Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

God’s world is filled with many wonders which testify to his greatness and power. As David wrote in his appraisal of the creative work of God: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge” (Psalms 19:1, 2).

Many examples of this could be offered to the interested reader. Here we would like to mention one of the fish found in the world’s oceans, the deep-sea anglers. They appear to belong to science-fiction rather than the real world. Inhabiting the deep oceans at depths of over one mile, the deep-sea anglers possess some amazing capabilities which suit them to this inhospitable environment.

These fish belong to a group of marine fish (order Laphiiformes, suborder Ceratioidei) whose foremost dorsal spine in the female is located on the head and elongated into a “fishing rod” tipped with “fleshy” bait. The bait is dangled in front of her mouth and when another creature comes near enough to investigate a possible meal, the curious one suddenly becomes a meal. However, at the depth of one mile, there is no light; how then can the bait be seen? Most deep-sea fish have some kind of light-producing capability. The angler fish is no exception, it possesses this light in the “bait,” and it is primarily the light which attracts the prey. It is produced by a complex chemical process: luciferin is oxidized by molecular oxygen with the aid of the enzyme luciferase. The result is a flourescent bait which can be readily manipulated so as to supply food to the angler even in the darkest recesses of the ocean.

The deep-sea angler has another unique feature. Thelarge female is generally found with several smaller fish attached to its abdomen. At first these were thought to be its young. Later investigations uncovered the amazing fact that these were the male of the species. Upon emergence from the larval to the adult state, the male searches out a female and bites into her abdomen. Eventually their tissues blend and the circulatory systems unite into one and the male literally lives the rest of his life as a parasite of the female. The all-important matter of finding a mate in a pitch-black sea is thus uniquely solved.

This fish is also different in that it lacks a swim-bladder. In most marine fish there is a small air-sac that provides sufficient buoyancy to prevent sinking. But sinking to the bottom is precisely what the deep-sea angler requires; hence, it has no swim bladder. Besides, even if one were present, it would not be able to withstand the tremendous pressures of the deep ocean (at these depths the pressure is in excess of 2000 pounds per square inch). The angler’s entire system is amazingly well suited to fit the hostile environment of the ocean depths.

The modem evolutionist tells us that these systems have merely developed in order to adapt this creature to its environment. (As though their godless processes of mechanical change were some sort of Supreme Being looking to the needs of each of its creations.) We need to ask ourselves, however, “What environment did the angler inhabit until it developed these systems?” And, again, “How could it have survived in the deep oceans until it did develop these unique mechanisms?” The answer is that God provided these systems to this miniscule but magnificent part of his creation to fit it for survival. These are not changes which existing species of fishes evolved, they are the product of the handiwork of God!

… God provided these systems to this miniscule but magnificent part of his creation to fit it for survival. These are not changes which existing species of fishes evolved, they are the product of the handiwork of God!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 19
September 16, 1993

By Harry A. Osborne

At 10:35 am. on Monday morning, August 16. 1993, Robert Wayne La Coste left the pain and sickness of this temporal world to receive his reward. For the past week, I have alternated between laughter as I have remembered so many blessings he brought to my life and tears as I think how much I miss him. Bob was more tome than my sisters husbandhe was my brother, no in-law” attached. From the time he was dating Carolyn. our family received him as our own.

For the past two years as he continued to preach, Bob was on oxygen at all times. His problems with his lungs had started in childhood with having pneumonia in each of his first eight winters. At age eight, the lower lobe of one lung had to he removed. In addition to this problem, he also had bronchitiss from childhood, a disease which slowly destroys the ability of the lungs to take in oxygen and remove carbon dioxide from the body. The only solution to his condition was a double lung transplant. He was on the list awaiting that transplant when he passed away.

Over the last two months, Bob reminded the whole family that things would soon he much better one way or the other. He would either be able to resume his responsibilities in this life with new lungs or he would depart and he with the Lord. When the window of opportunity for the transplant passed, he calmly accepted death without fear or question. By his example, he preached a great sermon on faith in the face of death to all of those around him. In the last hours before a transplant became impossible, drugs could not ease his pain. He asked the family to sing spiritual songs and read Scripture. Carolyn remained by his side at all times singing untold numbers of hymns. The brethren at the Kleinwood congregation made a tape of songs for him. Unable to make a sound due to the ventilator tube down his throat, Bob mouthed the words. The thought of spiritual things calmed him when nothing else could.

