Truth Magazine

By H.E. “Buddy” Payne

The question posed above usually arises in connection with a discussion of 1 Timothy 3:8 where, among other things, the Scripture teaches that a deacon must not be “given to much wine.” A similar statement with regard to bishops in 1 Timothy 3:3 indicates that bishops must not be “given to wine.” Because of the difference in these two expressions some assert that deacons (and presumably other Christians) may participate in social drinking while bishops (elders) may not. The discussion of these particular verses and their implications in answering the question above will be postponed until later in the article. Let us turn first to some more fundamental questions.

What do we mean by social drinking? The term “social drinking” is not used in the Bible so we must establish its meaning from modem usage. The word “social” means pertaining to or characterized by friendly companionship or relations. “Drink” or “drinking,” as used in the question above, means to partake of alcoholic beverages. Thus, social drinking means to partake of alcoholic beverages in the presence of companions or friends or to be sociable. In common usage it also implies drinking moderately, not to excess. Thus, the question which forms the title of this article is asking whether a deacon can participate in moderate drinking, drinking which does not cause him to be drunk.

What does the Bible have to say about alcoholic beverages? The biblical terms relating to alcoholic beverages are “wine” and “strong drink.” The word “wine” in our English versions of the Bible most often translate the Hebrew word yayin or yain in the Old Testament and the Greek word oinos in the New Testament. The term “strong drink” translates the Hebrew word sekar and the Greek word sikera. When the two terms are used together, the term “strong drink” probably refers to all kinds of fermented drinks other than wine, which referred primarily to drinks derived from the grape (see ISBE, Vol. 1, p. 993, 1979 revision). The following excerpts from the book The Bible and Wine by Ferrar Fenton are instructive with regard to the usage of the word “wine.”

As in the Hebrew yain, the word does not in the Greek always signify fermented intoxicating drink, but grapes as fresh fruit, dried raisins, or prepared as jam, or preserved by boiling for storage, or as thick syrup for spreading upon bread as we do butter; and that syrup dissolved in water for a beverage at meals, as described in the Hebrew Bible by Solomon and others, and amongst Greek writers by Aristotle, and Pliny amongst the Roman ones. This mixing of the syrup with water ready for use at meals is alluded to in more than one of our Lord’s parables. The liquid was absolutely non-alcoholic and not intoxicating. Grape juice was also prepared by heating it, as soon as possible after it had been squeezed in the press, by boiling, so as to prevent fermentation, and yet preserve its thin liquid form as a drink. To ensure this certain resinous gums were dissolved in the juice, or sulphate of lime, or what is now commonly called gypsum, was put into it, as it now done in Spain, to make the liquid clear and bright, and prevent subsequent fermentation arising from changes of atmosphere. . .

It should never be forgotten that when reading in the Bible and the classic pagan writers of “wine” we are seldom dealing with the strongly intoxicating and loaded liquids to which that name is alone attached in the English language, but usually with beverages such as above described. They were as harmless and sober as our own teas, coffees and cocoas. Had they not been so, the ancient populations would have been perpetually in a more or less pronounced state of drunkenness, for they had not of our above-mentioned herb-made drinks to use as a part of their dietary. These facts should never be forgotten when we read of “wine” there, – for it was simple fruit syrup, except where especially stated to be of the intoxicating kinds, which latter the Prophets and Legislators always condemned.

The case of Jesus at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee offers a good illustration of the need for care in dealing with the word “wine” in the Bible. Mr. Fenton calls the passage in John 2:1-10 “one of the most misunderstood, and misrepresented passages in the whole of the gospels,” and then adds the following comments.

The misunderstanding has arisen from imposing upon the ancient Greek text, and ancient Jewish habits of food and drink, entirely the modem and Northern European conception, that the word “wine” always means intoxicating liquor. Amongst the old Orientals and the Romans, such an idea was not attached to “wine” as a universal conception. On the contrary, their “best wines” were not fermented at all … The ordinary drink of the Romans, learned writers ten us, was juice of the grape, which they mixed with water, both hot and cold – (the same as the “mingled” or “mixed” wine of Solomon, and the parable of Jesus about the royal feast at the King’s son’s marriage), and sometimes with spices.

