Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

In Luke 7:1-10 (and the parallel account: Matt. 8:5-13) we find the story of Jesus healing the Centurion’s servant. When this Centurion heard about Jesus, he sent some of the elders of the Jews to Jesus requesting that he heal his servant who was dear to him. Jesus went with them. When he was close to the house, this Roman soldier sent his friends out to Jesus to tell him that he was not worthy that Jesus should come under his roof. He said that all Jesus needed to do was “say the word” and his servant would be healed. He explained to Jesus how he understood the principle of authority for he was a man who had authority.

The text says that Jesus “marveled” at him (v. 9). There are only two times that the Bible says Jesus marveled at someone. On the other occasion he marveled at their unbelief (Mark 6:6). In our text, he marvels at the Centurion’s faith saying, “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (v. 9).

The word “marvel” means wonder or amazement. The NIV uses the word “amazed” in our text. Jesus was amazed at the great faith of the Centurion. He was no ordinary man.

If we have the same characteristics as this man, God will marvel and be pleased with our lives.

What is it about this man that made Jesus say he had such great faith? His faith (like our faith) involves not only what he believes, but also how he lives. Let’s see what we learn from this man.

He Was A Man Of Power  Yet

Interested In The Lord

This was no ordinary man. He was a centurion (a commander of 100 men). He was a man of power who commanded respect and obedience (v. 8). Yet, he was interested in and needed the Lord (v. 3).

Too often the things of this world (such as power, fame or money) lead people astray. These and other things can impress us with our own self-importance to the point that we have no real need for the Lord. The cares of this world can choke out the word of God (Luke 8:14).

That did not happen with the Centurion. He had power and, no doubt, fame and money. Yet, there was a genuine interest in the Lord.

He Cared About Others

1. He cared about his servant (vv. 2-3). His servant was “dear to him.” The one the Centurion cared about was not his superior who could do him favors like promoting him to higher rank. He apparently was not some family member. Rather, he was a slave. A slave or servant was a “living tool” according to the Romans. He was viewed as some hand tool. He could be cast away to die if he became sick. But not this Roman soldier!

2. He cared about the Jews (v. 5). The Jew-Gentile relationship was not good. They hated each other.They were enemies. But, notice in our text that it was the Jews who went on the mission for this Gentile. They told that he loved the nation of the Jews so much so that he built for them a synagogue.

The concern this man had for his servant and the Jews was not ordinary.

We too must learn to care about others. We must treat others as we would have them treat us (Matt. 7:12). Paul tells us not to just think about ourselves, but also think about others (Phil. 2:4). Our concern for others will involve weeping with those that weep and rejoicing with those that rejoice (Rom. 12:15).

If our faith is great, our care for others will also include those who may seem to be unworthy of our care. It will include those of humble living (Rom. 12:16) and even our enemies (vv. 20-21).

This Man Earned The Respect Of His Neighbors

This Roman soldier was a foreigner in Capernaum. His neighbors would, no doubt, watch him closely. Yet, they learned to trust him. His was friendly to them and they to him. They were willing to go on this errand to Jesus for him. The elders of the Jews said he was worthy (v. 4). He earned the respect of his neighbors.

We ought to live in such a way that those around us have a good report about us. Cornelius, another centurion, had a good reputation among all the Jews (Acts 10:2,22). Before men are qualified to serve as elders, they are to have a good report among their neighbors (1 Tim. 3:7). Paul told Timothy to be an example of the believers (1 Tim. 4:12).

He Was An Humble Man

1. He viewed himself unworthy before the Lord (vv. 6-7). He sent word to the Lord that he was not worthy that he should come under his roof.

2. He let God and others esteem him and not himself. Others said he was “worthy” (v. 4). He said he was not worthy (v. 7). Jesus said he had not seen so great a faith even in Israel (v. 9). He was doing what the Proverb writer said, “Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips” (Prov. 17:2).

If God and others are going to esteem us, we must not esteem ourselves (Rom. 12:3,16). If we do promote ourselves, then God and others will not speak favorably of us (1 Pet. 5:5-6).

