Truth Magazine

By Bill Imrisek

As stated in the previous article, we wish to investigate the claim of the Catholic Church to be the one, apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ. In the course of our investigation we will be quoting from Catholic sources and from a Catholic version of the Scriptures (the confraternity version).

Position of Peter Not Similar to Pope

At the very foundation of Roman Catholic doctrine is its belief in the “primacy of Peter.” This is a belief that Jesus conferred on Peter the responsibility of acting as the visible head of the church with powers of jurisdiction. These powers did not cease with Peter but were passed on to successors called Popes. To state this doctrine in the words of John L. McKenzie, Catholic priest and theologian from the University of Notre Dame,

The powers of Pope are defined in canon law in words taken from the First Vatican Council as “the supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal church both in matters of faith and morals and in matters of discipline and government” . . . .Jurisdiction means the power to make laws; it is not leadership by merely moral influence or persuasion. It is the power to compel obedience (The Roman Catholic Church, .John I. McKenzic, p. 39).

However, by its own admission, the Roman pope holds a position and power that were never conferred on Peter. Again McKenzie tells us,

One needs little acquaintance with the New Testament and the practice of contemporary Catholicism to recognize that there are notable differences between the position of Peter in the apostolic group and the position of the Roman Pontiff in the Roman Church (McKenzie, p. 26).

That is quite an admission from a Catholic! But McKenzie goes even further and asks,

How does Roman Catholicism bridge the gap between the New Testament and the First Vatican Council? Pontifical authority as defined in 1870 has a precision and an extension which are not found in the New Testament. Basically the Roman claim is that the pontifical office is a legitimate development of the powers granted to Peter. It is not a claim that one can find in the New Testament, a statement of the same powers in other words. It is not a claim that Peter thought of his own office in terms substantially identical with the definitions of 1870 (McKenzie, p. 30).

Thus, by the testimony of a Catholic scholar we see that the Roman Catholic position regarding the Pope is not apostolic.

Indeed, Peter’s position in the New Testament is quite different from that of the pope. As we have already seen, Christ did not build the church upon Peter, but upon Himself. Jesus is the only foundation (1 Cor. 3:11). The powers given to Peter were given to all the apostles alike (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). Not one word is spoken or implied in the New Testament about a “successor of Peter.” Neither did Peter know of it. As he penned his second epistle, he stated that his purpose in writing this letter was to provide a record of the things that he taught so that after his death we could call them to mind (2 Pet. 1:12-15). This would have been unnecessary if he was to have successors who could infallibly present the same truths to every generation.

Peter did not pass any authority on to anyone else. Rather he asked us to “be mindful of what I formerly preached of the words of the holy prophets and apostles, which are the precepts of the Lord and Savior” (2 Pet. 3:2). By the admission of Catholics it is seen that the very bedrock of Roman Catholicism is not an apostolic Roman institution.

The Office of Bishop Did Not Exist. in the Apostolic Age

Next in the ranks of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is the office of bishop. But once again the Roman Catholic Church admits that what it calls a bishop is quite different from what existed in the apostolic age.

Everything indicates that the office of bishop as it appeared later did not exist during the life of Peter (McKenzie, p. 30).

Evidently, that which did not exist during the life of Peter cannot be considered apostolic. It is further admitted,

as we have seen, bishops, as the church has historically known them, do not appear in the New Testament. We find in the New 7estament officers of local churches called episkopoi (Greek Lpiskopos, “overseer,” from which the English word bishop is derived) and presbyterio (Greek presbyteros, “elder,” from which the English word priest is derived). These officers are not mentioned frequently, and everything indicates that they were members of a college or board. The New Testament churches do not appear with the supreme local authority invested in a single person (McKenric, p. 64).

As McKenzie states, the New Testament picture of a bishop is quite different from the current practices of the Catholic church. In the New Testament the terms presbyter (or elder) and bishop (or overseer) refer to the same office (Acts 20:17, 28). No distinction is made. Their qualifications are presented to us in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. A plurality of elders or bishops existed in each local church (Acts 14:22-23; 20:17-18; Phil. 1:1). Never do we find a bishop who has pre-eminence over any other bishops. Neither do we find a bishop who has authority over several congregations. Their leadership extended merely over the local church among them (1 Pet. 5:1-3).

