Truth Magazine

By P. J. Casebolt

There are those who do not feel that the Scriptures can imply a thing strongly enough for us to act with authority. They argue that one thing is implied to this person, while something different may be implied to another. While this may be true of the doctrines and ideas of men, this is not a necessary implication (there is that term again!) to draw pertaining to God’s word. Man is not wise enough, nor is he able enough, to express every idea so that every person gets the same impression. I believe God is able to convey ideas to His creatures in such a way that they can understand Him, and that these ideas are not just contained in the Scriptures-they are the Scriptures, revealed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10-16).

Jesus laid out a certain set of circumstances, with various parts and pieces, then asked a certain man to reach a particular conclusion. Even an insincere lawyer, with questionable motives, was forced to the necessary conclusion that the man who showed mercy was being neighborly (Lk. 10:25-37). Other questions recorded in the Scriptures are so expressed that there can be only one implication, or inference. (See Mark 8:36, 37 and 1 Pet. 4:17, 18.) Not only are there many questions such as these, but also plain declarative statements of inspiration which permit only one inescapable (necessary) conclusion. But, these have been quoted time and time again, often by those who still claim they do not believe in the principle. Some concede the principle is taught in the Scriptures, but doubt that it has any binding force. Well, let me use a teaching technique which may get you to see what I mean. That is just a fancy way of saying that I am going to slip up on your blind side. There are some people who are blind on both sides, even as I have been at certain times in my life, so maybe you will get the lesson before you “see” it coming.

Cow Pasture Parable

No, this is not the same thing as “chimney corner scripture.” This actually happened, and there are people yet alive who can verify it. It has long been contended that one can leave a false impression by what he does not say, as well as by what he does say. One can even imply an untruth in such a way that people form an erroneous conclusion. Take the case of misleading advertising, for instance.

Several of us were playing softball in a cow pasture. A girl came to bat, and asked me the location of first base.. Now, there are things in a pasture besides rocks and sticks. The Bible calls it dung. I never said a word, but walked over and stood beside some of this stuff, and in a dried condition I guess it did have the appearance of first base. Anyway, there was no danger, because this girl always struck out anyway. Everybody knew that. I even walked back toward second base, and sat down on the ground to talk with the second baseman. He suggested weakly that maybe I should tell her where the real first base was, but even he knew she would not hit the ball anyway. But, she did. And, she headed for what she thought was first base!

If you ask me personally sometime, I will tell you the rest of the story. But this is enough for you to get the lesson that one can tell a falsehood by the principle of necessary implication. Now, my question is this: if one can teach an untruth by this principle, why cannot he teach the truth with it? Again, the necessary implication is unescapable: you can.

But, someone will say there is more room for confusion using this principle, than if we used an approved apostolic example. I do not know. While it is true that this latter method is binding, and plainly understood as far as I am concerned, yet there are still others who contend that even an approved apostolic example is not binding unless accompanied by a direct command. Even these ignore the command to observe such an example (Phil 4:9).

Yet, there are others who claim we cannot understand anything except a direct command, and in the absence of such we have no authority for anything we do. Then, you still have those who cannot seem to understand even a direct command, else there would be more people who teach and submit to baptism as an essential part of salvation (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

I am persuaded that there are people who will never understand what God wants them to do, regardless of how He tells them, or how plainly He reveals His will. Since the atheist does not want to listen to God any of the time, maybe there are those who just want to listen to God some of the time.

Truth Magazine XXII: 27, pp. 441-442
July 13, 1978

By Lewis Willis

Every, generation has its little cliches that float around casually in the brotherhood. Some of these expressions, though not actually found in the Scriptures, do convey scriptural ideas and concepts. Such was the expression championed by the Campbells in the beginning of the Restoration Movement in this country. They said, “We will speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” If we speak the “oracles of God” we will be doing precisely what the Campbells committed themselves to do (1 Pet. 4:11).

However, not all of these sayings used by brethren are clothed in such nobility. Some, in fact, are downright false and deceptive. On the surface they sound pretty good, but when they are applied by the orators who use them, a completely different connotation prevails. In recent years, the last six or seven especially, some cliches have been heard from some surprising quarters. Few suspected that those who used them were actually on the march away from the Truth. These brethren, primarily preachers, were being challenged regarding their teachings and positions on the issues of Grace and Fellowship. When these challenges began to be felt keenly, they started talking and writing about the “party spirit” among brethren, and of those who were in control of “brotherhood politics.” They charged that their dissenters were motivated by improper motives, especially that they were being opposed by men for “financial considerations.” These false teachers tried to get faithful brethren off their tracks by charging that they were being opposed by brethren “who just want to sell papers,” since it was primarily through the religious periodicals that the battle was being waged. They were not going to submit to the “party spirit” being pushed within the Lord’s Church! These false teachers vowed they would never submit to those in charge of “brotherhood politics!” The charges are still heard occasionally. This past week I read an article by a Dallas-area preacher who raised this smokescreen. I talked personally with another preacher in the area who made the same noises. A person is guilty of the “party spirit,” according to some of these brethren, if he publicly exposes their false teaching. They want to spread their damning heresy without being exposed while doing so. If a brother has the arrogant audacity to say anything about their teaching, he is called a “brotherhood watchdog.” If we should listen to these brethren we would learn (?) that there is a “CIA in the church.” Many are intimidated by these “full of love and grace” labels and sit quietly back and allow these false teachers to go unchallenged as they subvert whole houses. As one brother wrote, “I refuse to sit back quietly and let these brethren continue unopposed. If opposing these men makes me guilty of party spirit, I plead guilty.” So do I!

