Truth Magazine

By M.C. Kurfees (1856-1931)

It is one of the easiest things for men to be lopsided in religion. They go to extremes, either stopping short of the true line of rectitude or going beyond it. There is probably no field in which this tendency is more conspicuously exhibited than in the field of religious controversy. Personal wrangling is wrong, but so is a passive attitude toward error. There is a golden mean, a proper and highly important course to be pursued in that line, and the purpose of this article is to point out that course.

Let it be carefully observed, first of all, that contradicting men and disputing with them for the sake of mere disputation is, of course, wrong, and all Christians should avoid it. In this matter, precisely as in all other matters in religion, our sole inquiry should be, What is the will of the Lord? Fortunately, we have a record of that will, and our appeal, in the language of Isaiah, shall be “to the law and to the testimony” (Isa. 8:20). Hence, on the matter of religious controversy, what does the inspired testimony say? Does it condemn or enjoin and encourage it? Even if there were not a word on the subject in the entire biblical record, yet as long as truth and error are in conflict with each other, with their respective advocates arrayed against each other, common sense alone teaches us that controversy is inevitable.

However, turning now to the record, the apostle distinctly tells us that we are to follow the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). But it is no exaggeration to stay that, from the day he entered upon his public ministry to the day he expired on the cross, his life was a constant battle, an irrepressible conflict, an unceasing controversy with men. In fact, it was an exceedingly stormy life. Some of the sharpest contentions in all the annals of controversy are among his encounters with the scribes, lawyers, chief priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees. The rule was that whenever and wherever he and they met, the gauntlet of battle was at once thrown down and the contest began. If our readers will turn to the eighth chapter of John’s testimony and read carefully all from verse 12 to verse 59, they will find pictured in graphic and impressive terms one of his grapples with the Pharisees and one of the most pronounced and conspicuous samples of controversy with men which marked his career. It was not only a regular word battle between him and the Pharisees, but it actually ended in an effort on their part to stone him, though he escaped out of their hands. “They took up stones therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (Jn. 8:59).

Now, since we are under the apostolic admonition to “follow his steps,” how can we do it and avoid controversy? It is thus seen to be an utter impossibility if we do our duty. Those who embrace his doctrine and preach it faithfully to men are certain to encounter similar opposition and to be drawn into similar controversy. Hence, the only way to avoid controversy in the case of such an encounter is to make an inglorious surrender to the enemy; and no “good soldier of Christ Jesus,” as Paul designates the faithful Christian (2 Tim. 2:3), can consent to such a surrender. Rather such a soldier, as the apostle further commands, will “fight the good fight of the faith” (1 Tim. 6:12).

But not only does the example of our Lord, as we have seen, enjoin upon us the duty of religious controversy, but it is specifically enjoined upon us by apostolic command. “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). That language gives no uncertain sound. Christians are “to contend”; they are to contend “for the faith”; and they are “to contend earnestly for the faith.” This inevitably plunges them into controversy wherever they encounter opposition to “the faith.” It was so in the lives of Peter, John, Stephen, Paul, and all the early Christians who were worthy of the name; it is true of the same class today; and it will be true of them as long as the conflict between truth and error continues.

But there is a right way and there are wrong ways to conduct religious controversy, and Christians should scrupulously guard this point. Their fight is not only a fight for the truth, but it is a fight founded in love – love for both God and man. Hence, while we are under the apostolic admonition to engage in religious controversy, to contend and fight for the truth, we are also under the apostolic admonition to engage in it in the right way. Here it is: “Speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). That tells the story in a nutshell, and it enjoins a duty that should never be overlooked. We must love the truth and fight for the truth, but we must fight for it in love – love for God and love for man. In fact, the great and controlling purpose of the Christian fight is to win men to the truth and to save their souls. It is the truth that is to make them free (Jn. 8:32). We must contend for it, but contend for it in love. Hence, religious controversy, when properly conducted, is always on a high plane. Be it ever so earnest and enthusiastic, it is never less than dignified. It does not condescend to assail the motives of men and thus to dwindle into a mere personal wrangle. It not only shows respect for men unconsciously involved in error, but it shows very pronounced respect for them.

