Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

I know that much has been said lately on this subject, especially in the gospel papers; and, I very well may not have read them all. However, I shall run the risk of being repetitious in order to say some things that need to be said.

This writer is convinced that many problems which con-front brethren today are caused and propitiated by the claim, “We all cannot see the Bible alike.” Many of us have for years found this claim to be quite common in regard to our religious neighbors. When such people could think of no other answer, we expected to hear, “But, we do not all understand the Bible alike.” In recent years this same claim is being heard more and more from the lips of our own brethren. To this writer such a claim sounds like a page out of a denominational publication; and it ought to be returned to its source. It seems that such a claim is made in an effort to bolster the idea that we must have “unity-in-diversity.” If the claim is true, the alternative would at least be acceptable. But, is the claim true?

Before seeking an answer to his question, I wish to make it plain that I am not speaking of things indifferent within themselves as discussed in Romans 14. Rather, I am speaking of things commonly referred to as “doctrinal” matters, things upon which God has legislated. Some have misused Romans 14 in applying the principles there to doctrinal matters. I will not be dealing with Romans 14 in this article; however, I must insist that in order to so use Romans 14 one has to stretch both his imagination and the Scripture. If there was just one place in the “doctrine of Christ” that endorsed the idea of “unity-in-diversity,” it, no doubt, would have been produced long ago. But, no such place exists.

Now, let us go back to the statement, “We cannot all see the Bible alike.” Several reasons (or arguments) shall be offered to show that such a claim is absolutely false.

 

1. The Old Testament prophesied of the simplicity of God’s way. “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good” (Isa. 7:15). This is, as all may understand, a prophecy of the forthcoming Saviour; and that Saviour is our example (1 Pet. 2:21). Again, “And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein” (Isa. 35:8). Did the prophet accurately reflect upon God’s way here?

 

2. God created man and in his own image (Gen. 1:26-27). As Creator of man God well knew man’s limitations; and he knew the capabilities of man. God had this knowledge before he gave the gospel. The gospel came from the mouth of God (2 Tim. 3:16). The question is, could God give a gospel that all men could understand alike? If we say “no,” we question the wisdom, the knowledge, and the power of God. So, our answer must be in the affirmative. The next question is, did God give a gospel that we all can under-stand alike? Dear reader, if you say “no,” you question the mercy, the justice, and even the love of God for man. So again, the answer must be in the affirmative. Remembering, then, that God created man in his own image, and that God gave the gospel for man, to claim that “we cannot all understand the Bible alike” is an insult to the Almighty!

 

3. Paul called God’s giving of the gospel a “revelation” (Eph. 3:3). Of this word (apokalupsis) Thayer (p. 62) says it means, “a laying bare . . . a disclosure of truth, . . . concerning divine things before unknown.” W.E. Vine con-curs in this definition, but adds, “an uncovering . . . of `the mystery,’ the purpose of God in this age, Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3 . . . an expression of the mind of God for the instruction of the church.” Brethren, think about these definitions. We have all preached the gospel as the revelation of God to man. If the gospel is the revelation of God to man (and it is), it has to uncover, to make known to man the purpose of God for this age, it has to make known God’s mind for the instruction of the church. If the gospel does not do that, it is not a revelation from God to man. Once revealed the revelation must be understandable in order to be a revelation.

 

 

4. We are commanded to understand this revelation. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words), whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:3-4). How can anyone read these verses and then say, “we cannot all understand alike”? Would God command us to do something which we cannot do?

 

 

5. God’s revelation to man is a complete revelation, containing all information necessary for our understanding and direction (2 Tim. 3:16-17). This revelation contains “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). Again, I say, we must remember that God created man and knew exactly how to express his will so that man could understand. God implied that all men could understand the gospel when he commanded that the gospel be preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15). Further, God implied that all Christians could understand the gospel when he instructed that our lives conform to the gospel (Phil. 1:27; Rom. 12:2). Further implication for the same thing is implied in the command to study (2 Tim. 2:15). Yes sir, “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psa. 119:130).

 

 

6. God has made our salvation contingent upon our understanding of his revealed will. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (in. 8:32). We are to obey the truth to purify our souls (1 Pet. 1:22); but, how can we obey that truth if we cannot understand that truth? Paul said that Timothy had “known the holy Scriptures” from the time he was a child (2 Tim. 3:15). This would, of course, make reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. It seems to this writer that Timothy had things harder to be understood than what we have today; yet, he understood them. If we cannot understand that by which we are going to be judged (in. 12:48), how can we prepare for the judgment?

