Truth Magazine

By Wayne Greeson

In the “Voices” column of the Arkansas Democrat (August 28, 1990) guest writer, Donald Reeves expounded the increasingly popular proposition that a Christian who believes that the faith is “the only true faith” is “exclusion-oriented,” “intolerant” and “the height of religious egotism.” To support this proposition, Mr. Reeves even attempted to enlist the teachings and example of Jesus as one who condemned, according to Reeves, “promoters of religious exclusion.”

Intolerance and bigotry towards others is offensive. However, Mr. Reeves’ faulty idea, that Christians who believe their faith is the only true faith is intolerant, is equally offensive. Toleration requires a fair and objective attitude towards others who are different, it does not require one to abandon what he believes to be truth, merely upon the ground that others hold opposing views. A good balance between the belief that one is right and a toleration of the beliefs of others is found in the ancient saying, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Our relativistic culture has redefined truth from “an absolute fact or reality” to “a relative viewpoint.” Thus, it finds itself in the absurd and contradictory position of asserting as true that one cannot know truth. Anyone who professes to “know truth” is labeled as “intolerant and “exclusion-oriented” and is not tolerated by society. Who is truly intolerant?

In light of this popular view, Allan Bloom observed in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, “The true believer is the real danger. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistake and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.” “Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life. (pp. 26 34).

Unfortunately, the popular relativistic philosophy of society has infected many in matters of religion. Mr. Reeves is an good example of this. He professes to be a Christian while at the same time denying the explicit and exclusive claims of Jesus Christ to truth and the founder of the only true faith.

Truth is exclusive, it excludes all that deny and contradict it. Jesus not only claimed to have and to be the truth, but he also excluded all other ways, saviors or religions as means to gain God. Jesus claimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6). Jesus further claimed that those who followed him would also know the truth (Jn. 8:32).

If one truly accepts Jesus’ claims then he will view his faith as “the only true faith,” as the apostle Paul taught, there is “one hope . . . one Lord, one faith” (Eph. 4:5). Likewise, he will reject the claims of all other religions and saviors, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. (Acts 4:12). Yes, this makes a Christian exclusive, but certainly no more exclusive than Jesus was. Likewise, this makes Christians no more “intolerant” and “religious egoists” than the Lord they follow. Rather than redefining truth to encompass contradictory and conflicting religions, I suggest that Mr. Reeves reconsider his concept of intoleration and follow the advice of the apostle Paul, “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

Exclusion of others practiced by society

Intolerance linked to crisis

In the mix and maze of feelings and thoughts which accompany the critical evens in the Midwest, I have discovered a heretofore unnoticed frustration within myself.

It is “religious” frustration.

As I have watched the news reports and rad the newspaper accounts, I have become increasingly aware of the simple fact that my own Christian faith-culture has been very exclusion-oriented.

That is, we Christians have been so oriented to our own faith as being the only true faith that we have only played games with ecumenism and have missed the boat in creating healthy lines of communication with other faiths (Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, etc.) which might have offered some avenues of cultural communications on a global scale, even when policital communication seemed impossible.

Perhaps one hard truth we need to face is that our religious institutions are still ultimately racial-cultural institutions, and in the final analysis our religion simply promoted cultural exclusion rather than cultural inclusion.

What an anomaly for a faith that has supposedly grown out of the life and teachings of a man from Nazareth, whose most pronounced negative judgments were addressed to those who were promoters of religious exclusion!

Our traditional Christian insistence that God, the creator of the universe, is only available in our style and taste is the height of religous egotism and seems as rediculous as would seem the insistence that all others should wear our style of clothes or develop our tastes for food.

But we are religous egoists, personally and institutionally; and our egotism may contribute much to political egotism in a global setting that desparately needs both religious and political humanity.

So in conclusion, political crisis may in fact be indicative of religous crisis. And the real personal crisis for me may be whether or not I can be honest enough to admit that fact.

(Editor’s Note: Donald D. is pastor of First Presbyterian Churhc in Hot Springs and chaplain of the Arkansas Air National Guard, in which he holds the rank of lieutenant colonel.”

