Truth Magazine

By Robert Harkrider

The vast difference between conviction and convenience has rapidly become a misunderstood subject. The search for convenience has perhaps led more Christians to bow their knees to Baal than any other disease. Conviction is lacking, and sin, camouflaged by popularity, continues to take its toll in the church. A sharp contrast exists between the two attitudes. While conviction will prompt the Christian to stand under every test, the desire for convenience leads to compromise, and thereby spiritual death is the result.

Much preaching needs to be done on the meaning of conviction and its characteristics. An elegant picture of true conviction is found in a quotation from an article by J.W. Evans while he was living in Orlando, Florida. The article was about a sermon he had preached at the Par Avenue church. The title, “Have Convictions — Will Stand” may remind us of one of the popular TV programs; but its content is far removed from TV westerns. After expressing his appreciation for the good reception given to the lesson by the members at Par Avenue, brother Evans adds the following words which are to the point and worthy of serious consideration.

Again I say that I thank God for members of Par Avenue who are able to make proper discernment on weakness and strength, quantity and quality; who refuse to be swayed from Bible convictions by discouragements that weed out the weaklings. These know the why of “a falling away” (1 Cor. 11:9). They know that part of our warfare must be fought with “spiritual wickedness in high places”; that sin and error crouch in camouflaged corners of even the kingdom of God. But it only takes a Gideon’s army with broken pitchers of light to flush them from their dark hidings. This army has heard the short, sharp blast of the bugle call — “Stand, Therefore Stand” And “Stand” — we are entrenched behind the impregnable citadel of Bible convictions. Too soberly convicted to be flushed out by the tear-gas bombs of sentimentalism; too confident by the majority-that-God-makes to be routed by the bombardment of “multitudes on the other side;” too near the “Captain of our salvation” to be intimidated by the screaming mischief-missiles of innuendoes, slander, and prejudicial epithets. Yes, we Have Convictions — Will Stand.

Morsels like these, after being masticated and digested, should nourish the strong to more strength and provide the weak with the courage to be loyal to truth under every temptation. Christians are being tried and tested for their love of truth. Many are courageously standing for that which they know to be right, while others, not studying the Bible for themselves, are swept away by the pleasant and fair speeches of teachers and preachers who seek only to scratch itching ears with “great swelling words, showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage” (Jude 16).

Convenient Preaching

Myriads of Christians are confusing the difference between convictions and conveniences. They conveniently stand for doctrine which is most popular, receiving the “praise of men,” rather than standing for doctrine of Christ by conviction, being rewarded with the “praise of God” (John 12:43). Such an attitude is manifested by the failure to teach against worldliness, looseness and laxity in moral living, and by putting emphasis on number and size rather than spiritual stature. Many seem afraid to condemn anything, but stand ready to praise everything. We have watered down our convictions, sweetened our dispositions, and become so sophisticated with worldly wisdom and intoxicated with our “place under the sun” of prominence in the religious world that we stand powerless in the face of error and evil.

It is no uncommon thing to hear brethren plead with preachers to preach the truth in love. Though we would be first to grant that this spirit is necessary in teaching the gospel, their concept of such is simply to preach the truth in a fashion that will offend no one. They have their eyes set on earthly friendships and large memberships, and they wish to displease nobody.

Even though truth must be sacrificed to compromise with error, some would declare, “It is better to have peace and love rather than strife and division.” The Bible plainly teaches the sin of strife and division, yet never has the Lord condemned division caused by teaching truth. But brethren have tried using the words “peace” and “love” as handles to introduce any error they should want to practice.

God recognized this type of attitude among his people, the Israelites. In Ezekiel 33:31, the prophet spoke, “And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.” Notice particularly that these came as ones belonging to God, and love flowed from their mouths. But it was not the kind of love God desired, for their “heart goeth after their covetousness.”

Love Demonstrated

We need only to examine the courageous stand of some of the great servants of God to understand the type of peace and love our Lord desires.

