Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Illinois: “Col. 1:2,x-Matt. 24:14-Matthew says when this gospel is preached in all the world then shall the end come. In Colossians 1:23, the last part of the verse says, and which was preached to every creature.’ Now, isn’t this a contradiction?”

Reply:

Our querist presents a logical question based on his view of Matthew 24. The Lord specifically says the end shall come when the gospel of the kingdom is preached in all the world (Matt: 24:14). Colossians 1:23 expressly says the gospel “was preached to every creature.” So, if the end has not come, this is a contradiction, and what is equally as bad, the promise of the Lord failed, and Jesus taught falsely.

Caution

A note of caution is in order. We should not be so quick to charge the Bible with contradiction or the Lord with error. Whenever we see an apparent mistake, let us examine ourselves; let us be quick to charge ourselves with misunderstanding, but let us be slow to point an accusing finger at the very word of God! When one who reverences the word of the Lord sees an apparent conflict, he will immediately inventory his own interpretation. Instead of challenging the Bible, he will automatically assume that he, and not the word of God, is in error.

The End

Our querist’s confusion is a direct result of his misunderstanding of “the end” spoken of in Matthew 24:14. He fancies “the end” to be the end of the earth, the universe, the world, when the Lord shall come, the dead shall be raised, judged and receive reward or retribution. As stated above, with this view his question is natural.

What, then, is “the end” if it does not refer to the second coming of Christ and the end ‘of the world? The disciples did not know the true nature of the kingdom of God. They looked for a royal, regal ruler of temporal might and majesty (Jn. 6:14, 15; Matt. 16:21-23; Acts 1:6). This can be seen from the fact that the apostles vied for positions of prestige in the kingdom (Lk. 22:24). This they would do only as they conceived of a material kingdom of worldly pomp and power (Matt. 20:20-28). When, therefore the Lord spoke to them of the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:1, 2), they thought he referred to his second, judgmental coming, for to them the destruction of the temple was equated with the end of this present order. Wesley says in concurring fashion, “The disciples inquire confusedly, (1) Concerning the time of the destruction of the temple; (2) Concerning the signs of Christ’s coming, and of the end of the world, as if they imagined these two were the same thing.”

“How often have prophetic teachers . . . insisted that the end of the world would come after the Gospel has been preached as a witness to all nations. In saying this they have wrenched the verse out of its context. We see in the passage that Christ indicates no change of subject; he is still answering the disciples’ question as to the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. And the verses that follow (15-21) show that he is speaking of an event in the locality of Judea. In other words, he is not speaking of the end of the world” J. Marcellus Kik, Matthew XXIV, p. 41).

In verse 34 of Matthew 24, the Lord says of the events of Matthew 24:2-33, “This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled.” Thus, whatever was contemplated, it cannot refer to anything in our day or anytime beyond that generation. Compare Matthew 23:36, “All these things shall come upon this generation.” Significantly, the gospel was preached “in all the world” in their generation (Col. 1:6, 23; Rom. 10:18). The destruction of Jerusalem and the demolition of the temple occurred in their generation. Their house, said the Lord, was to be left unto them desolate (Matt. 23:38). The temple was to be totally destroyed (Matt. 24:2). This was accomplished in A. D. 70 with the devouring of Jerusalem by the Roman armies under Titus. It was achieved after the gospel had been preached in all the world, just as the Lord said it would be.

Truth Magazine XIX: 45, p. 706
September 25, 1975

By Roland Worth, Jr.

When William Barclay wrote his discussion of The Apostles’ Creed for Everyman (Harper & Row, Publishers, New York: 1967), he attempted a rationale for the existence of creeds. He came up with three arguments: “1. A creed is essential to define the faith, The Christian must be able to state what he believes . . . The Christian must be able to say: `Here I stand’ 2. A creed is necessary to provide a norm, standard and touchstone . . . 3: A creed is necessary to provide the material of Christian teaching and preaching” (pages 14-15).

In his discussion he omits to prove two important things: First, he makes no attempt to reconcile the Bible’s claim to being a complete revelation of God’s will with his claim that creeds are needed. But if the Bible is a total revelation then there is absolutely no need for a creed: To use Barclays own words, it allows the Christian “to state what he believes,” it provides the Christian “a norm, standard and touchstone” and “provides the material of Christian teaching and preaching.” In short, if the Bible reveals all of God’s will, then it serves the very purposes creeds are set up for and makes them unnecessary.

