Truth Magazine

By Jady W. Copeland

In previous articles we have seen that the purpose of the Lord’s advent into the world was spiritual, and further that the purpose of our work as followers of him likewise is spiritual. Not only does he save us to be finally glorified in the next world, but he uses us to save others (I Tim. 4:15-16; 2 Tim. 2:2). When we stop to think about the fact that our sojourn in the world is so very short, and that “things” are purely temporary, we immediately realize that material possessions are simply tools which we use to save ourselves and those who hear us.

But man is too often bothered with covetousness. We are “possessed by our possessions” (they control us instead of our controlling them) and because they are something we can see, use and enjoy here we too often think more of the material than the eternal. Paul speaks of the ministry of the word and the hardships it causes “pressed on every side, yet not straightened; smitten down, yet not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body” (2 Cor. 4:8-10). Then after speaking of being “delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake” he seems pleased to endure such “that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (v. 11). But it was for the sake of the Corinthians (vv. 12,14). Why would suffering for Christ be so sweet? Read carefully verses 16-18 and note: (1) the outward man is decaying but the inward man is now renewed (better or refreshed); (2) the afflictions are light but they work out “for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory”; (3) and all this because “we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (emp. mine, JWC). The very fact that “things” of this life are temporal should make us consider them as of much lesser importance than the eternal.

In the remainder of this article let us consider the Lord’s money. Money of itself is neither good nor evil. Whether it is good or evil depends on our attitude toward it. Abraham, Job and other Bible characters were rich, but they did not let “possessions possess them.” They were in control of material things. By the Lord’s money we mean funds that have been given into the treasury of the local church to be used by the church in harmony with the will of God. In Acts 5:1-4 we clearly see the difference in “my” money and the Lord’s. Before Ananias and Sapphira laid it at the apostles’ feet, it was theirs (v. 4). After they gave, it did not belong to them. So it is when one gives into the Lord’s treasury on the Lord’s day; before one contributes it, it is his; afterwards it no longer belongs to the individual; it belongs to the Lord in the sense that it is to be scripturally used. “Laid at the apostles’ feet” simply means put under apostolic authority. That is still true today. Monies given into the Lord’s treasury are “laid at the apostles’ feet” in the sense that they are to be used by the direction of inspired teaching. Elders have no authority to use that money except as authorized by Christ.

The Lord’s Money

How is the Lord’s money to be raised? In 1 Corinthians 16:2 Paul says, “Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper.” In 2 Corinthian 8 and 9 Paul lays down some principles that must govern us in determining how much we should give. Since the Lord has given this instruction and since the rest of the Bible is silent on the way to raise money for the Lord’s cause, I conclude that this is sufficient. They gave out of their generosity when the need arose. In this case it was benevolence.

Let us note a few guidelines for our giving to the Lord. “As prospered” necessarily implies that some can give more than others. Some have more obligations than others and must give less even though they may have the same salary as one sitting next to him. But we must remember the Lord has prospered us and when there is a need we must remember what he has done for us, even though we may not have as much as we desire. I am afraid that many give only after their selfish pride is satisified, and they think they need more than they actually do. Some believe they are giving as prospered but only after they have an expensive car, home (much larger than needed), boat, swimming pool, etc. I almost get depressed when I see people with such luxurious possessions giving less than a godly brother who makes a third of the former’s salary. I wonder what the Lord thinks!

Prayerfully consider the widow who gave all she had, and was praised by the Lord (Mk. 12:44). And think of the Macedonians who “gave in much proof of affliction and abundance of their joy and their deep poverty” (2 Cor. 8:2). We speak much about “taking the Bible as our guide” but I wonder if we only mean it in regards to “faith, repentance and baptism.” And then when we get a request from one who wants to go to Europe to preach we say, “but we can’t afford it.”

I think a key to giving is found in 2 Corinthians 8:5. “And this, not as we had hoped, but first they save their own selves to the Lord, and to us through the will of God.” Do not we obey Christ because we belong to him (Mk. 9:41)? If he is living in us, are we not directed by his life and teachings — even including our attitude toward things of this world? If he controls us, we act according to his wishes; if Satan controls us (posessed by our possessions), we let selfishness, greed, covetousness and pride get in our way of giving as prospered.

