Truth Magazine

By Michael Jones

Have we stopped declaring the whole coun- sel of God?

Somewhere around 15 years ago, I had my first experience with unde- nominational Christianity. Like most people in the religious world, my understanding of Christianity was that it looked like a tapestry, with the various denominations likened to the patches that make up a whole quilt. I was totally ignorant that division within the body of Christ was sinful (1 Cor 1:10-13). I came from a Baptist background, but I imagine that virtually anyone from a denominational background viewed Christianity in a similar light.

When I first visited a church of Christ, I was amazed at the level of Bible knowledge that the typical member possessed. I was so amazed by it, that I distinctly remember telling my Baptist friends that, “The aver- age church of Christ member could run circles around some of the best Baptist scholars you could produce in general Bible knowledge.” After making this observation, I wondered why this was true. Then, like a bolt of lightning, it occurred to me: the church of Christ was actually teaching the Bible, whereas the Baptist church I attended was not. The command to “preach the word” was taken seriously (2 Tim 4:2).

It is with much regret that I look at the church today and wonder if we have left the mandate of true Bible teaching. I have heard many sermons in churches of Christ where there is not a single Bible verse read or re- ferred to for the first 15 or 20 minutes of the sermon. I have also heard sermons where the lack of preparation is obvious, usually filling most of the sermon time with stories and anecdotes that contribute nothing to serious Bible study. The congregation languishes in a spiritual morass, never sees any spiritual growth, and is taught by example that there need be no emphasis on actually teaching the Bible. Slowly, but surely, the congregations are becoming just like the Baptist church that I left all those years ago: full of sermons with entertaining oratories with only a few obligatory Scriptures thrown in, and rather obtusely at that. I call this preaching. If you hear more stories the “let me entertain you” school of and illustrations than Scripture verses during a sermon, you might be hearing a “let me entertain you” preacher.

Very different than the first, there is also another type of preaching malpractice going on today. It is more subtle, but equally dampening to spiritual growth. And whereas most congregations would not tolerate the absence of Bible teaching for long, those same congregations frequently embrace this transgression. There is another movement currently taking place that says there are only certain subjects that should be preached on exclusively: baptism, denominationalism, the church, and authority. With only minor variations, the congregation hears essentially one of four sermons twice every single week (morning and evening). This is what I call the “only four things really matter” school of preaching. You might be hearing a “only four things really matter” preacher if all of his sermons could always have one of the following titles: The Necessity of Water Baptism, The Sin of Denominational Division, The Nature of the Church, or How to Establish Biblical Authority. These may not have been the actual titles, but could they have been?

The goal of congregational Bible teaching and preaching should be to have those in attendance to conform their lives to Biblical principals. This is walking with God. “And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments” (2 John 6). When Christians pattern their lives after biblical commandments and principals, we grow in grace; when we fail to practice the truth and live according to his desires, John says we walk in darkness and lose our fellowship with God. “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:6-7).

The evangelistic nature of a sermon is always fulfilled when there is a call to conform one’s life to biblical in- struction and admonition. In one key respect, the call of the Bible is the same to those outside of Christ as well as those who are in Christ: Do the will of the God, and you shall live. But the soul that sins shall die (cf. Ezek. 18:20). To those who are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), the call is to conform their lives to the will of God in initial obedience of faith (John 8:24), repentance (Acts 17:30), confession (Rom. 10:10), and baptism (Acts 2:38). Those who are saved, are to continue in obedience to biblical commands and principals. Jesus became the “author of eternal life to those who obey Him” (Heb. 5:9).

Matthew 7:21 tells us that only those who do the will of God will enter into the kingdom of heaven. Is the will of God restricted to baptism, unity, the church, and authority? Certainly not. Why are we then content to tolerate preaching that only touches on these areas? The word of God is filled with instruction on a seemingly unlimited scope. Gener- ally, the message of the Bible is a call to     righteous and holy living. The Lord commands, “Be ye holy, because I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16).

It is easy to see then why knowing God’s word and con- forming our lives to it is so important. The problem with “let me entertain you” preachers is that the congregation is never exposed to biblical principles in the first place since the Bible is only used lightly and more from obligation than desire.