Reprinted from “Voices,” Arkansas Democrat (Tuesday, August 28, 1990).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 685-686, 696
November 15, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

(1) We were told that abortion would eliminate the problem of unwanted and abused children. We were told that women who were “forced” to give birth often abuse and neglect the children. We were told to choose between abortion and abuse.

What we were sold was both abortion and abuse. Abortion has not eliminated the scourge of unloved, unwanted, ignored, neglected and abandoned children. If you do not agree, check your newspaper.

(2) We were told that the theory of evolution ought to be accepted by Christians. We were told that it could be made to harmonize with the Bible. We were told that opposition to evolutionary theories was equivalent to being anti-scientific. We were told that both God and the Bible would have more acceptance in the circles of higher learning if we acknowledged “his evolutionary processes.”

What we were sold was infidelity. What we brought was open ridicule and sneering mockery. The package we were sold was evolution and the Bible, but when it arrived, the Bible was missing. Sorry, no refunds or exchanges. All sales are final.

(3) We were told that the “new morality” would liberate us from guilt and unnecessary conscientious scruples. We were told that out Judeo-Christian ethic was to blame for unwed mothers, divorce, family trouble and sex crimes. Our Puritan philosophy, they said was too rigid. Laws and rules of morality stir rebellion. You cannot legislate morality, they argued. So, we stocked up on free love and the rights of “consenting adults.” As the sale appeared to be such a bargain, we gladly traded in our values, gave away our virtue and surrendered our ideals.

What we were sold were more (not less) sex crimes, more (not less) divorce and family stress, more (not less) pregnancy out of marriage, more (not less) broken homes, battered wives, berated children and bruised hearts.

(4) We were told that women have the right to choose abortion. We were told that animals and criminals (sometimes one and the same, but here distinguished for literary purposes) have rights. We were told that laboratory rats and monkeys must be treated humanely (as though someone objects to that). We were told that murderers must not be “murdered” by the state.

What we were sold were laws to protect unhatched eagles, freedom for murderers to murder, and abortion rights. We received our shipment today. Enclosed was a white rat, playfully scurrying about, a cute but screeching eagle, the body of a murder victim, and oh, yes, the fetal remains of what would have been a baby girl. Have a nice day!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, p. 673
November 15, 1990

By Frank Jamerson

When a person is “baptized into Christ,” the Lord adds him to the church, but this does not make him a member of a local church. We are baptized into “one body,” the universal church, but we “join ourselves” to a local church. Some brethren have “floating membership,” others “leave their letter at their home congregation,” and others deny that there is any obligation to be a part of a local church. What does the Bible teach about a Christian’s responsibility to join a church?

Agreement

Local church membership involves agreement of the individual and the group to work together. When Saul had to leave Damascus because of a threat on his life, he went to Jerusalem and “tried to join the disciples” there, but they were afraid of him, and would not receive him, until Barnabas recommended him (Acts 9:23-26). After they received him, he was “with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out” (v. 28). Later, we read of brethren in Ephesus writing a letter to Achaia, exhorting them to receive Apollos (Acts 18:27). The letter served the same purpose for Apollos that the mouth of Barnabas served for Saul. Apollos was his “membership,” not the letter that brethren wrote; just as Saul was his “membership,” not the words that Barnabas spoke.

In these two examples we see that there must be a desire to belong, and a willingness to receive, in order for local membership to exist. A church cannot force a member to “join,” and a Christian cannot force himself upon a church.

How Do I Decide?

Some say that “one church is as good as another,” but few, if any, really believe that. Is the church of Satan as good as the church of the Lord? Others seem to think that they must examine every church to see which they like best, but this would be a difficult, if not impossible, task. By the time you finished studying the twelve hundred churches, some of them would have changed, and you would have to start over! There are others who simply look at the sign on the building. If it says “church of Christ,” they decide that they can join it. The worship may be unscriptural, and the work may be patterned after the denominational world instead of the word of God, but “it says church of Christ” and that settles the question for them.