Truth Magazine XXII: 27, pp. 442-443
July 13, 1978

By George T. Eldridge

The church was “purchased with” Jesus’ “own blood” (Acts 20:28). No other association, club, fraternal organization, labor organization, social service organization, or youth organization has the purchase price of the New Testament church. The value of the church is further seen in that Jesus “is the head of the . . . church” (Col. 1:18) and is “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). Has that value sunk into your heart, your soul, and your mind?

“Purchased with,” “the Head of the church,” and “the head over all things to the church” are words of authority. With the right and power to command, enforce law, exact obedience, determine, or judge resting in Jesus, all activities of the church must have the approval of her head. Do you agree? That approval for church action comes from the Scriptures in (1) apostolic command, (2) apostolic example, and (3) necessary conclusions from commands and examples (Acts 15:6-29). Is that true?

Individuals and churches, too many times, desecrate that which Jesus purchased and that church over which He is head. Consider the following few examples as activities abusing the sacredness of that divine institution, the church to which the Lord adds the saved (Acts 2:47).

“Our first skating party this fall is scheduled for Thursday, September 29, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Anderson rink. See your Bus Captain. . . for further details’,.’ (Hillcrest Hi-Lights, September 25, 1977, I3illcrest Church of Christ, 2201 Hillcrest Drive, Anderson, Indiana 46012).

A church skating party is not an activity sanctioned by Jesus who “is the head of the . . . church” (Col. 1:18). Jesus did not buy the church with His “own blood’; (Acts 20:28) so that she could engage in recreational activities and then advertise these pursuits. Is there any wonder that many unsaved people believe the church is unnecessary for salvation and the church is a relic of the past when they see the church engaging is such merriment? Refreshment of one’s body or mind through play was never practiced by any New Testament church. Why? Jesus never approved church involvement in recreation! The Holy Spirit never revealed it! The apostles never taught it! Where is the Scripture approving a church skating party?

The church of the living God is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). “Pillar and ground” is used metaphorically to teach the church, in her collective capacity, her responsibility in maintaining “the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). This maintaining is done by the church teaching “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and practicing what inspired men taught “every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4:7) Do you agree?

A church skating party is not maintaining “the doctrine of Christ” in either teaching or practice! I request any individual or church to provide the Scripture approving “our . . . skating party.” Recreation provided by the church is not having Jesus as “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). Will anyone answer my request? What New Testament church ever, remotely engaged in any activity akin to “our . . . skating party”?

There is not anything wrong with a skating party or any other legal recreational activities, provided individuals and./ or organizations, which do not claim Jesus as her head and the Scriptures as a guide, furnish the play. Examples of those organizations would be (1) The American Legion, (2) The Girl Scouts of America, (3) Young Men’s Christian Association, (4) Senior Citizens Community Center, Inc., (5) Police Pal Club, (6) Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America, and/-or (7) Skatemor Roller Rink.

More recreation is needed by all. ages, not just the pre-school age, elementary school age, junior high age, and high school age! This needed recreation cannot scripturally be provided by the church! Church recreational activities desecrate the church bought with the blood of God’s “only begotten Son” (John 3:16). We request that all church recreation cease and that the church permit Jesus to be “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). Let the church be the church. Are those expressions your thoughts, too?

“Our annual Thanksgiving Supper will be next Saturday, Nov. 19, at 6:00 p.m. in the church fellowship hall” (Nov. 13, 1977 bulletin, Free Will Baptist Church, 1125 East 38th Street, Anderson, Indiana).

“Sunday Evening Fellowship-This evening, the Lord willing, we will meet again for a period of fellowship and refreshments. . . We will meet for an hour or so after the evening services” (January 26, 1975 bulletin, Meadowbrook Church of Christ, 601 W. 38th Street, Anderson, Indiana).

“Two eight-foot tables have been ordered for fellowship . . . in the fellowship room” (August 24, 1975, Hillcrest Hi-Lights, Hillcrest Church of Christ, 2201 Hillcrest Drive, Anderson, Indiana 46012).

