Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

Since the garden of Eden there has been a constant conflict between truth and error, between God and the devil, between right and wrong. One would think the wonderful opportunities granted man-kind would have, through the intervening centuries, produced some kind of change in this matter. But not so! God, His word, His character, all remain diametrically opposed to Satan and his nefarious efforts, both in the moral and spiritual realms. Neither God nor Satan are here personally engaged in such conflict; rather, the emissaries of both are doing battle. True teachers of moral and spiritual truth are engaged in battle against error in these realms.

Let us illustrate this matter. James says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Can any responsible man read this sentence and not comprehend it? Yet, in the face of this plain declaration of truth (or is the Bible true, preachers?), Article Nine of the Discipline (a book written by a number of religious guides) says, “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” The conflict in the garden of Eden was no sharper drawn than these two statements – one by the Holy Spirit and the other by man. Any one can see that James 2:24 and Article Nine do not agree! How can one, capable of reading with comprehension, so stultify conscience and potentiality with such an absurd, inconsistent position? A religious guide who thus accepts such a position in full rejection of the word of God is untrustworthy as a teacher! He could just as easily oppose any other and all other statements of God in like fashion.

The average man of the street knows that Jesus says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” and he knows this faith requires action ~ that is, obedience to God. This is why James says salvation is not by faith only -the preachers to the contrary, notwithstanding. Ask your preacher just why he preaches Article Nine rather than what God says through the writer James. See how forthright he will be with you.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, p. 109
February 16, 1984

By J.W. McGarvey

(NOTE: To some, rules were made to be broken, other regard themselves the exception; but others read, ponder and profit from suggestions. Recently I acquired a book of lectures, Missouri Christian Lectures, delivered in 1883. It was reprinted by the Old Paths Book Club (now out of existence) in 1955. One of the lectures therein was by J.W. McGarvey on the above topic. I believe many today would also profit by it. – Donald P. Ames)

The duties of preachers are usually well known. They lie on the very surface of the New Testament, and the preacher who does not know htem is without excuse. But the best methods of discharging these duties are not so well known. They are not so easily learned, and but few of them are taught in the Scriptures.

There are two years of learning methods. We learn them by experience and by precept. The latter shoudl precede the former: for experience teaches largely by means of the mistakes which we make, and wise precept preceeding experience, if heeded, must save us from many mistakes. But precept, however wise, is seldom accepted in its fullness until we have tested it by our own experience. Experience is the only guide that we are willing to trust implicitly, yet no man should ever consider himself too old or too wise to profit by the experience and the advice of others. The two teachers, experience and precept, should be heard continuously, and every preacher should continue to grow by the help of each utnil the inevitable decay of old eage sets in.

The object of the present lecture is not to dictate, but to advise; not to suggest the only good method as thought there were but one, but to state what appears to the speaker the best method of discharging the duties which come under notice. Precepts of this kind are calculated not to better the midns of preachers, but rather to set them free by waking up thought, concerning methods which have been adopted woithout thought.

It is impossible to satisfactorily discuss, within the space of a single lecture, all the methods included in the subject which I have chosen. These might be distributed in a general way into Methods of Study, Methods of Delivery, Methods of Conducting Public Worship, Methods of Church Work, usually called Pastoral Work, and Methods of Personal Advancment. I will confine my remarks to the first of these and consider the methods, first, of studying the Scriptures, second, of studying other books, third, of making special preparation for the pulpit, and fourth of maintaining system in study.

Study Of The Scriptures

It is a common thought among the masses of the people that preachers pass their lives in studying the Bible. This appears to be their supreme work, requiring that they be freed from business cares and manual labor. It is doubtless true that they do study the Scriptures more than any other class of men, but no men know so well as preachers themselves, how woefully this duty is neglected. If I were to point out what I believe to be the greatest defect, not call it the greatest sin, in the lives of preachers, I think I would say it is their neglect of the word of God. The common thought of the people just mentioned is that which ought to be. They have a right to demand of eveyr preacher, after he shall have spent some years in his calling, that he be well acquainted with all of God’s word, and that he be able to give an intelligent answer to the questions commonly arising on every part. In order to do this it is necessary that he shall have studied the Scriptures laboriously and systematically.

There are four methods of studying the Scriptures, all having their respective advantanges and all necessary to the highest attainments. We may study them historically, by books, by topics and devotionally. We will speak of these methods separately and in order named.