It is practically certain that the “wine” created by Christ at Cana was of the non-intoxicating kind, which . . . was “the ordinary drink of the people” in daily fife. The knowledge of that fact disposes of the argument . . . that the guests were all drunk before the miraculous wine was produced, and therefore that Jesus decided to make them more so, to show His disciples and the people the sacred nature of intoxicants.

It appears that the Bible and other ancient documents used the word “wine” to mean either intoxicating or nonintoxicating beverages. In addition to that, even the wine that contained alcohol by natural fermentation was often mixed with water before drinking, thus diluting the alcoholic content even further. (See an interesting article by Robert H. Stein in Christianity Today, June 20, 1975, pp. 9-11.) At the very least it is reasonable to conclude that moderate drinking of today’s wine and other alcoholic beverages involves partaking of much more alcohol than the drinking of the wine of Bible times.

What does the Bible say about moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages? The Bible clearly condemns drunkenness (Gal. 5:2 1; 1 Cor. 6:10) and other drinking as well (1 Pet. 4:3): its many exhortations to be sober minded testify to the wisdom and acceptability to God of total abstinence. Social or moderate drinking lies somewhere between drinking and abstinence. It is a subject which the Bible does not discuss directly or define carefully. Even the ambiguity of the word “wine” testifies to that fact. It is not possible to say from direct statements in the Bible that the drinking of small amounts of alcoholic beverages is sinful or that the drinking of a fixed amount of alcohol constitutes drunkenness. The question of social drinking, whether for deacons or other Christians, is a question that will require the exercising of our spiritual senses to discern whether participating in it is good or evil (see Heb. 5:12-14).

Let us exercise our spiritual senses with the following thoughts.

1. The Bible wams of the danger of wine and strong drink (Prov. 21:19-21,29-35).

2. Modem-day statistics with regard to the number of people who have become alcoholics (approximately one in ten of those who drink) and the destruction that is wreaked upon our society by those who drink alcohol substantiate the Bible’s warnings and graphically illustrate the foolishness of using even moderate amounts of today’s alcoholic beverages.

3. As discussed above, there is a striking difference between the drinking of alcoholic beverages today and the drinking of alcoholic beverages in the days when the New Testament was written. The distilled spirits of today have from three to many more times the alcoholic content of the strongest drinks in the Bible.

4. Can anyone answer how much of today’s wine one can drink without losing some self-control, good judgment and clearness of mind? Are not these characteristics of being sober-minded which God expects of Christians?

5. The New Testament teaches Christians that we are to be proper examples and influences to other Christians and to non-Christians (Matt. 5:13-16; 1 Tim. 4:12; etc.). The force of these exhortations becomes particularly vivid with regard to alcohol when you have to sit through the night with a brother in Christ as he suffers the delirium tremens because he was influenced to begin drinking by another thoughtless human being. What if a brother in Christ, possibly a deacon, had invited this brother over to his home and offered him a beer or some wine with his supper? It is only a social drink! Hear Romans 14:21. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”

It is inconceivable to me that any Christian could find himself in a situation in which he does not wield some influence over someone who has a serious tendency to be an alcoholic, or who is simply weak in his ability to control his drinking. In our society and present circumstances it is difficult for me to conceive of any good that could come from lending our influence to the drinking alcoholic beverages at all.

Having exercised our spiritual senses with the weighty considerations above, what is your judgment with regard to a Christian’s participating in social drinking? It is my considered judgment that it is an evil thing. If it is evil for a Christian, it is certainly evil for a deacon.

