Truth Magazine

By R.L. Whiteside (1869-1931)

Things new to me keep coming up. When I was twenty years of age, I heard a Cumberland Presbyterian preacher in debate refer to the fifteenth chapter of Acts to prove the scripturalness of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Some years ago I attended the Mason-White debate in Dallas, Texas, and heard Brother Mason use this same scripture to prove their right to hold conventions. Just recently I heard this same scripture put to a new use – namely, to prove the right of a church to settle a question of doctrine by popular vote. This seems to be a convenient chapter. Will the reader please stop here and carefully read that chapter?

The last preacher referred to was accused of preaching unsound doctrine in that he had preached that the blood of martyrs is the seed of the kingdom, and had challenged my one to show where the Bible says that the word of God is the seed of the kingdom. In a meeting called to consider the matter, the preacher took the position that the whole church should by popular vote settle the matter of his soundness. A visiting preacher argued against such procedure and raised this question: “if a preacher should preach that sprinkling is baptism would you leave it to a popular vote to determine his soundness? Where would such a course and?” In reply, the accused preacher brought up the proceedings of the meeting outlined in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, and argued that the whole church at Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision that was then agitating the churches, which were composed of both Jews and Gentiles. It was later pointed out to him that the decision was inspired, for the document sent out says: “for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,” etc. (verse 28). To this the preacher replied: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit just a it seems good to the Holy Spirit now when we come to conclusions in harmony with Scriptures.” To hear a Christian preacher ague that a church may by popular vote settle matters of doctrine is astonishing enough, but to hear him try to prove his point by the proceedings of that mating is amazing beyond measure. If there is another gospel preacher who would take such a position, 1 would like to hear from him.

What are the facts concerning this meeting? What gave rise to it? How was the matter under consideration settled? In all the churches composed of Jews and Gentiles the question of circumcision was for a while a disturbing question. A certain class of Jews from Jerusalem was very determined to bind the law of Moses on all Gentile con-verts. “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). This was at Antioch in Syria. “The fact that these men came from Judea, where the gospel was first preached, and where the original apostles had been the teachers, gave their utterances much authority from the apostles for their teaching, though it is possible they did . . . . The Phraseology employed shows what is brought out express ly farther on (verse 5), that they insisted on circumcision ‘after the custom of Moses,’ because they held that all the baptized, whether Jews or Gentiles, must keep the law of Moses in order to final salvation …. Paul, who had long ago received by direct revelation from Christ a correct knowledge of the gospel which he preached (Gal. 1:11, 12), knew perfectly that this teaching was erroneous, and Barnabas had learned the same from him, if not from some other source: so the two united with all their might in opposing the Judea teachers …. Paul and Barnabas did not succeed in silencing their opponents, but they so conducted the discussion as to bring about a fortunate decision of a provisional character” (McGarvey).

“And when Paul and Barnabas has no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Bunnies, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (verse 2). These Judaizers did not recognize the authority of Paul as an apostle; if so, his word would have settled the matter. And had it been proper for a church, by popular vote, to what matters of doctrine disturbing it, why did not the church at Antioch take a vote to see which set of teachers was teaching sound doctrine? Why send them to Jerusalem at all? The question was not disturbing the Jerusalem church, but only those churches composed of Jews and Gentiles, or of Gentiles only. If the church at Jerusalem had the right to determine by popular vote what other churches should believe and practice, would not another church have the right to reverse by popular vote the decision of the Jerusalem church, and thus bind circumcision on all? Is not such an idea absurd in the extreme? Is it not absurd that a Christian preacher should argue that the Jerusalem church, by agreement and without the aid of direct inspiration, should settle a great question for all churches for all time. But the other apostles approved Paul’s course, and indicated their approval by giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