By the historical study of the Scriptures we mean the study of its various events and records in the order of time. Its aims at its various events and records in the order of time. Its aims at obtaining a knowledge of all the events recorded in it, including the composition of its various books, in the order of their occurrence. There are but few books in the Bible in which all the events which it mentions are arranged in chronological order, and there are many which cover the same period of time with other books. In all these instances the facts recorded must not only be known, but we must learn to know them as far as possible in the order of their occurrence. The books of Kings and Chronicles, for example, must be interwoven with one another on the warp of chronology, and all the events recorded as referred to in chronology, and all the events recorded as referred to in the contemporary writings of prophets and poets, must be assigned their proper places amid the events of the historical books. In this way alone can we know in full the history of ancient Israel. In like manner, we must not only become acquainted with the four Gospels separately, but we must know the recorded events in the life of Jesus in the order of time if we would understand them; and so of Acts and the Epistles. Those Epistles which are contemporaneous with Acts, fill us in a good degree the historical gaps in that book, while the later Epistles continue the history of the apostolic church beyond the close of Acts.

Such a study of the whole Bible is absolutely necessary to the attainment of general Scriptural knowledge. It lies at the very beginning of the course of Scripture study, and it lays the only broad foundation for all subsequent study of Scripture topics. It is by this means alone that the gradual progress of revelation, and the consequent gradual elevation of mankind can be understood; and it may be doubted whether any one important event, or the composition of any one book of the Bible can be properly understood until it is viewed, as this method of study alone enables us to view it in the light of the events and the writings which precede it, and of those which follow it. I would advise every preacher, both old and young, who has never pursued such a course of study, to undertake it at once, and to prosecute it with vigor.

The study of the Bible by books is involved, to a large extent, in the method of study just named, and especially is this true of the historical books. But a man may acquire a good knowledge of events recorded in a historical book without having studied the book as a book – without, in other words, having given attention to the specific design of the book, as to the plan on which it is constructed. No one understands a book until he has done this. And in regard to the books which are not historical, while the student of sacred history may have gleaned the facts mentioned in these, and may have given the book itself and the author of it their proper place in the procession of biblical events, he may as yet have learned very little of what the book contains. When we have gleaned, for example, the historical facts embodied in the book of Job, in the Psalms, in Proverbs, in any of the prophets or in any of the epistles, how much remains that is yet to be learned? How much, too, that is, if possible, of more importance than the facts – matter to which the facts sustain only such a rel ion as does the scaffold to the building, or the golden framework to the gem which glitters within its embrace. In order to reach and gather this rich fruitage of Bible knowledge, every single book in the Bible must be made, in the course of a preacher’s life, a subject of minute and patient study.

The method of studying a single book is simple and obvious. It requires that we first obtain a general conception of its design and its contents. This is obtained by reading it for that special purpose.

This prepares the way for the second step, which is to ascertain the general divisions of the book, together with the aim and contents of each. When this is accomplished the framework of the book, showing the plan on which it is constructed, is distinctly before the mind, and we are prepared for the more minute examination of its particular parts. While reading it for these purposes, we will usually have formed some acquaintance with its historical connections, such as the time and circumstances under which it was written, and the influences at work upon the mind of the author. Next follows an exegetical study of every part by sentences and paragraphs. Much of this information can be obtained by reading an introduction to the book, but this is to obtain information at second hand – a process never to be adopted by a student except when the original sources are beyond his reach. Read introductions after you have studied the books and not before. Thus read, they may correct or modify your own conclusions, but read in advance they may mislead you and at best you are not able to judge of their correctness.

In addition to the study of Bible books separately, many of them should be studied in groups, according to their subject-matter, or the time of their composition. For example, the books containing the scattered statutes of the Mosaic law are a group of themselves; the prophets before the captivity, the prophets of the captivity, and the prophets after the captivity are three other groups. In the New Testament the four Gospels are a group having common subject-matter, and yet John’s Gospel, if grouped according to time, would stand with his three epistles and the apocalypse, as the latest writings of the New Testament. In like manner the apostolic Epistles should be studied in groups according to the time of their composition. Only in this way can we have before our minds the state of society which was before the minds of the writers, and possess the key to the vivid appreciation of these writings which these circumstances alone can furnish.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, pp. 107-108
February 16, 1984

By Herschel E. Patton

“The Mercy, Patience, Longsuffering and Providence of God”

Were it not for these attributes of God, no one could have confidence, since all are weak and often fall short of God’s goal of perfection. We have seen that when a Christian violates God’s law (sins) through weakness of ignorance, God’s grace in the shedding of Christ’s blood cleanses when (if) we repent, confess, and pray. Thank God for His grace in this respect! By it, we can still have confidence even though we sin.