Joseph had courage to guard against evil by fleeing from Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:13). It would have been convenient to have succumbed to her enticements, but not so with this man of God. Even though cast into prison, be knew that compromising with sin would bring a greater condemnation at the hands of a just God.

Stephen spoke to the Jews of the conviction of their patriarchs. The love they demonstrated certainly did not please the people. “Which of your prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One” (Acts 7:52). And Stephen, upon preaching this unpopular sermon that offended the Sanhedrin Council and other Jews, was cast out of the city and stoned (Acts 7:51-60).

Peter and John manifested the true spirit of love of God when, after being warned not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus, replied, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard” (Acts 4:18-30). 

Proper Love

Example after example could be given of love demonstrated, but enough has been shown for us to know that true peace and love come by simple, unquestionable, courageous obedience to God’s holy will. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). The wrath of God is the only thing that can come about when we follow popular and convenient courses unauthorized by the New Testament.

We should learn the kind of peace and love God wants and then never stray from it. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3). To say nothing against error and thereby compromise with evil is far worse in God’s eyes than to displease men by preaching his Word. Jesus taught that silence in the face of error was a denial of him, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth” (Matt. 12:30).

So then, may we all: “be entrenched behind the impregnable citadel of Bible Convictions. Too soberly convicted to be flushed out by the tear-gas bombs of sentimentalism; too confident by the majority-that-God-makes to be routed by the bombardment of ‘multitudes on the other side’; too near the ‘Captain of our salvation’ to be intimidated by the screaming mischief-missiles of innuendoes, slander, and prejudicial epithets.”

Yes, may we “Have Convictions — Will Stand!”

Gospel Guardian, Vol. 12, No. 44, March 16, 1961.

By J.W. McGarvey

In the earlier years of the present Reformation there was entire unanimity in the rejection of instrumental music from our public worship. It was declared unscriptural, inharmonious with the Christian institution, and a source of corruption. In the course of time, individuals here and there called in question the correctness of this decision, and an attempt was occasionally made to introduce instruments in some churches. It was at first a sufficient objection to such attempts that they offended a large portion of the congregation, and that the Scriptures forbid giving offense to the brethren. But more recently, congregations have been found who are almost, if not altogether, unanimous in favor of instruments, and upon the principle of church independence they have assumed the right to make use of them without regard to the wishes of other congregations. If the practice is in itself innocent, then these congregations act upon a correct principle and others have no right to interfere or complain. Moreover, in that case the taste and judgment of the majority in every congregation ought to rule, and the minority should cheerfully acquiesce. This state of things changes somewhat the practical character of the issue, and places it before us as an original question. As such, we must discuss it upon its merits; we must call in, for the time, our former decision, renew the original investigation, lay aside all feeling pro and con, and start anew the inquiry: Ought we to make use of musical instruments in public worship?

By what standard shall we judge this question? If there is any Scripture authority upon the subject, then of course we must hear that first; if not, then expedience must supply the test. If the Scriptures leave us at liberty, we must decide whether to exercise the liberty of using the instruments or the liberty of disusing them, according as experience and sound judgment may dictate. But if the Scriptures do not leave us at liberty, then we have no right to appeal to expediency, except for the purpose of vindicating the decision of the Scriptures. If these observations are correct, our first, and maybe our final, appeal is to the word of God. To this we confine the present article.

The advocates of instrumental music sometimes assume that the Scriptures do furnish authority in its favor. They find this authority in the fact that instruments were used in the temple worship of the Jews, and that they are also represented as being used by the angels in heaven. In view of these two facts, two questions are propounded — first: Can that be wrong in the Christian congregation, which was acceptable to God in the Jewish congregation? I answer: It may be. The offering of victims, the sprinkling of blood, the burning of incense, and the perpetual light of burning lamps was acceptable to God in Jewish worship; but they are not in Christian worship; and so may instrumental music not be. But in view of the second fact, it is asked: Can that be wrong among saints on earth which is right among saints and angels in heaven? I answer again: It may be. Angels and saints in glory may be granted privileges which ought not to be granted to men in the flesh, for that may be harmless there which would be dangerous here, as children must be denied privileges which older persons may enjoy with impunity. If, then, the inhabitants of heaven do literally use harps of gold, which may well be doubted, it may still be unsafe and improper that harps or any other musical instruments should be used in Christian congregations.

