Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

In this, my final article in the series under the above heading, I propose to point out that handling aright the word of truth requires that we

Respect The Silence of the Bible

The gospel system of redemption is the great theme of the Bible. Existing in promise in the partriarchal age (Gen. 3:15; 12:3), and in prophecy during the Mosaic age (1 Peter 1:10, ,11), it reached perfection in Christ (Eph. 1:10). Concerning the great salvation, the writer of Hebrews said: “. . . which having at the first been spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard” (Heb. 2:3). The allusion to “them that heard” refers to the apostles and other inspired men through whom the New Testament revelation was given.

Revelation having reached its culmination in “. those things which now been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel .unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven . . . .” (1 Peter 1:12), it follows that no new truth has been revealed since the death of the last inspired writer. While there have been various claims of modern day revelations, all such are proved false when weighed in the light of Jude 3, where the writer tells us that “the faith was once for all delivered to the saints.” We, know the force of the expression, “once for all.” It means, for all time.

From the foregoing observations we conclude that whatever the New Testament revealed in the first century is all that it reveals now. What therefore it authorized then in the matter of the work and worship of the church is all that it authorizes now. What it left out of the work and worship of the church then, is excluded now, and for the same reason. For if God did not want it then, He does not want it now.

The Attitude Of The Reformers

While the reformers of the sixteenth century dealt the “man of sin” (2 Thess. 2:3) a devastating blow, from which he never fully recovered and did much toward removing the theological rubbish that had accumulated during the dark ages, it is now obvious that few of them had a clear conception of the boundaries of scriptural authority.

It was a difference in attitudes toward authority that led to a parting of the ways between Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, the great Swiss reformer. Luther’s attitude toward scriptural authority for a practice may be paraphrased in these words: “We may practice in religion, anything that is not specifically forbidden.” On the other hand, Zwingli’s attitude was: “We may practice only that which is specifically authorized.” Unfortunately Luther’s influence overshadowed that of Zwingli, with the result that Luther’s concept gained wider acceptance, and to a greater or lesser degree influences Protestantism today.

The Restoration Movement And Its Slogan

When the Campbells, Thomas and his son Alexander, with Barton W. Stone and others appeared upon the scene early in the nineteenth century, they found a sadly divided religious world of denominations subscribing to differing creeds, and ruled by different forms of government; and those denominations, in turn, divided into a number of branches. They recognized that this was a far call from the unity for which Christ prayed (John 17:20, 21) and the plea of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 1:10). Thus they began an appeal for a return to the ancient order as taught by the apostles of Christ and practiced by the disciples of the first century. Their observations led them to conclude that much of the cause of division was not over what the Bible teaches but over matters concerning which the Bible is silent. It was under those circumstances that Thomas Campbell delivered the famous Declaration and Address, in the course of which he announced what has come to be known as the slogan of the restoration movement.

A slogan is a concise, yet comprehensive, statement of the aims or purposes of an organization, or movement. The statement of Mr. Campbell that reveals the aim of the restoration movement is this: “We will speak where the Bible speaks. We will be silent where the Bible is silent.”

Since the inception of this slogan, much has been said and written about it, as to its implications, and how literally its author intended for it to be construed and applied. Some who claim to be a part of the restoration movement have adopted a silence-gives-consent attitude and see no inconsistency in their use of instrumental music in worship, even though the New Testament is silent about it. Their position is that it is permissible since the Bible does not forbid it. Others have carried the matter further and maintain that the silence of the New Testament on instrumental music in the worship forbids any voice being raised in opposition to it.

It is obvious that even Campbell himself did not immediately realize the implications of the slogan, nor where it would lead him. But, step by step, as he came to see that some of the things which he practiced were things concerning which the Bible is silent, he abandoned them. One of these was infant baptism. Thus, it is obvious that Campbell construed the slogan to mean that we are at liberty to practice only what the scriptures authorize by command, approved example, or necessary inference.

Some have objected to the use of the word, slogan, on the ground of “worldly” connotations. While it is true that slogans are often used to express worldly aims, I see no objection to using the word as expressive of a worthy aim, as is the aim of those who seek to return to the Christianity of the first century. I do suggest that for a slogan to have validity as the statement of aim of religious movement should meet some well defined criterion.

(1) It must be expressive of something that can be shown to be necessary.

