Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

A magazine of history reported on America’s fascination with Jesus. Many writers have tried to explain who he is during the last 200 years.

Novelists, biographers, reformers, poets, and businessmen joined theologians and ministers in the attempt to explain what Jesus was really like, hoping that Christianity could be understood in modem terms.

He was a capitalist. He was an urban reformer. He was a country boy. He was “Comrade Jesus,” a hardworking socialist. He was the world’s first ad man.

Clearly, most of these self-serving portraits of Jesus tell us more about the lives and times of their American authors than they do about Palestine two thousand years ago (Patrick Allitt, “The American Christ,” American Heritage, Nov. 1988, pp. 128-41, see p. 128).

Jesus has been explained as a human philosopher, a black Muslim, and a psychologist who originated the positive-mental-attitude. Others have said he was a head angel or one of many prophets who have appeared in history.

The speculations and theories of modem man can never answer the question, “Who is Jesus?” The eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus left the only reliable testimony about him the world will ever have. Their testimony is sound historically on the same terms as other ancient documents, but, more than that, it was inspired of God so as to preclude any possibility of error (Lk. 1:1-4; Jn. 20:30-31; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Jesus is the Christ of the prophets. The Old Testament prophets spoke of God sending his chosen Servant, Savior, and King to bless all mankind. This chosen one is called “the Messiah” (from Hebrew) or “the Christ” (from Greek) someone anointed or set apart to a special office. The prophets predicted the coming of God’s chosen one from the family of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) – from the tribe of Judah (49: 10) – a great prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:18) – a king from the royal lineage of David (Psa. 2; Isa. 11:1) – one to be born of a virgin, and in Bethlehem (Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:2).

There is no possibility of mistaking the Messiah. Jesus alone fulfilled the prophecies and he fulfilled every one of them. Andrew told Simon, “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. ” Philip told Nathanael, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (Jn. 1:41,46).

Jesus is the son of man. Ezekiel is often called “the son of man,” meaning one who dwells in the flesh, of the order of humanity, or sharing the nature of mankind (Ezek. 2: 1, 3,8ff). The flesh is frail but the son of man must have a heart tender and open to God’s Word, which must be spoken with a determination “harder than flint” (3:7-11). Daniel saw by prophetic vision “one like the Son of man” coming to receive “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom . . . which shall not pass away” (7:13-14).

Jesus is called the Son of man 78 times in Matthew John. He identified with humanity by sharing both the blessings and the sorrows of mankind. “The Son of man came eating and drinking,” yet “the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matt. 11:19; 8:20). He had power to perform miracles and to forgive sins, and was “Lord even of the sabbath day” (9:6; 12:8). In order to save a lost humanity, the Son of man was crucified and raised from the dead (Lk. 19:10; Jn. 12:23-24).

Jesus is the son of God. Jesus once asked his disciples, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” Several answers were given, but Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:13-16). Jesus is of the order of Deity and shares the full nature of Godhood. He is both human and divine, fully man and fully God. When he spoke of “my Father and I,” he made himself equal with God (Jn. 5:17-18). “Before Abraham was, I AM” – Jesus was Deity (Jn. 8:58). We must “honor the Son” even as the Father (5:23).

God’s Son is the brightness of God’s glory “and the express image of his person.” Jesus is not a high angel but is “much better than the angels.” God never told an angel, “Thou art my son” (Heb. 1). God must be worshipped but not men or angels. Both men and angels worship Jesus Christ because he is divine, Deity, one of the Godhead (Matt. 4:10; Jn. 9:38; Heb. 1:6).

Jesus is the Saviorfor all men. Jesus Christ came to bruise or crush the head of Satan for all men (Gen. 3:15). Referring to Christ as the seed or descendant of Abraham, God promised, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:8,16). The Messiah was to establish God’s spiritual family so that men of “all nations shall flow unto it” (Isa. 2:14). In the same day when God would save “the remnant” of the Jews, Christ would be “an ensign” or banner for the salvation of the Gentiles as well (11:1-11).

The gospel is for all the world! Christ forces himself upon no one but offers salvation to everyone on the same terms. The “Great Commission” is truly great:

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mk. 16:15-16).

“Whosoever will” may come to him (Rev. 22:17).

