Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

In the introduction to his book on The Deacon and His Work, James D. Bales said: “Some may think that the eldership is so important that there is no need to be concerned about the deaconship. Thus some congregations exercise care in selecting elders, but give little thought to the selection of deacons. However, this office also is important, or God would not have instituted it. One should be as careful to follow God’s will in selecting deacons as they are in selecting elders. In other words, churches should select qualified deacons as well as qualified elders. Thus the church needs to study the deaconship. “

It should be remembered that the wisdom of God is higher than the wisdom of men (Isa. 55:8,9). Our Lord had a real purpose in his provision for deacons in the local church. It has been observed by some that “elders do the work of the deacons, deacons do the work of the members, and the members do nothing but gripe and complain about how the elders and deacons are doing it.” Let us be careful lest we thwart the plan of God. The deaconship should not be overshadowed in our thinking.

Realizing the need for a study on deacons, the editor asked me to put together this special issue. There are many good writers and Bible students among us. The men selected to help in this study are men who are respected by those who know them best for their sincerity, dedication, and ability to provide us with some meaningful material. This study is sent forth with a prayer that the reader will give it serious consideration and will be helped in understanding the purpose and plan of God for deacons in the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, p. 677
November 16, 1989

By Dennis Abernathy

“Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another” (Rom. 14:19). The Psalmist said: “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it” (Psa. 34:14). To seek and pursue peace is to make every effort to do the things which lead to or bring about peace. Peace is wonderful and refreshing as a breath of fresh air on a spring day. We ought to make every effort to attain unto it.

Is it possible to seek peace, yea, to even pursue it, and yet not attain peace with a brother or sister in Christ, or within a

local congregation for that matter? Yes indeed. When one approaches a brother or sister in Christ, seeking to bring about peace, and those approached undermine your influence, try to destroy your reputation, hold you at arms length or otherwise isolate themselves from you, there is no way to make peace.

Many things can cause peace to be disrupted. The only way to have peace is to stop the things which disrupt peace. Peace among brethren is disrupted by worldliness, gossip, whispering campaigns, self-wined attitudes, pride, selfishness, envy, jealousy, intolerance, binding one’s opinion, hatefulness and discourtesy, etc. I might add, that false teaching will also disrupt peace.

The Christian is to work for peace. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). It behooves each of us to do all we can to pursue peace, without sacrificing truth and duty to God. “If it is possible” implies that with some it is “impossible” to be at peace. Peace with brethren is a two-way street. Two cannot be at peace if one has no desire for it. We ought to be willing to sacrifice our own personal rights, liberties, and preferences rather than stir up trouble in the church. I should never seek to bind my personal opinion and push it on others to the disturbance of the church. Neither should I be determined to have my own way about things that are of no importance. There are things that brethren may or may not do and we should leave brethren free to pursue whichever course they desire. We must contend for the faith, and, that earnestly (Jude 3), but we must never contend to the point of binding, for traditions, opinions and customs. Granted, when we contend for the faith it may disrupt peace, but when we contend for our opinions it will disrupt peace and we will be to blame, i.e., we are not pursuing peace, but strife.

If you are at odds with your brethren or with a brother or sister, why not go to them and talk about it (read Matt. 18:15; 5:23-24)? In other words, pursue peace! It is true, that on occasion our brother or sister may not listen or desire reconciliation. What then? There is little else, other than prayer that you can do. But perhaps they will listen to another. Try all within your power to restore peace and continue to serve God.

In conclusion, read 1 Peter 3:11; Hebrews 12:14, and 1 Thessalonians 5:13. “Finally, brethren, goodbye. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, p. 646
November 2, 1989

By Robert F. Turner

Carmelo Casella edits a paper in Tasmania, Australia called Discipling, in which he advocates what I believe to be an erroneous doctrine concerning the personal ministry of Christ, and our use of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Copies of many pages of this material have been sent to me for review. Ordinarily I would write what I had to say and just send, it to the inquirer, but because this position is also found in the United States, and Casella’s paper is sent to some in this country, I feel we should all give these matters our attention. The following only answers material at hand, but we should be further concerned with the basic principle of N.T. usage which is involved.

