Truth Magazine

By Connie Adams

Division over the work, nature and organization of the church is a reality. It did not come about suddenly but did come throughout this land and has spread to other nations beyond the seas. Every right thinking child of God wishes this tragedy had been averted and longs for unity based upon the word of God. The Psalmist praised the pleasantness of unity among brethren (Psa. 133:1). Jesus prayed for the oneness of all believers in him (Jn. 17:17-21). Paul outlines the disposition which endeavors to “keep the unity of the spirit” and gave seven foundation stones upon which such unity is to be built and maintained (Eph. 4:1-16).

Yet, the word of God warned that some would not be content to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9-11). Paul said, “some shall depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1). He told the Ephesian elders that some would “speak things to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). Those who would pervert the gospel of Christ are “accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9). It is possible to “wrest the scriptures” to the destruction of those so employed (2 Pet. 3:16).

Worse Than Division

While division among the people of God is deplorable, there is one thing worse than division and that is unity in error. When departures from the faith come, we could be united in the departure and all be lost together. Followers of truth cannot long remain in unison with followers of error. The New Testament is clear that promoters of error are to be marked and opposed (Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:9-11; 1:9-11). Unity in error compromises the truth of God and leads to everlasting ruin. Every saint is a trustee of the faith “once delivered” and is charged to “contend” for that sacred body of teaching (Jude 3-4).

When Issues Arise

What are godly people to do when issues arise which threaten to divide brethren? Shall the issue be ignored in the hope that it will somehow go away? That will not work. It never has. Shall we wait to see how many will stand on one side or the other and then cast our lot with the majority? Shall we make our decision based on what great and good men think about it? Shall we support a position on the ground that “we have always done it this way?” Surely, these are false standards. We suggest some simple but basic rules to help us in such times:

(1) Respect the authority of the Scriptures. “Thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17). “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Let no man be honored “above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). We must also respect the silence of God. Where God did not speak, we have no authority to eat.

(2) Believe that Scripture can be understood. The Lord addressed his word to our understanding. We are challenged to understand “what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). We are to “read” the “words” written by an inspired man that we might “understand” (Eph. 3:2-4).

(3) Handle aright the word of truth. The word of God must be studied in context. We have preached this over and over to the denominational world for years, and rightly so. But the instruction of 2 Timothy 2:15 falls with equal weight upon us all. We must consider all that the Bible says on a subject. If more than one passage deals with a matter, then honest study requires that we regard the sum total of all God said about it before reaching a conclusion.

(4) Resolve to follow whatever course truth demands, What is the benefit of finding truth on any given subject unless we are determined to accept it, regardless of the cost. We must be as the man who found the pearl of great price and sold all he had in order to obtain it (Matt. 13:45-46).

(5) Stand for truth without bitterness. We do not have to hate a brother who had not as yet seen what we have seen in the word of God. If brethren become enemies because of our stand for truth, then we are challenged by the Lord to love our enemies and do good to those who despitefully use us (Matt. 5:43-46).

The Danger of the Closed Mind

When one has closed his mind to any alternative other than the one he has chosen, then it is very easy for him to see and yet not see, to hear and yet not hear. In the time of Ezekiel, “certain of the elders of Israel” came before him. The Lord told Ezekiel that they had “set up their idols in their hearts” and then warned: when men come to seek God’s will with such idols in the heart, “I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols” (Ezek. 14:1-5). Jesus warned of those whose hearts were “dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed” (Matt. 13:15). The church at Laodicea was blind to its faults and needed “eyesalve” that it might see (Rev. 3:18). Perhaps the most sobering warning of all was stated by Paul to the Thessalonians when he said, “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:10-12). Anything less than a sincere love for the truth opens the door of the heart to deception and delusion leading to everlasting destruction.

In a parable of the sower, Jesus said “But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.” (Lk. 8:15). In the study before us in this special issue, we appeal to brethren with honest and good hearts to consider what is presented. “Prove all things: hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

Since the division of the 1950’s and 1960’s over the work, nature and organization of the church, most brethren on either side of the division have had little communication with each other. While prejudices and old bitterness linger in the hearts of some, there is a new generation on the scene today which might be able to look at these issues more objectively and with less danger of rancor than was true of some in the past. Whether you consider yourself a “liberal,” “conservative,” “middle-of-the-roader” or scorn all such labels, we simply ask you to give this material fair and honest consideration. Through all these years, during and after the division, we have not personally stopped reading what brethren on the other side of have had to say. We receive bulletins and periodicals from those who are now estranged from us and we read them. We have never written them angry notes demanding to be removed from their mailing lists, nor removed one of them from ours just because they reviewed something we had to say. We have always been willing to study both publicly and privately with those of the contrary persuasion. Our personal files are full of correspondence with many brethren over these years which bear evidence to truth of that statement. We have met with one or more preachers with whom we differed for frank but reasonable discussions. We have never slammed the door on such discussions, not even public debates, when they were conducted under fair and equal arrangements. That remains our disposition to the present hour (Searching the Scriptures, [Aug. 1978], pp. 152-153).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 386, 409-410
July 5, 1990