But what about 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:3, the passages to which we referred at the beginning of this article? Several comments are in order. First, the word used for wine in both verses is a form of the Greek word oinos, which we showed above to be an ambiguous word. Second, the context here seems to imply alcoholic wine because the bishop or deacon is not to be “given to” or “addicted to” the wine. Third, it is my judgment that the Lord does impose a stricter regulation on bishops than on deacons (or older women – Tit. 2:3). A bishop must have proved himself to be completely in control of himself with regard to even small amounts of the very weak alcoholic beverages consumed in the days the New Testament was written. The deacon’s qualification was not as restrictive, but he was still to demonstrate great self control. However, none of these things nullifies a single statement or conclusion made in the paragraphs above.

It is difficult to understand why any deacon would want to participate in social drinking given the considerations above. Let us all as Christians put away this evil from among us.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 682-683
November 16, 1989

By H.E. Phillips

How are deacons selected and appointed in the local church? Are they self-appointed? Are they ordained with the laying on of hands in a special ceremony? Are they elected by majority vote? Do they grow into the office? This is the subject assigned to me in this special issue on the work of deacons.

Deacons are listed with the bishops, servants (ministers) and saints in Philippi 1:1: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishop and deacons.”

While we do not have detailed directions for the step by step procedure in selecting and ordaining elders and deacons, we do have principles in the New Testament that govern the procedure of putting elders and deacons in the office (work) of the local church. Ignoring what the New Testament says about this matter will usually cause internal problems and will make it virtually impossible for elders and deacons to function after they begin their work. We must know what we are to do and then know how we must do it.

What the Church Is to Do

Neither elders nor deacons are self-appointed. It would be a disaster for any congregation to accept just any man who decides he should be a deacon and appoints himself to that work. The requirements in the word of God would be worthless if the church could not “look ye out among you” those who meet the pattern given by the Holy Spirit.

It is important to understand the meaning of select and appoint. The appointment of elders and deacons is the beginning of an agreement between them and the church. It is the point at which the elders and deacons begin their work. Such a beginning is necessary to know when one is an elder or deacon, and when the church has an obligation to them in that capacity.

1. The Selection. The New Testament gave the criterion for a man to be a deacon, and the church where they are to serve is to select out those who have the qualifications. The men must be what God requires of them before they can be selected, otherwise the disciples could ignore the requirements and select whomsoever they pleased.

The selection is simply the choosing out from the number those who have the requirements given by Christ. The qualifications determine whether a man may be appointed to be a deacon, and the church simply looks out from their number those who have the qualifications. They are not deacons at this point.

Voting usually means the majority rule, which is scripturally wrong. The kingdom is not a democracy, it is a monarchy, with Christ as the only King, Ruler and Lawmaker. Someone has said, “The first attempt at voting in scriptural matters marks the beginning of division: for and against.” Voting for elders and deacons, with the majority vote winning the office, is not scriptural from any point of view.

When the multitude of disciples did what the apostles told them to do, they chose those seven who were qualified who were “set before the apostles” to be appointed “over this business” (Acts 6:5,3).

2. The Appointment. The term “appoint” signifies a subsequent action to the selection of those to be deacons. Of Paul and Barnabas the Holy Spirit said, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church. . . ” (Acts 14:23). Ordain here means “to elect by stretching out the hand” (Young’s Analytical Concordance).

Titus was instructed by Paul to “ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Titus 1:5). Thayer says the word “ordain” here means “to appoint one to administer an office.” The apostles appointed the deacons in Jerusalem who were selected in Acts 6:3. This was something the apostles did following the selecting by the multitude of disciples – the church. This is what the church is to do in appointing deacons.

How Is the Church to Choose and Appoint Deacons?

The selection of those to be deacons is not done by majority vote election. This method automatically makes the winners deacons. Others put the responsibility upon the preacher to select and appoint the deacons. This is not what Acts 6:3 teaches.

Some believe that deacons “grow” into the office. They began doing the work and one day they are recognized as deacons. Various views of this method are put forward, but none are scriptural.

There is not a detailed procedure, point for point, given in the New Testament for selecting and appointing deacons. There are three steps necessary in getting men into the office of deacon:

1. Qualifications determined. The first thing to be done is to determine exactly what essentials the men must have because selection depends entirely upon whether or not the men have them. A lot of teaching and studying of the New Testament should be given to this subject by the congregation.

