Truth Magazine

By Irven Lee

No man upon the earth has a perfect understanding of the perfect law of liberty, therefore there is none with an exact copy of the life of Christ. Some of the false teachers among us have started with this fact. and with the direct or indirect influence of John Calvin have come up with the idea that the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. The instruction or teaching in the epistles loses much of its importance in. their hands as they make a distinction between doctrine and gospel. They see people baptized into Christ, and they then would take away much of the occasion for fear and trembling and the special diligence suggested in taking heed lest we fall. This doctrine is more wide-spread than many admit, and only the tip of the iceberg has come to light. Let us give thanks to God for those who have worked hard and sacrificed much to awaken a precious body of people to the coming storm. Storms, you know, can be devastating. This danger is being pointed out by more and more who are aware of it. No babe in Christ is safe in the presence of skilled teachers of this grace-faith-unity movement, because they can make error look like truth.

There is another unfortunate problem that grows out of the fact that we do not all know everything there is to know. Can two people worship together if they find that there is some subject on which they cannot agree? Must every church divide into two warring camps if some question arises . among the members? If one cannot meet for worship with any church in which there are a few who do not agree with him fully on every topic that comes up for discussion, he may be forced to hunt far and wide for such a group. If he does find this sound church (in which the members all agree with him), it may soon divide and begin biting and devouring one another over some new question which some one happens to bring up for discussion. When troublesome questions arise there are at least two tasks we could consider. We may patiently search for the scriptural answer for the question that will settle all trouble for all time to come, and we might give prayerful thought as to how we can live with the problem.

Some questions are of the type that will not stay answered. If Bible doctrine and styles or customs are in conflict, there is the perennial problem and the continuing arguments. None, not even the most skilled, can come up with the answer that will settle the issue to the satisfaction of all in all communities. If some position is taken by strong-willed and able public teachers, they may be able to drive every member to conformity by making a hobby of their concept. If this strong-willed leadership is less skilled, they may only succeed in dividing the church. If a man has forced his ideas upon the church by his dogmatism and sarcasm or if he divides the body, he has no great room for boasting even if he is correct in his doctrine. The inspired teachers depended more on reasoning and persuasion and less on intimidation to get the desired results: The lord’s church is not encouraged to, use the forte, of discipline-that was’ characteristic of the concentration camp, such as Hitler used in the day of his power. This is not to say that the church may. .never mark, avoid, reject, or withdraw front the ‘disorderly brother. Sometimes the wrong people are marked. The., proud and-dogmatic teacher Who would ridicule and reject all who differ with him may be more seriously guilty than those he would score,

It seems that there are some who would quarantine and isolate some very excellent and useful men who hove not accepted their official position on some question that is ever with us. Thereby much talent goes to waste, and ill will takes the place of the brotherly love and patience recommended in the good book. From Romans, chapter 14, it is evident that brethren who were better informed were being taught to love and to worship with some weak brethren rather than to despise them. Weaker brethren were taught to avoid harsh judgment of those who did not accept their scruples. Both groups were taught to allow the Lord and Master to handle the matter of judgment in such cases. In cases mentioned in this chapter, one from either view could be easily convinced that he was right, but the servant stands or falls before his own master. Sometimes it is the publican servant, the bowed head, that is justified before the Master rather than the Pharisee who was so thankful that he was not like the publican. He was not like the publican, but this was not grounds for his pride or vaunting.

Should we offer the Lord’s Supper at the evening service? Should women answer questions in a class where there are men and women? May women teach classes of children or women? Should women wear some head covering in hours of worship? We are not suggesting that it is wrong to study or to discuss these questions, but we are saying that no man will arise tomorrow and say something that will please God and satisfy all the hearts in the Lord’s church from coast to coast. There can be courteous discussions, and there can be mutual respect among those who differ. There are churches blessed with wise leadership who seek ways to live with these problems rather than crucifying those who do not agree with the local preacher at the time. In such cases, happy congregations continue to grow and to accomplish much to the glory of God. Must every one who does not say what you say on one of these questions be crushed and abandoned regardless of his good attitude, clean life, and the great good he has accomplished in the Lord’s vineyard? Be careful. The one who is criticized may be better in God’s sight than the critic.

