Truth Magazine

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

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: “From the Papers,” Gospel Advocate, XXXIX (May 27,1897), 322.

“The church of the New Testament is no such institution as that word conveys to the mind of the average man. In New Testament times, religion was on an individual basis, and the church was a spiritual body over which Christ was the head, and in which every Christian was a member. It ought to be that way yet. The people ought to build their own meeting houses in keeping with the simplicity and economy of their own homes, and within the limits of their financial ability, and then conduct their own religious worship and services according to the simplicity of New Testament precept and precedents.”

Few problems are more difficult than keeping the nature of the church straight in our minds and in our practice. What was in the New Testament a spiritual kingdom (Matt. 16:18), activated only in groups of Christians in a locality doing a relatively few things together (for instance, the church in Corinth, 1 Cor. 1:2), is easily translated into a powerful, coercive human institution. Today, the term church conveys to few what is meant in the New Testament.

We must be ever vigilant not to turn the church into an operational national organization, even though the alternative is to live in a relatively disorderly world of independence. The church can become a denominational entity in many subtle ways. It is easy to translate a perfectly correct concept of a spiritual “we” (recognizing our spiritual kinship to all those in Christ) into a denominational “we” (expressing affiliation with a human organization). Editors can become denominational officials, schools can become denominational agencies, unwritten creeds can become tests of denominational orthodoxy.

The motive behind such denominational drive is that old enemy human pride. Men want a kingdom like those around them. Leaders aspire to recognition and honor. Human values replace a spiritual understanding.

Fletcher Srygley (quoted above) sensed that this destructive change in attitude could first be seen in the conduct of a local church. When one equates the well being of the church with the quality of a meeting house, or with the aesthetic quality of the services, he betrays a human rather than a spiritual value system. Such a value system can only end in the destruction of the church as a divine institution. The church can be beautiful, effective, and approved if it conforms to the simple but meaningful instructions of God. – Ed Harrell

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, p. 356
June 21, 1990

By Warren E. Berkley

As a boy, I still remember brother Cecil Douthitt warning brethren about apostasy and false doctrine. One thing that stays in my memory is this: Brother Douthitt often remarked: “In every specimen of false doctrine, the false teacher – on some point – is missing or ignoring some basic concept of Bible authority.”

I was reminded of this recently, listening to Ron Halbrook and Jack Freeman debate the matter of remarriage. Both in Las Vegas, and in West Columbia, Texas, brother Freeman made this argument (stated in his words, as best as I can recall): “Find the scripture… find just one Bible example … of an apostle or inspired man telling a married couple to separate as a part of their gospel obedience.”

Brother Douthitt was right, certainly in the case of this false teacher. Brother Freeman’s premise is this: There must be a specific example of every act of repentance. Thus, since there is no specific example (after Acts 2) of an inspired man telling or requiring a couple to separate, Freeman wants to conclude: There is no authority for this requirement, and we cannot tell anyone this today.

He is stumbling over a basic concept of authority; and he is arguing in favor of his proposition on the basis of silence. But let’s begin with . . .

What Is Repentance?

When the apostles and inspired men urged repentance, they often used the word metanoeo. How did the alien sinners in the first century understand this? What did the word signify to them? Consider the following authorities:

Robinson: “In a religious sense, implying sorrow for unbelief and sin, and turning from them unto God and the gospel of Christ” (p. 458, Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament).

Clark: “That his mind, purposes, opinions, and inclinations, are changed; and that, in consequence, there is a total change in his conduct” (p. 50, Vol. V, Commentary).

Lard: “Repentance denoted our mental determination to forsake sin, resulting in the actual abandonment of it” (p.76, Commentary on Romans).

Vines: “To change one’s mind or purpose, always, in the N.T., involving a change for the better, an amendment” (p,280, Vol. 111, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

Hence, when the apostles and inspired men are telling alien simmers the requirements of obedience, they used a word which means the actual abandonment of sin … change in conduct … amendment … a turning from sinful involvements. This is what the word meant in the vocabulary of the day, when the apostles were proclaiming the gospel. I mean to say – it was understood in the very word the preachers used, that all sinful involvements were to cease. I deny and call for proof, therefore, that every specific evil practice or wrong relationship had to be specified: “You’ll have to quit this … leave this situation… stop doing this … quit thinking this way … stop committing fornication.”

In the general command to repent, conveyed to alien sinners with a word that communicated abandonment of sinful involvements, there is the authority to require such abandonment today . . . for any transgression of God’s law.

When people enter into marriages with parties they are forbidden by God to marry (see Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9) and afterward repent and wish fellowship with God, and the local church – what does repentance require? The same thing that repentance of any sinful involvement requires: the abandonment of the sinful involvement. Specific examples of every possible case of abandonment are not necessary.

That brings me to the aspect of authority, mentioned in the introduction.

