Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Thomas

Jimmy Thomas-a friend, brother, and gospel preacher-wrote two separate articles a few years ago entitled “Who to Fellowship?” and “The Threat of Modernism.” Both of his articles warn against some Classical Signs of Creeping Liberalism, therefore the two are here combined, adapted, and edited under that title. He and other brethren have recognized these signs over a period of several years and in the lives of many who were departing from the faith. We who are younger may gain valuable insights from “those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Prov. 11:14). Ron Halbrook

In 1950 Foy E. Wallace, Jr., warned of the threat of modernism in the church. “The movement,” he wrote, “toward modernism in our own ranks the past decade is cause for a note of alarm ….Twenty five years ago a fine toothed comb could not curry a modernist out of the church of Christ; but today we can take a hay rake and bale them up” (Torch, July, 1950; James P. Needham, 1600 Oneco Ave., Winter Park, FL 32789, plans to reprint this excellent volume in 1978, RH).

Now, after another quarter of a century, those bales are stacked to the rafters in the loft, crib, and stables of some churches. As Leroy Brownlow stated, “Brethren, there was a time when we could say we had no modernism in the Lord’s church, but we cannot say that today” (“Faith For A World In Doubt,” March, 1965, p. 239).

Modernism Defined

Modernism is not a particular doctrine like “faith only” or “the impossibility of apostasy.” It is more of a way of thinking, a liberal attitude toward the Bible. It is a compromise with “this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4).

Modernists seek to harmonize Biblical accounts with what is considered current popular thought. Science and individual experience replace the Bible as authority in religion. Since the theories of scientists and experiences of individuals vary with time and persons, modernism has no fixed standard of truth. As James Bales puts it, “all is in a state of flux and flow” (Modernism: Trojan Horse In the Church, p. 136). That which is stoutly affirmed today may be denied tomorrow.

Every modernist becomes a law unto himself. Right is what he thinks is right. He lays down the rule that there are no rules. Everything is relative. Nothing is firm, he affirms.

One modernist may disagree with another on numerous points, yet still hold common ground with respect to their general attitude toward divine revelation. Most reject, to varying degrees, the inspiration of the Scriptures, creation, Bible miracles, the virgin birth, the atonement, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and his second coming. Others may retain some semblance of belief in these fundamental facts, yet seek to reconcile the Bible to their own way of thinking and practice. Such an attitude is modernism regardless of where it is found.

Modernism is unbelief. It is only a way station on the road to atheism. Some travel the full route, while others just float about from station to station with no certain dwelling place. They know neither where they are nor where they are headed.

Causes of Modernism

Human wisdom has ever been a chief cause of infidelity. Men get so puffed up with their own learning that they do “not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:28). Paul warned of such worldly wisdom (1 Cor. 1:20-31; Col. 2:8-12).

In the last generation the increasing clamor for “an educated ministry” in the church has sent preachers scurrying to the big universities for higher degrees. There they were exposed daily to a relentless barrage of anti-scriptural philosophies from both teachers and fellow students. Most, if not all, have been affected to some degree by this influence. These “Doctors” of “NeoOrthodoxy” have insidiously peddled their sugar coated pills from pulpits, classrooms, and in their writings until many have become immune to the gospel antidote. They have been aided by elders, teachers, and others of similar background.

Another cause is the age old craving of man to be fashioned according to this world (Rom. 12:2). If he thinks that modernism is the accepted thing then he wants to appear as much like one as possible. Liberals either arrogantly assert or strongly imply that all true scholarship lies with them (cf. Job. 12:2). Those who have a desire to be acclaimed as scholarly are easily drawn to their side.

The attraction of the new appeals to some. They have been misled into thinking that the old is bad and the new is good. Like the Athenians they constantly strain their ear toward the novel (Acts 17:21). Such people are often duped into falling for an old error under a new label. Such is modernism.

A few have grown tired of fighting the good fight and have surrendered to unbelief. They are suffering from battle fatigue. Younger men, who have seen little action, often shrink back from the trenches with fear after viewing the scars of older warriors. Some decide to switch rather than fight (cf. Gal. 6:9; 1 Cor. 15:58).

Early Symptoms of Modernism

Modernism is a spiritual disease, which if detected and treated early, can be cured; but, if allowed to run its course, will surely lead to infidelity and finally to the pits of hell. Yet, like some dreaded diseases of the body, it is hard to recognize in its beginning stages. The unwary may not discover its presence until it reaches the terminal point.

