Truth Magazine

By Lowell Blasingame

For years a basic difference between the preaching of the gospel preachers and denominational preachers has been our plea for a restoration of the church of the New Testament while they have taught that every man has the right to the church of his choice. We have insisted that by speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where it is silent and by contending that scriptural authority is necessary for all that is taught and practiced in religion, we can restore the church of the New Testament.

Now a group of brethren are telling us that we have gone about our preaching in a wrong way and have antagonized and alienated our religious neighbors by this approach to the Scriptures. They tell us that we need a new set of rules or hermeneutics for applying and interpreting the Scriptures. ACU Press has released a book, The Cruciform Church, written by C. Leonard Allen, in which the restoration plea is ridiculed as one of the conceits of our time and we are told that we cannot return to the beginning and start all over again (Introduction, p. x).

Advocates of the new hermeneutics ridicule the plea for restoration by asking which church of the first century we want to restore, Laodecia with its indifference, or Corinth with its immorality, etc. Their conclusion seems to be that since these failed to be ideal that there is no pattern worthy of restoration. I agree that these churches were lacking in some things but suppose they heed the instructions given for correcting these faults, will they then become examples worthy of our emulation? Besides, there are some who received no censure. How about choosing the church at Smyrna or Philadelphia (Rev. 2-3) or the church at Philippi?

The assumption that corruption in a church in the first century eliminates an ideal for restoration is ridiculous. Shall we also assume that since false gospels were taught in the fast century by Judaizers and Gnostics (Gal. 1:6-8) that we cannot sweep away the past and restore the true gospel of the first century? Is this another of the great conceits of our time to suppose that we can do this?

Is our plea for a restoration of the church of the first century a valid plea? I affirm that it is and do so for the following reasons.

First, the word of God is the seed of the kingdom. Matthew called it “the word of the kingdom” (Mau. 13:19) while Luke identifies it as “the seed” (Lk. 8:11). An irrevocable law of God says that a seed produces after its kind (Gen. 1:11). As long as a seed has life, it will produce the same kind of plant as that from which it came. And, if all of these plants are lost, the possibility of their being restored remains as long as their seed exists. Exactly the same is true regarding the kingdom or church of our Lord. Preaching the word produced the Lord’s church during the first century and as long as we have the word (seed), we have the potential for the restoration of the church. If not, why not? Why will it not make the same thing of those who believe and obey it today as it did 1990 or more years ago?

Second, the New Testament is a “form” of doctrine or of sound words (Rom. 6:17; 2 Tim. 1:13). The word hupotuposis, used in 2 Timothy 1:13 also occurs in I Timothy 1:16 and is there translated “pattern.” The New Testament is a form, a pattern or blueprint of what God wants his people individually and collectively to be. As Moses was forbidden to alter the pattern of the tabernacle (Heb. 8:5), we are forbidden to make changes in the teaching of Christ (I Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Cor. 4:6). Inasmuch as the New Testament is a pattern showing how to start a local church, what its organizational structure is, its mission and its worship, it follows that as long as we have a New Testament, we have the blueprint for restoring the church of the first century.

I do not know what kind of dress Martha Washington wore when her husband became the first president of our country. But I know that, if a seamstress has the material and pattern from which it was made, she can today make one exactly like it. As long as these exist, the dress can be restored. Equally as well, using the same material and following the same pattern today will restore the church of the first century.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 10
October 21, 1993

By Joe R. Price

It is often called “The Lord’s Prayer” because it was spoken by Jesus. But, a more appropriate description would be “The Model Prayer,” since it was spoken by Jesus to his disciples upon their request to “teach us to pray” (Lk.1 l : l ff). The model set forth by Jesus is as follows:

Our Father who art in heaven. Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, soon earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen (Matt. 6:9-13).

J.W. McGarvey called this prayer “a model of matter, arrangements and expression.” The German theologian Helmut Thielicke described it as “great things and small things; spiritual things and material things; inward things and out-ward things  there is nothing that is not included in this prayer.” Truly, this prayer is a model of sincerity, simplicity and faith.

A Blueprint For Prayer

The importance of this prayer is found in the words which directly precede it in Matthew’s account: “After this manner therefore pray ye” (Matt. 6:9a). Jesus has put us under commandment to learn to pray from this blueprint he left us. By emulating this prayer when we pray, we will be communicating with God in the most effective way possible. People pray in all sorts of ways. We can have confidence that our prayers are honorable and honored by our heavenly Father when we pray to him in the Christ-approved way. Consider a brief outline of this prayer which may help us increase our understanding of how to pattern our prayers after this Model Prayer.