2. The Selection. The Holy Spirit said: “Look ye out among you” (Acts 6:3). This places the responsibility upon the disciples (church). Whatever method of selecting out the qualified men that is decently and orderly, and fully respecting the Scriptures, may be used. One method may be to have each member of the congregation make a list of the names of those believed to be qualified and give the lists to two or three respected brethren of the congregation to put together for all to consider. Any orderly method of doing this will be successful. To stop here would be “majority vote rule.” After the names of those who have been suggested are given, each member should have the opportunity to voice any scriptural objection against any name. If any objection is scripturally valid, that person should not be appointed, no matter how many want him; he is not scripturally qualified. The selection depends upon the qualifications. If any man is contentious about being a deacon even though valid scriptural objections are established against him, he is confirming his unfitness for the office.

3. The Appointing. Titus was left in Crete to “ordain” elders in every city (Tit. 1:5). Paul and Barnabas “appointed” elders in every church where they had preached (Acts 14:23). Deacons are appointed in the same way. The evangelist may appoint those who are qualified and have been selected by the brethren. This appointing is simply the designating them to the work. The method of doing this may vary from place to place, but it must conform to God’s word.

Some time should be allowed between the selection and the appointment to allow for consideration by the church. Someone may know of a scriptural reason why one should not be appointed. After a sufficient time has elapsed after the selection, the preacher may appoint them in a very solemn manner to impress the seriousness of the responsibility of both the deacons and the church. No secret balloting should be used because too many evil things can be covered up.

Every responsible and faithful member of the church should know when one is qualified to be a deacon. If one is taught to act without bias and prejudice, and to try to please God rather than self, there will be little or no difficulty in the matter of selecting and appointing deacons to the work.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 686-687
November 16, 1989

By Mike Willis

For years, we have had to deal with the question, “Can we understand the Bible alike?” Denominational folks have argued that our differences are caused by our inability to understand the Bible alike. When we tried to discuss water baptism with them, they showed little interest in participating, thinking the discussion was futile, because we cannot under the Bible alike. The evangelical denominations reduced the things essential to salvation to a few arbitrary points which they consider the “core gospel”; only these few points in the “core gospel” are revealed with sufficient clarity to expect all men to agree upon them. The rest of New Testament revelation, which they labeled “doctrine,” is not revealed with sufficient clarity to expect agreement, according to this theory. In response to these doctrines, our brethren wrote numerous articles and tracts on the theme “Can We Understand The Bible Alike?”

In more recent years, this denominational argument has surfaced among our own brethren. The unity-in-diversity brethren have argued that we must have unity in “gospel” with diversity in “doctrine” because we cannot understand the Bible alike. Their argument went something like this:

Can anyone perfectly understand the Bible? Does anyone know all of the truth? Is it possible that there is one thing taught in the Bible that you do not know? If you can be accepted by God with your imperfect understanding of the Bible, so can those in the institutional churches of Christ and the Christian Church. Peace will never be restored by universal conformity. The minds of men can no more all think alike than their faces all look alike.

The conclusion was that we must have unity in diversity because we cannot under the Bible alike.

Leroy Garrett expressed the idea that men cannot understand the Bible alike and must, therefore, have unity in diversity as follows:

We likewise question the practice of rejecting any brother on the basis of his misunderstanding of scripture. There are surely grounds of excluding a brother from the fellowship of the congregation, but a sincere and well-meaning misinterpretation of the Bible is not among them. Whether a brother is right or wrong in this or that interpretation of scripture is beside the point whether I receive him as a brother beloved (“How Men Use The Bible To Justify Their Divisions,” Thoughts On Unity, p. 104).

Ira Rice quoted an advocate of unity-in-diversity as follows:

Can we understand the Bible alike? Well, it all depends on what you mean by “can.” There is theoretical possibility and there is possibility of the most realistic sort. Can a person playing dice, throw seven for a thousand times in a row and do it fairly? It’s technically possible.