To the cautious and discerning there are certain telltale signs that indicate the presence of the “germ” in the soul. Every disciple should be aware of these early symptoms for his own protection and that he might be able to help others also.

1. Those with definite modernistic tendencies eventually trip themselves up by their speech. Modernism has its own vocabulary and such are quick to adopt it. They speak of, “testifying for the Lord,” “witnessing for Christ,” and “accepting Jesus as your personal Savior.” They chide others for “answering questions that no one is asking.” Emphasis is placed on “preaching the Man not the plan.” Their conversation is usually sprinkled with such phrases as, “the spirit not the letter,” “God’s imputed grace,” and “the Spirit working among us.” They seem to have a greater interest in restoring the “Restoration Movement” than in preaching the first century gospel.

2. Such. persons talk in vague generalities. They are seldom clear on any point. It is hard to “pin them down.” They are often given to double talk. Words are used with a different meaning from that generally accepted. They “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.”

3. The like to be recognized as learned scholars, always striving to speak on a high intellectual level. When questioned concerning their liberal teachings, they will cry about being misunderstood. Most of then are in a fog of uncertainty and do not understand themselves.

4. Those influenced by modernism talk about being broad-minded and advocate freedom of thought and expression. But they really want this only for themselves; for, where they can, those of opposing views are suppressed. Brethren who oppose error and insist on “a thus saith the Lord” are ridiculed as “legalists,” “keepers of orthodoxy,” and charged with “judgemental meddling.” At the same time such may go among those who practice error, yet never lift their voice against it.

5. These neophyte modernists never like to be questioned closely. They scoff at debates, but are willing to engage in dialogues, where points and issues are never pressed and everyone usually leaves more confused than when they came. Such doubters thrive where confusion reigns. They ask, “Do you know everything?” and then cast doubt on the possibility of being certain on anything.

6. Such always make a display of their professed piety and humility. They pretend to be so good and sweet; at least until someone steps on their rattlers, then they will show their fangs. To listen to them you would think that they had a corner on love. All who imbibe their loose attitude toward Divine authority are filled with love, while those who do not are guilty of hate.

Agitation Over Fellowship

7. Lack of certainty regarding truth leads to a desire for broader unity. As denominational error and other forms of sin seem less ominous, some form of fellowship with those who practice such things becomes more inviting. Consequently, the embryo modernist becomes greatly disturbed over the question of whom to fellowship.

This has never been a great problem for those who have spoken out plainly against every false way. For instance, salvation is by God’s grace; but through out faith-an obedient faith. When we do all that God requires, we do not annul His grace. We simply meet the conditions of grace which He has laid down. When we preach these truths plainly, those who teach salvation solely by grace or by faith only will not desire our fellowship.

Jesus built one church and all of the saved are added to it. This church is not a denomination nor is it made up of denominations. Those in denominations do not clamor for the fellowship of those who preach the truth on this matter.

We must continue to preach that instrumental music in worship, church donations to human institutions, sponsoring church arrangements, church related recreation, etc., are all without divine authority and, therefore, sinful. If we continue to teach Bible truth on such subjects, those who practice these things will not want our fellowship and will not press for it.

The truth repels as well as it draws. It is impossible to visualize one who strongly exposes the errors of the above doctrines and practices being welcomed with open arms into the assemblies of those who engage in such. We should preach to any group if given the opportunity, but we should not leave them both undisturbed and still in their error. Brethren who preach the truth and oppose all forms of error find that the matter of fellowship usually takes care of itself. On the other hand, brethren who find the line between truth and error increasingly blurred become greatly disturbed and highly agitated over the fellowship issue.

Concluding Exhortations

When you begin to see some of these traits cropping out in certain ones, it might be an indication of modernistic leanings and a signal to take warning. But let none go off half-cocked, shooting from the hip at anything that moves. Innocent persons will be hurt and the cause of Christ hampered. Make sure that what we call the truth is truth-not the opinions of the elders. Also, be certain that what is branded error is really error-not some truth of which we are ignorant.

Deal gently and patiently with those who are babes that have honest doubts. But those who are older and experienced that “privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them,” and who lead many astray (2 Pet. 2:1-2), blast them out of the sky. Above all, let us be certain that our own feet are planted firmly upon the solid rock.

Truth Magazine XXII: 48, p. 780-782
December 7, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

For The Truth’s Sake, the gospel should be preached to the lost and the lost should seek the gospel. Men often laugh at or even bemean gospel preaching. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. . . it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:18-21). Not merely the action of proclaiming just any message will save, but only the message contained in Scripture will save.

