Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

From the time I was a child, I have been impressed by the concept of openness in the pursuit of truth that has been espoused (at least theoretically) by faithful churches and gospel preachers. For as long as I can remember I recall gospel preachers opening sermons with statements something like this: “If anyone can demonstrate from the Bible that I have taught anything not taught in God’s word, I will gladly repent, renounce the error and change my preaching and practice. If what I teach is God’s will as taught ‘in the Bible, it should be accepted and obeyed and not simply ignored.” Some have criticized such statements as a pompous declaration that “we have all the truth and everyone else is wrong,” but I learned from it something quite different-the importance of seeking and being open to God’s truth from whatever source.

One of the things which has been striking to me about the work at Expressway which first attracted me to it and which I appreciate even more in my fourth year.of work here is the attitude of the elders and the brethren generally toward an open search for the truth. Expressway truly has an open pulpit policy. We do not mean by that that any false teacher can walk through the door and “lay us low” and then exit immediately; this is not being “open.” But one-anyone-who is willing to take God’s word and show us wherein he thinks we deviate from that word, is welcome to do so (subject only to the same restrictions that are placed upon the local preachers here-that things be done “decently and in order,” that questions and taping be permitted, and that equal time for response, if necessary, be allowed). The same holds true for this bulletin.

Of course, such openness has been characteristically absent from false teachers of false doctrines. Gospel preachers have forever been confronted with “hit-and-run” tactics and other devious maneuvers from the supporters of error. One comes to expect such conduct as a matter of course so that when an occasional “good and honest heart,” who is sincerely willing to defend what he believes, is found it is a rare thing. Just in my time here at Expressway we have seen such conduct on the part of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, charismatics and others. One comes to expect it arid so it is nothing to merit particular attention; it is “par for the course.”

The sad fact, however, is that this attitude pervades even those who now claim to be “gospel preachers,” and the churches for which they preach. Just since coming to Expressway, we have received “open invitations” from one of the liberal “churches of Christ” in this city, indicating their alleged “openness” to discussion of any religious subject. They will pompously prate about denominational error, write letters to the editor of the Courier-Journal and Times, and generally put on a show of “skinning the sects,” whether they be Mormons or otherwise. They will boldly (?) challenge their denominational friends and neighbors to examine their claims-but when it comes to looking at some of their own inconsistencies they are “too busy,” etc. etc. ad nauseam. These churches which have wed themselves (prostituted might be a better analogy) to human institutions will support colleges where these issues which have divided churches are frequently discussed in purely one-sided discussions on their “lectureships,” etc. yet when the opportunity to discuss with something other than a “straw man” arises, they are suddenly too busy or too pious or too something to “bother” with it. Of course, members at Expressway understand such foolishness because this congregation was formed under such circumstances where brethren closed themselves to open Bible study on both sides of an issue and “quarantined” any who disagreed with their preconceived notions.

What is even sadder, however, is to see brethren (including preachers and elders) in so-called “conservative” or “faithful” churches who are adopting the same sort of attitude. Oh, they may be just as doctrinally “orthodox” as you can get-but they have no concept of why one should be that way, or of the applications of Biblical truth to other issues. Since I have been preaching here, at least one gospel preacher, the son of a well-known “conservative” preacher (who has used his father’s good name to hide his own false teaching) has asked to have his name removed from the mailing list. Now we do not object to one who would rather not read what we write (we do not have the inflated opinion of ourselves that one must read what we write)-but here is a man who will pay good money to read (and who writes for) denominational papers full of false teaching, but who will not read (or will not tell us wherein we err) what is written by faithful brethren. The same is true even of brethren in “faithful” churches here in Louisville-they would rather hide their head in the sand and not even consider what is true. On the other side of this coin, we have had at least two “sound” brethren cut us off their mailing lists because we dared to disagree with what they teach. We have never felt, as these brethren evidently do, that one had to agree with us; but we would ask that one at least “consider what we say” (2 Tim. 2:7) and if they disagree we are open to any constructive criticism.

