Truth Magazine

By William C. Sexton

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8).

Paul stated a principle in the above verse to the Galatians which all of us need to be aware of and apply in our lives, always. Even a great apostle as Paul, should he declare something other than the primitive, revealed gospel, has a curse on him and should not be accepted. Even an angel can’t change the gospel without being “eternally condemned” (NIV).

Don’t follow “great men,” people who have gained great respect from us, to accept views that are not scriptural. Paul’s point is this: Don’t allow anyone to persuade you to accept something that has not been revealed in the original gospel message!

This constitutes a great danger for us. We are not likely to follow people we don’t respect. When people whom we have come to respect and think of as being “great” teachers speak, we listen! They have a great deal more influence on us than others, so we should be careful. Men of repute have been the cause of many people turning down a road of departure from the revealed will of God.

Peter turned aside to practice something that was contrary to the original gospel, and Paul was obligated to withstand him to his face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11). Peter’s action caused one of lessor repute (Barnabas) to “be carried away” with this “dissimulation. ” Paul was faithful in his duty; he called on Peter to repent of his sinful behavior, showing how sinful his action was and the consequences of his inconsistency. Galatians 2:17 says, “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.”

With equal zeal and determination, we, too, should act as Paul did. “Great men,” are still just men, having no right to teach anything other than what God’s holy men moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21) have taught.

It is my observation that men who seem to be “somewhat” (Gal. 2:6 “God [really] accepteth no man’s person”) have been able in most of the departures to lead men away and get them involved in things they would otherwise not have gotten into.

All of us have been helped by other men and women who have studied the Bible and gained a reputation for their knowledge and dedication to Christ. However, we must always be able to listen and reason, accepting only that which we can see as being the real teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

We need not stop listening to or seeking the sound teachings and wisdom of men and women who over the years have shown their dedication to the Lord. May we ever be a bit skeptical, however, and not be willing to accept anything they say if it is not based solidly upon holy writ.

The time comes in each of our lives when we need to question another’s views on things that he is teaching, regardless of his experience, devotion, and reputation.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, p. 431
July 20, 1989

By Dennis Abernathy

In Acts 10, 11:1-18 and 15:6-14 is found the account of the conversion of Cornelius and his house. From these verses you will find that Cornelius was a devout man (a man of deep religious feelings). He was a man who feared God and gave generously to those in need. He prayed to God regularly, and was respected by all the Jewish people.

At first glance, it might appear strange that such a man should stand in need of conversion, but I am convinced that there are people yet today who are like Cornelius. Perhaps you are reading this short article, while entertaining the thought that your prospects for eternity are good. You are honest in your business, honorable in your association with men, a good husband or wife, generous to your neighbors, and benevolent to the poor. You may even attend worship services quite regularly. You may be thinking: “What have I to fear at the hands of a just and merciful God?”

But listen! Cornelius was a good man. His friends referred to him as a “righteous and God-fearing man, respected by all the Jews.” But the question remains, did he need to obey God? Was he in need of salvation? Yes indeed! How can we know this? Read further.

In Acts 10:6, Cornelius is told to send for Peter and “he will tell you what you must do.” Do for what? Acts 11:14 says: “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.” Cornelius understood this and was anxious to listen to Peter, so he sent for him immediately. When Peter arrived at his house, Cornelius said: “Now, therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God” (10:33). Verse 34, says, “Then Peter opened his mouth and said. . . ” What did Peter tell this good and devout man?

He began by stating that God was not a respecter of persons, “but in every nation whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him” (10:34-35). He then told of Jesus’ personal ministry, of his death, burial, and resurrection and how his resurrection was verified by witnesses (10:36-41). Peter then said, in verses 42-43: “And he commanded us to preach to the people . . . that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Peter continued in verse 47: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?. . . And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Acts 15:7, we read: “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” He states further in verse 9: “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” After hearing Peter rehearse his preaching to the Gentiles, the circumcision concluded, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).

