Truth Magazine

By Carl W. Strachan

(Note: A closing speech made during a service of the Southwest Church and in which new preachers to the Miami area were introduced and spoke).

I want to give thanks to God for my being permitted to be here this evening and enabling me to know you all. In connection will all the wonderful speakers, I can’t remember them all by name but I know one thing that we are all Christians, we are all brethren in Christ Jesus. I may not know all of you here in this world but the Bible reveals that some day we will all know each other better by and by.

I only want to say that I want to confirm some of the things that I have learned and God knows that I am a Christian as are these brethren and in “the eternal purpose of God.” Now, that is a universal expression and covers a wide area. I believe we can speak of that until that time shall come because all the Bible is the eternal purpose of God-every word of it!

You know in the back of my mind I was thinking, while the brethren were emphasizing the Scripture, of the fifth chapter of John, where Jesus went up to Jerusalem to the feast and met the sick and impotent man by the pool of Bethesda. He was afflicted, crippled for thirty and eight years. He needed to be healed. Jesus Christ who has an all seeing eye and sees everywhere and knows everything, saw the needy man and the condition he was in and looked to him and said: “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk” (John 5:8). “The man was made whole took up his bed and walked.”

I look at the story again and it is seen that the Bible mentions that there were important people there in the sheep market where Jesus lingered but they were critical of the miracle He performed. Jesus later talked to this man that had been crippled but now walked and was now very happy for his healing. Jesus reminded him in the temple, “Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (John 5:14). This man became a disciple of Jesus as he continued to tell others what the Lord had done for him.

I believe that many people of the world today are still waiting on Jesus Christ. One of the greatest subjects in this life, I often think of, is that of people waiting to be Christians while all the time Jesus is waiting for them, right now, to act in obedience to His Word. This same precious moment Jesus is waiting for you to come unto him. He is waiting not only here for you to “come unto him” but every where in the world. One thing I love about the Savior is that He not only loves Americans but people of every nation under the heavens. Jesus is waiting to save them, too!

Maybe there are some of you here that are not Christians. Please remember that everyone has to be a Christian in order to fulfill the eternal purpose that God has for us. In order for us to obtain the rewards that Jesus Christ has for us, we are going to have to do just what God says for us to do. We should not be burdened and we cannot be hasty. We are going to have to know what we are doing. The three preachers have spoken here today in many, many words about many things whereby you could understand what God has said in the Bible. There is no reason for you to be in this building or in this hall along with God’s people and you not be a good Christian too. We are all here to encourage each other to be in the church of Jesus Christ and the arms of God and amid spiritual surroundings that when Jesus comes he will give us the reward that he has for us.

Now, those of you that are not Christians need remember that Jesus is still waiting for you – waiting with outstretched arms. The invitation of the Bible is: “Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). God’s Word to sinners in 2 Chron. 7:14 is: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked way; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their soul.” God expects no less of those who would be his true people today.

It is my appeal to you, each of you, sinner friends, is that you earnestly consider the fact that neither God, Christ nor the Holy Spirit can save you until you open your ears to the truth of the New Testament of Christ and in hearing the truth, be ready to accept all of it. This means your believing in God, repenting of every sin, confessing your faith in Christ to be God’s Son and then be buried in baptism to arise and walk in newness of life. You will want to then worship and serve him faithfully unto death. (See Heb. 11:6; Luke 13:3; Matt. 10:32; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:36-38; Rom. 6:3,4; and Rev. 2:10). I plead with you to do so now. Jesus is now here at the door of your heart. Do not leave the building until you do something about it. You and I can never know just what may happen to prevent your obedience and again Jesus may come at any time for his saints. Let us all make ourselves ready!

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 6-7
April 16, 1976

By Cecil Willis

“And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one question, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; we fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We know not. He also said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things” (Matt. 21:23ff). No lesson is religiously more fundamental, or more direly needed than one on “Authority in Religion.” These Jews were questioning the authority of Christ.

