Truth Magazine

By Darrel Haub

The following quote was furnished to me by a member here at Pekin. It was observed in the New York cottage at the Tamassee Daughters of the American Revolution School, Tamassee, South Carolina. “It’s not enough to teach our girls to say “No! We must also teach our boys not to ask.” As I think of this quote, I am made to face the fact that we have more often taught on women’s dress and responsibility in this area than we have on the men’s. Perhaps this article will help overcome in some measure that deficiency.

The Bible helps us see how men need to learn not to ask women for sexual favors to feed our lust. Just look at the matter of the adultery between David and Bathsheba. This is recorded for us in 2 Samuel 11:1-5. This whole matter began as David observed Bathsheba bathing. He did not have to look upon her with lust in his heart. He had wives and concubines, but he allowed lust for her to cause him to send for her and commit adultery with her. She became pregnant from this encounter and then David was led to try to cover his sin by further sins, even to premeditated murder. The son born to this affair died, and David’s family was never the same again. It was filled with deceit and similar things throughout his life. How the story could have been different had David just looked away without calling Bathsheba to this house!

David apparently failed to teach his sons about the danger of allowing lust to grow in their hearts because we read of a similar thing in his son Amnon. Read 2 Samuel 13:1-39. Amnon lusts for his half-sister Tamar and arranges a plot that leads to the rape of Tamar. Following that event Amnon is eventually killed by Tamar’s full brother Absalom. This results in Absalom’s exile from Israel for a while. Just think of all this family disturbance and turmoil because Amnon allowed his lust for Tamar to go unchecked. Do you think that the pleasure of his sin satisfied him? Do you think it was worth the pain it caused for himself and others?

After teaching our boys about these real-life situations and showing them the consequences that befell those who allowed their lusts to lead them to this kind of sin, let us teach them what Jesus said. He said, “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). We must teach our boys to control their lusts. Paul told Timothy, “Flee youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). The first step in flight from fornication might well be just to look away. In 1 Corinthians 10:13 God has promised that we will not be tempted beyond our ability to resist, but will provide a way of escape. Seek that escape from this sin.

We need to teach our boys that this sin will condemn us before God. Hebrews 13:4 teaches, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” Some young people seem to think that their God-given desires are normal and that they ought to be fulfilled.

However, we can never allow our-selves to be deceived into thinking that this justifies fulfillment of those desires in unlawful ways. God will judge fornication in all cases. If a person cannot control his desires, Paul says, “but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion”(1 Cor. 7:9 NKJV). The only way to avoid sin in sexual matters is to be married or deny yourself. Let us teach our boys these simple choices.

In the reading of 2 Peter 1:5-11 we see that the virtue of self-control must be added to the Christian’s character if he is to be saved. Are we teaching our boys to learn self-control. It seems to me that in too many cases we excuse our boys’ lusts as something that just can’t be helped or controlled. We say, “Boys will be boys.” Boys may be boys, but boys can be taught to control themselves. As a matter of fact they must learn this to be saved. We are remiss as parents and older Christians if we do not teach them.

Let us teach our boys respect for God, girls and themselves in this matter of fornication.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 5
February 18, 1993

By Herschel E. Patton

Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: He that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son (2 Jn. 9).

The principle of “going onward” is not evil in and of itself. In fact, it is often used in a good and commendable way. The Macedonians were commended for going onward, or “beyond their power” in giving (2 Cor. 8:3). Christians are urged to “go on unto perfection” (Heb. 6:1). We often sing, “Onward Christian soldiers! Marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.”

The principle of this phrase may be either good or bad, depending upon what the going onward is to or from. In the text for this study (2 Jn. 9-11), the going onward is further explained as “abiding not in the teaching (doctrine) of Christ.” The teaching of Christ constitutes an enclosure, something fenced — hedged in, a pattern, beyond which one must not go. The text says of the doctrine of Christ to the preacher what God said to the sea, “Hitherto shall thou come, but no further” (Job 38:11). Going onward from the teaching of Christ, instead of “abiding in,” results in a forfeiture of one’s relationship with God — “hath not God.”

