Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

Bible authority falls into two categories: general and specific authority. We are very familiar with these concepts, and it is easy to see the difference between the two. For example, one father might send his son to the store, saying, “Go buy some groceries.” This is a general command. If the boy comes home with milk and eggs, apples and oranges, cookies, and coke, he has obeyed his father. All those things come within the scope of his father’s commandment. However, another father might send his son to the store saying, “Go buy some milk and eggs.” This is a specific command. If the boy comes home with milk and eggs, and also coke and cookies, he has not faithfully obeyed his father. In purchasing coke and cookies, he went beyond his father’s command.

Some definitions are here in order: The Random House Dictionary defines the word “general” as “1. of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category. . . 3. not limited to one class… 5. not specific or definite… ” It also defines the word “specific” as “1. having a special application, bearing, or reference. . . 2. specified, precise, or particular. . . 5. concerned specifically with the item or subject named. . .”

General authority includes all that is necessary to the carrying out of a command. Specific authority excludes everything except that which is precisely stated. Let us see how the concepts of general and specific authority have a role in establishing Bible authority.

A. Generic Authority

At times, God has left the actual method of obedience to the judgment of Christians. When God has not specified what he wants us to do or the method by which we are to obey, we may use any action or method which comes within the realm of the general command or example. General commands and examples include all that is necessary to the carrying out of that command.

When Jesus gave the Great Commission, he commanded the apostles to “go” and “teach” (Matt. 28:1820). How were they to carry out the command to “go”? Since God did not specify, they could ride, walk, sail, etc. The choice of how to go was left up to man. How were they to carry out the command to “teach”? Since Jesus did not specify a given method, they were free to choose. God’s word may be taught in the public assembly, in Bible classes, on radio or television, through door knocking or personal work, by means of gospel meetings, lectureships, etc. All these are acceptable methods of carrying out our Lord’s command to teach, and no man has the right to bind one specific method to the exclusion of others.

Christians have an obligation to regularly assemble together for worship (Heb. 10:25). However, some would ask the question, “Where are we to assemble?” Since God did not specify, we are free to choose the most expedient place. We could meet in a private home, a rented hall, under a brush arbor, or in a building owned by the church. Because this is a general command, no man has the right to bind one particular method of obedience.

Prayer should be an essential part of Christian life (Phil. 4:6). Yet, some would ask the question, “What posture should we take in prayer?” A reverential attitude is essential, but the Bible does not restrict worshippers to a particular stance in prayer. Instead, we read that various postures are acceptable. Prayers can be offered while bowing one’s head (Lk. 18:13), falling prostrate (Rev. 4:10), standing (Mk. 11:25a), kneeling (Lk. 22:41; Eph. 3:14), lifting up hands (1Tit. 2:8). Since there are many different ways of praying, no man has the right to bind a single posture in prayer.

God has commanded us to worship in song (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). How are we to go about obeying this command? We could sing songs from memory, with the aid of a book, or with the words projected on a screen. What part shall we sing? Shall we all sing soprano, alto, tenor, or bass? Since God did not specify which part we are to sing, we have a choice in the matter. We can sing whatever part that we please. No man has the right to legislate in this area.

B. Specific Authority

At times, when teaching by command or example, the Lord would specify the particular aspects of obedience he required. When God specifies what he wants us to do, or the method by which we are to obey, we are limited to what he says. In such cases we are not free to use any other methods. Specific statements or examples exclude anything outside the scope of that which is specified (Num. 24:1213; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:1819). We must learn to respect the silence of God’s word. The silence of God often prohibits rather than permits.

God chose the tribe of Levi to serve as priests in the tabernacle (Num. 3:57). Furthermore, God warned that only Aaron and his seed were to serve in this capacity (Num. 16:40). The fact that God specified Levi as the priestly tribe eliminated all others. He did not have to individually name each tribe and say, “You cannot serve as priests.” Those who ignored this stipulation were condemned. Even Christ could not serve as priest under the law of Moses, for he was of the tribe of Judah. The writer of Hebrews argues this point as he seeks to prove that the old covenant has been superseded by the new (Heb. 7:14).

