Truth Magazine

Board of Directors of the Guardian of Truth Foundation

Sometimes a person gets the impression that the Guardian of Truth Foundation’s only work is publishing Guardian of Truth magazine. Actually, this is the smaller portion of works that are designed to serve the needs of brethren. We would like you to be aware of other phases of our work.

Bible School Literature

The Guardian of Truth Foundation publishes three different sets of Bible school literature.

1. The Truth in Life series of Bible school literature has been one of the most popular series of Bible school literature used by brethren since the institutional controversy. In the 1970s brethren became disappointed with the liberalism they were finding in the literature produced by institutional brethren. A group of brethren met to discuss the need for producing a series of Bible school literature and the Guardian of Truth Foundation began the project. The work was edited under the competent oversight of three distinguished brethren: Roy E. Cogdill, Cecil Willis and Ferrell Jenkins. Many respected brethren joined the editors in producing this series of literature by writing books for the series. This series of literature was produced at a cost of approximately $250,000. It has served the needs of brethren for 25 years.

Recently, the weaknesses of this material in the pre-school and primary grades have been addressed. Even as we write, work is being done to completely re-write these sections of the literature under the capable oversight of

Joyce Willis. Sister Willis holds a PhD. in elementary education and teaches at Youngstown (OH) State University. She is also married to Lewis Willis, faithful gospel preacher. In association with Mike Willis these six years of the series will be completely re-written under sister Willis’ editorial over-sight to be sure that the material is geared to the level of the student. The writing of year one is already completed.

2. The Walking with God series of Bible class literature has been a favorite with many for many years. Formerly this series was published under the name of Journeys Through the Bible. Many of us can remember studying this material as children. Several years ago, the weaknesses of this material in the preschool and primary years necessitated the complete re-writing of this section. Under the direction of Mike Willis and Shirley Mohon, this material was completely re-written. The last year of that material is finally at the printer. Already we are receiving many complimentary comments about this material and this series of literature has enjoyed a revival of interest as a result of this revision.

3. The Use Your Bible Workbooks series has been a favorite of many churches for nearly fifty years. Originally published by the C.E.I. company, it still is popular because of its emphasis on using the Bible to answer the questions in the workbooks, rather than relying too heavily on workbooks.

A Series of Adult Workbooks

Over the years, the Guardian of Truth Foundation has worked to prepare adult workbooks that address the needs of local congregations. We have been blessed with many very popular books. Some of the better known and older favorites have been the workbooks by Roy E. Cogdill entitled The New Testament Church and W a l k i n g B y Faith. I n recent years, many new titles have been added.

1. The Bible Study Textbook series is well under way. This series intends to provide a workbook for every book of the Bible. Already in print are Genesis, Exodus, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Luke, Acts (Johnny Stringer), 1-2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Herschel Patton), and Revelation (Weldon Warnock). Books that have been written but are not yet printed cover Leviticus-2 Kings. Unless otherwise noted, these workbooks have been written by Mike Willis.

2. A number of miscellaneous titles are already in print. Bible Basics for Believers by Weldon E. Warnock has been a very popular workbook for new converts classes and foundational material for all adult Bible classes.

A Study of Bible History and Geography by Sandra and Bob Waldron is a one-year study guide that ties together Bible history and geography. Complete with maps for the student to work with, this study has been well received.

Church History by Aude McKee is another popular study that takes a student briefly through the Roman Catholic apostasy, Protestant reformation (including specific histories of a number of denominations), and restoration movement.

Family Life: A Biblical Perspective by L.A. Stauffer continues to be a popular and excellent study of the home as God would have it.

God’s Perfect Plan by Kelly Ellis is a good synopsis of the plan of redemption that has been used in the program of study of the Danville, Kentucky church.

Responsibility and Authority in the Spiritual Realm by Dan King and Leon Boyd is a fresh study of Bible authority by two competent brethren. We are getting good reviews of this material.

Rudiments of Sight Singing and Song Directing by R.J. Stevens is a one-of-a-kind book. There is nothing on the market that compares to this training manual for song leaders.

Study of Premillennialism edited by Mike Willis is a study that might go unnoticed. This material originally appeared as a special issue of Guardian of Truth and questions were added to it by Johnny Stringer. As denominational interest in prophetic speculation increases as we approach the year 2000, we are expecting more and more brethren to find this study appealing.

