Truth Magazine

By Van A. Reaves

From time to time every congregation of the Lord’s church will need to hire a gospel preacher. Yet many congregations do not know exactly what to look for. Most, if not all, of the ones I have been familiar with place the burden of their expectations on experience. The Bible on the other hand places emphasis elsewhere.

I cannot find a single instance of a man or woman being great because of their experience, but rather because of their faith in God. Let us look at a few examples. One great deed was the destruction of Jericho (Josh. 6). Joshua did not depend on his own combat strategy, but rather on God. While David was too young to fight in the armies of Israel he slew Goliath, the gigantic champion of the Philistines (1 Sam. 17) because he had faith in God.

Many, many more are mentioned in Heb. 11. Some young, some old, some knew wealth, some poverty, some experienced, and some with no experience at all. But each and everyone of them had the essential element; faith.

We have already shown many men who had faith, but little or no experience. So now visualize a man (you may know one) with a great deal of experience but little or no faith. Brethren, we have placed emphasis in the wrong place. Faith must be our prime concern. Experience is indeed an important thing. It is not the purpose of this article to deny that fact. It is simply to emphasize the importance of the essential attribute; faith.

In the future when we are looking for a preacher, let us remember these scriptures:

“. . . this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:4).

“. . . with God all things are possible” (Mark 10:27).

“I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Phil. 4:13).

The Bible gives many examples of men who were great, but I cannot name a single one who was great because of his experience. The thing that a preacher needs most is faith. We cannot please God, no matter how experienced, nor can we do His work to His satisfaction without total dependence in Him.

Youth nor age makes or breaks a preacher. Experience nor lack of experience makes or breaks a preacher. But if a man depends on God’s help he can overcome any problem that might arise.

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 13
March 18, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

The doctrine of Universalism was once actively and aggressively advanced by those who claimed to believe the Bible. Their belief is that God will save all men regardless of their character and life. One of the Scriptures they use as a proof text is Matthew 5:44, 45, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

Universalism Argument

God urges us to love, bless, do good, and pray for the wicked. Will God turn and hate, curse, do evil, and damn those we must receive? Observe that, despite their wickedness, God does good to them in this life. Are we to understand that God will suddenly do evil to them in the end? If so, this is hypocrisy. God will eternally love them that hate Him; He will everlastingly bless them that curse Him.

Argument Answered

God’s blessings in this text are temporal, not eternal. All spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). God sends the sun and rain, temporal blessings, to the just and the unjust. To whom? To the “just” and the “unjust.” This shows there are two classes of men, which the universalist will freely grant. Morally speaking, they are considered as the “just” and “unjust.” But why so classify men and actions if there is no moral or spiritual accountability?

Even these earthly blessings are conditionally appropriated. One must act, or he will not be blessed by the sunshine and rain. “The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothing” (Prov. 13:4). “And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God” (Eccl. 3:13). What man does to reap the benefits of God’s gracious gifts in nature does not mean man has earned his food and drink. “It is the gift of God.” It is the same in the moral realm. God loves, blesses, and makes provision for the salvation of the unjust. However, he must respond to the overtures of Divine grace and mercy. If he does not do so, he will spiritually starve just as he will physically famish if he does not act when the sunshine and rain are provided.

God’s pure grace is matched by His pure righteousness and justice. Sin demands retribution. Righteousness demands reward. All men sin (Rom. 3:23). Through the blood of the cross, God forgives those who believe in Jesus. One must accept God’s free gift by faith, by obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). When one does so, he becomes a servant of righteousness, free from sin (Rom. 6:17, 18, 23). Those who neglect or ignore the blessings contained in sunshine and rain will starve-“if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). Likewise, those who refuse the generous gift of God in Christ will perish. It is not hypocrisy. Neither is it hypocrisy when God gives the sun and the rain but man refuses to sow, plow and reap. It is love unbounded which goes unaccepted. God’s eventual cursing and condemnation of the unjust is not arbitrary and capricious. He will not suddenly turn and damn certain ones any more than he will suddenly turn and starve those who will not work. Their end is the just reward of their deeds. God is not hypocritical in his nature, purposes, or actions. He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). God is not willing that any should starve, but one must work, reap and eat. God’s goodness provides sunshine and rain, but man must act or die. God’s grace gives Christ and the gospel, but man must obey or perish (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8, 9; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Proverbs 1:24-33

“Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.”