Another prominent characteristic of the right kind of religious controversy is the obligation to examine fairly the arguments presented by our opponents; and wherever truth is found on their side, we should freely and gladly concede it. In brief, a truly thoughtful Christian man in debate will always see how far he can agree with his opponent and thus narrow as far as possible the field of difference. Every step that can honorably be taken in this direction is a step toward the right kind of victory ultimately.

Finally, while we should discourage all improper conduct on the part of men engaged in religious controversy – the conduct of religious controversy in an improper way – nevertheless, we should encourage controversy itself. It is one of the most powerful ways of eliciting and propagating truth. The day of controversy is the day when truth comes to light and flourishes. Let us encourage and always and everywhere uphold the hands of those engaged in honorable religious controversy (Gospel Advocate LXV, 8 [22 Feb. 1923]: 180-81).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 67-68
February 7, 1991

By George Harris

Three years ago when Conrad Steyn and I took a stand for the truth and repented of liberalism, there were some articles from us that appeared in the faithful journals. One such article by myself appeared in Searching the Scriptures. Ricarte S. Velonero of the Philippines wrote to me on the 23 November 1987, and informed me that he had read the article with interest. He had been preaching for the liberal church for four years.

Since that time we have been studying the Scriptures together by correspondence, and he has come to a knowledge of the truth in relationship to local church autonomy and institutionalism, and has made a public statement to that effect. In the process he has taught the congregation that he preaches for, the things that he has learned regarding the truth on institutionalism and the whole philosophy behind it, and they are all in one accord in denouncing liberalism and standing for the truth. The whole group comprises some 30 members.

On the 4 January 1988 he wrote to me and informed me that during a fire his house had burned down and he had lost all that he owned. All of us preachers would be horrified if that happened to us. If our studies were burned down there would be many years of hard labor and valuable material that would be lost and we would have to start from scratch.

On the 16 July this year Ricarte wrote to me of the devastation caused by the earthquake which they experienced; it resulted in the loss of the life of his brother who was his greatest helper in the work of the Lord in his area. The apostle Paul would probably have felt a similar loss if that had happened to one of his companions.

Ricarte needs your support, your prayers and your letters of encouragement, just as we needed them three years ago. I am pleading on behalf of this fine soldier of the cross, that you help financially in any way that you can, realizing the urgency of the need to preach the truth to the people of the Philippines. I am confident knowing your generosity that you will respond in a very beautiful way, and the Lord will bless you richly for your work of love. If you are unable to help financially, please drop him a line and encourage him for the stand that he has dared to take against the onslaught of liberalism.

You can contact him at the following address: Ricarte S. Velonero, Lampayan, Matalan, Cotabato Philippines 9322.

Statement from Ricarte S. Velonero of the Philippines

Ricarte S. Velonero

Lampayan Church of Christ

9406 Matalam, Cotabato

Republic of the Philippines

I would like to state that in the past I have been associated with the liberal churches, who practice much error in regard to the work and organization of the church. Much of my error has been in fellowship as the church here is autonomous and I have been self-supporting in the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ here in Lampayan, Philippines.

After much general soul searching, much fervent prayer, and extensive study with George Harris of Cape Town, South Africa, the error of the liberal church is apparent to me. The “sponsoring church” practice violates the pattern of sound words in regard to local church autonomy. “Institutionalism” is an affront to the sufficiency of God’s organization of the local church. True New Testament fellowship, is a relation enjoyed by faithful brethren in accompanying God’s eternal purpose in the church, and this fellowship excludes church sponsored recreation and using the church’s financial resources for those other than qualified needy saints.