How is the Lord’s money used? We have noted that “laying the money at the apostles’ feet” means putting it under apostolic authority. It is no different today. When I give into the Lord’s treasury, apostolic authority (through the Word) must control the use of that money.

First, it may be used to preach the gospel by supporting the preaching of the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8). Paul “robbed other churches, taking wages of them” that he may preach at Corinth. The church in Philippi sent money to Paul, sup-porting his needs while he preached the gospel (Phil. 4:15-16). In defending his apostleship (1 Cor. 9) he defends the right to refrain from working, and goes ahead to show that “those who proclaim the gospel” have a right to “get their living from the gospel” (v. 14, NASB).

Secondly, the Lord’s money may be used for limited benevolent purposes. In Acts 11:27-30 we learn the brethren sent funds to churches in Judea for relief in time of famine. Years later we find Paul raising funds for the church in Jerusalem from many churches when saints there were in need (Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8,9). I know of no Scripture where churches sent the Lord’s money to anyone for general benevolent causes or institutions. It was sent to needy saints in churches in time of emergency.

Other than these two purposes, I know of no apostolic authority for the Lord’s money to be used for other causes.

“I am afraid that many give only after their selfish pride is satisfied, and they think they need more than they actually do. Some believe they are giving as prospered but only after they have an expensive car, home (much larger than than needed), boat, swimming pool, etc. I almost get depressed when I see people with such luxurious possessions giving less than a godly brother who makes a third of the former’s salary. I wonder what the Lord thinks!”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 18-19
March 18, 1993

By Jimmy Tuten

God’s people have something in common with those outside of Christ: the ability of being influenced intellectually, emotionally and morally. We are all affected by impressions. Everything in life leaves its mark on the mind or senses. We all have notions, feelings, and recollections that are brought about by some force or influence, whether it be good or bad. All of us are impressionable. It is a God-given entity. However, our impressionableness needs to be monitored constantly. Where guarded watchfulness in this area is lacking, friction usually results, either in ourselves or with others. Jesus addressed this use when he said, “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24). It is so easy for us to be so influenced that we do not form sound judgment. A man’s judgment is no better than his information. In fact it is directly influenced by knowledge. One should not be motivated by first impressions any more than he would pass judgment on an automobile by the sound of its horn. Just because a man “toots his own horn” does not necessarily mean that he is proud, or arrogant. He may be trying to tell you something! In judging others it’s always wise to see with the heart as well as with the eyes. “The dove and the woodpecker were returning home from a visit to the peacock. `How did you like our friend?’ asked the wood-pecker. `Is he not disagreeable? His pride, his awkward feet, his hard voice, are unbearable.’ `I did not notice these things,’ replied the dove. `I could only gaze at his beautiful head, his gorgeous colors, and his majestic train” (I Can Do It, p. 70).

“One spring, sometime before the Civil War, a boy in search of work came to Worthy Taylor’s prosperous Ohio farm. The farmer knew nothing much about the boy except that his name was Jim, but he gave him a job. Jim spent the summer cutting stove wood, bringing in the cows and making himself generally useful. He ate in the kitchen and slept in the haymow. Before summer was over, Jim had fallen in love with Taylor’s daughter. When the farmer refused to let him marry her, telling him bluntly, that he had no money, no name and very poor prospects, Jim put his belongings into his old carpet bag and disappeared. Thirty-five years passed before Taylor one day pulled down his barn to make way for a new one. On one of the rafters above the Haymow, he discovered that Jim had carved his full name — James A. Garfield. He was then president of the United States.”

What a lesson for us! Some of us can identify with this incident. We have either shown rashness in forming judgments about others, or else we have gotten off on the wrong foot because of someone else’s wrong impression due to certain circumstances. Whatever the case, early impressions often rob us of opportunities. How sad.

A proneness to judge is condemned by Jesus (Matt. 7:1). However, this rebuke of the censorious spirit is not to be read as forbidding the framing of such judgments of others as circumstances of our position render necessary. Every day of our lives we are called upon to form, and frequently to express a consensus upon men, as well as theories, proposals, events, etc. as to true or false, right and wrong, wise or unwise, expedient or inexpedient. We must judge that we may know how to act. But the point is this: there is the possibility of judging rashly; of judging with bias and prejudice; of judging so as to do wrong to individuals, of judging so as to injure truth and retard progress and improvement.