Can Willie Mays play the complete season next year and hit a home run every time he comes to bat? It’s possible. Can Johnny Unitas throw a touchdown pass on every single offensive play? It’s possible. If we say that all people can understand the Bible alike we can only mean possibility in the most theoretical sense. Anything else is impossible. For the truth is that it is not realistically possible for even two people to understand the Bible alike or the Constitution or Hamlet, unless one of them should let the other do the thinking (Axe on the Root, Vol. II, p. 59).

The argument for “unity-in-diversity” on the grounds that the revelation of God is not sufficiently clear is an attack upon God’s ability to communicate clearly, adequately, and effectively with man. The implication is that God was either incapable or unwilling to speak in words which men could understand alike.

Man Can Understand the Bible

The writings of the Bible are called a “revelation” (Eph. 3:3). The word from which. “revelation” is translated, apokalupsis, means “prop. a laying bare, making naked . . . a disclosure of truth, instruction, concerning divine things before unknown” (Thayer, p. 62). In order for something to be called a “revelation,” it must be something that can be known, once having been revealed. Unless man can understand the Bible, it is not a revelation!

God says that a man can understand his revelation. Paul said,

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ). . . (Eph. 3:2-4).

This passage plainly affirms that man can understand God’s revelation of his will to mankind.

God commands a man to understand his revelation. In Ephesians 5:17, Paul commanded, “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). God has not commanded of man that which is impossible for man to do – to understand his revealed will. Hence, we are forced to the conclusion that man can understand the revelation of God.

God made salvation contingent upon understanding his revealed will. In John 8:32, Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ” One’s freedom from sin is conditioned upon his knowing the truth.

Men Have Known the Truth

Not only does the Bible state that men can know the truth, the inspired record shows that men have known the truth. Here are some examples:

1. Nehemiah 8.- 7-12. The Lord commanded Nehemiah to read his word to the people. “So they read the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8:8). Later, the book adds, “And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.” These Jews understood the revelation of God.

2. Timothy. Paul said that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures from the time that he was a child (2 Tim. 3:14-15). The revelation is so clear that even a child can understand it. this is also confirmed by the prophets. Isaiah foretold the way of holiness which the Lord would reveal saying, “And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring man, though fools, shall not err therein” (35:8). Regarding this last phrase, Edward J. Young wrote,

The way will be so clearly marked, so well constructed and so easy to follow that even fools would not go astray thereon. Again, the contrast with the actual condition is vivid. One who travels in the desert without guide or without knowing the way that he must go, may very easily lose his way. The path is sometimes obliterated by the sand; it is not clear-cut and well defined. The way of holiness, however, is one that does not lead astray; it leads to its destination. “The circumstance that even the foolish cannot miss the way, indicates the abundant fulness of the salvation, in consequence of which it is so easily accessible; and no human effort, skill or excellence is required to attain the possession of it” (Hengstenberg) (The Book of Isaiah, Vol. II, pp. 453-454).

3. Some apostates. There are some men who apostatized from the truth, although they had known the truth. In Hebrews 10:26, the author condemns those who “sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth.” The apostates in 2 Peter 2:20-22 had “known the way of righteousness,” but turned away from it and were likened to a dog returning to eat its vomit again.

These examples confirm that men have been able to know the truth. Material emphasizing this point can be multiplied through a study of the following passages: Luke 1:1-4; Acts 17:11; Matthew 13:23; John 7:17; 8:31-36.

Men Can Understand The Bible Alike

To say that men can understand the Bible is to affirm that men can understand the Bible alike because the Bible does not teach 100 different things on any given subject. Its revelation is consistent with itself. It does not teach both “Thou shalt not commit murder” and “Thou shalt commit murder.” Hence, if two people understand God’s word, they necessarily will understand it alike.

To illustrate this truth, if two people add a given set of numbers and both of them correctly understand the sum of those numbers, their answers will agree. In a similar way, if two people correctly understand God’s revelation on a given subject, their answers will agree.