Authority is necessary for all realms of activity. Without authority there is anarchy and chaos. Think about the confusion there would be if our civil governments were abolished. Suppose there were no traffic laws. Imagine the confusion there would be at a downtown intersection if there were no traffic lights or signals of any kind to indicate who has the right of way. If we had no authority, there would be nothing to keep any one who chooses to do so from driving on the left side of the street.

If there were no authority, then one could give either a small or a large piece of meat to a customer who asked for a pound. Or, one might receive a peck or a truck load of coal when he asked for a ton. Without authority, money would not be uniform. So authority is necessary in every realm. Peace, safety, and harmony, prevail when there is authority, and it is properly respected and obeyed.

There also has to be authority in religion. If there is no authority to be followed in religion, one could eat pop-corn instead of bread and the fruit of the vine in partaking of the Lord’s Supper; or he could read comic books instead o# the Scriptures. But there are rules to be followed in Christianity. Paul said, “only, whereunto ye have attained, by that same rule let us walk” (Phil. 3:16). People sometimes object to one’s referring to the rules to be followed in Christianity. But Paul said to walk by the “same rule.” Again he said, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death” (Rom. 8:1,2). There is a law in Christ Jesus. James speaks of the “perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). And if there is no authority, Paul gave an impossible command in 1 Cor. 1:10. He said, “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there is no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgement.” How could we all speak the same things if there is no authority to which all that we say must conform? It would be impossible. But why do not all speak the same thing? It is because all do not conform to the standard, the law of Christianity.

Unsafe Rules

Rather than accept the law of God, men have turned to unsafe guides as their authority in religion. (1) For years men have said that their feelings were a safe guide. Quite often I have seen people, when asked if they were a Christian, pat their hand across their chest, and say “I know I am saved, for I feel it right here!” But we know that feelings are not a safe guide in other realms. Suppose you started to buy a pound of meat, and the butcher should say, “Well, this feels like a pound. That will be $2.00, please.” You would insist that he put the meat on the scales, would you not? Can one’s state of health always be determined by his feeling? Many people have died, who only a few moments before were feeling all right. In Gen. 37 we read of a scheme of Jacob’s sons against their brother, Joseph, and their father. Joseph’s coat was dipped in blood, and it was insinuated to Jacob that he had been killed. But he had not been. Yet Jacob felt that he had, and thus sorrowed exceedingly. His feelings were not a safe guide. They were wrong. We need to learn that forgiveness of sins, or pardon is something that takes place in heaven, and not inside man. A person may feel himself pardoned when he has not been. Would a prisoner be released simply because he felt he had been pardoned by the governor? Paul said, “The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16). It is only when the teaching of the Spirit of God, found recorded in the Bible, joins with our spirit in saying `you have done what God said do: thus you are pardoned’ that we can be sure. We must have it in words from God, the great Forgiver. You must be able to show from the Scriptures that you have done what God has said to do to be forgiven.

(2) Others turn to another guide which is unsafe. Often we hear people advise “just follow your conscience and you will be all right.” But is conscience a safe guide in religion? Saul, later called the apostle Paul, followed his conscience. He said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day” (Acts 23:1). Paul had lived according to his conscience. But his conscience had been misguided. For he said, “I verily though with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9). His conscience told him he ought to persecute those that wore the name of Christ, and all the while he followed his misguided conscience, he himself said he was a chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). A misinformed conscience cannot direct one correctly. So the conscience has to be guided by the infallibly safe guide to safely direct one.

To illustrate the fact that all of us admit that conscience, in some instances is not a safe guide, let us consider those in other lands who are guided by their consciences. The Hindu woman is so devout in her belief that she has faith enough to cast her new-born child to the crocodiles in an effort to appease the rivergod. Is this woman going to heaven simply because she has followed the dictates of her conscience? Is this what I should do if my conscience should so dictate? Some time ago I read of a man who slew his family, stating that he was compelled to do so by religious conviction. The Aztec Indians of Mexico used to cut the heart out of a human being as a part of their worship of the Sun god. They were following their consciences; but this did not make it right. In each of these instances, conscience led these people to become murderers. But their conscience simply misguided them. If their conscience can be misguided, so can yours and mine. So, conscience is not a safe guide.