The problem with “only four things really matter” preachers is that the congregation only learns four Biblical principals, and if something arises outside of those four areas, they are completely unprepared to deal with it. 1 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us, “All Scripture is given by inspira- tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Understanding that God gave us his word exactly as he wanted us to learn from it, which part are we free to neglect in our teaching and preaching? None of it, since God gave all of it for a purpose: that we might be complete. When we neglect to proclaim the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) and we fail to teach the fully revealed will of God for our lives, we do a grave disservice to the Bible.

God has charged us to preach his word. I submit to you that the only truly effective way to do this is with verse-by- verse, systematic, expository preaching. Start in chapter 1, verse 1 and preach his word one verse at a time. By system- atic, I mean progressing through the text of Scripture as it was given without skipping any of it. By expositionally, I mean preaching in such a way that the meaning of the Bible passage is presented entirely and exactly as God intended it. The preacher is charged with the proclamation of the truth of God, not his opinions. And we are not at liberty to discount portions of God’s word because we find the passages difficult to understand or deal with.

Should not our preaching be done in a manner that treats the Bible as being what it claims to be — the inspired Word of God? If we really believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God,” shouldn’t our preaching reflect the truth that all of it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16- 17)? We must let these truths determine how and what we preach.

Paul gave this mandate to Timothy: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Any form of preaching that ignores that intended purpose and design of God falls short of the divine plan.

Frequently, we criticize denominational churches for avoiding certain passages of Scripture. This is often a valid criticism. After all, when is the last time you heard a Baptist preacher teach on Mark 16:16? How about 1 Peter 3:21? Have you noticed, however, that we may need somebody to give us the same criticism? How many sermons have you heard on the resurrection and proper biblical eschatology in passages such as John 5:28-29 and chapter 15 of 1 Cor- inthians? How about the option of remaining single instead of marrying (1 Cor. 7:25-40)? I don’t think we jettisoned our commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God on purpose, but we may have let it happen by practice.

Let me detail what I mean by “systematic verse by verse exposition of the word of God.” There are three major cat- egories of preaching: Topical, textual, and expository.

Topical messages usually combine a series of Bible vers- es that loosely connect with a theme. It has been estimated that around 80% of all preachers are topical preachers.

Textual preaching uses a short text or passage that generally serves as a gateway into whatever subject the preacher chooses to address. Somewhere around 15% of all preachers fit this category.

Expository preaching focuses predominately on the text under consideration, as well as its context. Do the math, and you’ll see that around 5% of preachers are expositors.

It is my firm belief that neither the topical nor the textual method represents a serious effort to interpret, understand, explain, or apply God’s truth in the context of the Scriptures used. This is especially true when you are merely trying to entertain the audience. Most books on hermeneutics state the following minimal elements identify expository preaching:

• The message finds its sole source in Scripture. No pop- psychology, politics, social engineering, or excessive pandering to emotions.
• The message comes entirely from the Scripture under consideration through careful exegesis. The preacher cannot expound Scripture until he has a firm grasp of its meaning.
• The message correctly interprets Scripture in light of its context, on both an immediate and overall level.
• The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture. This cannot be over-emphasized. We are to let the Scriptures teach us; we are not to force our view into the passage.
• The message applies the scriptural meaning for today.
• This is also known as “relevance.”

If the above sounds like it places a heavy burden of ser- mon preparation on the preacher, you can be assured that it does. Paul’s instruction to Timothy was that he was to, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The preacher who is doing the work that God expects him to do will always be a hard worker, and will spend serious time in Bible study, frequently around

10-15 hours per sermon. Fail to adequately prepare and the preacher directly disobeys 2 Timothy 2:16: “But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.” (A helpful hint to preachers: study to know the meaning of the text, not to prepare a sermon. When you thoroughly understand the text, the sermon will be easily prepared.)

There are many passages that exemplify this kind of Bible teaching. Two key verses are Nehemiah 8:8 (Old Testament) and Acts 20:26-27 (New Testament). “And they read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading”(Neh. 8:8). “Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God”(Acts 20:26-27).

Other examples include Jesus himself as he taught in the synagogue by expounding Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:16-

22. (See also Luke 24:27, 32, 44-47.) Philip demonstrated expository teaching being used evangelistically in Acts 8:27-35 when he was dealing with the Ethiopian eunuch. These are not the only examples of exposition in the teach- ing of Scripture. In fact, the word of God is replete with such examples. Each of the Gospels, the history book of Acts, almost every single epistle (the one chapter epistles being the only exception), and even the prophetic book of Revelation provide many examples and exhortations to preach the complete word of God as he has given it.

