Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

Preaching is important. It helps make us what we are. If we feed upon weak preaching, we will be weak. If we feed upon strong preaching, our lives will correspond to that. If the preaching is out of balance, we can become out of balance as well.

Let’s consider a few points about the preaching that preachers must do and Christians must demand. Why do we need to take note of what Christians demand? It is just as important for Christians to desire the right preaching as it is for preachers to preach it. The kind of preaching that a person wants is what he will find (2 Tim. 4:3). The type preaching that we encourage is the type we want to hear. What we criticize, is what we do not care to hear. While the Christians within a local congregation may not determine what a particular man preaches, they do decide what is preached in their pulpit by the selection of meeting preachers as well as a local man.

Sound Preaching

Preachers must be sound in their preaching. Christians must demand that preachers proclaim sound doctrine.

1. We are commanded to preach sound doctrine. Paul instructed Timothy to “hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me” (2 Tim. 1:13). Titus was told to “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1; cf. 1:9; 2:8).

2. What is sound preaching? The word “sound” means “whole or healthy as in being sound in health” (cf. Vine 4:55). Thus, sound preaching is that which is spiritually healthy and wholesome. Paul equates “sound doctrine” with the “gospel” (1 Tim. 1:10-11). Thus, sound preaching is according to the gospel. The book of Titus which focuses on soundness (1:9, 13; 2:1, 2, 8), begins with the basis and standard for soundness: the revelation of God (Titus 1:1-4). Thus, sound doctrine is that which is according to the revelation of God.

3. What does sound doctrine include? It includes any and all that is in the gospel or revelation of God. From the book of Titus we see that it includes such subjects as God’s nature (1:2), eternal life (1:2; 2:23; 3:7), the grace of God (1:3; 2:11-12; 3:4-7), elder’s work and qualifications (1:5-9), refutation of false teaching (1:10-16), personal godliness (2:1-10), home relationships and responsibilities (2:4-5), our speech (2:8), our example (2:7), the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (2:13-14), obedience to civil law (3:1), how to treat others (3:2-8), baptism (3:5), the work of the Holy Spirit (3:5) and dealing with a heretic (3:10).

Elements of Bible Preaching

There are a few things that will be true if a man is giving Bible preaching. This obviously is not an exhaustive list.

1. Preaches the word of God. The faithful man of God must not preach his opinions or his own thinking, but “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Paul said his message was the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).

It is easy for preachers to think that their words of wisdom and their own strong opinions should be received by their hearers with the same open ears that the gospel is. I have heard a few sermons that gave very little Bible reference. Bible preaching is just that: preaching the Bible!

2. Points to God. Our preaching should point to God as source of all creation (Acts 17:24) and the authority of our lives (Acts 17:30-31). We must point to God as the object of our faith and trust. Paul preached so that his hearer’s faith would not stand in the “wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:2-3). Gospel preaching is not designed to please men, but God (1 mess. 2:4-6).

A sound preacher will convert men to God and not to himself. If his preaching causes men to have more faith in him (the preacher) than in God, it will take very little to destroy that kind of faith.

3. Refutes error. Timothy was charged to “Preach the word. . . convince, rebuke, and exhort…” (2 Tim. 4:2). Titus was to instruct elders to stop the mouths of false teachers and rebuke them sharply (Titus 1:9-13). Bible preaching defends the gospel (Phil. 1:17), at times militantly (Act:17:6). A casual reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Lord and his apostles dealt with the errors of the day (both in and out of the church) and answered the arguments of the false teachers.

4. Reproves sin. Proclaiming the word leaves no room to tolerate sin. Thus, the preacher must reprove (2 Tim. 4:2). Worldliness must be clearly denounced (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19- 21; 1 Pet. 4:3).

5. Leads men to salvation. Preaching must tell men about God’s grace, the sacrifice of Christ and redemption available through his blood (Eph. 2:5, 8, 13, 16). Further-more, it must tell men what to do to obtain salvation by the blood of Christ (Acts 2:22, 36, 38).

6. Instructs in right living. The inspired word instructs in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). Being taught right living is a part of going “on to perfection” (Heb. 6:1) or maturing in the Lord. God’s people must learn about the home, marriage, prayer, worship, personal godliness, honesty and attitudes.

7. Distinctive. Bible preaching will distinguish truth and error. Likewise it must differentiate the Lord’s church and denominationalism.

Preaching (over a period of time, not one sermon) that could be presented in any denomination without objection isn’t Bible preaching. The sermons in Acts 2, 3 ,4, 8 were distinctive enough for men to see that they (though they were religious) needed to change!

