listed above have changed my mind. I was wrong then or I am wrong at this time.

“I would not agitate and disturb the church to demand that it accept my understanding of the use of th word children. If the church in a given community could not agree to use an elder with one child, such a man would be defeated before he began his work. There is often a closed mind on this and several other matters concerning elders, and many churches have suffered much from bitter friction.

“I hope my remarks may help some and do no more harm at all. Let the church be spared anguish and bitterness.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, p. 143
March 7, 1985

“How Shall The Young Secure Their Hearts?”: Always Tell The Truth!

By C. Titus Edwards

“Three high school seniors were late for school one day and did not arrive at school until the afternoon classes. They had spent the morning just riding around town. They explained their tardiness by stating that their car had a flat and they did not have a spare. ‘OK,’ the teacher replied, ‘But here is your makeup test,’ as she separated them. One question, ‘Which tire was flat?'”

There would be times that you can lie and get away with it, but more often than not you cannot. Moses warned the Israelites years ago, “. . . be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. 32:23). One of the problems with not being truthful is that it normally takes another lie to prop up the first one you told. And then another to prop that one up, and before long you have built a fragile lattice work of lies that will easily cave in on top of you! You also have to have a good memory to be a liar. You have to remember what story you told to whom! If you are not careful, you may forget what lie you told to which person, and may slip up and contradict your own story later.

The best approach is honesty. “Honesty is the best policy” may be an old saying, but it is so true! “Provide things honest in the sight of all men” (Rom. 12:17). “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor . . .” (Eph. 4:25). Integrity is a great virtue. Dishonesty ruins such and will cause you to lose your influence.

Look what all you have to lose by dishonesty: your reputation, the respect of others, your integrity, the trust of others, and most importantly, your soul! “. . . and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone . . .” (Rev. 21:8). Just make up your mind that you will always be truthful – in all circumstances. Feel like George Washington did, “I cannot tell a lie!” Keep your word. Do as you promise that you will. Have the attitude that says, “I would rather lose the game than to play unfairly!” Lying will simply get you into more trouble. Always tell the truth to start with. You’ll be glad you did!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, p. 134
March 7, 1985

Things Which Do Not Establish Authority In Religion

By Ron Daly

At least three things are implied by the title of this article, viz. (1) Ascertaining how the Scriptures authorize is obligatory (cf. Col. 3:17; 1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pet. 4:11); (2) Inasmuch as God demands that we have His sanction before we act, it is possible to know how God authorizes; or put another way, it is possible for rational, accountable men to “understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17; et.al.); (3) There are certain criteria by which one cannot determine what is and what is not authorized in the realm of religion. It is with this particular fact which our title implies that we consider to be one of great urgency at this time.

It appears to me that some brethren believe what they believe about “issues” past and present, not because they have diligently “searched the scriptures daily, with all readiness of mind, to see whether the things are so” (Acts 17:11), but they adhere to “positions,” “opinions, ” and “judgments” based on criteria which are within themselves dangerous, and lead to perilous tendencies. What follows is my analysis of what some of these false standards are, and an explanation of why I believe some are “bent” on relying on these false standards.

The majority or large numbers are employed by many to determine what is right or wrong as a religious practice. I know that error does not always have the larger following, but I am firmly convinced that, as a general rule, the “way of truth and right” will not have many to adhere to its tenets! One possible reason why people seem to have a sort of “natural inclination” to be “crowd followers” is, we want to convince ourselves (and some have done so) that there is strength in numbers, and as some say, “Surely, all of those people are not wrong on the issue(s).” I think that such individuals fail to realize, many people can be (and have been) dead wrong about one (or many) issues!

To ancient Israel, God by Moses said, “Thou shalt not follow a multitude (lit. “run after many”) to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to wrest justice” (Ex. 23:2). The underlying principle of this enactment is still binding, viz. right and justice are not established by numbers! Evil does not become good, even when espoused and practiced by a multitude! It takes a great deal of “intestinal fortitude” to oppose erroneous doctrines and/or positions, especially when standing with the truth puts you among the minority!

Jesus taught the disciples in Matthew 7:13-14 saying, “Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.” Our beloved Lord said in Luke 13:24, “Strive (lit. “agonize”) to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” These texts demonstrate that, relatively speaking, the vast -majority of people are traveling the wrong road!

I think there is another reason why some are influenced by the dictates of the multitude, viz. “they love the praise that is of men more than the glory that is of God” (Jn. 12:42-43). This certainly involves the constant fear of some of being “labeled and stigmatized.” No friends, number does not establish authority in religion. Let all of us resolve to stand with truth regardless of who or how many do otherwise!

Another thing which does not establish authority in religion is the pronouncements of well-known, highly respected men whether denominationalists or brethren.

Paul and Silas were two well-known men who did much for the cause of truth in the first century, and were, therefore, highly respected, but when they went into Berea, Luke records, “Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether these things were so.”

