Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Belinda, a fine young Christian from Mexico, spent six weeks of last summer with my daughter’s family. Her enthusiasm, devoutness, and general spirituality were an inspiration to us all. What a delight to see one so young and so interested in so many things, yet seeming to have her priorities in order.

The first time she visited the church where my wife and I attend, I introduced her to brother Billy Norris, one of our elders. Her face almost literally lit up as she exclaimed, “I am so happy to meet you. I never met an elder before.”

Belinda is a faithful member of a small church in Mexico, where her father preaches and makes the bulk of his living doing secular work. Churches in that part of the world are very small, few, and far between  so it is understandable that she would have not had the opportunity to have “met an elder before.” Many of these churches barely have a plurality of men, much less a plurality of men qualified for the eldership. Churches can exist and be faithful to the Lord, in such circumstances, without elders overseeing them.

This incident got me to thinking. I wonder how many young Christians in our country, where there are more and larger churches, could empathize with Belinda  “I have never met an elder before.” Too many churches in areas where churches have been around for decades are without elders and the number seems to be growing all the time. Some have never had elders. Others have had but are now without them. Something is wrong.

No church should appoint elders just to say that they have elders. This does happen. A church’s having elders is contingent upon there being a plurality of qualified men who can be appointed to that work. If there is anything worse than a church without elders, it is a church with unqualified men masquerading as elders. The late J.D. Tant is reported to have said that when he was a boy he used to go into the words and cut branches off elder bushes and make pop-guns. He said the situation was later reversed  brethren were making elders out of pop-guns. I think I may have met some of those.

In a relatively short time after churches were established in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, “they (Paul and his companions) had appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Some have wondered how these men could have met the strict qualifications, outlined by Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in so short a time. Some have suggested this proves that those qualifications were not meant to be strictly observed, but were only general guidelines  because these men would not have had time to develop all of them, strictly speaking. So, rather than insisting on all the qualifications listed by Paul, we should simply appoint those who come nearest to them  the best that we have, even if they don’t have all of those traits.

Paul would not have so carefully listed the qualifications for Timothy and Titus to follow and ignored any of them when he had a part in appointing elders. Besides, it is not unreasonable to think that there could have been men in those churches with all the qualifications. All qualifications do not have to be developed after one becomes a Christian. Obviously those that are peculiar to the faith must come after conversion not a novice, holy, holding fast the faithful word, being able to teach it, and by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. If one applies himself it would not take very long to develop these.

As to other traits, one could have had them before becoming a Christian  the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy, gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, ruling his own house, etc. As to believing children, they may have been converted at the same time as their fathers were (cf. Acts 16:34; 1 Cor. 1:16).

Churches need to be paying more attention to seeking out men and helping them develop scriptural qualifications or many of our young people are going to grow up not having met an elder.

There are many reasons for the shortage of elders among long-established congregations. Individually, developing the qualifications is simply not a high priority with many men in the church. Too, their families are not as careful as they need to be to help them meet the qualifications relating to the family. Collectively, little is done to train men to be elders. Churches often have training classes to encourage men to preach or have some other “public part.” Yet, few of these classes are geared to help train men to become elders.

In some cases, churches are kept from having good elders by a perverted idealism. Some qualifications are absolute, such as being the husband of one wife and having believing children. Some are relative, such as being able to teach and hospitable.

How many of the qualifications must one have? All of them  both relative and absolute. If one has all of them he can be appointed, if he lacks just one of them he cannot be. With a relative qualification, once it is determined that one has it, then the degree to which one has it can vary greatly from person to person. We need to be careful that we do not demand perfection or even near-perfection in those relative qualifications. Nor do we need to expect all the elders to possess them to the same degree. For example, we may know (or envision) elders whose hospitality or ability to teach is extra-ordinary. They become our ideal. We then reject any prospective elders who, though some-what hospitable and able to teach, are not as much so as our ideal. Such perverted idealism keeps some churches from having elders.