In Deuteronomy 1:16-17, rules are laid down that have primary application to the administration of law, but their principles are applicable in the formation of decisions upon the character and action of others. They are equally fitted to guide our private judgments. Before acting on your impressions:

I. Gain the real facts of the situation. Solomon said, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Prov. 18:13). Moses commanded, “hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him” (Deut. 1:16). Judgment passed in ignorance of the real facts of the case is unjust. Think of the conflict that would be eliminated if this became a practice of the brethren. The law of Christ demands this of us (Matt. 18:16).

Make an impartial judgment based upon facts (Deut. 1:17). Jesus said, “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24).

Righteous judgment should be done fearlessly (Deut. 1:17). Experience teaches us that some brethren are not above time-serving tampering with conviction, of seeking man’s favor, and of doing the thing we do not at heart approve. The dread of temporal consequences sometimes makes cowards of the best of us. Blessed is he, who in doing the will of the Lord, never fears the face of man!

Judgment is rendered with a due sense of responsibility to God. Just as civil judges are vicegerents, deriving their authority from God, striving to express justice, do so with a sense of irresponsibleness and accountability (1 Pet. 2:13-17; Rom. 13:1-7), so is the case of the judgment of Christians. We will be held responsible for our decisions! Any judgment that is biased, untrue, and insincere is a misrepresentation of that truth and rectitude which have their ground in God himself (Matt. 18:7-8,15-20).

If at any time we act on our impressions in the absence of any of the above items, we are incompetent to act, and will be judged accordingly (Matt. 7:2). Plutarch once said, “To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult.” My friends, do not let impressions get the best of you. Be sure your life is secure through obedience to the will of God (Heb. 5:8-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 21-22
March 4, 1993

By Carl McMurray

A poll by Gallup-Princeton Religion Research Center and reported in the Christian Chronicle showed some interesting results. It seems that according to a re-cent survey, nearly 25 percent of U.S. adults have changed religious affiliation at least once. Switching to a Protestant faith is nine times more common than to Catholicism. Among Protestants the highest percentage of switchers was among Baptists, followed by Methodists and Presbyterians. Are you surprised by this report? What does it say to you?

To me it says, first of all, that one in four adults that I see on the street and in my neighborhood has changed or will change his faith. Doesn’t this contradict the idea we’ve heard or used — “They were raised in the church. They wouldn’t be interested in the gospel.” Obviously one in four is willing to give up the church he was “raised in.” People will change and do change at certain points in their life when they see that either their spiritual needs are not being met, or can be better met somewhere else. Isn’t that “our job,” to make known the wisdom of God (Eph. 3:9-10) and show people that the New Testament church is the only place their spiritual needs can be truly met? For different reasons, one fourth of the population, at some point in their life, is willing to leave one faith for another. I’m wondering why they can’t turn from their denomination to the Lord’s body. Why can’t they turn in their creed for the New Testament? Very quietly the answer comes back — “They could, if they only knew.”

If they could only see past some of the negative attitudes and bad reputations of just a few Christians, they would see how friendly and beautiful the Lord’s church is. If they could see past some of the bickering over inconsequential matters like whether to use class books in Bible class or whether we can read from commentaries, or whether the elders can have a room at the building in which to conduct their business of shepherding, then they would see how much real unity and cooperation there is between Christians. If Christians talked about the church like they talk about basketball, golf, hunting, or guns, etc. — I have a feeling people would know about the church. They would hear of the love and admiration and strong ties of fellowship and zeal which is so addictive to people.

I wonder sometimes if maybe the problem is not a lack of people to convert — 25 percent of them are converting! The problem may be that they haven’t really seen the blessings of the first century church, Christ’s body, in our lives.