My first thoughts of preaching the gospel came as a result of my admiration for Bob in his proclamation of the truth. As a teenager, Bob involved me in preaching trips to the Northwest with him. Much of Bob’s time in meetings was spent with small, struggling works in the West, Northwest, and into Canada. Many brethren from those places asked for his funeral to be taped because they could not come to it personally. Bob loved those brethren dearly, and that loved was reciprocated.

In 1 Timothy 4, the apostle instructed Timothy that “a good minister of Christ Jesus” must be “nourished in the words of faith, and of the good doctrine” (v. 6). He later adds,

Be diligent in these things; give thyself wholly to them; that they progress may be manifest unto all. Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee (vv. 15-16).

By that measure, Bob was “a good minister of Christ Jesus.” He was diligent in the study and declaration of God’s will, giving himself wholly to such. He did not merely preach one standard while he lived by another. A constant inspection of his own life was a daily task for Bob. His teaching also underwent his constant scrutiny to make certain he spoke the truth which makes men free, rather than the cancerous message of error. Wherever Bob want, souls who would hear the truth were aided in their search for the salvation offered in Christ.

I remember going with Bob to his meetings both as a teenager and in my beginning years of preaching. It was very unusual if there were no baptism during the week. Those who heard Bob heard the truth and they knew he wanted them to obey it. His sincerity was readily apparent. His lessons did not delve into sociology, psychology or the fads of the day. They were simple, Bible-based lessons which plainly identified sin and its consequences while upholding the solution available through the gospel of Christ.

Bob also sought to lead souls to Christ by meeting the charge to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). He had debates with those from denominationalism and institutional churches. Bob understood the good done when the conflict between truth and error is brought into focus. In a debate with a United Pentecostal preacher in Sunnyside, Washington, that good was especially apparent. The Pentecostal moderator left the United Pentecostal Church on the last night of the debate. Several families from a liberal church left liberalism to take a stand for the truth saying, “This kind of teaching would never be allowed where we are.” In addition, the church as a whole was strengthened by seeing the power of truth.

In areas of the country where there was a loud call for compromise on divorce and remarriage, the “A.D. 70 doctrine,” and other errors, Bob raised his voice in defense of the truth. Instead of following the popular path by remaining silent on the issues, Bob boldly preached the truth on these and other subjects. He loved the souls of men and women too much to let them remain in the paths of sin and error due to ignorance. His influence in opposition to the current apostasy will be greatly missed.

When the time came that men would not endure the sound doctrine closer to home, Bob did not scratch itching ears, but continued to preach the word (2 Tim. 4:1-5). I was in a meeting where Bob preached not long ago and heard the sounds of compromise and error from several influential members. It was clear that those following the path of digression had no love for Bob and wanted him to leave. His kindness towards them despite their animosity was a testimony to his character. I will never forget the night during that meeting when he broke down in tears and we prayed for those who stridently opposed him and the Lord’s will. Bob truly lived the admonition of Romans 12:14-21.

If Bob had not been related to me, I would have still esteemed him “exceeding highly in love” for his work’s sake (1 Thess. 5:13). However, in addition to my love for him as a fellow-worker in the cause of Christ, he was my brother and my friend. We often spoke of our mutual love for one another and, in the words of the wise man, spoke of each other as “a friend that sticketh closer than a brother” (Prov. 18:24). A deep and unceasing ache abides within my heart because I miss him so much. Though I am happy for his move to a better home, I find it more difficult than I ever imagined to be without him. Our family has been left with a huge void that he always filled with joy.

As Bob passed from this life, our family was by his side. Our love was with him throughout and continues until we meet him again before the eternal throne where there will be no more separations. As he drew his last breath, I tried to sing “God Be With You Till We Meet Again.” Though the words would not come out, that was and is the sentiment of my heart. Heaven is more real to me now than it was before. My desire to be there is increased. It is the hope given to us as Christians which makes our time of sorrow more bearable than that of the world (1 Thess. 4:3-18). I do not say, “Farewell,” to my brother, but only, “God be with you till we meet again. I love you, brother.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 24-25
September 16, 1993

By Tom Roberts

The gospel records that Jesus, while at Caeserea Philippi, promised to “build my church” (Matt. 16:18). In Matthew’s account of the Great Commission, Jesus told the apostles to “make disciples of all the nations” (28:18-20). Mark added that these disciples will be made as the apostles preach the gospel to “every creature,” from which (the disciples) would be those who “believe and are baptized” (16:15, 16). Luke recorded in his gospel account that all this would begin in Jerusalem and result in “repentance and remission of sins” being preached in the name of Jesus (24:46-49). John recorded that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles to guide them in the declaration of that message so as to insure God’s truth being given and preserved (John 14:26; 16:13). Clearly, the preaching of faith, repentance and baptism so as to make disciples and bring about forgiveness was to accompany the beginning of the church of Christ. Just as clearly, it was obedience to that gospel message that resulted in the establishment of the church. One can no more separate the full gospel message from the church than one can separate the church from the full gospel message. Preaching the gospel builds the church; but the church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Those who would amputate part of the Great Commission would do violence to the message of grace.