(2) It must express that which is feasible-capable of being translated into practice.

(3) It must express a concept that can be shown to be unquestionably scriptural.

In the remainder of this article I shall point out that the concept of respect for the silence of the Bible is in harmony with the proposed standard.

It Is Necessary

The necessity of respect for the silence of the Bible becomes evident when we view the chaotic conditions that would accrue from a disregard for its silence. It has been a stock argument of gospel preachers, when discussing the subject of instrumental music in worship, to point out that if the instrument can be introduced because it is not forbidden, then, of course, the burning of incense could be introduced for the same reason. And that is not the end. For once the floodgate is open there is practically no limit to what can be introduced. On that basis, who could object to infant baptism, or apple pie and coffee on the Lord’s table? And of those of our brethren who have introduced benevolent societies built and supported by the church, and sponsoring churches, we ask: What objection can you have to the missionary society, seeing that it is found on the same blank page of the New Testament as those institutions you favor? The conclusion is irresistible. It is necessary that we respect the silence of the Bible. Otherwise religious chaos is the result.

It Is Feasible

The concept of respect for the silence of the Bible is feasible in that it harmonizes with well established rules that govern human behaviour. Observe the following examples:

(1) Highway traffic is controlled by our traffic laws, and our highways are marked by various signs. On some signs the maximum allowable speed is posted. If the sign allows for a speed of sixty miles per hour, we realize that its “silence” regarding a speed of seventy-five miles an hour is sufficient to constitute a prohibition. Some signs are directional in their purpose and point to a destination. But along that highway there may be many intersecting roads. Yet no one would leave the highway to travel some sideroad just because there was no sign forbidding it.

(2) We accept a prescription from a doctor. In that prescription the doctor “speaks” concerning the medicine he wants you to take. There are hundreds of other medicines concerning which the doctor is “silent” as far as that prescription is concerned. We recognize that silence as being prohibitive of any other medicine except that which he prescribed. Who of us would allow the dispensing drugist to give us a substitute on the ground that the doctor did not forbid it? Thus the concept of respect for the silence of the Bible is one that is practicible since it follows a well recognized pattern of human behavior.

It Is Scriptural

What is most important of all is the fact that the concept of respect for the silence of the Bible is scriptural. It is something that God has required in all ages:. This is evident from the following observations:

(1) Three times in the Bible, God has prohibited any addition to His word (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18, 19).

(2) Early in the history of Israel, the nation was taught a startling lesson regarding God’s attitude toward any invasion of the area of his silence. Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, were struck dead as they prepared to offer incense. Their offense was not the doing of something that God had prohibited, but in that they “offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1).

(3) The writer of Hebrews, in the seventh chapter, recognized the prohibitive character of scripture silence. In verse 12, he pointed out that the fact of Christ’s having been made a high priest necessitated a change of law. In verse 14, he tells why: “For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.” The law had spoken with regard to the priesthood of the Old Testament, and specifically required that the priests be chosen from the tribe of Levi (Num. 3:5-10). Concerning priests from any other tribe, however, the law was silent, and the writer of Hebrews recognized that silence as prohibiting Christ from being a priest without a change of the law.

(4) The apostle Peter said: “If any man speaketh, speaking as it were the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). To speak as the oracles of God will require that we cease speaking-be silent-when the Bible ceases to speak.

(5) As Christians we walk by faith. (2 Cor. 5:7). That faith comes by hearing the word of Christ. (Rom. 10:17). Where the Bible is silent there can be no faith, since obviously one cannot believe what he does not hear.

(6) Paul warned the Corinthians “not to go beyond the things that are written” (1 Cor. 4:6). The apostle John said: “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God . . . .” (2 John 9). To abide not in the doctrine of Christ and to go beyond that which is written is to launch out into the area of that concerning which God has been silent. Concerning such, John said that they have not Christ, and warned his readers to have no fellowship with them (2 John 10, 11).

Conclusion

This ends our series which is, perhaps, much too long. I trust, however, that it has furnished us with a fresh approach to an old and much discussed subject.