Jesus is the perfect sacrifice for sin. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). We do not inherit Adam’s sin or anyone else’s sin – nor do we inherit a nature which forces us to sin. We have no such excuse for sinning. The shameful truth is we sin because we choose to (Ezek. 18:4; Jas. 1: 13-15). The Law of Moses made the Jews painfully aware of their sins, forcing them to see “the curse” of disobeying God (Gal. 3: 10). The animal sacrifices of the Old Law taught the Jews that the shedding of blood or giving of life makes “an atonement for the soul,” but “the blood of bulls and of goats” only foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of Christ (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 10: 1-4).

The innocent died to provide forgiveness to the guilty. We do not deserve it. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29).

Jesus is Lord of lords and King of kings. The expression “Lord of lords, and King of kings” indicates the ultimate source of all sovereignty, power, and rule. This highest authority inheres in the nature of Deity and is shared by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Deut. 10:17; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16). It is astonishing that any man could lay claim to the nature and power of Deity, but Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead.” After he arose, Jesus proclaimed, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Rom. 1:4; Matt. 28:18).

In keeping with prophecy, Jesus arose to rule and reign at the Father’s right hand as “both Lord and Christ.” In order to submit to his authority and to be saved, sinners must repent and be immersed in water (Acts 2:33-38). He is “the head over all things to the church,” which must follow his word in all things (Eph. 1:22-23). Even civil governments are overruled by him (Dan. 2:44; 4:25).

Jesus is thefinal revelation of God. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (Jn. 1:18). Deity is invisible to the human eye, but one of the Godhead came in flesh to make a full and final revelation of God. Throughout history God spoke by many prophets, but he “hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:1-2). In the lifetime of his Apostles, Jesus Christ fully revealed “all truth” by the miraculous guidance of the Holy Spirit. The word of truth is recorded in the Bible and preserved for us today (Jn. 16:13; 2 Pet. 1:12-15). All modern claims to “new” light, “new” prophecies, and dinew” revelations are false.

Jesus is the great high priest. As our high priest, Jesus bears the atoning blood to the Father, “to make reconciliation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17). Rising above the Aaronic priesthood of Moses’ Law, Jesus is both King and Priest “for ever after the order of Melchisedec” (5:4-10). This great high priest knows our sorrows, temptations, and suffering – he lived in the flesh – and he pleads for us at the throne of God’s grace even now (4:15-16). He saves all who serve him (5:8-9).

Sinners today are still finding Jesus as the Christ of the prophets, the Son of man, and the Son of God! “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, pp. 172-173
March 16, 1989

By Ron Halbrook

(Note: This is the first of two articles on the theme of “Gospel Preaching” in the light of current trends. While many faithful men of all ages are preaching the whole counsel of God, strange speech and uncertain sounds originating from sectarian sources are also being heard among us. We ignore these sounds to our own peril. These articles attempt to sketch and identify some of the speak danger signs It was not pleasant to prepare this material and it will not be pleasant to read. I hope and pray that it will be profitable to the cause of Christ.

Before publication, these articles were read by such men as those listed below. Both elders and preachers, both younger and older men are included. Without suggesting that every man would have used every point or phrase which I used, it can be said that they all agree that the issues raised need to be discussed No effort is being made to establish divine truth by an appeal to uninspired men. The point is simply this. rather than rashly rushing into print, I have sought the counsel of godly men, as we are taught to do in Proverbs 24:6.

Marshall Patton, Randy Harshbarger, Harold Fite, Paul Keller, Phil Cavender, Ed Bragwell, Edgar Dye, Dan King, Bobby Graham, Connie Adams, Bill Cavender, Weldon Warnock, James W, Adams, Wayne Partain Elmer Moore, Jack Holt Minton, TX1, H.E. Phillips, Colly Caldwell, Stan Adams, Sterling Collier, Scott Finley, Steve Wolfgang, Rick Moore, Andy A lewnder, Bill Reeves, Cecil Willis, C. P. A lexander, James Moore, J.D. Harris, Leonard 7YIer, Jerry Fite, Harry Osborne Jamie Sloan Laity Hafley Mike Willis.)

Gospel preaching must be both accurate and clear if it is to save the lost (Rom. 1:16). A clarion is a trumpet whose tones are sharp, forceful, and clear. In calling men from sin and to salvation, God has always required his messengers to sound a clarion call. It is imperative in our time that the gospel call be brilliantly clear, unmistakably clear, crystal clear. If our message is garbled, tentative, and uncertain, God will not be pleased, sinners will not be saved, and the church will not be safe from apostasy.