His Faith Was Great

1. He believed in the Lord  that he he could heal his servant (v. 3).

2. He believed that the Lord was great and worthy (vv. 6-7).

3. His faith was greater than had been seen in Israel (v. 9).

Our faith must grow and increase (2 Thess. 1:3). If it grows, it becomes great. If not, it diminishes in weakness. Let’s grow in grace and knowledge (2 Pet. 3:18).

He Respected The Power And

Authority Of Jesus

The Centurion stood in awe of the power of Jesus (vv. 6-7). He knew the power of the word of God for he said that all Jesus needed to do was “say the word” and the servant would be healed (v. 7).

He well understood the principle of authority. He was a man who was placed under the authority of his superiors. He was also a man with authority over a hundred men. All he had to do was to say “go,” “come,” or “do this” and his soldiers would respond.

We must learn that responding to the authority of God means doing just what he says. We must also impress upon our mind the power of God’s word. When God “says the word” there is real power. God said the words “Let there be light” and there was. God said, “Peace be still” and it was. The same word has the power to convert the sinner (Rom. 1:16) and keep the saved (Heb. 10:39).

What would the Lord say about your faith? Would he say, “I have not seen so little faith”? Would he say, “I have not seen so weak faith”? Would he say, “That’s good, but I’ve seen a lot better”? Or, would he say, “I not see so great faith. . .”?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 14-15
June 2, 1994

By Mike Willis

In recent months, Dr. Jack Kevorkian has received national attention because of his assisting those who are suffering to commit suicide. A jury in Michigan recently declared him innocent of committing a crime in assisting someone to commit suicide. The jury decided he was trying to end pain not to put someone to death.

Years ago, doctors made a decision to depart from the Hippocratic Oath in order to perform abortions. Now Dr. Kevorkian has departed from a second part of the Hippocratic Oath formerly taken by doctors. The Hippocratic Oath reads as follows: “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel. Further-more, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce an abortion” (A Treasury of the Familiar 47). The rejection of the Hippocratic Oath is the rejection of the brighter lights of pagan ethics, in preference for the darker side of pagan morality.

As I have read of Dr. Death’s work in assisting people to commit suicide and to reshape America’s concept about euthanasia, I wondered what would have been the outcome had Dr. Kevorkian met Job.

Job Was A Likely Candidate For Suicide

The book of Job relates the story of a God-fearing man who was subjected to horrible suffering. Consider these horrible things that happened to this godly man:

1. Job lost his wealth. In one day, Job lost all of his fortunes. The Sabeans attacked, killing some of Job’s servants and taking his oxen and asses; lightning (fire of God) destroyed his sheep; the Chaldeans took his camels and slew others of his servants. Job changed from being a rich man to a pauper in one day. Several of those who lost everything in the stock market crash of the 1920s committed suicide, but Job did not lose heart.

2. Job lost his children. On the same day that these events happened, his seven sons and three daughters were together when a tornado (a great wind) hit the house they were in and killed all of them. I have known people whose faith was severely tested by the loss of one child, but what about Job losing all ten? Job said, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (1:21).

3. Job lost his health. The Devil next afflicted Job’s body with “sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown” (2:7). His flesh turned black (30:28,30) and became worm infested (7:5). He was so disfigured in appearance that his friends could not recognize him (2:12). His illness lasted for months (7:3). His suffering was so great that he could not sleep at night (7:4). Job lost all hope of things ever being better (7:7,13-14). 4. Job lost his social position. He was no longer respected in the community (12:4; 17:6). His friends turned against him (6:14-21). He became lonely (19:13-20; 30:29). He did not think that God was listening to his prayers (23:8-9).

5. His wife lost her faith (2:9). She who had been his faithful companion in the good times reacted to Job’s miserable condition by saying, “Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die.”

Job Wanted To Die

In his agony, Job expressed his desire for death to come and relieve him of his misery. He said,

Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived. Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it. As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months (3:3-6).

Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the bitter in soul; which long for death, but it cometh not; and dig for it more than for hid treasures; which rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they can find the grave? Why is light given to a man whose way is hid, and whom God hath hedged in? (3:20-23)

So that my soul chooseth strangling, and death rather than my life (7:15).

My soul is weary of my life (10:1).

Job became so despondent that he wanted to die.

What If Dr. Kevorkian Had Come to Job?

Can you imagine what might have happened, if Dr. Kevorkian had come to Job when he was suffering to this extent? Kevorkian might have used his platitudes to justify his doctor assisted suicide. He might have said, “Job has a right to choose to die without anyone imposing his moral judgments on him.” “The right of privacy should keep the state out of the decision to be made by the patient and his doctor.” “Job has a right to die with dignity.” “The quality of Job’s life has made life not worth living.” Kevorkian may have even persuaded himself and the press of his day into believing that he was acting magnanimously by putting Job out of his misery.

We Would Not Read of the Patience of Job

If Dr. Kevorkian had come and satisfied Job’s yearning for death, the Scriptures would not have spoken to us of the “patience of Job” (Jas. 5:11) nor placed him alongside Noah and Daniel as examples of godliness (Ezek. 14:14,20).

Dr. Kevorkian’s Morality

When one contemplates the scene of Dr. Kevorkian confronting Job, he is impressed with the fact that two different moralities would come into conflict if the two met. I do not know Dr. Kevorkian; nevertheless, the following conclusions may be logically drawn about his moral standard from his work in assisting people to commit suicide.

1. Dr. Kevorkian judges life solely on the basis of this-worldly existence and without consideration of life beyond death.

2. Dr. Kevorkian believes that when the number of unpleasant moments exceeds those that are pleasant, the quality of life is sufficiently poor that its value is gone.

3. Subjectively devised criteria for determining “quality of life” are used for making the decision of whether or not to commit suicide.

4. Kevorkian believes that he is magnanimous in his work of “relieving” human suffering by doctor assisted suicide.

5. Suicide is a morally neutral choice that autonomous man should be allowed to make without state interference and moral judgments from those who disagree.

The decision to commit suicide is a logical choice for one who has rejected the fundamental premises of Christianity. If there is no life beyond this one, no judgment, and no heaven or hell, why not choose to end life when its sufferings are unbearable? Suicide is sometimes the response of one frustrated by trying to live without God. Life leaves one with an intolerable emptiness and loneliness, even when he is rich and prosperous. Some who have so much to live with have nothing to live for. So they end their life in suicide, the disappointing result of a consciously chosen godless lifestyle.

A Departure From Christian Ethics

Doctor assisted suicide is another significant departure from Christian ethics. Like abortion, suicide historically has been thought to be sinful. One of the best treatises that I have read on suicide came from Augustine’s The City of God. Augustine made several arguments against suicide that I would like to pass on to our readers.

1. Suicide is murder. The Bible teaches “thou shalt not kill” (Exod. 20:13). Suicide is self-murder, but murder nonetheless. The man who commits suicide has reached the wrong conclusion about himself. He does not love himself (cf. Matt. 22:39). He hates his own flesh (cf. Eph. 5:29). Augustine wrote, “It is not without signification, that in no passage of the holy canonical books there can be found either divine precept or permission to take away our own life, whether for the sake of entering on the enjoyment of immortality, or of shunning, or ridding ourselves of anything whatever” (The City of God I:30).

2. Suicide is a reflection of a character weakness. Men choose to take their own lives because of a weakness of character, not strength of character. Worldly men desire pleasant days, not to devote themselves to the glory and service of God, but to have uninterrupted, luxurious license without uneasiness or disaster. When they see no hope of future days to be sent in self-indulgence, they reason that suicide is preferable.