Such a revelation is claimed by scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3). A creed can not contain all of God’s will without reproducing verbatim the New Testament. When it contains something different from the Divine will, it hoists skyward the treasonous flag of rebellion against the Divine will. When it contains less than the full Divine will it imposes upon its adherents a judgment as to which of God’s teachings are the most important; does any man really believe that he is smart enough to do that?

Second, Where did God give any denomination or, officials the right to draw up an uninspired creedal statement to bind on others? Mankind can do anything (take a look at Adam in the Bible!), but just because man can do something does not in the least prove that he should act that way or that, if he does, God will approve it. Paul “thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth,” in short, to .persecute the church (Acts 26:9). No one would deny that Paul could persecute the, church–that it was within his ability-but everyone would deny that he should have. The same is true of creeds. Whenever man acts without Divine authority in religion, he; ends up getting himself into trouble (cf. Leviticus 10:1-3). When the Pharisees acted without Divine authority, what they did bore the label. “tradition.” Since creeds are also without Divine sanction, they must be considered just as much “tradition” as that invented by the Pharisees. Is that good company to walk in?

Although not presented as an argument for creeds, on the very last page of his book he does finally summon up the desire to prove that the early Christians at least set the example of having creeds, “The Church had a creed long before it had the Apostles” Creed. It was very short and very sufficient. It was the uncompromising statement Jesus Christ is Lord (Romans 10:9; Philippians 2:11)” (page 384).

Several things are wrong with this argument: (1) The words that he cites are not a creed. No mention is made of the resurrection, of baptism, or of the many other things that creed makers regard as essential to a creed. How then can we regard it as a creed? (2) By admitting that it was “very sufficient” he is unknowingly admitting that all modern creeds are unnecessary. Whence cometh the need for the “Apostles’ Creed” and the other inventions of men? (3) The New Testament writings referred to were produced by inspiration; this is not true of creeds. Divinely imparted knowledge has ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10), hence the gift essential to writing Divinely endorsed creeds has vanished: Only inspired men would be able to write one with the absolute assurance that they were 100 % correct.

Barclay’s arguments sound good, but only to those ignorant of just how complete a revelation we have in the Bible.

Truth Magazine XIX: 44, pp. 701-702
September 18, 1975

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

“Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say to them, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” (Ex. 3:13). There is something very remarkable and significant about the Lord’s answer to this question by Moses. The people will want to know just who this God is that Moses claims to represent; what can be said? “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Ex. 3:14). How profound! How astounding! This One whom Moses will represent speaks of Himself in terms of personal pronouns; when Moses explains his encounter to the people he will speak of “He” not “it;” he will say “I AM hath sent me” not “the great ultimate cause.” God is a person! He has personality! And having a personality, and intellect, He is eminently capable of communication. In fact, the eternal, self-existing One has always been communicating-even before you or I or anyone like us ever appeared on the earth. Before “times eternal” (Tit. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:9; Gen. 3:22; Isaiah 6:18), the triune God has been communicating-the Father with the Son, the Son with the Holy Spirit, all Three with each other. Divine unity is a complexity; the divine One is neither the mathematical “1” nor the homogeneous, “one” like a grain of sand. God is a trinity, a fellowship of three persons, and before anything was created He was there loving and communicating. God did not need to create in order to love or communicate. Creation was not a necessity; God did not need man in order to express Himself. The eternal One was and is self-sufficient.

But God chose to create and to communicate with His creation. “In His image created He them” that God could communicate with man, walk with man in sweet communion. The first man He created was given the ability to communicate in verbal language that he in turn could name the other creatures that God had made (Gen. 2:19). God’s communication then, -what He says and how He says it, is an important and natural subject for scrutiny by the believer. The existential theologian labels the Scriptures a “record of the revelation ‘experience’ of .others.” In other words, the Old and New Testaments in some sense “contain” God’s word, but not necessarily in God’s words. We are exhorted to approach the Bible as a human, fallible document-a curious “religious” journal-but assuredly not as an authoritative communication from God Himself. “Christianity,” as it were, becomes no longer a “seeking of God’s .will” as much as a “seeking for a ‘personal encounter’ with God.” The modernist claims, therefore, that “revelation” is not “information about God,” but rather, “God Himself.”

