Truth Magazine

By Tarry L.Cluff

The constitution of the United States was framed and adopted in 1787. In it is the right of every man for the pursuit of happiness. The quest to obtain happiness has led men in many different directions without achieving that goal.

Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes, chapter two, tells of his quest to find the secret of “what it was good for the sons of men that they should do under heaven all the days of their life” (Verse 2). Solomon had everything: he tells of his fame and fortune in Ecclesiastes 2:10 “and whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them . . .” Wouldn’t you think if a man could have anything his eyes desired he would be happy? Not so, look at verse 11, “then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to do: and, behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind.” At the end of the book, Solomon tells us the secret to a true and lasting happiness. Ecclesiastes 12:13: “This is the end of the matter all hath been heard: Fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Solomon realized, that the God who created man knows best what will and will not make man happy.

Many known men of our time have tried various things in life only to find happiness was not there. Voltaire was an infidel of the most pronounced type. He wrote: “I wish I had never been born.” Jay Gould, an American millionaire, with all his money said when he was dying: “I suppose I am the most miserable man on earth.” Lord Byron lived a life of pleasure, if anyone did. He wrote; “The worm, the canker, and the grief are mine alone.” Alexander the Great conquered the known world in his day, having done so, he said in tears: “There are no more worlds to conquer.” Lord Beaconsfield enjoyed more than his share of position and fame. He wrote: “youth is a mistake; manhood, a struggle; and old age a regret.” The answer to happiness is not found in unbelief, nor money, nor pleasure, nor military glory, or in position and fame.

Where, Then, is Happiness Found?

The answer is simple; in Christ alone. Jesus said to his Apostles; “I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you” (John 16:22).

Paul wrote the Christians in Philippians 4:4 and said, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say Rejoice.” Over 600 times in the Bible the words: Joy, Happiness, Bless, etc. are found. The Bible even speaks of the joy in suffering as a Christian. Colossians 1:11, “. . . unto all patience and longsuffering with joy;” James 1:2, “count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptation.” 1 Peter 4:16, “But if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name.”

Everyone can find happiness by obeying Jesus. We can have the joy that is found in being a Christian. But, how do we become a Christian?

How to Become a Christian

God did not forget to tell us, nor did he leave it up to our own judgment as to how we become a Christian. The Bible is plain on the subject. In the Book of Acts we have examples of conversions. The Jews on the day of Pentecost were told to believe Jesus is Lord and Christ, and to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins (Acts 2:36-38). Those that were baptized (verse 41) were added to the church (verse 47).

In every case of conversion the steps were the same: faith in Jesus, repentance of sins, and baptism for the remission of sins. Any person who has not taken these simple steps for the reasons that the Bible gives is not a Christian.

Friends, do not fool yourself into thinking you are a Christian when you have not obeyed the Lord’s commands. Jesus said only those who do the will of God will be saved (Matthew 7:21; Mark 16:16).

Truth Magazine XX: 42, p. 668
October 21, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

One of the most vital rules to learn in the study of the Bible is that the Bible must speak for itself. Men too often read into the Bible what they want it to say, or wish it would say. There can be no reading between the lines in a successful effort to study the Word of God. We must take God at His word, and remembering that the Bible is an all-sufficient divine revelation of God’s will; we must be willing to take the truth exactly as God has stated it without addition or subtraction. Reading into the Bible what is not there results always in our being led away from the truth.

The same passage of scripture is not susceptible of conflicting interpretations. To say that you can interpret it your way, and I can interpret it my way, and both be right is to accuse God of “double-talk” and indefinite, ambiguous language, which, of course, is not true. God has spoken in definite and positive terms that are plain enough for us to understand. Otherwise the Bible is no “revelation” at all. We can therefore understand what God wants us to know if we will strive to learn the intention of the language used and determine what the will of God actually is.

When any instrument is introduced into court and its construction becomes necessary, the first rule that is followed to learn what its language actually means is this: What does the instrument as a whole actually say? The purpose of this is to take the whole instrument into consideration and really construe it, first of all, as a whole instead of in separate parts. Whatever any statement may seem to say, when taken by itself, surely Must be in harmony with the rest of the instrument or else the instrument is faulty and is not binding. This is a simple principle but it needs application badly in the study of the word of God. No statement of God’s Word is out of harmony with the truth which the Word as a whole leaches. When we reach any conclusion concerning any passage which is out of harmony with what the rest of God’s word teaches, our conclusion is wrong. Peter makes this very demand of teachers when he said, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). Be sure your utterances are in harmony with the rest of what God has said, The rule is: study every passage in the light of the whole truth God has given.

