Truth Magazine

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

By Ron Halbrook

Every passage instructing elders to guard the church authorizes them to ask questions by generic authority, just as the elders here did (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Their questions are no more creedalistic than literature nor sectarian than classes. Every passage instructing the church to proclaim the gospel authorizes literature and classes by generic authority (1 Thess. 1:7-8; 1 Tim. 3:14-15). They are lawful and expedient. Questions, literature, and classes can be abused in creedalistic, sectarian ways, but such is not the practice of brethren. The charge is made but proof is lacking. Brother Turner, the elders, and I agree on literature and classes, and are very close on questions. We agree expediencies are authorized but not specified.

We all agree “there is Bible authority for asking questions” and giving Bible answers in Acts 20:28-32, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 1 Timothy 4:1-3, 1 John 4:1-6, Acts 15:2,7, and 1 Peter 3:15 ” none . . . doubt it.” The elders here acted on that authority. “Try the spirits” (1 Jn. 4:1). Try means “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize” (Thayer). Brother Turner agrees these texts and terms authorize questions but disagrees with our elders only on the method. We cannot be far apart.

Brother Turner grants (1) the “content” of the questions is biblical, (2) he could give Bible “answers” to each, and (3) the format of 28 “questions does not make them creedal.” What are his objections? (1-2) They were “duplicated” and “sent to” all the men we support. “Try the spirits” applies to all who teach, but when and how are expediencies. The cover letter explained,

With all 19 (sic, 21) men responding, it will be obvious that no one is suspect or singled out and no one is excepted or left out. We have known some of you for years and never met others, but we know none of you wants us to leave the impression that we “think of men above that which is written” in any case (1 Cor. 4:6).

Two reasons were given for this even-handed effort. Error is affecting men “whom we have all known and loved”; no one is exempt from this danger. The elders wanted “to educate brethren here about such dangers” and demonstrate their determination to do “everything possible to guard against such dangers.” They expected this process to “confirm” that “every” man we support upholds truth on these dangers.

Brother Turner fears it is creedal to question except when we suspect error, but if the question is a human creed in one case, it is in another. A human creed is an “authoritative doctrinal formula” conceived by man  not a Bible question, no matter who asks or answers the question! Questions asked of both sound and unsound men, even when the querist knows the answer and expects to receive that answer, may demonstrate or confirm a point (Gen. 3:9; Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:11-13; 24:1-3; Matt. 21:24-25; Lk. 7:42-43; 10:36-37; Jn. 21:15; Acts 26:27; 1 Cor. 9:1-14; Gal. 2:1-10; 3:1-5; 4:16). When Paul met other Apostles “in conference,” this interview “added nothing” but con-firmed the unity of the apostolic message as the Apostles prepared to debate false teachers. Questions exchanged in the debate helped to expose error (Gal. 2:1-10; Acts 15:7). Questions can expose error or confirm and demonstrate unity in the truth without creedal tendencies.

Brother Turner objects (3) that the questions are used to help determine whether men “walk in the old paths” “on the subjects specified”  we should test “by the total inspired message.” Human creeds, sects, heresies, and factions are built on “only a part of total revelation … true Christians rally around Christ, meaning the total teaching of Christ.” The 6 issues specified in 1-2 Timothy and the 11 in 1 Corinthians are only “part of the whole truth,” but we should test by “the total truth.” We agree 100% on all this! Our elders asked questions within the context of total truth. To test by the total truth includes testing at any point of departure from truth because any sin or digression endangers the total truth (Jn. 16:13; 1 Jn. 3:4; Jas. 2:1-13, v. 10; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-19). Specific issues and questions must be considered if we are to maintain all truth.

How can elders asking about specific points be interpreted as reducing soundness and truth to those few points in a creedal way when the question sheet itself forcefully repudiates such a tendency?! “Our purpose is not to create a creed . . . the New Testament itself reveals the pattern of sound words, and we can neither add to it nor subtract from it. Neither do we consider this list final or exhaustive.” We recognized and repudiated “the essence of creedalism.”