Demanding Specific Authority

It seems to be the thinking of some, that if the Bible does not deal with a matter in explicit, specific terms, we have freedom to act; silence is approached as permission.

I’m thankful my children do not approach my authority like this. I have never, for example, specifically and explicitly dealt with the matter of writing checks, knowing you do not have sufficient funds in the bank. I have endeavored to teach my children principles of honesty, and I have taught them against theft; I have even identified theft and dishonesty as transgressions of God’s law. Still, I’ve not specified every act that would fall in these categories. Nevertheless, my children do not interpret my silence (on the subject of deliberate, deceitful overdrafts) as permission to write hot checks.

Likewise, the apostles and inspired men did not deal explicitly with every imaginable form of sin that was to be abandoned. What they did was, to convict people of sin; define and identify sin . . . and then, tell people to repent, and they used a word that meant the abandonment of sinful practices.

Jack Freeman and others are making the argument since you cannot produce a passage or example of an apostle or inspired man telling a couple to separate, such separation is not authorized. They are doing what many before them have done; they are desecrating the sanctity of God’s silence. In controversy over a whole multitude of issues (from instrumental music to church sponsored activities) this old argument has been dusted off and used. Gospel preachers have repeatedly shown – when God speaks nothing, this silence must be honored by man; not used as permission (see Heb. 7:13,14). (In the Freeman-Halbrook debate, brother Halbrook made this very point; but it was never answered by brother Freeman. Ron also cited 1 Cor. 6:9-11 as teaching the necessity to sever wrong relationships.)

But it should be noted, this door Freeman opens is wider than the remarriage issue.

Filling In The Blank

Freeman’s case is this: If you can’t find where an inspired man told people to cease ___________, then that practice or relationship can be continued in, with impunity after baptism. Now, Freeman filled in the blank: A Marriage Relationship Entered Into, Without Scriptural Basis. But, the argument cannot be limited to this! Anything else can be put in this blank, and if you can’t find a passage where an inspired man told people to cease _______________ that shows (in Freeman’s reasoning) that _______________ can be continued in after baptism.

Do you know what this agrument would prove? If accepted, this agrument would prove the following things could be continued after baptism: Homosexuality (no specific example of any inspired man telling two homosexuals to break up); car theft (no specific example of any inspired man telling a car thief to give the car back); bestiality (no specific example of an inspired man telling a man to cease that vile iniquity!). The door Freeman opens, for accepting people unscripturally remarried is also open to accept homosexuals, thieves, and others. All that is necessary to accept them is this: not having a specific example where an inspired man told someone not to do the thing. Freeman would deny this, but I’m pressing his argument to the logical outcome.

When the apostles enjoined repentance as a condition of pardon, I do not envision that they took each person aside and gave him specific instructions: “you will have to stop this . . . You, sir, will have to quit this job . . . You folks will need to separate … Mr. Thief, you will need to return the goods you’ve taken, and make just restitution.” Had this been done, the book of Acts would be a monumental volume, many times larger than the New Testament itself. In some cases this may have been necessary (Acts 14:15). But I beleive when people were convicted of sin, and as they understood God’s moral law, they knew they couldn’t continue in sin. They knew what the word “repent” entailed (see Acts 19:19). And they were given these admonitions, in passages like: Romans 6:1ff; 13:11-14; Galatains 5:16-26; Ephesians 5:1ff; 1 Peter 4:2-4; 2 Corinthians 6:17-7:1; etc. In these passages, some sins are listed, and there are some general terms that cover several practices (“all uncleanness,” and “and such like”). The point is this: on the strength of this teaching, people with good and honest hearts knew that their involvements in sin had to cease.

In the excellent book, Is It Lawful? brother Bob Waldron well states the case: “As children of God, our responsibility is to understand the will of God without prejudice and to apply it without partiality. The statement is made,’Well, where in the Bible was anyone ever told to leave a husband or wife?’ In Ezra’s day, when people were found in marriages which did not have God’s approval, Ezra told them to put their wives away. He did not say, ‘You know , we are going to have a lot of trouble over this unless we change our position.’ Erza had the idea that men do not make the Bible conform to their lives; rather, he felt that lives must be conformed to the Bible. The wives were put away (Ezra 9-10). The man who was unscripturally married at Corinth certainly was not given the option of continuing to live with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5). There were Christians at Corinth who had been homosexuals (1 Cor. 6:9). Did they have to give up their homosexual relationships? All would say, ‘Yes.’ Yet no specific example is found where they were required to do so by some church. With all the examples given in the scripture of what to do about sin, it was not necessary to say specifically that fornicators must cease fornicating, homosexuals must stop their homosexuality, and adulterers must give up their adultery” (Is It Lawful?, pp. 136-137).

May God help us to receive the word of the message; receive it as the “word of God,” and “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 366-367
June 21, 1990