Some, even brethren, have sought to soften the prohibition of this passage by limiting the warning to the teaching of those “antichrists” who deny “that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” In this passage, the Gnostics of that day (who taught that the body is unholy, as is all matter; so divinity [Christ] could not inhabit the flesh) are given as an example of “going onward.” All other cases of going beyond the teaching of Christ in any way would be within the limits of the principle of “going onward.”

Our text is not the only warning in Scripture of “going onward.” We are told to mark “them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17), and to withdraw from all who walk not after the traditions received from the apostles (2 Thess. 3:6,14). Paul said to Timothy, “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). Paul left Timothy in Ephesus to teach certain men not to teach a different doctrine, nor to give heed to fables (1 Tim. 1:3-4). The Galatians were told that if man or angel preached anything different from what Paul had preached, “he shall be anathema” (Gal. 1:8-9). John, the writer of Revelation, said, “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19).

The teaching (doctrine) of Christ, as delivered by him and the inspired apostles (Jn. 16:13) is truth. Anything more or different from that which is divinely revealed is no part of truth. Those who would go onward from this, mock the wisdom of God and exalt the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 2:1-5).

Some who go onward seek to justify their action on the basis of not going very far — not like the “far out” ones. The evil warned against in this text is not determined by the distance or size of the “going onward” (an inch or mile), but by the attitude that leaves God’s revealed wisdom for man’s wisdom. The guilt is there when one decides to go onward, and does. The distance one goes may result in greater sorrow, havoc, and shame, but you are here seeing the actions of one who “hath not God.” The guilt and separation takes place when one first goes onward instead of abiding in the doctrine of Christ.

Apostasy

Going onward instead of abiding in the teaching of Christ; exchanging divine wisdom for human wisdom, truth for error, has been the cause of every apostasy that has occurred in the history of the church. Truth did not abide with the first churches very long. Soon, there grew up a feeling that human wisdom would serve the Cause better in organization than the simple order in New Testament churches — each church independent, with elders, deacons, and saints, subject to the head, Christ and his word.

Building on human wisdom, one elder in a congregation became “chief” over others, then an organization of the chief elder (bishop) from all the churches in a district, state, country was formed . . . until Catholicism, with its Pope, came to exist. All this, because brethren did not abide in the doctrine of Christ, but went “onward.”

After hundreds of years, Protestant denominationalism appeared, mostly through the protests of men against the corruptions and errors of Catholicism, and the pressing of various philosophies of men. None of these exists because of what Scripture says, but because of human philosophy and efforts.

During the 18th century the restoration movement (a plea to return to the New Testament order of things, and Bible authority) became very popular and successful. New Testament churches came to exist all across the land, as Bible authority for everything believed and practiced was preached, along with Bible warnings about “going onward.”

This success was soon followed by apostasy. This time it was a “going onward” in the introduction of missionary societies for evangelism, and instruments of music in worship.

The New Testament clearly reveals how churches did evangelistic work. Each church sent and supported preachers; sometimes more than one church sent to the same preacher. The missionary society was a separate organization from a local church, acting through a board of representatives from many churches, proposing to do evangelism for the churches. This was a “going onward.”

The New Testament repeatedly calls upon saints to “sing,” and gives examples of their “singing.” There is no command, inference, or example of saints using mechanical instruments in their praise unto God. To do so in going on-ward; beyond the teaching of Christ.

Still, another apostasy occurred within the last half century, involving institutionalism, sponsoring churches and the social gospel. These, as every apostasy, past, present or future, arise from “going onward and abiding not in the doctrine of Christ.”

Institutionalism, like the missionary society in evangelism, involves another organization for doing the work of churches in caring and edification (orphan/old folks home and colleges). The doctrine of Christ reveals local churches engaged in the work of evangelism, relieving the needy, and edifying, but nothing about churches planning, building, and managing institutions (organizations) for doing these things. All such organizations are outside the teaching of Christ (truth) and reflect a “going onward.”

The sponsoring church involves one church (group of elders) planning and carrying on a program or project, beyond the ability of that congregation, by soliciting money from many churches. Thus, the elders of one church oversee and direct the funds and work of many churches. There are cases where the sponsoring church elders, when their project has established other churches in a state or country, oversee a number of local churches — even holding the deed to their property. Of course, no such action can be found in the New Testament, even if you name it “cooperation.” Such exists because of a “going onward.”

