Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

The Apostle Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8, “Beware led any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” He expresses a similar thought in 2 Corinthians 11:3. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Perhaps we need these warnings of the New Unity Movement, of such men as Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick, and Fudge, are the result of theological speculation, based upon the traditions of such theologians as Luther and Calvin., They contain their own perverse form of logic and human wisdom, but they could not have been formulated from a simple study of the Bible alone. Ile more I read the writings of R.L. Kilpatrick, for instance, the more amazed I become that he and his associates have been able to deceive any brother who is well grounded in the Scriptures. Kilpatrick could just as well be a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian, as a member of God’s church. Any brother who could answer such a denominationalist in debate could answer Kilpatrick. There is simply no new material being presented.

Why, then, have certain young preachers been deceived by these apostate brethren, when they would have Probably never been deceived by a Methodist preacher? One answer is that any person who has long been a member of the church of Christ has a strong bias against any material presented directly by a denominational clergyman. But the young preacher of today is not necessarily biased against the theological intellectualism which forms the heart of denominationalism. Most of the brethren who have been deceived have been aspiring intellectuals. I here use the word “intellectual” to refer, not to intelligence and knowledge alone, but to a love of sophisticated terminology and complex abstract reasoning which transcends basic logic and common sense. And there is a difference between an intelligent person and an intellectual, there is also a difference between a Bible student and a theologian. Someone once defined an intellectual as an individual who is educated beyond his intelligence. This may be close to the mark. The modern theologian is a religious philosopher who is not content with simple Bible statements, but insists upon harmonizing everything into a semi-logical pattern which fits certain preconceived theological assumptions.

We may have unknowingly started some of these young preachers down the wrong road. Consider the modern emphasis upon both secular and theological education as a qualification for preaching the gospel. Consider the heavy theological books, many of them written by sectarians, which young preachers are expected to own and to master. For example, I once received a letter from a young preacher in the Philippines who requested that I send him several expensive and profound theological volumes that were recommended to him by some “big name” American preacher. I have never felt the need to own these works myself, and here we are talking about an inexperienced young man who lives in a poor country with a high rate of illiteracy. I sent him several copies of Douthitt’s Bible Topic Studies and Nicholls Pocket Bible Encyclopedia, and did not receive a reply.

We have raised a generation of super-educated young preachers who are intent upon acquiring more and more academic knowledge in the field of theology, who are given recognition for such achievement, and who have not even mastered the fundamentals of simple Bible knowledge. Beside, many of them are not old enough and experienced enough to possess that wisdom which does not come from books. Worse, we recommend that they sit at the feet of Calvinists and other alien sinners and false teachers, either literally in the schools or through the medium of the books. We would not ask a Calvinist theologian to come and preach a sermon or teach a class in our local church. Why then do we subject ourselves and our young brethren to their influence? There may be a place for a few reference works, in the field of dead languages for instance, that have been written by non-Christians. But when it comes to commentaries and other books which must of necessity contain the element of opinion, it seems to me that we have enough of these which have been written by New Testament Christians.

Such old warriors as J.D. Tant and Joe H. Blue did not have much worldly education. Some assume that they would not be effective in our modem age. I disagree. And I am certain neither of these brethren would have had any trouble with Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick, or Fudge. Brother Blue stated that when he started preaching he had in his saddle bags his Bible and a copy of The Gospel Plan of Salvation by T.W. Brents. Brother Tant authored a book of short, simple sermons, The Gospel X-Ray, which would be of more use to a young preacher than all the works of learned sectarian doctors. These two books, along with the booklets I mentioned earlier, a Cruden’s Complete Concordance, and a good Bible would provide sufficient tools for many years of work in the vineyard of the Lord. Let us get back to the basics, lose our shame of simple and direct sermons, and leave the theologians in their “theological cemeteries.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 596
October 6, 1983

By Daniel H. King

Some things are worth a little inconvenience. In fact, there are a few things in life that are worth a lot of inconvenience. Among them is principle.

It is one of those things that sets us apart from the lower creatures and makes of us beings for whom eternity is prepared. Self-survival is the highest of all priorities to most of the baser forms of life on our planet. But for man there are some concerns which tower above self-preservation in importance. Principle is one of them. There are to his mind principles for which he is willing to sacrifice and even to die if need be. One could go so far as to say that if he proved unwilling to make some sort of person sacrifice upon the altar of principle he would be thought an ignoble man, perhaps even a coward.