Relative Matters

Besides these sins, there are failures and a coming short of God’s perfect goal because of a lack of ability, opportunity, proper conditions, etc. Such failures are in the realm of relativity, because God’s judgment in such matters is related to our ability, opportunity, circumstances, etc. Because of these attributes of God, the two talent man was considered as perfect as the five talent man (Matt. 25), and the two mites of the widow as much (more than) than the abundance of the rich (Mark 12:42). Likewise, the devotion or faithfulness of one who misses some services of the church and contributes comparatively little might be considered as great in God’s sight as one who is there every time the doors are open and makes a sizable offering.

Too, Christians are not born full grown, ready for strong meat. The babe in Christ is told to “desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet. 2:2). “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). The Christian is also instructed to “add (grow in) virtue, knowledge, temperance (or self-control), patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love” (2 Pet. 1:5-8). In areas where growth is required, obviously perfection is not required, and the one lacking perfection is not necessarily a sinner, depending on ability and circumstances. When one’s deficiency in this realm amounts to “lukewarmness” or makes him an “unprofitable” servant, sin exists that must be recognized and repented of to escape being “spewed out” of the Lord’s mouth.

A clear distinction must always be recognized between failures and weaknesses in the area of relativity (growth and development) and those that violate an absolute or positive law of faith.

As one strives, struggles, and grows toward perfection, the Christian can know that God will be longsuffering, merciful, and patient regarding the weaknesses and lack of perfection that exists. It is not our place to sit in judgment on a brother or sister whose weakness in development we might regard as sin, while God, who knows all circumstances, conditions, and motives might declare that one faithful. “To his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom. 14:4). Failures and weaknesses of this nature pose a problem from the viewpoint of classification. Some, including myself, have called such failures sin – only from the viewpoint of missing the mark of perfection. Concerning such failures, God does require a constant recognition of the fact of shortcomings on our part, a deep sense of unworthiness (Luke 17:10), and a diligent effort in growing. Such weaknesses and failures do not amount to “in and out of grace many times a day” or “saved one minute but lost the next,” for God, who is longsuffering, merciful, and omnisci6nt, observes the striving, growing Christian’s penitent spirit and declares “.not guilty.” Others have not used the word “sin” in identifying such shortcomings, since God’s law of faith does not require perfection. From this viewpoint, certainly there is no transgression of God’s law of faith.

Summary

Truly, there is ground for confidence on the part of a child of God. The ground is _________________.

(1) The grace of God, manifested in the death of Christ, thus providing for our salvation and confidence.

(2) The revelation of the “ifs” (conditions) of forgiveness and confidence, and a knowledge of the fact that we have complied. Teaching a confidence based upon a grace that would remove all the warnings to “watch,” “take heed,” “beware,” “examine yourselves,” “prove your own selves,” etc. and say “don’t worry, if you sin ignorantly or through weakness, you are continually cleansed,” is contrary to all that is taught in I John as well as other texts.

(3) The mercy, longsuffering, patience, and providence of God in dealing with our weaknesses and failures in growth in reaching perfection.

The man who has a reverential fear of God and is careful to obey God in all things commanded (absolutes), and who trusts in God’s mercy, longsuffering; and providence regarding his human frailties as he earnestly and penitently strives for the mark of perfection, has no reason to go about with doubts and fears about his standing with God.

Such a person can confidently say with Paul, “I know whom I have believed (the omniscient, omnipotent, merciful God), and am persuaded (confident, certain) that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him” Paul’s commitment or deposit to the Lord was his life’s experience in Christ (Gal. 2:20), involving obedience to the gospel commands (Acts 22:14-16; Rom. 6:3), denying himself “what things were gain to him” (Phil. 3:7), and making “the one thing I do . . . press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13-14). He had complete confidence in the One with whom he had deposited a faithful (2 Tim. 4:6-8) life of service against that day” (the day that all will be judged according to their deeds (2 Cor. 5:10). Thanks be to our God in providing the means and revealing the conditions of confidence.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, p. 106
February 16, 1984

By Dick Blackford

Men from different religious backgrounds have united in opposing the new morality. Conservative Catholics and Protestants have opposed it. Most of our institutional brethren have opposed it. Our question now is: Can they oppose it consistently?