The same thing is true of the social gospel: churches con-ducting businesses, providing recreation, entertainment, social functions, even building and equipping places for these activities. Such was never a function of New Testament churches, therefore, they are going onward.

Attempts at Justification

The history of apostasy is this: once the line is crossed, rapid progress is made in embracing other unscriptural things. At first, brethren with some consciousness of the need for scriptural authority, yet desire to do something unscriptural, will seek some Scripture that they think will justify the thing. They find dining and recreational facilities in the Bible word “fellowship” or “good works” passages. Trying to prove an unscriptural thing scriptural requires twisting and perverting Scripture. Serious study, debate, testing, and examination will expose all perversions and bring to light truth.

Brethren who “go onward” have been rebuffed and proven impotent in their efforts to prove their actions scriptural. Now, they have “A New Hermeneutic,” saying there is now set pattern or confines to the doctrine of Christ. They say you don’t need scriptural authority for all that you believe and practice, as long as it is good and not strictly forbidden.

The claim that 2 John 9-10 only refers to the teaching about Christ (“had not come in the flesh”) and not to the whole of his teaching, is an effort to destroy the idea that the doctrine of Christ is an enclosure, beyond which we must not go.

Others dismiss the importance of having scriptural authority by flippantly saying, “We do many things without Bible authority (church buildings, water fountains, rest rooms, baptistry, etc.”). This is a false statement. We do have Bible authority for these. Another article in this series will deal with general and specific authority — aids and expedients, so I will not deal with this matter here. Anyone offering such justification errs because of ignorance in this area.

There is no Scripture to justify “going onward and abiding not in the doctrine of Christ,” and no amount of human reasoning can remove the curse for so doing. “They have not God!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 3, p. 22
February 4, 1993

By Tom O’Neal

I appreciate very much the invitation of brother Connie W. Adams to participate in this special issue of Guardian of Truth. He and I in the past have worked together on Searching the Scriptures which the reader knows by now has ceased publication.

The text of Mark 7:1-13 reads, “Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not, And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not they disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and any other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” Matthew records this also in Matthew 15:1-9.

Two Usages of the Word “Tradition”

In order to properly understand what Jesus said in the above passage, it is needful to comprehend that the word “tradition” in Scripture has two usages, one a bad usage and one a good usage.

First, we need to find out what “tradition” means and then we will find out second how it is used. Vine says it means “a handing down or on” and Thayer says “a giving over, giving up . . . which is done by word of mouth or in writing” (481). Thus, a tradition is simply that which is handed down or on to others, whether “by word of mouth or in writing.”

Second, how is the word used? In Scripture as well as elsewhere it has both a good and bad sense.

Good. The KJV uses the word “ordinances” where the ASV uses the word “tradition” in 1 Corinthians 11:2. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (traditions, ASV), as I delivered them to you.” Paul told the Corinthians what he delivered unto them was that which he had by revelation received of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:3). Further, Paul said that which “I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

Bad. In the writings of Paul mention is made of “tradition” in the bad usage of the term. He said, he “profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” These traditions were not the “commandments of the Lord” but were “of my fathers.” Paul warned the Colossians, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). Observe carefully that these traditions were “of man” and “not after Christ.”

In our text, Mark 7:1-3, Jesus uses the word “tradition” in its bad sense. In fact, we could safely say Jesus always so used it.

Contrast

In a close study of our passage under consideration, Jesus draws a very sharp contrast between (1) the word of God, and (2) the traditions of men. Six times he refers to their tradition: (1) “the tradition of the elders” (v. 3), (2) “the tradition of the elders” (v. 5), (3) “the commandments of men” (v. 7), (4) “the tradition of men” (v. 8), (5) “your own tradition” (v. 8), and (6) “your tradition” (v. 13).

Set opposite to the traditions of men, Jesus held up the word of God spoken by Moses. Jesus affirmed that these Jews laid “aside the commandment of God” (v. 8) rejected “the commandment of God” (v. 9) and were “making the word of God of none effect” (v. 13) by not keeping what “Moses said” (v. 10). Upon another occasion Jesus also upheld what Moses wrote and said for people to observe and do what Moses said (Matt. 12:1-3), the reason being Moses spoke the word of God (Exod. 20:1,12).

God had said through Moses, “Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die.

Kick out and kick hard all of the doctrines and commandments of men.