Then and Now

When Joshua challenged. the Israelites, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve,” he clearly distinguished the true and living God from the gods of Ur of the Chaldees, Egypt, and other lands (Josh. 24:1-15). In preparing to demolish the delusions of Baal worship, Elijah offered Israel a clear choice, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” For his efforts as a prophet of God, he was considered a troublemaker by some whose convictions were unsound (1 Kgs. 18:17-21). Isaiah gave the test of true and false religions in no uncertain terms when he said, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20).

Those who wanted a positive message of peace and prosperity were told by the grand old prophet Jeremiah that Jehovah commanded them to seek “the old paths” of divine revelation if they would save their souls. That message was rejected in favor of the more up-to-date one (Jer. 6:16). God set Ezekiel on the walls of Zion as a watchman to sound a clarion call at all times in upholding righteousness and condemning iniquity, even though the people would harden their faces against him. If he were to falter because of the people’s criticism – “though briars and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions” – God would count him rebellious just like his critics (Ezek. 2-3).

No man spoke with greater clarity than John when he warned those coming out to his baptism that they must “bring forth works meet for repentance” or else be punished “with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3). No one misunderstood where John stood when he told King Herod concerning his adulterous marriage, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4). When Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” he did not cloud that truth in ambiguity or fail to make its application to the audience specific. Some understood so well that they took up stones to cast at him (Jn. 8:32-59). In the same fashion, the Apostles of Christ “spake the word of God with boldness” and used “great plainness of speech” (Acts 4:31; 2 Cor. 3:12).

The Holy Spirit warned against uncertain speech and sounds among the people of God. “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor. 14:7-8) As Connie W. Adams observes, “It would be disastrous on the battle field not to be able to distinguish between the trumpet sounds for ‘charge’ and ‘retreat.”‘ Brother Adams stresses that speaking with a certain sound has always been “a fundamental principle” among those who would “return to the purity of faith and practice” found in “the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). He cautions gospel preachers not to worry about whether someone judges the message “positive” or “negative” but to be “concerned with teaching truth.” Brother Adams offered a number of such excellent and sound admonitions because, as he says, “Frankly, I am concerned about the uncertain sound coming from some of our young men (and a few of the older ones)” (editorial, “A Certain Sound,” Searching the Scriptures, July 1987, pp. 435-436).

Similar concerns are expressed by Connie W. Adams’ article “Smoother Than Butter and Softer Than Oil,” by Colly Caldwell’s “Give Attention to the Right Things” (both in ibid., Apr. 1988), and by James W. Adams’ “Red Sails In the Sunset” (Good News, bulletin of Timberland Drive Church of Christ, Lufkin, TX, 17 April 1988).

Sectarian Sources of Uncertain Sounds

A few brethren have been overly impressed with the Crossroads and Boston churches’ “total commitment” programs, have visited their seminars, and have tired to borrow from them. More than a few are reading too many denominational authors with too little discernment, and are imbibing too much sectarian error. Popular authors include Charles Swindoll of Fullerton, California, who is “Reformed” or Calvinist in outlook; Warren Wiersbe, who preached for many years at the Moody Church in Chicago and is Calvinistic; Gene Getz, who teaches at the Calvinistic and premillennial oriented Dallas Theological Seminary; and Robert Schuller of Garden Grove, California, who blends a modified Calvinism with a positive-mental-attitude message.

Bill Gothard has Reformed roots, conducts an Institute of Basic Yoxith Conflicts out of Chicago, and lectures widely on such matters as the family and humanism. Some brethren read much from John MacArthur of the Grace Community Church in Pasadena, California, whose books are published by the Calvinist publisher Moody Press. Brethren enamored with new fads such as “discipleship” or “counseling” find plenty of sectarian literature and authors from which to choose. An institutional preacher who is too liberal for many liberals (but not for some among us) is Jim McGuiggan, presently in Ireland. Some of his commentaries are fair, but he is mediating such themes as the new “spirituiaity” and “discipleship” through tapes and personal contacts. All of us read from sectarian authors at times, but some brethren are not separating the wheat from the chaff in such materials.