Sometimes power struggles keep churches from having elders. Preachers and other members, fearful of losing some of their clout, block the appointment of elders in one way or the other. Brethren, influenced by democratic models in civil governments, civic clubs and religious organizations, have in many cases come to believe that this type of government is best for the Lord’s church. The only way they will accept elders is for them to be “figure heads” who kind of lead a democratic process in the congregation.

This process is often accompanied by base political maneuvering. No wonder many churches feel that they can get along without elders as well as with elders  if not better. When elders are appointed, they are simply appointed to allow the congregation to claim scriptural status, but are expected and allowed to have little more than a ceremonial role.

The Lord’s church is not a democracy. The Lord is the head with all authority (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-23). In congregations, the Head has decreed that elders are to rule and members are to submit (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17; Heb. 13:17). It is not majority rule. It is not minority rule. It is not dictator rule. It is not preacher rule. It is not women rule. It is elder rule.

Let brethren everywhere become more diligent in desiring the position of a bishop (1 Tim. 3:1). Let churches be more attentive to helping men qualify and then be eager and willing to appoint them once they are qualified. Let wives and children become more concerned with making it possible for husbands and fathers to become elders. Let members, honor, submit to, and otherwise help elders do their work, “with joy and not with grief ” (Heb. 13:17), so that we will not lose good men who just cannot take the pressure any longer. Yes, elders are human and limited in the amount of abuse they can endure.

Let elders learn to rule well, not as “being lords over those entrusted to (them),” so brethren will be less inclined to dispense with the eldership because of its abuses. Let us all recognize that the Lord’s way is best for the church  yea, the only way to please the Lord. Then, maybe just maybe, our children and grandchildren will not be saying, “I never met an elder before.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 8-9
January 19, 1995

By Kenneth Sils

One hundred and fifty years ago, in 1844, the Supreme Court upheld a law which stated that all public schools across America were obligated to teach the Bible in order to receive public funding. Can you imagine that? In order for schools to get money from the government, they had to present the Bible as the inspired word of God! If you are a history buff, this would not surprise you because the founding fathers’ of our country were all Bible-believing men. Many of America’s early state constitutions demanded that their public officials profess they believed in God and the Lord-ship of Jesus Christ. Many of the founding fathers’ writings were filled with Bible quotes and the early grade school readers, called primers, were filled with moral lessons and quotations of Scripture. It has been estimated that 94% of the laws in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established from governmental type laws found in the Old and New Testament.

What has happened in the last 150 years? The greatest changes have taken place in the last 35 years. In the early 1960s, our government began to reverse its trend of Bible teaching in public schools due to increasing pressure from various atheistic or humanistic groups. While we blame special secularized interest groups for running the Bible’s teaching out of schools, it’s interesting to see the decline of morals and ethics in society running parallel with today’s secularized public education.

The real blame for the breakdown of God’s Word in public schools belongs on the backs of Americans who have removed the need of the Bible in their homes. Fewer and fewer people are reading, studying and applying God’s principles taught in the Bible than ever before in our country. While our government continues to pervert the doctrine called “separation of church and state,” most “religious” people in our nation seek churches which fulfill their selfish, physical wants and pleasures without regard to God’s instruction demanded in the Bible for righteous living.

The proverb writer said, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Many churches in the 90’s are crying for Americans to be tolerant of immoral behavior while that behavior, or sin, is gradually destroying our nation. Sinful activities like abortion, homosexuality, divorce for any cause, gambling, social drinking, etc. are not only tolerated by many mainstream denominational groups but supported in their teaching and fellowship. When you look in many of our public school libraries, you’ll find all types of horror stories, witchcraft and occult type books, while the Bible is getting harder and harder to find.

