Truth Magazine

By Randy Reynolds

I would imagine that 8 of every 10 persons asked this question today would answer with an affirmative reply. It’s that 80% that I want to pay close attention to this article. Maybe you have answered “yes, I believe the Bible.” Are you sure, or is that just a built in response? Hopefully as you read through this article it will help you to be more assured of your response. But, it might cause you to wonder why you made an affirmative reply to the above question.

Do you believe the bible to be the inspired, written word of God? Listen to Paul as he speaks concerning this matter.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

What does the word “inspired” (Gk. theopneustos) mean? It is used one other time, in Job. 32:8, and it means “God-breathed.” In other words, all the writers of the Bible, Genesis through Revelation, Old Testament and New, were merely the vehicle that God, through the Holy Spirit, used to reveal to man what the will of God for man was. In 1 Cor. 2:13, the apostle Paul affirms his thought, “which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit, teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” Paul also says in 1 Thess. 2:13, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

What are you saying Paul? Paul, are you telling us that even though you are a mere human, the letters you write are actually written by God through the Holy Spirit? Because Paul was the writer but not the author, he was instructed as to what was to be written. So we can conclude the same of all writers of the Bible. The things written in the books they wrote, were not humanistic in nature, but rather “God-breathed.”

Let us look at some of the characteristics of this God we just mentioned, as being the one who gave the inspiration.

I. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

2. God is everlasting (Is. 26:4).

3. God is jealous (Ex. 20:5; 2 Cor. 11:2).

4. God is just (Heb. 2:2; Psalms 19:9; Jer. 11:20).

5. God is all knowing. He knows our thoughts and intents (Heb. 4:12). He knows the makeup of nature (Acts 1:7).

He knows of one thing that no one else knows (Matt. 24:36).

6. God is loving (1 Jn. 4:7-8; Jn. 3:16).

7. God is the almighty, as demonstrated through the flood (Gen. 7) and in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

8. God is all powerful. He created the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1).

9. God is all wise (Psalms 19:7); He is wise to our thoughts (Psalms 66:18, Jet. 10:23).

There are a host of other adjectives that could be used in describing our Lord God Jehovah. However, these should be sufficient for me to make my point.

Do you believe, after the description we have just given of God and His word, that there could possibly be (as men say) many different ways to obtain salvation other than what the inspired writers tell us?

Romans 10:17 says to hear the word.

Mark 16:16 says to believe the word.

Romans 10:10 says to confess with the mouth.

Luke 13:3 says to repent of past sins.

Acts 2:38 says to be baptized for remission of sins.

Is there another way for us to obtain salvation? No. Why? The Bible does not authorize it. What about the people that say baptism is not necessary? They do not believe the Bible! What about the people that say it is alright to sprinkle or pour for baptism? They do not believe the Bible. Romans 6:4 says baptism is a burial.

Let’s take the thought a little further. Does God authorize works (that are able to be done by the local church) to be done by benevolent Institutions? What do the scriptures say?

Acts 14:23 says “God ordained “elders” in “every” church. 1 Pet. 5:2 says “feed the Flock which is among you.” The word of God says each and every local church is to tend to their own affairs or to have their own “government.” So what can we conclude for those who see fit to “pool” their resources to one governing group of elders for their oversight? They do not believe the Bible.” God did not authorize it. Local churches are “independent,” they are “autonomous,” or self-governing.

What is the work of the “local church”? Edification (Eph. 4:16), evangelism (1 Tim. 3:15) and benevolence (Acts 6:1-4). What does that mean? This limits the local church to providing only what God has authorized. God’s word does not authorize the Lord’s monies (1 Cor. 16:1-2) to be used in supporting (1) softball teams, (2) boy scouts, (3) business adventures, (4) social activities, (5) youth camps, (6) human institutions, (7) joint cooperation of local congregations (elders overseeing more than “one” local work).