(3) Others turn to any number of different so-called lager-day direct revelations. Many have claimed that God has spoken to them directly, and revealed to them some altogether new truths. Many cults would today be non-existent were it not for the claims of some of their founders to a latter revelation. But latter revelations cancel themselves out as reliable authority by the very fact that each of these pseudo-revelations has led to the establishment of churches mutually opposed, and is the foundation upon which contradictory doctrines are taught. The writer Jude commanded us to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Notice he spoke of “the faith” not “faiths.” It is referred to in the singular. And in Eph. 4:5 Paul said there is “one faith.” So if there is but one faith, I know that this one faith cannot consist of the Bible and the latter revelations. It is an either-or proposition. The “one faith” is either the Bible or latter revelations. We cannot accept both. We must make a choice. But when I read in the Bible that the word of God furnishes one unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16,17), and that through the knowledge of Christ we are granted all things that pertain to life and to godliness, I find it difficult to see any need whatsoever for latter revelations. Paul said, “but though we or an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). If these latter revelations contain more than the Bible, they contain too much. If they contain less than the Bible, they do not contain enough. If they contain exactly what the Bible contains, they are unnecessary. So one cannot look to the modern revelations of men or women, and supposedly there have been both, for his authority in religion.

(4) Others are willing to let father or mother guide them in religion. They say “If it was good enough for father or mother, it is good enough for me.” But friends, the religion of your ancestors is not criterion for your faith. Remember we each have two parents, but quite often they differ religiously. Which of them shall be your standard? We each have four grandparents, eight great grandparents, sixteen great, great grandparents, and so on. Certainly all of them have not agreed religiously. Which ancestor should we follow? We must follow the one that followed the word of God, and if we find that none of them followed God’s word, we must still follow the teachings of the Bible.

Paul was one who had to admit that the religion of his ancestors was inadequate. His parents must have been very devout, for they had their son instructed at the feet of the greatest teacher of their time. Perhaps they had great hopes for their Jewish boy. But Paul was met by the Lord on the road to Damascus, and saw that both he and his parents were wrong. Paul had to change. There is nothing wrong with changing. In fact, one must change if he learns he is wrong, and he who will not change when he knows he is wrong is not honest. I have four children and I want to think that I am going to be able to give them the proper start in their study of the Bible, so that in their lifetime they will be able to know the Bible more perfectly than I will ever be able to know it. But, I would be a most disappointed parent if I should then learn that my child refused to do what he found God commanded him to do just because his father had failed to do it. Remember our religion is not to be inherited. It has been said that the church grows more by generation than by regeneration. But this must not be. The Bible and the Bible alone must be our religious standard.

(5) Others have the mistaken idea that because the majority of the people believe a thing, it must be so. They think there is safety in numbers. Some pride themselves in the fact that there are so many millions in their religious group. But if there should be a billion in a certain denomination, that might just prove one thing; that is, that a billion people were wrong. Suppose Noah had said he was going to stay with the majority. He would have drowned in the flood waters just as the multitude did. Remember the majority failed to reach the Promised Land. Jesus said, “Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it” (Matt. 7:13,14). Jesus taught that the majority will be lost.

But why do people think the majority’s believing a thing to be true can make it true? Why do people want to be in the majority? Because it then becomes the path of least resistance. But the majority cannot decide the truth, for the majority may not always be the same group. Where people are anything religiously, in Utah the majority of people are Mormons; in Georgia the majority are Baptists; in Maryland the majority are Catholics; in Palestine the majority are Jews; in India the majority are Hindus. If I should move from one place to the other my religion would have to change accordingly, if the majority determines the truth.

Conclusion

One thing must determine my stand religiously. Jesus said: “sanctify them in truth; Thy word is truth” (Jno. 17:17). This word must be my only authority. Martin Luther said, in speaking of the Bible, “Here I stand so help me God.” We must let God; not the majority, not father or mother, noi- our feelings or conscience, not some mystic who claims a special revelation, I repeat, we must let God’s word, and His word alone be our standard, our authority its all matters of religion!

