Truth Magazine

By Eugene Crawley

“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer” (Psa. 19:7-14).

In this reading we learn, among other things, David’s attitude toward the word of the Lord, and his desire to be innocent of presumptuous sins. This attitude could well be repeated by many today, in the church as well as outside of it. Presumption is defined as “too great pride, hope, or confidence; also, something which is believed to be so, but not proved.” Thus, presumption is a sin, either way it might be taken, and actually becomes a matter of trying to help God.

Men in the Old Testament times were guilty of “helping God.” When God promised Abraham that He would bless him and his seed after him, Abraham had no child. This being true, and Sarah being barren, Abraham was not able to see how this promise would be kept. Therefore, he committed the sin of presumption by attempting to “help God” by taking Hagar, his wife’s handmaid, who bare him Ishmael (Gen. 16:1, 2). This was not only rebellion to God’s marriage law (Matt. 19:8), it was in ignorance of God’s true purpose, revealed in Gen. 17:1-19. This sin of presumption led to family grief, in addition to displeasing God.

When God commanded Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites because of their sins (1 Sam. 15:1-3), and he returned with Agag, the king, and the best of flocks, his was the sin of presumption. He was trying to “help God” by saving for sacrifice. This was direct rebellion against God’s order. Besides, He does not want such sacrifices. “And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22). For this, God rejected Saul from being king (1 Sam. 15:23).

Moses sought to “help God” by striking the rock, when God had commanded him simply to speak to the rock (Num. 20:8) in order to bring forth water for the Israelites. Moses no doubt believed that this should be done; yet, it was in disobedience to God’s command and, because of it, Moses was denied the privilege of leading the children of Israel into the land of Canaan, the promised land. He presumed it would be alright, but it was not!

Uzzah committed such a sin by touching the ark of the covenant, which he and others were not allowed to do (2 Sam. 6:6, 7). He, too, thought he could “help God,” but as a result was punished with instant death.

The question naturally arises with some, “What is wrong with such, when it’s only an effort to `help God’?” The sin is in seeking to “help God”; for first it shows distrust of God; does He need our help? And then, it shows conceit; can we give such help?

These were not the only ones guilty of the sin of presumption; others in that age, and many today, are guilty. Those who write creeds by which religious people are to be governed are guilty of “helping God.” Does He need man’s help in determining what is to be believed or practiced? Can man give such “help”? Is he capable of it? Jeremiah said in the long ago, “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps”(Jer. 10:23). Though the human creeds are claimed to be simply a help in understanding what God has written, it remains that they are an addition to God’s plan, and it is presumptuous for man to attempt to help God in this respect. Men presume (believe a thing to be right without proper proof) that many things are acceptable to God, when in reality they are rebellion against Him. Sprinkling for baptism, baptism because one is saved, wearing of religious titles, and such are only a few in denominationalism.

Various missionary arrangements, the “sponsoring church,” and others, without scriptural proof are no less sins of presumption than the others mentioned; yet some brethren insist upon such. Binding various opinions, likes and dislikes because of prejudice, brethren fall into the same class. For a man to think he can improve upon God’s arrangement, His organization for His church, and His work and desires, is to be guilty of “helping God,” committing the sin of presumption. Additions to the divinely authorized worship and work of the church are among the sins of “helping God.” He has revealed His will and His way, expects man to walk accordingly, and man had best be content to abide within His teaching!

Those who presume that they know better, and can do better with their promotions, go beyond that which is written (2 John 9), leading the way as it were, in things without divine sanction. Such is an effort to “lead” God, and is therefore, rebellion. Even though many are doubtless sincere in their efforts, it remains – presumption is sin!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, p. 138
February 21, 1980

By Earl Robertson

Newspaper stories and TV news reports recently have emphasized the changing of heads of the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI died and Pope John Paul I took his place as the head of the Roman church. Now if the Roman Catholic church is truly the church of Christ, as she claims, it poses a great difficulty. The apostle Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, wrote the Ephesians concerning action of God at the resurrection of Christ and His coronation “which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and bath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:20-23).