By Roy E. Cogdill (1907-1985)

Sometimes the question is asked: “What difference does it make whether each congregation takes care of its own ‘charge’ in the work of relieving the destitute; or all of the churches do their work through a human organization built and maintained by them for this purpose?” The difference is exactly this: One is found in the New Testament and the other is not! (Acts 6:1-6)

Then sometimes brethren are heard to ask: “What difference does it make whether a church sends a preacher and supports the preacher by sending money to him: or sends the money to another church and lets that church support a preacher with it?” The difference, again, is exactly the same: One practice is found in the New Testament and the other is not! (Phil. 4:15-16)

“What difference does it make whether each church does its own work, by using its own resources, under the supervision of its own eldership: or pools its resources with another congregation or a group of congregations (as is the case with the Highland Church and Herald of Truth), as a means of cooperating in fulfilling their preaching mission?” The difference is exactly this: One is found in the New Testament and the other is not found there! (Phil. 4:15-16; 1:1).

“What difference does it make whether a church sends its contribution directly to a preacher or church; or through another church, acting as its agent?” The difference is exactly this: One is found in the New Testament and the other is not! (Phil. 4:15-16; Acts 11:27-30)

“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). (Truth Magazine [10 Jan. 1974], p. 156)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 388
July 5, 1990

By Marshall E. Patton

Divine authority is the real issue at the base of all religious differences. In our dealings with modern religious cults we must prove that divine authority is established by the scriptures and by the scriptures only. Where there is no scripture there can be no divine authority. Our title assumes unanimity among us on that point. Let us hope that it does not assume too much.

A knowledge of how to establish divine authority; a recognition of the different kinds of divine authority; a clear conception of the nature of each, and a faithful application of such knowledge will necessarily result in our speaking the same thing with no divisions among us, but all being perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).

Are there differences among us today? Then someone is at fault in one or more of the above mentioned matters. These faults must be found and recognized, otherwise we will remain hopelessly divided. The need of the hour is an objective study of these matters! When unanimity is attained here, honest brethren will make faithful application to current issues. This will resolve our differences; unity will prevail, and together we can march on to victory beneath the banner of the cross.

Three Ways

Until of late it has been axiomatic with us that scriptural authority is established in one or more of three ways: expressed statement, necessary inference, and approved example. Recently, however, some have added a fourth way, namely, by “principle eternal.” Then there are some who have not named other ways, but who do affirm that they exist. Those who so affirm should both name and prove these ways, otherwise faithful brethren will continue to deny them. I deny that there is a fourth way of establishing divine authority – by principle eternal or otherwise. Any principle to be divine must first be revealed of God. Questions: when, where and how can any principle be revealed unto us save in apostolic days (when), in the Scriptures (where), by way of either expressed statement, necessary inference, or approved example (how)? There is no other time, place or way for such revelation! If so, let those who so affirm name and prove it. Until this is done, I contend that scriptural authority is established only by one or more of these three ways.

The following illustrates the three ways by which scriptural authority is established:

(1) Expressed statement – “. . this do in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19). This expressed statement establishes scriptural authority for observing the Lord’s Supper.

(2) Necessary inference – “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water” (Matt. 3:16). Although the Bible does not say that Jesus went down into the water when he was baptized, it does teach by necessary inference that he did just that. He could not have come “out” unless he had been “in.” By necessary inference the Bible teaches that the church was established on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (Mk. 9:1; Acts 1:8; 2:4). Other examples might be given. However, let it be observed that in order to establish scriptural authority the inference must be necessary. Herein is the mistake made by those who practice infant baptism. In the case of Lydia’s household they reason that she might have been married; probably had children; if so, it is possible that one of them was an infant, and although she was away from home, in all probability she had her infant with her. Hence, they conclude that an infant was in her household, and therefore, infant baptism. There inference is based upon assumption. Scriptural authority is not established by reasonable inferences – they must be necessary!