Who Can Consistently Oppose Situational Ethics?

Not Catholics. Fletcher’s doctrine that “circumstances alter cases” is merely an enlargement on the Catholic doctrine of mental reservation (” . . . so that a false statement knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, p. 471). The Catholic church has set aside the word of God on the subject of honesty on the basis of situations that might develop in which it would not be beneficial (in this life) to tell the truth. Fletcher has simply enlarged on that and applied it to other areas of morality. He can set aside adultery on the basis of circumstances if something beneficial (in this life) results. On what basis can Catholics oppose situation ethics? Not any. They were practicing it on th matter of bearing false witness before Fletcher was born.

Not Protestants. For years, Protestants have taught that salvation involves no rules for they claim we would be earning our salvation. They said, “Let your conscience be your guide” in religion. Situationists say the same thing about morality. Protestants have said, “it makes no difference what you believe (in religion) just so you’re sincere.” Situationists say the same about morality. For decades Protestants (especially Baptists) have tried to set aside obedience in baptism on the basis of difficult situations (Blackford-Dabdoub Debate, 1977, second night). The cases most often used are th soldier on the battlefield who needs to be baptized and the man on the way to the creek for baptism and is killed. Any teaching of God can be set aside in this manner. What about the man who is on his way to hear the gospel for the first time and is killed before he reaches the building? Is he saved without the gospel (Rom. 1:16)? Can all men be saved without the gospel? Those who seek to bypass our Lord’s will int eh religious realm are bedfellows to those who try to bypass His will in the moral realm! If it works for Baptists then it should work for Fletcher. He is simply applying Baptists arguments to morality. Close kin indeed! One thing for sure, Fletcher should not have to accept all the blame for the moral climate of our society. It is easy to see where his arguments came from. We do not mean to be hard on the Baptist people, but they do need to see the consequences of their reasoning. Protestant preachers have opened the floodgate and are not powerless to stop the flood.

Even if the soldier was an exception to baptism, it would not establish the rule for everyone else not in that situation. Those in America who have every opportunity to obey the gospel but spend every night in the comfort of their homes watching television, going to ball games or other forms of entertainment, would not qualify. Nor would it fit the denominationalists who are too prejudiced to study or attend debates on the subject. It certainly would not fit false teachers who spend their time trying to find loopholes around it. It is usually their fault that the soldier gets in such a predicament anyway. If he would not listen to those who tell him baptism is not essential (in spite of Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21, etc.) he would not wait til the lost control the circumstances. The Bible stresses the importance of doing it immediately (Acts 16:29-34). If our attitude is right toward God and His word, we will follow the rule instead of always trying to be the exception. If there are exceptions, God has not told us. We will let him handle it one judgment day and be satisfied with whatever He chooses to do.

Not Institutional Brethren. In controversies over church support of institutions and church-sponsored recreation some have used “the end justifies the means” argument. Verbal pictures of babies left on doorsteps, children eating out of garbage cans, and other emotional circumstances have been used to set aside God’s will for local churches. Sponsoring elders who oversee other flocks that are not “among you” (1 Pet. 5:2) on the basis that “these are struggling groups who need our oversight” are using sitiuationism. Brethren who argue for church-sponsored recreation and entertainment “because if we don’t, the denominations will get our young people” are using the same reasoning as Fletcher.

If Catholics, Protestants, and institutional brethren cannot consistently oppose the new morality, then who can? Christians who have the right attitude toward God and His word! When faced with a difficult situation, whether individually or on a congregational basis, (1) Be patient enough to wait for the way of escape. God is faithful and will not allow you to be tempted above your ability to resist (1 Cor. 10:13). (2) Pray regularly. The prayers of a righteous person are of great benefit (Jas. 5:16). (3) Study regularly. The Psalmist said a knowledge of the word will keep you from sin (Psa. 119:11). It did for Jesus (Mt. 4:1-11). (4) Remember that “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13), and “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31).

Conclusion

Situationism seeks to cloud the issue between right and wrong. However, by following the preventatives given above one can see clearly and know when he has pleased God.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, p. 105
February 16, 1984