–Via. The Sower.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 10, p. 162
March 6, 1980

By Earl Robertson

John wrote, “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him who athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). Many of the creeds of men limit, in scope, the salvation from sin which Christ offers through the gospel. This erroneous position is assumed because of a misunderstanding of the nature of man and the nature of God’s dealings with man. In spite of what the creeds say, however, the Lord makes the same offer to all without any respect of persons. God’s love for man manifested at Calvary included the whole world – “he tasted death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). His death was not only for the people who live under the New Testament, but it was “for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament” (Heb. 9:15). This is why John could write “whosoever” in our text. Jesus said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). All were away in sin, but all by the Lord are invited to come to Him. Anyone who wants to be saved can be. The Lord is not in the business of saving some while refusing to save others the same way.

As surely as salvation is offered to all in the great commission (Mk. 16; Matt. 28), it is offered conditionally. As John wrote the will of Christ in Rev. 22, he included, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14). The blessed city of God is entered when the gospel of Jesus Christ is obeyed. The “doing” of His commandments to enter the city makes the entering conditional! Men constantly tell us there is not anything we can do “to take the water of life” but the Lord says there is something that must be done. Men tell us it was the Lord’s doing and dying that saves us from sin – that there is not anything we can do. His death – His blood – makes possible our salvation, but its benefits are not received and enjoyed by man until man appropriates the benefits of Jesus’ death in gospel obedience. Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). “He that doeth” is conditional!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 9, p. 155
February 28, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

All other books are of value only as they lead back to “the Book. ” Our commentaries and our libraries are merely efforts to grasp the breadth and depth of the revelation of the Book. It is the authority to which church, reason, religious experience, and tradition must submit. He who does not abide in the teaching has not God (2 Jn. 9).

Jack P. Lewis made these excellent remarks in a lesson on We may as well add one more which brother Lewis did not the “Inspiration and Authority of the Bible” (Harding mention. College Lectures 1972, pp. 90-122).

He further explained that such “matters of worship and service” as “instrumental music in worship, incense in worship, dedicating babies, and missionary societies” are excluded from God’s will because not authorized by “a direct command, an approved example, or ground for a necessary inference.” But such matters as “the doctrine of `Guardian Angels,’ of the rapture, of how orphan children should be cared for, of the type of materials out of which people can study in Bible classes” fall “in the area of opinion” dependent upon “inference and deduction” rather than upon “the explicit statement of Scripture.” Of course, the reference to “how orphan children should be cared for” means whether the church may build and maintain human institutions separate from the church for various phases of its benevolent work. Whatever the benevolent scope of the church may be, how suggests incidental methods and is misleading. The question is who: the church or another organization?

Suppose we add to his latter list “how musical worship may be offered (with or without mechanical instruments), how reverence and meditation may be expedited (incense), how families may demonstrate their dedication to the ideal of raising godly children (dedicating babies), and how churches may spread the gospel (missionary societies).” Brother Lewis would object that these are not mere methods of doing the thing commanded, but are violations of and intrusions upon the thing actually commanded. The command to “sing” excludes another kind of music that of playing mechanical instruments. The chart illustrates this principle:

The Command	Excludes
To Sing	Playing Instruments
To Baptize Believers	Baptizing Babies
For the Church to Propagate Truth	Church Support of Human Institutions (Missionary Society)
For the Church to Care for Its Needy	Church Support of Human Institutions (Benevolent Organizations – Clinics, Hospitals, Orphanages, Etc.)
We may as well add one more letter which brother Lewis did not mention.
For the Church to Edify the Saints	Church Support of Human Institutions (Edification Organizations – Colleges)

Harding Graduate School, in which Lewis teaches, seeks and accepts church donations to edify young people and to to prepare preachers. In addition, Harding College functions as a missionary society by taking church funds and sending out preachers to convert the lost and build up churches! (For details, see ad on back page of Gospel Advocate, 24 June 1976) As illustrated on chart below.*