8. Demands results. The message that gets results will first demand results. The preaching of Peter and Paul called for repentance (Acts 2:37, 38; 17:30-31). A change of heart and life was demanded.

Application must be made to the people. Peter directed his charges of killing the Son of God to the Jews present on Pentecost. He said “you” have crucified him (Acts 2:21-22). John did the same with Herod (Mark 6:14).

9. With the right attitude. Paul described his behavior among the Thessalonians saying, “But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us” (1 Thess. 2:7-8).

It is possible for a man to preach the truth and yet do so with an attitude that stinks. His disposition hinders the effect of the gospel. He can take a firm stand and do so with humility. He can rebuke sharply and yet do so with kindness. He can inform and instruct without a know-it-all attitude.

A woman complained to the elders about a sermon on hell. They asked, “Don’t you believe in hell?” “Yes,” she replied. “Don’t you think the preacher should preach on hell?” “Of course,” she said, “But he doesn’t have to sound like he’s glad I’m going there.”

Balanced Preaching

1.There must be balance in our preaching. The whole counsel of God must be taught (Acts 20:27). Paul told Timothy to reprove, rebuke and exhort (2 Tim. 4:2). To fail in any one area will leave our preaching out of balance. Not only must preachers be balanced in what they teach, but churches must also be balanced in the preaching that they demand.

2.It is possible to have an imbalance in either direction. While none among us likes to think that he is not balanced, we all must recognize that it could easily hap-pen.

There are some whose preaching gives a greater emphasis to the “positive” things of the gospel. It isn’t really fair to say their preaching is “all positive,” for everyone who preaches will preach on something “negative” (at least once in a while). What these preachers teach may be true. The problem with this preaching is that it seldom deals with sin, worldliness or the errors of men. That kind of preaching is out of balance for it doesn’t preach the whole counsel of God. The results are that men are left weak and soft and are prepared for a more liberal way of thinking.

On the other hand, there are some whose preaching gives a greater emphasis to the “negative” things of the gospel or “doctrinal” matters. Again, it is unfair to say that their preaching is “all negative” for all of us preach on some things considered “positive.” But, in this preaching, most of the sermons deal with sin, error or some type of rebuke. I have been told before that if every sermon doesn’t step on someone’s toes the preacher is not doing his job. Some may feel that if the preacher is not “blistering britches” every time he mounts the pulpit, he’s getting soft.

Now, brethren, that kind of preaching fails to preach the whole counsel of God and is just as out of balance as the former! I just don’t believe that every time I’m in the pulpit that I have to be giving the brethren (or our denominational friends) a good spanking. Yes, we must deal .with sin, controversy, problems, error, false teachers, etc. The “uncertain sounds” we are hearing among some of our brethren on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, fellowship, the church and the kingdom, the role of women, and the importance of the church coupled with the worldliness that we see suggests that we must sound a warning  loud and clear. If not, we are not preaching the whole counsel.

Likewise we must exhort and encourage (2 Tim. 4:2; Heb. 10:24; 6:9; 3:13). There are some subjects that must be dealt with like the nature of God, evidence of the resurrection, qualification of elders, the need for optimism and enthusiasm (in view of the pessimism of the day), the promises of God, how to treat one another and family relationships. If we do not, we are not preaching the whole counsel of God.

Some sermons will simply instruct. They may not have one word of rebuke. Other sermons will encourage while others may contain reproof and rebuke.

When the major thrust of our preaching is what we have just described it results in: (I) people being discouraged and feeling like no one can possibly live right, (2) reproof and rebuke losing its effect. (It’s like giving children a lot of rebuke with little encouragement when they do right. After a while the rebuke loses its effect since they hear rebuke when they do wrong and they hear rebuke when they do right.) and (3) breeding “positive preaching.” How you ask? By imbalance and overdose. People soon tire of it and look for something with a little encouragement.

3. How do we maintain balance in our preaching? By preaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). If we try, we can maintain balance.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 23-24
April 20, 1995

By Stan Cox

Christians have long objected to the demands for union and tolerance among the denominations. We have rightly pointed out that sincerity is simply not sufficient in deter-mining acceptance before the Almighty. The claim that as long as a person is sincere in his worship, he is accepted by God does not jibe with what is revealed in his will. Notice Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! ‘ This text clearly indicates that acceptance by God is dependent upon obedience to him. He is accepted who, “does the will of my Father in heaven.”

Other verses teach the same exact thing. Notice 2 John, verse 9, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” John is stating that acceptance by God is contingent upon fidelity to his revelation.