They haven’t seen any difference in us that would draw them to glorify God. And even when we do try to manifest Christ in our life by bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit, we keep it to ourselves. We don’t really “sow the seed,” i.e. tell others about the difference Jesus is making in our life. We need to encourage one another in two areas. We need to be living right and sharing that with others. We need to be grounded in truth so that we are ready, and then making ourselves available in some way so that when that 25 percentile is ready to change, we will be there to guide them into the love of God. Isn’t that what 1 Peter 2:12 teaches?

There is a second point observable in these statistics however. Notice the three main groups of “switchers.” What do they have in common that would make people turn to them? They are not similar in doctrine or attitude. They range from biblical emphasis to social emphasis to historical emphasis. What is the common connection? I believe it is simply “size.” These are the three “largest” Protestant denominations. Though their reasons are not always commendable, people are often drawn to large congregations. If they wish, they can “get lost in the crowd.” (I said their reasons weren’t always commendable.) A large group also offers a larger “peer’ incentive. There are more people involved so it “seems” as if this must be “more right.” Let’s face facts. In an age of growing economic slowdown, small congregations are financially at a disadvantage. In an age of urbanization, the small country church image is dying. Many of them already have died, as their next generation moved away to school and to work. And in an age when so much work needs to be done in the Lord’s vineyard, we place ourselves at a disadvantage financially and in the eyes of the world by splintering up and buying more real estate every few miles across the countryside every time we just get large enough to become effective. If we could break that mold, maybe the world would be impressed with the fact that we could work together in peace and harmony instead of being impressed how those church folks can cast blame and sling mud.

In John 4:35 Jesus said, “Do you not say, `There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest.” The figures in the survey say to me, “Lift up your eyes and take another look.” People are willing to change, but I’ve got to show them the difference so they will make the right choice. May the Lord help each one of us as we individually, and as a family, take his word to a lost world.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 14
March 4, 1993

By Wallace H. Little

Twenty yeas ago I was talking with Yater Tant. This was shortly after my return from Vietnam and very near the end of my 28 years of military service. I had been out of the country most of the 1960s. I wondered at the state of the institutional apostasy in the U.S. I specifically asked him if he thought churches might be rescued from the institutional evil.

“No; we might save a few individuals here and there, but I don’t believe any churches will be brought out intact.”

If I doubted the accuracy of his evaluation then, events of late have confirmed just how right he was. I recently finished my first hearing of the tapes of the Nashville Meeting. I am stunned and appalled! To keep their institutions, the liberals (with respect to the institutional issues) are desperately seeking a way of avoiding the binding authority of command, approved apostolic example, and necessary inference. Even if it means they must wrest Scripture to do so, they will have their institutions.

It means exactly that.

During earlier times, while the liberals misused Scripture to justify their practices, they claimed they were staying with God’s Word. The controversy then swirled around how to apply command, approved apostolic example, and necessary inference. At least everyone agreed these principles were valid.

No longer.

Some liberals now seek their (Jer. 10:23) “authority” based only on what Christ personally taught as recorded in the gospels. Others claim that we are bound only by what he personally commanded. They reject the authority of Acts through Revelation. (I ask: what about John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13?) Yet others say that whatever Christ did, we can do. Still others claim “we need a new method of hermeneutics.” As authoritative and binding, these offer only what Christ did. They say we (collectively as a church or a joint-functioning collection of congregations) can do whatever he did. Others assert we can do anything that does not harm a good man. They are promoting more changes, but the ones I listed here will serve to illustrate my point. The liberals will have their institutions!

I am distressed that such men as Johnny Ramsey, Jimmy Jividen, and other “conservative liberals” (this is a conflict of terms, but I don’t know how else to describe them) re-main in the liberal camp. I am more distressed because of how they defend themselves in this and justify doing so. Doctrinally they are much closer to us than to the “liberal liberals.” Thirty years ago, some of their disposition said they only supported funding orphans homes and the Herald of Truth out of church treasuries. They claimed they rejected doing this for anything else, such as colleges and other “pro-ducts” of the so-called social gospel. These have now seared their consciences, swallowed their tongues, and become very, very quiet. They will have their institutions!

I cringe for them!

