Truth Magazine

By Bill Imrisek

There was no preacher pounding on the pulpit to impress upon his hearers their God-given responsibility to go out and tell others about Jesus. But for some reason they did it anyway.

The shepherds who tended their flocks in the fields about Bethlehem were told by angels sent from God that “there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is .Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). Determined to see it for themselves, “they came with haste, and found both Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger. And when they saw it, they made known concerning the saying which was spoken to them about this child” (Luke 2:16-17). No one told them to do it. They just did it. They made it known.

A man named Andrew listened to the prophet John, the one who baptized in the Jordon, tell about “He that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose” (John 1:27). One day Jesus appeared in public, and John “looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:35). Andrew was interested. He followed Jesus and spent the day with Him. But what he found was too good to keep to himself. “He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted Christ). He brought him unto Jesus” (John 1:41-42). No one told him to do it. But the truth about Jesus was such that he felt compelled to tell others.

Shortly after this Jesus spoke to a man named Philip, and said to him, “Follow me.” Philip learned enough about Jesus during this brief encounter that he went out, and “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth” (John 1:45). Philip could not contain himself. This was good news. He had to tell Nathanael. And so, he related to Nathanael the conclusions that he had come to about Jesus, inviting him to “Come and see” (John 1:46).

Then there was the Samaritan woman who came to Jacob’s well to draw water. Upon arriving she not only located Jacob’s well, but also found “a well of water springing up unto eternal life” (John 4:14). There at the well, she found a wearied traveler named Jesus who was savoring a few moments of rest. They began to converse. Shortly the conversation turned to spiritual matters. The woman was amazed at Jesus’ knowledge, and said, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet” (John 4:19). She had discovered something important, but she was to learn more, much more. She continued to speak, saying to Jesus, “I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” (John 4:25-26). Could this be true? Jesus was certainly unlike any other. “The woman left her waterpot, and went away into the city, and saith to the people, Come, see a man who told me all things that ever I did: can this be the Christ?” (John 4:28-29). This woman, in her urgency to tell others, left behind her vessel of water. It could wait. She had to tell others about Jesus.

And let us not forget about the two Galilean fishermen, Peter and John, who left their trades and took to the streets of the big city to tell the thousands of Jerusalem about Jesus, whom the people of the city had crucified, but whom God raised from the dead. These men were looked upon as being “unlearned and ignorant” (Acts 4:13). But this did not stop them. They even received the disapproval of the city rulers. In fact, they were imprisoned and then called upon to give an account of their actions before the council. After hearing them out, the men of the council commanded Peter and John “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18). But this did not dampen their spirits or squelch their enthusiasm. They responded respectfully but forthrightly, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). They had to tell it. Public disapproval could not hold them back. What they knew about Jesus had to be made known. Their love for God and concern for the souls of mankind compelled them to tell others about Jesus.

What all of these people who were acquainted with Jesus knew, that many are closing their eyes to today, is that Christ is one’s only hope of salvation (Acts 4:12). The implication of this is well stated by John in his first epistle, “He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son hath not the life” (1 John 5:12). To put it another way, Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). We owe it to the world to give them the opportunity to believe and obey. But how can they believe unless they first hear the gospel from us (Rom. 10:17)? The one who has the saving knowledge about Jesus, but keeps it to himself, is guilty of criminal negligence. He stands watching his neighbors in the world step over the brink and plunge to an eternity of sorrow and punishment, when he could have warned them and given them the opportunity to obey the gospel and travel the road that leads to eternal bliss.

James asked in his epistle, “What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say that he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet he give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?” (James 2:14-16). I think James stated His case well. We make a mockery of the needs of another if we merely give them our well-wishes, but withhold from them the assistance they desperately need. In the same way, what good is it if we greet our acquaintances on the street and wish them the best if we do not give them What they need the most for their soul, a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ and direction on how to be saved from the eternal fires of hell? Will your “best wishes” save them’?

The shepherds near Bethlehem, along with Andrew, Philip, the woman of Samaria, Peter and John, all knew how precious Jesus is. They knew how much the world needed to know about him. And they knew what they had to do. They had to tell others what they knew about Jesus.

Are there those whose company you enjoy, whose friendship you cherish, whose love you share, but to whom you have never spoken about your Savior, His church, and His salvation? Then be a friend to them. Show them how much you really love them. Contemplate where they will spend eternity if they do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8-9). Think about what you know that can help them. Then go tell them about our Lord. In the words of the song by Jesse pounds and J.H. Filmore,

If the name of the Savior is precious to you,

If His care has been constant and tender and true,

If the light of His presence has brightened your way,

O will you not tell of your gladness today?