Even though America appears to be on the brink of destruction due to its unrestrained lust and sin, there is hope for our country. James tells us in James 5;15 that “the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” The prayers of God’s children possess the power “to change the night to day.” We should also let our lights shine in the midst of this perverse generation so others can see that good will triumph over evil. Dear brother or sister, are you doing your part?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 13
January 19, 1995

By Harry R. Osborne

When we see a house, we do not ask what explosion brought it into being. We ask about its builder. When we see a car, we do not wonder what accident caused it to fall into its present style and color. We look to see who made it. When we contemplate our world in all of its complexity, order and beauty, why would we explain its presence as the chance result of a “big bang” and an endless series of accidents? How could such examples of design and order be the work of randomness rather than that of intelligent design?

Yet, that is the bottom line taught concerning the origin of our universe in many places, especially in our schools. The popular “Big Bang Theory” teaches that the universe is the result of an enormous explosion several billion years ago. When that theory is coupled with the general theory of evolution, many believe the explanation for our world and the existence of all life forms is adequately answered. In fact, some boldly claim that these theories provide the only “scientific” explanation for this universe. For example, note this 1952 statement made by Richard Goldschmidt:

The evolution of the organic world, from the synthesis of the first complex molecules endowed with the faculty of reproducing their kind to the most advanced type of life must have taken place roughly within the past two billion years on our planet. All of the facts of biology, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, and radiology not only agree with this statement but actually prove it. Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed (American Scientist, Jan. 52, p. 84).

Such bold assertions are often common from those out of touch with current evidence. Generally, those more knowledgeable in the facts regarding the subject of origins avoid such arrogant and misleading claims. The fact is that the general theory of evolution is nowhere close to being a “fact.” As a high school student, I had a biology teacher with the same attitude stated above. When I raised a question about problems with the evolutionary explanation for the origin of all things, Mr. Wells referred tome as a believer in “God, the Genesis myth, and other fairy tales.” However, he turned out to be the believer in fairy tales.

Among the “science” taught by this man was a theory that the human fetus goes through all of the stages of evolution within the womb. This is called the theory of recapitulation or ontology recapitulates phylogeny. I have a textbook ,Dynamic Biology, from 1933 which teaches the theory as a fact. At one point, it states a common claim made in its defense, saying, “The mammal embryo is often used to illustrate recapitulation. Gill openings appear just as if a gill-breathing fish were developing” (678). By the early fifties, this theory was largely abandoned by those most knowledgeable of embryology. A text from 1954, Principles of Biology, admits that the theory was not upheld by further study, but tries to hold on to it in part. Among scholarly circles in that area of study, the theory was dead by the late fifties. They found that the so-called “gill openings” or “gill slits” were nothing more than folds of skin! From that point until the present, scholars in the field of embryology have discarded the theory as false. However, many biology teachers, especially at the high school level continue to teach it today! Last year, I saw a high school biology handout teaching the theory with pictures of an embryo noting the “gill slits.” Who is teaching fairy tales? As time goes on, more and more of the evolutionists “facts” are turning out to be nothing more than “fairy tales” and we need to remind them of that fact!

Even among evolutionists, however, we find some honest enough to admit the problems with the general theory. A respected scientist, G.A. Kerkut, is one who happens to believe in the theory. He is, however, honest about its shortcomings. We will let him define our terminology and outline the areas of trouble for the evolutionists. Listen to the following definition of the problem by Dr. Kerkut from his book, Implications of Evolution:

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the “Special Theory of Evolution” and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic (non-living) form. This theory can be called the “General Theory of Evolution” and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis (p. 157).

In the same book, Dr. Kerkut is highly critical of some modem scientists, like Goldschmidt, who claim that the general theory of evolution should be accepted as the only logical explanation of our world. He repeatedly shows that the one who accepts this explanation does so upon the basis of “faith” rather that “fact.” To emphasize the point, Kerkut gives a list of seven basic assumptions in the theory which are totally unproven and unprovable. They are as follows:

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa (single-celled organisms) gave rise to the Metazoa (multi-celled organisms).

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phlya (organisms without a backbone) are interrelated.

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates (animals with backbones).