The problem with such openness is that it seems to scare people. It is alright to mouth such platitudes as the one with which we began this article, as long as you are reasonable sure no one will take you up on it! The problem comes when someone takes us at our word. I have known of some churches where it would truly “disturb the church” if someone were to stand up in the assembly and request book, chapter, and verse for what is being taught from the pulpit! (This is what one of the Expressway elders was told when he visited, by public invitation, an area “conservative” congregation and had the audacity to ask a question)! Think about it-what would the reaction be where you worship? Are we truly interested in finding out what the truth is about any and all subjects, or are we more committed to a “don’t rock the boat”, “Maintain the status quo” attitude that we resent anyone questioning of what we do? We have even gotten to the point that some of us are so closed that such a policy toward openness as is maintained at X-way is a shock even to “conservative” preachers (as with one young second-generation preacher who recently asked us, and was visibly astounded upon receiving an affirmative response: “You mean if a Baptist preacher came into the assembly and then asked to get into the pulpit to teach what he believes the Bible teaches that you’d let him?”). Furthermore, I know of at least one congregation of “faithful brethren” where there are objections to having a debate in the building because “it would let a false teacher in the pulpit.” It certainly seems, as my friend and preaching companion Steve Ballou told me one time (Steve being a member of the church only for the last few years) that you almost have to have your credentials in order, (or, as he put it, your “Church of Christ” pedigree) stamped and current in order to even be able to preach in some places. How close to a denominational concept can you get? And yet we have the gall to condemn our denominational friends for having “closed minds.” I pray thee excuse me from such folly. When we get to the point (and it looks like “we have arrived” indeed) that the above is characteristic of “faithful” churches, and where it would truly disturb us and disrupt our services for one to ask us outright to defend what we believe, then we have crossed the line from a fervent, truth-seeking and truth-exalting Christianity to an insipid denominationalism -f-even though we may wear a “scriptural name.” We may still be doctrinally orthodox and be able to give all the “right answers” for the next generation; but let such an attitude go to seed and grow for a generation and the only thing that will result is another full-scale apostasy resulting in just another denomination. May the good Lord deliver us from all such, and give us strength to “search the scriptures,” (John 5:39) and having found the truth, to defend it, “giving answer to every man that asketh” (1 Peter 3:15).

Truth Magazine XXII: 38, pp. 614-615
September 28, 1978

By S. Leonard Tylor

This is a searching but fair and vitally important question. The answer is basic and, to me, essential to any who believes in the all-sufficiency of the Divine Volume, the Bible. Can one be sure, positive, when he is a Christian, a member of the church of Christ? Can he proclaim with confidence this message to others for their salvation? Can a Christian tell when one is turning back into the world or wallowing in the mire? If one starts turning toward denominationalism, can that be recognized? If these questions have a positive answer, truth makes a distinction and we must recognize it. If, on the other hand, the response is negative, truth makes no difference, and we had just as well forget the whole matter-because no one can be positive what is right. If the word of God is not clearly understandable, man is left without clear knowledge and convictions.

These terse questions demand a positive response if one is to find revealed in the Bible an indispensable, vital faith and life in Christ.

Is the Bible the inerrant word of God, complete, absolute, understandable, and the unique standard by which man is to be reconciled to God in Christ, directed and saved eternally? Is the Bible reliable, worthy of trust and confidence? Is it understandable, especially the New Testament, so one can be uniquely, intelligently, and Scripturally identified with its teaching? Can one say like Paul, “I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded (convinced, NASB) that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day”? (2 Tim. 1:12).

To respond positively does not necessarily identify one with the Pharisaic, “braggadocios,” self-justifying attitude. It does imply, however, that he possesses a genuine, active, and confident faith in the word of God as trustworthy, authoritative, positive, and understandable. It is saying, “Speak, Lord, I will believe. Command, I will obey. Promise, I will trust.” Then, we must search the Scriptures to learn what the Lord says, commands, and promises, and accept His will be faith with complete confidence.

Attitudes Toward the Bible

There are many views regarding the Inspiration of the Bible. We notice two very briefly. (1) The Bible is Inspired in Thought or Principle. God miraculously and directly revealed His will to certain chosen men but left them to express the message in their own words without Divine assistance. This leaves too much to human judgment or wisdom. Subjectivism and relativism have a great and lasting influence upon the minds of those adhering to such a loose concept of inspiration. Skepticism which opens the door to denominationalism is also very common to such a view. But these delight in the “non-essentials” and the “non-essentials with liberty” rule their religion. Notwithstanding all the warnings contained in the Bible (Matt. 15:9; 2 Cor. 10:5-6, 12-18; 2 Thess. 2; 1 Tim. 4:1, 15; Heb. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; Acts 20:28-32), these continue to allow the doctrines and commandments of men to predominate in their lives (Isa. 8:20; Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12).