As we say, in the gospels, the church is promised. In the epistles of the New Testament, we find the church a reality. The church existed in Jerusalem and is mentioned in letters to Corinth and Rome. Likewise, letters are addressed to churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica and, in the Revelation, to seven churches of Asia.

How did these churches come into being? What were the conditions under which they originated? Was the same gospel preached to all? How were the Gentiles brought in? In the epistles themselves, we have some clues but nothing is related about the spread of the gospel to Gentiles and to places other than Jerusalem, the city which was to be the place of its origin. The gospels reveal the promise, the epistles assume that it was so. But there is an interval between the gospels and the epistles that form a void and vacuum that is filled by no other book in the Bible than the Book of Acts. We are indebted to the inspired historian, Luke, that he determined to add to his “former treatise” (Acts 1:1), the gospel that bears his name, by providing information of historical events that transpired after the resurrection. This is found nowhere else as Luke gave it. Without the Acts of the Apostles, we would forever wonder about so many things. One of the great themes of Acts is the bridge of understanding that it provides between Jesus’ promise to build the church and the growth of that church into a world-wide body, from concept to reality.

The Beginning of the Church of Christ

After Jesus promised to build the church, he finished his earthly course, was delivered into the hands of “lawless men” (Acts 2:23), was crucified, raised from the dead and ascended to heaven (1:9-11). He renewed his intent to begin the church at Jerusalem by instructing the apostles to wait there for the “promise of the Father” (1:4; Jn. 14:26; 16:13). True to that command, they were in Jerusalem when Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, baptizing them therein as earlier promised (1:5). As they received the Holy Spirit, they began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance (2:4).

What did they speak? Can anyone doubt that it was the message of the Great Commission? Not only must this be necessarily inferred from the previous promises, but it can be demonstrated from the message itself. Please remember that it was by the Great Commission that “repentance and remission of sins” was to be given. Remember that this was to take place in Jerusalem. Remember also that it was to be accompanied by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In every instance, the apostles are true to their calling and all these prerequisites are now in place. This was the day spoken of by the prophets and, to leave no doubt, Peter proclaimed, “This is that spoken by the prophet Joel” (2:16). The message they preached was “repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (2:38). This is Great Commission preaching! These commands were predicated upon the truth that “God hath made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (2:36). In the “name of Jesus” (or, by his authority), the apostles offered the promise of salvation recorded since Genesis 3:15, through the seed of woman, the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:3), and the seed of David (Acts 2:29-36): Jesus the Christ.

To this gracious offer, three thousand “gladly received his word and were baptized” (2:41). The Lord “added to the church daily those who were being saved” (2:47). In this simple but eloquent fashion, Luke recorded the beginning of the church of Christ. No, it didn’t begin in the days of John the Baptist. (Note that he was “the” Baptist and not “a” Baptist. John should have been the only Baptist since he was sent to baptize and not to start a denomination.) John was a great prophet but he never saw the beginning of the church (Matt. 11:11). No, it did not begin six hundred years later, 1200 years later, or 1900 years later. All the denominations that came later have the wrong birth date and the wrong birth place and the wrong founder. The church of Jesus Christ began on the first Pentecost after his resurrection in the city of Jerusalem. It is the “church” since its members were “called out from the world into Christ.” It is the “kingdom” since Christ is on the throne of David since the resurrection (2:30, 31). Luke left no doubt about this matter and no one should attempt to change the inspired record. No one should be content to be a member of any other church whose origin is different from this one. None should wait for a kingdom at some future date. The kingdom (church) is here, now, and has been since Acts 2. The terms of admission are clear: “Repent and be baptized everyone of you.” Have you done this? Yes, God requires that we “do” something. When believers asked, “What shall we do?” (2:37), they were told to “repent and be baptized” (v. 38). The doctrine of “faith only” did not originate at Pentecost. No one who heard the apostles preach could have believed that “baptism is not essential to salvation.” Lost people need to believe, repent and be baptized. When you do, the Lord will add you to his church and to none other. No one can vote to keep you out. You can get in no other way (John 14:6).