Those three quotations are examples of multitudes that can be provided showing how churches are desecrating that blood bought institution for which Jesus died and influencing the world to look upon the church as a “glorified” restaurant. A dining room is a room in which meals are served. Churches, in order to give some semblance of respecting Jesus, will not call their room in which meals are served a dining room! Churches call their room in which meals are served “the fellowship room” or “the fellowship hall.”

The word “fellowship” is a New Testament word, but in reference to activities of the church “fellowship” is not used once to have any meaning or implication toward food for the body. Why do churches desecrate a Bible word?

Activities for the church are “. . . the perfecting of the saints …. the work of the ministry …. the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). “The perfecting of the saints” means the church teaches and motivates her members, saints, to be mature, act like adults. This is done by using “the gospel of Christ . . . the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). Why use the gospel? The saints will then “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). “The work of the ministry” means the church relieves “the poor saints” (Rom. 15:26) in whatever county, city, state, or nation those “poor saints” might reside. The relief the church provides is based on the ability the church possesses (2 Cor. 8:1112). Saints become “poor” through events over which they have no control such as a “great dearth” (Acts 11:28). For saints to receive church benevolence, they cannot become “poor” through improper use of credit or bad money management or laziness. “The edifying of the body of Christ” means the church preaches “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). The result will be that responsible individuals will “repent, and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and . . . shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

“The church fellowship hall” or “the fellowship room” cannot be placed in either of the three divine activities: (1) “the perfecting of the saints,” (2) “the work of the ministry,” and/ or (3) “the edifying of the body bf Christ.” The conclusion is that the church dining room is not a divine activity for the church and must therefore be rejected by all churches wanting Jesus as “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22).

We ask any church wishing to justify a church dining room to provide the Scripture permitting “the church fellowship hall.” Why can “dining room churches” not learn “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17)?

“Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17) must be the guidance for the church in all of her activities. When that guidance is in the heart of the church, all of her actions or pursuits will reflect that she was “purchased with” Jesus’ “own blood” (Acts 20:28). “A church skating party”-recreation church and “dining room churches” desecrate “the church the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph. 3:10). Let the church be the church.

Truth Magazine XXII: 27, pp. 444-445
July 13, 1978

By Bobby L. Graham

The New English Bible

This product of the 1960’s was to England what the Revised Standard Version was to the United States, a vehicle for modernism. Its producers were not men of faith in the inspiration of the Bible; their product bears out their lack of faith.

The absence of italics to mark additions by the translators is one of the chief weaknesses. A host of passages become unclear as to speaker because of the missing italicized letters. This version throws the word Christian around with abandon, using the word some 32 times; the fact is that it appears only 3 times in the word of God.

Peter receives special emphasis as the rock in Matt. 16:18 through the capitalization of the word Rock. The fact is, of course, that the word did not refer to Peter at all, but to the fact of truth just confessed by Peter, as 1 Cor. 3:11 also indicates.

A serious mistake appears in Matt. 1:18, where the translators rendered “before they came together” (what the text really says) as “before their marriage”. Such inexcusable rendering provides something of a basis for the idea that Jesus was the illegitimate child of Mary and Joseph, an idea held to by many modernists.

The doctrine of justification by grace alone gets some support from this version’s wording of Rom. 3:24, where the word alone was added to the verse.

The miraculous conception of Jesus and his deity come into doubt if one accepts the mistranslations of Isa. 7:14, Luke 1:34 and the six “only-begotten” passages in the writings of John.

The role of the Holy Spirit in creation is denied in Genesis 1:2, where this version has “the wind swept.”

According to this version’s rendering of Matt. 5:17, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets. Though the word here can mean abolish, such is not the idea in this passage: Jesus was stressing his respect for the Law so that he might fulfill it. He did abolish the Law, according to Ephesians 2:15.

Acts 20:7 says Saturday night instead of the first day of the week; Mark 1:4 speaks of baptism as a token of repentance; Matt. 16:22 has “Heaven forbid” for Peter’s “Be it far from thee, Lord”; Rom. 11:26 aids premillennialism with “when the whole of Israel shall be saved” instead of showing how Israel could be saved with the word so; 1 Cor. 2:14 offers help to the idea of the miraculous work of the Spirit in conversion when it says “unsaved man can’t understand”; it has Paul stating his opinion in 1 Cor. 7:25, 40; the mystery of godliness in 1 Tim. 3:16 is “our religion”; spirit is breath in Jas. 2:26; “the language of ecstasy” appears in 1 Cor. 14:2; Paul “sponged on no one” in 2 Cor. 11:9; 1 Cor. 16:8 puts Whitsuntide, a religious festival of the Church of England, for Pentecost. 1 Cor. 5:9, 10 speaks of loose livers; and the popular (not true) saying of 1 Tim 3:1 is related to aspiring to leadership.

Such a perversion is not worthy of the name Bible.

Truth Magazine XXII: 27, p. 441
July 13, 1978