Teaching: The Heart of the Matter by John Smith is the best workbook on the market to assist a congregation in training its teachers. There is nothing to compare it to of which we are aware. Written by a former public school teacher who has left teaching in public schools to preach the gospel, this workbook suggests ways to improve your work as a teacher, including an especially helpful chapter on questions designed to encourage class participation.

We Gather Together by Mike Willis is a workbook on congregational worship. After some introductory lessons on worship, this workbook provides two lessons on each of the five acts of worship. One lesson discusses the denominational apostasies relative to that act of worship and the second lesson discusses the positive things that should be accomplished in that act of worship. This workbook is already in its third printing and continues to be popular.

Women Professing Godliness by Donnie V. Rader is a thirteen lesson workbook on the role of women. Originally this material was published in Searching the Scriptures. Donnie added several lessons and prepared questions for this material. In light of the controversies that are brewing over women preachers and women attending business meetings, we encourage brethren to use this material.

New Titles Coming

In addition to these books that are already released, several new titles are going to be released in the not too distant future. To whet your appetite, we will mention a few.

The Church: A Biblical Perspective by L.A. Stauffer. This workbook, patterned after his popular workbook on the home, is a fresh study of the New Testament church. In view of the restructuring movement that is active among our liberal brethren and spreading over to influence some of us, this material is extremely relevant and needed. How long has it been since the church where you worship studied about the Lord’s church?

The Course of This World by Edward O. Bragwell. This examination of the spirit of worldliness is ready for the printer. We always need material to help us overcome the spirit of worldliness. This material should fill that need.

The Book of Leviticus by Mike Willis is another workbook in the series of Bible Study Textbooks for those who are methodically progressing through the Bible.

Truth Commentaries

In January, the first volume of Truth Commentaries, edited by Mike Willis, came off the press. We have been encouraged by the favorable comments we have received about this first volume. Two other volumes are now available: Galatians by Mike Willis and Ephesians by Golly G. Caldwell.

Other volumes are moving toward completion. Clinton Hamilton’s work on 1-2 Peter and Jude soon will be completed. Robert Harkrider is hoping to finish Revelation this year. Walton Weaver has completed Philippians is advancing through chapter two of Colossians. This series of commentaries will be an impressive set of books that you will want to add to your library.

An Editorial Staff of One

Our editorial staff consists of Mike Willis. Everything that we publish goes through his office. The preparation of books for publication is his work. This is added to his work of editing Guardian of Truth, a 32-page magazine that is published two times every month. He carries on this work in addition to preaching regularly for the Danville (IN) church of Christ. There he edits a weekly bulletin in addition to teaching his Bible classes and preaching. This is done without secretarial help. If he is slow in answering correspondence, perhaps you can understand why and be tolerant.

Two Bookstores

In addition to our publishing ventures, we run two first rate bookstores. Guardian of Truth Bookstore in Bowling Green, Kentucky is operated under the capable oversight of Alan Birdwell and the C E I Bookstore under O.C. Birdwell, Jr. Johnny and Nanette Stringer are being trained to take over the management of the C E I store. Both stores provide fast and dependable service in filling the needs of churches and individuals. Most frequently used publications are kept in stock and can be mailed to the customer the same day they are ordered.

Conclusion

We who are associated with Guardian of Truth appreciate the opportunity to serve that has been provided through this Foundation. We have no visions of being creed writers for the brethren, becoming a synod or council (or pope), serving as the standard for truth, or becoming an individually supported missionary society. The Bible is the only absolute standard of right and wrong and everything we publish is designed to turn men away from the thoughts and opinions of men and toward the revealed word of God. The church is all-sufficient to accomplish its God-given mission. The Guardian of Truth Foundation is in the publishing business and we are trying to serve the needs of Christians. We encourage you to examine our work and see if you agree.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 16-18
September 1, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

When strife occurred between the herdsmen of Abram’s and Lot’s cattle, Abram appealed to Lot for peace in the following words: “Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we be brethren” (Gen. 13:8). We are often instructed to seek and pursue peace within the perimeters of God’s Word (Rom. 12:18; 14:19; 2 Tim. 2:22; Heb. 12:14; Jas. 3:17). Like Abram, the church here at West Columbia hopes to see all strife between brethren eliminated, especially where there are no doctrinal differences.