Let us now sum up what we have discovered thus far. (1) Jesus of Nazereth was preached (his personal ministry, his death, burial and resurrection). (2) Also preached, was faith, repentance and baptism. (3) Those who reacted to this teaching (i.e., believed or obeyed) received remission of sins (life) and had their hearts purified.

I now call your attention to Luke 24:46-47. “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” In the second chapter of Acts we find devout men from every nation under heaven dwelling in Jerusalem. The gospel is preached. Peter is the preacher on this occasion also. When asked what they must do in order to be saved, Peter responded: “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:5,38). Thus, repentance and remission of sins was preached in the name of Jesus, to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. The Jews who heard, believed, repented and were baptized received the remission of sins. At the house of Cornelius, the Gentiles who heard, believed, repented and were baptized received the remission of sins. The same preacher preached the same message to both Jew and Gentile and when they obeyed that message they received the same blessing -the remission of sins!

Dear reader, are you a devout, deeply religious person who fears God? Have you done what those in Acts 2 did? Have you done what Cornelius and his house did? Have you obeyed the Lord’s commands (Acts 10:33; Lk. 24:46-47; Acts 10:43,47; Acts 2:38)? Do you need to obey God?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, p. 429
July 20, 1989

By Charles C. Andrews

It was the week of Thanksgiving, 1974; my wife, Patti, and I were in the midst of our second Nebraska winter. For a Florida native the “thrill” of seeing snow was short-lived. We had only been married and away from the “Sunshine State” for 18 months, and we were suffering from a terrible case of homesickness. To make matters worse, my immediate supervisor, Sgt. Umholtz, had just informed me on the day before Thanksgiving, that I would probably spend the rest of my four year Air Force enlistment right where I stood at that moment, on the flight line at SAC HQ, Omaha, Nebraska. I was desperate to leave Nebraska!

The following Monday, I made my way (through three feet of snow), to the Consolidated Base Personnel Office where I filled out a new “dream sheet” (really a request for a permanent change of location, but since you rarely went where you wanted too it was truly a “dream”). My request was simple, “World-wide, any tour length.” What I was telling the Air Force was, “Hey guys, I’ll go anywhere you want me to go, for any length of time, just get me out of here! ” And, to my astonishment, the Air Force took me seriously (be careful what you ask for, you may get it, is the moral of that story). In less than two months I had orders to Incirlik Air Base, in Adana, Turkey, a city of 300,000 people, some 15 miles east of Paul’s old stomping grounds, Tarsus.

In May of ’75, 1 left the U.S., and in less than a day I was 10,000 miles away, standing on Turkish soil. In July Patti joined me there, and thus began our year-long pilgrimage together in a foreign land.

The Air Force told us that as strangers among the Turkish people certain things were expected from us, and others were not. We were required, for example, to obey Turkish laws and submit to Turkish authorities. Unlike diplomats, who have immunity, if we were involved in a traffic accident then we would be subject to the Turkish version of traffic court. And I can guarantee you that Judge Wapner does not preside over Turkish courts!

On the other hand, we were not expected to learn the language, even though it was helpful to do so, nor were we required to adopt the customs of the Turks, After all, we were strangers!

While we were in Turkey, we spent countless ” hours talking about home. Remembering, missing and longing for the good old U.S.A. Even a “Big Mac” sounded good after being deprived for a year. We marked the days off on a calendar, and very few military personnel could not tell you, to the day, how much time they had left before they get to go “home!” Finally, our day came. It was in August of 76, a day we will long remember and cherish!

Christians are to view their life on this earth in much the same way. We are pilgrims in a very real sense. Peter said in 1 Peter 2:11, “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul.” W.E. Vine tells us that a pilgrim is one who is “sojourning in a strange place, away from one’s own people . . . used . . . of those to whom Heaven is their own country, and who are sojourners on earth” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. W.E. Vine, p. 183).