The real issue is, Has the Lord made His church adequate to its mission? In assigning the church its mission, did He provide the church with its own organization or leave the church to devise organizations? Shall the-church oversee and control its own work, or make donations to human organizations which oversee and control the work to be done? Whether in spreading the gospel, edifying the saints, or caring for the church’s needy, the issue is not how in terms of specific methods but who in terms of organization. The constant proliferation of organizations as appendages to the church in every field of its endeavor is an insult to God’s revealed plan in the Bible and a disgrace to the people proposing to follow it to the exclusion of all else. These human institutions drawing their financial life’s blood from the churches are idolatrous impositions upon the authority and all-sufficiency of the New Testament plan for the church of God. Such organizations have no place among a people claiming to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent; to call Bible things by Bible names; to do Bible things in Bible ways; to plea for unity on the basis of the revealed truth of God; to proclaim Christ as the only head with the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice; and to speak as the oracles of God by giving Book, Chapter, and Verse for every religious practice.

Will someone object, “But where does the Bible say not to – Look how much good we are doing – I don’t see anything wrong with it – Some of our best preachers approve . . . .”? As brother Lewis himself so well said: The Bible is “the authority to which church, reason, religious experience, and tradition must submit. He who does not abide in the teaching has not God (2 Jn. 9).” How heartbreaking that Ephraim is joined to idols! Oh that they might be put away and God’s people stand together as a mighty army for the truth – for the Divine Authority of One Book.

Advanced Bible Class Lessons

Brother Roy C. Cogdill’s Book by Book through the New Testament is being widely used. It is especially suitable for classes ranging from high school level to adult levels. Special issues of Truth Magazine have been adapted and reprinted in workbook form. Good interest has been shown by requests for this material in advance of its actual printing and there has been a good response after the printing as well. I have enjoyed teaching the one on Romans. The new one on Worldliness fills a pressing need and a number of brethren have expressed their enthusiasm about this important material. Billy Moore’s workbooks on Authority and Unity are excellent choices. Use Truth Magazine Bookstore’s toll-free phone number to obtain any of these and to find out what else is available in advanced Bible class materials.

* Harding College receives church donations and functions to (1) supply preachers to churches, (2) arrange for student preacher’s programs of work under elderships of churches, (3) locate unevangelized areas for churches, and (4) send preachers to such areas for churches.

 

 

Truth Magazine XXIV: 9, pp. 153-155
February 28, 1980

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Wrong attitudes toward the truth, while not specifically named, are nevertheless sometimes implied in the conduct of certain Bible characters, as revealed by inspired writers. Such is true concerning some, of whom Paul said that

They Walked Not Uprightly According To The Truth

In recalling an incident that occurred in the church at Antioch, Paul wrote,

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

So then, it is possible for one who preaches the truth, to act the hypocrite and conduct himself in a way that is inconsistent with the truth that he preaches. That has ever been one of the weaknesses of man. It was the sin that Paul charged against the Jews of his day. They regarded themselves as being more righteous than the Gentiles who had been guilty of most vicious crimes against humanity (Rom. 1:26-32). Paul showed, however, that in condemning the Gentiles the Jews condemned themselves in that they practiced the same things (Rom. 2:1). “Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorest idols, dost thou rob temples?” (Rom. 2:21-23).

Peter, The Offender

But let us get back to the scene at Antioch and the language of Paul in Gal. 2:11-14. Ironically, the chief offender in this case was none other than the apostle Peter.

They say that Peter was the rock of which Jesus spoke when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Passing over, for the time being, arguments to the contrary, we make this observation that if indeed the church was built on Peter it rests on a shaky foundation. For if there was one human weakness that Peter had, it was that of impulsiveness coupled with instability. A few hours before Jesus’ betrayal and arrest Peter had assured his Lord that though all others would forsake him, the Lord could depend upon him. Yet it was just a few hours later that Peter denied Christ three times.

It will be remembered that God chose Peter to preach the first gospel sermon to the Gentiles. Some time afterward, Peter, recalling the event, said, “God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7).

Peter’s going to preach to the household of Cornelius required that he do something of which all Jews even those that were believers disapproved. It involved his going in and eating with Gentiles who were still considered as unclean by the Jews. But by means of the vision recorded in Acts 10:9-16), God had taught Peter that the old social barrier between Jew and Gentile had been done away. And it is obvious that Peter had understood that the purpose of the vision to be that he “should not call any man common or unclean (Acts 10:28).