They sometimes write and speak as if great personal strength of soul accompanies the decision to end their life. But, Augustine wrote, “If you look at the matter more closely, you will scarcely call it greatness of soul, which prompts a man to kill himself rather than bear up against some hardships of fortune, or sins in which he is not implicated. Is it not rather proof of a feeble mind, to be unable to bear either the pains of bodily servitude or the foolish opinion of the vulgar? And is not that to be pronounced the greater mind, which rather faces than flees the ills of life” (The City of God I:32-33). Indeed, the man who refuses to face the burdens which have come to him in the providence of God is lacking in hupomone (patience, steadfastness), a moral virtue to be added to one’s faith (2 Pet. 1:6).

Augustine understood that the adversities of life are used as temptations by the Devil to destroy man’s faith. Augustine reasoned that when God “exposes us to adversities, it is either to prove our perfections or correct our imperfections; and in return for our patient endurance of the sufferings of time, he reserves for us an everlasting reward” (The City of God I:42). Again he wrote, “There is another reason why the good are afflicted with temporal calamities  the reason which Job’s case exemplifies: that the human spirit may be proved, and that it may be manifested with what fortitude of pious trust, and with how unmercenary a love, it cleaves to God” (The City of God I:14).

He spoke of the differences when wicked and righteous men suffer: “Wherefore, though good and bad men suffer alike, we must not suppose that there is no difference between the men themselves, because there is no difference in what they both suffer. For even in the likeness of the sufferings, there remains an unlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with the oil, though squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked. And thus it is that in the same affliction the wicked detest God and blaspheme while the good pray and praise. So material a difference does it make, not what ills are suffered, but what kind of man suffers them” (The City of God I:11).

Christians have viewed the adversities of life as tools used by the Devil to destroy one’s trust and faith in God (Job 1:8-12; 2:1-6; cf. Luke 22:31). As so used, they are to be borne with patience, all the while maintaining one’s faith in Christ.

3. Suicide is a sin that leaves no time for repentance. There are many sins that men commit that leave us time to contemplate what we have done and turn to God in penitence, to seek his merciful forgiveness (see Rev. 2:21; Rom. 2:4). Suicide by its nature does not give man time to come to repentance.

4. Suicide is the exchange of temporary suffering for everlasting torment. Augustine wrote, “But this we affirm, this we maintain, this we every way pronounce to be right, that no man ought to inflict on himself voluntary death, for this is to escape the ills of time by plunging into those of eternity; … that no man should put an end to this life to obtain that better life we look for after death, for those who die by their own hand have no better life after death” (The City of God I:38).

Conclusion

In some cases, suicide is a result of mental instability and sickness. One can no more be condemned for having that than having chickenpox. Because we sometimes do not know the physical circumstances of people, we must be careful in our judgments for the sake of the survivors.

However, we are in a life and death struggle for the soul of our country. A new religion is invading  a religion that denies God, that man has a soul, that there is a judgment, and that there is a heaven and hell. Its ethical ramifications lead to the approbation of such actions as abortion, suicide, and euthanasia. Dr. Kevorkian and his “ministry” are re-shaping American thought to approve this part of the ethics of this godless religion. Let us not be deceived by our compassion for those who are suffering into rejecting the Christian system of ethics for those of Dr. Kevorkian and his ilk.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 2
June 16, 1994

By Alex Ogden

It had been twenty-one years since this nation had buried a president. The flag draped casket being transported on a horse drawn cart, the horse without a rider, the twenty-one gun salute are all memories I have from presidential funerals during my childhood. On a trip to Washington, D.C. when I was eight, we visited Arlington National Cemetery where we viewed the grave of John F. Kennedy with its eternal flame. Now we have laid to rest the thirty-seventh president of the United States, Richard M. Nixon.

It was only a few months after our visit to Washington, D.C. when Richard Nixon was first elected to the office of President. My memories of his presidency are not extensive, but I do have strong memories of the ending of the draft, the agreement to end the Vietnam war, Gerald Ford being selected to replace Spiro Agnew as Vice-President, and, of course, Watergate and Mr. Nixon’s resignation from office which resulted. All these memories started coming back to me when Mr. Nixon suffered his stroke that Monday evening.