The Context

Frequently a careful study of the context of a passage will prevent its misuse and our misunderstanding of it. The verses that go immediately before and those that follow should be studied in the light of the question what is the writer discussing? The subject matter under treatment cannot be disregarded in any proper study of the Bible. Further consideration of the context will require that we examine the passage and ask – to whom was this written? The application of commandments or promises contained in the Bible and addressed to particular and special groups should certainly not be extended beyond those groups. Jonah’s message was for Nineveh. Noah’s message was for the world before the flood. Moses’ law given at Sinai was for the Jews or those who had been delivered from Egypt. The Promises of the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were directed to the Apostles (John 14:16, 17, 26; 16:17-14). No man has the right to try to extend these and many others like them beyond the scope God gave them at the time they were spoken.

Still another question to ask concerning any passage is – by whose authority is this spoken? God speaks unto us in this last age through his Son (Heb. 1:1). We are under law to Christ (I Cor. 9:21). All authority both in heaven and on earth has been given into his hands, therefore no one else speaks with any authority at all unless he speaks what Christ has spoken (Matt. 28:1820). The gospel of Christ is the only message that this world has ever been given that has the power to condemn the souls of men who do not believe it (Mark 16:15, 16).

Literal or Figurative

Good common sense employed in the study of the Word of God will easily determine when the language is literal or figurative. Men do not ordinarily have any difficulty in determining what is figurative when they read the daily papers about ordinary events. Signs and symbols abound in the Bible, especially in the prophesies and the book of Revelation. There is no justification for basing a contention upon such a passage when no plain positive statement of the Word of God can be found elsewhere to support it. Jesus called Herod “all old fox,” but we understand easily that this is a figure of speech. The prophets said that John would come “levelling down the hills and filling the valleys and preparing the way,” but we have no problem in understanding that John was not to be a road-builder or highway engineer. Yet, many people will take such passages as Revelation 20, and in spite of symbolic language and the figures of speech the highly abounding on every hand, will try to make a literal application of some portions of the chapter, selecting those verses which they think support some particular theory they have accepted. Such is not only irregular, it is unscriptural and contrary to all proper use of language. John meant to prevent such use of the book when he said, “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18, 19).

The Silence of the Bible

Many theories and practices have been defended not on the ground of what the Bible does say, but on the ground rather of what the Bible has not said. Thus a premium is placed on the silence of the Bible. We need to learn that what God has said cannot be properly respected unless we respect God’s silence likewise. John tells us that to respect God’s silence and to refuse to trespass upon it is demanded at our hands. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). Paul wrote. to the Corinthians that they were not to go beyond that which was written (1 Cor. 4:6). To presume upon God’s will when he has not spoken and transgress God’s word by trespassing upon his silence is sinful and has always been condemned. We should be satisfied with what God has said, and abide within the testimony He has given. Faith requires this of us.

Truth Magazine XX: 42, pp. 665-666
October 21, 1976

 

By Arthur M.Ogden

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). These are the words of the apostle Paul as directed to our brethren at Corinth. That was over 1900 years ago. Is it still binding today? This is the question before us in this study.

Many brethren do not believe the passage under consideration is binding today. I am not of this persuasion. Being of a conservative mind, I find it difficult to deny the binding force of any passage, and be consistent in recognizing the binding force of other passages. Not only is that true, but I refuse to join the crowd of liberal thinkers in the church and in the denominational world who have thrown this passage and others to the wind, and are now permitting woman to have an equal role with men in religious service. This passage is not a threat to Christian women who desire to serve God in their proper realm. To the contrary, it helps to define for us the lawful realm of their activity and enhances the truth. I will think a long time before I turn loose of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

A Universal Command

While the I Corinthian letter was written to the church at Corinth, it is universal in nature and application. “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth . . . with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2). The commandments of this epistle are the same as those taught by Paul in every church (1 Cor. 4:16-17). Even the regulations of 1 Corinthians 14 “are the commandments of the Lord” (14:37), and applicable “in all churches of the saints” (14:33). It could not possibly be more generic than that, so therefore, the commandments of 1 Corinthians 14 are applicable today.