(3) Approved example – “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread. . . ” (Acts 20:7). This approved example establishes scriptural authority for observing the Lord’s supper upon the first day of the week. By approved example I mean Holy Spirit approved action on the part of Christians in the day of the apostles. In this connection the following references should be considered: Hebrews 13:7; John 16:13; Ephesians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 10:1-12; Philippians 4:9; 1 Peter 2:21. Unfortunately, some have begun to question whether or not divine authority is established by approved example . . . It will suffice here to observe that “holy apostles and prophets” were “guided” by the Holy Spirit “into all truth.” The Holy Spirit guided Luke in revealing Acts 20:7. Unless the practice of Acts 20:7 can be shown to conflict with other plainly revealed truths, we must conclude it to be “truth” into which the Holy Spirit “guided” Luke – therefore, an approved example. Thus we can observe it on this day with assurance of divine approval. No man knows that the Holy Spirit approves any other day for its observance. To observe it on some other day is to do so without divine authority This is sinful!

Two Kinds

Most students of the Bible know that there are two kinds of divine authority – general and specific. Yet, a failure to distinguish between the two and to understand clearly the nature of each accounts for much of the controversy over current issues. Therefore, it will make for simplicity if we take the time to learn how to distinguish between the two and learn clearly the nature of each.

The Nature of Each

The word “general” is defined by Webster: “Pertaining to, affecting, or applicable to, each and all of a class, kind, or order; as, a general law.” Negatively, “Not limited to a precise import or application; not specific.” The word “specific” is defined by Webster: “Precisely formulated or restricted; specifying; explicit; as, a specific statement.”

From these definitions it is obvious that the difference between the general and the specific is simply this: The general includes each and all of the class, kind, or order under consideration, though not precisely stated or revealed. On the other hand the specific excludes everything save that which is precisely stated or revealed. The following chart illustrates this difference:

A failure to recognize the inclusive nature of the general has led some to affirm that we do many things with God’s approval for which we have no expressed statement, necessary inference, or approved example. I deny it! Question: Can expressed statements, necessary inferences, and approved examples be generic? If so, then they include “each and all of the class, kind, or order under consideration, though not precisely stated or revealed.” In the realm of the general it suffices only to authorize the class. All that is within the class, though not precisely stated or revealed is included! Upon this basis we claim divine authority for our meeting houses, pews, light fixtures, and other facilities that expedite our assembling together for worship (see D on chart). Because of this inclusive nature of general authority I contend that expressed statements, necessary inferences, and approved examples, either general or specific, “completely furnish us unto every good work.” To contend other is to open wide the flood gate of digression. The pattern will no longer be determined by divine authority, but by human judgment. This would make unity impossible. Surely we are not prepared for such a conclusion or its consequences.

Furthermore, a failure to recognize the inclusive nature of general authority makes “antis” and “hobbyists.” They try to make the general exclusive when in reality it is inclusive. This is the mistake of the anti-Bible class brethren. They try to make the general command “teach” exclude the class system. Why? Because it is not specifically authorized. They overlook the inclusive nature of general authority. A recognition of this on their part would solve this problem (see C on chart).

On the other hand a failure to recognize the exclusive nature of the specific accounts for digression. The idea of exclusion inheres in the very meaning of the word “specific.” Yet, our digressive brethren try to make the specific inclusive when in reality it is exclusive. They would make the specific “sing” include instrumental music. They overlook the exclusive nature of specific authority. A recognition of this on their part would solve this problem (see G on chart). Brethren, here is the truth between the two extremes of digression and hobbyism! Remember, however, that opposing that for which there is neither general nor specific authority does not make one a hobbyist or an anti.

General or Specific

This raises the question: How do we determine whether it is generic or specific? The answer is simple: When choice is divinely authorized it is general. If no choice is authorized, then it is specific. The meaning of the two words demands this conclusion.

Choice is divinely authorized, first, when something is necessary to execute the divine order, but that something is not revealed. Whatever is used must be a matter of choice, and is, therefore, a matter of expediency (see A on chart). This accords with the meaning of the word “general”: “Including each and all of the class, kind, or order under consideration, though not precisely stated or revealed.” Notice, however, that the expediency must be within the class, kind, or order divinely authorized. This also accords with 1 Corinthians 6:12. Expediences must first be lawful!

Choice is authorized, secondly, when two or more things are revealed and one may be chosen to the exclusion of others (see B on chart). Such are expediencies. For where choice is expediences are. And where expediencies are the general is. Thus we determine the general.

Unless choice is authorized, we dare not go beyond that which is revealed (2 Jn. 9). There is no choice in the realm of the specific. The specific excludes everything save that which is specified (see E on chart). For this reason we observe the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week to the exclusion of all other days. This day is authorized by a specific approved example, and is, therefore, exclusive (see F on chart). For the same reason we oppose the use of instrumental music in worship. “Sing” is specific, and therefore, is exclusive (see G on chart).