As soon as his death was announced the various news services began looking back on the life and times of Mr. Nixon. Various politicians appeared to describe what kind of man he was. As I watched the various reports and listened to all that was being said about him, a few things came to mind which we need to stop and think about.

Mr. Nixon’s Faith

In all that was said about Mr. Nixon the night of his death, I thought it interesting how no one said that when they think of Richard Nixon they think of his deep faith in the Lord. Many said, when they think of Mr. Nixon, they think of his accomplishments abroad with the Chinese and Russians. Others said they think immediately of the disgrace of Watergate and his resignation from office. No one in the interviews I saw ever commented on his faith.

I’m sure we all know someone who has lived his life in such a way we can’t help but think of his faith when we think of him. When people think of you, do they immediately think about your faith in the Lord? Or do they think about the things you have accomplished, or failed to accomplish, in this world? Shouldn’t we all live our lives in such a way that when people think of us they immediately think of our faith in the Lord?

People will think of our faith when they think of us if we are truly committed first to the Lord. Jesus said, “But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). Have you put the Lord first in your life? If you allow anything to come before the Lord, then the Lord is not first in your life. Paul said, “If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth” (Col. 3:1,2). We should have our minds focused on those things which are above because “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). People can tell what our mind is focused on by the things we do and the things we talk about. Is your mind focused upon your goal, heaven? If those around you don’t know heaven is your goal, it may be because it really isn’t.

Jesus said, “For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?” (Matt.16:26) What we have gained or accomplished in this life is not what is important. What is important is whether we have gained our life, secured for ourselves an eternal home in the heavens with our Creator. Have you taken the steps necessary to be assured an eternal home in the heavens?

His Faults

That Richard Nixon had faults cannot be denied, nor can those mistakes ever be forgotten. He will forever be remembered as the first, and to date the only, president to resign the highest office in the land.

Before the death of Jesus on the cross of Calvary it was not possible for a sinner to get rid of his sins. Once you committed sin it was forever remembered against you (cf. Heb. 10:1-4). But the Lord had promised to make a covenant with man which would finally deal with the problem of sin. He had promised, “I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more” (Jer. 31:34).

When Jesus died on the cross he put to death the old law (Col. 2:14) and put into effect the new law designed by God to deal with sin. Now, if we will have an obedient faith in the Lord (Heb. 5:8,9;11:6; Jas. 2:14-26), he will blot out our sins and they will be remembered against us no more. It is comforting to know the sins of our past can be completely wiped out and forgotten.

When I think of the mistakes of Mr. Nixon, and every-one else on the earth for that matter, I also think of our Saviour, Jesus Christ the Lord, who lived his life without sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22). Although we all fail to live without sin (Rom. 3:23), it should be our goal to be without sin just like Jesus. Peter said, “For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:21,22). And Paul said, “For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). Our Creator is so pleased with his Son he wants us all to be just like him. For the Lord to look on your life without remembering all your sins, you need to follow the example of Jesus and submit yourself to the will of the Father in all things.

A Day of Mourning

Wednesday, April 27, was declared by President Clinton as a national day of mourning for Richard Nixon. All federal offices were closed as well as many businesses across the country all in honor of Mr. Nixon.

When I think of the national day of mourning for Mr. Nixon I think of the day our Lord set aside for us to remember his death on the cross for our sins. Paul recorded the words of our Lord pertaining to the observance of the Lord’s supper. As we partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine he said, “. . . this do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). The Lord’s supper is designed by our Lord himself to be a memorial of him and his death on the cross for us. It isn’t a one time memorial or even an annual memorial. It is clear from Acts 20:7 it is a weekly memorial. Each Lord’s day when we partake of the Lord’s supper we remember our Lord and what he did for us at Calvary.

Whenever someone we know dies we need to stop and examine ourselves to see if we are ready for our appointment with death. Have you prepared to meet the Lord? If you haven’t taken care of sin in your life, if others don’t know of your faith and if you don’t remember the Lord’s death each Lord’s day, then you aren’t ready.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 1
June 16, 1994

By Robert F. Turner

Only the “straw man” argues all questions make a creed. The issue is: despite undoubted good intentions by the writer, does “the 28,” with accompanying letter, have the elements of a creed.