Beloved brethren, I have repented of any and all contributions that I may have made to those errors and teachings that those whom I have been in fellowship with have perpetrated and have asked for God’s forgiveness. I have severed all ties with the liberal brethren and you are the only brethren that I can look to for fellowship in the gospel. I ask you as faithful brethren in Christ Jesus to forgive me and receive me into fellowship. I covet your prayers on my behalf that I might use the remainder of the years which Jehovah our God blesses me with to proclaim the simple gospel of Jesus Christ found only in the pattern of sound words, and that he will bless me with caring brethren to support me, that I might serve him full time in an effort to redeem the time for the days are evil. This is our Father’s world and he wants it evangelized. Please help me in my task as I labor in the Cause we all love so dearly.

The members of the church here have also taken a stand for the truth, and we are united in our plea for the simple gospel.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, p. 73
February 7, 1991

By Frank Jarnerson

Several years ago, a preacher in the Christian church made the argument to me that if we cannot play an instrument in worship, we cannot play one anywhere, because everything we do is worship. In the May, 1990 issue of The Examiner, one of the anonymous writers said: “Is it wrong to play a piano and sing to God? If it is, then it is equally wrong to use a piano for any reason. 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, ‘Whether then you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.’ If you can’t use mechanical instruments to praise God then how can you justify their use at all?” (p. 8)

It may be difficult to distinguish between “service” and “worship” in some passages, but the fact that not everything we do is “worship” should be obvious from the meaning of the words as well as the way they are used in Scripture.

Let us notice the context of the quote from 1 Corinthians 10:31. Beginning with verse 14, Paul warns against idolatry. He then said that when Israel ate the sacrifices they were “partakers of the altar,” even so if the Corinthians ate the sacrifices of the Gentiles, they were having “fellowship with demons” (v. 20). They were admonished not to have fellowship with idolatry, but they could “eat whatever is sold in the meat market” (v. 25), if they understood that such action was not worship to the idol. However, if a weak brother said, “This was offered to idols, do not eat it for the sake of” his conscience (v. 28). If the action of eating meat was intended as worship to an idol, it was wrong. If the same action was done for a different purpose, there was nothing inherently wrong with it. Likewise, they did not “commune with Christ” every time they drank grape juice. Eating meat, or drinking grape juice may be worship or not worship, depending on your purpose. Verse 31 does not say “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, you are worshiping.” It says that in eating and drinking, we should consider the consciences of our brethren, and thereby “glorify God.”

Jesus cleansed the temple twice, because men had failed to distinguish between “service” and “worship” (Jn. 2:14-16; Matt. 21:12-13). The services of selling doves and making change were good works, but Jesus said that they were in the wrong place. The “house of prayer” had become a “den of thieves.” Maybe they thought that if they could not sell doves and make change in the temple, they could not do those things anywhere! Jesus did not buy their excuses, whatever they may have been!

W.E. Vine summarizes the definition of worship as: “Broadly it may be regarded as the direct acknowledgment to God, of His nature, attributes, ways and claims, whether by the outgoing of the heart in praise and thanksgiving or by deed done in such acknowledgment.” Thayer comments: “Among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence . . . hence in the New Testament by kneeling or prostration, to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication.” Regardless of how obedient subjects may have been to the kings, they had not “worshiped” until they performed acts of reverence that were required by the kings. An example of that is found in Daniel 3. Though Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were faithful servants of Nebuchadnezzar, when the order was given: “at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, you shall fall down and worship the gold image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up,” they refused to obey. In this we see a clear distinction between service and worship. If they mean the same, then the Hebrews had already “worshiped” Nebuchadnezzar, so why not bow to the image and avoid the fiery furnace?

In the first century those who refused to worship the Emperor were not permitted to “buy or sell” because they did not have the “mark of the beast” on their forehead or hand (Rev. 13:17; 14:9). Those Christians knew the difference between serving the Emperor and worshiping him, and it cost them dearly! There was, and is, nothing wrong with being obedient to the “decrees of Caesar,” but there is something wrong with worshiping him!

“Service” is a more general word and may be used to describe worship, but not all service is worship. Abraham told the young men with him that “the lad and I will go yonder and worship” (Gen. 22:5). After David’s son died, he “went into the house of the Lord and worshiped,” then he went to his own house and ate food (2 Sam. 12:20). The Ethiopian eunuch had gone to Jerusalem “to worship” (Acts 8:27). True worship has both an inward dimension and an outward dimension. It involves the attitude (“in spirit”) and the acts performed (“in truth”). If the worship was to the Emperor, it involved reverence expressed in whatever actions he required. If the worship is to God, it must be “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24).