Harry Pickup, Jr. recently warned about the imbalance in the comparative reading habits of many brethren. As he explained, there is a scandalous ignorance of

Alexander Campbell’s writings, especially The Christian System, and of those of T.W. Brents [his excellent Gospel Plan of Salvation was recently reprinted by The Guardian of Truth Foundation], Benjamin Franklin, J.W. McGarvey, Moses Lard, Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb, R.L. Whiteside, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Roy Cogdill, to say nothing of many clear and perceptive modem writers. To compound the problem, people who are exceptionally ignorant of the writings of these men are increasingly familiar with denominational writers such as Francis Schaeffer, John R.W. Stott, Charles Swindoll, the LeHayes [sic, LaHayes), and C.S. Lewis (Melvin Curry, ed., Hebrews for Every Man: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1988, p. 167).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, pp. 193, 215
April 6, 1989

By Mike Willis

Human institutions. have been a focus of conflict between the groups of brethren represented here today. The conflict first began in the latter part of the nineteenth century when churches began supporting the American Christian Missionary Society from their treasury. Those who rejected church support of missionary societies later had conflict among themselves, beginning with G.C. Brewer’s call in 1938 for church support of colleges. As brethren opposed the church support of colleges, they argued from consistency that church support of orphan homes and colleges stands or falls together. Some brethren believed they stood together; others believed they fell together. I belong to the latter group and am delighted to be here to give an answer concerning the faith which I hold. Hopefully, my answer will be in the spirit of meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15). I hope to avoid self-righteousness, and demonstrate humility. I hope you will be kind enough not to maliciously judge my motive. I am humbled by the knowledge that I stand before God and will be judged for what I say here.

I stand opposed to churches building and maintaining human institutions because they constitute a denial of the allsufficiency of the church. What is the all-sufficiency of the church?

The All-Sufficiency of the Church

The church which Jesus built is a perfect institution, capable of accomplishing the purposes for which God built it. When men began to doubt the all-sufficiency of the church to do the work which God intended the church to do, they began to build human institutions to expedite the church’s doing that work. None of these human institutions designed to “aid” the church in doing its work would ever have been built had men not first lost confidence in the local church to accomplish the mission which God gave it to accomplish. We need to be reminded of the all-sufficiency of the local church.

1. The church was conceived in the mind of a perfect God. Paul stated that the church is a part of “the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3: 10-11). It was “purposed” or “planned” by a divine architect.

2. The church has a perfect blueprint. Like Moses of old, we are admonished to “build all things according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5).(1)

3. The church has a perfect builder (Matt. 16.18). Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” The church is the product of a divine architect, a perfect blueprint and a perfect builder. The church is as perfect as a perfect God could make it. The local church which is fashioned after the pattern of the New Testament is exactly what God designed to accomplish his work.

4. Perfect preparations were made for the church to be established. Prior to the establishment of the church, the God of heaven prepared for the coming of the kingdom. When Jesus came, he announced, “The time is fulfilled, and the, kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk. 1:14).

5. Perfect provisions were made to bring the church into existence. Miraculous powers were manifested on Pentecost that it might be established (Acts 2).

6. A perfect head exercises authority over the church. Jesus is the head of his body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23). The head of the church is not some imperfect man; the head of the church is the perfect Lord.

7. A perfect law has been given to govern the church. The law of the kingdom is the word of God (Jas. 1:25; cf. Jude 3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). It is the “perfect law of liberty,” the faith “once delivered to the saints,” which is sufficient to “throughly furnish us unto every good work.”

8. The church has been given a perfect minion. The mission which God gave the church is perfect, incapable of being improved by man. The mission of the church is evangelism (2 Cor. 11:8), edification (Acts 20:32), and benevolence (Acts 6:1-6; 11:27-30). These are the works which God foreordained that we should walk in (Eph. 2:10).

9. The church has perfect ability to accomplish its divine mission. The perfect Architect, who perfectly planned the church, created the church with the ability to accomplish the works he gave it to perform. The church of Christ, being perfect, is therefore able to accomplish its God’s given mission of evangelism, edification, and benevolence. Like a well-engineered machine which does the task which it was designed to perform, the church which was purposed in the mind of God and built by Christ is sufficient to accomplish the task which God designed it to accomplish.