When Paul and his company reached Jerusalem, “they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them” (verse 4). It seems that they did not mention the question of circumcision, leaving that for the Judaizers to bring up. “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses” (verse 5). After the Pharisees had stated their position, the assembly, so it seems, adjourned. Perhaps so much time had been consumed that they had no time at this meeting to go further into the matter. Another meeting was held. “And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter” (Verse 6). At both meetings the church was present. (See verses 4, 22.) “There was, however, between these two public meetings a private mating of Paul and Barnabas with the three apostles who were then in the city” (see Gal. 2:1-10). Paul sought this interview with the old apostles that he might know, before proceeding further, how they stood on the question; for he knew that if he found them on the side of the Pharisees, their influence would outweigh his, and his life work would be destroyed by his converts among the Gentiles being brought under the bondage of the law, and his work would be in vain. But the other apostles approved Paul’s course, and indicated their approval by giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Concerning this, McGarvey remarks: “With this information as to the perfect understanding and agreement between the inspired apostles before us, we can plainly see that the second public meeting of the whole church was called, not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement between the apostles, but for the purpose of enabling the apostles to bring the whole church into agreement with themselves. In this light we must study the proceedings, or we shall totally misconstrue them.”

In this second meeting the Judaizers were allowed to fully argue their case before any reply was made. “Then, when they had completely emptied themselves, the apostles, one by one, and in a succession apparently prearranged, gave utterance to the facts and judgments which compelled assent.” The speeches of these inspired men overcame all opposition, so that the whole church concurred in selecting men to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. A document was prepared, which these men carried with them and which is referred to in Acts 16:4 as the “decrees which had been ordained by the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem.” It is absurd in the extreme to think Luke would have referred to this document as “decrees” had it embodied only the conclusions of a body of uninspired men; neither, in that case, could he have said that these “decrees” had been ordained by the apostles and elders. Besides, if these “decrees were only the uninspired conclusions of the church at Jerusalem, what right did they have to impose them on other churches, and why should other churches be under obligations to regard them? McGarvey says of this document; ‘It makes a for-mal claim of inspiration by the words, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us.” No uninspired men could dare to use such language; and this circumstance differentiates it from all the decrees and deliverances from that day to this . . . Furthermore, it decided, on the authority of inspired men who directed its decision, a question of doctrine affecting the salvation of souls; and this no set of men except the apostles have ever had the right to do. In no sense, then, can its action be pleaded as a precedent for the existence of any ecclesiastical court whatever outside of the individual congregation, or for the purpose of settling by authority any question of doctrine.”

“It seemed good that the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” What right did the Jerusalem church as a body of uninspired men have to lay any burdens upon any other church? They did not do it. The document sent out was inspired by the Holy Spirit; in such, it was binding on all churches in all countries and for all time. (From Whiteside’s Doctrinal Discourses [Denton, TX: Inys Whiteside, 1955, reprint 19771, pp. 29-34.)

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, pp. 460-461
August 4, 1983

By Ron Halbrook

In Luke 16:1-12, Jesus told a parable about a master and his steward. Accused of unfaithfulness in using his mater’s goods and warned of judgment, the steward “called every one of his lord’s debtors.” Making settlements with them, he collected all the debts and was com-mended for his wisdom. Jesus’ lesson concerned the wise and unwise use of blessings and opportunities. Particular-ly, he charges certain ones in the audience, “Ye have not been faithful” in using material wealth; “who will commit to your trust the true riches?” He added this stinging rebuke, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (v. 13).

What Jesus taught about materialism offended the money-loving Pharisees; they, therefore, scoffed at Him (Lk. 16:14ff). They well knew the Law and taught it to others. But while parading as patterns of righteousness, they prepared in their hearts every devious means of circumventing the law. Jesus told them,

The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entirety violently into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall.

The law was temporary; Jesus has come to fulfill it. But He assures these clever Pharisees that their every violation of Moses’ Law will be punished. The Law will be fulfilled by Jesus. But it cannot be circumvented by these self-sufficient, money-loving men who trust in their material advantages.

Men were pressing to enter the kingdom. In fact, instead of waiting until the gates were properly opened, many were pressing violently to enter immediately! “The people were full of preconceived ideas with regard to the kingdom, and each one sought to hasten and enjoy its pleasures as one who impatiently seizes upon a bud and seeks with his fingers to force it to bloom” (J.W. McGarvey and P.Y. Pendleton, The Fourfold Gospel, p. 284). But Jesus stings the Pharisees again, showing that in no case shall they enter “the kingdom of God.”

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (v. 18).

“See,” he said, “the new state of things which I am now teaching, instead of loosening the cords with which the old Law regulated human society, will rather tighten them. Instead of a laxer code being substituted, I am preaching a yet severe one. My law of divorce is a severer one than that written down by Moses” (H.D.M. Spencer, St. Luke, Vol. II, p. 65 in Vol. 16 of The Pulpit Commentary).