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 12-13
March 18, 1976

By Johnny Stringer

One of the papers published to promote a pseudo unity based upon compromise of truth and toleration of error is Integrity. The August, 1975, issue of that publication contains an article by Thomas Lane, entitled “The Principle Reconsidered.” The principle which Mr. Lane reconsiders is the restoration principle; this writer believes that Mr. Lane needs to reconsider his reconsideration.

Summary of Lane’s Argument

Mr. Lane avers that the restoration principle (taking the Bible alone as the rule of faith and practice) is the principle which is held by all conservative protestants. He says that it is “little more than a restatement of the historic Reformation principle of sola Scriptura,” which “has been shared by practically all conservative Protestants from the time of Luther right down to the present.” This principle, according to Mr. Lane, “is the basic tenet of religion throughout the world.” “In principle,” Mr. Lane asserts, “the Restoration plea differs in nothing from the broad modus operandi of all conservative Protestants. Adherents of the Campbell heritage and adherents of the Luther-Calvin heritage are agreed in taking the Bible as their sole rule of faith and practice.”

Thus, Lane concludes that we who accept the restoration principle to be guided solely by the Bible are really no different in principle from the protestant denominationalists, since they operate on the same principle. This being true, a fundamental unity exists between us and all conservative Protestants, so that we should regard them as brethren and have fellowship with them. According to Lane, their doctrines and practices differ from ours only because of their different interpretations of scriptures, and not because their allegiance to the scriptures is any less than ours. We are informed by Mr. Lane that our doctrines were derived from our “Restoration fathers” and that these doctrines are not easily proved from the scriptures. The protestant denominationalists, Mr. Lane tells us, are open-minded seekers of truth who have simply reached different conclusions than those reached by the restorationists; and we are united with them in our common love for truth.

Response

To say that all conservative Protestants are loyal to the concept of being guided solely by the scriptures is utterly absurd. Does Mr. Lane really believe that everything the denominationalists practice religiously is done because they found a passage of scripture which they concluded taught them to observe that practice? Think of the complex organizational arrangements that exist in denominationalism. Did these denominations organize themselves as they did as a result of diligent study of the scriptures to determine just what the scriptures taught regarding church organization? It would be interesting to see what passages they interpreted to teach such organizational arrangements! Does the protestant preacher wear his collar backwards because of a passage of scripture which he interprets to mean that he should do so? And which passage of scripture does the protestant preacher interpret to mean that he should exalt himself above his brethren by the title “Reverend?” We know there must be one, for these denominationalists are devoted to the principle of taking the Bible alone as their guide, and they surely would not practice something which they did not believe to be grounded in the Bible! We might also ask if the denominations began using the piano and organ in worship because of their discovery of a passage which they interpreted to instruct them to worship God with a mechanical instrument of music.

The fact is that while many may give lip service to the principle of adhering to the scriptures, the denominational world does not practice that principle. Some may say they believe in the principle, but in practice they reject it. Most of them, far from believing that it is necessary to be guided solely by the scriptures, will argue that we can be guided by our own opinions and do anything we please in religion as long as the Bible does not prohibit it. They organize their denominations as they please and worship as they please without regard for whether or not their practices are authorized in the scriptures. How many times we have asked them for the scriptures which authorize their practices, only to hear them reply that they do not need scriptural authorization and that “the Bible doesn’t say not to do it.” No, the protestant denominationalists are not devoted to the principle of letting the scriptures be their guide. In fact, they even deny and reject the plain teaching of some passages (Acts 2:38 for example).

In attempting to show that we should have fellowship with the denominationalists, Lane argues that we cannot be certain that we are right and they are wrong. He argues that our beliefs are simply doctrines that have been handed to us from the so-called restoration fathers, and that “it isn’t all that easy to prove that our system of doctrines is really Scriptural.” “Truly,” opines Mr. Lane, “those doctrines which we suppose to be abundantly clear in the Bible are not necessarily so.” I do wish that Mr. Lane would be more specific and name which particular doctrines he had in mind. The congregation of which I am a part practices nothing which cannot be proved from the scriptures with very little difficulty. For example, we believe in baptism for the remission of sins, and surely the Bible is abundantly clear in teaching that doctrine (Acts 2:38 and many others). We believe in congregational government, and there is no difficulty in proving that from the scriptures (Acts 14:23, 20:28, 1 Pet. 5:1-3.). We believe in singing, and most anyone could prove that to be right (Eph.5:19). Just what is the doctrine that is so difficult to prove? Name it. General statements are easy to make.