How, then, are we to decide whether a certain element in Jewish worship, or in the worship of heaven, is acceptable in the Christian church? Undoubtedly we are to decide it by the teaching of the New Testament, which is the only rule of practice for Christians. Whatever is authorized by this teaching is right, and whatever it condemns is wrong in us, whether it belongs to the service of the Jews or the service of the angels.

But it is argued that the New Testament is silent upon the subject of instrumental music, and we are, therefore, left to judge of what would be acceptable to God by what he did accept in Jewish worship. Now, it must be admitted that the New Testament is silent upon this subject, and that this argument is at least plausible. But is it conclusive? Before we affirm it is we should first look ahead and see whether the affirmation will not involve some unwelcome consequences.

There is nothing said in the New Testament about burning incense in connection with Christian worship. It was authorized in Jewish worship, and it is represented in John’s vision as accompanying the worship of the angels. Shall we thence argue that in the silence of the New Testament, these facts should be taken as an indication of the divine will, and, like the Catholics, shall we burn incense in our public worship? Shall we, for the same reason keep lamps or candles burning in our churches and array our preachers in gorgeous robes? For all these the argument is valid, if it is valid for instrumental music. If, therefore, we adopt the latter, we dare not pronounce any man or any church unscriptural in practice that adopts the other three. In whatever light this conclusion might appeal to a Catholic or an Episcopalian, it must certainly convince every disciple that the argument from which it springs is unsound. When we come to discover the exact fallacy that it involves, we may get hold of a thread of thought that will completely reverse the conclusion.

This argument is based upon the assumption that whatever was practiced in the Jewish worship may be in Christian worship, provided the New Testament does not condemn it. This assumption forms the major premise of the argument, and we see, from the examples just adduced that it is inadmissible.

The true method of arguing in reference to Jewish acts of worship must place the subject in an entirely different light. We may lay it down as an indisputable proposition — at least, one not to be disputed among us — that we cannot know what acts of worship are acceptable to God, except by express statements of revelation. Furthermore, seeing that in different dispensations there are some differences in the acts of acceptable worship, we cannot know what is acceptable under a particular dispensation, except by express statements of revelation with reference thereto. We cannot, therefore, by any possibility, know that a certain element of worship is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation, when the Scriptures that speak of that dispensation are silent in reference to it. To introduce any such element is unscriptural and presumptuous. It is will-worship, if any such thing as will-worship can exist. On this ground we condemn the burning of incense, the lighting of candles, the wearing of priestly robes, and the reading of printed prayers. On the same ground we condemn instrumental music. Let it be observed that we here confine ourselves to acts of worship. . . . We might be excusable for adopting means not mentioned in the Scriptures for spreading knowledge of the gospel, and still inexcusable for introducing in our worship of God an element which he has not authorized.

Some writers, more sharp than logical, have endeavored to reduce this argument to absurdity by insisting that if we must avoid the use of instruments because they are unauthorized, we must also lay aside the notebook, the tuning fork, and even the hymn book. But the hymns and spiritual songs authorized by the New Testament were human compositions, and the right to sing implies propriety of everything necessary to singing. The notes of the scale, and some standard of sound, being necessary to the art of singing are, therefore, innocent and scriptural. But the same cannot be said of an instrument designed to control the singing and to constitute the chief element in the joyful sound which fills the house of worship. It cannot, therefore, be justified on this ground.

If, now, any man can mention an act or an element of worship known to be acceptable to God, but not authorized by the New Testament, he will prove this argument against instrumental music in the church to be invalid. I know not how it can be done in any other way.