I am personally indebted and duly grateful to my forebearers who gave their lives for the principle of freedom. When I offer prayer in the public assembly of the church (and often in private) I express my appreciation to the God of heaven for the freedom to worship Him according to the dictates of His Word in accord with my conscience. But I am ever mindful that this freedom did not come to me by accident or by divine flat. It is a heritage written in the blood of unnamed thousands who suffered and died to bestow it upon me and others unknown to them. It was not for me that they died, nor even for their loved ones and friends at home. They died for freedom, the sweet principle of independence from political and religious bullies, the right to choose for oneself, to live without fear of oppression or ill-treatment at the whims of others. Though I do not know them I love and honor these dead for their noble sacrifice for principle.

Often I have thought how great was their sacrifice. They left home and family, hearth and fire, to march in ranks with men they did not formerly know. They gave up their wives and children, not just for a time but for good. The tender embrace of a loving wife, the life together, the joys of oneness – these all and more were laid freely and willingly upon the altar of principle. None has thought them cruel or crazy for it. We rather honor them for their giving of themselves for something we all believe to be higher and better. They died for an ideal, for a principle, and principles are worth more than individual people. The protection and welfare of a whole people should take precedence over the comfort and pleasure of a few.

There is a need for us to renew our dedication to principle. Too many of us these days consider the comfort and pleasure of one person to be paramount in every area of life. In fact, it is of relatively little concern when measured against the majestic grandeur of principle as it touches the common life of an entire people. Our freedom as a people would be in the severest jeopardy if it rested alone in the hands of some of our contemporaries. They see only their own selfish concerns as worth any time or effort and care nothing at all for generations yet unborn. They worry me.

What worries me even more is when I see and hear their counterparts in the church of my Lord. The church exists because Christ died so that it (and we who are in it) might live. It began upon the note of personal sacrifice. Christ died not only for people but for principle, though. It was His ultimate desire to deliver men from slavery to sin and motivate them to live by the principles of His kingdom. When we hear of those who put the comfort and pleasure of one person at the head of the list and neglect the importance of spiritual principles, it certainly gives us cause for concern.

A case in point: Jesus taught that there is but one cause for -putting a marriage partner away and taking another. That cause is infidelity (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). When that happens, only the innocent party is free to take another partner; Jesus did not free the guilty. In discussions that center around cases of unscriptural divorcements these days, the teaching of the Bible and weighty spiritual principles are failing victim before an overriding concern for the comfort and pleasure of individuals. I am no more cold nor hardhearted than anyone else in my handling of these situations. I feel deeply for those so involved. But there is no room for compromising spiritual principles in this thing. The solidarity of the home is at stake. The principle of martial fidelity is at stake. The sacredness of the martial union is in the balances. If we give an inch of holy ground it will touch thousands of homes and generations yet unborn will arise to curse our day. It is tragic that at times we must choose, but choose we must! Let us choose principle over people and not be found loosening where God has bound: “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” (Matt. 19:12, NIV).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 595
October 6, 1983

By Ramon A. Madrigal

God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by diverse portions and in diverse manners, has at the end of these days spoken unto us in his son . . .

God has spoken. The significance of this fact cannot be overestimated. It demonstrates Divine interest in human affairs, and reveals the Creator as a personal God. Indeed, it is to man that God has spoken. Neil Lightfoot maintains that “a God who speaks to men His will is the distinguishing mark of true religion.”(1) The author of the book of Hebrews presupposes God’s revelation to mankind and through this affirmation seeks to establish the absolute supremacy of the Christian system. In truth, the entire history of salvation can be seen in terms of God speaking to His people. That this Divine communication was (is) absolutely essential and necessary is relatively undisputed. The very salvation of man depends on it. And although the various humanisms and philosophical ideologies have sought to transcend to the Divine and spiritual realm, such attempts fail at the very outset. The attractiveness of such experiments as transcendental meditation and Zen (Buddhism) is firmly grounded in the elementary principles of the world and after the traditions of men. Pure religion is the sincere recognition of and respect for God’s self-disclosure to humankind.