I did not “request” this exchange, as reported in Ron’s letter to Gospel Truths, April issue. His offer to make correction in that paper is appreciated, but I should speak for myself. In October ’93 I sent the G.O.T. editor an objective article on creeds (no reference to church, person or “the 28”), but saying the Bible was an adequate test for othodoxy. He would only publish it side-by-side with an article (not Ron’s) that was filled with innuendo, questioning of motives, “playing the martyr,” “problem of ego,” “something to hide.” We needed teaching, not character bashing. Then Mike suggested brother Halbrook as the other writer. In a conference call (with Mike and Ron) I pled for objective articles, written at the same time rather than as rebuttal, but they would not accept that. So, I said do it your own way: two articles each, five pages, double spaced.

Brother Halbrook did a great job of proving elders should beware of false teachers (Acts 20:28-32), feed the flock (1 Pet. 5:1-4), try the spirits (with words of inspired men, I might add; 1 In. 4:1-6), and the like; but those things are not the issue. We are discussing creedalistic tendencies, and before one can label or deny anything to be “creedalistic,” the meaning of “creed” or “creedal” must be established. Reread sources quoted in my first article.

Brother Halbrook says there is Bible authority for asking questions. I know of none who doubt it. There is also Bible authority for writing what one believes  Paul’s letters, for example. But these are straw men. Stating what one believes, or the mere fact that “the 28” are questions does not make them creedal. But add: (1) these questions duplicated as a unit, (2) sent to 19 or more men, including men believed to be sound, (3) used to prove recipients “walk in the old paths of divine revelation,” and then (4) adopt the attitude that “men who are drifting would resent and would refuse . . .” and we have a case. I am aware that Ron explains this as having to do only “on the subjects specified.” He fails to see that this specifying of a few subjects for such a job is the essence of creedalism. Passages cited as “authority” for the “28” (Acts 20;28-32; 1 Pet. 3:15; 5:1-4; 1 In. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9-11) do not justify whatwas done. Each calls for testing by the total inspired message (art. 1, par. 11).

Important distinctions must be made between what is recorded in the N.T., and what Ron defends today. Paul said “the Spirit speaketh . . .” regarding forbidding to marry, etc. (1 Tim. 4:1-3). These inspired statements were a part of the whole truth being gradually revealed at that time. He was not authorizing a selection of a few special interest items to be used to test for soundness. Regarding 1 Corinthians, surely Ron does not think Paul sent a list of questions, such as: (1) Do you have too much confidence in preachers? (2) Do you live in adultery? etc., in order to test Corinthian orthodoxy. Instead, he gave inspired teaching on these subjects to add to the whole truth. We are to use the total truth, not a creed derived from it, to test others. Neither denominational beliefs, nor yours, nor mine, make an adequate standard for testing preachers.

Debate questions, duplicated and sent as standards to test the orthodoxy of preachers you support, would be equally inadequate.

Brother Halbrook did the writing of the “28”  and “they reflect” his special interests. Now so far as I can determine, I agree with Ron’s conclusions about marraige and divorce, but passing that and the other test questions would not guarantee my soundness. Ron’s views cannot test my soundness  it is subject only to God’s inspired word as a whole. But he says creeds “claim to be” creeds, and his questions do not so “claim.” If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… Ron has yet to recognize the essence of creedalism.

He says the “28” is a “judgment call,” because some have voiced unsound views recently. Before the “28”  how did they know these men were unsound? What guarantee have we that signers of the “28” will remain sound? Ron puts the “28” in the realm of Romans 14. Do all human “tests” (per se) fit in Romans 14? Although most have errors (nor are the “28” inspired) we have already shown the list may be true and still be a creed (definitions, in my first article).