But I have another argument based upon this same silence of the New Testament, to which I invite special attention. Whether silence in reference to a practice implies approbation or disapprobation, sometimes depends upon the circumstances of the case. In the present case we will see that it implies most emphatic disapprobation.

The Christian worship was instituted by inspired men who had every one been reared under the Jewish economy, and who in more than one instance exhibited a strong disposition to perpetuate its usages in the Christian church. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they did perpetuate some of those usages, but discontinued others. Seeing, now, that all the acts of Jewish worship had been appointed by divine authority, the only conceivable reason why any of them were discontinued must have been that they were unsuited to the Christian worship. The very fact, therefore, that any part of the Jewish worship was discontinued by those who organized the Christian church is a direct condemnation of it by the Spirit of God as unsuited to the new institution. But the use of instrumental music is an element of Jewish worship which was thus discontinued, and, therefore, it is condemned by the infallible authority of the Spirit.

I wish this argument to be examined carefully and candidly. It is briefly stated, but I trust it will be understood. If it is valid, nothing more need be said against instrumental music among lovers of the truth; and certainly nothing more should be said in their favor unless it can be set aside. On it and its predecessor I now rest the case so far as Scripture authority is concerned and I would be glad to hear from any brother who thinks he can reply successfully to either. The brethren who have adopted or advocated instrumental music in the church, owe it to themselves, to their brethren who differ from them, and to the good name of our common cause to meet the issue in candid, fraternal discussion. Let us, then, have the question fully discussed and finally settled. 

Millennial Harbinger, 1864 
Firm Foundation, December 1999

By Bill Reeves

On the NBC news at 7:45 a.m., Nov. 5, 1999, a woman “expert,” was giving advice for those who have anxieties about keeping their friends. She illustrated the matter by telling about when she was young, that in order not to lose her friends, she stole from her father’s pockets and bought gifts for her friends. She then made the comment: “I was not stealing from my father, but from myself.” Well, now, how is that, if she wasn’t getting the money from her own pockets? Try that philosophy on the police after you rob a bank: “I did not steal from the bank, but from myself”!

“Well, maybe she meant that she did not steal only from her father, but in a sense also from her own self.” If so, the “expert” did not as much as hint at any wrong-doing in stealing money from the pockets of her father. She said absolutely nothing to discourage stealing. Stealing was not condemned. She passed over the opportunity to summarily condemn thievery. Humanists simply will not accept absolutes in matters of right and wrong. But, God says: “Let him that stole, steal no more” (Eph. 4:28), period! Friends or no friends!

By Lewis Willis

Bible students are aware of that time when the nation of Israel divided into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Samaria was the capital of Israel, and Jerusalem was the capital of Judah. Israel was very wicked, living defiantly against God. The Assyrian army came against Samaria, besieging the city for three years, until it fell to Sargon II in 721 B.C. 

In time Sargon II was succeeded by Sennacherib as king of Assyria. In a move to stabilize his empire internally, he defeated an old enemy of his father, Marduk-Aplaiddina, consolidating his rule. Within the empire, there were many cities which had kings, creating mini-nations. Several of these kings revolted against Sennacherib and he sent his armies to quash these rebellions. He overcame opposition in Tarsus, captured the kings of several towns in Israel, defeated the Egyptians, and “sacked forty-six towns and villages in Judah, taking away 200,150 prisoners and much spoil” (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, V: 340). 

These events occurred as Hezekiah, age 25, began to reign in Judah. He would reign for 29 years (2 Chron. 29:1). His reign was likened unto the reign of David because “he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord” (29:2). Before Hezekiah, Judah’s kings had permitted the worship of God to almost disappear. The priesthood was corrupted and they had allowed the temple to be polluted. Hezekiah ordered the priests to sanctify themselves and the house of the Lord to be cleansed. This task was accomplished in eight days (29:17). He recognized that the wrath of God was against the nation and it was in his heart to make a covenant with God that his fierce wrath might be turned away from them (29:10). With the temple cleansed, the rulers of the city were gathered to the temple and sacrifices were offered (29:31). 