Truth Magazine XXII: 10, p. 165-167
March 9, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

From the very beginning God ordained that the husband should be the head of the house and, in that position, he should exercise responsibility in guiding the entire family. His duty in such does not include harsh, dictatorial rule but it does include diligent dedication to the tasks of oversight. Even Paul admonished, “Fathers provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Thus Paul established three principles of fatherhood:

1. Generally it is the father, not the mother, who should shoulder the responsibilities of oversight. Fathers are to set the course of action for the whole family. They are to chart the direction of family behavior. Fathers cannot please God if they relinquish their rights nor if they try to shift their obligations. Neither mothers, school teachers, preachers nor any others can replace the father as custodian of family life.

2. But fathers are to direct their families with discretion and wisdom, lest they be provoked to wrath. Decisions must be studied and wise, fair and just. The father’s conduct and character must be such that he deserves respect and that his word is honored in the family circle. With kindness and humility, yet with resolution and firmness he must exercise patient, loving leadership in the home that will inspire the children to follow and to obey without rebellion or malice.

3. The nurturing that children must receive is to be provided by the father-that is, he must conduct the family affairs in such a manner that the total impact of family life will be spiritually beneficial. Everything that relates to the development of the child is included in “nurturing,” and the emphasis is to be “in the Lord,” that is in learning, appreciating and applying the will of God. Over and above his duty as a provider for the physical necessities of the family, the father is to be the provider of spiritual nourishment and exercise.

Heb. 12:8, 9 (“We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence”) suggests proper action for the father and at the same time proper response by the children. But the “reverence” or respect that is suggested must be earned by the father through the integrity, honesty, justice and consistency of the correction he administers. And perhaps most failures in this regard are not from lack of ability but from lack of devotion to the duties of fatherhood.

Edgar A. Guest said, “There are fathers who are busy and so weighted down with cares, That they haven’t time to listen to a little child’s affairs.” Indeed, undoubtedly the greatest weakness of modern fatherhood is the unwillingness to look upon the responsibilities with sufficient seriousness and devotion. Parental neglect must rank as the blight of our society today, the greatest cause of delinquency, the source of rebellion and the cause of failure in the family circle. Fathers curse the times in which we live, blame the government, accuse the school system and look everywhere for an alibi for failure, yet, the cause of their parental failures lies in their own hearts, their own lives, and their own conduct.

We do not know what kind of life Enoch lived before he became a father, but afterward the Bible tells us “And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah. . . ” (Gen. 5:22). Joshua demonstrated the proper attitude and the determination to lead his family when he said to the people, “Choose you this day whom you will serve . . . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). Likewise, Cornelius “. . . feared God with all his house” (Acts 10:2), showing that his duties as a Roman officer did not prevent fulfillment of his responsibility to his family.

The purpose of this chapter is not to try to list all the big and little things that are involved in proper fatherhood, nor to spell out every detail of specific obligations, for these vary from one family to another and even from one child to another, and none of us knows all the answers. But the purpose of this chapter is to try to get fathers to realize their God-given obligations. I believe such men will then be fully capable of discharging their duties-if they can just be challenged – to devote themselves to the task. Fathers who really want to guide, lead and nurture their children will find the right way! Sincerity of purpose is much more important than a familiarity with all the books men may write on the subject of parenthood.

As we look to the future of our country and especially to the future of the Lord’s church, we must look to the parents-not to the children as so many would have us believe. Indeed,

“The lambs will follow the sheep, you know,

Wherever the sheep may stray,

When the sheep go wrong, it will not be long,

Till the lambs are as wrong as they.

“And so for the sheep we earnestly plead,

For the sake of the lambs, today,

If the sheep are lost, what a terrible cost,

The lambs will have to pay” (Anonymous).

Say not, my friend, that our children hold the future in their hands. Rather let us acknowledge that we, the parents, do indeed hold in our hands the earthly and eternal destinies of our children. If they (the children) are the men and women of tomorrow, we (the parents) are determining what those men and women will be. Next: “Mother: The Heart of the Family.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 10, p. 162
March 9, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

“In years past when I thought of those departing from the faith I thought in terms of denominations, cults, and various religions. Today as I write my heart becomes almost unbearably heavy to hear of my own preacher brethren who have departed from what I know they have been taught and what they once wholeheartedly accepted as their faith. I am told of some who have begun preaching for the Methodists, others have turned charismatic and are influencing others to doubt their faith, some have fallen by the way-side having renounced their call. They have gone back into the secular world. In some cases these have dropped to low moral standards in their living.