1. First, we should know that prayer is a matter of invoking God’s hearing and help (v. 9b). So, Jesus says to acknowledge this when we pray  “Our Father.” It is the Christian who is blessed with this unique relationship with God. God has bestowed upon us his love that we should be called his children (1 Jn. 3:1-2; Jn. 1:12). Prayer is given to God’s children to talk with their Heavenly Father! Our prayers must always give honor to God as our Provider, Protector and Sustainer (2 Cor. 6:18).

2. It is equally needful to exhibit reverent regard for our Heavenly Father  “Who art in heaven” (v. 9b). While we (as the children of God) love him, we must never be irreverent toward him. “… God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few” (Eccl. 5:2). As someone has said: “The familiarity of love must not forget the reverence due to holiness.”

Once we have invoked God’s hearing and help in our prayers, our attention should be given to petitioning God about himself and man’s response to him (v. 9c-10). Specifically.

a. That God’s name be hallowed (treated as holy): Hallowed be thy name. The glory of God should be in view when we pray. Not only should we acknowledge his holiness (Rev. 4:8), we should also pray that all men everywhere may revere him. “And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee” (Psa.9:10).

b. That God’s kingdom come: Thy kingdom come. This element of prayer anticipates as well as announces the rule of God in the lives of men. God’s kingdom has come (Mk. 1:15; 9:1; Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4), and is identified as Christ’s church. Yet. there are billions who have not subjected them-selves to the rule which God exercises through his Son. That the lost might obey the rule of God in their lives must be our constant prayer.

c. That God’s will be done: Thy will be done. God’s children long for the purposes of God to be fully realized in every corner of this universe! As God’s will is done in heaven (completely, cheerfully and immediately), it is our prayer that things may be soon earth. We help matters when we conform ourselves to the will of God (Matt. 26:39; 9:36-38; Rom. 12:2).

4. We should petition God about ourselves (vv. 11-13):

a. Our physical provisions  Give us this day our daily bread. The things needful for life come from God (Matt. 6:31-32).

b. Our need for pardon  Forgive us our debts. We can never pay the debt we owe God due to our sin (Matt. 18:21-27). We must seek his mercy while understanding that our forgiveness is related to our own mercifulness (Matt. 18:28-35).

c. Our protection  Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak (Matt. 26:41; 1 Cor. 10:13). We must be sober and watchful as we pray for strength and wisdom to withstand temptations (Eph. 6:18; 1 Pet. 5:8).

5. We should approach God with adoration (v. 13). Our prayers must pay homage to the majesty and grandeur of God. Sovereign rule, might, and honor belong to him (Rev. 4:10-11). A recognition of the position and attributes of God always has a place in the prayers which we lay before him.

Jesus teaches us sincerity, simplicity and faith through this “Model Prayer.” As we pray, let us remember this order: God, others and ourselves. Prayer is powerful when prayed to the All-Powerful God (v. 15) who is “our Father who art in heaven.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 22
October 7, 1993

By Lewis Willis

CBS MORNING NEWS (4-2-92), conducted an inter-view based on the findings of a new report. The report found that 91% of Americans believe that religion is important. However, 63% reject moral absolutes for their lives. “Moral absolutes” are the statements in the Scriptures which say we must or must not do certain things.

What Americans want to do is make moral decisions about right or wrong, basing that decision on the situation or the circumstance which they encounter. This is what was called “situation ethics” in the 1960s. “Situation ethics” gave America that terrible time when everything seemed to come apart. All moral values were expelled, and people did anything they decided they wanted to do. Rebellion against every form of authority was rampant. Any established norm for human conduct was openly, and sometimes violently, opposed. Sexual freedoms were demanded and the world came to know American hippi-ism. Dirty, long-haired, idle youth roamed the country, making a nuisance of themselves. The drug scene was dumped on America by these rebels, and we still struggle with the burden. Every institution  government, home and family, social, educational, economic  came under the ridicule of people who wanted to do their own thing, without any rules governing or restricting their conduct.

I think it was hoped that, when these people grew up, they would abandon this approach to life. It is safe to say that most of them have cut their hair and started wearing decent clothes. However, the results of this study indicate that most of them held on to their rebellious spirit where moral rules are concerned. They still do not want some-body to tell them that it is wrong to lie, steal, cheat, commit fornication, etc. They refuse any system that tells them they must do certain things that are required of them by the Word of God, such as worshiping, serving, contributing to the betterment of society, etc. Joseph Fletcher, in his 1966 book, Situation Ethics, called these things “iron-clad do’s and don’ts” which people rejected. Anything that pre-vented people from doing whatever they wanted to do was totally unacceptable. It appears that that situation has not changed. Is it any wonder that our nation is in the mess it is in today?