However, this simple New Testament pattern was soon corrupted into the hierarchal form which later became a characteristic of Catholicism. Rather then all the elders (bishops) in a local church sharing equally in their responsibilities, one man was placed over the others and became the chief elder. Soon one chief elder gained the pre-eminence over all the churches in a particular region (later called a diocese). It was not a very big step from this arrangement until one man was designated to be head over all the churches universally, and the office of Pope was created.

This corruption of the New Testament pattern began soon after the death of the last apostle. Ignatius of Antioch, writing shortly after the beginning of the second century, shows how much importance had been placed on the office of bishop even in his own day.

Let me urge on you the need for godly unanimity in everything you do. Let the bishop preside in the place of God, and his clergy in place of the apostolic conclave (from the Epistle to the Magnesians, Early Christian Writings, p. 88).

Equally, it is for the rest of you to hold the deacon in as great respect as Jesus Christ; just as you should also look on the bishop as a type of the Father (from the Epistle to the Trallians, Early Christian Writings, pp. 95-96).

Such comments as these by Ignatius are reminiscent of Paul’s warning in 2 Thess. 2:1-10 of the apostasy that was soon to come, and of the man of sin who was soon to be revealed. He describes this man of sin as one “who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God” (v. 4). Paul further said that in his own day “the mystery of iniquity is already at word” (v. 7). The authority and exalted position which Ignatius and others ascribed to the office of bishop soon found its fullest expression in the bishop of Rome who became known as the Pope (from the Latin, papa, meaning “father,” an honor to be given to God – Matt. 23:9).

It is obvious, therefore, from all that has been seen, that the Roman office of bishop is not apostolic.

Priesthood Did Not Exist in Apostolic Times

In the Catholic Church, between the laity and the upper hierarchy, stands the priesthood. In Roman Catholic doctrine the priest is a mediator between God and man.

By his office a priest is only concerned with heavenly things; he stands between God and man; he lays our petition before the Most High and conveys divine graces to us. He is a mediator between God and man, the angel of the Lord of hosts (Mat. ii. 7), the messenger of God to make known his will to man. He is God’s representative, His ambassador, His plenipotentiary; therefore whatsoever honor we show to the priest, we pay to God Himself (The Catechism Explained, Spirago & Clarke, p. 644).

Closely connected with his role as a priest is the responsibility to offer the “sacrifice of the Mass,” in which it is believed that Jesus is repeatedly offered for our sins.

The Mass is consequently no mere image of the sacrifice of the cross; it is not a bare memorial of it, it is the self-same sacrifice which was consummated on Calvary (Council of Trent, 22, 3), and accordingly it is of the self-same value and of the self-same efficacy. In the Mass the Passion and death of the Son of God take place again in a mystic manner, His blood is shed afresh. In it He displays His wounds to His heavenly Father, to save man from perdition; He sets before Him the bitter anguish He endured at His death as vividly as if His Passion were but just ended. To say Mass, therefore, is to immolate the Son of God anew in a mystic manner. The principle ceremonies of the Mass demonstrate, as we have seen, that the oblation once offered upon the cross is renewed upon the altar (Spirago & Clarke, pp. 541-542).

However, once again the Catholic Church admits that its priesthood is a post-apostolic invention. McKenzie says,

Like the episcopacy, the priesthood as we know it does not appear in the New Testament; it is an early but apparently postapostolic development of the ministry (McKenzie p. 96).

Here is a clear admission that the Roman Catholic Church is built upon something other than apostolic foundations! Their priesthood does not appear in the New Testament and did not develop until years after the life time of the apostles. That is quite an admission for a church that claims as its marks of identity that it is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.”

Their priesthood is not only foreign to the New Testament but it is also a perversion of the truth taught therein. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that each priest is a mediator between God and man, the Scriptures teach, “There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). The only priesthood known in the New Testament is one in which all Christians share equally (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rom. 12:1) with Jesus Christ, not the priests of Catholicism, being the one mediator between God and man. And whereas the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is offered repeatedly as a sacrifice upon their altars, the Scriptures teach that he offered Himself “once for all” (Heb. 9:24-26).