“God Himself” in this context becomes a pseudonym for religious experience;” something to be felt rather than discussed-something to be acknowledged rather than understood. The inevitable consequence of this concept of divine communication is the depersonalization of God. The modernist Paul Tillich, toward the end of his life, confessed “I no longer pray, I meditate.” Modern theology notwithstanding, how does the testimony of the Biblical writers compare with this view of God’s communication?

The consistent Scriptural picture is that God is the real source of the concepts, the ideas, even the very words of the Bible. He is, in a sense, portrayed as the “ghost writer” behind the efforts of the Biblical writers. “Thus saith the Lord” is the persistent claim of those who heard the call of God. Throughout the prophets, sanction ‘is repeatedly given to the notion that God is the originating source of their message. The New Testament bears significant witness to the Old that it is “from God.” In Matt. 19, Jesus suggests that the words of Gen. 2 are attributed to He “that made them.” The apostle Paul argues in Acts 28:25 that the Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah. Again, the Hebrews writer (4:7) contends that God was “in David” as he wrote the Psalm under consideration.- Further, not only is the Old Testament given a place in “The Scriptures” as from God, but also the New. In his second letter (3:15, 16), Peter suggests that the epistles of Paul are “wrested” just like “the other Scriptures.” The outlook of the Biblical authors is then that God is the true source behind their efforts.

In First Corinthians, Paul discusses how God effected His communication through His servants. In the second chapter he portrays both a divine source of information and a verbal means of communication; he stresses four main points. First, he points out that the things he and the other apostles have .spoken and written are not secured in human experience; instead they proceed from a divine source (vs. 6-9). No one imaginatively devised the Bible-no one recorded it in response to a “revelation experience;” rather, such information was communicated by God. Secondly, Paul declares that God has communicated this information by the agency of the Holy Spirit (v. 10). It is one thing to deduce information from observation or to record a historical event from memory, but it is quite another to know entirely by divine communication. Thirdly, Paul establishes the purpose of the communication: that we might know and understand the “things that were given freely to us of God” (v. 12). He wants us to know, not guess. A “human, fallible book,” one which is a “record of a revelation experience” offers no confidence for guidance. A “divine communication” subject to human error is no communication at all. Lastly, Paul suggests the medium through which God has made known His will: “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (v. 13). God communicates verbally. He uses words whereby we can truly know what He says. What Paul claims here is the clearest affirmation that The Scriptures represent a dual effort: God provides the thoughts and the very words, the human writers provide the personalities and the pens.

Modern theology finds itself in a paradoxical situation. Its only source for “religious truth” is the Bible; without the Scriptures, concepts such as “grace” or “law” or “atonement” or “resurrection” could never have been formulated or even suggested. Yet; as the Bible to these is “only a human, fallible document,” modernists ironically discredit and assail the very foundation upon which their tottering theological system is built. The anchors of faith thus severed, such proponents are sentenced to drift farther and farther from the shores of absolute authority. If the written documents ascribed to Moses and David and Luke and Paul and others are mere superstition or mythology or legend, as infidels and liberal critics have affirmed for centuries, then who really knows “who” or “what” God is really like? By what standard could we determine just when we have experienced a “personal encounter with God?”

The Scriptures, however, voice no “uncertain sound” about God. The eternal, triune God who is really there communicates! His communication comprises more than various mighty acts throughout history; in addition and more importantly, God has also communicated in words, words that explain and interpret for us the significance of God’s activity. Belief in God is not predicated upon blind credulity, a “leap of faith” motivated by a despairing hope in “something out there.” To the contrary, this faith is based upon the historical testimony of those who denied they followed “cunningly devised fables” but rather “that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life . . . .” With a confident faith and an intellectual integrity we can proclaim “God communicates!” For “we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 5:20). With John we conclude, “This is the true God, and eternal life.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 44, pp. 699-700
September 18, 1975

By Paul K. Williams

The progress of institutionalism and centralization in the Church of Christ in South Africa is, as in America, many faceted. In 1963, when the Turffontein (Johannesburg) church precipitated the split by sending out letters of “withdrawal” labeling Gene Tope and Ray Votaw as Bowers of division, the liberals managed to make the main issue seem to be whether the church could relieve non-Christians from the treasury. They imported James Judd for a one night debate with Ray Votaw on this subject and have since .steadfastly refused to have any more debates on that or any other issue separating us.