We must return to the biblical pattern and example of proclaiming the whole counsel of God exactly and entirely as it was given to us. Failing to do so will lead to a genera- tion of Christians that knows very little about God’s word, who do not grow spiritually, and (worst of all) cannot reproduce themselves. We do not do justice to the word of God when we fail to proclaim it in its entirety. We do not proclaim it in its entirety when we preach on the same things over and over to the neglect of the rest of Scripture. And we certainly do not proclaim it properly when we teach sermons that merely make the occasional, casual, reference to the word of God.

Consider these verses, and ask yourself if these things are happening at your congregation. If they are not, there needs to be repentance for neglecting the whole counsel of God, followed by continued obedience to the commands and examples that follow:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:19-20).

Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching (1 Tim. 4:13).

And the things which you have heard from me in the pres- ence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruc- tion (2 Tim. 4:2).

But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine (Tit. 2:1).

By Harry Osborne

All brethren with whom I am familiar by personal discussion or reading their material affirm that God created the universe, both animate and inanimate. I think it fair to say that all brethren I know would deny Darwinian evolution which affirms the evolution of all forms of life from a single, one-celled source or a few one-celled sources arising from non-living matter. However, some of our brethren are now saying that, while they deny the animate creation evolved beyond the stated limit of “after its own kind” given in the Bible, they accept the evolving of the inanimate creation from the “big bang” 20 billion years ago.

They affirm that the earth finally came into being some 4.5 billion years ago after the cooling and condensing of gases and other matter from the big bang. They further accept the concept that the formed earth took about two billion years to cool off, clear its atmosphere and various other things needed to reach “stability” (their choice of words, not mine). They affirm that all of these changes over millions or billions of years were necessary to play out before the earth was ready for the next action by God. In other words, God acted, then the earth was allowed to “stabilize” over a long period wherein changes were explained by naturalism rather than miraculous power, and the process repeated.

As they so affirm, they decry the use of the term “theistic evolution” to describe their views. They contend that they do not believe the general theory of evolution (Darwinian evolution) which holds that all living forms evolved from a common one-celled source. Since they do not believe in that form of evolution, they contend that they are misrepresented when others refer to them as “theistic evolutionists.” They sometimes refer to their view point as “progressive creationism” or “old earth creationism.”

My question is this: What is the difference between believing in the evolution of the animate creation and the inanimate creation? God is said to have “created” (Heb., bara) both the animate and the inanimate: the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1); man (Gen. 1:27, et. al.); the living things of day five (Gen. 1:21); the heavens (Isa. 42:5). Furthermore, the terms “created” and “made” seem to be governed by the same time frame in Genesis 2:4. What, then, could be the biblical basis for refuting the evolution of the animate creation while affirming the evolution of the inanimate world? It seems to me that the two views are philosophically inconsistent. Am I missing something?

There is a great deal of discussion about it being unfair to call those “theistic evolutionists” who deny the evolution of the animate creation, but who affirm what can only be described fairly as the evolution of the inanimate creation. While I agree that we need to avoid using terms that unfairly characterize one, is the term “theistic evolution” an unfair characterization of the view that says God initiated and guided a process which over a 20 billion year period of change ultimately “stabilized” in the formation of the inanimate creation? Given the qualifiers, it seems to me that the term does fairly characterize what such brethren are teaching. However, I am caught between the desire to avoid a non-central dispute over terminology and the desire to have brethren frame the discussion in the proper context.

Lest the reader think only a few radical and ignorant folks are failing to understand the more educated and moderate defenders of this doctrine, let me point you to others who are sounding the same warnings. Dr. Bert Thompson, Executive Director of Apologetics Press and long-time lecturer on Evidences among institutional brethren, expressed it this way:

Is progressive creationism theistic evolution? Both call in God to start creation. Both accept evolution (in varying amounts). Both accept the validity of the geologic age system. Both postulate an old Earth. Where is the difference, except that progressive creationism allow God “a little more to do in the system”? Both systems put God (theos) and evolution together. By any other standard that’s theistic evolution (Creation Compromises [1995] 193).