In comparing the priesthood and the sacrifices of the Old Testament with the sacrifice of Jesus, the writer of the book of Hebrews says, “Every priest indeed stands daily ministering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but Jesus, having offered one sacrifice for sins, has taken his seat forever at the right hand of God, waiting thenceforth until his enemies be made the footstool under his feet. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are sanctified . . . Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer offering for sin” (Heb. 10:11-14, 18). If there is no longer offering for sin, what becomes of the sacrifices of Catholicism in which the blood of Jesus is “shed afresh” and his sacrifice is “renewed”? They are exposed as being false. They are a rejection of the scriptural truth that Jesus offered Himself “once for all” and that “there is no longer an offering for sin.” Thus, the priesthood of Catholicism and it attendant services are seen to be without apostolic precedence, and the development of the priesthood is admitted to be postapostolic.

Clergy-Laity Distinctions Not Found in New Testament Times

Basic to an understanding of the Roman Catholic system is an awareness of the distinction they make between the “clergy” and the “laity.”

To selected members, called the clergy, was given the office of offering public worship, or administering most of the sacraments, and of ruling and instructing the faithful (The Externals of the Catholic Church, John F. Sullivan, p. 4).

The laity are the governed, the recipients of the sacraments, and the listeners (McKenzie, p. 114).

However, McKenzie goes on to show that such distinction is not found in the New Testament.

When one compares the laity in the Roman Catholic Church with the laity in the New Testament church, or even the laity in Protestant churches, especially those churches which are called congregational, some striking differences as apparent. The New Testament. does not exhibit the kind of clergy-laity polarity which is seen in Roman Catholicism. Except for the pastoral epistles (attributed to Paul but really the work of his disciples), the New Testament writings contain little which is addressed to the “clergy”; neither the word nor the idea as it has developed is found in the New Testament. The Christian message and the Christian way of life are presented to all members of the church equally. By contrast, in Roman Catholicism the laity are passive members of the church (McKenzie, p. 114).

These are the declarations of a Roman Catholic priest and theologian whose writings bear the imprimatur of the Catholic Church. And he admits that such a clergy-laity distinction as is exhibited in the Catholic Church is neither Biblical nor apostolic.

We have thus far seen that the papacy, the bishopric, the priesthood, and the clergy-laity distinction of the Roman Catholic Church is unapostolic. If the very heart and soul of their system is without scriptural authority, what about the rest? We shall continue and conclude our investigation in the next article.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 6, pp. 102-104
February 8, 1979

By Mike Willis

From a child, I have been told the story of Jonah, the prophet who was swallowed by a whale. I must confess, however, that for years that was about all that I knew about Jonah. Jonah lived sometime prior to the reign of Jeroboam II (780-753 B.C.), king of Israel. Among the things which he did was to prophesy of the prosperity of Israel under Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 14:25). The book of Jonah records another facet of Jonah’s work – his commission to go to Nineveh.

Israel and Judah were able to expand their borders under the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah respectively because of a decline in the power of Assyria. Between 841814 B.C., Jehu, king of Israel, was forced to pay tribute to Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, as the Black Obelisk records (it shows a picture of Jehu bringing tribute to Shalmaneser). After Shalmaneser, Assyria suffered a period of decline. Their loss of power allowed Israel and Judah to expand their borders. It was probably during this period, the period during which Assyria was suffering a decline, that Jonah was commissioned to go to Nineveh.

Nineveh was the capital city of Assyria; Assyria was the major nation opposed to Israel in that day. To be sent to Nineveh to warn her of an impending judgment of God with the hope that Nineveh might repent of her sins and avert the judgment of God was the last thing which an Israelite prophet would want to do. The nationalism of the prophet would cause him to look forward in anticipation to the downfall of her enemy. The sending of Jonah to Nineveh would be comparable to sending a man from the John Birch Society to warn Moscow of impending judgment unless they repented.

Running From God

Whenever the message came to Jonah, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city and cry against it” (1:2), Jonah ran away from God. He rebelled against God’s commandment and fled toward Tarshish on a boat. Jonah’s sin was no different from that of any other sinner before God; he simply rebelled against one of God’s commandments (1 Jn. 3:4). Though his sin was somewhat more obvious than the rest of ours is, it was no different in nature.