The Gospel Spreads to Other Places

Jesus had told the apostles: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (1:8). This promise of Jesus, coincidentally, provided the basis for a solid outline by Luke of the book of Acts. He recorded the growth of the gospel in Jerusalem and its spread as persecution began (Acts 4: l ff; 7: l ff; 8:1-4).

Through Peter, who along with the twelve apostles, had been given the “keys of the kingdom” (Matt. 16:19), the kingdom was opened, as in Acts 2 to the Jews, now to Gentiles in Acts 10, 11, and 15. Cornelius, a devout man, was told to send for Peter who would “tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (11:14), or “things commanded” (10:33) by God. Again, this is the Great Commission at work, going among “the nations” or “every creature.” The same message was preached to Cornelius as to the Jews for Peter asked, “Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?” (10:48) The baptism of the Great Commission is baptism in water for the remission of sins. The fact that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit was recorded so that reluctant Jews would know clearly that “God shows no partiality” (10:34) and that “God hath also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (11:18).

The Work of Paul

Luke recorded the conversion of Saul of Tarsus who had previously persecuted the saints (Acts 9:4). He, too, was baptized by the Great Commission baptism as Ananias told him to “arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (22:16). Without the record of Saul’s conversion into Paul the apostle, much of the history of the church in Asia Minor and Europe would be shrouded in mystery. But Paul became the great missionary to distant lands, being personally involved in three preaching tours and an enforced journey to Rome as a prisoner for the gospel. Paul is responsible for writing much of the epistles which make up the Scripture we have today. It is rather easy to follow the narrative of Luke as he traveled with Paul in most of his journeys, preaching, starting congregations, writing letters to the fledgling churches and combating error both within and without the church. It is with Luke’s record in hand that we can know where Paul was when many of the churches were founded and to which church the letters were addressed. Luke’s record ends with Paul a prisoner in Rome, teaching all that come in contact with him and awaiting trial before Caesar.

A Complete Story

The gospels, the book of Acts, the epistles, the Revelation: a complete and final revelation of the redemption of man through Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Luke was chosen by God to play an important part in the narrative by not only giving us one of the accounts of the life of Jesus, but also by bridging the gulf between the story of Jesus and the church Jesus built.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 20-21
September 16, 1993

By Larry Ray Hafley

A new slant has been put on an old slur against the gospel. For years, men who are not content to be bound by the word of God have charged that the will of God cannot be limited to a pattern of logic, reason or under-standing. They have argued that Christians have reduced the gospel to tidy little boxes of legal propositions, to a series of mathematical equations, to a strict set of scientific formulae. We have, they trumpet, transformed the truth in Christ from a spiritual relationship of the heart into an academic religion of the head.

This, they say, leads to an inflexible, intolerant system of rigid rite and rote. When this occurs, staleness and stagnation result and members become robots who go through precisely prescribed acts, like a dog and pony at the circus. There is, they avow, no heart, no spirit, no joy, no love in such a religion.

The latest twist on this old theme says that saints are guilty of “intellectualizing the gospel.” It is the same old tune with a new verbal verse. “We have sought to limit the work of the Holy Spirit by binding him up in our conveniently compartmentalized Bible. We have restricted God. We will not allow the Spirit to do his work in our hearts and shape our lives because our intellectual religion tells us he cannot or will not. We have confined God in the jail house of a book and have thrown away the lock and key.”

Their solution? Dismantle the system. Rid yourself of the concept that the New Testament is a pattern. Use the word of God as a guideline, not as a guidebook. Do not be afraid to let the Spirit take over your life, even if what you are doing seems contrary to what you have been taught. Such fears are just the residue of your legalistic, party spirit mentality, left overs from your old, ironclad “head knowledge” days, before you were released into the real freedom of the Spirit.

“After all,” they continue, “God dwells in our heart, not in our head; we serve a Savior, not a system; we pray to a Person, not a party or a pattern; our faith is in the Man, not in a plan; we come to the King, not to a constitution; we obey the loving Lord, not a lore of legal law; we are cleansed by the cross, not by a creed.”

Anytime anyone anywhere states that we are guilty of “intellectualizing the gospel,” mark this down: That person has a doctrine and/or a practice that he cannot sustain by the Bible. There is something he wants to believe, something he wants to do, for which he cannot find authority in the word of God.

Did Jesus “Intellectualize The Gospel?”