We may notice that God expects us to mark and avoid those with whom he has no fellowship. Following the declaration of John noted above, he further states in verses 10 and 11, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.”

It is alarming that some brethren are now espousing the fellowship of those who teach certain false doctrines, or engage in certain sinful practices. Such clearly is in conflict with the principles we enumerated. However, some believe that they have found a “loophole” in the fourteenth chapter of Romans. The contention is that the principles outlined in that chapter, in which we are to “receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things” (v. 1), should govern our treatment of conscientious brethren who teach false doctrine.

Some assert that the esteeming of “one day above another” as addressed by Paul in verse 5 constitutes unauthorized worship, and therefore, sin. The claim is that the action violates the principle set forth in Galatians 4:10-11. However, the Scriptures reveal that under certain circumstances, this approving of one day above another is acceptable before God (cf. Col. 2:16-17; Acts 21:15-36). The context of Romans 14 indicates that both of the scenarios (eating of meat and esteeming of one day above another) are matters of no consequence to God. To claim that esteeming one day above another as discussed in the text constitutes unauthorized worship is to place Paul’s command to “receive one who is weak in the faith” in direct conflict with John’s admonition to “. . . not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.”

Notice the following about the scenarios revealed in the context. First, it was equally right to eat meat or eat only herbs, esteem or not esteem a day, as each is received by God (vv. 3-5). Notice that in the fifth verse, in regard to esteeming one day above another, Paul exhorted each to “be fully convinced in his own mind.” It is ridiculous to suggest that Paul was encouraging a man engaged in sinful practice to be fully convinced in his mind that the practice was acceptable. That is tantamount to Paul telling the brother to believe a lie. If this observance was sinful Paul would be encouraging that sinner to repent.

Additionally, the significance of the phrase, “for God has received him” in verse 3, is that God has received him in his eating of meat. The construction of the Greek, involving the Greek participle translated “him who eats” demands this. Harry Osborne rightly observed this in his written debate with Marshall Patton when he penned, “Therefore, the brethren of Romans 14:3 are described as those God received in their actions of eating and not eating meat. Some try to make God’s accepting of them an event solely connected with their baptism, but this overlooks the use of the participle. The point emphasized is that God ‘received’ them as an `eating one’ and a ‘not eating one.’ Their actions were both right or lawful in and of them-selves” (“Romans 14,” Harry Osborne, Faith and Facts, Vol. 19:1 [Jan. 1991], 19). The force of the grammatical argument brother Osborne uses is devastating, but hardly needed. The context of the passage clearly reveals that the one who God is able to make stand is the one who is eating meat.

Finally, one could observe the day or not observe the day “to the Lord” (v. 6). One note about this third point. Some have objected to the phrase “to the Lord” as indicating that this necessarily proves they were accepted by the Lord.

This argument is specious, as the context clearly indicates just that. Remember that Paul revealed God has received the meat eater in his action. Paul indicated that these men were acceptable before God. No distinction was made between the esteemer of days and his potential antagonist, both were acting “to the Lord.” It is significant that Paul used the two scenarios interchangeably in verse 6 of the text. If one dealt with matters of indifference, and the other with sinful worship, Paul would not have confused us with this coupling.

In effect, God does not care whether one eats or not. God does not care if one esteems one day above another or not. They are matters of indifference to God, and therefore those who disagree should receive one another. To insert matters of consequence to God into this passage does violence to the context. If we decide to fellowship false teachers, adulterers, immoral people, idolaters, etc., based upon the application of these instructions from Paul, we twist his words. In fact, the true meaning of Romans 14 becomes clear in the absurdity of these applications. Saying that any Christian could practice sin, or espouse false doctrine and do it “to the Lord” is farcical! There is no comfort to be found in that great chapter for those who would fellowship error. Brethren, let us remain pure!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 21-22
April 20, 1995

By Johnny Stringer

One of the most controversial issues of our time is the role of women in our society. Christians are especially concerned with determining the woman’s role in the spiritual realm. In view of the prominent place That teaching occupies in the religion of Christ, we must ascertain the woman’s responsibility in the teaching of God’s word; and in order to do this, we must consult the final authority in all religious matters, the word of God.

General Principle: Women Are to Teach

The general principle is clear: Women are to teach. When persecution in Jerusalem forced the Christians to flee to other places, “they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). This included women. Moreover, the writer of Hebrews was writing to both men and women when he said that they ought to be teachers (Heb. 5:12). The instruction to teach through singing is directed to all Christians, including women (Col. 3:16). Older women are to teach younger women (Tit. 2:3-4). Priscilla participated in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). Some women were given the gift of prophecy, which involved teaching (Acts 2:17; 21:9). Seemingly, women taught Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5).