Brother Turner objects (4) to saying “men who are drifting would resent and would refuse to answer these simple Bible questions, but men who uphold the truth are always glad to `give an answer’ speaking `as the oracles of God’ on any Bible subject (1 Pet. 3:15; 4:11).” When Jesus asked questions, the Jews resented it and refused to answer, being “filled with madness” and communing “one with another what they might do to Jesus” (Matt. 21:23-27; 22:46; Lk. 6:6-11).Edward Fudge, Charles Holt, and others who drifted reacted similarly to Bible questions. Jesus refused to answer when asked to cast pearls before swine, but otherwise answered  as the Apostles did and taught us to do (Matt. 7:6; 26:67-68; Lk. 23:9; Acts 15:2,7; 1 Pet. 3:15). No one is above question no matter what his stature (1 Cor. 4:6).

If one felt he had a reason not to answer, or wanted to state his views in another way, the elders left the door open on the question sheet for explanation and discussion. This permits differences of judgment on format or wording. The elders cancelled no one’s support or meeting (but one cancelled us over our protest just for asking). That not only “sounds good,” it is the truth! Not even a slight creedal tendency is present.

Do the questions reflect my “special interests”? No, they reflect a decade of discussions with the elders on better ways to review our work. Others share such concerns as the elders noted: “These are questions which are commonly discussed among brethren from time to time.”

Brother Turner’s advice on “selecting preachers” is the process our elders use. Reflecting on past experiences and recent issues, they simply found a more effective way to “ask questions.” The questions were submitted to eachman because the truths covered apply “to all alike.” The elders thought anyone “willing to measure and remeasure his beliefs by the total truth” would be glad to answer any Bible question within the context of the total truth. If Turner’s advice is taken without written questions, it too will be (1-2) “duplicated” and applied alike to all, (3) used to judge whether men “walk in the old paths,” and (4) resented by “men who are drifting.” Does Turner’s advice walk and quack “like a duck”? Do oaks grow from this acorn?

What will happen when brother Turner’s process casts doubts on someone’s soundness? The suspect will charge that unfavorable reports “from others you trust” are ungodly gossip by men who bite and devour.He will resent the “questions growing out of investigation” as human creeds (citing Schaff, Rice, Apostles’ Creed). When Turner explains the difference between Bible questions and human creeds, he will be met with charges of straw men, walking and quacking like a duck, the essence of creedalism, impugning motives, causing friction, creating sects, and ignoring the totality of truth. As brother Turner would answer his critics, so I answer his criticisms. The passages and principles he would cite are the very ones I cite. As he would try to balance truth and love, so I try. That is how close we are.

Should we omit literature, classes, and written questions to satisfy objectors? The path to peace on expediencies is clear: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth” (Rom. 14:3). “None . . . doubt” we may ask questions; the format is a judgment made by each autonomous church.

Brother Turner and I end with love for each other and truth, ready to resist the rising tide of compromise on divorce, fellowship, and all error (1 Pet. 1:22; Eph. 4:14-15). “We be brethren,” testing the best methods to uphold truth and oppose error (Gen. 13:8; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Objections

1. Questions test of doctrinal conformity.

2. It is a standard more, less, and other than the Bible.

3. It is a creed.

4. Sent to men whose soundness was known.

5. It is divisive.

6. Fellowship hinges on how one answers the questions.

7. It is a standard for ministerial qualifications.

8. 28 questions were duplicated.

9. Sent to 21 men.

10.Questions are used by other churches.

Answer

1. “The questions . . . to clarify what you believe Bible teaches on a number of matters.”

2. “The New Testament itself reveals the pattern of sound words, and we can neither add to it nor subtract from it.”

3. “Our purpose … not to create a creed . . . we recognize that the New Testament . reveals the pattern of sound words . . . we can neither add to it nor subtract from it.”

4. “It will be obvious that no one is singled out . . . no one is left out.” (Where is Bible rule: ask suspects only?)

5. Reason to divide is departure from truth (2 Jn. 9-11). None cancelled for not answering. Offered to pay expenses to discuss objections. We do not cause division by asking what a person teaches (1 Jn. 4:1,6).

6. Fellowship hangs on whether one teaches pattern of sound words. The questions focus on what one says Bible teaches, what doctrine he brings (2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Jn. 9-11).

7. The Bible is the standard for worthiness of man for support. The questions focus on doctrine a man brings (2 Tim. 3:16-4:5).

8. Would oral questions be okay, or uncopied written ones? (What passage gives the rule?)

9. At what number is it a sin? (passages?)

10.If only one church used them, are they a creed? Two? Each church decides when, how to ask (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Jn. 4:1).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 11, p. 22-23
June 2, 1994