Truth Magazine

By Norman E. Fultz

Freedom! Liberty! Two words that stir deep emotions in the hearts of any oppressed or their sympathizers! With these words throngs can be mustered to support various causes or movements. The masses of marches from South Africa to Eastern Europe and even in Moscow lately have been crying out for more freedom – of movement, of expression, of economics, of personal enterprise. Great sacrifices have been made to attain or to maintain freedom for oneself or for others. The lovers of liberty will gladly risk life or limb. Patrick Henry’s immortal “Give me liberty or give me death” expresses the extreme importance attached to being free. The pages of history, both of the distant and more recent past, and that which is being currently written, recount the struggles of men to be free from various forms of oppression and bondage. And those who become the emancipators of those in bondage are destined for their place in the sun. But liberty once gained is not thereafter guaranteed without diligence on the part of the recipients. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” and diligent souls must keep watchful eyes for anything that would encroach.

There are many kinds of bondage – ignorance, superstition, political, psychological, fear, etc. But the greatest, because of its consequences, is spiritual bondage, the bondage of sin. “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin” (Jn. 8:34). “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

With many, the word “sin” is outmoded as they seek to cast off all restraint and exult in being their own person, “free spirits.” Having listened to the hawkers of loose living (“Do your own thing … .. You only go around once, so get all the gusto you can get,” “If it feels good, do it”) and the evangelists of “alternate lifestyles” who were promising liberty, they have been brought into bondage (2 Pet. 2:18-19). The escape promised by alcohol and other drugs and the sexual revolution have instead become entrapments. The resulting addiction and life threatening diseases have become matters of national concern, but the problem is one of sin.

From this bondage, there is an Emancipator, a Deliverer – Jesus Christ. Of his own power to free Jesus said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth, and the truth shall make you free… If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (Jn. 8:31-32,36). Paul admonished the Galatian saints, “Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1).

While many of the areas of freedom demanding attention of mankind are worthy, the greatest freedom one can pursue is that freedom from spiritual bondage; for like godliness, it has promise of life that now is and of that which is to come (1 Tim. 4:8). Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (Jn. 10:10).

Friend, you need no longer be enslaved to sin. You can be delivered, set free in Christ! Paul reminded the Romans that “so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4). And a bit later he exultantly declared, “God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Rom. 6:17). That freedom can be yours as well if you, like they, will obey the glorious gospel of Jesus. “Being then made free from sin” you will become “the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18).

So, kind reader, as the grand old hymn invites:

If you are tired of the load of your sin,

Let Jesus come into your heart;

If you desire a new life to begin,

Let Jesus come into your heart.

And finally, let all who enjoy this freedom never cease in diligent effort to sound forth the good news of freedom in Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, p. 371
June 21, 1990

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