There are two passages, however, which place a restriction on a woman’s teaching. In obedience to the general principle that she is to teach, a woman may teach in any capacity or circumstance which does not violate the restriction these passages place on her. The passages are 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. In this article we will discuss 1 Timothy 2:11-12, and in a following article, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

1 Timothy 2:1-12

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Paul is emphasizing the woman’s responsibility to maintain her place of subjection. This teaching was based not, as some suppose, on the culture of the day, but on the facts that Adam was formed first (v. 13) and that the woman, not the man, was deceived (v. 14).

1. The Prohibition. “But I suffer a woman not to teach” does not mean that she is not allowed to teach at all in any situation. If it did, it would contradict the passages cited above, which require her to teach. It would mean that she could not obey the command of Colossians 3:16 to teach in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. It would mean the older women could not obey the command to teach younger women (Tit. 2:3-4). In fact, it would mean that a mother could not tell her small child that Jesus is the Son of God or that God made the flowers; this would be teaching, and she could not do it if Paul meant that she is not to teach at all.

It is obvious, therefore, that Paul was not forbidding all teaching. Paul wrote these words in connection with the woman’s responsibility to be in subjection. The kind of teaching that would be forbidden in that context is teaching which would violate the principle of being in subjection.

What we have determined from the context and related passages, some Greek scholars say can be ascertained from the grammar of the Greek text. They affirm that the expression “nor usurp authority over the man” is explanatory; that is, it explains that the teaching of which Paul speaks is that which usurps authority over the man.

Lenski, for example, affirms, “. . . `neither to exercise authority over a man’ states the point involved in the forbidding to teach.” After expressing agreement with Lenski, Homer A. Kent, professor of New Testament and Greek at Grace Theological Seminary, remarked, “I regard `neither to exercise authority over a man’ to be somewhat exegetical of the previous clause and giving one of the reasons why the prohibition to teach is made.” Finally, Stephen W. Paine, professor of Greek at Houghton College affirmed, “… the interpretive step which identifies `to teach’ with ‘to take (the) authority’ is justified and Lenski is grammatically correct.”

Greek scholarship, however, is not necessary. Remember, we learned it from the context and related passages before hearing from the scholars.

2. Learn in Silence. When men are present, rather than directing the study, she is to “learn in silence,” maintaining her place of subjection. The command to learn in silence does not mean that she is not to utter a word in a Bible class. The word translated “silence” (hesuchi) is the same word that is translated “quietness” in 2 Thessalonians 3:12, where Paul exhorted men “that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” If it means in 1 Timothy 2:12 that women may not utter a sound in a Bible class, then it means in 2 Thessalonians 3:12 that men may not utter a sound on the job.

Obviously, this is not the meaning. The woman is not to be loud and boisterous. She is to manifest a meek and quiet spirit (1 Pet. 3:4). She is not violating this principle if she quietly and meekly asks a question or submits a point for the class’s consideration. Inasmuch as the principle under discussion is subjection, Paul means that she is not to be loud, dominating, or boisterous so as to be out of subjection. Being under subjection involves a quiet, calm disposition.

Conclusion

This passage clearly restricts the woman’s teaching. She may not be in charge of a Bible class in which men are present, nor may she proclaim God’s word from the pulpit to an audience including men. To do so would be out of subjection, for she would be in control of the study rather than learning in quietness.

The woman may teach in any circumstance in which she does not violate the principle of remaining in subjection to men. Another passage emphasizing this principle is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which will be considered in the next article.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 20-21
April 20, 1995

By Dick Blackford

To “profane” something is to take that which is holy and treat it as common. This is the reason I don’t applaud in worship unto God.

Worship to the Almighty, Eternal, Sovereign God is unique, in a class by itself. (1) Only in the Lord’s supper do we eat a meal that is not designed to satisfy physical hunger. It was eaten purely as a memorial, after the disciples had already eaten the passover feast. Meals eaten at holidays in our time are feasts designed to satisfy physical hunger. (2) In worship we pray to God. It is a solemn and serious occasion. But we do not pray to Elvis to celebrate his birthday. (3) In giving, we are to do so cheerfully, not grudgingly, as God has prospered us. The I.R.S. does not require this attitude when we pay our taxes. Also, the Lord does not specify in dollars and cents, but the I.R.S. does. (4) In singing to God we are to “make melody in the heart” (Col.3:16). This is not required when singing at a secular event. (5) In preaching, we must preach only the truth. But in social and political speeches there is no such requirement. One can even make inflammatory speeches against the government.