These Pharisees trusted in their material advantages, devoured widows houses, and extorted from the poor. They were in both blood and spirit “the children of them which killed the prophets” (Matt. 23). The sanctity of marriage and protection of women provided for by the Law were not exempt from their twists and turns!. Jesus chooses to use a law of His kingdom with the same skill He used in choosing a parable of His kingdom – making sure His audience gets the point. If they flagrantly violated the Law of Moses on marriage, how certainly they could never submit themselves to the Law of Christ.

Whereas they looked for loopholes in the Law of Moses, they will find the law of Christ will strangle them; for, it is even stricter, higher and holier! The Pharisees were of-fended by the suggestion of the parable that they with all their wealth could not enter “the kingdom of God.” Instead of bowing to their offended pride, Jesus merely strengthens the point by laying out His law on marriage. They who trust in their material advantages, self-sufficiency, and ability to circumvent Moses’ Law can never, never enter Messiah’s kingdom.

We may wonder why Jesus stated the rule but not the exception elsewhere given (cf. Matt. 5:31-32; 19:9). Perhaps Jesus omitted it simply because it had no purpose on this occasion, i.e., the rule with or without the exception was an insurmountable obstacle to the Pharisees. They could have none of this, for they could not abide even in Moses’ Law. The more likely explanation is the abbreviated character of the record (and thus the advantage of four records, which repeatedly appears). “Probably … here, as in many parts of the Gospel, we only have just a bare sketch, or precis, of what the Lord said; hence its fragmentary character” (Spencer, p. 64).

Convict, Not Conform To, the World

Material security often blinds the minds of people, including God’s people (Amos 6:1ff). Men who trust in their material security and refuse to obey the Law of Christ can-not enter into “the kingdom of God.” Neither can those who are in the kingdom remain in it if they trust in material things and set aside the Law of Christ. We must teach the Law of Christ to the world in order to convict men of sin (Jn. 16:7ff). What law is violated more than God’s law on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in this dark world of sin? Instead of conforming to this darkness, let God’s people “shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life” (Phil. 2:15-16).

When we conform to the world instead of convicting the world, we are engulfed in darkness! Sadly, more and more of God’s people are being engulfed in this darkness – like the Pharisees of old, trusting in material security, playing loose and easy with God’s word. It would not work then, it will not work now!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, p. 459
August 4, 1983

By Jimmy Tuten

The apostle Paul speaks of self-discipline in his discussion of the Christian rue (1 Cor. 9:24-26). He says, “but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any mans, when I have preached to others. I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27). To “keep under my body” involves two things: entire conquering of the body by the mind and the mind subjected to the Spirit of Christ. We cannot let out bodies become the master of our minds. If our mind is false and unloyal to Jesus there can be no discipline. A gospel preacher may convey to others the rays of the sun of righteousness, and yes his own heart remain a cold as ice. A magnifying glass had in the right position by the hand of a child an convey sufficient fire through it to engulf an entire city in conflagration. However, the glass itself remains unheated, though fire has passed through it. So it is with those who preach if they do not maintain self-control. This terrible fact is al too obvious. Too many have already been taken captive by Satan to deny this all important need for fortitude. This “one thing I do” shows that the whole man is to be given to the task. There is no room for the “now-and-then” sprit in the fife of a preacher. We must deal severely with our body. Indulgence is disaster! The race we run is act merely a contest, it is a conflict, not only with others, but with self as well.

Mastery of self and control of the lusts that war against the flesh should be the goal of each Christian. Only by doing this can one please the Lord and live a life of joy in hope of victory. How sad to see the Christian letting up on his vigilance only to allow Satan to entrap him. Many have lost their freedom of action and have become slaves to degrading habits. Their status as free man has been destroyed. They have been taken “captive of Satan at his will” (2 Tim. 2:26). How repulsive to see gospel preachers, who know that the pleasure of sin are but for a season, indulging themselves therein only to find bitter dregs their reward. Self-indulgence, which is so appealing to some, is but the worm on the devil’s hook which eventually will lead the unwary in the “creel of hell.”