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and reptiles to the birds and mammals.

All of these assumptions are just that  assumptions. They are not facts as some would like to think. The acceptance of these assumptions is done solely by faith, not on the basis of provable evidence. In the final analysis, the evolutionist and the creationist have the same evidence from which to begin and work. The differences come from the interpretation of that evidence. The question is, “Which interpretation is more reasonable?”

The Bible claims that the evidence available is properly used to deduce the existence of God. Paul said, “Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20). Next issue, we will look at some of the evidence regarding the order of the world around us. We will ask ourselves whether it is more reasonable to believe the Bible account of our origin or the explanation given in the general theory of evolution.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 14-15
January 19, 1995

By Jim Ward

Many years ago, numerous less conservative brethren began to urge that we preach the Man, not the plan. This plea implied that many gospel preachers were preaching the plan of salvation, but were not preaching Christ.

Today, that cry and accusation are even stronger. They have echoed recently from such books as The Cruciform Church by C. Leonard Allen and The Second Incarnation by Randall J. Harris and Rubel Shelly. Periodicals such as Image, Wineskins and Restoration Quarterly have taken up the call. But is it a biblical call, and is the implied accusation justified?

The Plan Alone?

I will make just two points here. First, in my fifty-four years I’ve heard and read after countless gospel preachers, and I’ve yet to come across one of these fellows who has left Christ out of the plan of salvation. Just where is this great host?

Second, if such preachers exist anywhere, they need to quit the pulpit and give up the pen. They’re heretics! Peter declared that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Salvation comes by believing in Jesus (Jn. 20:31) and by repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). He who preaches any other gospel brings a curse upon himself (Gal. 1:8,9).

The Man Alone?

Now let’s turn to the real issue. Does God authorize men to preach Jesus without preaching baptism and the plan of salvation? Acts will give us the answer.

When Peter preached Jesus in Acts 2, and the crowd asked what they should do, how did the apostle reply? Did he offer them a snappy Man-not-the-plan slogan? No, he said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). In verse 41, Luke tells us that those who gladly received his word were baptized. Does this all sound suspiciously like a plan to you a plan all wrapped up in the Man? It does to me.

Perhaps Acts 8, dealing with the Samaritans and the Ethiopian treasurer, is the most instructive chapter on this subject. The text says that disciples preached the word (v. 4), and that expressly Philip preached Christ (v. 5), the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (v. 12), and Jesus (v. 35). My question is this: In preaching the Man, as Philip obviously did, did he also preach the plan?

Let’s look at the case of the Samaritans first, specifically in verse 12: “But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” Here’s another question for us. Did Philip preach the plan? If not, why were these men and women baptized? If preaching the Man doesn’t include preaching the plan, how did the Samaritans hear about baptism?

Now shall we think about Philip and the treasurer for a moment. Verse 35 says that Philip preached Jesus. The Ethiopian responded in verse 36 by saying, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Which prompts another question. If Philip was a Man-not-the plan preacher, how did the treasurer learn about baptism? Combing these two verses, we cannot escape the conclusion that preaching Jesus includes preaching baptism.

The Man and the Plan

In truth, the preachers in Acts didn’t separate Jesus from his plan. Peter at the house of Cornelius preached Jesus and baptism (10:47,48). And please note that baptism was commanded, not optional.

When Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer (16:32), they must have discussed baptism. Other-wise, we have no explanation for why he and his family were baptized (v. 33).

If Paul preached the Man not the plan, I understand why the Corinthians believed, but not why they were baptized (18:8).

Finally Acts 22:16 reminds us that sinners who are baptized to wash away their sins (the plan) do so calling on the name of the Lord (the Man).

Conclusion

I said earlier that men who preach the plan without the Man are heretics. But I want to state just as strongly that those who separate the Man from his plan are just as heretical. Such teaching is a spineless compromise with denominational dogma. It will not save sinners. Gospel preachers will have no part in either error.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 5
January 19, 1995