Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Many have come, the article said, to “pay respects to the relics of St. Therese,” a Roman Catholic nun, whose bones are being carried around the world in a cathedral-shaped box (Houston Chronicle,  December 7, 1999, A1). They also came to ask the dead “for their intercession to God on our behalf.” Such relics as dead men’s bones are “a very simple path to God.” 

Neither the dead nor their bones can do anything for us, “for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest” (Eccl. 9:10). The spirits of the dead cannot assist us in any way (Luke 16:26-31). 

When Stephen and James died martyr’s deaths, the apostles and brethren did not appeal to them for help when they fell into difficulty (Acts 7:58-60; 12:1, 2; 2 Cor. 1:8-11; 7:5; Phil. 4:13). David’s bones were in his tomb, which was known to the apostles, yet none of them appealed to David for his intercession unto God (Acts 2:29). Since they did not do so, why should we?   

There is one God and one mediator, one intercessor between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). We must “come boldly to the throne of grace” when we need help and not to the relics of the dead. At that throne of grace we will find abundant “grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16). “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us” (1 John 5:14). “Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you” (1 Pet. 5:7). 

How profoundly sad it is to see otherwise intelligent people falling down before dead men’s bones and begging blessings. Such superstition is a veil over their hearts, blinding them to the light of Christ. It also serves as a barrier to unbelievers who are repulsed by such spiritual ignorance and superstitious mythology. They identify such foolishness as being representative of “Christianity.” Thus, the key of knowledge is taken away and multitudes are left to grope blindly down the broad way which leadeth 4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521 LarryHafley@compuserve.com

By Wayne S. Walker

Two previous articles have discussed the theory that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are really part of the Old Testament and that all the teachings of Jesus contained in them are merely explanations of the Old Testament law given to call the Jews back to God. This theory thus concludes that what Jesus said during his earthly ministry is not applicable to anyone under the New Testament. Who were the men who wrote these books, and what positions did they hold? When did they write and to whom were they writing? And what was their purpose — was it to write Old Testament Scripture or to write New Testament Scripture?

We know that Jesus chose certain men identified as apostles and prophets to reveal his New Testament will for mankind, including his instructions for the church. We read in Jude 17, “But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This, and several other passages which we shall be noticing in this article, make it plain that anything written by an apostle of Jesus Christ or someone with apostolic authority, such as a prophet, deserves our most serious attention. Hence, the subject for this article is the gospels and Scripture.

To begin, the apostles were promised guidance in remembering and testifying to what Jesus had said and done. The Holy Spirit was to bring to their remembrance what Christ had said. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you” (John 14:26). However, why would he need to do this if everything that Jesus said during his personal ministry was only explaining the Old Testament law and not applicable to the church?

The Holy Spirit was also to enable them to testify of Christ concerning things which pertained to the fact that they had been with him from the beginning. “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (John 15:26-27). Again, why would the apostles need to bear witness of such things if those things that Jesus had said and done during his earthly ministry applied only to the Jews under the Old Testament? These are questions that deserve to be answered.

Next, there can be no doubt that, using this guidance, Matthew and John wrote their accounts of Jesus’ life. Of course, Matthew and John were apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 6:13-16). It is generally thought that Matthew wrote sometime before A.D. 70, perhaps in the mid to late 60s, and that John wrote his gospel very late in the first century, most likely in the early to mid 90s. The point is that both Matthew and John were written well after the events which they record — at least after the day of Pentecost when they received the promised Spirit to guide them. According to John 21:20-25, enough time had elapsed for brethren to have circulated a rumor by the time the book was written. If the teachings in these books pertained only to the Jews under the Old Testament and not to the church, why did Matthew and John write them after the establishment of the church? This is another question that needs to be answered.

Then, we must understand that Mark and Luke both were helpers of the apostles, and thus they were prophets of Christ. Mark was a companion of Peter (Acts 12:12; 1 Pet. 5:3). He was also a helper to Paul (Acts 12:25; 2 Tim. 4:11). Luke was a companion of Paul who was not only a physician but also a fellow-worker with Paul in the gospel (Col. 4:14; Phile. 24). As men who wrote at least three books inspired books in the Bible, also after the cross, Mark and Luke would have to be regarded as prophets. Yet, were they prophets of the Old Testament law or prophets of the New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ? The answer is obvious. They were New Testament prophets of Christ.

Now, we must emphasize that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written after Jesus had died on the cross and the events of Acts 2 had taken place. We find in Mark 16:19-20 that the preaching of the gospel had already begun when Mark wrote his book, and the same thing must be true of Matthew, Luke, and John. Also, according to Luke 1:1-4, the book of Luke, and we would presume Matthew, Mark, and John as well, were not written to people under Moses’ law but to believers to help explain the gospel of Christ.

Hence, we need to determine exactly what the function of apostles and prophets was. What was revealed to the apostles and prophets? Paul says in Ephesians 3:3-5 that it was the mystery of Christ, not that which was made known in previous ages. Does Paul say that God revealed to the apostles and prophets of Christ things which pertained to the Old Testament law or to the gospel of Jesus Christ? To ask that question is to answer it. The work of both the apostles and prophets forms the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:19-20). So, what the apostles and prophets of Christ, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, wrote had nothing to do with the Old Testament law, but was for the purpose of laying the foundation for the New Testament church and the gospel of Christ.

Finally, therefore, we conclude that when we read from the apostles and prophets of the Lord, we must be reading New Testament Scripture. When Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:16-18, he said that reading Moses is equated with reading the Old Testament. We know that the apostles and prophets were part of God’s plan for the church (Eph. 4:11-12). Hence, reading the apostles and prophets of Christ must be equal to reading the New Testament. When we read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we are reading New Testament Scripture!

If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are to be considered as part of the Old Testament, it is odd that they were written by the apostles and prophets of our Lord Jesus Christ to Christians after the Old Testament had already been nailed to the cross. The truth is that the authorship of these four books demands that they contain New Testament teaching, precisely because they were written by apostles and prophets of Christ and addressed to Christians after the Old Testament had been done away. Sometimes denominational folks reject any teaching that they cannot find in “red letters” in the Bible. 

It is interesting that we now have some brethren who are rejecting any teaching if it is found in “red letters” in the Bible! The fact is that we need to accept all the Bible as God’s word. No, we are not under the Old Testament law today, and we know that Jesus lived and died while the Old Testament law was still in effect. But we also need to remember that God speaks to us by his Son. Therefore, the books that contain a record of his life and teachings were written for us that we might learn those principles enunciated by Jesus during his personal ministry which would govern the kingdom that he promised to establish. 

310 Haynes St., Dayton, Ohio 45410

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