I cringe even more for us, however. I am beginning to hear some of our men, those who have stood faithfully against institutionalism for years or decades now saying “our institutional brethren” in talking about those liberals who are so far out that most of the main-line Protestant denominations wouldn’t even accept them, or “my brethren in the Christian Church” (by its own acknowledgement, this organization became a “denomination among sister denominations” in 1968), or others “our brethren in the institutional churches,” just as if there are not soul-destroying differences between us. Hayse Reneau once told me he noticed some brethren were using the terms “liberal churches” as if this was okay, and “conservative churches” as if this was okay. That was in 1971. I haven’t seen him lately, but if he has listened to the Nashville tapes, he probably flipped!

Even that is not the end. Coming down the pike, and in-deed, some of these things are already here, we now have “brethren” urging joint participation with the government and the denominations in various social services, catering to the outer man in restaurants (called “fellowship halls”), athletic departments, community life centers, old folks homes, unmarried mothers homes, social services centers, church officers such as “Young Peoples’ Associate Minister for Recreation,” and ad nauseurn.

If that isn’t enough, there are those today who change God’s order of things in worship by introducing mechanical instruments of music, humming, and choral singing. I detect also the beginning of questioning that baptism is necessary for remission sins. One “Church of Christ preacher” (not at Nashville) praised Billy Graham as “an outstanding Christian.” Do not think this is the end. It will continue. To the liberals, Christianity is “this worldly.” It has become entirely subjective. The only things lacking today for these “brethren” (liberals) to establish their denomination is selecting a name, deciding on an organization, and choosing its leaders. That will come. It is only a matter of time until they seek to distinguish and distance themselves from us.

In a congregation I know of, at their once-a-month mid-week sing, one song leader suggested that some might hum instead. Perhaps he didn’t know any better. But sitting in the audience were saints with 5, 10, 15, 20 and even 25 years experience in the church. Not one of them opened a mouth to object! They all shared sin (2 Jn. 10,11)! It gets worse: the regular preacher was away when this happened. When he returned, he was appalled. He prepared and presented a lesson on it to the church. Some of the same ones who sat silently when humming was suggested now objected to him preaching on it. They also contended with him on his use of Scripture when he proved this practice was sinful. I’ve listened to his lesson on tape several times. I say “amen” to every point that preacher made and the manner in which he made them!

This is not an isolated incident. I haven’t been looking for them, but even so, this is the third one I’ve learned of in a very short time. This leads me to wonder if these are but the tip of the iceberg of present and future departures in worship. I wonder how many churches of Christ today occasionally or regularly practice choral singing or humming instead of singing in worship? Or even use mechanical instruments of music. I guess I don’t really want to know. It would scare me too much.

A chorus, humming, and mechanical instruments of music in worship all violate the same biblical basics that “allowed” congregational financial support of human institutions and activation of the church universal. A proper understanding and application of necessary inference would stop this developing apostasy, this type of foolishness, in its tracks.

Thirty years ago in a gospel meeting, I listened to a preacher state that apostasy develops over three generations and takes four stages. In the first stage, brethren only change the meaning of words. “Church” no longer only means either all of God’s saved, or a single congregation. Now it can mean a functional grouping of two or more congregations. During the second stage, brethren begin seeking a “good work” fitting the new definitions, ignoring 2 Timothy 3:17 in defining this. In the third, Philippians 1:1 becomes passe; an organization is structured to do this new work. Not until the fourth stage, however, do they violate John 4:24 and Hebrews 8:5, and change worship. I don’t have to guess what stage some are in now. The process is words, work, organization, then worship. Just as surely as they begin the first stage, when they stop speaking as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11), they guarantee the fourth! All it takes is time.

These people are no longer my brethren in Christ. They are not walking in the light (1 Jn. 1:7). I didn’t make the decision to depart; they did. When they did, God recognized that they had broken fellowship with him. They are still precious souls before God, but their continued stubborn disobedience caused the Lord to remove their candlestick. They are as-yet unnamed denominationalists. I do not object to contacts with them in such meetings as at Arlington and Nashville. However, these meetings ought not to be for what they describe as “fellowship” (using their definition of the word), either having it with them, or reestablishing it between those in the groups represented. Rather, we must use such meetings to teach them the truth, to save their souls. Uncorrected and unrepentant, they are headed for hell. We must remind them of this as often as they will listen (Ezek. 33:1-9).