Do they mean by tradition, having a song first in our service, or two songs first and then a prayer, then a sermon and then the Lord’s Supper? I seriously doubt our “non-traditionalists” mean this. You see, if this is what they mean, the minute you change the order of the worship, you will start another tradition in a week or two.

What those that want to do away with tradition within churches of Christ mean is this: they want to introduce the use of the instrument, eliminate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, having it as often during the week as they want and on any day or days that they want, have women deacons, preachers, and elders, eliminate so much Bible in classes and have some reviews of good books instead of a Bible class, having interdenominational services with the denominations in town, reject elders in the church, reject the church itself, and reject the idea that there is one scriptural reason for divorce and remarriage.

“The religious world has never learned that all of the traditions of men pumped into their services only make their worship before God vain. Such things as counting beads, lighting candles, sprinkling water, having plays of a religious nature, having special music, using instruments of music in worship and any number of other such things only make worship vain in the sight of God.”

These so-called “non-traditionalists” have so little know-ledge and respect for the Word of God that they think these things are just the tradition of the “Church of Christ.” What they fail to see is there is biblical reason for what has been the general practice of brethren on these matters through the years.

None of these “non-traditionalists” would think of taking his Bible and showing by the Bible the position of the Lord’s people on these questions are just tradition. What he wants to do is complain about the tradition within the church in small groups of people in living rooms where he can get a group that will listen to him together. If they objected openly, someone might call upon him to defend his position. And that is another tradition he says he wants to eliminate.

These “non-traditionalists” do not follow the tradition of Jesus Christ and his apostles. They reject the commandments of the Lord for their tradition, making void the word of God and rendering their worship vain in the sight of God.

We need to always follow the traditions (that which has been) handed down from the Lord and his apostles and reject the traditions of men. Human tradition will make our worship vain!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 3, p. 16
February 4, 1993

By Dick Blackford

Introduction

Samuel also said to Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:1). This gave Samuel the right to instruct Saul as to what the Lord wanted from him. The prophet acted as a mouth for God. To hear one was to hear the other. When Samuel told Saul to hearken, that meant he was to do so with deep interest, understanding, humility and sincere submission.

I. The commandment was clear. “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suck-ling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (v. 3). This was divine vengeance and justice being rendered. The Amalekites had occupied land on the frontiers of Egypt and Palestine. When Israel was finally being freed from many years of slavery the Amalekites treated an already suppressed and suffering people with cruelty as they fled Egypt. Amalek smote the hindmost of the people, those who were faint, weary and too weak to keep up with the rest. Israel was required to remember this treacherous treatment (Deut. 25:18f). They joined several other nations at different times to fight against God’s people and are mentioned as oppressors of Israel (Judg. 10:12). Let no one question the justice of God. The Judge of all the earth doeth right. The commandment was perfectly clear.

Saul and the people disobeyed God, destroying the vile and refuse but keeping the things of value. They also spared Agag, king of the Amalekites. Inspiration shows Saul and the people were in this together (v. 9).

II. Men are self-deceived when they think their sacrifices equal obedience. Saul said, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (15:13), “Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way the Lord sent me” (v. 20). Untrue, and Saul knew it for he repeated the commandment back to Samuel (v. 21). However, he sought to justify it on the basis that the spoils they brought back were to be sacrificed to God.

How many times has human reason won out in the hearts of men over the teaching of God’s word? Religious people have added burgers and coke to the Lord’s Supper, instrumental music to the singing, meaningless imitations of instrument with the voice, “fellowship” halls, man-made benevolent and evangelistic institutions to the work of the church, etc. Many of these have been “justified” on the basis that “the end justifies the means  God will be pleased with our sacrifices.”

III.Partial obedience is equal to no obedience at all. It can be said that Saul and the people did partially obey the command of God. They destroyed some of the Amalekites. They utterly destroyed all that was vile and refuse (v. 9). But denial of disobedience does not make it so. Saul did not utterly destroy the people, for we read of the Amalekites several times after this event who were still “alive and well.” David fought against them and an Amalekite claimed to have killed Saul when he died (2 Sam. 1:1-16). Saul also spared Agag and preserved the things of value.

Some today think as long as they keep the “spirit” of God’s word (what “they” think God really intended), then the details of obedience are unimportant. The “new hermeneutic” is self-serving. Every generation has had its “new hermeneutics.” Saul had his.