If your faith in the Savior has bro’t its reward,

If a strength you have found in the strength of your Lord,

If the hope of a rest in His palace is sweet,

O will you not, brother, the story repeat?

If the souls all around you are living in sin,

If the Master has told you to bid them come in,

If the sweet invitation they never have heard,

O will you not tell them the cheer-bringing word?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, pp. 780-781
December 6, 1979

By Earl Robertson

“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 10:12). However, the authors of the creeds of men either know nothing of this passage or care nothing for it as their writings testify. This verse plainly says one can fall. Human theology has made such an effort to make man’s salvation wholly God’s action that no allowance is made for any action on man’s part to the saving of his soul. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints stems from this religious concept. They allow that God saved man from his sins without any doing on man’s part and that God will keep him saved without any doing as a child of God. The old Philadelphia Confession of Faith, adopted by the Baptist Association in Philadelphia, September 25, 1742, says, “God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure; and, in that condition, they have not usually the light of his countenance restored unto them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.”

So, the justified in Christ Jesus can never fall from the state of justification! The creed admits that they have sins but declares such will not interfere with the salvation of their souls. It seems to me if these sins do not affect the soul, the ones committed earlier would not affect it either. If forgiveness of sins is essential for salvation, then how is it possible for the child of God to live with sins on his soul without falling from the state of justification? Paul wrote to the Galatian Christians telling those who were making an effort to go back to the law of Moses for a way of life “ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). The grace of God revealed through Christ was of no benefit to them in such an effort. Those addressed were “all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). Yes, they were children of God in Christ Jesus, but they had fallen from grace.

It is obvious that both the New Testament and the Confession of Faith cannot be right. They both are not teaching the truth. No person can be right before God and accept both. The two documents are diametrically opposed. The New Testament is right. It came from. God and is dedicated with the blood of Christ. The creed is a lie. Reject it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, p. 780
December 6, 1979

By Ronald D. Howes

Circulating among some of my brethren is a booklet entitled Except For Fornication.(1) Having run into it three times in the last year, I feel compelled to respond. To his credit, Brother Hale has produced a well written, readable and believable document defending the thesis that the guilty party of Matthew 19 has a scriptural right to remarry. However, his book has one serious flaw, his thesis is wrong. This alone would be enough cause of a review that his book is enjoying some circulation among conservative brethren (Brother Hale is of the liberal camp) makes its review in this journal all the more desirable.

We will not take Brother Hale to task for every argument he makes. We shall attempt, however, to handle his material consecutively for ease of comparison and review by the reader. We will use endnotes.

Introduction

In setting up the proposition for his book, Brother Hale indulges in some literary shotgunning while setting the tone of his approach and revealing his motives for authoring the book.

We have a great number of devout people who are divorced and remarried, but who at best enjoy a second rate citizenship in the kingdom . . . . some would not be received at all but for fear of causing trouble in the church . . . . the men may be called upon to serve at the Lord’s table . . . but may not be allowed to teach a class, or preach, or serve in any official capacity . . . . We will not take strong enough action . . . they never feel secure . . . ours is mostly an irritation attack . . . . Is it just wrong? Or is it going to Hell wrong?(2)

Yes brother, it is “going to Hell wrong.” The fact that some brethren equivocate on it, or extend half-fellowship to adulterers is not justification for a loosening up of our attitude toward sin; it is rather a commentary on what your doctrine has done to our concept of sin. The argument that “some brethren do it,” or “some brethren don’t do it,” is not a sound basis for determining right and wrong. As you well know, “some brethren” do and believe just about anything they want to.

On page 7, our author makes a classical argument on this problem. There is according to him . . .

No Clear Answer

Let us be honest. Can you go to the Bible and put your finger on an exact verse of scripture that offers such a clear answer as `remain unmarried’ or ‘be reconciled’? . . . You say repentance involves . . . We are talking about clear and direct statements, not what you may reason and conclude.(3)

A favorite tactic of many trying to avoid a clear implication of scripture is just to say: “Well, because God didn’t come out and say ‘thou shalt not’ we can’t demand it of brethren. I am surprised at my conservative brethren passing this tract – even though they may agree with the thesis. Let me jog your conscience – What about a necessary inference? Brother Hale and his tribe have largely discarded this form of establishing Bible authority, but we have not. When you endorse and hand out a tract like we are reviewing, you are in danger of telling other people that you do not believe what we know you do.

Being in receipt of a legitimate passage of scripture which says “Whosoever marries her who is put away committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9), we are prepared to defend the premise that .we do have a clear answer. We do know what the sin is. We do know how to handle the sinner. 1 Cor. 5 commands us to “deliver such a one to Satan.”