We sing in the song that this world is not our home. We also sing that we are just straying pilgrims. Is this true? Why does Peter call us such? Because we are “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, his own special people” (1 Pet. 2:9). But siniply, we belong to God now, no longer to the world. We have been adopted into the family of God (Rom. 8:14,15) as God’s sons (Eph. 1:5). Through our obedience to the gospel of Christ we are not only saved from our past sins, we also change addresses (1 Pet. 1:17-25). That means that, although we live on this earth, we are not really at home here.

Therefore, as pilgrims and strangers certain things are expected of us, and others things are not expected. We live in the world, but we are not to be of the world (1 Cor. 5:10). We are to submit to the laws of the land and obey those who rule over us (1 Pet. 2:11-17), but we are not to love the world (1 Jn. 2:15-17), conform to the world’s standards (Rom. 12:2), or set our minds on the things of the world (Col. 3:2). We can’t even be friends with the world without becoming the enemy of God (Jas. 4:4). Consequently, we should not learn the language, wear the fashions, adopt the standards of behavior, nor accept the customs of those around us. After all, we’re strangers here.

As pilgrims and sojourners we are here for a very short amount of time. Our thoughts, speech, behavior and hearts should be set on the things above, in our heavenly home, where our Father is.

We must avoid becoming so enthralled with the foreign land that we don’t want to leave it. While we were in Turkey we made friends with a sergeant who had married a local Turkish girl. Even though he was an American, he had already extended his initial stay there some 10 years, and he was planning to retire and live out the rest of his life in a foreign land. He even thought about giving up his American citizenship and becoming a Turk! How sad it is when a saint turns his back on the one who died for him, on the one who sent his Son to die, to give up his heavenly citizenship and return to live in the world.

Patti and I enjoyed (?) our stay in Turkey, but we cheered when the plan touched down on the runway at J.F.K. Airport. We were finally home, back to the place we longed for such a time. Shouldn’t we all feel this way toward heaven, our real home?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, p. 430
July 20, 1989

By Wayne S. Walker

There are two basic attitudes toward Bible authority. One attitude says that the New Testament was intended as a divine pattern or rule book for the church and that we must have Bible authority for everything we do in religion. (Such is the position taken by this author.) The other says that the Scriptures are more of a general guide for us today and that we can use our own judgment in following or not following certain specific teachings based upon our own needs and circumstances. This difference can be seen as far back as the early Reformation period. The Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli taught that, if the Bible does not tell us to do something, we ought not to do it. In contrast, the German reformer Martin Luther held that if the Bible does not tell us not to do something, then we are at liberty to do it.

This same difference arose among New Testament churches of Christ back in the middle to later part of the nineteenth century of our nation when brethren were discussing the missionary society and instrumental music issues. In his book The Stone-Campbell Movement (1981), Leroy Garrett gave an illustration of this divergence of view. Speaking of a 1969 unity dialogue, he quoted a statement made be Reuel Lemmons. “When Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation, was asked if he saw instrumental music as the main roadblock to fellowship with the Christian Church, his answer was no. ‘The thing that really separates these two great groups of the brotherhood,’ he said, ‘is their respective position regarding the Scriptures.’ He explained that the Churches of Christ speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent, while the Christian Churches speak where the Bible speaks and ‘where the Bible is silent we are free to choose'” (p. 666).

Brother Lemmons has said much with which I cannot concur. However, with this observation I am in full agreement. (By the way, the book which is the source of this citation is not one which I can recommend.) Even closer to our own time, the attitude, “We can do many things for which we have or need no authority,” has led to the introduction of sponsoring church arrangements, church-supported benevolent institutions, church-subsidized colleges, church-arranged recreation and entertainment, and other innovations which have divided congregations of God’s people. And now, there are some among us who are saying that we ought to go ahead, recognize all the people who accept these things as faithful brethren, and have fellowship with them because if we do not find a passage of Scripture that says, “Thou shalt not” do something, we cannot say that folks are wrong when they do it.

What does the Bible itself have to say about this problem? We need to lay aside all that fallible men have said about the silence of the Scriptures, go back to the Bible, and see what it says about what to do when God says nothing. And the best place I know to turn is Hebrews 7:11-14. “Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” (See chart #1).