The Missionary Society: A Manifestation of Unbelief In the All-Sufficiency of the Church

When men began to clamor for the missionary society to be organized, their writings reflected their loss of confidence in the Lord’s church to accomplish the work of evangelism. Typical of that is Alexander Campbell’s own statements.

1. We can do comparatively nothing in distributing the Bible abroad without co-operation.

2. We can do comparatively but little in the great missionary field of the world either at home or abroad without cooperation.

3. We can do little or nothing to improve and elevate the Christian ministry without co-operation. . . .

4. We cannot concentrate the action of the tens of thousands of Israel, in any great Christian effort, but by cooperation . . . . (2)

Those brethren had lost confidence in the local church to evangelize the world. They wanted a “more efficient organization of our churches” because their present situation was “comparatively inefficient.”(3)

Brethren became so wedded to their new organizations for co-operative evangelism that they affirmed “it is the duty of all the congregations in any city or district to co-operate” in these missionary organizations.(4)

Cecil Willis was correct when he wrote,

Brethren never began seeking to build another organization for evangelistic work until they lost faith in the sufficiency of that organization the Lord provided. It matters not how loud one may shout that he believes that the church is sufficient, so long as he erects another organization to do the work assigned to the church . . . the brethren never built a missionary society until they lost faith in the all sufficiency of the church to preach the gospel.(5)

The missionary society was another organization designed to accomplish the work God assigned to the church. Compare the two organizations:

1. The church of Christ originated in the mind of God (Eph. 3:21); the missionary society originated in the mind of man.

2. The church of Christ is a blood-bought institution (Acts 20:28); the missionary society is a separate organization from the church.

3. The church raises its money through first day of the week contributions (1 Cor. 16:1-2); the missionary society is supported by church donations.

4. The church is organized under elders (1 Tim. 3); the missionary society is under a board of directors.

5. The church does its own work; the missionary society does the work in place of the church.

6. The creed of the church is the New Testament (Jas. 1:25); the missionary society makes it own creed.

7. The church is competent to accomplish its mission (Eph. 1:23; 3:10-11); the missionary society was designed to give greater efficiency in accomplishing the mission of the church.

8. The church oversees its own work; the missionary society oversees the church’s work.

9. The local church is the only functioning unit; the missionary society is considered an official functioning organ of the church.

10. The church does the work God ordained for it to do; the missionary society proposes to do a work greater than any local church alone can do.

11. The church has no universal church structure; the missionary society is an organization through which all local churches can function.

12. There is unity in the one body (Eph. 4:1-7); the missionary society divided the church.

The missionary society was an apostasy born of lack of confidence or faith in God’s church. The Christian Church rejected the all-sufficiency of the church in favor of the missionary society; the Lord’s people rejected human institutions in favor of the church.

Church Supported Colleges

The Lord’s people were relatively at peace regarding human institutions until 1938. During the Abilene Christian College lectures in 1938, G.C. Brewer made an appeal for churches to support Abilene Christian College. In his book W. W. Otey. Contender For the Faith, Cecil Willis wrote,

In the course of these remarks Brewer pointed out that if all the churches in Texas would contribute to the support and endowment of the school, such requests as then were being made would be unnecessary. In fact, many who were present understood Brewer to say that the church that did not have Abilene Christian College in its budget had the wrong preacher.(6)

This touched off the present furor regarding church donations to institutions which has since divided the churches. Immediately, W.W. Otey responded to Brewer in the Firm Foundation.(7)

The issue of church support of colleges involved two issues: (1) Is the work of teaching math, science, English, speech, etc. the work of the church? (2) Believing that teaching the Bible is a work of the church, is the church sufficient to accomplish the task which God gave it to do? The church support of colleges and missionary societies is parallel. If one opposed the church support of missionary societies as unscriptural, he is logically compelled to oppose church support of colleges. There is no biblical difference between church support of colleges and church support of missionary societies. Notice that what was true of the missionary society is equally true of the church supported college.

1. Both originated in the mind of man.

2. Both are separate organizations from the church.

3. Both receive church donations.

4. Both are under a board of directors.

5. Both do a work in the place of the church.

6. Both make their own creed and by-laws.

7. Both are designed to give the church greater efficiency.

8. Both oversee the churches’ work.

9. Both are considered an official functioning organ of the church.

10. Both propose to do what the local church cannot do.

11. Both are organizations through which all local churches can function.

12. Both divided the church.

Brethren backed away from the church support of colleges for a time because of the objections raised. The issue of church support of human institutions then shifted from church support of colleges to church support of orphan homes.