Posing A Question

From page 12 through 19 of his tract, Lewis Hale engages in a meandering commentary of Matthew 19 in defense of the proposition, “The guilty party may remarry.”

Specific arguments will be dealt with under subsequent headings. We do wish to pose a dilemma to those of Brother Hale’s tribe in this question. Did Jesus seek to relax or restrict the divorce law under the new covenant? Brother Hale says,

Moses suffered a man to put away his wife upon finding any uncleanness.(4)

The intent of Jesus teaching here seems quite clear. Moses law was too lax; Jesus’ new law would be much stricter, and be in conformity with the original design of a one man one woman for life relationship. “But from the beginning it was not so!”

Brother Hale’s entire line of argumentation is contrary to the basic direction of Jesus’ express commands. Lewis Hale would have us believe that both the innocent and guilty party to the divorce of Matthew 19 can remarry without sin. This he teaches in spite of the teaching of Christ that marriage is a life-time contract. Hale “out-laxes” even Moses.

Everyone who has occupied the marriage counselor’s chair while trying to convert the alien knows that this is where nip come to tuck. A couple divorces for “irreconcilable differences.”- Then both go out and remarry. Brother Hale’s theological sun-glasses see two guilty parties ala Matthew 5:32. Since the act of adultery has been committed, the first marriage is now dissolved and the guilty parties are free to remarry. In practical terms Brother Hales position can deny remarriage to no one, no matter what the reason for the divorce.

Jesus said, “From the beginning it has not been so.” Brother Hale’s argumentation circumvents the entire purpose and thrust of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus says no, Hale says yes. Who are you going to believe?

I sympathize with the frustration of those who preach the gospel to an adulterous generation and watch couple after couple “go away sorrowful.” So many say, “I’ve finally found the right woman, and you’re asking me to leave her.” Another almost 2000 years ago “went away sorrowful” over something he could not give up for Christ. We do not seek to make the gospel acceptable to men; we seek to make men acceptable to God! Let the chips fall where they may! In getting down to brass tacks, Brother Hale uses them to nail his theological thumbs to the wall as we see in . . .

A Difficult Scripture(5)

Between pages 19 and 26 of Except For Fornication, Brother Hale takes us on a shopping spree in the theological bargain basement, and assembles no less than 9 scholars to bolster his position. We hear from the likes of Henry Alford, A. Lukyn Williams, A.T. Robertson, J.W. McGarvey, H. Leo Boles, W.M. Foley, R.C.H. Lenski, B.W. Johnson, and last but not least John Murray.

Reading this chapter, I was immediately struck with the similarity of this chapter to Documents On Instrumental Music(6) by Tom Burgess of the conservative Christian Church. Burgess quotes a ton of scholars, almost all of whom flatly disagree with his position that psallo necessitates the use of instrumental accompaniment. The careful reader is left shaking his head. Why quote them if they disagree with you?

In our list Foley, Boles, McGarvey, Johnson, Robertson, Alford, and Williams all disagree with Hale and say the guilty party cannot remarry. If we are to believe that the weight of scholarship proves or disproves a position, then Brother Hale lost by his own count of 8 to 1 in this test vote.

The title of this section of the book is

A Difficult Scripture(7)

To his best efforts we must say that apparently it is a difficult scripture only to Brother Lewis Hale and any he may have confused. Eight of his authorities disagree with him, which evidently struck him after quoting them and too late to revise that part of the book for the printer (pure speculation on my part – rdh) for he spends the next 9 pages of this document explaining away their statements. This should be obvious to anyone who reads the book. The odds are 8 to 1 that Brother Hale is wrong.

John Murray is raised as a scholar in defense of Brother Hale’s position. I invite the reader to purchase Divorce(8) by John Murray, a singular tone of 121 pages put out by the Presbyterians. Mr. Murray is professor of Systematic Theology at Westminister in Philadelphia. His book is all the more remarkable for its lack of similarity to Brother Hale’s attempt.

Those accustomed to reading some of the excellent Presbyterian or Reformed commentaries such as those by Hendriksen will be surprised at Murray. Murry’s entire effort is devoid of any recognized scholarly support (other than his own) for the conclusion that he draws (i.e., the guilty party may remarry when approved by the church). May we surmise that Murray declines to call upon scholarly support for his conclusion because it is non-existent? We may.