I realize that some of you are saying that since Paul was discussing spiritual gifts in this chapter, which gifts have been done away (1 Cor. 13:8-10), that the commandments given to regulate those gifts likewise ceased. If that is what is under consideration in the chapter, I too agree, the commandments ceased, but I challenge the accuracy of the assumption that Paul is regulating spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 14. Here are my reasons:

(1) All needed regulation of the gifts were given to each individual endowed at the time the Holy Spirit gave the gifts. The Holy Spirit determined which one, how many, and how much of the gifts would be given to each individual (1 Cor. 12:11). ‘The commandments of chapter 14 had nothing to do with regulating those gifts.

(2) The gifted individual himself’ regulated the use of his gift once he had received it. This is evidenced by Paul’s statement, “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32). Each person endowed had the power over his gift to control it, or God would have been the author of confusion (14:33). ‘That is why they were called gifts, They were given to each individual to rise at will within the proper confines of law.

(3) The regulations of chapter 14 are designed to control the individual who had the gift; not the gift itself. Paul’s charge, “if there be no interpreter, let him keel) silence in the church” (14:28) was designed to control the man who had the gift of tongues when he was in the assembly of the church. ‘The same thing was true also of the prophets (14:29-30). Paul did not regulate the gifts in the chapter, but rather those endowed with the gifts who were participating in the service herein described. The gift was not curbed, but the man possessing it was curbed while in the church.

(4) Not all of those regulated had spiritual gifts. To say that the women of verses 34-35 were inspired, is assumption pure arid simple. It is not inferred, much less necessarily inferred. If they were inspired, then every Christian woman was inspired, because Paul said, “it is a sharne for women (generic) to speak in the church” (14:35). Every Christian woman was under the restrictions of this passage.

The Purpose of These Restrictions

I believe that a careful examination of the text of 1 Corinthians 14 will show that Paul was regulating order in the assemblies of the church. He said, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (v. 40); that there be no confusion (v. 33); that all things might be done unto edifying (v, 26); “that all may learn, and all may be comforted” (v. 31), Is it not necessary to likewise maintain order today? If so, by what rule; and if not, why not?

It is often reasoned that the commandments of 1 Corinthians 14 are not binding today, but that certain principles do obtain. May I ask, what principles obtain, and are they binding today! and if so, are those principles “the commandment of the Lord” (14:37)? Does the principle “if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church” (v. 28) obtain today if one from a foreign country desired to address the whole church in a foreign tongue, and if so, is it a commandment of the Lord? Does the principle of one speak at a time obtain today (v, 27, 29), and if so, is it a commandment of the Lord? And if these principles obtain today, does not the principle of verses 34-35 likewise obtain today, and if it does, is it not a commandment of the Lord? Most will agree, but what point have I made, if I say, “1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not binding today, and then turn around and say that its principle is binding? You only meet yourself coming back.

I maintain that there is no essential difference in their assemblies and ours today. While it is true that many of the participants in those services were miraculously inspired, for this was their only means of receiving the revelation, we can do the same things in the assemblies non-miraculously today that they did by the Holy Spirit. One may speak in a foreign tongue. One may edify, exhort, and comfort (14:3) as the prophets of 1 Corinthians 14, delivering the same message on the same occasion, and for the same purpose by using the inspired Word, the perfect revelation. I cannot think of one single reason why a man possessing a spiritual gift would need to be regulated when speaking in the assembly of the church, that would not also be true of the man today speaking the same message from the inspired Word of God. The Christian man must be regulated in the assembly of the saints regardless of where he gets his revelation.

It is Specific and Generic

“Let your women keep silence in the churches . . . for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (v. 34-35) is both specific and generic. It is specific as to where she is to keep silent, in the assemblies (that is: those under consideration), but it is generic as to who. All Christian women are under the commandment, and in all such like assemblies. The generic nature of the command covers every Christian woman in every place that compares specifically to that restricted (cf. v. 23). Therefore, every Christian woman today when “in the church” is commanded to “keep silence.”

Someone will say, “women cannot sing, then.” If we are going from the sublime to the ridiculous, we had just as well say, “she cannot sneeze either,” or “whisper to her baby.” The truth of the matter is that Paul was discussing those who addressed the assembly, and this is the thing under consideration. If the commandment to “keep silence” forbid her to sing, it would likewise forbid the prophets and the tongue-speakers to sing, for both of them are commanded to “keep silence” under certain conditions (v. 28, 30). The context determines the matter in which women were to keep silent. “It is not permitted unto them to speak.” They were not permitted to address the assembly.