 

 

6. Certain easily-understood instruction could not be followed if we cannot understand what God wants of us. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. 1:10). How could any number of people know that they were speaking the same thing, and speaking the truth, if they could not understand? How could they be of the same mind? How could I “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (Rom. 16:17) if I cannot understand that doctrine?

 

 

6. Limitations which God’s word places upon us forces the conclusion that we must understand his word. Consider again 1 Corinthians 1:10; we must speak the same thing and be of the same mind. The familiar statement of 2 John 9 further illustrates this point. If I cannot understand the doctrine of Christ, how can I know whether I am in or out of that doctrine?

 

 

6. Paul says that “we walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7); and “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6). “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). If there is no word of God there can be no faith; and I cannot please him without that faith. If I cannot understand God’s word, what happens to my faith? We can understand that if we operate in the realm of silence, we operate without faith; but, is this any worse than operating with a faith that is based upon a perversion? In what do I really trust? No longer can I say, with Paul, “I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith.” For my faith in him to be real, effective, and acceptable I must understand his word.

 

Still Folks Do Not Understand

All of that, you say, is well and good; yet many do not understand, and you wish to know why. Jesus spoke of an evil heart that did not understand (Matt. 13:15); not because they could not understand, but because they had an evil heart. Prejudice, envy, and jealousy all may preclude an understanding (Acts 17:5,32; 13:40-45). Stephen gave “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” as being at fault (Acts 7:51). Jesus, perhaps, assigned the reason for most not understanding, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). And, what causes one to not know the Scriptures? The answer comes bouncing back  a failure to honestly and sincerely study the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15). When an open and receptive heart comes to God’s word, he can understand God’s word. Yes, effort is required, sometimes much effort. Not only do some people learn more quickly than others, some have farther to go than others. But, every accountable person upon God’s earth can under-stand God’s word; and every group of such persons can understand God’s word alike! If this is not so, there really is no standard at all.

The claim that “we cannot all see the Bible alike” can-not be used to justify “unity-in-diversity.” And, since we can all see the Bible alike, there is no valid reason to plead for “unity-in-diversity.”

May God help us all to have room in our hearts for an understanding of his word; for, if we do not the consequences could be terrible, both in this life and the one to come. Gr

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 12-13
July 15, 1993

By Carl McMurray

“Therefore He was saying, `What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree; and the birds of the air nested in its branches.’ And again He said, ‘To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of meal, until it was all leavened”‘ (Lk. 13:18-21).

In the above verses Jesus compares his kingdom to two everyday occurrences in order to illustrate different characteristics of that kingdom.

In the first illustration the kingdom is likened unto a mustard seed. This small seed, about the size of a pin head, grows into a plant large enough for the birds to nest in. The words are similar to our modern day sayings about acorns and mighty oaks. The lesson is clear. From modest and humble beginnings, the gospel of the kingdom can grow to have a tremendous effect. Whether we are speaking of the kingdom’s humble beginnings in Jerusalem and subsequent world-wide spread, or whether we are speaking on a more personal level of the growth changes brought about in one’s life as he humbles his heart to God and is “lifted up” in service, it makes no difference. The changes are still tremendous in the world, in a community, or in one’s life. We can-not escape the potential for growth that is present in this illustration and we need to beware the efforts of Satan to discourage us by whispering, “Nobody’s interested” or “They’re going to do it anyway, why fight it?” We need to keep planting kingdom seeds.

In the second illustration, the kingdom is likened unto leaven or yeast. He comments on the spreading power of the yeast throughout the meal. We note that even though its work is unseen, it is nevertheless very effective. We are forced to see once again the power for growth and spreading influence of the kingdom. In the first parable the growth was observable while here it is unseen. In the first, birds came and nested in its branches, while here no more meal is added to the amount. Both of these are different aspects of the kingdom. Sometimes growth is natural and visible, while sometimes it comes about more slowly through unseen influences such as example, love, conscience or friendship.