Church Support of Orphan Homes

The support of orphan homes was an issue with which brethren became more emotionally identified than church support of colleges. Consequently, the debates over our differences regarding human institutions have almost exclusively centered on church support of orphan homes. Even in brother Lanier’s paper submitted for response, only one human institution receiving church support is defended the orphan home. If the benevolent institution question was solved, we would have dozens of other human institutions supported from the treasury to divide us. Why has our brother ignored these institutions?

The issue involved in this conflict involved two questions: (1) Is the church limited in benevolence to saints only? (2) If the church has an obligation to provide care for orphans, can the church send donations to a human institution to provide that care for them? My understanding of the Bible is that the church is limited in its work of benevolence (cf. 2 Thess. 3:10 which forbids helping saints who win not work and I Tim. 5:16 which charges individual Christians to care for their own that the church be not charged). However, I personally know of no local congregation which divided over whether or not to take care of a non-Christian in need. The problem of church supported orphan homes was result of shifting and personal responsibility which might be illustrated like this:

James 1:27, Galatians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 5:16, passages which give commandment to individual Christians, were transferred to the church; personal responsibility was shifted to church responsibility. This transferred responsibility was then transferred again from the church to a human institution.

Brethren differed, but did not divide, over taking money from the congregational treasury to help a non-Christian. However, the sending of donations to a human institution to provide care for orphans divided churches. Many congregations have been split over sending a $25 a month donation to an orphan home as a means of declaring with which side of this issue they were identified. Like the support of missionary societies before, the supporting of benevolent societies was defended as an expediency, but churches which refused to support them were ostracized by those who made sending a donation to an orphan home a litmus test of faithfulness to God.

Some of those who opposed church supported missionary societies to accomplish their work also opposed church supported benevolent societies to accomplish their work. The two were logically parallel, without a biblical difference. Compare the church support of missionary societies with the church support of benevolent societies.

1. Both originated in the mind of man.

2. Both are separate organizations from the church.

3. Both receive church donations.

4. Both are under a board of directors.

5. Both do a work in the place of the church.

6. Both make their own creed and by-laws.

7. Both are designed to give the church greater efficiency.

8. Both oversee the churches’ work.

9. Both are considered an official functioning organ of the church.

10. Both propose to do what the local church cannot do.

11. Both are organizations through which all local churches can function.

12. Both divided the church.

Not only did we “anti’s” see these as parallel, so also did the writers for the Firm Foundation who opposed the writers for the Gospel Advocate on this very point. The brethren associated with the Firm Foundation argued that orphan homes had to be placed under elders for them to be scriptural; those writing in the Gospel Advocate stated that putting them under elders was unscriptural. Nevertheless, both groups could join hands to oppose the “anti’s.” Those who agreed with us about church contributions to benevolent societies could not work with us; rather, they have worked with those who practiced what they condemned as sin, remaining remarkably quiet about church supported societies, while the number of these church supported societies continued to increase.

The writers for the Firm Foundation believed that church support of benevolent societies was sinful but should not break the fellowship. They laid the groundwork for the thinking of the grace-unity brethren who oppose instrumental music in worship as sinful but still fellowship those who practice this sin..

Endnotes

1. I am aware that a number of brethren have given up the idea that the New Testament contains patterns. I reject that view, although that is not the assigned subject. I find the position logically inconsistent which goes to the Bible to rind a pattern of no-patternism.

2. Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VI, p. 523.

3. Millennial Harbinger, Series III, Vol. 6 (1849), pp. 90,92.

4. Millennial Harbinger, Series 111, Vol. 3 (1845), pp. 66-67; Series I, Vol. 1 (1831), p. 237.

5. Cecil Willis, Truth Magazine, Vol. V, p. 271.

6. Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey. Contender For the Faith, p. 287.

7. W.W. Otey, “Bible Colleges,” Firm Foundation, Vol. LV, Nos. 31,32 (August 2, 1938). p. 1; (August 9, 1938), p. 1.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, pp. 194, 212-214
April 6, 1989

By Webb Harris, Jr.