The Bible tells us that there is a way to determine what we should do. It even tells us that there are “rules” by which we must all live. Obviously, the American people do not know this, or they do not accept it. Nonetheless, the Word of God still says, ” let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing” (Phil. 3:16). We will never reach our potential, until we decide to live by the law of God!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 21
October 7, 1993

By Tommy Glendol McClure

As the morals of this nation and the world continue to decline, many professed Christians have either completely lost or are on the road to losing their righteous indignation. I recently heard an excellent sermon where the preacher stressed the fact that many are not willing to accept God’s Word and the principles of Truth contained therein are the absolute standard of authority. Therefore, they are not willing to make a logical decision based on Bible principles concerning a practice but resort to situation ethics to make their determination.

Some of our so called “conservative” brethren, who stand opposed to institutional issues are rather liberal in their thinking and practice on moral issues. It has been reported of late that several gospel preachers in California participate in the social consumption of alcoholic beverages publicly and privately, some serving such in their own homes. A man told me that his son was advised by an “elder” of a local congregation that there was nothing wrong with drinking beer socially. Not so surprising is the fact that these brethren are often the proponents of error on marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Some gospel preachers and brethren have resorted to what I call “Loophole Logic” in their justification of immoral practices. A gospel preacher in California was recently asked this question: “At what point does the drinking of alcohol become sinful?” In his answer he cited Rom. 13:13; Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:21; Deut. 21:18-21; and Prov. 23:20-21, which specifically condemns drunkenness and no one would disagree. However, he also cited Luke 21:34 implying that this is Christ’s final word on the matter stating, “The simple answer to the question, then, is, ‘When the drinking becomes drunkenness, it is a sin(Contender! January/February 1993, p. 5). He also taught that to cast a stumbling block and cause a brother to fall would be sinful. Therefore, the conclusion reached from his answer is, drinking strong drink is sinful only if one becomes drunk or if a brother is offended and caused to stumble?

Nowhere in his answer does he mention the dangers of the brewers art (strong drink), but only seeks to justify its use by implying the Scriptures condemn only drunkenness. The answers given are very dangerous in light of the blight inflicted on society in general, and especially teen-agers, from the consumption of alcohol. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) reported in the 1992 Driver Handbook (p.76), “In 1990, there were 4,600 fatal collisions in California, killing 5,173 persons. Alcohol was found to be the main cause of 46 percent of the accidents.” More importantly, God’s Word warns of the dangers of strong drink (Prov. 20:1; 23:20-34; Isa. 5:11). The gospel demands soberness, holiness, the presentation of our bodies as a living sacrifice, and abstinence from all appearance of evil (1 Tim. 3:2-I1; Titus 1:7-8; 2:11-12; Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 6:20; 1 ‘Mess. 5:22; 1 Pet. 1:13-10, 22; 2:5-10; 4:7; 5:6-8). The warnings in the Scriptures, the debauchery, doom and death caused by the use of alcohol should cause all accountable people of God to realize the dangers of this poison. For Christians and especially gospel preachers, to attempt to justify the social consumption of alcohol using “Loophole Logic” and neglecting to warn of the dangers of its use makes for a shameful disgrace!

This same preacher again used “Loophole Logic” when asked this question: “Does the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-32 and 19:3-12 prohibit the one put away for fornication from marrying again?” He answers 

Dear reader and questioner, please turn now in your Bible and read the above cited passages. Does your Bible say such sinners cannot marry again? The “putting away” is the sin, not marrying . . . If these passages prohibit one from marrying, then the Apostle Paul should have said in 1 Corinthians 7:2, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man (except those the Catholics have determined cannot many) have his own wife, and let every woman (same exception) have her own husband” (Contender! March/April, 1993, p. 5).

You will notice that his argument is based on what the Bible does not say. The same sort of logic could be used in an attempt to justify instrumental music, social drinking and a host of other practices which are not authorized in the Scriptures. Where is the positive divine authority that allows the one put away for fornication to marry again? When God specifies a thing in a class, is not everything else in that class eliminated? Jesus specified in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the one exception for putting away, and further stated that when one marries the guilty one put away for the only lawful exception (for fornication), adultery is committed. Only the innocent party who puts away the guilty party is free to marry again.

Brethren, we need to respect the principles of divine Truth and severe all sinful relationships which place our soul in eternal jeopardy. Let us cease excusing sin, let us rid our minds of “Loophole Logic” and let us strive with all diligence to “come to the knowledge of the Truth” (1 Tim. 2:4)!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 23-25
October 7, 1993