Moreover, the assertion that we accept our doctrines merely because they have been handed down to us from our “Restoration fathers” is simply not true of many faithful Christians who are diligent to study the scriptures to be certain that all of their practices and beliefs are grounded in God’s word. When Mr. Lane says that our beliefs and practices have been “handed down from our past and accepted uncritically,” he needs to stop presuming to speak for others. Perhaps he has accepted doctrines uncritically which have been handed down to him, and surely too many people have; but many of us have refused to accept and practice any teaching without examining it in the light of divine truth. I do not believe anyone can name anything the congregation of which I am a part does that is not based on scripture. We practice nothing whatever that originated with the leaders of the 19th century American Restoration Movement. One who argues otherwise is obligated to name the practice. Of course, Lane’s purpose in his allegations is to show that our doctrines are no more Bible-based than the doctrines of denominationalists are.

Conclusion

Brethren, we must not be deceived by those who would have us believe that there is no fundamental distinction between the protestant denominationalists and those of us who are devoted to the principle of following the Bible alone. We must not be misled into thinking that their doctrines and practices are as likely to be in harmony with scripture as ours are. In reality, the denominational world has rejected the Bible as a religious guide, as is obvious from their many doctrines and practices which either are not found in scripture or are in contradiction of plain scriptural teachings. We must continue to expose their errors, reprove them, rebuke them, and plead with them to look to the Bible alone (2 Tim. 4:2, Tit. 1:13, Eph. 5:11, Jude 3, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 11-12
March 18, 1976

By Royce Chandler

Just as the local work seems to be getting off to a good start and the future harvest appears promising, the preacher calls together the elders and informs them of his intention to move. After all the time spent in searching for a replacement and the money spent in moving him, it still takes, usually, at least a year or more for the church and the new preacher to adjust to each other, and for things to level out to where they were (if, indeed, such is possible) before the former preacher resigned.

The new man must start from scratch to win the confidence and respect of the local saints; programs begun by the former preacher are discontinued, often in midstream; contacts made by him are forgotten; fruit that was almost ready to show itself will not be harvested, for that accumulative influence which the former preacher would have exerted during the next several months is aborted, and the hidden sprouts of faith in sinners’ hearts, which with only a little more work and support would surely blossom forth into obedience, silently die. Those indifferent saints just being inspired to interest and zeal by the example and influence of the preacher are suddenly deprived of that motivating personality and, having not yet developed the independence to stand on their own devotion, lose that surge of growth as the “prop” moves to another local church.

With the new preacher comes a new stress in the local program; while the former stressed local edification through improved classes, special series of instruction, training sessions, etc., the new emphasis is placed on those areas which especially suit the new man. Thus, the entire local program often takes a good amount of time to readjust, and much damage has been done in the vineyard by churches having to readjust far too often.

How many are the elders who have not had to wrestle this problem? How many have not often asked, in frustration, “What can we do to keep this man?” “Why do preachers so often just get things going smoothly, and then leave?”

This article is not inclusive to the point of exploring the faults of preachers in upsetting local works by foolish, selfish and ill-considered decisions to move; we desire only, for the present, to offer some ideas on how to prevent such moves. In keeping with this one-sided theme, then, let us suggest that local elderships could prevent many preachers from moving by giving due regard to this statement: “. . . for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8); i.e., they are more mindful, more prudent concerning the matters of everyday life.

Can we not learn from the sons of the world? How do successful businesses prevent within their ranks this same upheaval, which surely would destroy them? Are we to refuse to learn all we can from what practical wisdom the world so prudently employs? To do so is an evident sign of folly. How, then, do successful businesses retain their most qualified men for many years of service with little fear of their leaving in favor of another company? It there is a general statement to explain it, perhaps it is this: the sons of men have learned that when a man is made to be happy in his work, and when this happiness and his productive efforts are reinforced with positive rewards from those around him, there is little motivation for leaving. This one small bit of secular prudence could often enable an eldership to retain a hard-working, productive preacher for many years, resulting in an abundant harvest that can hardly be matched by churches which regularly must be searching for new preachers.

Acts of Kindness

In one sentence, elders could frequently secure a continued and fruitful work simply by showing genuine consideration to the preacher with whom they work.