Among us, we already have some who object to this “shelling of the corn,” fearing it would “drive them away.” (To where? Hell Number two? Hell number three? They’re already headed for Hell number one.) Some even apologize when the truth is plainly delivered. This happened at the Nashville Meeting. For shame! We must never let these get-togethers lull us into thinking that the gap between us can be closed, script rally, without the liberals repenting. Other-wise any bridge we build over that gap will be named “Compromise.” I will not be a party to this. I love you all in the Lord, and many of you in the flesh also. But I refuse to go to hell for you!

We do the liberals no favor by refusing to accept the fact that in their present condition, they are eternally lost. For their good and to fulfill our responsibility, we need to say so, privately and publicly, but plainly. I know it is hard. One of the finest friends I’ve had in this life converted me to Christ. He was and remains liberal. He is also lost. This grieves me at heart. My grief doesn’t change his status before God, however. I have done my best to bring him out of his error, using every fundamental argument that he used on me to make me a Christian. I failed. He rejected my teaching efforts (Hos. 4:6). I still love him. Yet Ephesians 4:15,16 demands that I love truth more. I cannot genuinely love souls until and unless I love truth first and foremost. My love for my friend cannot overcome his disobedience. He is no different from my mother who died out of the Lord years ago, and others close to me in this life whom I’ve taught but have failed to convert. Unrepentant and unchanging, they are all headed for the same destination: hell.

It makes me weep.

But my tears change nothing.

What does all that have to do with conservative (the only real) brethren? Just this: 80 years ago, Christians recoiled in horror before the missionary society. They separated themselves from those who supported it. Then a generation later, their children turned right around and swallowed other institutions that violated the same biblical concept. Today, I greatly fear we have conservatives who in times past have steadfastly rejected church financial support of orphans’ homes, the Herald of Truth, and “Christian” Colleges, and more, are now beginning to accept other things based on the violation of the same basic principle. History has many examples of those who refuse to learn its lessons having to repeat its mistakes. We can expect nothing better if we follow the same path.

Silence of the Scriptures

The fundamental principle that under girds God’s binding authority in command, approved apostolic example, and necessary inference is his silence. This is the very bedrock on which these rest, on which we can determine precisely what our Lord requires of us to satisfy John 14:15. Briefly stated, it means whatever God has not authorized in the New Testament, he has forbidden by the very fact of not mentioning it.

One of the clearest applications of this is in Hebrews 7:12-14. Under the Old Law, Christ could not be a priest. All priests were of Levi. He was of Judah. He was prohibited from being in the priesthood because the Old Testament nowhere authorized him to be in it. He wasp forbidden by its lack of authorization, its silence! There are many other Old and New Testament Scriptures that state this idea in plain, impossible-to-misunderstand language. In discussion, the liberals gloss over these. Some of us are doing the same thing in practice. There is nothing more important to pro-per understanding and application of Bible authority than its foundation: the principle of God’s silence. Without it, we become outlaws (Matt. 7:21-23). The Bible is no different than any directive document: it forbids what it doesn’t authorize. There are dozens of Old and New Testament Scriptures that state this principle.

Even so, I hear (on the Nashville tapes, and elsewhere) from saints who by virtue of their length of service ought to know better (Heb. 5:12) such nonsense as: “How do we know when an apostolic example is binding?” I like what Connie Adams once told me. “It is binding until God unbinds it. It was authoritatively certified twice: once when the Apostles did it under the instructions of the Holy Spirit; a second time when the Holy Spirit had them write it down.”

Necessary Inference

I believe, however, that by far the worst example of the loose application of Bible hermeneutics is misunderstanding or rejection of necessary inference. For very good reasons, God chose this method to teach us. I won’t go into the “why” here. Suffice it to say, we learn many of the Lord’s requirements only through necessary inference. Some ask, “Necessary to whom?” I answer: necessary to all who will save their souls.