The glory of God is ultimately unfathomable to our minds. The songs of praise which echo throughout the heavenly chambers, fresh from the lips of angels and cherubim, magnify his eternal being, unblemished holiness, and sovereign rule. They exalt him as Creator and Redeemer (Rev. 4:8,11; 5:13). His glory is his own. It cannot be rivaled or compromised. Through his prophet Isaiah, Jehovah announced that he would not give his glory to another; his praise would not be given to “gods” of stone (Isa. 42:8).

The plotted theft of God’s glory is perhaps the most ancient form of covetousness. Do not think only in terms of angelic beings and Satanic powers envying God’s supreme station, but see man as longing for the Divine right of Deity, as well. Isaiah’s kinsmen would steal God’s scepter to place it in the lifeless hands of their graven idols, while an enemy king dreamed of pilfering the same only to keep it for himself (Isa. 14:13,14). His desire was nothing novel.

When temptation came to Paradise it was garbed accordingly. At its heart was a slandering of God and his word. The serpent hissed misrepresentations, but the woman manifested her awareness of truth by defining the parameters of God’s instruction quite precisely (Gen. 3:2,3). But the serpent paints a sordid picture. With blasphemous strokes, he depicts the Almighty as one threatened by his human creation, as defensive of his position and afraid of man’s challenge.

This strikes at the heart of sin’s nature. Sin is, in a sense, man’s feeble declaration of independence from God. He vows that he is free of moral constraints, at liberty to create his own values and standards. He attempts to sever his history from God, arrogantly asserting that he owes nothing to anyone. He redefines his purpose and rewrites his destiny. Such is the appeal of evolutionary theories.

God teaches us otherwise. Man is unable to redeem himself; this is the lesson of the Old Testament. Man has proven himself to be incompetent and impotent when severed from God’s graces. In the prophets and in Romans we are shown the downward spiral of the society which has been “turned loose” by the Almighty.

We do not learn and we do not pay heed. The spirit of our age is one which seeks to repeat the conceited mistakes of the past, to take God’s glory for ourselves. No one stops to consider the impossibility of the task. Our contemporaries march on into the “New Age” where visions of “man as God” are but 20th-Century remnants of ancient lies.

Secular Humanism

Most of us are at least somewhat aware of the threats of secular humanism. Good literature is abundant and among us are men who are to be commended for their roles in publicizing the sinister onslaught of this bane. Our attention has been turned to the organized societies and prestigious publications which propagate the humanists’ doctrines. We have been shown the vulnerable nature of public education and hopefully we will respond with vocal concern. We thank those who have made us more aware of the subtle ways in which we are being re-educated to see ourselves as the highest intellect in the cosmos. We will cling to Jeremiah’s confession that man needs God’s direction (Jer. 10:23) and believe James’ avowal of the source of true wisdom (Jas. 1:5).

But while continuing our battle against “orthodox” humanism, we must recognize that there are many other “Man as God” philosophies that are taking firm root in our culture. They seem disconnected, as if they are unrelated entities that appear to disjointed sectors of the population according to various tastes and whims. It is not so. The common denominator is the underlying desire to remove God from the throne and replace him with ourselves. The common appeal is human pride.

Spiritualism, Sorcery and Witchcraft

Occult practices are as old as the hills and God’s warnings against them are ancient. In the book of Leviticus, God warns the children of Israel as they enter Canaan that the land is polluted with conjurers and wizards. His declaration is that mediums, sorcerers and their ilk are strictly off-limits (see passages such as Leviticus 19:31; 20:6,27).

The careful reader will note that the immediate danger posed to Israel is not that they will become spiritualists. Rather, it is that they will seek them out for advice. God says that in doing this they will be “playing the harlot.” Indeed, God asks, “Should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? ” (Isa. 8:19) This defines the practice as that of seeking advice from the departed.

Do not relegate this practice to the superstitious ancients of ages past. It is as modern as it is old. I can hop in my car and be in Cassadega, Florida in 30 minutes. This small, quiet town is home to numerous mediums and spiritualists. Witches from around the nation convene there, as they do every year, for Halloween activities. Orlando’s businessmen and secretaries often drive there for advice on their lunch-breaks.

For the more affluent among us, we can purchase an hour with “Ramtha” or other ghosts who speak through their living hosts. These ducts are called ” channellers. ” The sinfulness of these acts is revealed very clearly in Ramtha’s message. He wants you to know that “you are your own God.” The message of the dead is that peace and bliss await us all in the great beyond.