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 3-6
April 15, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Oklahoma: “Does 1 Corinthians 3:9 authorize collective action of churches “

Reply:

The text in question says, “For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” This passage appears in a context wherein Paul shows the folly of “contentions” in the church at Corinth. “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (i Cor. 1:12). “For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am’ of Apollos.” (1 Cor. 3:4).

Paul reveals the absurdity of such partyism. “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul” (1 Cor. 1:13)? “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then (in view of those facts-LRH) neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth (Paul) and he that watereth (Apollos) are one (in contrast to you Corinthians who are divided over us-LRH): and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building” (1 Cor. 3:49).

Paul and Apollos were one because they labored together with God. They were not separated with respect to purpose. Their oneness was seen in that they worked toward the same goal. “He that planteth and he that watereth are one (How?) … For we are labourers together with God.”

Accordingly, Paul argues, the Corinthians should be one-one vineyard, one building. It was a united labor that planted, watered and raised them. God’s seal of approval was seen in that He gave the increase. The planting and watering, a united action, was given increase. It produced. Division is foreign to that figure and concept. “You are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” “Therefore let no man glory in men,” men like Paul or Apollos or Peter. “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another?” (1 Cor. 4:6, 7).

Now To The Question

A plurality of congregations is not under consideration. Collective action of churches is not the subject. Therefore, collective action of churches is not authorized in 1 Corinthians 3:9. The unity Paul urges is as broad as the division he was repudiating and rebuking. Was he discussing intercongregational schism? Was he encouraging a number of churches to cease their squabbling? No, therefore, the unity he advocated was not a unity of churches.

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 2
April 15, 1976

By Mike Willis

In the November installment of Leroy Garrett’s series on “The Word Abused,” he decided to write on Romans 14:23. The editor was more concerned with disarming an argument made for the necessity of Bible authority than he was at clarifying what Rom. 14:23 actually teaches. Actually, the editor revealed that his own understanding of Rom. 14 is in conflict with other segments of Scripture, as I shall prove later in the article.

To show what the editor of Restoration Review trying to disarm, read the following:

“In the party in which I was reared and schooled, this passage is connected with Ro. 10:17, `Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,’ so as to show that if a particular practice is not mentioned in scripture (always something we oppose), then it is sinful. For something to be `of faith,’ therefore, it must be in the Bible, for `faith’ comes by hearing God’s word. It makes a perfect argument against the likes of instrumental music, and It is as sound as an Aristotelian syllogism.

“Whatever is not of faith is sin.

Instrumental music is not of faith.

Therefore, instrumental music is a sin.

“This argument depends upon Ro. 10:17, which can be expressed as another syllogism.

“If something is a matter of faith, then it can be heard (or read) in the word of God (Ro. 10:17). Instrumental music cannot be heard (or read) in the word of God (implying New Testament).

Therefore, instrumental music is not a matter of faith.

“Then comes the first syllogism. Since instrumental music Is not a matter of faith, it is a sin (Rom. 14:23).” (Restoration Review, XVII: 9, p. 162).

The editor’s complaint is lodged in the belief that the word “faith” is used in two different senses in Rom. 10:17 and 14:23. He said,

“To examine an argument we must first look at Its terminology. . . . Just so, in the first two syllogisms the term `of faith’ can be misleading, causing one to draw a wrong conclusion. In fact, `faith’ in Ro. 10:17 is different from `of faith’ in Ro. 14:23, while the argument implies that they are the same. This itself destroys the argument, for one equivocates when he uses a term In two different ways in the same argument, or when he uses a term that means something different In two contexts as If they meant the same. It Is like arguing: Man is the highest creature on the evolutionary ladder; therefore, man is superior to woman. If we argue about `faith’ from two different passages, as If the meaning of the word were the same, then the meaning must be the same. But this is not the case with Ro. 10:17 and Ro. 14:23, as we shall be seeing” (Ibid., p. 163).

The editor’s objection loses all of its force when one sees that the poignant syllogism which he is opposing does not even depend upon Rom. 14:23 for its validity. I would freely grant that the word “faith” is used in a different sense in Rom. 14:23 and Rom. 10:17 and agree that to use them together in a syllogism violates a principle of logic which invalidates any conclusion drawn from the joining of the two as a major and minor premise. However, if one does not employ Rom. 14:23 in the syllogism and uses the term “faith” to mean the same thing in both syllogisms, then the argument is valid.