There are two things, however, that seem to be present in both cases that catch one’s attention. In both cases there is growth. Growth means change, which is uncomfortable for many people. We like our “ruts” and our traditions. But growth also means maturity and strengthening and wisdom. The kingdom (or church) should be maturing as our faith grows season by season. Greater wisdom should be available to every congregation as the work progresses. Though our standard, the gospel, is unchanging, our methods of evangelism, our class curriculums, our gospel meetings can and should change to be more effective in getting Christ’s message out to a “changing” society. Just like the “brush arbor” meetings and millennial teaching of the 19th century were laid aside as we grew and learned, so other activities that become outdated or need correcting should be addressed. On the one hand, to be more effective in reaching out to a lost world, and on the other hand to keep perfecting our teaching so as to always be upholding the light of the first century gospel. Jesus shows us that whether by visible results or hidden influences, kingdom growth is inevitable.

The second obvious thing I see, however, brings the parables home to me. I notice that in both cases, before there could be growth, there was someone involved in the process. In the first “a man” took the seed and sowed it. In the second “a woman” took the leaven and hid it. In both cases, the seed and the leaven would have been useless if they were just left alone to grow by themselves. Someone had to get involved. Remember, Jesus did not say simply that the kingdom was like seed or leaven. He said it was like seed, sown and growing. And it was like leaven, hid-den and growing. It is the whole picture that represents the kingdom. The seed and leaven (gospel?), the growth, and the man and woman (Christians?) are all part of the picture.

Are you part of this picture of Christ’s kingdom? As the song says, “There is much to do, there’s work on every hand, the cry for help goes ringing through the land,” and again, “There is room in the kingdom of God, my brother, for the small things that you can do.” God has done his part in giving us a Saviour. Mercy and peace need now to be taught in his name. Will you help . . . by your faithful attendance? By your spiritual worship? By your encouraging words? By your purposed and liberal giving? Will you teach a class? Will you serve in any number of ways that are available in the kingdom today, and by your action sow the seed or hide the leaven? May God bless you in your every effort.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 25
July 15, 1993

By T. Doy Moyer

We live in an age of non-controversy. People don’t want to discuss things that are controversial. The shift in recent years has been toward “positivism.” “Don’t say or teach anything that has a negative tone to it. Let’s just be positive and make people feel good.” The trends in denominationalism show this attitude, as churches have become more and more social in their approach to the world. The new “mega-churches” cater to everyone, including those who don’t care about God. Churches have apostatized as they have become more concerned with making people “feel” good, instead of trying to save souls. Never step on toes or preach things that could offend hearers. Doing such just turns people off. (See Matt. 15:1-17 to see what Jesus thought about this.)

Sadly, the trend in denominationalism has become well-accepted by many disciples of Christ. Many have bought the techniques of pop-psychology. Instead of taking the approach toward teaching people that Jesus or the apostle Paul took, we promote the “Dale Carnegie” approach and refuse to call sin. Whatever the cost is, we are determined that we will not make enemies. This is the basis of the “peace at any price” ideas. Consequently, we have those among us, who say things very much akin to the things Isaiah had to deal with: “Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits” (Isa. 30:10). Teachers speak falsely, cater to itching ears, and the people “love to have it so” (Jer. 5:31; cf. 2 Tim. 4:2-4). As long as we don’t get controversial, we can keep our jobs and keep the peace.

I don’t know many people who really enjoy controversy for its own sake. Who likes to agonize over something that is a source of contention? I would not try to promote controversy for its own sake. But at the same time, the fact of controversy is something we had better understand. It is a fact that those who care about the Lord and his cause will have to get involved in controversy. The Lord could not avoid it (Matt. 22-23); and neither could his disciples (Acts 15). Today, as in the first century, what the Lord wants are disciples who are brave enough to enter the battlefield and contend for the faith (Jude 3). “For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Those who engage in controversy are generally criticized for doing so. Call into question a particular teaching, or deal with something in a straight-forward manner, and the next thing we know we are mean and unloving. Those who refuse to enter the battlefield then might complain that the ones who fight the battle are doing it for their own reputations, to promote themselves. I suppose the same could have been falsely said about Jesus or Paul. If you want to get someone upset at you, just deal with an issue in a straight-forward manner. Question something that he engages in and see the sparks fly. Ask for answers and you’re a troublemaker.

