Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

Despite the Lord’s plea in the garden of Gethsemane (Jn. 17:20-21), today’s religious world is tragically divided. This situation exists because people hold to many different standards of authority. Catholics look to the Pope. The Mormons base their doctrines on the writings of Joseph Smith. The Seventh Day Adventists follow the teachings of Ellen G. White. Other denominations have their creeds, manuals, disciplines and confessions of faith, traditions, and human doctrines. The resulting confusion is obvious.

When there is no accepted standard, chaos is inevitable. According to our established standards of weights and measurements, a yard is equal to 36 inches. Yet, what if various stores had different standards? What if Wal-Mart said a yard was equal to 28 inches, but K-Mart said it was equal to 40 inches? This sort of situation existed in the early days of our country. The colonies had differing standards of weights and measures, making commerce difficult and confusing.

This article focuses on the subject of Bible authority. No more important theme could be studied. The question of authority is at the heart of every religious issue. It is imperative that men recognize the same standard of authority in religion. It is also imperative that men recognize the right standard of authority in religion. This is the only path to unity.

A. The Nature of Religious Authority

Are we going to look for the right standard of authority in the subjective or the objective realm? Shall we rely on our own feelings or upon the revealed word of God?

1. Subjective religion is based on man’s will. Many people approach religion subjectively. That is, their convictions are based upon personal feelings. They say, “This is how I feel. . . . This is what I think. . . This is what I believe.” Yet, man cannot direct his steps in the area of religious truth (Jer. 10:23). The heart cannot be trusted because it is often deceitful (Jer. 17:9).

2. Objective religion is based on God’s will. The final court of appeal in religion is higher than man. We must put our faith in something greater than ourselves. In religious matters, it is not our own views that are important, but rather what God has revealed. Truth is not subjective, i.e., it does not originate with a person’s own thinking. The Bible is an objective standard that must be studied and obeyed (2 Tim. 2:15; Jn. 8:32). Recognizing that the creeds and opinions of men are not authoritative, let us focus on the divine standard of authority, the Bible.

B. The Source of Religious Authority

1. God. The ultimate source of all religious authority is God. As Creator of the universe, Jehovah has inherent authority (Gen. 1:1). Since God is the potter and we are the clay, he has the right to mold and make us after his will (Isa. 64:8).

2. Christ. God has delegated authority unto the Son (Matt. 28:18-19; Jn. 5:19-23; Heb. 1:1-2). He now sits at the Father’s right hand, as King of kings and Lord of lords. Because of his exalted position, it is imperative that we respect the authority of Christ (Acts 3:22-23; Col. 3:17).

3. The Apostles. Christ delegated authority to his apostles (Matt. 18:18; Jn. 13:20). Before his crucifixion, Jesus promised that they would be given the Holy Spirit. In this way, they would be given a perfect remembrance of his teaching and would be guided into all the truth (Jn. 14:25-26; 16:12-14). The apostles and prophets did not claim originality for the things that they wrote. Instead, they received their message by revelation (Gal. 1:11-12; Eph. 3:1-5).

4. The Bible. Today God speaks to us through the New Testament (1 Thess. 2:13). The Scriptures are “inspired,” which literally means “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). To guard against any possible mistake, God was active throughout the whole process of revelation (2 Sam. 23:1-2; 1 Cor. 2:1-13). As originally delivered, the gospel message is infallible and inerrant. Furthermore, through divine providence man continues to have access to the inspired word of God.

Some have argued that the Bible cannot be understood. Yet, salvation is contingent upon knowing and obeying the truth (Jn. 8:31-32). If men cannot understand the Bible, God didn’t clearly reveal his mind unto mankind. If this is so, the final judgment will not be fair because man will be judged by God’s word (Jn. 12:48). In reality, the Bible is clear and understandable (Psa. 119:105; Eph. 3:3-5). God’s revelation is perfect (Jas. 1:25), complete (2 Pet. 1:3), and final (Jude 1:3).

Conclusion

Because of its divine origin, we must accept and obey Bible truth (Matt. 7:21; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). Those who seek to please Christ will look to the Bible as their only source of authority in religious matters. God’s word will judge us in the last day. Thus we must recognize the sinfulness of adding to or taking away from the word of God (Deut. 4:2; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Jn. 1:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, p. 364
June 21, 1990

By Robert Wayne LaCoste

Not long ago I read one of the saddest stories of the Civil War period. Seems like this young man who lived in Vermont during this period of time, was called on by the authorities of the Union army to enlist and go south to fight. The man was married and had four children. It was not common for the army to draft men with families, but the war was not going well for the north and they needed the extra man power.

One of his dearest friends, from youth up, lived next door to him, but had never married and thus had no children. One reason this man was not married and had no family, is that he was in a family business with his father and this had kept him busy most of his adult life. He and his father were very close and so the family business faired well.