Perhaps Brother Hale should have read Murray’s book, and not just his article in Baker’s Theological Dictionary.(9) Murray is in the unenviable position of calling upon himself for scholarly support for his conclusions. Hale calls upon Murray and both fall into the ditch. selah

Recommended Reading

1. Except For Fornication, Roy Deaver, a review in Spiritual Sword, Vol. 6, number 2, pp. 14-26, Jan. 1975.
2. Divorce and Remarriage, J.D. Thomas, B.R. Press (Abilene, 1977).
3. Divorce and Remarriage, Gene Frost, series in Gospel Anchor (Louisville, Jan.-Feb. 1979).

Endnotes:

1. Except For Fornication, Lewis G. Hale (Oklahoma City, 1974), Hale Publications.

2. Ibid, p. 4.

3. Ibid, p. 8.

4. Ibid, p. 17.

5. Ibid, p. 19.

6. Documents on Instrumental Music, Tom Burgess (Portland, 1967).

7. Op. Cit., Lewis G. Hale, p. 19.

8. Divorce, John Murray (Philadelphia, 1972), Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing.

9. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, Everett F. Harrison editor (Grand Rapids, 1972), pp. 169, 170.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, pp. 778-779
December 6, 1979

By Bob Tuten

The Dawning of Instruments In Worship

It appears from available evidence that the church in Midway, Kentucky was the first to use instrumental music in its worship.

The introduction of the instrument owed its inception to the deplorable singing the congregation did. This singing had degenerated into screeching and bawling that would, as Pinkerton said, “scare even the rats from worship.” At first it was suggested that a meeting be held on Saturday night to practice the songs. Shortly afterwards, someone brought in a melodeon to be used in getting the right pitch. Before long, one of the sisters was accompanying the singing with her playing on the melodeon. The group observed that the effect of the use of the melodeon was good on the singing, and so it was decided to try to use the instrument in the Lord’s Day worship. Thompson Parrish, son of James Ware Parrish, one of the founders of the Midway Female Orphan School, played the instrument at the worship.

The presence of the instrument caused considerable friction. The most effective opposition came from Adam Hibler, one of the elders. Late one night Hibler pushed one of his colored slaves by the name of Reuben through a window. Reuben passed the melodeon through, and Hibler took it home with him. But another instrument was afterwards brought in, and continued in use by the church.(1)

By 1860 then, instruments were being used by at least one, and perhaps more churches claiming to follow the N.T. pattern. The use of the instrument at Midway gained widespread attention when L.L. Pinkerton, then preaching at Midway, expressed his views which favored its use. Pinkerton spoke out in answer to Ben Franklin’s article listing permissible conditions of the use of instruments. Both articles appeared in the American Christian Review as follows. Franklin said there might be occasions where the instrument would be permissible such as:

1. Where a church never had or has lost the Spirit of Christ.

2. If a church has a preacher who never had, or has lost the Spirit of Christ, who has become a dry, prosing and lifeless speaker, so as to be entirely incapable of commanding and interesting an audience, it is thought that instrumental music would draw out and interest the people . . . .

3. If a church only intends being a fashionable society, a mere place of amusement and secular entertainment, and abandoning all idea of religion and worship, instrumental music would be a very pleasant and agreeable part of such entertainment.(2)

Pinkerton replied:

So far as known to me, or, I presume, to you, I am the only “preacher” in Kentucky of our brotherhood who has publicly advocated the propriety of employing instrumental music in some churches, and that the church of God in Midway is the only church that has yet made a decided effort to introduce it. The calls for your opinion, it is probable, came from these regions.(3)

Pinkerton, himself, did not suggest the use of the instrument at Midway, although the persons responsible undoubtedly knew his opinion and that he would not oppose its introduction even before it was brought in. Of the melodeon used at Midway, A.T. DeGroot said: “. . .The instrument in question has recently been found by Edgar C. Riley, Business Director of the Kentucky Female Orphan School, at Midway, where it is now preserved. A brief account of the discovery of the historic melodeon, given to this writer by Mr. Riley, is worthy of recording here.

Historic Melodeon Found

`In the home of the Nugent sisters at the Crossroads on Shadylane between Versailles and Midway, Kentucky, was found recently the first musical instrument used by the Christian church in the world . . . . Dr. L.L. Pinkerton, one of the founders of Kentucky Female Orphan School, was the pastor of the little church at Midway. He introduced a melodeon into the worship service. “(4)

The introduction of the instrument at Midway served to pave the way for many other churches throughout the nation who followed suit. During the disasterous War between the States (1861-1865) the controversy over the instrument diminished as the war demanded the attention of the brotherhood for consideration of more important matters. The musical instrument controversy was not destined to remain quiet for very long, however.