My advice regarding selecting preachers? Treat each man individually, seek references from others you trust, watch for good character traits, ask questions growing out of investigation, remember God’s rule applies to all alike (2 Cor. 10:13). Knowing your own “beliefs” are subject to error, seek a man who, like yourself, is willing to measure and remeasure his beliefs by the total truth. You cannot know his heart, nor even all his concepts; but look for evidence of a soul hungry man who puts God service above himself.

Then, a surprising statement. We are told variations in interpreting a question, lack of agreement on every aspect of a subject, or “preference of another format for stating his stand” do not terminate support. Sounds good, but did not the elders’ letter say “men who are drifting” would resent and refuse to answer the “28”? Written statements of others who approve of this project are far more bitter about all who disapprove, leaving no room for honest doubt about the procedure. This is a typical result of sectarian and creedal attitude, and we urge that it not be encouraged.

Ron selects six doctrines, scattered through 1 and 2 Timothy, acknowledges they are “less than the whole truth,” then says, “It could be said, `Men who are drifting would resent and would refuse to answer these six simple questions. ‘ Of course they were not questions in the first place, each had its own context, and were but part of the process of divine revelation of truth. Can you see Paul sending out six questions to Timothy to test his orthodoxy?

But delving deeper into the history of creeds we will see that creedalism and sectarianism go hand in hand. Rereading the quotes in my first article you will see that the creedal mind selects certain parts of the total revelation, rallies its followers around these parts, thus creating a distinctive “sect.” The dictionary suggests having in common a leader or a distinctive doctrine or way of thinking, i.e., distinct because only a part of total revelation.

The Greek hairesis (translated “heresy, sect”) has an interesting background. Its early meaning was “choose,” and for a time was “kin” to eunoia (favor, good will). But this “choosing” developed in a bad sense to mean “factiousness” (Moulton and Milligan). So, a “sect” of the Jews was a party rallied around their distinctive “I believes” (Pharisees, Herodians, etc.), and early followers of Christ were once thought of as a “sect of the Nazarenes” (cf. Acts 24:5,14). Ron and I both know that truth Christians rally around Christ, meaning the total teaching of Christ. I am satisfied Ron and his elders did not intend to do otherwise.

But the history of creeds shows that when limited doctrines are set forth in some special form, a list of “I believes,” whether stated declaratively or interrogatively, they encourage strife, build party lines, discourage the balance attained by looking to the Scriptures alone as our standard. Can anyone doubt that “the 28” places emphasis upon certain portions of the total doctrine of Christ, tests for “drifting” from these particulars, and has caused exactly the kind of friction, impugning of motives, etc., we have come to expect of creeds. With no personal animosity, fully believing in the writers’ good intentions, it should be clear that “the 28,” while an honest mistake, shows creedal tendencies.

Finally, Ron and I, and all of us, face a common problem. Fellowship is based upon the “doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9-10), and that must mean what we believe is his doctrine. In seeking to teach others we explain the N.T. as we believe it to be . . . what else can we do? But here we face a critical point. We must not build their faith on our beliefs, but strive to “sanctify the Lord God” in their hearts, so that they build their own faith from his teaching. We are asked, “What does the church of Christ teach on divorce?” I reply, “The church is not the source of any teaching. God’s word says . . .” I have no right to set forth my beliefs as the standard for others. What the Holy Spirit wrote is completely adequate for that. My own beliefs must be constantly subject to testing by that rule.

I am well aware that certain “issues” arise, needing special attention. I appreciate and applaud men, including brother Halbrook, who make the necessary study, and preach God’s word on these matters. For several years in the fifties I left home, family and guaranteed support, to try and meet the special need of that day. But I also know that balance is necessary. It was wrong then to conclude a church was “sound in the faith” merely because it did not support sponsoring elders or orphan homes. If any made such claim, liberal brethren were right in saying those “issues” had become their creed. A church, and a preacher, must be measured by much more than what they believe about some special problem, important though it may be.

Ron and the elders should be appreciated for their concern about sound teaching. I pray this study regarding sound methods of concern will help much, and hinder none, of like concerns in the future.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 20-21
June 2, 1994