The revelation of God came in a gradual and progressive way. The Lord Yahweh conveyed portions of truth to Abraham, Moses, David, and to the prophets; but these truths were never complete and full in and of themselves. It was only in the manifestation of the Son of God that revelation became perfected. Indeed, all things written in the Law, and in the prophets, and in the psalms were fulfilled in Christ (see Luke 24).

Yet how did this preparatory stage in God’s revelation develop? How was -His message made known? By whom? And for what reason? It is the purpose of this essay to briefly discuss these questions as they are introduced in the opening verses of the book of Hebrews and to contrast the Old Testament prophets with Jesus Christ, the Perfect Prophet.

The Hebrew writer states clearly that God first revealed himself to mankind through the prophets. Yet the word “prophets” (prophetais) is not meant here to be understood in any exclusive sense. The term refers to all those who had spoken for God, especially to Moses and those who succeeded him. The term is thus of wide application and, in effect, stands for the contents of the entire Old Testament canon.(2)

If the prophetic institution in ancient Israel be of Divine origin, appeal must be made to Deuteronomy 18:9-22; for no other passage of Scripture gives prophecy the right to exist as a legitimate phenomenon. Although God had spoken and revealed His great plan as early as Genesis 3:15 where He indirectly promised Eve that through her seed the old serpent would be destroyed; and, more directly in the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) that through his seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, His announcements of the prophetic institution originates in the Deuteronomy passage. Here God promises the children of Israel that He would raise up to them, from among themselves, a Prophet like unto Moses, to whom he would require all to hearken.

Who is this prophet? Edward J. Young, late Old Testament Professor at Westminster, declares that the use of the singular (nabhi’), “whatever else its force may be, does not permit us to understand that only one individual is in view.”(3) I Such an interpretation gives careless consideration to Deuteronomy 18:21-22 which presents criteria whereby the children of Israel might distinguish between true and false prophets. Young goes on to observe that the word “prophet” does not solely refer to a group of prophets or to the “prophetic institution” as such; for this interpretation pays no attention whatever to the use of the singular. Through careful analysis of the text, we must conclude that the “prophet” refers to a body of prophets (Joshua, Elijah, Amos, Jeremiah, et. al.) which was to find its supreme expression in one great prophet, the Son of God Himself.

The question now arises as to the relationship between these two emphases. Some have held that we are to understand a collection or group of prophets to which Christ would also belong, as the perfect realization of the prophetic body. This, however, is not a legitimate thought to derive from the words. It is far better, because more faithful to the text, to regard the prophet as an ideal person in whom are comprehended all true prophets. The prophetical order is thus an ideal unity, which is to rind its focus point in the historic Christ. For the Spirit of Christ was in all true prophets. When finally Christ appeared on earth, the promise was fulfilled in its highest and fullest sense. It is, therefore, a Messianic promise.(4)

It is also important to note that Jesus considered Himself as the fulfillment of this Deuteronomic passage (see John 5:45-47).

A popular misconception of the function of the Old Testament prophet is his designation as “predictor.” The Prophetic office consisted in “foretelling” to be sure, yet this was not the main function. A prophet was a “forth-teller,” one who spoke the Word of God. Indeed, the prophets were inspired preachers. That which was given by the Spirit to the prophets referred to the past and to the present as well as to the future. Homer Hailey observes that the uniform teaching of the Bible reveals the prophet as a spokesman of God: a Divinely commissioned representative. “The prophet of Jehovah would be the mouth of Jehovah.”(5) Hence it was always God who did the speaking through His servants the prophets. In his second letter, the apostle Peter declares that “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy spirit” (1:20-21).

With these thoughts in mind we may now proceed to discuss the distinctive characteristics of Old Testament prophecy, and give attention to the profound contrast revealed in the prophet par excellence. First of all, the Hebrew writer asserts, the message delivered by God’s spokesman in the Old Testament was an ancient communication (“of old time spoken”), as far as the Christian dispensation is concerned. God had begun to speak at least 4000 years before the “fullness of time” when His Son would appear. Jesus’ message is superior to the message of old in that His revelation (the New Testament) is recent and final. Truly, God speaks to us in these last days by One who has the high rank of Son! This refers, obviously, to the close of the Mosaic economy. The “last days” signify for the author of Hebrews the finality of God’s revelation to mankind. Christ has appeared “once for all at the end of the age” (9:26). The revelation of God through the Son is greater because it is final as well as complete.