The Principle Stated

First, we want to look at what God said. Concerning the priesthood, God said that the priests were to come from the tribe of Levi (v. 11). God named Aaron, a Levite, to be the first high priest (Exod. 4:14; 28:1-3). He and his sons after him were appointed to this office (Exod. 40:12-15). The tribe of Levi was appointed over the tabernacle (Num. 1:47-54). This tribe was to minister to Aaron instead of the firstborn from the other ten tribes (Num. 3:6-13). Aaron’s brethren of the tribe of Levi were to be joined with him in keeping charge of the sanctuary (Num. 18:1-7). The Levites were separated from the other tribes to stand before the Lord (Deut. 10:8-9). They were specifically chosen by God to come near him (Deut. 21:5). God gave them authority to bring incense before him and offer burnt sacrifice to him (Deut. 33:8-10). Thus, any of the descendants of Aaron would be qualified to serve as priests.

God did not say, “Thou shalt not have priests of the tribes of Reuben, Benjamin, Ephraim, Judah, etc.” But neither did he say that such was permitted. He was silent on the matter. Did his silence authorize or prohibit? It certainly did not permit Dathan, Abiram, and On, descendants of Reuben, to bring incense before the Lord (Num. 16:1-35). King Saul, of Benjamin, was rejected because he offered a burnt sacrifice (1 Sam. 9:1-2; 13:8-10). One of the sins of Jeroboam, king of Israel and member of the tribe of Ephraim, was to make priests of people who were not the sons of Levi (1 Kgs. 12:25-31). Even in Judah, when king Uzziah tried to burn incense in the temple, he was struck with leprosy to show God’s displeasure. Why? Because he was not of the tribe of Levi.

As we turn to the New Testament, the same principle holds true. Even God’s own Son, Jesus Christ, could not be a priest upon the earth. “Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. . . . For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:1-4). Why? Again, it was because he was of the tribe of Judah, “Of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” God did not have to say, “Thou shalt not. . . ” and then name every other tribe of the children of Israel. When he specified one tribe, Levi, he automatically forbade all others.

The Principle Repeated

Before we go on, we want to look at a few passages of Scripture where this principle is repeated. From a positive standpoint, all we do is to be done in the name of Christ Jesus. “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Col. 3:17). To act “in the name of” someone means to act by his authority. An ambassador who goes to another country “in the name of” the President of the United States is authorized only to do those things which the President actually instructs him to do. Also, we are to speak only as the oracle of God. “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 4:11). This verse is the basis for the saying, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; and where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Only in this way can God truly be glorified.

From a negative standpoint, the Bible tell us not to go beyond the things that are written. “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other” (1 Cor. 4:6, ASV). Also, we are told that the one who transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11). Furthermore, the latter passage commands us not to have fellowship with nor give our approval to one who has gone beyond the doctrine of Christ.

In fact, Jesus condemned those who work lawlessness. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonderful works in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'” (Matt. 7:21-23) The word “lawlessness” (KJV, “iniquity”) is defined in the original language by C.L. Wilibald Grimm (translated by Joseph Henry Thayer) as, “prop. the condition of one without law, – either because ignorant of it, or because violating it.” It describes one who is acting without authority. Those who operate without the expressed approval of Jesus are guilty of lawlessness or iniquity. Thus we can see that only what can be proven to be the will of the Father in heaven is authorized.

The Principle Applied

Let us look at some examples of the application of this principle. First, we shall notice how it applies to specific authority (see chart #2). God has said that we are to eat the Lord’s supper. In addition, he has said specifically that we are to use bread and the fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:26-29). He was silent about using any other elements, such as hamburgers and sodas. Does this silence authorize or prohibit? There is no command, “Thou shalt not use hamburgers and sodas on the Lord’s table.” If the position that when God’s word does not specifically condemn an action it is permitted be true, does that mean that it is all right for us to have hamburgers and sodas in the Lord’s supper? And, if we decide not to, but other folks do, can we be united with them and bid them godspeed?