When men state that they cannot understand the Bible alike, we should raise the question, “Why can they not understand the Bible alike?” I suggest to you that, if men do not understand the Bible alike, the fault does not lie with God. God made man as he is and he inspired men to write the Bible as it is. The inspired revelation (made as it is) was designed for man (made as he is) as an all-sufficient revelation of things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

To charge that God wrote the Bible in an unclear manner’ ambiguously, is to lay the fault for our misunderstandings at the foot of God – to charge him with blame. To attack the clarity of God’s revelation implies that the Scriptures have a multiplicity of interpretations and meanings, any one of which is just as good as any other. If God wrote ambiguously, he either did it willfully or unwillfully. If he willfully wrote ambiguously, and yet holds man responsible for knowing his truth as a condition for salvation (Jn. 8:32), then God is not good. If he unwillfully wrote ambiguously, he is not omnipotent, being unable to write with clarity.

Does the fault for men understanding the Bible differently lie in the fact that we are finite, human beings? Let us not forget that God created us as we are and that he is aware of the limitations of human language and the human mind. Knowing this, God would have to take this consideration in communicating his will to us; otherwise it would no be a revelation. Revelation is nothing else than God accommodating his message to man in human language – language which man can understand clearly. If God failed in this purpose, in accommodating his revelation to man’s ability to understand, he is not the omnipotent God he claims to be.

Problem Not New

That men understand the Bible differently is not a knew problem; it existed in the first century. Some men thought that the Scriptures affirmed that Jesus was the Christ and others disagreed. Some men taught that the resurrection was already past (2 Tim. 2:17-18) and others disagreed. Some men taught that men could have fellowship with Christ and walk in darkness (1 Jn. 1:6) and others disagreed. To what were these differences attributed? Did men propose a unity-in-diversity based on man’s inability to understand the Bible alike? Not in the New Testament!

Differences in understanding the Bible were attributed to prejudice (Acts 17:32), obstinate refusal to submit to God (Matt. 13:15; Acts 7:51), jealousy (Acts 13:42-44; 17:5), lack of study of the word of God (Matt. 22:31-32), and other failures by man – failures for which God held him accountable. On no occasion in the Scriptures when men differed on doctrinal matters was an implication made that God’s revelation was unclear or ambiguous on the subject. Repeatedly, man was indicted; neither the ambiguity of the Scriptures nor man’s constitutional makeup was ever used to explain or justify differences regarding what the Bible taught.

The Application

When men begin attributing the cause of doctrinal differences to lack of clarity in God’s revelation, based on good men disagreeing on some subject, and when they appeal for unity-in-diversity on that grounds, there is no logical place to draw a line beyond which unity-in-diversity cannot be allowed.

If our differences over divorce and remarriage can be attributed to a lack of clarity in the revelation of God, because good men disagree, then our divisions over church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church arrangement, church sponsored recreation, etc. fall into the same category for the same reasons – good men have disagreed on what the revelation of God says on this subject. The same can be said about our divisions over premillennialism and instrumental music. The principles used to justify unity-in-diversity on the marriage question can be and have been applied to justify unity-in-diversity on each of these themes.

But, why stop at this point? Why not apply the same principles to baptism? Good men disagree on the action, purpose and subject of baptism. If good men disagree on these subjects, the revelation of God must lack clarity. Therefore, we should be tolerant of our differences. “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7). We can have unity-in-diversity on the subject of baptism with “Christians” in all denominations.

But, why stop at this point? Why not apply the same principles to the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ? Good men disagree on whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If good men disagree on these subjects, the revelation of God lacks clarity. Therefore, we should not pass judgment on the faith of our Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist friends. We can no more expect all men to think alike than we can expect all men to look alike. We must therefore have a unity-in-diversity on the subject of Jesus.

But, why stop at this point? Why not apply the same principles to the existence of God. Good men disagree on whether or not there is a God. If good men disagree on this subject, God must not have clearly revealed himself to mankind. Therefore, we should not pass judgment on our atheist and agnostic friends. We should practice a unity-in-diversity as our friends in the United Church of Christ have done.

How Clear Are the Teachings of God?