Thompson has dealt extensively with exposing the error of men like John Clayton among institutional brethren. Together with Wayne Jackson, Thompson has repeatedly warned that such teaching is a sure road to acceptance of more and more evolution. He quotes from Richard Niessen making the same point in these words:

It is currently fashionable for theistic evolutionists to go by the name “Progressive Creationists” in order to avoid the popular resentment in Christian circles against evolution and its non-theistic orientation. In practice, however, both views are essentially the same. The difference merely concerns the amount of God’s intervention within the evolutionary process (Niessen, Significant Discrepancies Between Theistic Evolution and the Bible, 1980, 16; as quoted from Thompson, 193).

Dr. Bolton Davidheiser, a long-time writer and lecturer on Evidences in evangelical circles has made the same point in his efforts to contend with the teaching of Dr. Hugh Ross. Brethren, it is not just a few “trigger happy young guns” out to create a problem who have conjured up a fight on this matter.

There is no doubt in my mind that acceptance of evolutionary concepts regarding the inanimate creation will inevitably result in acceptance of evolutionary concepts regarding the animate creation. Maybe not by the present teachers of such, but certainly by a second generation. The history of “Progressive Creationism” among the denominational world plainly shows that fact. The same historical pattern may be seen in the Abilene Christian University controversy among the institutional brethren. In The Shadow of Darwin, a book by Wayne Jackson and Bert Thompson, chronicles that digression as do numerous articles and lectures. The movement started with the acceptance of John Clayton’s teaching and ended in the full teaching of the general theory of evolution with the initial act and continuing guidance of God.

Make no mistake about it, the same movement has begun among non-institutional brethren. Those who minimize the problem and defend the brethren who affirm this error are aiding in a subtle, but devastating assault upon the very foundation of faith. Brethren, if

Jesus said, “Let your lights so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). This statement comes immediately after his having told his disciples, “Ye are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14). Lights will shine and will illuminate. Light will overcome darkness. Lights will stand out in the midst of darkness. However, I believe it is appropriate to note that such will happen without the “lights” seeking to draw attention to themselves. Jesus said, “Let your lights so shine . . . ” not, “Shine your light.” I fear many are more concerned about the attention and praise they can attain for themselves than with simply doing what the Lord would have them do.

Note, also, that the purpose of letting our lights shine is that God may be glorified, not to bring praise upon the person doing the good works. All of us must fight the temptation to seek the praise and attention of men.

For example, preachers may study hard and preach lessons true to the word, however they may do so and all the while be thinking, “Boy, what an outstanding job I am doing!” It seems that some are more desirous of impressing men with their “great” knowledge or their outstanding ability than with preaching the word in a very plain and simple manner so that those who hear may easily understand God’s will and be persuaded to obey. When listeners go away talking about “how smart he is” or about how much “Greek he knows” and remembering little or nothing about the message something is wrong. When someone does obey the teaching of God’s word it should not be viewed with the attitude, “Look what I have accomplished.” We must recognize that the gospel is God’s power unto salvation and that he is the one to be glorified and praised when his will is obeyed. Brethren, let’s make sure we preach the truth and let’s make sure we do so for the right purpose.

Song leaders can also be guilty of trying to impress others rather than humbly “letting their lights shine.” A man may be so intent on impressing men with his wonderful singing and his leading ability that he forgets that he is supposed to be helping and leading others in worship to God. Good song leaders are a great help to all of us in our worship to God, however they do not have to broadcast their ability to others to shine forth as lights. Faithfully serving in this capacity will get the job done and God will be glorified.

Bible class teachers can sometimes forget about helping others attain knowledge and understanding of God’s word and can become caught up in efforts to impress the students with their knowledge and ability. The good teacher is one who directs the student’s attention to God and his word and not to himself. The good teacher does not have to tell the students about how talented he is or how well educated he may be. If he is so talented and capable it will soon be evident to all and the students will benefit from his teaching and will be impressed with God, his word, his power and his love.

Jesus tells us that those who do their good deeds to be seen of men “have their reward” (Matt. 6:1-16). When these receive the praise of men they have received their reward and will receive no additional reward. They have been “paid in full!”

The faithful child of God recognizes that true great- ness in the kingdom of heaven is humble service (Matt.