The New Testament specifies singing as the type of music God desires in Christian worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). This excludes other types of music, such as instrumental music.

The mode of New Testament baptism is immersion in water (Acts 8:3839; Rom. 6:45). There is no Bible authority for any other mode of baptism, such as sprinkling or pouring.

The New Testament specifies that the Lord’s supper is to be observed with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine 1 Cor. 11:2325). This excludes any other element, such as coke and cookies.

The New Testament records that each congregation was independent and autonomous. The apostles appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23). Furthermore, the oversight of elders is limited to the local congregation in which they are members (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). This excludes any arrangement in which a local eldership assumes the general oversight of a regional work. Following such a path leads, not to Jerusalem, but to Rome.

C. Expediency

An expedient is simply an advantageous means or method that one may use to accomplish a goal. It signifies that which is suitable for achieving certain ends. Webster defines an expedient as something “useful for effecting a desired result; suited to the circumstances or the occasion; advantageous, convenient.”

As children of God, our goal is to obey and glorify God. Certain things may be allowable in fulfilling his commandments that may not be specifically mentioned in his word. General commands include all that is necessary to the carrying out of that command. For instance, it is reasonable to assume that Noah was allowed to use various tools in building the ark (Gen. 6). How does this principle apply to us? When can a matter be justified as an expedient? The Bible sets forth certain guidelines in this matter, and it is essential that we recognize them. Without such guidelines, men could do anything in religion and justify it as an expedient.

In order for a thing to be an expedient, it must first be lawful. If a thing does not fall within the bounds of what God has authorized, then we have no right to practice it. If no command, approved example, or necessary inference can be found in the Bible to justify a practice, it must be laid aside. Ignoring this principle will jeopardize our relationship with Jehovah God (Matt. 15:79; 2 Jn. 9).

The Old Testament story of Uzzah well illustrates this point (2 Sam. 6:37). When the oxen stumbled, Uzzah surely thought it was expedient to reach out and steady the ark. However, he tragically discovered that an act cannot be an expedient if it is unlawful. God had strictly prohibited anyone from touching the ark of the covenant (Num. 4:15). David is the real villain in this story because he did not make sure the ark was moved as God had directed. The ark of the covenant should not have been carried on an ox drawn cart, however new it might have been. Instead, the law specified that it was to be carried by the Levites. Uzzah was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. He touched the ark and suffered the consequences.

Today certain denominations claim that it is expedient for them to ordain women preachers. Yet, this practice is inconsistent with New Testament teaching. In spite of the powerful influence that can be exerted by a woman, it is unlawful for her to teach in the public assembly (‘1 Cor. 14:3435; 1 Tim. 2:1112).

An expedient has to do with a best choice among various options. Yet, we have no options when God specifies exactly what he wants done. In such cases we are not free to do something else and call it an expedient. When God’s commandments are clear and precise, we have no choice but to obey. To go beyond this is to add to his Word (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:1819).

The case of Nadab and Abihu well illustrates this point (Lev. 10:12). These two sons of Aaron died because they offered “strange fire” unto the Lord. The RSV translates this expression as “unholy fire” while the NIV renders it “unauthorized fire.” They did not follow the procedure that God had specified regarding this aspect of temple service (Exod. 30:3438). They suffered the consequences of rebellion.

This point is also illustrated in the matter of baptism. In the New Testament, baptism is repeatedly pictured as a “burial” (Acts 8:3839; Rom. 6:34; Col. 2:12), and the Greek word itself means to dip, plunge, or immerse. Some would claim that sprinkling is a means of carrying out God’s command concerning baptism. Not true! Sprinkling is a substitute. God has specified the “mode” of baptism he desires, and no other will do. On the other hand, whether the immersion takes place in a river, lake, pool or baptistry would be a matter of expediency. God has not spoken in this area, so man is free to choose.