How can I be sure? By using the standard of authority that God has given us, the Bible; the Bible does not give authority for any of these endeavors. There is not a “direct command.” There is not an “approved example.” There is not a “necessary inference.” So if you practice these things for which there is not a direct command, approved example or necessary inference, what may be concluded by this behavior? You do not believe the Bible is “sufficient.” 2 Pet. 1:3 tells us that it is. You are not following the apostles teaching. Acts 2:42 shows us that we should. You are walking by “sight” not by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7). You are not “abiding” in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).

Therefore, I would “urge” you to examine yourselves (2 Cor. 13:5), before you answer the question (“Do you believe the Bible?”). It is possible that you could have been led astray by a “false doctrine” (Eph. 4:4) that is “contrary” to the doctrine of Christ (Romans 16:17), led into the doctrines of men (Matt. 15:9). 1 John 1:6-7 says, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sins.” Do you believe the Bible?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, pp. 183-184
March 19, 1981

By Ron Halbrook

David Lipscomb’s article on “Bible Colleges” in the 23 December 1869 Gospel Advocate is one of several pieces he wrote on the subject through the years. He was extremely cautious about the arrangements brethren made from time to time for the joint endeavor of individuals and he clearly opposed any efforts to latch such institutional arrangements onto local churches. The Gospel Advocate did not function as an organ of local churches or exist on their money. It was the medium of himself and friends sympathetic to the cause which he pled. Yet, even of this organized effort to teach in print he said, “It is the truth, not the paper, that is dear to our heart” (Robert E. Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness: A Biography of David Lipscomb, p. 193).

At times Lipcomb’s scriptures on organized efforts seemed to exclude as sinful threats to the local church nearly all if not all organized endeavors of individuals which disseminated truth. Actually, it is clear that this is not what Lipscomb meant because he edited the Gospel Advocate for many years and established an orphan school and a Bible college. In an exchange with J.W. McGarvey during 1869, Lipscomb objected in principle to the College of the Bible in Kentucky University at Lexington. He asserted in the 23 December article that “the Church and its work in saving the world is the school for studying the religion of Jesus Christ ….So we frankly confess our misgivings as to the effect of the Bible Colleges on the purity of faith and simplicity of life of the people of God.” This seems to say that the local church is the only school where the Bible may be taught and studied. When Lipscomb established his school in Nashville, Tennessee, he provided Bible classes along with secular courses for all students but avoided the Lexington approach of a heavy Bible curriculum for young men who wished to preach. Both Lipscomb’s and McGarvey’s schools provided opportunities for studying the religion of Jesus Christ.

Five Dangers Limpscomb Feared

Lipscomb’s article of 23 December 1869 makes five charges against Bible colleges, especially as schools of Bible study for young men who wish to preach. Such schools do the following things, if we summarize Lipscomb’s objections:

1. Involve separation from the practical surroundings of the church.

2. Provide theoretical instruction instead of active service.

3. Foster a clergy-laity distinction.

4. Cultivate tastes prejudicial against work among poor and uneducated people.

5. Breed educated arrogance.

Further examination of these objections shows that they are not only potential pitfalls of a Bible college education but also of all formal education. All formal education given by various schools and colleges may be said to do the following things:

1. Involve separation from practical surroundings, i.e. the surroundings where the person will practice the things being taught and learned.

2. Provide theoretical instruction instead of active service, i.e. instead of learning by doing, on-the-job training.

3. Foster a tendency for an educated group or class, of people to become an educated caste.

4. Cultivate tastes which differ from those of people who cannot afford formal education.

5. Breed educated arrogance, i.e. a spirit which criticizes the com petency of people who have not had formal education.

These are the arguments Lipscomb reiterated many times in many forms while he argued that the church is the school for studying the religion of Jesus Christ. Though Lipscomb did not oppose all formal education and said a preacher might get one, if his five generalizations are applied indiscriminately to formal education in various fields of study, we would reach the following conclusion:

The factory is the school for studying manufacturing.

The court is the school for studying law.

The hospital is the school for studying medicine.

The farm is the school for studying agriculture.

The construction site is the school for studying carpentry.

The market-place is the school for studying business.