As this article must be brief, let us now suggest some simple acts of kindness-of consideration-that would greatly aid a preacher in his work and would in most cases disarm the ever-present temptation to leave. This list of suggestions is necessarily brief, and should be used as a springboard to other suggestions.

1. Do not ask a preacher to leave unless there is a strong and pressing reason for such. Giving in to the baseless idea that a preacher should move every four or five years promotes an atmosphere of insecurity and futility, to say nothing of the unsettling effect it has on his wife and children. Knowing that they might be told to move at any time does nothing to give a preacher’s family a sense of belonging and of security. Children do not need to be shuffled around, always having to leave friends and to change schools, sometimes at a moment’s notice. Would you want your family to be treated that way? The emotional impact can sometimes be devastating on both the preacher and his family. Be considerate; be fair.

2. Realize that a good preacher is just really getting started after his first two or three years. Give him the support and the security he needs to spend several more years building on the foundation of the first few. This is a major key to local growth.

3. Periodically, tell both the preacher and the brethren how much you appreciate his work. Every man needs to know that his work is beneficial, and the brethren need to know that the elders are well aware of what work is being done, and that they are solidly behind it. Encouragement breeds more diligence.

4. Send your preacher to “training” or study situations which will help him to grow. Maintain his support and pay his expenses to go study; this is for his benefit; but mainly for that of the church, as he can return to teach those things which he learned. Especially would this sort of work be good for young preachers, who have not yet had the time to study, in detail, certain subjects. If business organizations recognize the great benefit of such programs to their employees and leaders, why cannot we use a little of that same wisdom?,

5. Look for things to do to encourage him and to make things comfortable for him and his family. Don’t make him ask for every little thing that needs doing to the house, if the church owns it; be considerate enough to purposely notice things that could improve his situation. Provide him with study space and efficient equipment, such as a typewriter, an overhead projector, etc., to be used in his work.

6. Show some initiative in the local work. Many times there will be no organized program of work unless the preacher thinks it up, organizes it, and drives everyone into helping with it. This is shameful. The elders ought to constantly be thinking of ways to improve and to expand the local work; let the elders shoulder the task of providing new and better methods, concentrated studies, etc., instead of just sitting around until the preacher comes up with another “hot idea.” If the church’s program of work moves away with the former preacher, the brethren see a distinct picture of figureheads, not of true elders. And, they also may see the reason why they cannot keep a preacher-at least, not a good one.

7. Why not give your preacher a set amount of money year specifically for books. There is nothing more valuable to a preacher’s work than a good library. Good books are expensive, and most preachers have enough to pay for without having to sacrifice unduly to purchase the best study aids. Since the books are used primarily to benefit the brethren in the classes and sermons, why cannot churches give $100-$200 each year, unrelated to his regular support, for providing your preacher with what he needs. The benefits will far outweigh the cost.

8. Provide, automatically, a cost of living adjustment every six months. Inflation hits a preacher, too. Any man worth keeping is worth showing this consideration. He has no union to bargain for him, so the brethren must take the initiative. Is it “Christian” to let the world be fairer to its own than brethren are to the local preacher? This should be completely unrelated to any raise that might be given.

9. Do not make the preacher beg. How many businesses retain employees by going on and on, offering no raise until the employee finally comes in and asks for it? Consideration and fair play ought to eliminate this problem. If the world can recognize the need to increase productive workers’ salaries on a regular basis, why can elders not profit from this understanding? Is it so hard to go to the preacher, sit down with him, and open-mindedly discuss his increased financial needs on a regular yearly basis? Do you treat the preacher any less considerately than your company treats you? It is hard to leave a church where the preacher knows for a fact that the elders are constantly thinking of him, are aware of his needs and are willing to be fair with him.

10. Understanding that preachers have no fringe benefits like most workers have, recognize that an inflation adjustment is not a -raise. If a man receives only enough increase to meet inflation, he simply treads water at the same buying power he had when he first moved among you. If a man is worth keeping, he is worth an increase in his support on a regular, fair basis. If he is not worth that consideration, he should be asked to leave. And surely all would recognize that when a new child is born in his family, it takes more to support that family than it did before. Be considerate; be fair.

These suggestions are offered in a meek and humble spirit; it is hoped that they will be considered in the same spirit. They are, admittedly, one-sided; perhaps some good elder would help us preachers by offering a list of suggestions from the other perspective.

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 9-10
March 18, 1976