John 6:44,45

No man can come tome, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father. cometh unto me.

In the chart above, Jesus said, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.” Where was it “written”? In Isaiah 2:3, the Spirit said, “He (God) will teach us of his ways, (Result?) and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Thus, the ways, the law, the word of the Lord is taught. Because of that, because it is taught, “we will walk in his paths.” If it is not taught, we cannot walk in his ways. Supplementing this, Jesus said, “If any man will to do his will, he should let the Spirit take over by putting his intellect in neutral and simply go with the flow.” Is that what Jesus said! No! “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine” (Jn. 7:17). How shall he “know of the doctrine”? Isaiah said he would “know” it because he would be taught it.

Again, where was it written that “they shall be all taught of God”? Jeremiah said that the Lord would “put (His) law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). How did God “put (His) laws in their mind” (Heb. 8:10)? “Take my yoke … and learn of me” (Matt. 28:19). “Go ye therefore and teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19). “Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (Jn. 6:45).

Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). In other words, one escapes the pollutions of the world “through the knowledge of the Lord” (2 Pet. 2:20). Was Jesus guilty of “intellectualizing” freedom from sin?

The Son of God taught that one has eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart (where his law is written) to under-stand. By this process, one is converted (Matt. 13:15). Even the devil knows that the word of God in the heart leads men to understand, believe and be saved (Lk. 8:11,12; 2 Cor. 4:4). Indeed, “faith cometh by hearing,” and one trusts in Christ “after” (not before) he hears the gospel (Rom. 10:17; Eph. 1:13).

The Lord said that only those who do the will of the Father can enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 7:21). “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death” (Jn. 8:51). “If a man love me, he will keep my words” (Jn. 14:23). “My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and keep it” (Lk. 8:21). “Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Lk. 11:28).

How shall one know the will of God in order to do it? He shall hear it; he must be “taught” it; he must “learn” it; he must “understand” it (Jn. 6:44, 45; Matt. 13:15). Jesus said, “Whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15). The Spirit said, “Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand” (Eph. 3:4). Who, then, will charge God with “intellectualizing” his word, way and will?

Did the Apostles “Intellectualize” The Gospel?

The apostles said, “God … will have all men . . . to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3, 4). They said this knowledge was in the word of God which they preached and pro-claimed (1 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 10:8). Did they “intellectualize” it?

If ever we could find a place, a portion, a pas-sage that would lend credence to the belief that we are not bound by things taught, learned, known and understood, but that we are free to be led by any fanciful whim (“every wind of doctrine”), it would be in 1

Corinthians 14. Instead, what do we find?

1 Corinthians 14 weds, weaves and welds learning and understanding and contrasts them with what is unknown, not understood. With learning and under-standing comes growth and edification (vv. 3-5, 19). Without learning and understanding comes barbaric babbling and charges of mental madness (vv. 11, 23). Even if one could speak with a divine revelation from the Spirit, he was to be silent if no one understood the language which he spoke (v. 28). This puts a premium on hearing, teaching, knowing and understanding! It in no way disparages or diminishes the use of one’s mind or intellect. Rather, it exalts it. But, as “we said before, so say I now again,” if ever we could expect to find an inkling or a brief hint to encourage us to “let go” of reason and understanding, i would be in the setting and context of 1 Corinthians 14. This chapter, that deals with the very gifts of the Spirit, that instructs those who spoke, worked miracles, effected healings and acted as divinely directed by the Spirit himself, teaches them not to do anything which will not lead them to knowledge and understanding of the written word of God (1 Cor. 4:6; 14:37)!

The apostles said that, when men turned away their “ears from the truth,” that they would be “turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:4). So, when one belittles under-standing of truth and speaks of “intellectualizing the gospel,” he has “turned unto fables.”

What did the apostles tell those who were “established in the present truth” (2 Pet. 1:12)? Did they tell them to relax and not quench or stifle the Spirit by appealing to the written word? Did they tell them to feel free to experiment a little, to take a vacation from their doctrinal correctness and see what might lie beyond the pages of a book? No, they wrote that “we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip” (Heb.2:1). They

said we should have the written word “always in remembrance” and “be mindful of the words which were spoken … by the holy prophets, and . . . apostles” (2 Pet. 1:12-15; 3:1, 2).

Paul told Timothy to “continue (not, `abandon’) thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make these wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14, 15). Paul said to continue in and “teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3; 4:16). If the “intellectualizers of the gospel” party are correct, Paul should have told Timothy to “launch out by faith” and seek “God’s dream” for his life. He should have told him not to be bound by all the old doctrines he had learned, but he did not do so.