However, when he heard that his best friend was going south to fight, he made an appointment with the Union army officials and said to them plainly, “Please let me go in his place. I have no wife or children and they need him desperately.” The officials contended, “But you and your father are blacksmiths and we need you here to continue to make equipment to supply our army.” “Yes,” he responded, “but my father had a successful business before I started helping him and I assure you, his work will not diminish in the least.” Finally, the authorities decided they would allow this man to go in the place of his friend who was married and had several children. His friend and that family were quite grateful, for their livelihood depended upon him staying home.

The young man trained hard, prepared himself for battle and went south to fight. In one of the hottest battles of the war, the young man fell in death at the hands of a Confederate’s sword at the battle of Chickamauga.

When the news reached the married man and his family back in Vermont, they wept many tears. One morning, after the war was over, the young married man purchased a train ticket and with a few dollars headed south to Tennessee. He stopped over in New York in an effort to converse with the officer in charge of the brigade his friend had served with. He wanted the approximate location where his friend had fallen in battle. In a nearby community he had a stonecutter make a him a tombstone. He rented a buggy and drove to the battle site. He erected the marker, said a prayer of thanksgiving, wept once again and departed to return to Vermont. Two men who had been standing nearby noticed the man placing the marker, praying and weeping and just had to see what was written thereon. After the buggy was out of sight, they went to the marker and read these words which were engraved: He died in my place.

I too must confess I wept also when I read this story’~ It reminded me of our Savior and friend who was our propitiator. A propitiator is one who goes in the place of another in order to appease the desire or will of someone in authority. Truly, this is what Jesus did. John in describing also the advocacy of this precious one wrote, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2). John continues, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:10).

Dear reader, surely Jesus was eminently qualified to go in our place to die for sin. You and I could not qualify. Paul put it this way, “When we were yet without strength, Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6). Paul goes on to point out that, for a righteous man (as in our story), a man would dare to die, but that Jesus died for sinners or unrighteous men, who did not deserve his great sacrifice (Rom. 5:7-8).

However, it must be added that this great Savior who went in our place cannot save us unless we, like the man in our story, show faith and gratitude. Paul penned. these words, “Whom God sent forth (speaking of Christ in verse 24) to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:25-26). 1 have taken the liberty of italicizing the two key terms of this text. They are faith or belief. This is more than just saying, “I believe that Jesus died.” Even the infidel believes that, for he cannot escape the many proofs testifying to that fact in history. The only kind of faith the Bible knows anything about is the “faith that worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). Jesus said plainly, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15) and “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46)

The man in our story demonstrated his love for his friend and erected a monument to that friendship and love.

Oh, dear reader, do we not realize that God wants our lives to be that monument! He desires since Jesus has been the propitiation to appease him, and his authority, that now it be our turn to “present your bodies in living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God” (Rom. 12:1-2).

Yes, Jesus went in our place. Now, our lives must be ex pended in going forth as shining lights of that eternal love and sacrifice.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, p. 363
June 21, 1990

By Lewis Willis

On the left, I have reproduced a copy of a newspaper ad from The Daily Record (3/9/90), in Wooster, Ohio. There are several things about this ad I want to note. I have long been of the view that some religious practices can be recognized as error more quickly, if reduced to their most absurd form. Perhaps that is the case regarding this ad.

It should first be observed that a “Church of the Savior” would never be involved in anything remotely resembling what is advertised. The true, New Testament “Church of the Savior” exists by divine authority and acts only when empowered to do so by “book, chapter and verse. ” There being neither for such a practice as advertised, we know that the church placing this ad is not the “Church of the Savior.” Thus, we all know what this is — actions of another false religion!

It appears that this “Sunday Night Live” concert is a play-on-words, based on the famous television series, “Saturday Night Live.” The T.V. program is supposedly “funny.” And, since this activity is a blend of music and humor, the Chapman’s must plan something on that order. Perhaps on another night they could have some people come in and do a take-off on the Cosby Show. Or, have a group come in for a performance based on Happy Days. Or, have a group come in and do a performance based on M.A.S.H. When the team performs surgery, let the local preacher be the patient. Perhaps he could learn to “cut-out” some of the foolishness.

This couple proposes a “candid discussion of family relationships.” I assume the discussion would be from a biblical point of view. However, if they are unable to see that the church has no business trying to compete with the entertainment industry, how confident could one be that they know what the church needs to learn about family relationships? If they do not know the Scriptures for one, what causes us to think they know the Scriptures for the other? Possibly they can “laugh” their way through their lack of authority for such nonsense.