Secondly, the revelation given in the Old Testament came through human agency, the prophets. However inspired the writers of the Old Testament were, they remained mere men. God has now spoken to us in His Son. The contrast is profound. Divine revelation comes directly through Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The prophets were only inspired men – this is a divine Person. The prophets were only servants – this is the Son. The prophets were only God’s spokesmen – this is God Himself speaking. The Son is the Logos – the veritable Word – the manifested God!

In the third instance, the Old Testament message was fragmentary, progressive, and preparatory. God gave messages piece by piece. He delivered it in connection with temporary dispensations – the Adamic, the Abrahamic, and the Mosaic. In this fashion the promise of redemption was progressively revealed truth upon truth through prophet after prophet (see Isa. 28:10-13). Hebrews informs us that God spoke “in diverse manners” through the prophets of old. The former revelation was therefore multiform in nature, indicating the various ways in which God made His will known to the ancients. He did this through visions and dreams, by voices, symbols and similitudes, Urim and Thummim, and perhaps, even by ecstasy. All of this serves to mark, in some measure, the comparative imperfection of the Old Economy. Yet the revelation give in the New Covenant is complete and perfect. The truth presented in the New Testament is finished and full. Written in a generation’s time by eight or nine inspired evangelists and apostles, the New Testament revelation contains a richer and more fully developed truth than does the Old Testament Scriptures. Jude 3 declares that the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints.” This not only informs us of the all-sufficiency of the Biblical canon, but also quickly exposes the falsehood and deception of modem, self-ordained prophets.

The book of Hebrews is an eloquent manifesto of the superiority of the Christian religion over the Judaism of the Old Testament. The shadows and types of the old system come to life in the manifestation of truth in the Son of God. Through this greater prophet, God can now speak more directly and freely to man, and man may come boldly unto the throne of grace.

Yes, God has truly spoken to man. The Creator is not silent. He has communicated to man necessarily (how else could we know Truth?) and progressively. He has demonstrated His love for man in that He revealed Himself at first through the prophets of old, and then more perfectly in His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds. This is Christ Jesus, the Prophet of prophets.

References

1. Neil R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 53.

2. Ibid., p. 54.

3. Edward J. Young, My Servants The Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1952), p. 29.

4. Ibid., p. 35.

5. Homer Hailey, A Commentary On The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), p. 15.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, pp. 593-594
October 6, 1983

By Earl E. Robertson

The field of writing and preaching, discussing and debating, “What must I do to be saved” is most preponderant. The creeds of men covering this subject have beclouded rather than given light. The doctrines of men cause misunderstanding of truth. The world is not divided over what the Bible says, the division exists over what. it does not say! This fact is easily observed in every religious division.

In the early part of the 16th century, John Calvin wrote a very definitive work, Institutes of The Christian Religion, which was presented to the Monarch Francis, King of France. In this work, he established the rive fundamental erroneous doctrines which today permeate nearly every denomination. Many other errors in denominational religion stern from these five cardinal doctrines. When one’s course is cast on a false premise his conclusions necessarily will be false, too. Any proposition, therefore, not antecedently proved, being used as the basis of a religious position, must lead to a false conclusion. Calvin is the father of these doctrines: (1) Total inherited depravity; (2) Unconditional election; (3) Limited atonement; (4) Irresistible grace; (5) Perseverance of the saints. The denominational manuals, disciplines, and articles of faith all teach these doctrines, plus others which stem from these.

These doctrines were embraced in the Philadelphia Confession Of Faith, and accepted by the Baptists in September 1742. These doctrines have often been restated in the later manuals and disciplines – even to the present. There was a time in the last century and the first part of this one that the proponents of these doctrines would affirm and defend them in public debate. But defeat after defeat caused retreat. The Methodist Discipline reversed its position in 1910. Its position until that date was “all men are conceived and born in sin” (Discipline, 1894, p. 200, Article 439). But the Discipline for 1910 says, “‘All men are heirs of life eternal.” Others have made no doctrinal change and, in their own way, continue to teach inherited depravity, total in its nature and concept. This obnoxious doctrine, thrust into the lime-light by Calvin, originated perhaps in the fourth century with Augustine. The old confession basically states it this way: “From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 592
October 6, 1983