The office is the school for studying secretarial service.

The garage is the school for studying mechanics.

Of course, it is true that practical, on-the-job training has unique advantages over so-called formal education. The advantage of formal education is freedom from certain duties for a temporary period which permits the student to concentrate all his powers on what is to be learned, hopefully under the guidance and instruction of mature, experienced men. Actually, churches as well as individuals have conducted study with both on-the-job and more formal arrangements with profit.

The relative values of each kind of training formal and practical depend ultimately on the men who conduct the training. Students or teachers in either type of training can emphasize bookish and academic concerns as ends within themselves, or emphasize books and learning as tools for personal study and for service to other people. Brethren in either type of training can cultivate a burning desire to carry the gospel to all kinds of people, or can cultivate an inordinate desire for money, fine dress, elegant surroundings, study of human philosophies, and ease of life. Students or teachers in either training can cultivate an injurious spirit of presumption, arrogance, and prejudice which fosters an air of suspicion and hesitancy toward people who had the other training. Therefore, David Lipscomb calls attention to some real dangers that will always be with us, dangers we shall escape only by diligent vigilance.

The plain truth is that Satan attempts to sow seeds of arrogance, suspicion, vainglory, strife, bitterness, and dissension in the midst of all our efforts to perpetuate the truth. Satan has sown seeds of apostasy and division by turning churches aside from doing their own ordained work, to the work of financially supporting various human service organizations, including Bible colleges, in the name of the church at work. God still has His thousands who have not succumbed to this old ploy. Yet, among these people Satan can sow other seeds of apostasy and division if he can promote arrogance, suspicion, vanity, strife, bitterness, and discord. This evil Satan labors to accomplish among the churches and their efforts to spread the truth. He labors in the same way among individuals and families, both as to their private endeavors and their joint endeavors in various service organizations. Such joint endeavors include any number, of schools, foundations, papers, publishing businesses, religious bookstores, and the like, all of which keep themselves distinct and separate from local churches.

Inordinate pride can boast equally, “I took formal training in Bible at such-and-such school,” or, “I did not take Bible study at any such school, but studied Bible in such-and-such local church.” The spirit of rancor can demand equally, “In order to have my respect as a Christian, you must approve of and share in the work of such-and-such gospel paper, incorporated; such-and-such literature foundation; such-and-such Bible college; and, such-and-such bookstore,” or else, “You must not approve and share.” So long as these individual service organizations keep themselves separate from churches and church treasuries, such organizations should not be interjected as issues in any local church. The minute they interject themselves into the business and treasuries of local churches, human service institutions infringe on the churches by interfering with their free function or autonomy which God revealed in the New Testament pattern.

The Wisdom of Vigilance

Vigilance has always been necessary to keep service organizations in their sphere separate from the church, just as vigilance has been necessary to keep all the efforts of individuals, families, and churches faithful to God’s Word. The comments Lipscomb made through the Gospel Advocate, one medium for individual teaching efforts, about Bible colleges, another such medium, reflect that vigilance. There was a danger of Lipscomb’s vigilance becoming over-scrupulousness, so that he might erect a hedge taking in more ground than that taken in by God’s Word. This process accounts for many of the traditions the Jews had added to the Law of Moses. Our opposition to liberal tendencies can pass from a balanced, Bible vigilance to a human, punctilious legalism. Lipscomb stood in the shadow of this danger for several years on the Bible college question, but stepped out of that shadow in 1891 when he helped to establish the Nashville Bible School, which later bore his name as David Lipscomb College. He avoided the abuses about which he complained in the article of 1869, but David Lipscomb College in the passing of time promoted apostasy when it sought and promoted the idea of church support of colleges. Athens Bible School (kindergarten through high school) in Athens, Alabama, and Florida College (junior college) in Temple Terrace, Florida, are schools currently keeping themselves in the realm of individual and family efforts separate from local churches. Doubtless similar schools will rise in the future.