(2) The Second View is Plenary Verbal Inspiration.. God miraculously and directly revealed His will to certain chosen men and miraculously and directly superintended their choice of words. Thus, they could speak and write verbally and inerrantly exactly what God wanted them to, exactly as He wanted it said or written, giving man an understandable and infallible guide. This is the claim the Bible makes for itself (Acts 2:1-5; 1 Cor. 2:12-13; 1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17; 2 Tim 3:16-17), and I most sincerely believe it will stand against every evil wind that blows.

Is It Understandable?

Many accept the verbal inspiration of the Bible but are skeptical about understanding the Bible itself. So, to them, one can not be positive enough to say, “This is it.” If the teaching of the Bible is unattainable to man, he is left without positive directions or law. This brings to my mind, an old but true Latin expression, “Ubi jus incertum, ibi jus nullum”-where the law is uncertain, there is no law. Here the religious wonderers gather, separate, reform, tolerate, and split again. And, here the word of God is thrown to the four winds of the earth. Emotionalism, confusions, divisions and every philosophy and doctrine imaginable to man finds tolerance. The sociological changes sway minds, evolutionary theories are planted, and spiritualism goes wild in this incomprehensible Bible whirlpool. Surely, God would not give man such a Book as that! God has not authored mass confusion and wild contradiction in religion (1 Cor. 14:33). Our concern is not, “Can one person judge another?” We are deeply concerned with, “Can we understand the Bible?”

The Bible is filled with propositional truths. A proposition is `an expression in language, symbols, or signs of anything which is capable of being believed, doubted or denied: a verbal expression which is either true or false” (Webster’s New International Dictionary, Unabridged). Scripture is to be accepted or rejected upon the credibility of its understandable truths.

The Bible claims positive, yea, even Divine truths. David declared, “For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in Heaven” (Ps 119:89). Jesus said, “My words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Peter states, “For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23; NASB).

God’s truth stands regardless of one’s attitude toward it. It is absolute truth. God can declare the end of a thing at the beginning (Isa. 46:10). If a person contends that Bible knowledge is unattainable, or impractical, he cannot claim a firm guide into God’s provision for salvation. To whom shall he go?

God spoke plainly to Moses when Israel was preparing to possess the land of Canaan (Deut. 30:1130). Moses called the children of Israel together and reminded them of God’s goodness, love, and care for their forefathers and His gracious provision for them. He, then, read the Law: (1) He read so all could hear and understand it. (2) They could know their God and His way. (3) This was in order that they might do all the words of the law. (4) Thus, Israel could share in all the blessings of their God. (5) And, then they could teach God’s law to their children with the same provisions, conditions, and blessings. Some one observed: “This law was plain enough to be understood; practical enough to be obeyed; and divine enough to be essential.” This, I believe, is applicable to all of God’s will to man for salvation. The gospel is God’s power into salvation to every one who believes (Rom. 1:16) but “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Further, Paul told Timothy, “These things I write unto you . . . That thou rnayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God” (1 Tim. 3:14-15). It certainly seems from these expressions that God intended for man to understand His written word. Why else would He have written it?

The Bible is what God teaches-no more and no less-neither can any man add to it nor take from it (Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Pet. 1:3; Titus 2:7-8, 10). Too many times however, what is called “interpretation” is nothing more than what man thinks, feels, or assumes and has no place in the Divine Volume. If the Bible does not teach it, it is not part of God’s word.-regardless of what or how anyone thinks or feels about it. Bro. M. C. Kurfees makes the following observation:

It follows that the Divine Creed can never be an unnecessary inference or merely what man thinks. This, according to the etymology of the term, would make it merely man’s opinion. How can we tell, in a given case, whether a thing is what God says or merely what man thinks? Here again, if we have no infallible rule for our guidance, we are in hopeless confusion . . . the science of hermeneutics is a false science unless it seeks, by its principles, laws and rules, to ascertain, and is willing to be satisfied with, what an author says, and this fact especially applies is the case of religion where the search is for what God says. In fact, when we have learned by absolutely correct translation from one language to another, exactly what God says, we have reached the limit of legitimate interpretation and are justified in saying that we have found what God means by finding what God says. He who repudiates this position has only the alternative of committing himself, to the lax and latitudinarian position of guessing at what God means beyond what he says . . .” (Abilene Christian College Bible Lecture 1920-1921, page 17).