In October of 1993, the elders did an overall review of our program of work, including a survey of the stand taken on some doctrinal issues by men we support and have scheduled for meetings. During the last decade, a number of men in whom the elders have had confidence have faltered and departed from the faith, especially on divorce and remarriage and related issues. This includes men whom we have supported and men who have been on the meeting schedule here. For reasons deemed sufficient by the elders, including the desire to be impartial, the elders decided to make the survey general by including all the men we support or have scheduled for meetings, and thus all of them received some Bible questions along with a letter explaining the elders’ purpose. When a couple of men expressed reservations about the questions, the elders worked with each of them in a patient, kind, and forbearing way, as each of them would doubtless testify. Gradually, what began as a local church taking care of its own business became a topic of widespread discussion as critics published the questions along with their objections, as pro and con views were exchanged in correspondence, and as anecdotal stories circulated.

Having completed their recent survey of our current program of work, the elders themselves decided to discontinue using this particular expedient as the format for asking Bible questions. They do not believe it is sinful to ask Bible questions as one of several methods to learn what men are teaching, but have taken this step in an effort to pursue peace and unity among brethren. This church is just as determined as ever to support only men whose teaching and life are true to the Word of God in so far as we can determine it. We are not wedded to any one expediency as the exclusive means of making that determination. Our discontinuing the use of this particular method of gathering information should confirm that this format for asking Bible questions was never used as the standard of truth. The elders will continue to be diligent in learning what men considered for support are teaching, and will reserve the right to ask Bible questions which they believe pertinent in any situation.

This decision reflects in part the kind and helpful suggestions of brother H.E. Phillips, which I relayed to the elders after visiting with him for about four hours. If everyone manifested his spirit when such differences of judgment arise, many problems could be discussed and resolved in a brotherly way without a public uproar. We regret that our local effort became a public issue and that misunderstandings and friction have occurred in some quarters over this matter. We appreciate brethren who have checked with us about various reports they heard and who have offered their input pro and con by approaching us about it, thus giving us a chance to clarify the situation rather than making it a matter of public dispute.

I fully agree with this decision by the elders. We are continuing to strive “together for the faith of the gospel” with “one mind” and “one spirit” (Phil. 1:27). In fact, we just completed one of the most successful vacation Bible schools and gospel meetings ever with 150-180 attending each service morning and evening, followed by 207 on the following Sunday, our highest attendance at a regular service. We are pressing forward with peace and unity in the same gospel labors for which this church has been noted all through the years, and shall continue to do so with the Lord’s help.

The news has been circulated that we have received a few debate challenges in recent months. We have responded courteously in private to each challenge. There are no plans to make a public response to such challenges because no debate is needed, and we do not wish to wrangle over the matter. Whatever judgmental differences and sincere concerns may be expressed pro and con about this format for asking Bible questions, the following facts are crystal clear and not disputed by any of the parties to this discussion. 1. The Word of God alone is the perfect, final, and all-sufficient standard of authority (2 Tim. 3:16-17). 2. All human creeds and all forms of human creeds are unscriptural and sinful (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:3). 3. Elders are authorized to ask questions of men considered for the local work including gospel meetings or for support elsewhere, and the format or procedure for asking such questions is a matter of expediency to be decided independently by each autonomous church (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Pet. 5:2-3; Heb. 13:17; 1 Jn. 4:1-6). As has always been true, we leave each church to make its own decision about how to proceed in such matters. These things being true, there are no doctrinal differences to debate.

The time has come for this matter to be put behind us and to get on with our work. This announcement may not satisfy everyone, but we hope it will serve the following purposes: reflect our commitment to pursue scriptural peace and unity among brethren, remove the format of Bible questions as a topic of concern among brethren, and explain why we do not plan to pursue debate proposals. “Let there be no strife.” (This article not only reflects the sentiments of the elders but also is submitted with their direct approval.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 19
September 1, 1994

By David A. Padfield

In the first chapter of Romans the apostle Paul listed the sins of the Gentiles. In this heinous list of crimes we find the phrase “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31, KJV). This refers to those who do not possess the love and attachment which nature teaches all mothers to have for their young.

This expression denotes the want of affectionate regard toward their children. The attachment of parents to children is one of the strongest in nature, and nothing can overcome it but the most confirmed and established wickedness. And yet the apostle charges on the heathen generally the want of this affection. He doubtless refers here to the practice so common among heathens of exposing their children, or putting them to death. This crime, so abhorrent to all the feelings of humanity, was common among the heathen, and is still. The Canaanites, we’re told, (Psa. cvi. 37,38) ‘sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan.’ Manasseh, among the Jews, imitated their ex-ample, and introduced the horrid custom of sacrificing children to Moloch, and set the example by offering his own, 2 Chronicles 33:6. Among the ancient Persians it was a common custom to bury children alive. In most of the Grecian states, infanticide was not merely permitted, but actually enforced by law (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament).