Still, I guess the thing I have most difficulty with is a church charging admission to its activities. We are seeing more and more of this in religion. At first, it was fees for Bingo. Then, admission was charged for dinners. Some churches even conducted drinking and gambling festivals which involved additional charges. One wonders how long it will be before you have to buy tickets to attend the worship of these churches. I bought a ticket not long ago to some kind of entertainment park, I have even forgotten where it was, but once inside, each exhibit visited required that the ticket be punched. When you had used all of the spaces on the ticket, you were through until you bought another ticket. I suppose a church could do something like that. You could sell a general ticket to the worship, or, several different tickets for individual activities. Maybe you could just make individual charges for everything and you could bill it to Visa, Master charge, or American Express. In order to get a jump on this idea, I have started preparing a price list for this new approach to religion. You must understand that I have not yet developed a marketing strategy for this idea, so my price list is very preliminary. But here it is anyway:

Use of Songbook $ 2.00

Use of Pew Bible $ 2.00

Partaking of the Lord’s Supper $ 5.00

Lord’s Supper (Family Plan) $12.00

Bible Class $ 3.00

Bible Class (Family Plan) $10.00

Bulletin $ 1.00

Tracts (each) $ .50

Tracts (bundles of 5) $ 2.00

Baptism (clothes provided) $20.00

Counseling (one hour at building) $10.00

Counseling (one hour at your home) $15.00, plus $ .24 a mile

As I told you, this is very preliminary. I can imagine that my brethren will want to help me considerably in the formation of this price list. However, I think I shall charge my brethren $8.50 per suggestion.

I was just thinkin’ we could adopt this growing trend of modern religion and start charging people admission fees to the activities of the church. Or, we could content ourselves to raise money through the contribution of godly members who are following the guidelines for such which are set forth in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9). Those who regard the authority of God’s Word will find this sufficient. Those who do not care what God does or does not think will probably continue with their ungodly activities and fund raising. Let us pray that the church will not stumble in this matter.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 365, 376
June 21, 1990

By Glen W. Lovelady

I have been asked to make a short review of the debate that took place between my good friend Jack Freeman and brother Ron Halbrook in Las Vegas, Nevada in January 1990 and the other one in West Columbia, Texas in February 1990. Brother Homer Walker of Las Vegas moderated for Freeman and brother Larry Hafley of Bartlett, Tennessee for Ron.

Both men did a good job presenting their material with Ron bringing up Herod and Herodias two or three hundred times. Jack kept pointing out to the audience that this case is/was incest and thus against the law and could not be corrected (Mk. 6:18; Lev. 18:16; 20:21). Jack pointed out very clearly that Herod could not have Herodias because of the law, but that Herod could go and get any divorced woman that he wanted under Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jack pointed out that Ron would make Herod live celibate, Jack’s main point was that each person has a right to have a mate (I Cor. 7:2), while Ron’s main point was that Herod and Herodias had to separate. They would come closer to a homosexual marriage than what we are debating. There was no hope for them and there is no hope for a homosexual situation. Nothing we can say or do can help them. Now if Philip was not his brother then you might have something, but incest can’t be corrected, and neither can homosexuality. Just because incest, homosexuality and polygamy must cease, does not prove that these people who have committed adultery in their past can’t have a marriage where incest, homosexuality, or polygamy was not involved. That is the point that we are making.

Ron brought up a number of books that agree with his position, so Jack said that he could finds as many books if not more that took the other side, but what would that prove? Jack made a big play on the fact that we are to prove our points by what the Bible says, not what men think. Ron was good in turning things around and in Las Vegas he turned this point against Jack. Jack made the mistake of going along with him by offering Ron his books, but that was corrected in Texas.

Another point of contention was over the exception clause in Matthew 19:9. Ron said that it cannot apply, but Jack came back and, pointed out to the audience that Ron will take the exception clear over to the book of Romans or Corinthians but won’t let us bring it down to the second part of the verse. In other words, Ron can apply it where ever he wants and whenever it fits his position, but if it goes against his position, then it doesn’t apply. Ron produced an English teacher that said it couldn’t apply. I gave Jack a list of seven English and Greek professors who disagree with his English teacher, but Jack decided not to use them.

The way it stands in the KJV, the English teachers would have a good debate over whether it applies or not.

Jack kept trying to get Ron to define the word “adultery” and Ron finally produced a chart where he tried to make the point that Jesus broadened the meaning of adultery. Jesus did, but still in every case a spouse was involved. Now who is the spouse of the put away fornicator? If the put away fornicator (who is not a spouse anymore) marries one who is not the spouse of anybody, how could adultery be committed, according to the definition of “adultery”? He couldn’t!

Ron then produced a chart that showed a man who had stolen another man’s watch, car, and wife and said that he must give them back. Jack pointed out to the audiences that Ron was right, the man must give back the other man’s watch, car, and wife, but did that mean that this man could not go and get his own watch, car, and wife? What if the other man said, “I don’t want that watch, car and wife anymore, you can have them.” Ron came back and said that he could say that about his watch and car, but not with his wife. I bet if Ron’s wife ran off with another man, that Ron would say, “I don’t want her anymore.” Ron, God gave you the right to say, “I don’t want her any more” in Matthew 19:9. Jack then asked, would the man have to live celibate and never have another watch and car as penance, because that is what Ron is advocating with these marriage mess up’s.

Well it was a good debate, and the debate goes on. Mike Willis has set up a written debate between myself and brother Colly Caldwell, Vice-President of Florida College to appear in the Guardian of Truth this fall, We are already working on it. God help us.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, p. 330
June 7, 1990