What if men urge you to not be tied to “pat answers” and a “pattern theology”? The apostles said such men are like false prophets of old who “speak great swelling words of vanity” (2 Pet. 2:18) “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know (note that word?) these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness” (2 Pet. 3:17).

“Anytime anyone anywhere states that we are guilty of `intellectualizing the gospel,’ mark this down: That person has a doctrine and/or a practice that he cannot sustain by the Bible.”

Some Questions

1. Did the Bereans “intellectualize the gospel” when they “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11)? Should they have been told that faith and salvation cannot be confined to a book (In. 5:39)? Should they have been admonished that faith is to be in the heart and not in the head? Should they have been warned that God’s promise of redemption cannot be found only in words that will make their human reasoning the standard of their subjective salvation?

2. Am Ito learn, know and intellectually understand that it is wrong to “intellectualize the gospel”? If so, must one teach me this?

3. Is one “intellectualizing the gospel” when he teaches and reasons against intellectualism?

4. Is there something you know about God’s will without the word of God (I Cor. 2:6-14)? If so, what is it? Can I learn it from you and intellectually know it? If so, how? Will you have to teach me with words, and will I have to use reasoning to understand them?

5. How did you come to the knowledge that it is wrong to “intellectualize the gospel”? Did that knowledge come to you apart from your reason and intellect?

6. Is it possible for one to be taught “in all wisdom,” and come to complete spiritual maturity by letting the word of Christ dwell in him richly (Col. 1:28; 3:16)?

7. Are the Scriptures, read, learned, known and under-stood, able to make the man of God perfect, completely equipped unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)?

8. Is there anything about living “soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” that I cannot read, learn, know and understand from the Bible (Titus 2:11-14  “teaching us;” Eph. 4:17-20″learned”)? If so, what is it, and how did you learn it?

9. Did Jesus and the apostles ever teach against “intellectualizing the gospel” in the same sense as you teach against it? If so, where? Also, if so, were they guilty of “intellectualizing the gospel” when they taught that such a thing was possible and expected you to read, learn, know and understand that it was possible?

10. When an ignorant, pagan, heathen Roman ruler said to Paul, “much learning doth make thee mad” (Acts 26:24), was he not, in effect, sounding the same warning that you are giving?

1 I . Is the word of God, hidden in the heart, able to keep a man from sin (Psa. 17:4; 119:9-11)7

12. What may we do in worship and service to God that we do not read, learn, know and understand from the teaching of the Bible (Matt. 15:8, 9)?

13. What work may a local church perform that will be pleasing to God that cannot be read, learned, known and understood from the teaching of the word of God (I Tim. 3:15)?

14. Does the Holy Spirit do anything today that he has not revealed to us in the Bible? If so, what is it?

l5. Does the Holy Spirit act or empower men to act today in ways that are contrary to his teaching in Scripture (2 Cor. 1:13)? If so, cite cases.

16. If the answer to questions 14 and 15 is “yes,” must we accept your claims, but reject those of Catholics (appearances of Mary, for example) and Pentecostals (raising the dead, snake handling, Oral Roberts’ visions, etc.)? If so, what measure, what rule, what standard (Phil. 3:16), tells us to accept your views and visions but to reject theirs?

17. Must one use his intellect and reason to distinguish fraudulent claims from genuine ones? If so, is this an example of intellectualizing against anti-intellectualism? Are you intellectualizing your system, your pattern, of anti-intellectualism?

18. Do you believe, teach and practice things contrary to sound words, “even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Tim. 6:3)? If not, how do you differ from those whom, you say, “intellectualize the gospel” when they strictly adhere to that same form of sound words? If, however, you do believe and advocate things not found in the “wholesome words” of Christ, should we “withdraw” ourselves from you, or join you (1 Tim. 6:3-5)?

19. Must one use his mind, his intellect, his reason and understanding, to handle aright, or rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15)?

20. Will you use your mind, intellect, reason, under-standing and knowledge of the Scriptures to evaluate and reply to this article? If so, will you be guilty of intellectualizing when you do? If not, well, that is about what I expected.

0 how I love thy law? It is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation (Psa. 119:97-99).

Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge. For it is a pleasant thing if thou keep them within thee; they shall withal be fitted in thy lips. That thy trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee. Have I not written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth to them that send unto thee (Prov. 22:17-21)?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 16-18
September 16, 1993