“I am reminded of the scripture 1 Timothy 4. In this chapter Paul, by the Spirit of God, warns, `That in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.’

“Paul also instructed Timothy: `If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou has attained.’

“This teaches us that Satan has always been at the business of disturbing the faith of good men. Timothy had the responsibility of reminding men of the solemn truth of the danger of departing from the faith. Satan is still at work. He attacks men who have great potential in the Lord’s service.

“I therefore beg men who on the verge of changing their faith or have already made some commitments, to reconsider and re-study these matters. Please be warned of Satan’s methods. `For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places Jesus is.'”

Who Said That?

Sounds like a gospel preacher, does it not? Actually, the. above article was taken from the November 25, 1977, issue of the Missionary Baptist Searchlight, which “is owned by the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock, Arkansas.” The article was written by the editor of that paper, L. D. Capell. Why the emphasis on who said it? Well, Mr. Capell is a Landmark Missionary Baptist. As such, he believes that it is impossible for a child of God to so sin as to be eternally lost in hell. With that in mind, consider the import of his words.

Consequences And Conclusions

Mr. Capell paints a realistic picture. He doubtless knows of some who have left their Baptist faith and are now preaching Methodism and Pentecostalism. He knows of those who “have dropped to low moral standards in their living.” He says they “have fallen by the way-side.” A question for Mr. Capell, “Are these brethren of yours who have `departed’ still in a saved condition?” Further, “Should they die in their present conditon, would they be saved in heaven?”

Editor Capell cannot argue that they have never been saved, that they never have been truly “born again.” Why not? Because he stated in the article that he knew some of his preacher brethren who have departed from “what I know they have been taught and what they once whole-heartedly accepted as their faith.” He says they have departed from that which “they once wholeheartedly accepted.” Surely, those who “wholeheartedly accepted” were saved. Baptists have always contended that the Ethiopian eunuch was saved before baptism because he believed with all his heart that Jesus was the Son of God. So, these Baptist preachers were saved according to their view. Now, in their present state, will they be saved? The “once saved, always saved” doctrine of the Baptists says they will be. A man can depart from the faith and live in “low moral standards” -and still be saved, according to Baptist doctrine.

But what of those whom these “departed” Baptist preachers have baptized? According to Missionary Baptists, one’s baptism must be duly approved by a Missionary Baptist Church. If these Baptist preachers were never truly saved, what of the baptism of those whom they baptized? Again, though, these men- were saved as per Baptist doctrine. Else why would Mr. Capell have had an “almost unbearably heavy” heart? If they were not children of God in his view, he would have been glad to have them exposed as wolves in sheep’s clothing. However, he was saddened because he knew that these men of whom he wrote had “wholeheartedly accepted” what he believes. Now, will they be saved should they die in their present condition?

These questions require an answer. They are asked so that honest hearts may consider the consequences of their doctrine. Yes, the “danger of departing from the faith” is a “solemn truth.” But where is the danger if a man can do it and still be saved? “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, p. 157
March 2, 1978

By Dick Blackford

It is growing more apparent that women and children outnumber fathers and/or husbands at any given worship service. In many congregations men are a small minority, though there is a sizable number. of “Sunday morning widows” and “Sunday morning orphans” who continue to come-for awhile. Most of the articles we see relating to the home deal with the woman’s role and responsibility. Many congregations have a special class known as “Ladies Bible Class” where the women come together and discuss their roles as wives and mothers. How many congregations have a “Men’s Bible Class” where they can study their responsibilities as husbands and fathers? It just may be that we have been aiming at the wrong target! What is the cause of this situation? There are several possibilities.

The “Male Ego”

Face it men, sometimes our egos are prone to exaggerate. (Surely, by blaming the male ego, we will not have to accept personal responsibility!) But what is egotism? The worst thing that can be said about the “ego” is simply to give Webster’s definition of it. It is “the tendency to be self-centered, or to consider only oneself and one’s own interests; selfishness; conceit” (Webster’s New World Dictionary, p. 463). Couple that with the aspect of being a male, and you really have a combination. Some men are terrified that the slightest admission that “we are not totally self-sufficient for all human needs” may be interpreted as a sign of weakness. These men do not need the church because they have their own religion-they have made “gods” of themselves! Everything centers around them and is done to further their personal satisfaction. To them, church is for sissies and weaklings. They have an aversion to those things in which women often excel. While opposing the women’s lib movement, we must not take a position that is equally repulsive. Probably the worst case of male egotism was that of Abimelech. When a woman hit him on the head with a stone, he ordered his armor bearer to kill him lest it be said to his shame that `a woman slew him” (Judg. 9:50-54).