Paul wrote the Ephesians to assure them of a definite and positive standard by which to be governed and sustained in Eph. 4:10-16. He assured them that miraculously inspired teachers would continue until the complete, perfect will of Christ was revealed and confirmed. When that time arrived, God’s people would have a full knowledge of Christ communicated, God’s complete will make known. By that will Christians both were and are to be firmly sustained and directed in true fellowship, grace, faith, hope, service and all spiritual relationships in Christ with God, the Holy Spirit and all the saints for salvation (1 Cor. 1:9; Titus 2:11-12; 1 John 1:3-7; 1 Pet. 1:3-9). The same apostle told the Corinthians that “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (i Cor. 13:10). James shows that the “perfect law of liberty” is come (James 1:25; 2:12).

The Bible is the positive, unalterable standard by which man is to be drawn to Christ, directed, and sustained. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17). So Paul told Timothy to charge certain men “that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3). Peter said, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Thus Paul warned the Ephesians about the “cunning craftiness” and deceptive doctrines and pleaded with them not to be “tossed to and fro” by such false teachers and doctrines. Then Paul added, “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.” He wrote the Colossians to be “grounded and settled and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Col. 1:23). In Jude 3, the instruction is to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” This is God’s will for all men today. May God help us to study, believe, obey and teach it with full assurance that what God has promised He is able to fulfill.

Truth Magazine XXII: 38, pp. 616-617
September 28, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

Social Drinking the Lure of Respectable Sin

For The Truth’s Sake, intoxicating drinks should be totally avoided. Some folks admit the sinfulness of drunkenness, a lesser number oppose reveling, but very few recognize the wrong of social drinking. Alcohol and other drugs may be subject to limited medicinal use (1 Tim. 5:23), but when used for the pleasure of their intoxicating effects are dangerous and sinful. It is often supposed that every occurrence of the word “wine” in scripture refers to an intoxicating drink, but as Young’s Analytical Concordance says the Bible term means “wine, grape juice,” “what is pressed out, grape juice” (p. 1058). The use of wine in each separate context clarifies whether the reference is to an intoxicating or non-intoxicating drink. For instance, Jesus did not contribute to reveling and debauchery in John 2:1-10 by making a liquor (150 gals!), but He made the freshest and purest grape juice ever tasted by man. “It is utterly impossible . . . to imagine Jesus being present in a tipsy crowd, to say nothing of aiding such carousing by his first miracle” (R.C.H. Lenski, John’s Gospel, p. 197).

1 Pet. 4:3 condemns as sinful (1) the debauchery in “excess of wine” or the drunken stupor, (2) “revelings” or intoxicated party making, and (3) “banquetings.” Banquetings is translated from a word which means simply “drinking,” without reference to amount. It is drinking parties but not drunken parties. R.C. Trench, an authority on Greek terms, said in Synonyms of the New Testament that banqueting is drinking “not of necessity excessive,” though it is related to drunkenness and reveling because it is the first step which gives “opportunity for excess” (p. 211). This, then, is the cocktail party drinking, sipping the intoxicant, “having a few drinks with the boys,” social drinking! Such practices belong to the old life of sin, not to the will of God.

Why is this so important? We must be always “sober” in watching for Satan’s attempts to destroy us through temptation (1 Pet. 5:8). Sober “signifies to be free from the influence of intoxicants” and therefore clear-minded, in full control of one’s senses, powers, and judgment at all times (see W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. IV, p. 44). “The effects” of alcohol begin “after the consumption of 1 or 2 beers or 1 or 2 cocktails,” as doctors have pointed out (see James D. Bales, The Deacon and His Work, p. 33); the American Automobile Association textbook Sportsmanlike Driving points out that “the `higher’ centers of judgment and reason are impaired” starting after “the first drink” (pp. 67-68). All Christians, certainly elders, deacons, and their wives, should be “vigilant” or “sober” in abstaining from wine with its intoxicating effects (1 Tim. 3:2, 11). Mental, moral, spiritual alertness is essential if we are to resist Satan.