Many service organizations ‘and corporations separate from the church exist today and others will arise. None of them should ever become sacred cows above question, warning, or criticism. If Lipscomb’s 1869 article borders on over-scrupulousness, still it is filled with the wisdom of vigilance. The friends of individually-organized endeavors should foster an atmosphere of vigilance for their own safety, as well as the safety of the churches which have suffered repeatedly from the financial aspiration of these institutions. Beyond teaching common principles of honesty and teaching the imperative for such institutions to remain separate from churches, brethren both in and out of such endeavors should be free to tend to their own business. Within the limits of these principles of truth, the endeavor of one individual or group is none of the business of another individual or group. We may thwart Satan’s effort to sow discord if we can remember that lesson. Also, let all of us who would warn against the spirit of presumption, arrogance, and apostasy in human service organizations do so with balance. Let us be sure that in the name of such warnings we do not ourselves become guilty of arrogance, suspicion, vanity, strife, bitterness, and dissension.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, pp. 181-183
March 19, 1981

By Mike Willis

In last week’s editorial, I discussed half of the problem of the church and the individual. I attempted to demonstrate from the scriptures that the position that whatever the individual may do, the church may do is false. The other position which some seem to be taking is that whatever the church may not do, the individual may not do. We are seeing expressions of this with reference to colleges which operate Bible departments and foundations such as Cogdill Foundation. Some brethren are opposed to both of these on the basis that they believe that God has given the church the exclusive responsibility of teaching the gospel.

Some of these brethren have opposed church support of colleges on this basis through the years, although the majority of brethren have opposed church support of colleges on a different basis. However, some have reached the conclusion that since the church cannot send a contribution to a college, neither can an individual. Hence, what the church cannot do is what the individual cannot do.

Using the same points of comparison mentioned last week, I want to show that the individual can be engaged in many activities which the church is forbidden to be engaged in. This will demonstrate the error of the thesis “what the church cannot do, the individual cannot do.”

The Individual Can Do Many Things Which The Church Cannot Do

There are many areas of liberty in which an individual may choose to become involved that a church has no God-given authority to become involved. This can be seen in a number of different manners; let us consider a few of them.

1. The community obligations. I have a number of obligations toward my fellow man because I am a member of a community. In addition to my responsibility to conduct myself in a way that glorifies God, I have a responsibility to help as many needy people as I have the opportunity to help (Gal. 6:10; Lk. 10:25-37). These are obligations given to me as an individual, not to the church as a collectivity.

As an individual discharging my God-given obligations. I have every right to work with other individuals in discharging these obligations. I can pool my resources with other individuals to build hospitals, orphan homes, old folks’ homes, unwed mothers’ homes, and any number of other service institutions. T’he scriptures have not legislated regarding the kinds of organizations which can be used in discharging these personal obligations; therefore, I can work with others as I see fit in fulfilling my obligations before God in this realm.

Throughout the controversies over church support of human institutions, brethren have correctly argued that they were not opposed to the existence of colleges or orphan homes; they were opposed to the church support of these institutions. I think they argued correctly.

2. The home. I have a number of God-given obligations with reference to my family. So far as I am able to determine, I have every scriptural right to pool my resources with other families in order to discharge these family obligations. In discharging my obligations to educate my family, I have the liberty to pool my resources with others to provide whatever educational opportunities I choose for my family. In discharging my obligations to provide clean recreation for my children, I have every right to pool my resources with other families to rent the facilities of a camp area and run it in accordance with the moral principles revealed in God’s word, if I so desire.

Although the church cannot become involved in these activities without violating the word of God, individuals have the right to pool their resources in order to discharge their personal, individual responsibilities. The Lord has not legislated how to provide these things for my family.

3. The government. I also have certain responsibilities toward my country, as a citizen in this country. 1 have the liberty of working with other citizens in discharging these responsibilities. Hence, if I want to become a member of some political party which might direct this country in the direction which I think it ought to go, I have the scriptural right to become a member of that party or organization. I can join other concerned citizens to voice my opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, the showing of nudity and profanity on television, abortion on demand, or whatever other political ideas I want to support. Although the church cannot be involved in any of these activities, the individual has a right to function individually and in conjunction with other individuals in discharging his God-given individual responsibilities.