I have known men both in and out of the church and I have never had a problem determining which was the weakling. It does not require a genius to observe which one is following the course of least resistance. Having been on “both sides,” I can speak from experience. Our conceit becomes deceit. Our egos play tricks on us. While feigning superiority (“church is for weaklings”), we become quite inferior. “Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him” (Prov. 26:12). Down with male egotism!

Worldly Men

Where have all the husbands gone? Many a husband has gone fishing, hunting, or golfing when he should have been with his family in service unto God. Others have gone to mow the grass or work on the car. Still others have gone back to bed to read the newspaper, watch TV, or sleep. Some husbands are just too “easy going” (lazy?) on Sunday morning. It may be that he stayed out too late on Saturday night because he did not have the guts to refuse the temptations placed before him by his cronies. He could not stand being called “chicken” or “sissy.” It could be that he was deceived by his tough talking buddies, not knowing that it was mostly “talk” to keep up a good front to cover their complex. These things have a strong hold on some men and deceive them into thinking they are masters when they are really slaves (Rom. 6:16; 12:2; 1 Jn. 2:15f). A man cannot long hold the respect of his family when he thinks mostly of himself.

Men as Failures

Some men simply shirk their male responsibilities. They love neither their wives or children enough to be what they ought to be. They fail to see that providing physical necessities does not fulfill their responsibilities (1 Tim. 5:8). Being head of the family means that “he who would control another must first learn to control himself.” He is to be more than a biological father. The responsibilities for moral and spiritual training are placed squarely on his shoulders (Eph. 6:4). And the father who will not measure up is still two-thirds worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8). Consider this brief article titled “Dad Makes The Family Go.”

A study of nearly 1,000 individuals done by two University of Southern California professors has revealed the somewhat startling fact that children’s practice of religion is more shaped by their fathers.

Are you ready for that, Dad? Put down your beer can. Shut off the TV. Try to stay awake next Sunday in church. Watch your language. Quit using God’s name only in vain.

Alan C. Acock and Vern L. Bengston, sociologists, said that one could best predict the religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of young people by determining those of the mother, but their actual religious practice was more likely to be a reflection of the father. Statistically speaking, only 4.4 % . of parents who never attend church have children who attend regularly, and of those parents who attend regularly themselves, only 23.8 % have children who attend less often.

No wonder God addresses religious admonitions in His Word to fathers! “And fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

HERE’S GOOD NEWS! The Bible Is also full of good instruction on fathering. Most males can father children, but the man who knows God and His Book is a real father. He takes his cues from the Father of us all. Get to know your Father who in heaven-personally (Good News, Vol. 20, No. 3).

What Men Need To Know

About their souls. Males have souls that can be eternally lost. “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mt. 16:26). Is it a sign of bravery to have no fear of hell? No, there are other words that would better describe such an attitude. Both fathers and mothers should fear hell (Mt. 10:28).

About the church. The church is the realm to which Jesus adds the saved (Eph. 5:25; 1:22, 23; Acts 2:47). He is the head of the church. If you are not in the church, then Christ is not your head and you have not been saved from your sins (Acts 2:38). Being a faithful member of the body of Christ involves assembling regularly to worship your Creator (Heb. 10:25).

About their responsibilities. Men may have to answer for others besides themselves. If we go to hell, we probably will not go alone. Our loved ones may go with us. Your child will follow your example much better than he will follow your advice. “But whoso shall cause one of these little ones to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling!. . .but woe unto that man through whom the occasion cometh!” (Mt. 18:6, 7). For the corruption, moral and spiritual pollution, and the juvenile delinquency of our day, men must accept most of the blame because they have not had the back bone to stand up in their homes, their communities, and in the church. When men fulfill their responsibilities, things will be peaceful, stable, and orderly.

About what to do. Men who are plagued with the “male ego” problem can change. Men who live worldly lives can change. Men who have been failures can change. The Lord !-is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). We need MEN, not men, in these perilous times. Sadly, many of them will continue on their present course. Woe to the men of this generation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 155-156
March 2, 1978