The practice of murdering small children was also common among the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Chinese and Hindus. The murder of children and the infirm is not isolated to antiquity. The Nazi Holocaust began with the elimination of almost 300,000 Aryan German citizens who were considered “defective.” Before Hitler was finished, his Nazi machine had murdered six million Jews, plus another six million Gypsies, Poles and prisoners of war.

Any woman who could destroy the child within her womb would have to be judged as one “without natural affection.” During the decade of fighting in Vietnam there were 58,655 American war causalities. Our country now kills more unborn babies than that every fifteen days. During the six major wars our country has fought (Revoluntary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam) we have sustained 1,160,591 casualties. Since abortion was legalized in this country in 1973, over 23 million unborn babies have been murdered by their mothers. The re-mains of these precious lives are destroyed in hospital incinerators or thrown into dumpsters behind the abortion mills. There is no national cemetery for the unborn, no flag draped coffins, no national day of remembrance.

Abortion is sinful because it is the willful taking of human life. Under the Mosaic Law, God said, “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exod. 21:22-25). If the accidental interruption of a pregnancy was to be punished, what about the one who deliberately murders the unborn?

The Psalmist David thought of himself as being alive while in his mother’s womb. “For you have formed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth” (Psa. 139:13-16). Though his body was not totally developed, David affirmed that the Lord knew him! The only real difference between an unborn child and a new-born baby is the way they feed and obtain oxygen.

People often ask what the mother should do if she knows the child will have birth defects. I remind them that no test is 100% accurate, and no child is 100% perfect! I get upset when abortionists tell me that life is not worth living if you have a handicap. As the father of a child born with multiple birth defects, I believe I have the right to exhibit a little righteous indignation.

Our oldest son was born about three months premature and weighed a little over three pounds. He was born a “blue baby” (i.e., not breathing). The doctor who delivered him decided not to resuscitate him, but to let him die. The anesthetist in the delivery room, one of the deacons from church, insisted that the doctor revive our son. For this we will be eternally grateful. Though my son is deaf and partially blind, he is a wonderful boy who enjoys life, and he made his parents very proud when he achieved the honor roll at school.

Some parents have told me they wished their children would have never been born. I have never heard this from the parent of a handicapped child, and I know a lot of them. In fact, these parents are the most militant anti-abortionists I have ever met. They believe life is worth living, even with physical impairments.

Though the Bible does not give an example of someone who aborted his child, it does tell us about an “unwanted” pregnancy: the case of David and Bathsheba (1 Sam. 11,12). David, the king of Israel, coveted his neighbor’s wife, stole her from her husband and committed adultery with her. To avoid the embarrassment of an illegitimate child, David murdered Uriah the Hittite. David’s solution to his problem was the same as many fornicators today: kill the innocent to protect the guilty!

According to Editorial Research Reports (1987, Vol. II, p. 537), 81.3% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women. This means that four out of five times the baby is murdered to hide the sin of its parents!

The Bible says the “way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:5, KJV). Picture a young woman in her final year of college finding out that she is pregnant. Her plans for the future will be ruined if she has the child, so she decides to have it killed. Then later in life, she often cries herself to sleep while thinking of the child that might have been. It is still true that the way of the transgressor is hard.

Abortion is no worse than the other sins listed in Romans 1:26-32. All sin is terrible. But, thanks be to God, there is a remedy: repentance. David spoke of it so eloquently in the 51st Psalm when he prayed, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, that the bones which you have broken may rejoice. Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, 0 God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with your generous Spirit. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners shall be converted to you.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 14-15
September 1, 1994

By Mike Willis

Bible unity is the “unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3), the “unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13). It is a unity that rests on the revealed word of God. Not all unity has God’s approval (see 2 Cor. 6:14-18), only that which is grounded in the word of God.

There are several axioms that one must believe before unity on the revealed truth can occur. Let us consider the following presuppositions at this time:

I. There Is An Absolute Truth.

In order for men to be united in the truth, one must first presuppose that there is an objective truth. We live in a society that has gradually come to accept subjective truth. Each individual has his own personal truth that is true for him but may not be true for others. This leads to an “I’m O.K., You’re O.K.” approach to doctrinal and moral truth. Moral and doctrinal absolutes are replaced by subjective truth. So long as this view of truth is accepted, there can be no unity of faith. Only moral and doctrinal unity-in-diversity can exist. The following popular statements are the logical conclusions drawn from the commitment to subjective truth and unity-in-diversity: “You believe in your God, I’ll believe in mine.” “You believe Jesus was the illegitimate child of Joseph and Mary, but I believe in the virgin birth.” “You choose homosexuality; I’ll be content with heterosexuality.” “You believe in divorce for any reason; I choose to believe there is only one reason for divorce that allows a person to remarry.” Any and every view and practice must be welcomed into the local church.