If clapping is a scriptural form of worship, couldn’t the Lord have thought of it?

Arguments For Clapping In Worship

1. “If we would clap to celebrate a ball game, how much more does Jesus deserve our applause?” Re-ply: This is not the way scriptural authority is established. That can only be established from Scripture. If we can eat popcorn to celebrate a ball game, how much more should we eat popcorn in worship to God? (Don’t blame me for the absurdity of any of these arguments. I am only showing what else it “proves” if the arguments are valid.) If we can eat black-eyed peas and hog jowl to celebrate New Year’s Day, how much more should we eat these in worship to God? (I hesitate to make these arguments since some already have coffee and donuts in Bible classes. So far, they haven’t gone “whole hog” and said we can have these in the worship assembly.) If we would pull pranks to celebrate April Fool’s Day, how much more should we pull pranks in worship unto God? If we shoot fireworks to celebrate Independence Day, how much more should we shoot fireworks to celebrate our independence from sin and the Law of Moses? If we play “Pin The Tale On The Donkey” to celebrate our children’s birthdays, how much more should we do so to celebrate our Lord’s birth? If we take the day off from work to celebrate Labor Day, how much more should we take the Lord’s Day off to celebrate that we are laborers in the vineyard of the Lord?

Had enough? How about one more. If we wear false faces to celebrate Halloween, how much more should we wear false faces in worship? All of these are the consequence of not basing an argument on Scripture but on human reasoning from secular events.

2. “Applause means the same as saying `Amen.”‘ Reply: According to what standard of authority? It never meant that in the Bible. When a curse was pronounced by the priest upon an adulteress she was to respond by saying “Amen, Amen” (Num.5: 11-31). If clapping is another way of saying “Amen” it is difficult to imagine the woman applauding when a curse was pronounced upon her.

Moses pronounced twelve curses on the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. After each curse Israel was to respond “Amen” (Deut.27:15-26). Could they have substituted a round of applause and been acceptable to God? Would it be acceptable for us to close our prayers with a round of applause instead of an audible “Amen” (I Cor.14:16)? Most of the epistles end with an “Amen.” How do you communicate hand clapping in writing? This shows that something is being communicated in writing that there is no equivalent for. There is no record where “Amen” was used in a secular way. It is a word which belongs to the spiritual realm. Clapping belongs in the secular realm and is associated with sports and entertainment. There is a good reason for this since clapping is never mentioned in the New Testament.

Webster’s definition of applause includes cheering and stomping the feet. Those who defend clapping must of necessity defend these also.

3. “If we can change the holy kiss to a handshake (Rom.16:16), then we can change `Amen’ to applause.” Reply: The Bible does not command the kiss as a form of greeting. Paul was not instituting kissing as the proper way to greet. The custom of kissing as a form of greeting or endorsement had been practiced for thousands of years (Exod. l 8:7; 1 Sam.10:1; etc.), so Paul was not beginning a new practice. He was regulating the attitude with which this custom was practiced. It was not a command to kiss. The emphasis was on the kind of kiss. When greeting with a kiss it was to be a holy kiss. It was not to be a hypocritical kiss, like that of Judas (Mk. 14:44) or of Joab (2 Sam.20:9). Nor was it to be a lascivious kiss (Ga1.5:19-21), but a holy one. Whatever form of greeting is the custom at a particular time and place, it should be pure.

Booing And Hissing?

If one may applaud a sermon to show approval (as one may show approval in this manner at a ball game), then why could not one equally boo or hiss to show disapproval if he disagrees? In a matter of time our services would be filled with applause (including stomping the feet), wolf whistles, cat calls, boos, and hisses. The right for one is the right for the others. If the silence of the New Testament authorizes applause then it also authorizes boos, hisses, jeers, etc. Is this really what we want? Has worship become so casual to us that there is no difference in our behavior and degree of solemnity at worship or at an entertainment event?

Perhaps unwittingly, brethren have bought into the idea advanced in debate by some defenders of instrumental music in worship, that “worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it” (Given O. Blakely, Blakely-Highers Debate). Since the Scriptures are silent about applause and nothing is said to indicate that clapping is an acceptable substitute for saying “Amen,” and since it is also silent about booing, hissing, etc., we believe we have concluded rightly that God does not approve either practice in worship or in a religious context.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 2
May 4, 1995