But now we find him at Antioch, the man who had boldly gone in and eaten with the Gentiles, and later defended himself for so doing, retreating from that position because of the criticism of some Jews that had come down from Jerusalem. Paul said, “He drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:12). In such conduct, Paul said that Peter and others had not walked uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.

Peter’s Counterpart

The manner in which Peter conducted himself on the above occasion has found a counterpart many times since. Too often we find men who preach one thing, but practice something else. Sometimes we find preachers who are strong on what we call doctrinal matters, giants in defending the truth and exposing the false theories of man, but weak in their own morals. More than one preacher has been ruined by a scandal in his own life. Sometimes preachers will preach about equality of men and of brotherly love, yet refuse to associate with a brother because of the color of his skin. Sometimes preachers will preach about honesty but when they move they leave unpaid bills behind them. Such, like those of whom Paul write, are not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.

Fear Of Criticism

There is yet another aspect of this matter to be considered. It reveals the disposition to take the popular course, a course dictated by policy. Paul said, “Before that certain came from James, he (Peter) ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.” So Peter ate with the Gentiles until it brought him criticism, and made him unpopular among his old associates. In this instance, Peter proved to be a policy man. He took the popular course, he wanted to be with the majority.

Peter is not the only guilty man. There have always been those who wanted to be with the majority when controversial issues arise. Their attitude toward disputed practices is not characterized by the question “Is it scriptural?” Contrariwise they are more concerned with whether or not it is popular, and if it will bring them criticism if they practice it.

Displayed In Current Issues

Too many times has such vaccilating conduct been found in the church of our Lord. When issues arise, I have seen men take a strong stand for the truth until they found that it brought them criticism and made them unpopular. Then, like Peter, they drew back and disavowed positions once held and now practice things that they once condemned as unscriptural. As I write, I have before me the first volume of the Gospel Guardian, published in 1949. It contains a list of names of impressive writers, none perhaps better known that that of Foy E. Wallace, Jr. In the issue of May 5, 1949 and in an article entitled, “The Issues Before Us,” under a paragraph entitled “Institutionalism,” Brother Wallace said of human institutions, “. . . No one denies that they are secular and human; yet their proponents want to bed them up in the treasuries of the churches and thereby subordinate the divine church of the Lord to the human organizations of men.” In another paragraph on “Brotherhood Elderships,” he wrote, “History is repeating on ecclesiastical organization. It comes now in the form of the little church working through the big church – which is centralization. It amounts to little elders turning the responsibility of their work over to big elders . . . .”

Can anyone read these, and other similar statements from the pen of Brother Wallace, and come to any other conclusion but that he opposed human institutions being supported by the church to do the work of the church, and also opposed the concept of the sponsoring church? Yet, today, we find Brother Wallace lending his support to those who are building up the things that he once sought to destroy.

Another prominent writer of past years, Guy N. Woods, wrote in 1939 in an article entitled, “The Tendency Toward Institutionalism”:

The ship of Zion had floundered more than once on the sandbar on institutionalism. The tendency to organize is characteristic of the age. On the theory that the end justifies the means, brethren have not scrupled to form institutions in the chruch to do the work the church was designed to do. All such institutions usurp the work of the church, and are unnecessary and sinful . . . . Of course it is right for the church to care for the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, but this work should be done by and through the church, with the elders having the oversight thereof, and not through boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament.

Can anyone read the above and come to any conclusion other than that Brother Woods strongly opposed human institutions doing the work that God gave the church to do? Yet in 1956, when he debated W. Curtis Porter, he affirmed a proposition that reads, “It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy . . . .” Thus, in 1956 Brother Woods affirmed as having the scriptural right to exist, boards and conclaves which he said in 1939 were unknown to the New Testament and therefore sinful. If Peter were living today, he would have a lot of company!

There are men who will not take a position on any matter until they know where the marjority stands. Their attitude obviously is that truth is determined by counting noses. Others take what they call “the middle of the road” position on controversial issues, which means that they can be found on either side.

One thing we need to learn and never forget is that, so far as truth is concerned, it does not matter where the majority stands, for truth is never determined by majority vote. Truth is truth regardless of how few stand for it, or how many stand opposed to it. History has testified more than once that the majority was wrong, and those who stood for the truth, sadly in the minority.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 9, pp. 151-152
February 28, 1980