Writing in defense of “tolerance” (another way of referring to doctrinal unity-in-diversity), W.E. Garrison observed, “He whose theory of the world and of life rests upon the conviction that the framework of reality is a system of universal principles and immutable truths cannot lightly tolerate any program which appears to do violence to them. These universals and absolutes are always ready for use as the infallible norms by which to judge any opinion and course of action” (Tolerance 19). He charged that intolerance was related to the Hebrew concept of truth being absolute (44). Later Garrison said,

Whether Christians can be both tolerant and cooperative depends at last upon their ideas of God. With a God who delivers doctrines, frames codes, and lays down explicit and immutable programs of action, there can be little hope of more than a tepid and prudential toleration by one group for others who hold a different view as to the exact content of these revealed doctrines, codes, and programs. With a God who is the giver of life and grace but who leaves all formulations of doctrine and laws of conduct to the wisdom and experience of men, there is opportunity for the development of toleration toward varieties of opinion and practice without the sacrifice of earnestness in contending for that which seems best to each (236).

W.E. Garrison correctly observed that tolerance of many different beliefs, as is common to unity-in-diversity, necessitates a rejection of the belief in an absolute truth.

The rejection of the Bible as a blueprint, opposition to the restoration principle, and the present day condemnation of “legalism” are affirmations of subjective truth.

We reject subjective truth and teach that there is an objective truth, an absolute standard for determining right and wrong. That standard is the Bible. If we accept that the Bible is the revelation of God, it is the truth. There are a number of evidences that the Bible claims to be the revelation of God and, therefore, the absolute truth. Consider some of them:

1. The Old Testament. We can examine only a few statements that emphasize this. (The reader should be careful not to conclude that the few examples cited are a result of a paucity of evidence.) Solomon said, “Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Prov. 23:23). Solomon said that there is an objective truth that men can learn and make their own. David asserted that he “walked in the truth” (Ps. 26:3; 86:11) and taught the truth (Ps. 40:10). He identified the truth with the revealed word of God (Ps. 119:43,151). He said, “The sum of thy word is truth” (Ps. 119:160, NASB).

2. Jesus expressed his belief in an objective truth. He stated that men must know the truth in order to be saved from sin (John 8:32). He revealed the truth (John 1:17) and was the truth (John 14:6; cf. Eph. 4:21). His word is truth (John 17:17). Furthermore, this absolute truth will be the standard by which all men are judged (John 12:47-48).

3. The Scriptures are the absolute standard of objective truth. They are the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37-38). They are an all-sufficient revelation for all men (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

II. The Truth (the Bible) Can Be Known.

Not only has God given us the truth, but also men can know it. An objective truth that cannot be known by men is worthless, as worthless as having $1 million that a person cannot spend. However, the Bible teaches that men can know the revealed truth.

1. The truth is a revelation. The fact that God has revealed his truth means that men can know it (see Rom. 16:25-26). The word apokalupsis means “to uncover, reveal.” By definition, a “revelation” is something that can be known.

2. The Scriptures expressly state that men can know the truth. Paul stated that men could know his understanding of the mystery of Christ by reading what he had written (Eph. 3:1-5). Indeed, the Lord commanded that men “understand” what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17). God has not commanded of man that which is impossible for him to do. The command to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good” presupposes that men can do that (1 Thess. 5:21). Paul said that men can know the truth (1 Tim. 4:3). Those who had fallen back into sin have departed from the truth that they once knew (Heb. 10:26; 2 Pet. 2:20-22).

3. Jesus made salvation conditional upon one’s knowing the truth. Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Are we to think that Jesus made salvation conditional upon man’s doing what is impossible for him to do  to understand the truth? What kind of God would offer man salvation upon terms impossible for him to attain?

God made man as he is and the Bible as it is. The Bible was intended to reveal God’s will to man. If man is unable to understand the Bible, there is either (a) something wrong with man or (b) something wrong with the Bible. But, in either case, the problem falls back on him who made both. To state that men cannot know the truth is to cast aspersions on God!

III. Men Can Understand

That Truth (the Bible) Alike.