Some years ago in a written discussion on remarriage, my opponent took the position that Jesus’ “except for fornication” in Matthew 19:9 was but an explanation to the Jews of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and applied only to those under the Law of Moses. He contended that death was the only scriptural cause for remarriage, and that no exception is made to people under the New Covenant. Now, this preacher says whether or not a person who has been divorced because of adultery could ever remarry, “is not a question of any significance in the doctrine of Christ.” You guessed it! He says Matthew 19:9 applied only to those under the Law of Moses. In both cases the divorce problem triggered the arguments, and in both cases we are asked to dismiss a teaching of Christ because it is not specifically repeated in “Acts through Revelation.”

In this later case the writer says, “It was impossible for Jesus to give us his doctrine while he himself was subject to the doctrine of Moses.” It was not impossible for Isaiah (under Moses’ law) to teach things that would be a part of the New Covenant – such as the acceptance of gentiles (49:6). This premise cripples the preparatory work of Jesus, teaching the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23). It shows a poor understanding of that period when things were being readied for Christianity. Luke wrote, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (16:16). Jesus set forth principles of a spiritual kingdom which built upon, but would supercede, Judaism. He could say he was Lord also of the sabbath (Mk. 2:28). He taught with authority and not as the scribes (Mk. 1:22). We do not have to deny that the New Covenant was made effective by the death of Jesus to accept teachings he set forth during his life time, and which were later written for our benefit.

We are told the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth, and they would set forth “the doctrine of Christ”; and we fully believe that. But the conclusion is drawn, those who want to know Christ’s doctrine “will find it all from the second chapter of Acts on to the end of the New Testament . . . . the sum total of God’s will for people who want to be in the kingdom of heaven.” This seems to ignore the fact that the Apostles and N.T. prophets, by the Holy Spirit, gave us more. The synoptic gospels were written long after Pentecost and John even later; and they were written “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed” (Lk. 1:1-4); “of all that Jesus began both to do and teach” (Acts 1:1-2); “that ye might believe . . . and have life through his name” (Jn. 20:31). Jesus told the Apostles, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you can not bear them now.” But when the Holy Spirit would come, He would “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jn. 14:26); as well as reveal additional things (Jn. 16:12-13). The gospels contain the “doctrine of Christ.”

Any exegete worthy of the name knows that circumstances (who speaks, where, why, etc.) must be considered, and that some teachings of Jesus were peculiar to Judaism (Matt. 8:4); but the same consideration of circumstances must be observed in studying “Acts through Revelation” (Acts 21:23-26). The Jewish government was originally a Theocracy, and priests were civil as well as religious leaders. These circumstances continued to some extent through the early days of the church, and until Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans. Social customs of the day also affect our application of Scriptures: the kiss of greeting, foot washing, etc.; but such are found in the teaching after Pentecost as well as before. Somehow I get the impression that Jesus’ personal ministry teaching on marriage and divorce is the main problem, and some would change the rules of exegesis rather than accept it. Let us hope this is not so.

We are told that,2 Peter 3:2 divides Scriptures into two categories: (1) the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and (2) the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. (Unwarranted emphasis is placed on “spoken.”) What Jesus said in his personal ministry, unless repeated in “Acts through Revelation,” is supposed to be as a prophet to the Jews, and have no application to all nations. While Jesus was Prophet of prophets (Acts 3:22f), he has spoken “in these last days” (Christian dispensation) as distinguished from prophets of old (Heb. 1:1-2). His teaching before death is not apart from the apostle’s later teaching, but apart of that teaching, as shown by their setting it forth (writing Matt., Mk., Lk., Jn.), and stating the purpose of those writings for people of all nations (Matt. 28:20; Mk. 1:1; Lk. 1:14; Jn. 20:31).