How is it possible that a mere human being could arrogate to oneself the power, might, and dominion essential for the headship of the church of Christ? My blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is seated at the right hand of God, regally crowned and enthroned as the “one Potentate, the King of kings, the Lord of lords” is the one and only head of the church of Christ! The Roman Catholic church is not the church of Christ. If it were of Christ, Christ would be its head; but since it is not of Christ, the Pope is its universal head. The church of Christ is of Christ and Christ is its head.

When Jesus was raised from the dead, He declared, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18b). This power was given to Christ; He did not presumptuously assume such. Peter says that Jesus “Is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (1 Pet. 3:22). God alone was excluded when He put all things under the feet of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

What the whole world needs to do is give up denominationalism and religious practices not found and authorized by the word of God and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul says is God’s power to save the believer (Rom. 1:16). When so saved, the Lord will add you to His church (Acts 2:47). Let Christ by the head!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, p. 137
February 21, 1980

By Leonard Tyler

The Christian’s life is founded upon two great and essential principles: (1) personal obligation, which necessitates responsibility and duty for every Christian within its own ability before God; (2) personal dependence upon God, which requires reliance and trust on the part of every Christian for that which transcends his own ability. One must never forget or neglect either of these. Regardless of one’s capabilities he is still incapable of saving himself. It is not within the power of man to save himself. (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12; 2 Cor. 3:5). Paul makes this very plain in Phil. 3:7-16 where he rejects “mine own righteousness” that he may obtain “that which is through the faith of Christ . . . . If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” This realization humbles man and forces him to become dependent upon God to supply those things which man cannot. It builds a desire within the heart of the believer to obey as well as pray.

Faith is the basis upon which one acts toward and depends upon God. Faith gives assurance, confidence and evidence for that which is sought. By faith we seek what we do not have in personal merit: to be acceptable, to be worthy, and to obtain righteousness. This confidence of faith gives one a desire to obey and pray. Faith prays with assurance that God is able to hear and answer (Isa. 59:1-2; 1 Pet. 3:12; 2 Cor. 9:8; Phil. 3:21; Heb. 7:25).

The strength of one’s faith is manifest by his desire and confidence in the all-sufficiency of God to supply his every need. In his obedience, God supplies the directives and instructions. In his dependence, God supplies his security. If one does not desire a thing, he certainly will not pray for it. If one did not have confidence that such could be had, he would not pray for it. If one does not feel dependent – if he feels that he can do it himself – he will not pray for it. I suspect, one of the great influences leading to our prayerless attitude is the lack of confidence that God will answer. (One lady said, “We pity the heathen in his praying to the idols; but, I tell you, we surround God with so many limitations that we make him little more to us than a heathen’s God is to him.”) Is not this the main reason we pray so little?

Hurtful Theories

Some hurtful theories are discussed in Sound Doctrine, Vol. II, by brethren C.R. Nichol and R.L. Whiteside (pp. 69-72). The following is given and is worthy of our patient study:

Many theories, even amongst professed Christians, have contributed greatly to the present neglect of prayer. Rationalism has crept into the church, and the teaching of the Bible on prayer is either ignored or explained away. With some theorists the plain statements of the Bible cease to be convincing, but everything must be subjected to the test of human reason. Strange as ft seems, some of the most dogmatic of this class of rationalists are to be found amongst those who claim to take the Bible as their only guide. Their theories on prayer are not found in the Bible. On the subject of prayer, they do not ask, What does the Bible say? but, Is it possible for God to answer prayer?

1. God Is Unchangeable. It is argued that since God is unchangeable our prayers can have no effect. Such a conclusion is not found in the Bible. No inspired writer ever so argued. There are numerous examples of answered prayers. It does not meet the issue to say that all these occurred in the days of the miracles; for, if the unchangeableness of God prevents his answering prayer now, it would have prevented it then, for he was unchangeable then as now. He answered prayer then. That is certain. Being unchangeable he will answer prayer now. Thus the argument on the unchangeableness of God, instead of militating against prayer, is positive proof that God will answer prayer.