This third conclusion is the logical extension of the second axiom. If men understand the Bible at all, they understand it alike. Men may misunderstand the Bible and, because of the misunderstanding, understand it differently. But, when men understand the Bible, they necessarily understand it alike.

God’s revelation is not subject to 100 different equally good interpretations. To so assert is to reflect on (a) God’s ability to reveal himself or (b) His integrity. When God spoke, he spoke in such a manner as to communicate his will to man. He did not speak with the purpose of leaving ambiguity and uncertainty.

Every passage that condemns false doctrine is a bold assertion that men are expected to understand the Bible alike. Consider some of these passages:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2 John 9-11).

A number of similar passages could be cited, but the implication is that men were expected to come to a common understanding of what God said on the particular issue under discussion.

A fundamental contradiction occurs when brethren argue from the Bible to prove that men cannot understand the Bible alike. Must all men understand alike the Bible teaching that men cannot understand the Bible alike? If a person is going to affirm that men cannot understand the Bible alike, he needs to make his argument without appealing to the Bible for his authority. Every argument he makes based on the Bible contradicts his presupposition. Every argument he makes assumes that all men can understand the Bible alike. To argue and defend his case, he must reject the Bible as his final authority.

The Devil’s Assault:

“We Cannot Understand the Bible Alike”

The devil leads men into a false unity, a moral and doctrinal unity-in-diversity, by deceiving them into believing that men cannot understand the Bible alike. In reading articles advocating unity-in-diversity, there is a common belief that men cannot understand the Bible alike. The usual argument is to list areas in which men are disagreed and then conclude that we can never have unity if we are expecting all men to believe the same truths. Let’s try that out on New Testament areas of conflict. Here is a partial list of things on which New Testament saints disagreed:

Jesus was in the flesh (1-3 John)

There is no bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15)

The resurrection is already past (2 Tim. 2:18)

Man must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved (Acts 15; Gal.)

Men should not eat meat (1 Tim. 4:1-3)

Men should not marry (1 Tim. 4:1-3)

If we argued like our unity-in-diversity advocates, we would say, “We can no more think alike than we can look alike.” “All truths are equally true, but not equally important.” “We must agree to disagree on these areas.” The implication of these arguments is this: we cannot expect to understand the Bible alike. But this approach was not followed in these conflicts. Brethren did not practice moral and doctrinal unity-in-diversity but worked to attain the unity of the Spirit  a unity grounded on revealed truth.

When men start blaming doctrinal disagreements on the lack of clarity of the Scriptures, they are arguing for unity in-diversity on the presupposition that men cannot understand the Bible alike. If the fact that men are disagreed on, for example, divorce and remarriage is proof of the lack of clarity of Scripture and justifies unity-in diversity, the same kinds of disagreements on baptism, institutionalism, instrumental music in worship, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and the existence of God justify unity-in-diversity in these areas as well!

Tolerance of all doctrinal differences is too broad a fellowship for those advocating unity-in-diversity. They see that these principles consistently followed would ultimately lead to universalism, for men are just as divided over whether or not God exists, Jesus is the Son of God, the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. as they are over church support of human institutions (missionary societies, hospitals, colleges, etc.), instrumental music in worship, choirs, women preachers, etc. To limit the application of the unity-in-diversity principle, the heirs of the restoration who embrace unity-in-diversity divide the Bible into two sections: “gospel” and “doctrine.” Men are expected to understand alike the limited portion of Scripture which they subjectively and arbitrarily label “gospel”; the rest of the Bible, which is subjectively and arbitrarily labeled “doctrine,” can be understood differently. In these areas of subjectively chosen subjects alone, unity-in-diversity is possible.

As the years pass, the number of items that are included in the area of “doctrine” is gradually expanded. This can be seen from the history of every denomination that has accepted the unity-in-diversity approach. Soon the church that practices unity-in-diversity stands for nothing. A person can hold membership in the denomination and believe anything.

The obvious weakness of this is the self-contradictory nature of the presupposition underlying the unity-in-diversity plea: All men must understand alike that men cannot understand the Bible alike. Since truth is consistent with itself, the proposition that men cannot understand the Bible alike is to be rejected as self-contradictory. In addition it is a different kind of unity from the unity of the Spirit.

Conclusion

These three axioms are essential to attaining the unity of the Spirit: (1) There is an absolute truth; (2) That truth can be known; and (3) Men can understand that truth alike. Unless men can agree that these axioms are true, we cannot attain and maintain the “unity of the Spirit.” 9-11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 2
September 15, 1994