Next, Hezekiah sent to the whole nation in Israel and Judah that they should come to Jerusalem to keep the Passover, which had not been kept for a long time (30:1-2). This proclamation was declared from Dan to Beer-sheba. He called on the nation to “turn again unto the Lord . . . be not like your fathers . . . which trespassed against the Lord . . . be not stiff necked . . . but yield yourselves unto the Lord . . . and serve the Lord . . . if ye turn again unto the Lord, your brethren . . . shall find compassion . . . for the Lord your god is gracious and merciful, if ye return unto Him” (30:6-9).

When the messengers took this message throughout the northern part of the nation, they were laughed at and mocked (30:10). However, many people assembled at Jerusalem as the king had required, and kept the feast of unleavened bread (30:21). “So there was great joy in Jerusalem: for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem” (30:26). The king had all of the altars to idols destroyed and he “wrought that which was good and right and truth before the Lord his God. And in every work that he began . . . he did it with all his heart, and prospered” (31:20-21). 

At the conclusion of these events Sennacherib, king of Assyria came into Judah and began to destroy the cities of the region. Hezekiah saw that the Assyrians were coming and decided to fight against them, refusing a demand to surrender (2 Kings 18:17-23). Sennacherib said, “Hezekiah, the Judaean, I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage” (Ibid. 340). Hezekiah gathered his people together and stopped all the fountains and the brook that ran through that part of the land. He strengthened himself and built up all the wall of Jerusalem that was broken. He armed his people and set captains of war over them. He prepared himself and Jerusalem for battle. 

Then he issued a truly remarkable charge to his people. He gathered them to him in the street of the city and “spake comfortably” to them (2 Chron. 32:6). Another translation (NASV) says he “spoke encouragingly to them.” One has to wonder how the people could be encouraged as they were facing the mighty army of the Assyrians. City after city had fallen to that army and now they had laid siege to Jerusalem itself. Still, good king Hezekiah knew there was reason to be encouraged. He said, “Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him: With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles” (2 Chron. 32:7-8). The people gave heed to his exhortation and “rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah” (32:8).

Sennacherib sent servants to Jerusalem. They asked how Hezekiah had persuaded his people to die by famine or thirst, saying that the Lord would deliver them (32:11). The Assyrians told the Jews not to be deceived for “no god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people” out of the hands of the Assyrians (32:15). Sennacherib’s servants spoke much against God and Hezekiah and wrote letters “to rail on the Lord God of Israel and to speak against Him” (32:16-17). They tried in every way possible to scare the people. 

Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah prayed to God ( 32:20). The king had said that the Lord God would help them and fight their battles, and he now called on the Lord to do so. God responded, sending an angel which killed all the mighty men of valor and the leaders and captains in the Assyrian camp (32:21). In defeat Sennacherib returned to his own land with shame. He went to the house of his god and while there, members of his own family slew him with the sword (32:21). 

“Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all others, and guided them on every side” (2 Chron. 32:22). The king’s encouraging and comforting words had come true!

This remarkable story illustrates an abiding truth. The same God that was with king Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem is with us also. Jesus promised, “. . . lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). And again, God has said, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (Heb. 13:5-6). 

There is much adversity in serving the Lord. “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12). When the hardships come, we need to be comforted and encouraged. Like Hezekiah of old, the apostle Paul “spoke encouragingly” unto us saying, “and in nothing terrified by your adversaries” (Phil. 1:28). After all, “there is more with us than with him . . . but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles” (2 Chron. 32:7-8). Let us depend upon the help of the Lord. Let us stand fast before the adversary (Phil. 1:27). Paul charged the Ephesians, “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil . . . Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Eph. 6:10-11, 13). Do we have enough faith and courage to heed these admonitions — to follow the example of Hezekiah and Jerusalem? Will we trust God, and Hezekiah’s comforting words?