No doubt some are reacting by saying that God’s teachings on baptism are sufficiently clear that we cannot tolerate diversity of doctrine on that subject. Would someone like to compare Mark 16:15-16 and Luke 16:18?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery

How can we expect men to agree that conformity in doctrine is demanded on one verse but not on the other? If we can practice a unity-in-diversity on the one verge, we can practice unity-in-diversity on the other.

Conclusion

I do not want to leave the impression that I know everything. I do not. However, I do not have to know everything absolutely and exhaustively to know some things certainly. I do not understand everything about mathematics, but I certainly know that 2 + 2 = 4 and can demand conformity on that truth. The things which are revealed to us in God’s word can be known. We have every right to expect that men can understand them. And, if they understand them at all, they will understand them alike.

The appeal to lack of clarity as the reason for unity-in-diversity totally undermines Bible authority, using disagreements among men to release men from responsibility to the plain statements of God’s revelation.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 706, 725-727
December 7, 1989

By Billy Ashworth

Recently, Vanderbilt University sponsored a “Dialogue” on the subject of “The Truth About Jesus.” Attractive brochures were sent out to various churches here in Nashville, including the Hillview church where I preach. A panel of “distinguished” scholars, according to liberal religionists, was to discuss such subjects as “The Truth About Jesus,” “Portraits of Jesus in Cultural Context,” I ‘Can We Tell The Truth About Jesus?” For the full week of September 17-23, the blasphemous movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ,” was shown twice daily – a total of 14 times!

This “Dialogue” is a classic example of extreme liberalism in religious matters. I dare affirm that not one single panelist believes the Bible to be the Living Word of the Living God (Heb. 4:12). 1 also affirm that probably not a single panelist believes in the virgin birth of Christ, his bodily resurrection and ascension, and/or the miracles of Christ being reality.

Although I did not, of course, attend the “Dialogue,” I have several news articles about it taken from the Nashville Tennessean. On September 20, 1989, an article appeared written by Ray Waddle, religion news editor of the Tennessean. I quote:

“Jesus would have refused to join the Christian throng who protested The Last Temptation of Christ, author Will Campbell argued last night at a forum on ‘the Truth about Jesus!’ It behooves me to remind those brethren that, in my judgment, Jesus wouldn’t have been with them, I Campbell, the Mount Juliet-based preacher, told about 200 people at Vanderbilt University as a guest panelist. If they are going to hold up signs, they ought to say, He was against killing and war and wanton destruction of the earth. We love our Jesus so please don’t tell lies about him.’

“The question of the truth about Jesus – was he the God-man or the man nobody knows? – was taken up by Campbell and seven other panelists last night, hoping to make sense of the furor over the film, Last Temptation of Christ, which opened on campus this week. Based on a work of fiction, the movie explores the painful temptations Jesus was likely to face. (Notice, they admit the movie was based on fiction! Subsequent articles about the discussions seem to place the fictional movie on a par with, or a notch above the New Testament which reveals the only truth man can know about Jesus, and all one needs to know.)

“Some panelists expressed confidence that the real Jesus can be known with reasonable certainty though the scriptures. (This is the only sound statement made in the entire reviews I can recall. I suspect such statements were ignored by the writer while he emphasized the liberal garbage. BA) Others argued more pessimistically that the truth and message of Jesus were distorted beyond recognition almost immediately by the church that sprang up after his death and resurrection as recorded in the New Testament.

“Theologian Thomas Altizer (of “God is dead” infamy, BA) defended Nikos Kazantzakis, the Greek author of the 1955 book on which the movie was based, as a man firmly in the mold of radical prophet who constantly offends most deeply held religious doctrines of the day. ‘One must negate our traditions about Jesus in order to open oneself to Jesus,’ said Altizer, an influential thinker who teaches at the State University of New York. Altizer asserted that no religious figure in history has inspired more resistance and controversy than Jesus, whose revolutionary use of parables was soon lost or rejected by the church, which turned his message into alien philosophical doctrines of ‘infinite distance from the original event.’