4. Business. God has given to me certain responsibilities in business; I must be engaged in gainful employment to provide for my family. If I choose to pool resources with several other people who need to be engaged in gainful employment to support their families to form some kind of business partnership, I have every right to do so. Although the church cannot be involved in business enterprises, the individual can be involved in such activities. Hence, I can pool resources with other individuals in discharging this personal, individual responsibility.

These areas demonstrate that an individual has the right to do a number of things which the church cannot do. Hence, the thesis, “whatever the church cannot do, the individual cannot do,” is false. No one, to my knowledge, would question anything that I have said to this point. However, the water becomes muddy for some people when we turn to individual responsibilities in reference to the dissemination of God’s word, the teaching of moral obligations, and other matters related to the Scriptures.

My Individual Responsibilities in Religion

Sometimes brethren want to treat my individual responsibilities in religion as if they were unique. Frankly, I can see no difference in discharging my individual responsibility to support my family, to care for the needy non-Christians, to work as a good citizen in the government, to work as an individual member of my family, and in discharging my individual responsibilities to teach God’s word and to meet the benevolent responsibilities which I have toward Christians.

As an individual, I have a moral obligation to disseminate God’s word (Acts 8:4; 2 Tim. 2:2). The obligation which I have in this area is not discharged when the church sends money to support a gospel preacher to some needy area. I have personal, individual responsibilities in teaching God’s word which the church cannot do for me. So far as I am able to determine, I have the right to work with other individuals in discharging these personal, individual responsibilities, even as Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke labored together in discharging their individual responsibilities. Consequently, I see nothing wrong with individuals pooling their resources to publish some kind of paper to spread the word of God as Leslie Diestelkamp, his family, and other interested saints do in publishing Think. Whether they decide to give the paper away or to sell it is their own choice. I see no greater virtue in selling such a paper than in giving it, the comments of some preachers to the contrary notwithstanding.

Furthermore, I see nothing sinful in several individuals pooling their resources to publish good literature designed to teach God’s word. Publishing organizations which print and distribute the Bible and books about the Bible can be created and supported by individuals in discharging their personal responsibilities.

I have every right to join with others in working in moral instruction. If I choose to join a temperance society, the Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other organization designed to teach moral principles, I have violated nothing in God’s word, so far as I am able to determine. I have the right to join with others in the discharge of my personal, individual obligations.

So far as I am able to determine, several of us have every right to pool our resources to conduct a gospel meeting in any area we choose. If several of us pooled our resources to rent a tent, property, seats, and a microphone to conduct a meeting in some area in which no church existed, I do not understand that we would have violated any scripture in so doing. We would not be robbing the church of its glory, doing the work of the church, or anything else which might conflict with our obligations to the local church. We would simply be discharging our individual responsibilities in conjunction with others who were discharging their individual responsibilities. We would not be doing the work of the church in such an arrangement any more than when we pooled our resources to discharge our responsibilities to our families, our governments, our communities, and our businesses.

If several of us decided to pool our resources to assist some aged, needy saint, we would have every right to do so. The fact that we pooled our resources to help this saint would not constitute a violation of any Scripture in spite of the fact that the church might also have a responsibility to this same individual. Whatever several of us did together in discharging our personal responsibilities would have nothing to do with the church’s responsibility toward that individual.

Conclusion

Some brethren among us are taking such a radical position on collectivities that they are making it necessary that all collective action in spiritual matters be discharged through the local congregation. Several Christians cannot pool their resources to assist widow indeed without forming a “sinful” collectivity, according to this position. Such results in a position that says “whatever the church cannot do the individual cannot do,” a premise which I have sought to demonstrate to be false in the article.