Women in Submission

Paul said, “they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saitb the law” (v. 34). Women are still to be “tinder obedience” today. (1) They are to be obedient to God (Heb. 5:8-9), (2) recognize the general headship of man (1 Cor. 11:1-5; 1 Tim. 2:11-12), and (3) submit to the rule of their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1-6). God’s law relative to a woman I s relationship to Himself and to Man has not changed. She is still under the same charge to be “under obedience” as she was then. Therefore, front the standpoint of her relationship to God and Man, she is still tinder commandment to “keep silence in the churches . . . for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

For these and other reasons, I believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is still binding today. “Let us walk by the same rule, let us ii-iind the same thing” (Phil. 3:16).

Next article “1 Corinthians 14: Truth, The Roadblock To Error.”

Truth Magazine XX: 42, pp. 663-665
October 21, 1976

By William C. Sexton

H. Richard Niebuhr, a “Neo-Orthodox Theologian”(1) in 1935, gave what I believe to be a very good definition of idolatry and worldliness. I would like for us to consider it, and then I would like for us to see just how much of these evils we see in the religious world today, 1976. He said:

“The essence of worldliness is neither civilization nor nature, but idolatry and lust. Idolatry is the worship of images instead of that which they image; it is the worship of man, the image of God, or of man’s works, images of the image of God. It appears wherever finite and relative things or powers are regarded as ends-in-themselves, where man is treated as existing for his own sake, where civilization is valued for civilization’s sake, where art is practiced for art’s sake, where life is lived for life’s sake or nation adored for nation’s sake. It is a false morality, which sets up ideas that do not correspond to the nature of human life and promulgates laws that are not the laws of reality but the degrees of finite, self-aggrandizing and vanishing power.”(2)

According to this writer, idolatry is placing something first, before God, the Creator and ruler of the world. Worldliness is looking to some creature of this world as the ultimate source, rather than God, who has made the world and the things that are of this world.

This man was challenging the theologians of the Liberal theology, which had dominated the Protestant religious camp from 1860 to 1920, to recognize that they had left the source of truth, God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. He was calling upon the “church” to recognize that it was a “captive” to three “-isms”: (1) Capitalism; (2) Nationalism; (3) Humanism. Liberal theology for 70 years had looked to man to save himself through his scientific efforts-the evolutionary forces were at work, making changes that were “improvement.” The accumulation of wealth was evidence that one was moral, wealth.” The United States of America that God had chosen to establish The meaning a just and right society. the failure of the League of Nations, and of 1929, these Liberal theologians had nothing left to which they could hold to support their “hope.” This man and the Neo-Othodox Theologians began to criticize the Liberal theology stand. This is not to say that these men went the right distance and to the degree they should have. However, they were right, I maintain in this respect. Liberal theology was idolatry and worldliness; it was destructive to the church and to individuals.

However, if one will look closely, idolatry and worldliness of this type is reigning in practically every place today. Denominationalism, as a whole, places its ultimate faith in its creeds; its aim is almost completely limited to making people more comfortable here and now; and the salvation of which it speaks is of this world. Most denominations are looking for a time when Christ will rule and reign here on earth. They look to a “subjectivism,” wherein the significance is “how you feel,” not have you obeyed the objective truth of the Bible. Their worship, I suggest, is of man and his works, not of God, His Christ, and His truth the Bible.

Likewise, many in the “church of Christ,” have this same idol and are practicing this same worldliness. Ezekiel had to deal with a group of men who came to him with “idols in his heart,” (Ezek. 14:4) and they received an “answer” according “to the multitude of his idols.” I suggest, brothers and sisters in Christ, and friends and neighbors, that we need to consider the idolatry and worldliness of our day. Cry out against it, and be sure that we have not placed our trust in something or someone OTHER than God, these we had better do if we would be saved and be a force for good.

Endnotes

1. Sydney E. Aldstrom, Theology in America. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1967), p. 586.

2. H. Richard Niebuhr, The Church Against the World (Chicago: Willett, Clark & Company, 1935), pp. 123-156, quoted in Aldstrorn, pp. 509-510.

Truth Magazine XX: 42, pp. 662-663
October 21, 1976