When God commanded us to make music in worship, he specified the type music that he desires: We are to “sing” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Thus we cannot justify instrumental music as an expedient. It is not merely an aid, but is in fact an addition to God’s commandment. The use of instrumental music is unauthorized and cannot be practiced “by faith.”

There are churches that claim that it is expedient for one set of elders to oversee all or part of the work of other churches. This practice cannot be an expedient because God has specified that elders are to oversee only the church of which they are members (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:14).

True expedients deal with matters of wisdom, judgment, and choice. When dealing with a matter of choice or human judgment, we should never select a path that tears down rather than builds up (1 Cor. 14:26). We must not create strife and division by insisting upon our own way (Phil. 2:34).

Likewise, a thing cannot be considered an expedient if, when implemented, it causes someone to sin. One should not insist on exercising his personal liberty in nonessential matters if weaker Christians would feel compelled to follow his example and thus violate their conscience, and sin (1 Cor. 10:2333; Rom. 14).

Conclusion

The question of authority in religion is the most fundamental of all issues. In Christianity, it is the supreme question. We are treading on dangerous ground when we act without divine authority (2 Jn. 9). When individuals or congregations engage in practices not authorized by the New Testament, they act without divine authority, and are judged as sinners (1 Jn. 3:4). Churches that reject God’s law in favor of human traditions risk forfeiting their right to be lights of the world (Rev. 2:5). Individuals that substitute the will of self for the will of God are in danger of eternal condemnation (Matt. 7:2123). It is important that we “learn not to go beyond the things which are written” (1 Cor. 4:6, ASV). Let’s be able to give “Book, Chapter and Verse” for those things that we teach and practice (1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 5-7
October 6, 1994

By J. Wiley Adams

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.”

The preaching of the Word of God is a heavy responsibility. Everyone who preaches and has been doing so very long will agree that this is so. There are times when one kind of teaching is needed more than another. Selecting sermon topics is always a chore for me. Once the choice has been made and providing the subject chosen is a Bible one there is always ample material in the Scriptures. Preachers are to take into consideration at all times what the particular need of the hour might be. As the years have passed, this writer remembers many times that the subject chosen was not the one needed and has changed subjects at a moment’s notice. I certainly know that review of any Bible subject does not hurt anyone but it might be challenging to those already well taught on that topic. I have also heard of preachers who work a given subject to death. A year and a half on the Holy Spirit or six months on premillennialism is not necessary. I like beans and greens but deliver me from a constant menu of either one. One preacher took two years to teach the book of Revelation.

Sometimes preachers can be political. They get heady on popularity and prestige. So some at times have shunned needed subjects in gospel meetings so as to be asked to return again for another meeting. Well, maybe I do not have good sense but , if I am going somewhere to preach and know and have been told ahead of time by those who know that certain problems exist, then skillfully dodge around and refuse to preach on the need ,I do not feel I have done my duty. There have been times that I preached on what was needed both in local work and meeting work to my own detriment not knowing if I would be allowed to finish out or not. Preaching the truth in season or out of season demands that of everyone who calls himself a gospel preacher.

Surely one should not poke into matters that are purely congregational but if it is a matter of truth this transcends all congregational lines. I know there is such a thing as meddling but it is wrong to accuse one of that when he has just put the medicine where needed. If you have a sore leg, it would be ridiculous to put the salve on your ear. Put it on the sore leg. This is elementary.

Politics in preaching sometimes manifests itself in one gospel preacher not being willing to acknowledge the presence of others in the services. When I preach it always means a lot to me to have other preachers present who have taken time out from very busy schedules to come and hear me preach. Common courtesy requires some appropriate comment of appreciation to be made. You can carry this to extreme but one can do it within the bounds of propriety. But I am always glad when anyone comes to hear me preach whether preachers or not. Some in Paul’s day were ashamed of his “chain” but others readily associated with him in spite of possible reprisal by lesser brethren. I have always stood and plan to continue to stand with brethren by association or otherwise who have preached and have become unpopular with some because of their stand for truth. But to be totally disregarded and passed over by some political preacher while he skins the Baptists and Methodists when there is not one in the house nor during the entire meeting and to shun faithful brethren for fear of becoming unpopular is nothing but cowardice. There is no other word for it. The gospel in the hands of such makes those of us who try to do it right without fear or favor like the apostle Paul, I say, it makes us very uneasy. Are these custodians of truth or are they time-servers and self-serving diplomats?