Social drinking should never be found among God’s people; when it is, it must be repented of and put away or else the church must purify itself by disciplinary action (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6).Alien sinners need to repent of all sinful use of intoxicants, along with every form of evil, and to be baptized in water for the remission of sins in the blood of Christ (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Truth Magazine XXII: 37, p. 604
September 21, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

The Family Room

That room in a considerable percentage of new houses that has been designated “The Family Room” is of relatively recent origin. At least it has come to a maximum of popularity in the last two or three decades. Sometimes it is furnished much more comfortably and realistically than other rooms, and it is designed as a place of maximum relaxation and as a facility for ideal family association.

Under these relatively ideal circumstances there is certainly opportunity for a joyful and a rewarding togetherness of husbands and wives and of parents and children. The deep, soft carpets, the various comfort chairs, the clean paneled walls, suitable pictures on the walls-all of these plus other various facilities-produce a circumstance and an atmosphere that is altogether conducive to pleasant, happy days and nights of family circle events.

Face The Facts

But let us take an inventory. What has happened to the average family since the advent of the popular family room? Indeed, it has been a one-way street, a constant deteriorating process, a seemingly irreversible trend away from a close family association. Why should this be true? With much better facilities and with much greater opportunities, why has the family so frequently fallen apart? Why is there now so much more alienation of husbands and wives and of parents and children? Perhaps it may be well to consider some reasons for such failures:

I. In many households, the family room may have become a substitute for a family circle. In other words, men may have built family rooms to substitute for the care and concern, the devotion and dedication, the love and loyalty that they really owe their families. It may have seemed easier to provide facilities than to supply family leadership. But we need to remember that all the facilities we may buy with money, even indoor swimming pools, game rooms, etc., will never take the place of love and affection nor will such facilities replace direction and discipline.

2. The family room can sometimes provide the setting for togetherness physically but complete separation emotionally, mentally and spiritually. This is what I mean: we may sit in the same room for hours, almost unaware of each other while our attention is glued to a television program. And we may be naive enough to believe we are providing a situation of “togetherness.” Indeed, we may all be able to recite the names of all the actors on the Hollywood stages, while at the same time we may barely know the nature, the desire, the longing of each other!

3. We may become involved in a family room lifestyle that defeats the very intended purpose of that facility. When T.V. dinners are eaten on T.V. trays so that no one will miss “the show,” then we have missed the greater opportunity for significant togetherness when we should have all sat around the same dining table at the same time. When junior refuses to come to the table because he will not leave the T.V. and when family “communication” (conversation) is sacrificed at the altar of entertainment, then the family room is a curse, not a blessing as it should have been.

Doing Together

In these affluent times when money is so plentiful, it may usually be easier to provide “things” for our family than to supply association among ourselves. And this may be the real cause of the un-doing of the family structure that is so vital to happiness and success. This inclination to pay the price in money instead of in attention and care has been exploited by the toy industry, so much so that many families spend hundreds of dollars annually for those super-duper toys that are intended to entertain the children and spare the parents that responsibility.

So, some may ask, “What can we do together?” Well, if your children are already addicted to the expensive toys and if they are already caught up in the permissive self-sufficiency that rebels against parental guidance, it may be exceedingly difficult to do anything that will salvage the family circle. But if you still have time-if your children are small or still unspoiled by the affluence of our times, there are many things you can do to promote a happy, healthy family relationship.

For instance:

Go together! Go hiking or cycling together. Go picnicking together. Go camping together. Go, together, to any decent kinds of recreation and entertainment. Find a private place and go swimming together. Work together, play together, read together, and especially worship together. And remember, every one of these items and dozens of others can provide a real base for closeness and communication, a real foundation for like-mindedness and mutual joyfulness.

But also, stay home together. Make your home a sanctuary! Let your house be a haven for the whole family-a place of refuge from the ugly and vile things of the world outside, a place of security from the violent and turbulent affairs even nearby. Let it be a shelter from the storms of life. Most of all, let the home be a place of release from tensions, a quiet resort, a jubilant group-action of people mutually devoted to the same ideals and to each other.

The family circumstance that I have tried to portray can be a happy, secure, serene association even while living in a shack by the side of the road, in a humble cottage or crowded apartment. If attitudes are right, the house and its facilities make little difference. If attitudes are wrong, all the facilities in the world will not make a happy, successful family circle. If your family room consists of the kitchen, the living room or the front porch, or if it is indeed a luxurious special room, you can make it a source of satisfaction for the family and of approval by God. Do it today, for the sake of all those souls involved at your house!

Truth Magazine XXII: 38, pp. 618-619
September 28, 1978