Frequently we today run from our responsibilities in the same way as Jonah did. Whereas Jonah was given a commission to go to preach to Nineveh and refused to go. we have been given the commission to take the Lord’s gospel into all the world. Many of us are refusing to take God’s message to a lost and dying world in the same way that Jonah refused to take the Lord’s message to the lost and dying city of Nineveh. His rebellion before God in many respects resembles our own.

Being displeased with Jonah’s conduct, God sent a great wind which produced a terrific storm. Jonah could not run away from God so easily as he thought that he could. The storm raged so strongly that the sailors had to throw all of their cargo overboard; indeed, Jonah’s sin endangered the lives of many men. Finally, the sailors sought the cause of the storm. By casting lots, they found that Jonah was the one who was causing them this trouble.

Jonah realized another truth at this point; he realized that his sins would find him out (Num. 32:23). Then, he confessed his sin to the sailors. They sought without avail to save the ship and Jonah. Finally, in order to save themselves they were forced to throw Jonah overboard.

Running Toward GodIf the first section of the book of Jonah might be termed “Jonah’s Running From God,” the second section might be termed, “Jonah’s Running Toward God.” Having been cast overboard, Jonah began to sink into the depths of the sea. For him, death seemed certain. He sank to the bottom of the ocean destined to die in his rebellion against God.

But God, in His mercy, prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. In the belly of the large fish, Jonah repented of his sins, confessed them to God, and “ran” toward God. Chapter two records Jonah’s confession of his sin and praises God for the mercy which he showed to his rebellious prophet. God accepted Jonah’s prayer and commanded the large fish to vomit Jonah out on dry land.

Running For God

Again, the commandment of God came to Jonah. “Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee (3:2). Because Jonah had rebelled against God on one occasion did not make him forever useless to the Lord. After he repented, he could once more be used in the work of the Lord. Consequently, Jonah went toward that great city and preached the word of the Lord.

He preached, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (3:4). The people in the city hearkened to the prophet’s warning. From the least of them to the greatest, they turned from their sins. Even the king of Nineveh heard the prophet’s message and commanded that all men cease from practicing evil and do what was right. Thousands of wicked people repented at the word of the Lord. Jonah should have been overjoyed at the success which his preaching had. But, he was not.

Jonah’s Sorry Attitude

Jonah was a Jew. He wanted God’s favor to be shown exclusively to the Jews and certainly not to be shown to the Assyrians, the enemies of Israel. Consequently, when God decided not to overthrow the city of Nineveh because they had repented, Jonah was exceedingly displeased and became very angry (4:1). He said, “I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil” (4:2). Jonah expressed his reason for running away from obeying God’s commandment in the first place. He figured that when Nineveh heard the commandment of God that they would repent and the city would not be overthrown. He wanted to see the city overthrown and, consequently, did not want to take the message of the Lord to Nineveh.

God asked Jonah, “Doest thou well to be angry?” (v. 4). If there was anyone who had no reason to be angry with the Lord for extending mercy toward sinners, it was Jonah. Of all people, Jonah should not have resented the grace of God being given to sinners. He himself had so recently been the recipient of it. When Jonah was the one who was destined to doom because of his sin, he wanted God’s grace. When Nineveh was destined to doom because of sin, he wanted God to withhold His grace. Jonah had no reason to be angry with God for extending his grace toward sinners. Yet, his attitude resembles in many ways the attitude of the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:28-32) and the attitude of the laborers in the vineyard who bore the heat of the day toward the laborers who were hired in the eleventh hour (Matt. 20:116). Hence, God moved the correct Jonah’s attitude.

Jonah left the city of Ninevah and went on a nearby hillside to see what God would do with the city. There he sat, awaiting the destruction of the city. He built a booth to protect himself from the weather. God prepared a gourd to come up and grow exceedingly rapidly to provide shade for Jonah. Jonah rejoiced. That night, God prepared a worm to kill the gourd and destroy Jonah’s shade. Then God sent a vehement east wind which was so hot that Jonah fainted and wished himself dead. Then, God spoke to him. “Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: and should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand people that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? (4:10-11).