The failure of self-discipline resulting in one’s slowly and surely being drawn to eternal destruction can be illustrated in the story of the Citizens of Southern Italy. These citizens of Sybaris were great horsemen. They depended upon their cavalry to defend them in time of war. These people were also lovers of music and the soldiers trained their horses to dance to the sound of flutes. In the war with Crotone, a neighboring city, this practice resulted in catastrophe. You see, a cavalry charge was wrecked because the Crotoneae musicians in the front lines shrewdly “struck up a tune” and the horses, charmed by the piping rhythm, danced instead of charging. The Sybarites were massacred as a result of this shrewd plot.

This writer cannot help but believe that this describes the unwary preacher, who thinking he is engaging in same happy pastime as he indulges in the lusts of the flesh, soon finds himself fit neither for battle ram for the Celestial City. When the devil strikes up his enticing music, the evil habits one has acquired immediately makes him dance to the devil’s time. Thus he is taken captive at his will and slowly drawn to eternal destruction. “But I keep my body, and bring it into subjection….”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, p. 458
August 4, 1983

By Ralph Walker

“Ladies and gentlemen, in this corner, weighing in at 230 pounds, with a height of 6 foot, 4 inches, winner of 63 professional bouts, holder of the Olympic gold medal in boxing, present champion of the world, Goliath.

“His opponent, with a weight of 153 pounds and a height of 5 foot, 7 inches, first time ever in a. professional fight, the 14 year old, Ben Jesse.”

Some fight, huh? Is there any doubt who would win that one? Do you think there would be any takers in a bee on the Champ? I mean, who would think the kid might have a chance? Maybe someone who had read 1 Samuel 17 lately. Though the names, characteristics, ages, and situation have been altered, the basic confrontation really did happen.

America, loves underdogs. We thrill to stories of heroism. Tales in which overwhelming odds were dashed and defeat was turned into swat victory. These stories give us hope that we, too, ordinary citizens though we may be, an do great things if we date. And isn’t that what David is teaching us? I Samuel 17 gives spiritual incentive to every Christian who reads it. It is the classic ample of the underdog thrashing the champion. Compare the two opponents.

First, Goliath of Gath, Champion Fighter. He stood about 9 = feet tall, wore some of the “heaviest threads” around (1201bs of armor) and hefted a spear whoa head alone weighed more than a 16 lb. bowling ball. (Can you imagine throwing a bowling ball stuck on the end of a long spear?) He was confident, yea, a real braggart, but then who would not be in his shoes? He had been a warrior since childhood, one of those “child wonders.” But his self-reliance and blasphemy of God’s people led him to the last brawl in which he would ever engage. The blood shed would be his own.

David, Son of Jesse, was the baby of a family of eight sons. It was not uncommon to lave David out of important matters (sec 1 Sam. 16:11; 17:13-15).-He was hand-some, mote so because of his unusual auburn hair (ruddy in KJV). Multi-talented, he played the harp so well he came to the immediate attention of Saul’s advisors. He wrote some of the deepest spiritual poetry ever read. He was a shepherd, a hunter of note (having killed lion and bear), and had been appointed as, armor bearer to Saul. But most importantly, David was a man “after God’s own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14; 16:7).

David brought food to his brothers on the battlefield of Elah during the conflict with Philistia; he arrived just in time to watch the daily ritual. For forty days, Israel had begun the morning by suiting up in armor and going out to war. They gathered on the rim of the valley and gazed at the enemy arrayed on the other hill.

But just as they got up nerve to rush out, the big man came down. Goliath would strut up and down the valley, roaring that there was no opponent of the “servants of Saul” (he did not even give them credit for being soldiers) to face him. The rules were simple – whoever won in single combat could claim the entire army of his rival as slaves. Like a Muhammed Ali of old, he had completely psyched the Israelites into thinking they could not possibly beat him. Even the incentives of Saul – tax free status, great wealth and the hand of Saul’s daughter – could not move a man to walk down into that “valley of death” to face the Champ. Like John Wayne in a western movie. Goliath stood alone in the valley and no mm would mat him in battle.