Worship

A Christian should find a church where he can worship God “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24). The fact that the Bible mentions “vain worship” (Matt. 15:9), “ignorant worship” (Acts 17:23), and “will worship” (Col. 2:23) should indicate to any thinking person that one worship is not as good as another. Many churches add things to their worship which are not found in “the truth,” and leave out things that are taught in the truth. If I am to worship “in spirit and in truth,” I must find a group that does only what is “in truth” in order to acceptably worship.

Recent editions of The Examiner have been ridiculing our appeal to “the truth” as a pattern for everything we do in worship. Brother Holt no longer knows whether or not instrumental music should be used in worship, because he does not believe that we must do only what is authorized in God’s word. He said: “It is neither scripturally allowed, nor scripturally forbidden. The N.T. Scriptures say absolutely nothing about instrumental music one way or another” (March, 1990). Other writers have been attacking the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week. They try to make the “breaking of bread” in Acts 20:7 mean a common meal, so they know when Christians should come together to eat their common meals, but have no idea when they should come together to commune with Christ. Such “reasoning” is not because they respect the Bible as their authority and want to get back to the truth in all things; rather, it is the fruit of their rejection of the New Testament as a standard for our conduct.

Organization

The Bible teaches that churches had “elders and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). The fact that elders were not simply the “older men or women” in the group should be obvious from the qualifications that God gave (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). Among the qualifications, Paul said that a “novice” (new convert) must not be appointed. If the elders were simply “older members” there would be no way that “a novice” could be an elder. It would be useless to give that qualification, just as it would be useless to give the warning in 1 Corinthians 10:12, if it were impossible to fall from grace!

When a church has men who meet the qualifications, they should be appointed to the work (Acts 14:23). Having been “made bishops” by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28), they are to “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly” (1 Pet. 5:2). The Bible says nothing about Presidents, Archbishops, Popes, etc., therefore churches that have such officers are acting without authority, and I could not “join myself” to one to them.

Work

Another thing that should be considered before joining a church is the work it does. Paul told the Philippians that their support of him abounded “to your account” (Phil. 4:17). If God credits the right things the group does to my account, when I have participated in them, then he will credit wrong things to my account if I participate in them!

Churches provided and arranged for the teaching of the word (1 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 10:25), and the relieving of their needy (Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 5:16). They also assisted preachers in teaching in other places (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8), and sent to other churches that had more needy than they could care for without assistance (2 Cor. 8:1-15).

Churches that are involved in business enterprises, sponsoring of recreation and entertainment and social meals are acting by the same authority as those who have Presidents, Archbishops or a Pope.

Conclusion

It makes a different which church I join, because it makes a difference how I worship, and what organization and work I fellowship.

Does this mean that I must agree with every member of the group on every issue before I can “join” that group? Certainly not! But it does mean that we must agree in the things we do together. There are many groups who practice what I believe the Bible teaches, but probably none of them would agree with every belief that I hold. Since I fellowship that in which I participate, I should find a group where I can “join up,” and “join in” the doing of those things that God authorizes me to do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 675-676
November 15, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into (1 Pet. 1:10-12).

Five items in the above text are essentially interchangeable expressions of the same thing; namely, the gospel of Christ. Observe: (1) “Salvation”; (2) “Grace”; (3) “The Sufferings of Christ And The Glory That Should Follow”; (4) “Things . . . Now Reported”; (5) “Gospel.” These terms fly in the face of those who would have us preach a sentimental “salvation” and a “gentle” grace which ignores terms and conditions of the gospel. “Speak unto us smooth things” is the cry of the ages (Isa. 30:8-11). So, today let us hear of great grace and salvation, but do not burden and oppress us with the binding, chafing “commandments of the Lord.” We want to hear of great grace and sweet salvation, but do not tell us what we must do to receive it. That is legalism. Preach the greatest love story ever told and thrill us with the free gift of grace, eternal life, but do not turn sinners “off” with the necessity of repentance and baptism.