Rom. 14:23 teaches, as Garrett pointed out, that whatever action one engages in which does not proceed from the firm conviction that it accords with God’s will is sinful. Paul was not discussing whether the action was in accord with God’s word; rather, he was discussing whether the person engaging in the practice believed that it was in accord with God’s word. Basically, this is the main point of Rom. 14:23. To use the passage to teach that to practice anything not taught in the Scriptures is sin is to abuse the Scriptures, even though that which is taught is true. We need to substantiate our contention from other passages.

However, the position “whatever is of faith is taught in the word of God” is true. No one can act from faith in doing anything for which he is unable to find authority in the Scriptures. I might decide to break my leg as an act of devotion to God. Though I might sacrifice quite a bit to do this, the act would be in vain and meaningless because it was not an act of obedience to God’s word-an act of faith (cf. Col. 2:20-23). Rom. 10:17 clearly connects faith and God’s word. One cannot act out of faith unless he is proceeding in obedience to God’s word. Other passages reveal the same truth, such as 2 Cor. 5:7. The major premise of the syllogism which Garrett denies cannot be attacked as being untrue. The major premise simply states that all matters must have positive authority from the Scriptures before thay can be considered scriptural. This is the positive expression of the “prohibition of silence” argument. For a thing to be wrong, one does not have to find a “thou shalt not;” if no positive authority can be found for an item, whether general or specific, it is sinful when incorporated into the work and/ or worship of the church. Thus, our major premise reads:

Major Premise: All matters of the faith are revealed in God’s word. Our minor premise does not depend upon Rom. 14:23 for its validity or substantiation. Therefore, the editor’s objection about equivocal usage of terminology carries no weight. The minor premise is:

Minor Premise: Instrumental music is not revealed in God’s word. Any objection which can be raised against this argument must be raised about its truthfulness. Is instrumental music revealed–as-acceptable unto God? This is where the issue must rest! The conclusion is valid or invalid depending upon whether this statement is true or false. Until recently, both Christian Churches and churches of Christ realized that the issue lay at this point. Arguments, pro and con, were made to establish the validity or invalidity of the statement. One must read the pertinent passages to decide for himself which is true. However, if both the major and minor premise is true, the conclusion is irresistible.

Conclusion: Instrumental’ music is not a matter of faith. Our knowledge of God’s attitude toward the introduction of unauthorized practices leads us to the conclusion that to introduce mechanical instruments of music into worship (something which is not a matter of faith) is sinful. We have learned all of this from Rom. 10:17 without the usage of Rom. 14:23. All of Garrett’s comments on Rom. 14:23 do not invalidate the argument; he might as well have been writing on Matt. 1:1 so far as its effect on this argument is concerned.

The argument can be applied to any item not authorized in the Scriptures. Garrett complained,

“The minor premise can be adjusted to fit all party distinctions, whether classes, literature, agencies, societies, sponsoring churches, owning real estate, pastor system, choirs, stained glass windows, orphanages, and on and on. The couplet of Ro. 10:17 and Ro. 14:23, joined In argument as described herein, is unanswerable-`I haven’t met the man yet that could answer it!’ It Is unanswerable if the terms in the premises are allowed to mean what the person making the argument wants them to mean” (Ibid.).

Brother Garrett, the terms of my syllogism are not equivocal; I have confined myself to Rom. 10:17. The argument is valid or invalid depending upon the veracity of the minor premise. If someone substitutes something into the minor premise which is scriptural, then the argument is invalid. However, so long as the minor premise is true, the conclusion is irresistible.