18:4; Luke 14:7-11). He knows that if he does what is right God will be glorified and he will be pleasing in the sight of God. He may not be exalted in the eyes of men; in fact, men may not even see or know about the deeds done by the faithful servant, but God knows, and that is all that really matters.

The intelligent person does not have to tell others he is intelligent. The “good teacher” does not have to boast of his accomplishments. The faithful child of God will not have to “shine his light.” He will humbly and quietly go about doing the Lord’s will and will “shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). He may seem very unimportant to men, but he is great in the kingdom of heaven.

Brethren, which are we doing? Are we “letting our lights shine” or are we trying to “shine our lights”?

I have had many conversations with people on religious topics in which the response to something I said was “well, my preacher (or pastor) says . . .” I have even heard some Christians say things similar to this. Please consider the problems with this statement.

First, let’s take the words “my preacher.” These words confess the religious pluralism of our society. There are literally hundreds of different churches in our society, each with its own peculiar set of doctrines or practices and many of them contradicting each other. With so many different churches teaching so many different things, it is possible to find a church that says and does just what you want. Of course, what suits one person may not suit others, and so people talk about “my church” and “your church.”

This talk about “my preacher” or “my pastor” is a part of the phenomenon religious pluralism, but it also confesses a basic reluctance (refusal?) to read the Bible and to treat the Bible as the final authority in religious matters. I have learned that many people would rather not read the Bible for themselves. This may be for any number of reasons. Perhaps they think they cannot understand it. Perhaps they just do not want to go to the “trouble” it takes to study. Whatever the reason, many people would prefer to ask “their preacher” rather than open their Bibles to find out what God says about something. In this way preachers have come to be seen as experts whose opinions are binding and final. For many people, if the preacher says it, they believe it. If the preacher says it, it must be what the Bible teaches.

The problem with this should be obvious. God’s word is infallible, but preachers are not. Preachers can be opinionated, ill-informed, mistaken, prejudiced, etc. just like anyone else. The world is full of “preachers” who do not know (or care) what the Bible says but who use their position to promote their opinions with an air of authority. There are also serious, well-intentioned, careful preachers who study their Bibles long and hard before they say anything, but who sometimes are mistaken in their views. The point is that no one should simply trust his preacher to tell him the truth. The truth is in God’s word and nowhere else. A preacher may help others to understand God’s word, but the preacher is not the source of the truth. Everything he says must be subjected to the scrutiny of God’s word.

The people in Berea were excellent examples of what we are talking about. When Paul came and preached the gospel to them, their reaction was to open their Bibles and compare what Paul said to the truth in God’s book. “They received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). When they found that Paul’s message coincided with God’s word, then they accepted it, but not before then.

If God’s truth is in his book, the Bible, then why do we need preachers? God, in his wisdom, knows that people will listen before they will read. So God has appointed that those who wish can work for him by speaking the message and truths of his word to others. But this does not make the preacher a substitute for the word. It does not make the preacher a substitute for reading your Bible yourself. A preacher is commanded by God to study and be an accurate Bible student (2 Tim 2:15), and those who teach things contrary to the written word will be account- able for it. Even so, a preacher is still a fallible human being, and the only word you may trust with your life is God’s, not the preacher’s. While the preacher’s message must come from the word of God and nowhere else, but what he says should still be judged by the word of God before it is accepted.

There is always the temptation to let the preacher study the Bible for us, to trust his opinions rather than look it up in the Bible for ourselves. I fear that this is the case among some of my own brethren. God forbid that the salvation of anyone’s soul is up to what some preacher says! God forbid that any one of us should be content simply to accept what a preacher tells us, that we should trust him completely to speak the truth 100% of the time on every subject! We must not put our trust in men, but in God who alone speaks absolute truth. A preacher speaks the truth only when his words coincide with God’s.

The purpose of this article is not to encourage disrespect for those who preach the word of God, nor even suspicion. Most gospel preachers I know are diligent, serious, sincere men who want nothing other than to speak only the truth every time they preach and teach. Instead I wish to encourage us not to think of the preacher more highly than we ought (1 Cor 4:6). A preacher’s words are not infallible, his opinions are not completely reliable. Our highest respect should be reserved for God’s word. And if we respect it properly, we should then take it into our.