In the larger city congregations the introduction of the instrument generally was accompanied with considerable anxiety in the brotherhood. In 1867 the church in St. Louis purchased a new building from the Episcopalians. The building was located on the corner of Seventeenth and Olive Streets. In the deal was a three thousand dollar organ. The question of what to do with the organ immediately arose. A staunch group, led by Dr. Hiram Christopher, brother-in-law of J.W. McGarvey, opposed the instrument, and so, it was not immediately brought into the worship. For two years the agitation continued. At this time the church had one elder, A. Johnson, who favored the organ. A meeting was held the first of the year, 1869, to vote on.the matter. Seventy-eight voted for it, and ten voted against it, but the elder recommended putting off using it until after the spring semi-annual of the American Christian Missionary Society which was scheduled to be held in St. Louis in May, that year. A popular vote was later taken which showed that one hundred and four favored using the instrument and twenty-four opposed it. The opposition, although in the minority, was determined enough that for two years the instrument was rarely used. A gathering storm indicated division was on the way. Late in 1870, Robert Graham, Isaac Errett, Alexander Proctor, I.N. Rogers went to St. Louis to quiet the trouble. A compromise was reached whereby the instrument, for the sake of peace, was kept out. This lasted only a few years when the advocates of the organ took control, and those who opposed it were forced to leave and establish another congregation.(5)

About the same time a similar situation occured in Akron, Ohio, involving the well-known Ben Franklin. Franklin had been invited to hold a meeting for the congregation in Akron which had on occasions used the instrument but never”-in Franklin’s presence. On this occasion, however, the instrument was used to the surprise of Franklin. He was naturally faced with the problem of what to do, being opposed to it as he was. In the following quotation he tells of his thoughts during those few moments:

We have not been more tried in a long time. While this was going off, we reflected and turned the matter in every way possible. What was to be done? We never felt more unhappy. Are brethren determined, we involuntarily thought, to deteriorate the worship into music, and compel us to endorse it? If we refuse to preach, it may, we further thought create a lasting trouble, and some may blame us for it. We decided to preach, and did so, but with a heavy heart, in view of the worship having been thus degenerated before our face.(6)

He further said:

We have no prejudice against an organ, melodean, piano, violin, or Jews’ harp, but we do not intend to worship with any of these, or even tacitly to endorse the use of them, or any one of them in worship . . . . We intend no man shall quote us, while we are living nor when we are gone, as endorsing or in any way giving countenance to the evil complained of. If brethren will introduce the instrument into worship, they shall themselves be held responsible. We shall not be. We, therefore, desire brethren not to invite us to hold a meeting for them, if they intend to play on an instrument in their worship. We know positively that it is sale to keep it out.(7)

In January, 1869 a congregation moved into a new building at Chicago, Illinois and placed an organ in it over the protest of the minister, D.P. Henderson. In the summer of 1870 an instrument was placed in the church at Memphis, Tennessee. The Christian Chapel of Cincinnati underwent a change. Eight thousand dollars was spent for an organ. By this time it was evident that instrumental music was, to those who protested, the little leaven that leaveneth the whole lump. J.W. McGarvey, a leading scholar of his day, had this to say concerning its growing popularity:

This question of instrumental music is becoming a serious one. There are many who favor it, and who will listen to no argument against it. By the cry of progress and conformity, it is making its way over the heads and hearts of many of our best brethren and sisters.(8)

One year later (1869) McGarvey wrote an article in the Apostolic Times describing the growing situation.

We are moving; we are progressing; at least some among us are advancing. Whether you think the movement forward or backward depends very much upon the way you are going yourself. Once we had no men among us who were known to tolerate instrumental music in worship. After that there arose some who contended that whether we use it or not is a mere matter of expedience. More recently, a few churches have actually used it, and their preachers have approved, but have not often ventured publicly to defend it.(9)

Endnotes:

1. West, op. cit., Vol. l., p. 312.

2. Ben Franklin, “Instrumental Music in Churches,” American Christian Review, Vol. III., No. 5 (January 31, 1860), p. 19.

3. L.L. Pinkerton, “Instrumental Music in Churches,” American Christian Review, Vol. III, No. 9 (February 28, 1860), p. 34.

4. A.T. DeGroot, The Grounds of Division Among the Disciples of Christ, pp. 117-118.

5. West, op. cit., Vol. II, p, 81.

6. Ben Franklin, “Notes by the Way,” American Christian Review, Vol. XI, No. 20 (May 19, 1868), p. 156.

7. Ibid.

8. J.W. McGarvey, “Bro. Hayden on Expediency and Progress,” Millennial Harbinger, Vol. XXXIX, No. 4 (April, 1868), p. 216.

9. J. W. McGarvey “A Little Farther Along,” Apostolic Times, Vol. L, No. 2 (April 22, 1869), p. 13.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, pp. 776-777
December 6, 1979