Much preaching today is worse than a loss of time, It will bring damnation in eternity. Many preachers sound like ball coaches giving a pep-talk at game time. Human wisdom is expounded by some “Right Reverend” clergymen who have obtained their credentials from Such-and Such Theological Seminary and have been “Ordained” by powers that be. The pro’s and con’s of political problems or civic issues are discussed by other men of “the cloth.” The “nice talks” often given are directed more at making men acceptable to themselves rather than acceptable to God. To give hope beyond the grave and salvation in eternity, preaching must go:

(1) Back to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins (Jn. 3:16). Angels announced Him as Savior, God with us, Christ the Lord (Matt. 1:18ff; Lk. 2:8ff). His miracles were more than humanitarian deeds, they were witnesses to His Deity (Jn. 5:36). His power to heal proved that “the Son of man bath power on earth to forgive sins” (Jn. 9:6). His death was not misguided zeal or simply an example of sacrificial goodness; but, “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”-He died “for many for the remission of sins” (Rom. 5:8; Matt. 26:28). After rising from the dead, Christ proclaimed, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). On the basis of this authority, He sent chosen messengers into all the world to “preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk 16:15-16). For this cause, Paul said, “I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).

(2) Back to the Apostles. The theologies, creeds, confessions, catechisms, clergies, conferences, and conventions of men are just that, and no more: Of Men! The Father did not call for such, Christ did not authorize it, and the Holy Spirit did not reveal it. Who then has the authority to show us Christ and His will? He chose apostles or special messengers in the first century. Through them, He revealed “on earth” the eternal plan of God determined “in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). “All truth” was delivered through them and was to be binding “once for all” ages and all men (Jn. 16:13; Jude 3; 2 Pet. 1:13-15). “The apostles’ doctrine” was “the doctrine of Christ” and, therefore, the absolute standard for understanding “the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (Acts 2:42; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Jn. 4:1-6).

(3) Back to the Bible. When inspired men preached Christ, they did not offer “interpretative dance,” theatrical drama, or paintings to be admired and adored. Rather, they proclaimed Jesus Christ in words . . . which the Holy Ghost teacheth”-words were the vehicles of God’s message (1 Cor. 2:13). The Lord also inspired these men to inscipturate or write down the words of truth (2 Tim. 3:16-17). “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). “When ye read, ye may understand” (Eph. 3:4). The message of salvation was first given by mouth and then by pen (2 Thess. 2:15). Bible preaching is the apostolic message of Jesus Christ. For the truth’s sake, we must have this and no other!

Truth Magazine XXII: 49, p. 786
December 14, 1978

By Morris W. R. Bailey

In a previous article on the above subject, it was pointed out that one of the definitions given by the dictionary to the word truth is fact. Thus the truth on any subject consists of the facts relating thereto. It was pointed out also that in spiritual realm, God’s word is truth (John 17:17). Also, since the sum of God’s word is truth (Psalm 119:160), it takes all that the Bible says on any subject to constitute that truth on that subject. We are now ready to proceed to the second part of the definition of truth, namely,

Conformity To Fact

That, of course, is self-evident. For if a fact is true, then anything that conforms to, or corresponds in all particulars to that fact will also be true. That is the principle upon which we proceed when we compare values, when we judge between right and wrong, and when we draw the line between what is true and what is false. Does the thing under consideration conform to fact?

Most of us remember our school days. There were periodic examinations on the subjects we studied. We recall how that we submitted answers to the questions asked, sincerely believing that our answers were correct. But often when those examination papers came back from the teacher, we were disappointed in that we found some of those answers marked as incorrect. What was the matter? Was that teacher just a narrow-minded bigot who thought that she was always right and that anyone who disagreed with her was wrong? No, I do not recall thinking so, regardless of whatever else I thought. We realized (too late) that our answers did not conform to the time-tested and accepted facts regarding those subjects on which we had been examined. If it was a question in mathematics such as, “What does four plus four make?” and my answer was ten, it obviously did not conform to the fact that four plus four make eight. If it was a question in history, such as, “In what year did Columbus discover America?” and my answer was the year of 1650, it obviously did not conform to the factual date of 1492. It would have been a very incompetent teacher who would have marked my answers as being correct because she believed that I was sincere when I submitted them. And it would have been even more absurd if she had marked a number of conflicting answers as being correct. Methinks that there would have been some parents demanding that a change in the teaching staff of that school.