2. God Is Omniscient. It is contended that God possesses infinite wisdom and knows what we need before we ask him; that his nature being perfect, and his purposes always good, he will withhold no good thing from his children; hence, there can be no reason for praying. This view is the ground for many neglected prayers. It is not true that all were answered then! It is foolish to argue against a demonstration. Do not allow your zeal for argumentative ability to discredit the Bible.

3. Miracles Have Ceased. It is insisted that God cannot answer prayer without violating the law of nature, and that would be a miracle. Suppose that be true, if God says he will answer, are we going to subscribe to a theory that will make him a liar? Many who advocate this theory cannot define a natural law nor tell what a miracle is. How can one know that God cannot answer prayer without working a miracle? Do you know everything? If not, why make a statement which implies universal knowledge? If there is in all the universe one thing you do not know, that one thing may be how God can answer a prayer and not work a miracle. Do not make a fool of yourself trying to be smart.

A friend asks a favor, and you grant it. Did you work a miracle? The birds and beasts hear the cry of their young and bring them food – do they work miracles? We use the laws of nature every day to answer the requests or prayers of our friends and children. Cannot God do as much? Jesus said, “With God all things are possible.” But the advocates of this God-dishonoring theory make it possible for man and beast to do what they claim it is impossible for God to do.

That God cannot answer prayer without working a miracle is a mere assumption supported by no Bible teaching. So far as we understand the laws of nature, it is as much a miracle for God to hear us pray as it is for him to answer a prayer.

Reflex Influence

By some we are told that reflex influence is the only benefit we derive from prayer. This makes prayer a sort of spiritual gymnasium in which we take spiritual exercise – and spiritual exercise is good, we are told! It is true that the reflex influence of a sincere prayer is good; but if prayer is only a form of spiritual exercise and reflex influence is the only good derived therefrom, then the heathen is as much benefitted by prayer as the Christian. Under what conditions are the reflex influences good? Would there be a good reflex influence if you pray to a post or stone? Your own heart answers: “No, the reflex influence would be bad.” Why? Because you know the tree or stone cannot hear or answer. Such prayer would be foolish mockery. ,But is it any less so to pray to God believing he cannot hear and answer? In the very nature of the case the reflex influence of prayer is good only when we sincerely pray to One whom we believe hears us and is willing and able to grant us the desires of our hearts.

God Answers Prayers

The foregoing theories are not supported by the Bible, and no advocate of such theories ever tries to prove them by the Scriptures. Such theorists depend on a process of reasoning, and not on what God says. Not one of them points to a passage or Scripture and says: “This teaches my doctrine.” They forgot that every Bible doctrine must be settled by what the Book says, and not by our reason. We should use our reason to learn what God says, and not to set aside what he teaches. Leave that to infidels. The proof that God answers prayer is too abundant to include all in this lesson, but we briefly call attention to:

The Bible Teaching On Prayer

Jesus taught his disciples to pray (Matt. 6:5-15), and said: “Thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.” “The eyes of Jehovah are toward the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry” (Psa. 34:15).

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, who; if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone; or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him”” (Matt. 7:7-11).

“The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working” (James 5:16). As an encouragement to prayer, James immediately adds: “Etijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again; and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brough forth her fruit” (James 5:17-18). This was a remarkable prayer and answer, and the answer seems to have come in a natural way. To the people it did not appear as a miracle. (See 1 Kings, chapter 17 and 18).

For What Can A Child Of God Pray?