If Jonah could pity a poor plant, surely he should have some pity on the babies in the city of Nineveh (those who could not discern their right from their left hands) who would suffer in the overthrowing of the city. Yet, Jonah’s attitude was rather typical of the Jewish nationalists who wanted God’s grace to be withheld from every nation except Israel. The disposition which Jonah manifested needed to be rebuked.

Lessons To Learn

1. The universality of God’s love. God, even under the Mosaical age, loved men of all nations. His love was not reserved for Israel alone. He has always cared for men of every nation under heaven. His love which was manifested toward Nineveh is testimony of His love toward all sinners. Our great God wishes that all men be saved (2 Pet. 3:9; Ezek. 33:11).

The lesson which Jonah had to learn was the same lesson which the early church had to learn through God’s use of several miracles. The revelation of this message was most explicit at the conversion of Cornelius where Peter stated, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no greater respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10: 34, 35).

The universality of God’s love toward all men has been a lesson hard for men to learn. Just recently, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) inserted in their doctrine the right of black men to equal standing in the kingdom of God. This came nearly three thousand years after God gave His revelation through the prophet Jonah and two thousand years after God sent His message through Peter. Indeed, some men are slow to se the universality of God’s love. Some brethren in the Lord’s church still manifest some of the same attitudes toward their fellow man as did Jonah; frankly, I can see little difference in white (or black) supremacy and Jewish supremacy.

2. The attitude of men toward others. We should not only learn the lesson of the universality of God’s love and grace but also learn a lesson about our attitude toward other recipients of God’s grace. Some of us seem to manifest something akin to a spirit of Jonah. We should not try to get a franchise on grace and monopolize it, dishing it out sparingly to those whom we think are worthy recipients of it. Just because some man does not live on my social level, does not share my values, and otherwise differs from me should not be reason for me to take the gospel of God’s grace to him. He is a person created in the image of God in just as much need of God’s grace as I am. I should rejoice in his opportunity to be saved even as I rejoiced in my opportunity for salvation.

Conclusion

What happened to poor Jonah? We can only conjecture although I do think that we have some rational basis for these conjectures. “The prophet rather abruptly drops the curtain, draws a veil over his further life’s history. Naturally we ask, Did Jonah repent of his stubborn opposition to the universality of God’s grace? Jonah does not answer this question directly. But his silence on this point and the entire tenor of his book speak louder than words. Jonah would not have written so frank and self-humiliating a confession of his sin if he had not been sincerely repentant and had not hoped to preserve and save others from similar bigotry and grumbling. `By the very act of penning it (his confession), Jonah at once merges out of his former character and appears in our view not merely as a prophet, but as a remarkably humble and noble-spirited saint’ (Huxtable in The Bible Commentary, VI, 582). Particularly the conclusion of his book corroborates this view. At last he no longer finds fault with God’s ways. No longer does he voice his anger and displeasures with the universality of God’s grace. God’s revelation of His fathomless pity embracing all His creatures, cattle as well as men, young as well as old, Gentiles as well as Jews, this revelation has melted Jonah’s icy heart” (Theo. Laetsch, The Minor Prophets, p. 243).

Perhaps a more pertinent question for us than “What happened to Jonah?” would be, “What will happen to us as we meditate on this revelation of God’s love for all men?” Will we run for God to take the message of His grace to all sinful men or will we be content to contain God’s grace in our own little group of friends?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 6, pp. 99-101
February 8, 1979

By William V. Beasley

Has John led you, in our brief study of 1 John, to “know that ye have eternal life” (1 John 5:13)? The, saints of the first century could know if they had eternal life, and we, today, can know also. Let us consider John’s conclusion to his epistle.

“Believe On The Name . . .” (1 John 5:13)

The New Testament divided all people into two classes: the believers and the unbelievers (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 41; John 3:16, 18; 3:36). There is no third or fourth category. One may ask, “What about the one who believes, but is not baptized?” Such a person does not truly believe. If they did, he would obey the Lord’s command to be baptized to be saved. Another may wonder, “How about the Christian who believed but went back into the world?” Such a person, as the other, does not believe (1 Tim. 1:19). The true believer looks at all that John has presented (actually all of the New Testament) and subjects himself thereunto.