Now imagine the anger of these Israelite soldiers when a kid starts questioning their valor. They had been humiliated for forty days. David was saying, “I’ll kill this heathen for you.” Don’t we have similar scenes re-enacted today? The veterans of religious wars grumble and mutter about conditions in the world, or the break-out of some false doctrine, and then some little untried and unknown boy says, “Can’t you deal with it? Cause I can if you won’t.” He is branded as brash, grew, cocky, and a sure-fire failure. Brethren, I am not saying youth has all the answers. But sometimes, a David will venture where an Eliab or Shammah will refuse to go. We need to give our David’s a chance. It may be they can win. Nobody told them they could not beat the giant. And if they do suffer loss, at least they did what they had to do.

It is strange that David would venture into mortal com-bat without that essential weapon, the sword. Yet verse 50 tells us there was no sword in David’s hand. I think there are some good lessons in that fact.

1. David was not a soldier. He had come from the sheep pastures. When presented with Saul’s armor, he felt un-comfortable (vv. 38, 39). But though he was untrained in war, he went out to fight for Israel. The boy of in-significance was about to become the David “who has slain his ten thousands” (I Sam. 18:7). 1 am reminded of Paul’s statement of 1 Corinthians 1:27, ” . . God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things that are strong.” Here was a boy, of no proven skill in combat, facing one who was raised for that purpose. The lesson? So many of us sit and refuse to do what needs do-ing because there are others better trained to do it. We are waiting for a bigger, better champion to come along and fight for us. We hire preachers to be hired gun stingers for the church. We let battle-scarred elders continue to march into battle to represent us. There is no reason for us to watch the battle take place from the safety of the hillside. Let us all get into the valley and wage warfare for God. There are battles needing our efforts in personal work, in public worship, and in restoring the reprobate. Instead of thinking that we need a mercenary army of God, let us see a people of warfare picked from among the ranks of volunteers – ordinary citizens of the kingdom of God.

2. David had weapons of his own. Verse 40 tells us he armed himself with the sling and staff that had been cons-tant companions in the fields. He was comfortable with them. With them, he had overcome a bear and a lion. He knew what he could do with them. And the lesson applies to us. We find ourselves inundated with new methods for every phase of our Christian labor. The temptation is there to grab after each new thing because others have found success with them. But brethren, if we can mat with success using those methods and means we have been using for years, why not consider the attitude of David? He knew what he had done with the sling and staff. He would stick with them. Saul may have bloodied his sword many times, but that did not mean that David would automatically be able to win with it. If something works, why change?

But mother weapon that David used, and certainly this was his most valuable, was the power of God. He declared his confidence in this weapon in v. 37. We want to note that David did not expect God to kill Goliath for him. No, no more than David had watched God kill the lion and bear. It had required the work of David, but God had helped. David took risks, and exerted himself, and enjoyed the praise and glory, but God helped him always. God will not work for us, but will work with us. When we pray for God’s help, let us remember that He will walk into the valley at our side, but never in our place. He stands beside us, not before us. We must be prepared to be the answer to our own prayers, as tools of the fighting God of Israel.

Finally, there is a lesson in the fact that David did not utilize the weapons of his enemy. Because he won with a sl-ing, there could be no expressions that “he was just better than Goliath at Goliath’s own game.” When we fight the Devil, we cannot hope to win by “fighting fire with fire.” We only get burned. Others may irritate us, verse us, humiliate us and lie about us. We must not reply in kind. Our answering punches must be the retaliation of Jesus, who “. . . being reviled, reviled not” (1 Pet. 2:23). Paul said our weapons are not fleshly, of the world because we ourselves are not of the world (2 Cor. 10:3, 4).

If we can adapt to our warfare all these great lessons that David leaves for us, who knows but that our conflict with the Goliaths we face may not be just as spectacular?

Some may be saying, “Well, if I had the opportunity to face Goliath, I’d take him on, but I just don’t have my giants to battle with.” I recall the story of two men who were lying in grass after a hard morning’s work. One was big, brawny and powerful. The other was small and wiry. The second man was speaking. He said, “Man, if I had your muscles and body, I’d go into those woods over yonder and find the biggest, meanest, hungriest bear in there, and I’d rip him apart just to show how tough I am.”

His partner looked at him out of the comer of his eye, pointed at the woods over his shoulder with a thumb and said simply, “Little man, there’s plenty of little bears in them woods.”

Get the point? Okay, got your sling ready?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, p. 456-457
August 4, 1983