Look Who’s Abusing Rom. 14

However, while we are considering Rom. 14, perhaps we should make some comments about Garrett’s treatment of the passage. Garrett treats matters pertaining to congregational worship and work on the same level as matters of individual conscience, asserting that we ought to treat matters such as the sponsoring church, instrumental music, church support of institutions, etc. on the same basis as we treat eating meats, having a Christmas tree, exchanging gifts at Christmas, etc. He wrote,

“Then in verse 22 he asks, Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Again, this has no reference to one’s belief in the gospel. It is rather like asking, Do you have certain convictions about these things we’re talking about? If so, he adds, you are to have them before God. You don’t have to be judged by your brothers in reference to them” (Ibid., pp. 164-165).

Now, Brother Garrett, are you going to make the statement, “You don’t have to be judged by your brothers in reference to them” a universal statement? If it applies to all circumstances, then we have a conflict in the Scriptures. In 1 Cor. 5:9-13, Paul revealed that the church not only had the right, but also had the obligation, to judge its own members. If your statement applies to everything, the Scriptures contradict each other and cannot be considered God’s word. Furthermore, the church must not judge those who are modernists, immoral, etc., if we cannot judge our brethren as you asserted. If the statement you made is not universal, then it does not apply to all things. What right do you have to classify congregational matters, such as the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship, the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions, modernism, etc. on the level of personal opinions? We want to see the criteria which you use to tell whether or not the rules of Rom. 14 apply to any given item.

My brethren, to show you why I am leery of Garrett’s application of Rom. 14 to contemporary problems, consider the following quotations from other articles in this one issue of Restoration Review which reveal how liberal Garrett’s thinking really is:

1. He believes that the church may celebrate the Lord’s Supper with leavened bread. “There is no reason for us to make the Lord’s Supper Jewish in this sense, buying their bread and following their custom. We should encourage our sisters to bake bread especially for the occasion, one loaf appropriate to the size of the congregation. Or simply place a loaf on the table right off the grocer’s shelf, Manor’s or Mrs. Baird’s would be fine, unsliced! There is no instruction in scripture that it must be unleavened, though we always have it that way, as if we presumed it was required. Matthew tells us that `Jesus took bread,’ which was unleavened only because that’s all they had in the house during Passover. It does not say that he chose unleavened bread. Whenever we take bread, the ordinary bread that we have in our homes, we are doing as he did…. This is why I would prefer leavened bread, for it makes for a more imposing symbol, rich and round and full of life as the Body of Christ should be” (p- 167).

2. He rejects examples and inferences as methods of establishing authority. “Since boyhood I have been taught that the scriptures teach us In three ways: by direct command, approved example, and necessary inference…. I am presently convinced that this approach is of no real value in applying biblical authority. This is because some commands in scripture are clearly not for us all; approved examples are not always distinguishable, and the question remains as to who is to decide which ones are approved; inferences can be tricky and confusing as to whether necessary of unnecessary, with the matter of proper application still unsolved” (p. 169).

3. Acts 20:7 does not reveal a pattern for the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper. “Acts 20:7 may not emerge as a clear-cut case for disciples breaking bread each Sunday and only then, but it Is a vital piece of information that we are to give its proper place” (p. 170).

4. Baptists are Christians. “Ouida went with me to Texas hill country to perform a Church of Christ-Baptist wedding. I entered into this situation tangentially, from a discussion with Baptists at Baylor University. This Baptist student, to be married to a Church of Christ girl, was having a lot of problems, one being that he did not want to be married by a minister hostile to his own faith, though he was resigned to its being otherwise `Church of Christ.’ That everybody was out to `convert’ him he was taking pretty well. Since I loved both and accepted them both as Christians, and since I was `Church of Christ,’ I was asked to do the honors, albeit there was little hope that I would be all that popular a choice” (p. 172).

Frankly, I am not ready or willing to place all these items in the same category as eating of meats. I want to see some objective reason for putting them into the same category. If one can include these items, I know of no reason why he could not also put matters pertaining to faith in the deity of Christ in the same category.

I do not seriously disagree with Garrett’s exegesis of Rom. 14:23. However, I violently disagree with his application of it to matters of faith. Furthermore, I disagree with his conclusions regarding arguments on Rom. 10:17. Those who are reading the material flowing from Garrett’s pen can only view this as another attempt to blunt the sword used to make war against false teachers.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 11-13
April 8, 1976