How strange it is that in every field in the natural realm, people will insist on having the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, measuring the commodities they buy according to factual and time-tested standards. When the housewife buys a pound of hamburger, she insists on getting sixteen ounces, not twelve ounces. The motorist buys a gallon of gas, and he expects to get four quarts, not just three quarts. The seamstress buys a yard of cloth, and she expects to get thirty-six inches, not just twenty-four inches. Yet, often those same people will step out of the school room, or out of the field of business and commerce and into the field of religion and will adopt a philosophy that would not be tolerated for a moment anywhere else. But that is what they do when they glibly talk about how it does not make any difference what one believes so long as he or she is sincere.

The Principle Applied

Let us apply the principle of conformity to fact to divine truth. On that basis it is obvious that any doctrine, to be true, must conform to the truth of God’s word, just as certainly as the answer to a question in history, to be true, must conform to historical truth. A few examples are in order, here.

Preaching The Truth

The Bible lays great emphasis on preaching the truth. Paul preached the truth at the risk of making enemies (Gal. 4:16). He exhorted Christians to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Moreover, the Bible warns against teachers of error and calls them false prophets (Matt. 7:1; 2 Cor. 11:13; 2 Peter 2:1).

But with the multiplicity of preachers, with differing and sometimes conflicting doctrines, with voices crying Lo, here, and Lo, there, many good people are naturally confused when they do seek for the truth and, consequently, the question may be asked from time to time, “Who among all these is preaching the truth?” The answer lies in the matter of conformity. Whose preaching conforms to the truth as taught in the Bible?

The apostle John gives us an example in 1 John 4:1-3 of the test that reveals whether or not a man is preaching the truth. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the llesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God; and this is the spirit of the anti-Christ.”

It is obvious from the foregoing scripture that John did not subscribe to the idea that it does not make any difference what one believes. For there, he cautioned his readers against believing every spirit (preacher) and warned against some whom he called false prophets.

Sometimes today when you question a man’s teaching, branding it as false and speak of him as a false teacher, some one will say, “O, you are judging, and the Bible condemns that.” Now, I know that there is a judging, in the sense of condemning, that is forbidden (Matt. 7:1); certainly, no Christian should be guilty of such. And I am sure that the apostle John was not guilty of such when he called those men false prophets, which they were. But there is a manner of judging which Jesus called, “righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Such judgment consists of measuring against some standard, and reaching a conclusion based on conformity or, as the case may be, lack of conformity. One does not, therefore, unjustly judge the purveyor of false doctrine when he calls him a false teacher, any more than he unjustly judges the man who steals, when he calls him a thief.

It will be noted that in verse one, John exhorts his hearers to “prove the spirits, whether they are of God.” To prove, or test a thing requires that we measure it against some accepted standard. To prove whether or not a man is preaching the truth requires that his preaching be measured against the truth. Hear John in verse two: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God.” How, John? “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” And how are we able to detect the false teacher? Verse three tells us! “And every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God.”

So it is all a very simple matter. For it is the theme of revelation and, therefore, truth that Jesus came in the flesh. His birth in Bethlehem has been recorded by Matthew and Luke. John tells us, “And the word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1;14). But it is obvious that there were some in the days of John who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh. Since their teaching did not conform to the truth, it was obviously false, and John therefore called the progenitors of such teaching false prophets.

On the same basis and from the same standpoint we can judge every doctrine that is preached by men today. When men preach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, they are in harmony with the truth taught in God’s word (Matt. 16:16, 17; Rom. 1:4). But when men preach, as some do, that Jesus was nothing more than a perfect man, their teaching lacks conformity with truth and is therefore false. When men preach that Christ is reigning in His kingdom at God’s right hand today and that His reign will end at the second coming, as taught by the apostles (Acts 2:29-36; 1 Cor. 15:22-26), they preach the truth. But when men preach that Christ will set up His kingdom and occupy a throne here on earth at his second coming, there is an obvious lack of conformity to the truth of the gospel: such teaching is, therefore, false and those who preach it are false teachers.

Believing The Truth

Just as the Bible lays great emphasis on the preaching of the truth, so also it teaches the importance of believing the truth (2 Thess. 2:13) and the danger of believing a lie (2 Thess. 2:11, 12). But because of the multiplicity of conflicting doctrines in the world today, many are confused as to what the truth is, and some have doubts as to whether they believe the truth. (This is a good sign, especially, if it leads them into a search for the truth.)