However, the passage in 1 Peter cited above shows us that salvation, grace, the sufferings of Christ, and the things now reported are the gospel, the word of God, the incorruptible seed, the word of the Lord that endureth forever (cf. 1 Pet. 1:22-25). It is in “obeying the truth … .. the gospel … .. the word of the Lord,” which was given “through the Spirit” (1 Pet. 1:22), that one receives the grace, salvation and redemption provided by the “precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18, 19). Hence, one cannot fully preach the grace and salvation of God without preaching the terms and conditions of the gospel of God.

Certainly, if men are ignorant of grace, salvation and the blood of Christ, by all means tell them of those things – When the lost hear the good news, when they learn of the goodness of God, it will lead them to repentance (Rom. 2:4). When their heart is cut, stabbed and pierced through thoroughly, they must then be told to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:36-38). Grace has been granted. Blood has been shed. Salvation has been offered. Now, truth must be obeyed (2 Cor. 8:9; 1 Pet. 1:18,19,22).

Usually, when a man talks about “the spirit of Christ” and decries the preaching of the commandments of Christ, he has a hidden agenda, a plan of his own. No man speaks by the Spirit of Christ if he disdains the word of Christ. Do not be fooled by sentimental tears and heart touching stories that de-emphasize the terms and conditions of gospel obedience.

Another characteristic of religious enthusiasm is to plead for the “leading of the Spirit.” Let us, they say, open our hearts and minds to the guidance and direction of the Spirit of Christ. Perhaps, they infer, we are missing out on the message of the Spirit if we devote too much time to trying to figure out legal commandments and patterns. Mark and eye closely the teacher or preacher who attempts to get you to pay attention to some deep spiritual “meaning” while diverting you from the words of the Bible. Do not be deceived by mystical allusions to “the deep things of the Spirit,” or the “real” message God has for us, and that we can only attain this special, hidden, inner wisdom if we are willing to “launch out in faith,” while not being so concerned or consumed with cold, literal Bible texts. We should, they say, not be arguing our positions; we should not be debating; rather, we should allow the Spirit of Christ to lead us to relevant and kindly feelings of brotherliness. “Heart felt,” “devotional,” “meaningful relationship,” “inner calling and leading,” “the real, living message of the living Spirit,” – these and a host of other similar terms, words and expressions are all “buzz” words of those who would “beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not beholding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Col. 2:18,10).

Of course, we are to be led by the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit of Christ does indeed testify and signify. He is a witness unto us. No one who is a Christian could ever doubt or deny it. But, how? How does the Spirit of Christ testify and witness unto us? That the Spirit of Christ testifies unto us is not a matter of dispute. Peter said the Spirit testified. Of what did he testify? He testified of “the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” But in Luke 24:25-27, no less an authority than Jesus our Lord said, “0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” The Spirit of Christ testified when the prophets spoke. When I read what the prophets wrote of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow, I am reading the Spirit’s testimony. There is no other way under heaven to have the Spirit’s testimony of the sufferings of Christ than to read what the prophets said about it.

“The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before. . . ” (Heb. 10:15). The Holy Spirit is a “witness to us” by what he said through Jeremiah. When the Spirit said what he said through the prophets, he witnessed to us. The only way on earth for the spirit of Christ to witness to you today is to read his testimony given through the apostles and prophets through the Spirit” (Eph. 3:5). The witness and testimony of the Spirit is found in the word of the Spirit, the Bible.

Still, we are told that we need to “get to know the Person of the Spirit,” rather than merely studying the Bible. That is just so much “vain jangling.” You cannot know the “Person” of the Spirit except as he reveals himself to you. The only place he has revealed himself is on the pages of the book we call the Bible. Can I know and obey the word of the Spirit and not know the Spirit? Can I know the “Person” of the Spirit and not know and obey the word of the Spirit (I Cor. 2:10-14)? One can only receive the Spirit of God as he receives what the Spirit has said. Can you receive the Spirit and reject his word? Can you accept his word, obey it, and not receive him?

Finally, what is the effect of all this? If I accept the gospel and obey the word of the Spirit sent down from heaven, what then? “Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:13).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, pp. 658-659
November 1, 1990