Preaching the gospel has never been calculated to make one popular. Sometimes preachers do become prominent due to their sound preaching and life. This is another thing altogether. Remember, my beloved brethren, we serve the Lord and not men. Preach the word in season or out. To do less is to fail to please our Father in Heaven.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 14
September 15, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

(1) If, as prominent Protestant preachers proclaim, salvation is “solely by grace,” why are not all men saved, since “the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11)?

(2) When “Oneness” Pentecostals read, “I and my Father are one” (Jn. 10:30), they erroneously conclude that Jesus and the Father are one person. The Bible says that Paul and Apollos were “one” (1 Cor. 3:8). Were they one person? A husband and wife are “one” (Eph. 5:31). Are they one per-son? In Genesis 11:6, a multitude of people were “one.” Were they one per-son? Jesus prayed that all believers “may be one” (Jn. 17:21). Was he praying that all disciples might be one person?

Observe that Jesus prayed that believers “may be one, even as we are one” (Jn. 17:22). “As” is an ad-verb of manner. Disciples are to “be one” just like Jesus and the Father are one. If Jesus and the Father are one person, then Jesus was praying that his disciples would all be one person. But even Pentecostals admit that Jesus was not praying for his disciples to be “one person.” Thus, the Father and the Son are not one person, for Jesus prayed that his disciples would be “one” in the same sense that he and the Father “are one.”

(3) Most “tongue speaking” Pentecostals believe that baptism is immersion and that it is essential to salvation. This is especially true among the “Oneness” “Jesus Only” Pentecostals. For this reason, the following thoughts have been helpful in Bible studies with them.

(A) When we read that water baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” is “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38, we learn its purpose and place in the plan of salvation. Hence, whenever we read of baptism later on in the New Testament, we know what it was “for.” For example, we read of water baptism in Jesus’ name in Acts 10:48 and 19:5. Though the purpose is not stated in those passages, we know from Acts 2:38 that it was “for the remission of sins.”

(B) Likewise, we learn from Acts 8:36-38 that baptism involves coming “unto . . . water,” going “down into water,” and coming “up out of the water.” In other places, it is simply stated that people were “baptized” (Acts 2:41; 10:48; 16:15, 33). How-ever, with the very word itself, and the actions described in Acts 8, we know, whenever we see that people were baptized, that they came “unto,” went “down into,” and came “up out of ” water.

(C) After walking a Pentecostal through the above reasoning and helping him to see the point, he generally will agree. Then, take the very same tact and apply it to a study of “tongues.” In Acts 2:4-11, we learn that when men spoke in tongues “as the Spirit gave them utterance,” they spoke languages; they spoke in the “tongue” or “language” of their audience. The hearers “heard them speak in his own language,” “in our own tongue, wherein we were born,” “we do hear them speak in our tongues,” or languages. So, to “speak in tongues” “as the Spirit” gives “utterance,” one speaks a human tongue or language. Later, we read that men spoke “with tongues” (Acts 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 12-14). Though it is not specified in some texts, we know from Acts 2 that they spoke in the tongues or languages of men.

Carefully review the arguments made on the action and purpose of baptism outlined above. Then show that the same reasoning reveals that Spirit given “tongues” are not some emotional, ecstatic babbling, but are actual languages.

(4) We are being warned, even by some of our own brethren, that we should preach “more about the Christ” and “less about the church,” or, as some have said, “more about Jesus, and less about ourselves.” Assuredly, we should “preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5), but this is not what our critics mean. They say that to preach about “the church” is to be guilty of preaching “ourselves.” Brethren, it is not so!