Such confusion and such doubts can all be resolved by submitting one’s belief to the test of conformity. Does what he believes conform to what the scriptures teach? Let me submit here a simple true or false quiz. I shall first state some assumed item of belief, and then in brackets I will give what the Bible (truth) teaches, and let the readers judge as to whether or not this belief conforms to the truth of God’s word.

1. I believe that the universe was formed by the process of evolution (Gen. 1:1; Ex. 20:11; Heb. 11:3).

2. I believe that man .was created on a level far above that of the beast, having been given the power of choice, and from that standpoint the master of his own destiny (Gen. 1:27; Josh. 24:15; Deut. 11:26-28; 2 Cor. 5:10).

3.I believe that all men inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, and that children are, therefore, born totally depraved. (Ezek. 18:1-3, 20; Matt. 18:3; 1 John 3:4).

4.I believe that the alien sinner is saved at the point of faith, without any act or acts of obedience (James 2:20, 24; Mark 16;16; Acts 2:38; 22:16)

5. I believe that once a person is saved, his eternal salvation is secured and he cannot be lost. (John 15:5, 6; 1 Cor. 10:6-12; 9:26-27; Heb. 4:1; 6:4-6).

6. I believe that there will be a judgment at the coming of Christ, when we will be judged according to the things done in this life, and when the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished. (Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 25:31-46).

This list could be extended much farther; but I trust that by now the reader will have grasped the point, namely, that only as our faith conforms to the truth of God’s word, can it be said that we believe the truth. That which does not conform to God’s word, regardless of how sincerely believed, is belief of a lie, and will condemn the one that holds to it. (2 Thess. 2:11, 12).

Truth Magazine XXII: 48, pp. 775-776
December 7, 1978

By Mike Grushon

King Asa of Judah was generally a good king. Throughout his life, he had done much to return Judah to faithfulness to God. Yet there stands in the Biblical record of his life’s achievements one monumental mistake. In 2 Chronicles 16:1-10, we can read of this incident in his life. Basically, Asa’s mistake was that he used the silver and gold of King Benhadad’s assistance against Baasha the king of Israel. Hanani the seer communicated the Lord’s displeasure with Asa’s actions, saying, “Because you have relied on the king of Syria and have not relied on the Lord your God, therefore the army of the king of Syria has escaped out of your hand. Were not the Ethiopians and the Lubim an immense army with very many chariots and horsemen? Yet, because you relied on the Lord, He delivered them into your hand” (2 Chr. 16:7-8). Asa had trusted in the strength of military alliance rather than in the strength of his Lord.

Hanani pointed out to Asa a principle that everyone of us needs to take to heart. He said, “For the eyes of the Lord trove to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His” (2 Chr. 16:9). Asa’s failing had been that he was not totally dedicated to the Lord. When he was confronted with a crisis, his thought turned to help from other men rather than from His God. If Asa would have relied upon God and given himself completely to God, he would have avoided the problems that beset him the rest of his life. Asa’s failing was that his heart did not totally belong to God.

It seems to me that this incident in the life of Asa and the admonition it prompted from God’s prophet should be of profit to each one of us. The principle laid down by Hanani still holds true. The Lord still strongly supports those who have completely given their heart to Him. How many of the predicaments that we often find ourselves in are caused by our shortsighted reliance upon human solutions? How many of us only think of God when we have gotten in over our heads in some difficulty? It is no secret that Christians have business problems, family problems, bills, tragedies and sickness just like all other human beings. But the real tragedy is when Christians approach these problems no differently than those of the world. Asa approached his problem like most kings would, he sought a favorable alliance but the temple treasury to buy that was not acceptable because he was not just any king, he was God’s king, over God’s people. Christians should not approach their problems like everyone else because we are different, we are God’s people.

We need to have a heart that is completely God’s. That means that: (1) Our lives are given to putting God first. And, (2) That we rely upon God for strength in our times of need. We place our confidence in His ability to provide our needs. A heart that is completely God’s does not involve sinless perfection or perfect performance. We only have to look at the life of another king of God’s people, David, to see that. David had the type of heart that God wanted but he was not sinless. However even when David sinned, he relied upon the Lord as the only solution to the problem of his sin. That is the meaning of being completely God’s. Asa was a good king but he failed when he did not completely rely upon God. Let us see the difference between David’s heart and Asa’s heart and develop one like David’s.

Truth Magazine XXII: 48, p. 774
December 7, 1978