Prayer (1 John 5:14-15)

We have the promise of God to answer every prayer He “hears” in the affirmative. The key to His “hearing” is the phrase “according to his will” (5:14). God’s will is not our desires. In addition to a prayer being “according to his will” it must also be “in faith” (Jas. 1:6-8), with a right motive (Jas. 4:1-3), by one in the proper spiritual condition Psa. 66:18; Prov. 28:9; John 15:7) and in the name of Jesus (John 14:13-14). There are, of course, other conditions to acceptable prayer, to God’s hearing us.

Sin Unto Death (1 John 5:16-17)

In the Bible death means: (1) separation of body and spirit (Jas. 2:26), (2) condition of one out of Christ (Eph. 2:1), and (3) banishment from the presence of God at the judgment (2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 21:8; Rom. 6:23). Which of these is referred to in 1 John 5:16-17? It is not speaking of one out of Christ for John says “all unrighteousness is sin” (5:17) and then draws a distinction between this and a particular sin (condition). It is not speaking of physical death because there is no need for such instruction destiny is sealed at physical death. It must be speaking of the final separation from God at the judgment. Many people make the mistake of making this refer to an act, one particular sin. John speaks not of the nature of the sinful act, but of the condition of the one sinning. I have authority to pray for the one who confesses his sin (Jas. 5:16), but not for the brother who does not repent nor confess his sins. Any sin unrepented remains unforgiven and is therefore sin unto death (for a fuller discussion of this see Robert C. Welch, “The Holy Spirit Blasphemy,” Faith and Facts, Vol. 5, No. 3, July, 1977, pp. 161-170).

“We Know . . .” (1 John 5:18-20)

“We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not . . . ” (5:18). This, like 1 John 3:9-10), denotes continuous action – will not remain in sin. It is not teaching, as some falsely claim, that a child of God cannot commit a sin; we shamefully know better. “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one” (5:19; see also 1 John 3:10). It is either “we” or “world.” There is only two positions – the “we” who serve God or those in the “world:” The “we” compose the one church (body) of Christ (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23). “And we know that the Son of God is come. . . ” (5:20). We know by eye, ear and hand witnesses (1 John I:1-3) that Christ came in the flesh and was, raised in the flesh. Jesus gave us to understand that eternal life is to know God (John 17:3) and that the only way to the Father was through His Son (John 14:6-11).

Conclusion (1 John 5:21)

“My little children, guard yourselves from idols” (5:21). An idol can be anything that keeps us from serving God. It could be another person, money, popularity, a false doctrine (salvation by faith only, once saved always saved, etc.), or even a misconception of God. Many today worship an idol that would sentence no one to hell, or, at least, no one whom they know. They call this idol Jehovah. It is their misconception of Jehovah as a god who would send no one to hell which is today’s popular idol. Beloved, you can “know that ye have eternal life, even . . . you that believe on the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13). Thank God!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 6, p. 98
February 8, 1979

By H.L. Bruce

According to the scriptures, hearing is very important. The apostle Paul wrote, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Faith depends on the message of God penetrating the heart, or mind, of the receiver. The significance of faith can be seen in that without it it is impossible to please God (see Heb. 11:6). Dr. Jesse S. Nirenberg, in his book, Getting Through To People, points out that there are three levels on which people listen: non-hearing, hearing without absorbing, and thinking on what they hear.” Let us notice each of these and how they relate to spiritual service.

The non-hearing: These are the ones who will sit in an audience and can neither agree nor disagree with what is said. They are either voluntarily or involuntarily inattentive. They do not know what is being said. They are not worshiping even though they are present. They are among those who laugh to themselves, play with babies, sleep, stare, day-dream, write notes and/or talk etc. They need to discipline themselves into a proper disposition to worship God (Jn. 4:24).

Hearing without absorbing: The ones in this category do not reason with the speaker. At times they even have their minds on distant things. However, were you to ask them a sudden question, they could repeat your last few words. These listen with divided attention.

The thinking listener: The one who will think on the subject as the speaker presents it is the one who is being taught. He listens with interest and wants to learn and know the truth.

Christ taught that men should take heed “how” and “what” they hear (Mark 4:24; Lk. 8:18). Upon which level do you listen? Are you among the “non-hearing,” the “hearing without absorbing,” or, “the thinking”?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, p. 92
February 1, 1979