Application

The differences among us over the current issues of “Congregational Cooperation” would be resolved immediately, if those promoting the “sponsoring church” type of cooperation would recognize the exclusive nature of the specific authority that authorizes one church to send money to another church. Like the time for observing the Lord’s supper there is neither expressed statement nor necessary inference authorizing such (i.e., sponsoring church). Both are dependent upon approved example for authority.

The New Testament examples that authorize such cooperation are specific (2 Cor. 8,9; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; Rom. 15:25,26; Acts 11:27-30)! It was always a church with “abundance” sending to a church in “want” that “equality” might be established (2 Cor. 8:13,14). The word “abundance” is a relative term and does not necessarily mean a wealthy church. Macedonia gave out of “deep poverty” (2 Cor. 8:23). Yet, they had “power” to give (2 Cor 8:3). Jerusalem did not. Hence, in relation “want” means inability to perform a work peculiar to the receiving church. “Equality” simply means freedom from such “want.” The context demands these conclusions (see H on chart).

If the authority for congregational cooperation is general. Then it is sinful to try to bind one type to the exclusion of others. However, if the authority for such cooperation is specific, then it is sinful to try to make it include any type save that which is specified (Gospel Guardian [3 & 10 May 1956], pp. 14-15).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 386, 407-409
July 5, 1990

By Roy E. Cogdill (1907-1985)

Certain ones from the household of Chloe had informed Paul that there were divisions among the brethren in Corinth. When he wrote to the church there, deeply concerned about their contentions, Paul condemned them for their “carnality,” and pointed out at least two indications or expressions of a carnal mind: glorying in men, and putting the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God. In beseeching them to overcome their problem along this line, he invokes the name of Christ. “Now I beseech you brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment”(1 Cor. 1:10).

By using the name of Christ to enforce and back up his admonition to them, the apostle called into play all the authority of heaven. This would be sufficient influence in the mind and heart of any individual who had respect or reverence for the Lord; this name would challenge attention and demand concern from all who were not completely hardened. The writer gives three particulars in which they are to work in overcoming their dissension:

“Speak the Same Thing”

It is impossible to have unity without all those involved being willing to speak the same thing. When men teach different doctrines, there is division; when they are willing to teach only the faith of the gospel of Christ, unity will prevail. So Paul’s order to these brethren is that they must all come back to the basis of a common faith, a common message, the gospel of Christ. This will correct their division; without it they can never have unity. Divisive doctrines, differing opinions and ideas will always bring discord. But when all men confine their “speaking” to the truth of God, unity will exist within the body. This is the Paul’s instruction for the restoration of unity in Corinth. But whatever will restore unity there, the same procedure will perpetuate unity in our generation.

“No Division Among You”

There are some who take Paul’s admonition that “there be no division” as justification for “peace at any price.” God does not want peace purchased at the expense of truth. Jesus made this very plain when he said, “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). Christ came into the world as the Prince of Peace, but he knew that his word, the truth, as it was preached in the world, as it entered into the hearts of men would most certainly create faith; it would find hostility in another heart, and the man would be hardened. Thus, with one man believing and another rejecting, it would be inevitable that the two should be set against each other. This cleavage should extend even into a man’s own family.

“For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw; and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” A man’s primary concern shall be that he have peace with God; peace within his family must always be secondary to that. When we put peace with men above peace with God, we have forsaken God’s way. Peace at any price means I prefer men and their fellowship above God and his fellowship; it means I am set against God. I have separated myself from him by my disrespect for his word.

God’s word is the only basis on which peace can exist. If it exists on any other foundation, it is false and deceitful. It is easy enough to have peace if one is willing to pay for it by the sacrifice of God’s word. But that is not the kind of peace the Christian seeks. If God’s word brings the division, then let the division come. When a faithful disciple takes his stand upon the word of truth, he is at once at peace with all others who thus stand; he is at enmity with all those who do not so stand. Loyalty to God and fidelity to him must mean more than all the goodwill and all the peaceful relations with any men on this earth.

“Same Mind and Same Judgment”

As long as a Christian has the “mind of Christ” he will be likeminded with other Christians. Into such a group division can not come. But when men are willing to buy harmony at the cost of truth or righteousness, they do not have the mind of Christ. This is true not only in the church, it is true also in the community, in business, or anywhere else. Peace with God comes first; as long as that is maintained, the one having that peace is automatically at peace with every other person on the earth who is also at peace with God. Thus between and among the true and faithful disciples of the Lord there is always unity. When any breach or division comes, it is evidence that somebody has departed from the right relationship with God.

Thus Paul admonished the Corinthians, “speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Such a course would restore peace to Corinth; such a course will perpetuate peace among any people and in any age (Gospei Guardian [13 Jan. 1955], p. 549).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 387-388
July 5, 1990