Salvation by God’s “own purpose and grace . . . was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 1:20). “Yes, that is what we should preach. We should not preach so much on the church. We should preach God’s eternal plan to save man by grace in Jesus! We are guilty of a misplaced emphasis. We have majored on the church and have minored in the Christ.” Note, though, that the church makes known God’s wisdom “according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:10, 11). “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages” (Eph. 3:21). You cannot separate Christ from the church. To do so is to preach an incomplete Christ, for the church is “the fulness of him” (Eph. 1:23).

God’s wisdom and glory are demonstrated by the very existence of the church. To speak against the church is to speak against that which exhibits “the manifold wisdom” and glory of God Almighty. Christ and his salvation system of grace were given before the world began. That system reaches its brilliant, multi-sided splendor and glory in the finished product, the church. The church is the “completeness” of what God planned and purposed. To leave it out is to ignore the wisdom and glory of God and the fulness of what the Savior accomplished in his selfless, sacrificial suffering.

Christ built something (Matt. 16:18); he “purchased” something (Acts 20:28); he is “the head of’ some-thing (Eph. 1:22); he reconciles the saved in something (Eph. 2:16); he is “the Savior” of something (Eph. 5:23); he sanctifies something (Eph. 5:26); he cleanses something (Eph. 5:26). What is that something? Whatever it is, may we preach it? May we tell men what it is?

Men are “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Men are “baptized into one body,” the church (1 Cor. 12:13). Men are reconciled unto God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19). Men are reconciled “unto God in one body,” the church (Eph. 2:16). Lest one be “guilty” of preaching “the church too much” and “Christ too little,” should he preach that men are “baptized into Jesus Christ” but neglect to preach that they are “baptized into” his body, the church?

If so, ignorance will abound about the church and its place in the plan of God. When that happens, should we then “tilt toward” preaching more about the church and less about the Christ? We need to know so we can keep the proper balance!

(5) “Can we understand the Bible alike?” Some say, “No, absolutely not!” Do they expect all of us to understand their conclusion alike?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 12-13
September 15, 1994

By Shane Scott

In the summer of 1993 brother Holmes and I discussed the contents of an article he wrote that had to do with what a person had to know for his baptism to be valid. This was because I was seriously considering publicly responding to the article. In the course of that discussion our concepts of the biblical teaching regarding the universal church and local churches arose. Brother Holmes explained to me on the phone that he did not believe the universal church was composed of local churches. Since the main bone of contention between us was the issue of baptism, and since we satisfied each other that we agreed on it, I decided not to publicly respond to him.

Some time later I wrote an article about an erroneous view that blurs biblical teaching regarding the universal church and local churches. It appeared in Sentry Magazine. To illustrate that view, I quoted the following statement from brother Holmes’ article:

There is only one church and that is the church you can read about in the Bible that honors his (Christ’s) name, is organized according to his dictates, works and worships according to the pattern he has given. No church but the church of Christ can truthfully make that claim.

That statement blurs the distinction between the universal church and lo-cal churches by combining the fact that there is one universal church with the work, worship and organization of local churches. I contend that since a denomination is a hybrid of the universal church and local churches, any presentation which blurs this divinely ordained distinction results in a denominational concept of the church. Thus, in my article in Sentry, I charged that the statement presented a denominational concept of the church.

I stand by this charge. I have never said that brother Holmes believes the universal church is composed of local churches. I have said that he blurs the two concepts. His own article, plus his private correspondence to me, is ample proof of this.

Brother Holmes is pursuing this matter because he feels I was dishonest in my dealings with him. After our initial conversation I left him with the impression that we agreed about everything in his article. I am sorry for my ambiguity. We do agree on what a person must know to be baptized, but I do not believe it is acceptable to blur and merge the biblical teaching of the universal church with the teaching about local churches. In a society pervaded with denominationalism, we should be especially precise in the way we speak of the “church of Christ.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 9
September 15, 1994