Let me cite some texts. These show the necessary conclusions, the necessary inferences if you will, that we are forced to draw, if we are to please God. In Matthew 22:23-32, the Sadducees came to Christ and tried to entrap him. They posed the question, that if there is a resurrection, whose wife would a woman be, who (in obedience to the Law), in her lifetime, had been married successively to seven brothers. In his response, Christ told them, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God . . . have ye not read … I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.” We are forced to conclude (draw the necessary inference), that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive. There is no other possible conclusion we can draw, if we believe Scripture. Mark 16:15 commands us to go in-to the world and preach the gospel to every creature. We necessarily infer that we must have a method since we can-not fulfill the command without a method. Acts 14:27 and 15:12 both talk about God’s work among the Gentiles through Paul. We necessarily infer that Gentiles are privileged to become Christians too, and as the Jews, are also subject to God’s law. As a final illustration, look again at Hebrews 7:12-14. Since our Lord “sprang out of Judah,” we infer necessarily that he could not have been a priest under the Old Testament Law of Moses.

A necessary inference is an unavoidable conclusion, a conclusion we are forced to draw if we believe God’s Word. On the first day in one assignment during my military service, my superior informed me that my duty time was 0600. He did not say, “Your duty time is 0600 on Monday, and 0600 on Tuesday, and 0600 on . . . and so on.” Nor did he tell me, “Your duty time if 0600 until I say otherwise.” Why not? Because I necessarily inferred these conclusions. I did that because I believed what he said, and so believing, these conclusions were forced on me. On occasions, he ordered me to travel to other military installations on official duty. He didn’t tell me that there was a means of my going. He didn’t have to. I knew better than to play “cute word games” with him. We need to treat God’s Word as fairly.

Many, including some conservatives who also ought to know better, are questioning and doubting the importance of necessary inference. In a discussion on abortion with one saint, I used Luke 1:44. The response was, “That’s only your conclusion. You can’t bind that on others.” That’s right, it is my conclusion, but not only mine. It is the conclusion God demands of me. And yes, I can bind it on others! Unborn, non-life fetal-matter does not experience emotion. The babe in Elizabeth’s womb leaped for joy. Joy is a human emotion. The necessary inference is that John the Baptist existed as a human being with a soul before his birth. Q.E.D: abortion is the unlawful taking of human life, and thus is murder!

Conclusion

I despair. Brethren, if we think that because we believe ourselves to be conservative, we will escape this nonsense and its consequent carnage to the body of Christ, we fool ourselves. So many with whom I have talked in the last few years who oppose the institutional apostasy do so based on something other than principle. lndeeds, many conservatives do not know what Bible hermeneutical concepts are, to say nothing of their application. They do not know how to apply these basic fundamentals of Bible authority to the institutional departure. Yet these are so important that the salvation of our souls depends on understanding and applying them properly. Many brethren would not recognize an approved apostolic example or a necessary inference if it walked up and kicked them in the shins!

While thinking we won the institutional fight, I fear we have become neglectful of our personal study and teaching. At the very least, we ceased teaching the basics to the new generation coming on the scene. We are in great danger of losing them. If we do not begin soon to reverse this trend, and it may already be too late, we may live to see the heart-rending agony of a separation among our brethren in the near future that makes the one in 1906 from the Christian Church, and the one taking place now from the liberals both look like “Sunday School Picnics.” We desperately need to quit flinching from truth, regardless of its consequences in our personal lives.

One brother suggested the best, and possibly the only means of stopping this is to establish an aggressive paper among us, patterned after the old Gospel Guardian. Then through this paper, attack this error relentlessly, until the principles become widely known and accepted again. And finally, after that, to keep teaching on them, and not lay back and rest, thinking we’ve won because those who op-pose us refuse any longer to discuss these things.

Old brother J. D. Tant used to finish his articles with, “Brethren, we’re drifting.” I fear we’re no longer just drifting. Rather, I think we have built a powerful inboard motor in our boat of apostasy, and have greatly speeded up our “progress” on the road to hell. I plead: wake up; smell the “skunk cabbage.” Stop this dangerous nonsense now if it is still stoppable; save your souls. You are in very great danger!

How important is necessary inference? Exactly as important as your soul! You cannot be saved without it because so much of God’s truth, so much of what God demands of us if we are to satisfy Revelation 2:10, we can learn only with necessary inference as the vehicle of our understanding.

Mark it: unless we do something fast, the remnant will be small indeed!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 18-21
March 4, 1993