IV.Disobedience is often caused by fear of men rather than fear of God. Saul said, “I have transgressed . . . because I feared the people and obeyed their voice” (v. 24). This kept some Jewish rulers from accepting Christ (Jn. 12:42,43). This is a possible motive today as we see advocates of the “new hermeneutic” being influenced by the majority and more interested in uniting with the denominations than in being united with their brethren. The “new hermeneutic” may be new to most brethren but it is “old hat” among the denominations.

If Saul had feared God more, he need have feared the people less. When we see that he was rejected from being king and the treatment Samuel gave to Agag, those who would disobey should greatly fear God much more than they fear men.

V.The disobedient often shift the blame. Saul blamedthe people (v. 15,21). As King, Saul should have restrained them. There is no record that he even told the people what God commanded.

Today when brethren apostatize blame is often placed on those who exposed their error. It is said that good men were “pushed,” “forced,” or “driven” into apostasy. But no one apostatizes who doesn’t want to. God did not accept Saul’s explanation for his apostasy. There is no evidence he will accept such explanations now.

VI. Success in life often goes to one’s head and leads to disobedience. “And Samuel said, when thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord anointed thee king over Israel?” (v. 17) Being king of a great nation would be the ultimate in worldly status. Fame and prosperity accompany it. Saul raised a monument, a vainglorious trophy, to himself (not God) on Mt. Carmel. His pride was greater than his sense of duty. His sparing Agag was possibly to enjoy the glory of displaying him before others.

Today we see would-be intellectuals among us who are desirous of a Doctor of Divinity degree from the theological seminaries among the denominations. They are too busy to discuss the issues that divide us. Getting them to do so is like pulling hen’s teeth.

VII. The highest service we can render to God is complete obedience. “And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou has rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king” (15:22,23). A careful conformity to his word recommends us to God more than any invention of men. The humble, sincere and conscientious obedience to God’s will pleases him far more than any “improvement” or “enhancement” we may devise. Regardless of good intentions, God regards such disobedience as rebellion and stubbornness. Motive does not justify conduct.

VIII Failure to obey causes sorrow to faithful, God-fearing men. When God told Samuel of Saul’s disobedience, it is said, “And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night” (v. 11). Perhaps more tears should be shed and more prayers prayed to God when brethren depart from the faith. Let us guard against the “I told you so” syndrome and come to a full recognition of this mournful situation.

IX. Rebuking sin should not be considered as a lack of love. “And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul” (v. 35a). It is possible that one may rebuke with an unloving heart, but to so accuse another may also be “justification” for continued disobedience. Even if I rebuke unlovingly, it does not justify the one whose error was rebuked. My sin is not your salvation. However, all rebuking should be done with love for both God and man. If Samuel could rebuke Saul yet still mourn for him, so can we.

Conclusion

Saul’s loose attitude and loose interpretation prompted the “new hermeneutic” of his day. Behind it all was a loose attitude toward God and how much he wants our simple obedience. Let us be put “in remembrance of these things.”

Addendum

I hope the editor will permit me to reserve a little space from my article to say a word about Searching the Scriptures. I share with others mixed emotions on seeing this
monthly journal discontinued, but I believe I now understand brother Adams’ reasons. Though a journal is just paper and ink in one sense, when one spends a big portion
of his efforts and life in close association with it there is a notice of sadness generated as though one has lost a friend I must say that STS was a friend. Someone subscribed for
me while I was still in college 30 years ago and I owe a debt of gratitude to its editors and those who kept it going through the years. It came at a crucial time in my life and
helped ground me in the all-sufficiency of the blood purchased church of our Lord. I appreciate its edification and the pleasant memories. I always looked forward to
receiving it in the mail when I was in the Midwest, 800 miles away from home. Brother Adams has done a good job as any could do at maintaining balance in the paper, presenting material on a variety of subjects. He has endeavored to be fair, allowing both sides of an issue to be discussed without allowing it to degenerate into wrangling and strife.
I appreciate his inviting me to write for the paper a few years ago and the encouragement he has given since. We rejoice at the opportunity to have some of his burdens lifted and
look forward to reading from his pen in Guardian of Truth.
Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 3, p. 12
February 4, 1993