He is told to.: (I) pray for his enemies (Matt. 5:44; Acts 7:60); (2) pray for a brother who sins but not unto death (1 Jn. 5:16; Acts 8:18-24; Jas. 5:16). (3) Pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,” in fact, pray for all men (1 Tim. 2:1-2). (4) “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). “In everything” covers all of life’s problems and needs. If not, why not? Will God answer prayer? Christians are taught to pray (1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Tim. 2:8) and, if taught to pray, the answer must be forthcoming or there is no need to pray. “By prayer” means that God is pleased with the prayers of His children. He hears and responds to their supplications or else He would not expect man to pray. (5) Pray for sinners that they might be saved (Rom. 10:1-4). (6) Pray for wisdom (James 1:5). This does not nor does any of the other texts – mean to so pray without applying one’s ability. It means that as we apply all of our powers, we still need God’s help – pray for it. This is the more reason that a man of God recognizes his need to “pray without ceasing.” God will take care of the hows. He will not violate His will but He will fulfill every promise. Therefore, we should pray without fear and doubting. Always, if one loves and has complete faith in the allsufficiency of God, he will pray, “Thy will be done – not mine.” God’s child can be content with God’s answer.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 136-137
February 21, 1980

By Morris W. R. Bailey

As we continue our study of attitudes toward the truth as revealed by New Testament writers, we observe that another unfavorable attitude, while not specifically named, is nevertheless implied in Paul’s description of the apostate condition of the Gentiles, as recorded in Romans 1:24-25.

Wherefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Here we have an attitude of presumptuousness that dares to elevate the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God in that they

Exchanged The Truth Of God For A Lie

The keynote of the epistle to the Romans is sounded by Paul in verse sixteen! “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Paul then proceeded to show man’s need of salvation, tracing his course from a state of belief in God to a state of unbelief, from whence he descended to the lowest depths of moral depravity. That is obvious from the words of verses nineteen to twenty-three.

Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

It was in that context that Paul said that they had exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

A Recurring Phenomenon

Many times since, men have exchanged God’s truth for the philosophies of men. That disposition is manifested in those who turn away from the Bible account of creation to a theory that would account for the origin of things on a non-miraculous basis. Just as the existence of the universe, with its harmony and order, bore witness to the ancients that God is, so also it bears witness to us today that “the hand that made them is divine.” So, if those of whom Paul wrote were without excuse in failing to recognize God as the Creator, then it is certain that with our tremendous increase in knowledge in the various branches of science today, man has even less excuse than they when he turns from God as the Creator to the speculations of human philosophy.

It is the simplest of logic to conclude that the universe, with its evidence of design, harmony, and order, is the product of not only a Creator, but also of one possessed of a high degree of intelligence. That is obvious from the following illustration.

I drive an automobile. Of course every one will agree that at some point in time it came into existence. Moreover every one will agree that it is not the result of mere chance, produced by some spontaneous action that threw a lot of disassociated debris together and, thus, formed an automobile. Nor would anyone suggest that it was the result of along evolutionary process that began with a tiny piece of metal that grew in size and in complexity, resembling at one time a wheel-barrow, later a two-wheeled chariot, and still later a stage coach of frontier days, and finally, after having acquired a two cylinder motor, it evolved on up through the model T Ford stage to emerge as the high powered V-8 of today, and all this, bear in mind, untouched by human hands and aided only by forces resident in itself.

Of course, no one who had their head on straight would suggest either accident or evolution as the explanation for the existence of an automobile. Reason tells us that some one with intelligence made it. But that is as far as reason can take us. Who made the automobile is a matter of revelation. Under the hood of my car I see a name-plate that identifies its manufacturer, General Motors of Canada. In the light of so reasonable an explanation, would it not be sheer folly to suggest that the automobile was the result of spontaneous generation, or of a long evolutionary process?