This same attitude should characterize every person today, who is truly concerned with the eternal well-being of his soul! The apostle John admonishes, “Beloved, believe not (lit. “stop believing”) every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” Preachers have been wrong in the past on vital issues and many are wrong today on the very same issues! A thing is not authorized just because “your favorite preacher” says it is! The job of the faithful evangelist is to proclaim what has been written and “not go beyond the things which have been written” (1 Cor. 4:6). They must “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11), and when they fail to do so, must be reproved the same as anyone else.

Elders of local churches are in the same category. They are not legislators. They are men who are sometimes wrong. They are not ones who make laws for God; they simply see that the things which God requires are done right by saints in congregations. Nothing is right in that elders recommend and/or enforce it. It is right if authority can first be found in the sacred writings, and then expediently carried out under the oversight of the elders (Acts 20:28-3 1; 1 Pet. 5:1-2; Heb. 13:17; et.al.). It is sectarian in essence and denominational in scope and approaches Catholicism’s diocesan (man-made arrangements of authority) arrangements when we recognize elders and preachers as speaking ex cathedra (or as the voice) for the saints! Were the elders and/or preachers “crucified for you? or were you baptized into the name” of the elders and/or preachers? If the answer to the above questions is “no,” then they cannot be the determiners as to what is, and what is not authorized in religion!

Authority in religion is not established by uninspired literature such as religious periodicals, Bible class material, commentaries, word studies, and lexicons! The reason is, these documents are the products of men who are not free of error; they are fallible. These works are useful in the study of the Bible, but they are not the standards by which we determine what is an acceptable item of worship or a doctrine to be espoused. This is settled by the word of God!

I think one of the “tell-tale” signs of a periodical which is approaching a dangerous scale of authority is when both sides of an issue will not be carefully and thoroughly examined. One journal published in Los Angeles, California, consistently carries a “special notice” on page two which reads, “The publisher of ______ reserves the right to refuse to publish any article that he feels does not contribute to the unity and growth of the Lord’s Church.” This appeals to one as a worthy aim, but the significance of it, as it applies to controversial subjects, seems to have been in the past (and even now), “The publisher reserves the right to refuse to publish any article with which he disagrees and/or cannot answer, especially if said article contains the truth in opposition to liberalism and the social gospel!”

Regarding commentaries and lexicons, I must say, they are not always right. There are times when I must for the sake of truth and conscience differ with a widely recognized “scholarly” work because I do not think the author gives the correct definition and/or exegesis in keeping with the context and/or scriptural usage of a word or phrase. Notable examples include New Testament word books which define psallo to mean “to play on the harp or mechanical instrument,” or lexicons which define hades to mean the “grave” in the New Testament, or Old Testament lexicons which define almah in Isaiah 7:14 and its counterpart parthenos in Matthew 1:23 to mean “young married woman, etc.” My hesitancy to accept with blanket endorsement, each comment of the various commentators does not mean that I disavow their scholarship or expertise in their respective fields; I merely recognize that they are not inspired and are, therefore, subject to error! Hence, I must be cautious. They are not the authority in religion!

Religious authority is most definitely not established by uninspired, human tradition. There are basically two kinds, viz. uninspired, human tradition, and inspired, authoritative. The former is exemplified in Matthew 15:2-6 and the latter in 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Human tradition usually manifests itself in the following words, “We’ve always done it this way,” or “I’ve never seen or heard it that way before.” I ask, so what? What does that have to do with the validity of it? Human tradition can be a detriment, especially when we begin to think that to do a thing some other way is sinful, or when we become attached to doing the wrong things and refuse to change because of “traditionally practicing error.” Some examples of traditional practices which are an integral part of the work and worship of some local congregations are: (1) segregated singing groups which violate Colossians 3:16, (2) humming during the Lord’s supper violates Ephesians 5:19, (3) midweek collections which violate I Corinthians 16:1-2, Acts 20:7, and many other unscriptural practices which are condoned and justified (?) on the basis that “We have always done it this way with no objection(s), so why should we stop now?” The point which is often not understood is, the thing that makes an act right or wrong is not the past or present practice of it, but whether or not the word of God authorizes it to be done.

Nor is the authority established by expediency. The first question to ask is not, “What is best and most advantageous for us?” Nothing is expedient which cannot first be proven to be lawful! Expediency does not establish or precede law. It grows out of law, i.e. the lawfulness of the act must first be established (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). The missionary society is not lawful (authorized), hence cannot be expedient in evangelism between local churches, the evangelists, and lost ones. The benevolent organizations supported (built and maintained) by local churches are not authorized by God’s word, and, therefore, cannot be expedient “methods” through which churches work in doing their work of benevolence or caring for the needy. Educational societies supported by churches from their treasuries are not authorized, hence, cannot be expedient means for churches to edify their members and/or develop elders/preachers.