If someone knows where God has legislated regarding how I am to discharge my individual responsibilities with reference to caring for needy people and teaching the word of God, I would like for him to show me that legislation. I know of no passage which says that the work of teaching the word of God has been given exclusively to the church. It simply is a false conclusion which some have reached which says that whatever the church cannot do (such as contribute to a college in which the Bible is taught), the individual cannot do.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that a person must contribute to a college with a Bible department in order to be a faithful servant of God. I am not saying that an individual must pool his resources with other individuals to discharge any of his responsibilities, whether we are discussing his responsibilities in business, the home, the government, or the community. He does, however, have this liberty. Inasmuch as it is a liberty, it cannot be forced on others. It must be treated on the basis of Romans 14. With the hope that this sheds more light than heat on the subject of the individual and the church, this material is submitted for your consideration.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, pp. 179-181
March 19, 1981

By Dudley Ross Spears

In the May issue of Basil Overton’s paper, The World Evangelist, the good editor takes up the issue of general benevolence among those who are not Christians and after asking the questions, seems not to be able to find the right answer. Basil Overton is totally anti in his editorial. He is anti-saints-only benevolence from the church treasury. It would be extremely interesting to see Overton get positive and show from the Bible where the church has divine right to engage in general benevolence among those who are not Christians. It would be interesting to hear what he would have to say about churches supporting purely secular benevolent institutions or orphanages operated by the Masonic Lodge or some denomination.

If the church is not limited in benevolent work from the treasury then it must be either semi-limited or unlimited. Which is it, brother Overton? If the church, from the common funds, is unlimited in benevolent work, what objection could be registered against donating to the Red Cross, the Heart Fund, the United Way, or any number of other such organizations? If it is just the doctrinal aspect or denominational affiliation involved in some benevolent institutions, could the church help an indigent Catholic “Priest” or “Nun?” Would brother Overton object to such a practice?

Overton says that if some affirm that 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 means that church funds were to be restricted to “saints only,” then it would be inconsistent for preachers to be supported out of the treasury. The good editor has apparently never learned that 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 is instruction covering the collection of funds and is not an exhaustive treatment of the disbursement of the same funds. The passage says that the collection was to be taken “upon the first day of the week.” It was for the “saints” who were in need. To have used the funds for other than saints would be misappropriating the funds. But there are numerous other passages which teach how the New Testament churches spent their money which includes supporting the preachers of the gospel (Phil. 4:14-16; 2 Cor. 11:7-8).

More of the same type of faulty reasoning is seen in the editor’s confused thinking when he says that money from non-saints could not be taken into the contribution. He issues the challenge to any church that teaches that only saints who are in need are legitimate objects of congregational benevolence to tell him that no money from non-saints is taken into the treasury. Our answer is simply that there is authority only for the relief of needy saints from the treasury and only saints are commanded to contribute and there is absolutely nothing said about non-saints either contributing or not contributing. That is not the problem at all. We do not solicit non-members for money but we surely do our members. We cannot say it is a sin for a nonmember not to contribute into the common fund, but surely must say it is sinful for a member not to contribute. See the difference, brother Overton?

Brother Overton has been wrong about the difference in individual Christian action in benevolence and collective action in benevolence ever since I have known him and that goes back .over twenty years. He wonders why 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 means “saints only” when a local church does benevolence and why 1 Corinthians 16:5 does not mean “saints only” when individual Christians do benevolence. There are other passages which teach individual Christians to help saints and non-saints (Gal. 6:10). Other passages teach individual Christians to provide for their own relatives and not burden the church (1 Tim. 5:16). Thus it is right for individuals to help those outside the fellowship of the church “as we have opportunity,” but if brother Overton knows of a passage that teaches the local churches of Christ to do a general work of benevolence among non-members why doesn’t he produce it and stop being so negative about the whole matter of benevolence? No, it is not a sin to help those who are not Christians in relieving their needs – it is a sin to take funds from the treasury and relieve them. Brother Overton and those who stand with him seem more bound up with the treasury of the local church than anyone I can think of. They leave the impression that the only benevolence that is done must be financed collectively through the common treasury of the church. He needs to think more about this matter.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, p. 178
March 19, 1981