What is it that divides? Often when an issue comes up, people want to avoid discussion about it by saying, “That’s just another one of those issues that can splinter and divide brethren into thousands of little groups.” Does the fact that there is potential division mean that we must avoid the subject? We are afraid to discuss virtually anything these days. Issues like the deity of Christ, divorce and remarriage, different aspects of the Lord’s supper, and many other subjects must be studied. It seems, though, that just to bring them up for study is looked down on. I don’t know what the problem is in studying such issues. The Bible deals with them. Why should we be so afraid to? When a person says that “those issues can divide,” is he asking that we do not teach on them? Is the only way to keep the issue of divorce and remarriage from dividing brethren not to teach on it? Should we avoid teaching on the Lord’s supper because some brethren are so touchy about that? Talk about splintering! Before long, we’ll splinter teachings down so that we can’t address anything. We’ll just have to give up preaching truth altogether in favor of ear tickling. That way we can make friends and keep from upsetting anyone, except those who love the truth. (Can’t please anyone can we?)

I don’t believe that issues divide per se. Attitudes are what divide. For example, the issues of circumcision was not what divided brethren in the first century. Rather, it was the differing attitudes toward the issue that divided. If we can just get brethren to be rational and calm as they face certain issues, then there would not be nearly as much division. However, instead of trying to calmly study out an issue, the moment a question is brought up we get angry and irrational. We become unwilling to put our beliefs to the test and prove our convictions. The easiest thing to do then is just divide and say the other side is at fault for bringing up the issue. It is easier to get mad and indict motives than it is to think out and think through difficult questions. Giving an answer demands thought and study. Is it that we don’t want to do that?

The only way that we can “speak as the oracles of God” is to put our beliefs to the test (I Jn. 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:11). Truth has nothing to fear. We don’t have to be unkind and cranky about it. But we can engage in honorable Bible study together over any issue and not have divisive attitudes about it. This is not to say there will never be a division. But we dont have to cower in fear and refuse to talk. We can’t pass over our responsibility to contend for the faith by letting others do all the work. “I don’t like controversy” is no excuse. Who does like it? It would be wonderful if everyone voluntarily believed and taught the very same things with complete conviction. The only way to make that possible is through Bible study, which will often involve controversy as people think through their positions. I may not agree with someone, but I can respect him much more if he will try to study the issue and give honest answers.

In the end, the “non-controversy” attitude will backfire. Such an attitude will allow for false teaching to run like wild-fire through the ranks of God’s people. Then, we might all be in union with each other, but we’ll all go to hell together also. The aim of the gospel is to save souls. When the gospel is perverted, it means the loss of souls. Therefore, lets take up the sword of the Spirit and preach the truth without compromise, understanding that the wisdom from above is “first pure, then peaceable (Jas. 3:17). Division is not the goal. No one wants that. We an want unity; but we want it to he true unity, not a compromised union. Thus., its time that we exercise our senses and dig into the issues that trouble us. Do so with the attitude of finding truth, and our efforts will he rewarded. Though controversy is often unpleasant, it makes for better understanding and the greater knowledge of the things of God. “Those divisive issues” dont have to divide, if well approach Gods word and each other with proper attitudes, determining that whatever God says is his word and we will submit to it. Will true disciples do any less?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 23-24
July 15, 1993

By Kevin Campbell

In a recent debate with a Baptist preacher on the necessity of water baptism to salvation, an unusual argument was advanced. Rejecting the plain teaching of Scriptures such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, this preacher made several arguments that were based, not on the Bible, but on human wisdom and perspective.

One argument, which forms the basis of this article, was that if baptism were necessary to salvation, salvation would then be dependent on a third party, namely the administrator of the baptism. This could not be possible since salvation is a personal matter between the sinner and God, argued the preacher.

Now on the surface this sounds logical, although it certainly is not scriptural. Who would deny that salvation is a personal matter between God and each individual? Is it not true that each individual must make the choice to obey or disobey (Acts 26:19, 28; Rom. 6:16; cf. Josh. 24:15)? The question that needs to be answered is, “Can salvation depend or rely on the instrumentality of a third party yet re-main a personal choice or matter between the individual and God”? The biblical answer is “yes.”

Let us turn our attention for a moment to another consideration that is parallel to the objection stated above. Remember that the objection is to the necessity of baptism on the grounds that it requires a third party to administer or perform the baptism. Could not the same objection be raised against the necessity of faith? The answer is yes and it has been raised!

The Baptist preacher mentioned above is of the Missionary variety. Missionary Baptists believe that faith is essential to salvation and that each individual must choose to believe the gospel if he will be saved. Thus, it is imperative that sinners hear the gospel so that they might believe the gospel and be saved. It is because of this very emphasis on the preaching of the gospel to the lost world that these Baptists are called “missionaries.”