Finally, authority is not established by the silence of the Scriptures! Some have said, “Well, after all, the Bible does not say, ‘thou shalt not’ do thus and so; so what is wrong with it?” The problem is this: those who seek to walk by the apostolic way, do only what the Bible says (teaches, authorizes), not what it says nothing about, i.e. what it does not teach or authorize (cf. Col., 3:17)1 Man may not act where God has not authorized by explication or implication. Those who did so in early Bible history stand as memorials to the consequences of such presumptuous acts (cf. Gen. 4; Lev. 10: 1-2; Heb. 7:11-14). God told Noah to use gopher wood, and he meant gopher wood, all gopher wood, nothing but gopher wood (Gen. 6:1-4,22). God by the Spirit, in the apostles, through the word commands us to sing in worship, and he means sing only with respect to New Testament music (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; Jas. 5:13). We are instructed to immerse the penitent believer of the gospel. There is no authorization provided in the word of God for the immersion of infidels, idiots, or infants (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 8:30).

Friends, the only infallibly safe guide is the Sacred Writings. They are inspired (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13), ought to be searched and studied (Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15), and will save one from sin and prepare him for heaven (Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22-23; 2 Pet. 1:3; Acts 20:32). Let us endeavor to be absolutely certain that the acts which we perform are proven to be in harmony with divine revelation, for only in that way will we please the Majesty in the heavens and bask beneath the starlit throne of glory throughout the ages!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 135-136, 148
March 7, 1985

A Letter To Brother Hafley

(Editor’s Note: Brother Hafley submitted the following letter and reply for publication regarding criticisms of his exchange with brother Stanley Paher. Inasmuch as the criticisms expressed by this good sister are shared by many of our brethren, we thought the material deserved publication and reply. Upon receiving the letter and the reply, I contacted the sister who wrote it for permission to print her letter anonymously with brother Hafley’s reply. She graciously granted us permission to quote it without her name being attached to it. I hope our readers will profit from this exchange.)

Mr. Larry Ray Hafley
P.O. Box 1197
Pekin, Illinois 61554

Dear Sir:

I hope you will consider my letter worth reading and considering. I have just read your articles in response to Stanley Paher as well as his articles in the January 3rd issue of Guardian of Truth magazine.

It seems to me that your rehashing of and using sarcastic referrals to you “and others of your ilk” (includes me) are below the standards of Christian rebuttal. It also seems to me that by using, the Bible, teaching and using all the Bible has to say, should be enough to convince men of error and, to bring them to Bible practices. If this is not so, please inform me. When such tones are used how can one refer to another man as brother? I cannot tell if Mr. Paher is a Christian brother or a Baptist from either his or your articles. Our words condemn us when they ridicule because we lose so many souls. When one does not heed God’s word, there is nothing else another can do. I know that we are to mark erroneous and false concepts and teachers. Those of honest hearts who desire to please God will understand good clear rebuttal and will admire those who ignore derogatory and debasing remarks. “Let thy speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6).

The reason I write this is because so many seem to delight — as, it comes across in printed form to me — in using personal tones and terms that are not godly in rebuttal or in articles that are supposed to be used in convincing men and women of the truth.

I would ask you and others to use Bible facts and God’s authority and God’s love of souls for teaching and preaching God’s Word. Mr. Paher may be a “liberal brother,” and, I find it hard to abide loose thinking and acting on God’s Word, but we are not going to convince him with other than God’s Word, if his heart truly seeks God and not his or any man’s thinking. I say these things because there are people I would love to send this paper to but cannot because they would not understand and would “hear” the personal exchanges rather than the teaching qualities of such an exchange.

I am a woman and do not presume to teach you how to teach. I don’t know how else to express my concerns, except to be direct. You don’t need me to tell you that you are a capable and able man with the love for God and the truth. But I hope that you will consider these thoughts. Let Mr. Paher be the ill-used of God’s Word if he desires. Use your rebuttals to teach, even if you have to repeat the same verses time and again as well as pointing out necessary inferences. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10: 17). Perhaps if one hears the same words often enough, he will come to believe what it says and not what he wants to hear.

Perhaps you can talk with or correspond with others who write for Guardian of Truth and discuss the merits of less personal remarks. This publication has such powerful and sound teaching using God’s Word, the majority of the time. I would like to recommend it to others, but because they are young in the faith and the tone of the replies such as appeared in the 3 January 1985 issue on pp. 6,7, and 19, I cannot. Yours is not the only article I’ve seen like this. It just happened that someone remarked to me in a disgusted voice regarding the way some arguments are made in this publication. (This person is a very strong and well-indoctrinated in the Bible.) I decided to write to someone about this problem. Perhaps I should be writing to editor Mike Willis about this. But since it is your article that I happened to read, I write to you in hopes that something could be done, to be less personal, not only with your replies, but with other writers also.

Your sister in Christ

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, p. 114
February 21, 1985