That the universe exists is an indisputable fact. That it bears strong evidence of design, harmony, and order cannot be denied. Reason tells us that behind it all is a maker of infinite intelligence and wisdom. But that is as far as reason can go. For the answer to the question of who made the universe, we are dependent on some form of revelation. That revelation is provided for us in the Bible account of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. There we have an explanation that meets all the demands of reason. For it ascribes the existence of the universe with its harmony and order to an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful being who “spake and it was done; . . . commanded and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9). Therefore, when men turn away from the Bible account of creation to a theory that ascribes the existence of the universe to unintelligent forces acting on dead matter, they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Human Creeds

The attitude of presumptuousness that tends to elevate the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God rears its head within religion when men adopt human creeds. The writing of the human creed is an admission on the part of its author(s) that they do believe in the all-sufficiency of the Bible. Yet the Bible claims to be all-sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

Moreover, human creeds teach error on various subjects. The Methodist Discipline, in one of its articles states,” . . . that we are saved by faith alone is a very wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” Obviously, there is something wrong with the attitude that finds comfort in a doctrine that so obviously contradicts the Bible. James said, “Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (James 2:24). Twice in the book of Romans, Paul wrote about “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Assuming, as we must, that Paul and James wrote the truth, we must conclude that when men turn from the Bible to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Some human creeds teach the doctrine of inherited total depravity of the newly-born child. In the Larger Catechism of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, we find this statement: “Original sin is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity by natural generation, so that all that proceed from them in that way, are conceived and born in sin.” This is a vastly different picture of little children from that portrayed by Jesus who taught that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3). Moreover the Bible teaches that sin is an act of transgression (1 John 3:4). It is therefore not transmissible from parents to children (Ezek. 18:20). The doctrine of inherited depravity therefore replaces the truth of God with a lie.

And Now, Some Brethren

It is a sad fact that the disposition to exchange the truth of God, once held, for a lie has made its appearance among some of our brethren. This is, perhaps, not surprising when we remember that Paul foretold that there would come a time when some would “turn way their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:4). It has become manifest in that there are some who deny the role of approved example in establishing scriptural authority for faith and practice.

Up until the early 1950’s, it would have been rare to find any of our brethren who would deny the authority of approved example. I realize, of course, that unanimity among even a large majority of brethren is not the deciding factor in determining truth. That can be determined only by an appeal to the scriptures. But it was with sound scriptural reasons that brethren taught the role of example, as the following, scriptures reveal.

1. In giving the great commission to His apostles, Jesus instructed them to teach the baptized disciples “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). If, we are correct in assuming that the apostles were faithful in discharging the responsibility committed to them, it is logical to conclude that anything practiced by the early disciples with apostolic approval would reflect the will of the Lord on that particular matter, and thus would furnish an example for us to follow today.

2. Paul, himself, taught the authority of apostolic example when he wrote, “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do . . .” (Phil. 4:9). Thus Paul ascribed equal authority to what they heard (command) and what they say (example). Other scriptures that may be noted are Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 11:1.

3. More over it is a fact that much of what we know about how people were converted in New Testament times, the early church, and how it functioned in the work ‘of evangelism and benevolence are learned by example. The book of Acts is a book of examples. To deny the role of approved example is thus to deny the utility of one of the most important books of the New Testament. It is by example that we learn that elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). It is by example alone that we know when to eat the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7).

But as the issues concerning institutionalism and sponsoring churches began to intensify, and it was pointed out that the examples of evangelism and benevolent work in the New Testament did not include things that some brethren were promoting, they were faced with the dilema of abandoning their unscriptural projects, or denying the authority of examples. Many of them chose to do the latter. That this is not an unsubstantiated charge is apparent from the following facts.

1. In his book entitled We Be Brethren, J.D. Thomas, after a long and complicated argument on Acts 20:7 said, “This then is the reason why some good brethren have concluded against the establishment of pattern authority by examples alone.”

2. Another writer, Milo R. Hadwin, writing in the Firm Foundation said, “The conclusion of this study is that New Testament examples have no role as related to Bible authority. The actions of individuals or churches recorded in the New Testament have no authority to require imitation today” (emphasis mine, M.W.R.B.).

Other like quotations could be given from other brethren, but these are sufficient to confirm our charge that some brethren are denying the authority of examples. When we consider the plain and emphatic teaching of the Bible on this subject, we can only conclude that they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve the creatures of their own invention rather than the Creator.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 133-135
February 21, 1980