After the above, and more, the subject of our review admits the prophecies, examples and history of the “beforetime” revelations are needed. He cites the “Royal Laws”‘ (Love God, and man, Mk. 12:28-31) and says “Since most of what Jesus taught . . . Israel was really an expansion of these two great commandments, then most of what Jesus taught is applicable in the kingdom . . . because the two great commandments apply universally.” This is nice and soothing after pages of major surgery on the personal ministry of Jesus. But we have not forgotten that from all that teaching which does apply to us, the editor has deleted Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:4-9, etc.). It would be interesting to see a list of what else is left out, other than the obvious national and social matters which affect interpretation before and after Acts 2.

And what is more “universal” than the marriage law which was “from the beginning”? Jesus acknowledged – that Moses had “allowed” (“suffered”) divorce (see Acts 14:16; 17:30), but declared, “from the beginning it was not so.” The nature of the union which God ordered makes no place for adultery – it violates the sanctity God intended. This is not to say adultery erases marriage – that there must be a divorce. But its sanctity has been violated, and the resultant “exception” is inherent in the universal law of marriage that was “from the beginning.” When men seek to erase Matthew 19:9, et al., from the New Covenant they tamper with a universal law of God. And when this tampering takes the form of new rules that limit the Lord’s teaching to “Acts through Revelation” the first error is compounded.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, pp. 645-646
November 2, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

Francis Crick, Life Itself. Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 25

From time to time, human beings have reflected upon how life began on earth. Many people in the past believed (and some of us in the present still believe) that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Others, styling themselves “modern,” reject such notions in favor of this or that new theory, baptized at the font of “science.”

It ought to be apparent upon some reflection that any or all of these theories, when pushed back to their ultimate bases, can be said to be either theistic or materialistic. Either matter always existed, and somehow produced all living forms from its inanimate self; or some form of intelligence or divinity has always existed, able to design and bring about life. (Another alternative is that nothing always existed, and that something – indeed, everything we see today – came from nothing.) We accept the thesis that it is as easy (and requires as much faith) to believe one as to accept another.

It is surely equally obvious that none of these proposed explanations are “scientific” but rather are philosophical or religious. Whatever position one chooses to believe, the origin of life was not observable, repeatable, or testable. This can prove to be quite frustrating for anyone who chooses to limit “knowledge” to what can be quantified or studied empirically.

In this article, we ask our readers to consider briefly with us some of the possible alternatives for the origin of life, beginning with the proposed “chemical” theory that life could have begun in some primeval soup. We believe that the simple declarative statement, “by the word of the Lord were the heavens made . . . for He spoke, and it was done” (Psa. 33:6,9) will not suffer by comparison.

We begin our consideration of the origin of life with an examination of a popular theory (“proven” in the popular mind by experimental demonstrations by Oparin, Miller & Urey, Fox, and others). These empirical demonstrations whereby life’s basic building blocks may be produced by passing an electrical discharge through certain chemicals in a closed system are certainly impressive, even elegant, in their conception and execution. Of course, one may argue that they simply demonstrate that intelligence can re-arrange existing materials into other forms. They certainly do not address the more basic question of how chemicals and electricity came to be in the first place. And they make large and unprovable assumptions about the nature of the early atmosphere which would have been necessary to have produced such experimental work writ large in nature.

But there are other problems as well. If one dismisses all the above considerations and objections and accepts by faith that it could or might have happened that way, the question remains: How likely is it that life began in this way? Now, I am no chemist (as may already be evident), so like most others, I must rely on the testimony of those who are.

One such individual is Nobel Prize-winner Francis Crick. His 1981 book, Life Itself. Its Origin & Nature is a good short summary of some of the concepts sketched above. Crick makes an attempt to calculate whether it is highly likely or very unlikely that life arose from some chemical broth. His conclusion (which we will consider in our next installment) is that one really cannot tell.

Does that mean that Crick considers creation of life by God a reasonable alternative hypothesis? Certainly not, since he declares “the limitless powers of God” to be “a doubtful proposition at best” (p. 25). Does he then have some other hypothesis to propose? He certainly does – but don’t hold your breath. (Continued).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, p. 653
November 2, 1989