What God Said:	This Specified:	Silence:
Eat the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26-29)	Bread and   Fruit of Vine	Hamburgers   and Soda
Baptism Essential   (Acts 2:38)	Immersion   (Rom. 6:3-4)	Sprinkling   Pouring
Music in the   Worship of the Church	Singing   (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)	Instrumental   Music

Christ has said that baptism is essential for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Moreover, he has specifically said that the action of baptism involves a burial or an immersion (Rom. 6:3-4). His word is silent concerning any other action, such as sprinkling or pouring. Does his silence prohibit or authorize? We have no command, “Thou shalt not practice sprinkling or pouring for baptism.” If the view is true that whatever is not prohibited is permitted, may we be allowed to substitute sprinkling or pouring for immersion? Or, if we choose not to do so but other people do, must we refrain from condemning them because “the Bible does not say not to”?

The word of God has spoken concerning music in the worship of the church. And whenever music is used to praise the Lord under the new covenant, singing is specified (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). Some have argued that the New Testament is silent about congregational singing but mentions only individual singing. But it should be obvious that for us to “teach and admonish one another,” we must be together. “One another” is a reciprocal, reflexive pronoun that suggests mutual action. If it could be established that congregational singing is not authorized in the New Testament, then we should abandon it. However, congregational singing in worship is authorized. Instrumental music is not. Therefore, by the same principle that using hamburgers and sodas in the communion service or substituting sprinkling or pouring for baptism is to be rejected, instrumental music must also be prohibited and those who practice it considered apostates.

However, it is also affirmed that the New Testament is as silent on instrumental music as it is on church buildings, song books, and collection baskets. These are expedients, therefore instrumental music can be classified as an expedient and its use thereby justified. The argument runs, “Since the Bible is ‘silent’ about all these things, we may choose to use nor not to use any of them.” The problem here is one of equivocation as to what is meant by “silent.” We must understand the difference between generic and specific authority. If God had merely told us to “make music,” the choice of what kind would be left up to our discretion. But the Bible specified “singing.” That is what God said. To add another kind of music (whether in congregational or individual worship) is an area where God has not spoken. Thus, we need to examine how the principle applies to generic authority (see chart #3).

God says to assemble for worship (Heb. 10:24-25). However, he has said nothing specifically as to a required place. (Actually, such a place is loosed for us in Jn. 4:21-24.) A church building, with pews, lights, etc., is simply an expedient way of carrying out a generic command. When we have a building, lights, and pews, we are still assembling for worship. However, the Bible is silent about churches building kitchens, dining halls, gymnasiums, etc., because we have no command, even generically, to assemble for recreation or entertainment. Thus, there can be no expedient ways to do such.

God says for us to sing in worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). But he has said nothing as to the specifics of how to read the words or obtain the pitch, two necessary elements of singing. Song books are an expedient to obeying a generic command and do not add another kind of music. We are not singing and “booking.” We are merely reading the words to facilitate our singing. Nor does a pitch pipe add another kind of music. It merely gives us a pitch which enables us to sing. However, the Bible is silent about instrumental music, and the use of a mechanical instrument does add a different kind of music. It is no longer just “singing” but singing and playing. It is not an expedient to singing.

God says for Christians to give of their means on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). He has said nothing about a specific method of taking up this collection. A collection plate is only an expedient tool to accomplish this generic command. It does not in any way change the nature of the command itself. At the same time, taking up weekday collections and selling goods for profit do change the nature of the command. The first changes the specified day and the second changes it from a free-will offering. Therefore, these cannot be expedients because they do not accomplish what God has said that he wanted to be done. The Bible is silent about them.

So the equivocation is clear. The Bible is not actually “silent” about church buildings, song books, and collection baskets. While they are not mentioned specifically by name, they are authorized generically to carry out what God has specifically told us to do. We shall close this article at this point and in a concluding article we shall continue our application of this principle of Bible silence to some other problems that have bothered members of the Lord’s church down through the years.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, pp. 434-436
July 20, 1989