Through the aforementioned practices man seeks to become God. He gains his independence through consulting with psychics, watching the stars and reading the lines on his palms. Now he understands his past; now he can control his future. The tea-leaves and the tarot cards reveal all the obstacles that lie ahead so that he can navigate them successfully. Through sorcery and witchcraft man can control the universe. Its ancient appeal has always been its promise to control the lives of others so that they do our bidding. When Vine defines pharmakia, which is rendered “sorcery” in our Bibles, he points out that the charms and amulets serve the actual purpose of impressing the applicant with the sorcerer’s powerful resources.

The real appeal of witchcraft and Satanism is not the over-sensationalized sacrifices of virgins, but the harnessing of occult powers to do one’s bidding and allow him or her to become God. Today’s Christians will respond as did their brethren in Acts 19:17-20.

The UFO Phenomenon

It might be worthwhile to note briefly the place of the UFO craze in the modern embracing of the “Man as God” philosophy. This is dealt with in Gary North’s “Unholy Spirits.” Most readers will not agree with much of what Mr. North suggests, but he must be acknowledged as insightful concerning modern trends and superstitions.

When we analyze the current beliefs concerning UFO’s as alien visitors, we are impressed with the evolution of common extra-terrestrial expectations. At one time they were feared as “space invaders.” “The War of The Worlds” represented the fears of numerous people. However, now we await kind E.T.’s. “Close Encounters” are longed for; StarMan will rescue us from ourselves. The aliens are now perceived as much like ourselves, only higher on the evolutionary scale. They are the gods of the heavens. And they hold the secrets of how we can be the same. They will teach us how to arise above all of our problems, initiating global peace and restoring Paradise to Earth. Then we will be gods.

The Eastern Religions

The growing popularity of Zen, Buddhism, Hindusim and various eastern mystery religions is part and parcel with the onslaught of humanism. These religions will continue to increase in popularity because they jibe well with the “Man as God” philosophy. You see, in many eastern religions, man is God.

The recent appearance of articles on reincarnation in many journals is no accident and is not coincidental. Reincarnation is a necessary tenet of the eastern beliefsystem. The foundation of their faith is that the soul of man is something that “broke off” from God in the beginning and is making its way back to God. Through numerous incarnations it perfects itself until it is God, whole and complete, once again. Rather than accepting the creation account as the revelation of our origin, the eastern religions would rather steal John 1:1 – “In the beginning was man, and man was with God, and man was God.”

Positive Mental Attitude

The Seduction o Christianity by David Hunt and T.A. McMahon is another book which is, in my estimation, biblically unsound on many counts, but is invaluable for its insight into current “religious” trends. It reveals much concerning the PMA philosophies of men such as Peale and Schuller. Those who would embrace the doctrines of these false teachers unintentionally unite with the “Man as God” syndrome.

It is one thing to be confident because “my God is able.” It is another thing altogether to be confident because “I am able” (Phil. 4:13). Peale and Schuller present a body of doctrine that declares that our “unconscious mind[s] ha[ve] a power that turns wishes unto realities when the wishes are strong enough.” Schuller says, “You don’t know what power you have within you!” We are told that through visualization and positive repetitions we can control our circumstances and, often, even the actions of other human beings.

Those who wish to give a little glory to Jesus Christ suggest that we should visualize Jesus. When you get him good and real in your mind (so much so that you can define the color of his eyes, hair, etc.) you can then talk with him in a way far beyond your wildest fantasies. This is nothing new. Man has always found it needful to represent his gods with images. But in Exodus 20:4,5 Jehovah forbade such actions by his children. You cannot do him justice with a chisel or a paint-brush. And it will not be long before you cannot distinguish between the representation and the represented. The Roman Catholic tradition bears this out. The icon is supposedly an “aid” to focusing upon spiritual things, but those of us who have Catholic relatives know the adoration that is given to the stone figures. The point is that it is just as easy to worship an image of imagination as it is to worship an image of stone. Beware! You cannot create God! You cannot manipulate God! The one who attempts to do so might just as well turn to potions and charms.

The growing popularity of Zen Buddhism, Hinduism and various eastern mystery religions is part and parcel with the onslaught of humanism. These religions will Indeed, God’s glory is his own.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, pp. 174-175
March 16, 1989