There are however other Baptists who do not believe in the necessity of faith to being saved. Called “Hard-shell” or “Primitive” Baptists, these people argue that God saves the elect apart from and without faith. Recently, while reading through some back issues of a publication called The Hard-shell Baptist, I came across this quote:

The “missionary movement” is all wrong when they say we must preach the gospel around the world in order that men might be saved for heaven and immortal glory. God saves his elect for heaven without a preacher. God is not dependent upon the preacher to save us eternally. God is not dependent upon our money to get preachers around the world to save his people (The Hard-shell Baptist, March 1984, p. 3).

Sound familiar? This is simply the same argument used by our Missionary Baptist friend being used against the necessity of faith. When confronted with the consequences of his reasoning on this point, this particular preacher stuck his head in the sand and would not address the issue. Such is typical in two ways. First of all, a false teacher will often make arguments that can be turned on him and applied to his own situation. Frequently, the trap that he will lay for someone else will ensnare him instead. Secondly, when con-fronted with the inconsistency of their position, false teachers will invariably ignore the issue rather than admit to their blunder.

The question however, is still before us: Is salvation, to some degree, dependent upon a third party? The answer is yes. This is true both of belief as well as baptism. Notice these points:

1. Paul argues that one must “call upon the name of the Lord” in order to be saved (Rom. 10:13). However, in order to call, one must first believe, and in order to believe one must hear, and in order to hear there must be a preacher (Rom. 10:14). Since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17), one must hear the gospel preached in order to believe. The only way one can hear is to have a preacher or teacher come to tell them the “good news” of Jesus Christ.

2. Paul also states in 1 Corinthians 1:21 that God chose “by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” The gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18), but it can only be effectual when it is “mixed with faith” (Heb. 4:2).

3. Philip was directed by the Holy Spirit to go up and join the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-29). When he approached and heard that the eunuch was reading from the prophet Isaiah, he asked, “Understandest thou what thou readest?” The eunuch replied, “How can I except some man should guide me?” The eunuch understood the need for someone to teach him that he might understand the prophetic message.

4.Cornelius was instructed by God to “call for Simon, whose surname is Peter . . . he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do” (Acts 10:5-6). Later, after Peter had come to Cornelius’ house, Cornelius said, “Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God” (Acts 10:33). Peter later repeated the events to the Jews and told them that Cornelius had been told that Peter would “tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14). From this example it is obvious that the household of Cornelius was dependent upon Peter to hear the word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

5. Timothy was instructed by Paul, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save theyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

From these and other related passages, it is easy to see that the salvation of lost souls is dependent, to a degree, on others. “But,” someone may ask, “cannot one read the Bible on his own without a preacher and believe the gospel without the involvement of a third party?” First of all, may I say from my own experience, that such rarely, if ever, hap-pens. I personally know of no one who learned the truth totally apart from any effort put forth by another individual. God’s plan is for the gospel to be committed to “faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). This is the purpose of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:46-48).

Secondly, even if a man did read the Bible on his own and believe the gospel message (and 1 am sure that such is possible and may have happened), is he not still relying on human instrumentality? Whose words are those that he is reading? Are they not the words of the apostles (men)? Is he not still relying on human instrumentality? Whose words are those that he is reading? Are they not the words of the apostles (men)? Is he not relying on their testimony and message for his faith? I realize their word is actually the word of God and not their own (I Thess. 2:13), but they are still instruments through which men believe the gospel (1 Cor. 3:5).

Thirdly, how is it that we have copies of the Bible today? Is it not true that men have copied and passed down through the ages the divine record? Again, I realize and preach that God is the one who has preserved his word through his providence (1 Pet. 1:23-25), hut we must also admit that God has used men as the instruments of his providence.

Let it be understood that I am not trying to diminish the significance of Gods work in salvation. Even when the gospel is preached and men obey the truth, it is only through Gods grace that we are able to be saved in the first place. The Lord is the one who saves, not man. However, the lord has seen fit to use men as instruments or vessels through which he saves the lost, whether by preaching and teaching or as the administrators: of baptism.

Understanding the significance of our responsibility in winning souls, let us be sure that we are using our abilities and talents as best we can to win souls. Let us strive to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all Iongsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Let us not be persuaded by the carnal and worldly arguments of those who would seek to confuse and cloud our minds and turn us away from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). And let us remember to give glory, honor and praise unto our God and Savior because of the grace that has been bestowed upon us (Gal. 6:14; Rev. 5:9-10).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 14-15
July 15, 1993