It is not true that if you can serve the emperor, you can worship him. Neither is it true that if you can play an instrument anywhere you can play it in worship, nor if you can wash feet anywhere you can wash them in worship, nor if you can eat meat anywhere you can eat it in worship! Worship is special acts offered reverently to a special Being. Men who made “the washing of hands” a religious requirement, were “worshiping in vain” because such was not authorized of God (Matt. 15:9).

We need to be content in doing the things God authorized as “worship,” and “serve” him in all things. Those who make everything we do “worship,” are on dangerous ground.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 74-75
February 7, 1991

By Robert F. Turner

It seems my brethren need to reread Job 38, as Jehovah upbraids those who speak and write as though they could explain God. And while it is handy, read also Job’s penitent confession: “Therefore have I uttered that which I understand not, Things too wonderful for me, which I knew not . . . . Wherefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes” (42:1-6). The current controversy over the nature of Immanuel (God with us, Matt. 1:23), is becoming ridiculous.

This is not to say we should refrain from discussing what the Word of God says about the incarnate Son of God. But serious reflection should tell all of us that many revealed truths concerning God in the flesh must be received by faith, and are not subject to finite comprehension. It certainly is not my intention to add to the bold pronouncements that seem to accompany some articles on the subject; but rather, I want to remind history buffs of a unity meeting that took place in Lexington, Kentucky on January 1, 1832. “Raccoon” John Smith was the speaker, and a more complete account of matters may be read in Life of Elder John Smith, by John A. Williams (37 1); or The Church, Falling A way, and Restoration, by J.W. Shepherd (253).

Smith said, “God has but one people on the earth. He has given to them but one Book, and therein exhorts and commands them to be one family. A union such as we plead for – a union of God’s people on that one Book – must, then, be practicable . . . .

“But an amalgamation of sects is not such a union as Christ prayed for, and God enjoins. To agree to be one upon any system of human invention would be contrary to his will, and could never be a blessing to the Church or the world; therefore the only union practicable or desirable must be based on the Word of God, as the only rule of faith and practice.

“There are certain abstruse or speculative matters – such as the mode of the Divine Existence, and the Ground and Nature of the Atonement – that have, for centuries, been themes of discussion among Christians. These questions are as far from being settled now as they were in the beginning of the controversy. By a needless and intemperate discussion of them much feeling has been provoked, and divisions have been produced.

“For several years past I have tried to speak on such subjects only in the language of inspiration; for it can offend no one to say about those things just what the Lord himself has said. In this scriptural style of speech all Christians should be agreed. It can not be wrong – it can not do harm. If I come to the passage, ‘My Father is greater than I,’ I will quote it, but will not stop to speculate upon the inferiority of the Son. If I read, ‘Being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God,’ I will not stop to speculate upon the consubstantial nature of the Father and the Son. I will not linger to build a theory on such texts, and thus encourage a speculative and wrangling spirit among my brethren.

“I will present these subjects only in the words which the Lord has given to me. I know he will not be displeased if we say just what he has said. Whatever opinions about these and similar subjects I may have reached, in the course of my investigations, if I never distract the church of God with them, or seek to impose them on my brethren, they will never do the world any harm . . . . Let us then, my brethren, be no longer Campbellites or Stoneites, New Lights or Old Lights, or any other kind of lights, but let us all come to the Bible, and to the Bible alone, as the only book in the world that can give us all the Light we need.”

There are statements in Smith’s full speech that I would have to question. We must remember the circumstances of this early period in “restoration” efforts, and their but recent coming out of sectarianism. But his warning about speculative matters, and things of deity that are beyond man, are words that need repeating today. I have said before that I believe some were “whittling on God’s end of the stick,” and its seems this is again applicable.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, p. 69
February 7, 1991