“Campbell similarly argued that the church replaced Jesus’ dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent. (I would like for these “wise and prudent” theologians to tell how they learned the truth about the “revolutionary use of parables of Jesus being lost or rejected by the church” or that the church “replaced Jesus’ dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent.” After nearly four decades of diligent study of the New Testament, I have failed to find any such foolish and rotten doctrines. Since we have over forty parables of Jesus in the New Testament, I wonder how many parables of Jesus were rejected. And Campbell’s assertion about Jesus’ “dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand being replaced by the church with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent,” is totally unfounded in the Word of God which is all Truth. It would be interesting to hear Campbell tell what the “dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand” was. Oh, how I wish I had been there and had a chance to ask him!)

In the Tennessean (September 26, 1989, Section B-1), an article by Ray Waddle was headed “Panel says Jesus, Scriptures conflict. ” I quote:

“The historical Jesus of Nazareth will always be an elusive figure who bears little or no resemblance to the Scriptures Christians use in worshipping him, a panel asserted last night. But modem liberal pessimism about the possibility that people can know anything about the real Jesus does nothing to invalidate his mysterious, inspirational hold on millions, one of the panelists added.

“He is a figure around whom people gather – and revelation happens, Walter Harrelson, Old Testament professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School, said near the end of a panel discussion on ‘The Truth about Jesus’ at Vanderbilt University. ‘I don’t want to say that questions about his history have no relation to these affirmations of faith. They must intersect in some strange way.’

“Harrelson appeared with Jean Elshtain, Vanderbilt political science professor, and Robert Funk, director of the Westar Institute in Pomona, Cal., in the final panel capping a week of campus discussions centered around questions of Jesus raised by the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. Funk’s Wester Institute sponsors an ongoing study group of mainstream liberatsabplars called the Jesus Seminar, which has won notoriety by concluding that most of the various written sayings of Jesus in the New Testament and Other sources are not likely authentic.

“‘He seems to have been a wanderer, which puts him in the category of living on the margins of society,’ Funk said. ‘He seems to have flunked the Fifth Commandment, to honor your father and mother. To say, Unless you hate your father and mother you’re not ready for the kingdom of God What does that mean? Was he ready for the funny farm? Did he mean it literally?’ (Consider the blasphemous, irreverent statements here. How could such a person direct an “ongoing study group of mainstream liberal biblical scholars called the Jesus Seminar” with any objectivity? Also, why do they continue such liberal activity based on infidelity, unless it is to destroy faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? BA)

“The ‘vulnerable, perplexed’ Jesus of the movie Last Temptation says much more about director Martin Scorcese’s view than it can about the historical Jesus, Elshtain said. During a question-and-answer period, some students questioned Funk’s assumptions about the historical unreliability of the New Testament.

“One argued that scholars impose a double standard if they question the New Testament, but accept the veracity of surviving accounts about Roman emperors such as Tiberias.”

I believe these accounts adequately expose this whole “Dialogue” as a sham as far as the theme “The Truth about Jesus” is concerned.

To the question, “Can We Know the Truth about JesusT I can answer for myself with an emphatic yes! The reason for my answer is that the New Testament reveals the truth about Jesus. For the majority of the participants and panelists I can the answer the question for them with an emphatic no! Why? Because they have rejected the only source that reveals the truth about Jesus – the New Testament. Of course, these way-out liberals apparently think that such uninspired and biased men such as the author of the book from which the movie, The Last Temptation of Jemis, was made, can shed some truth about Jesus.

The wonderful statement that Jesus made and has been recorded in the gospel according to Matthew 11:25, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent (intelligent, NASB), and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight” is so appropriate for the infidels of our day.

Several years ago, brother Harris Dark told me concerning the infidelity that emanates from Vanderbilt School of Divinity: “They don’t come out and say that the Bible isn’t true, they just ask leading questions of doubt.” That is the same tactic used by the devil since the seduction of Eve in the garden – asking leading questions of doubt that lead people into agnosticism. The fledging theology students who come under such influence leave and go out and make other infidels.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 707-708
December 7, 1989