But with the division accomplished and with the free hand which this gave them, the liberals began introducing the same centralization which their brethren in America were already infamous for. The particular form which is most popular is the preacher training school. There is one in Benoni (near Johannesburg) for whites and one in Pietermaritzburg (50 miles from Durban) far non-whites. Another one is being planned for Cape Town. They are under the direction of elderships in America, etc.

The Benoni school (Southern Africa Bible School) is governed by a board of trustees who are chosen by an advisory board made up of white preachers in Rhodesia and South Africa who are selected by “the Board of Elders of the Church of Christ with business headquarters at 10715 Garland Road, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.” The school solicits and accepts money from churches and individuals wherever and whenever it can get it. And the whole mess is defended as nothing more than a “Sunday School.” It is no wonder these brethren won’t debate! I would hate to have to defend such a “Sunday School,” too.

The Head of The Church of Christ

Another aspect of centralization has affected faithful preachers more directly. The South African government allows whites into the Homelands (rural African areas) only when they possess permits to enter-permits issued by the Bantu Administration in Pretoria. Gene Tope and I have had permits to enter Vendaland for a long time. Mine was first issued in 1968, his before that time, and they have been renewed each year on application. But in 1972, when Ron Chaffin and Ray Votaw applied for permits, they were refused. On inquiry it finally became apparent that the applications had been referred to the “Head” of the Church of Christ in South Africa and had been turned down by him.

It turns out that John Hardin, official and teacher in the Southern Africa Bible School, director of its annual lectures, etc. was recognized as “Head” of the Church of Christ in South Africa by the Bantu Administration at some time previous to 1972. Since that time all applications for permits have required his approval before being granted by the Government. He has used his position to deny faithful preachers Government permission to preach in African areas!

Words fail me in describing my feelings about this. I cannot fathom how any Christian would ever use his influence with the Government to hinder the preaching of anyone. There is not a hint in the New Testament that Christians are in any way to hinder or persecute those with whom they differ. The weapon we wield is the sword of the Spirit, not the sword of the government! Such tactics can only have been learned from Catholicism; they did not come from Christ.

An intriguing question is: Who appointed Brother Hardin to be “Head” of the Church of Christ in South Africa? Did the churches have a convention at which he was elected? Or was he self-appointed? Or was he appointed by a small group of “interested” men? And I wonder where the scripture is for such appointment regardless of how it was done! It is obvious that he functions as head only in matters requiring Government approval, but where is the scripture for that?

In 1974 when Gene Tope was moving to Durban he attempted to get Ray Votaw a Vendaland permit by asking the Bantu Administration to let Brother Votaw replace him. But that did not work.

I got involved through a different matter. The church in Masakona, Vendaland, wants to build a church building. In 1973 the chief of the village gave them a site to build on and they made application to the Magistrate for permission to build. I helped with the application and all requirements were met. These things take time, though, and the last of April this year I received a letter from the Magistrate. He wrote: “We have been informed that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is having two branches of the above-named church denomination on its records-or two different church denominations using the same name . . . . We would like you to inform us about the legal name of the one under which Mr. Jim Munyai preaches and who the registered head of that branch is.” So we were bumping up against the same problem.

I made a trip to Pretoria the following week where I talked with three different officials. I went into the whole problem of permits. I received a sympathetic reception and decided that the main problem must lie with the Venda Government. So I made my week-end trip to Vendaland for June a day early. On June 6th I met a white official in the Venda Government and explained the whole problem. I think I talked with the right man and he was very understanding. He suggested that I talk with the Magistrate concerning the church building, so I stayed until Monday and talked with him. He also understood and indicated that everything should now move smoothly.

I hope this problem is sorted out. Leslie Maydell of Pretoria who has just returned from Florida College is now making application for a permit to preach in Vendaland. This will be a test case to determine whether the stumbling blocks have truly been removed. We should know soon.

There seems to be no stopping place on the road to Rome, brethren. The centralized combines naturally attract power-hungry people. Only the “readiness” of the members will govern how soon these people will lead the liberal churches into a fully organized hierarchy.

Truth Magazine XIX: 44, pp. 698-699September 18, 1975

CORRECTION

In my article, “Centralization in South Africa,” (Sept. 18, 1975) I stated that Brother John Hardin was recognized as “Head” of the Church of Christ in South Africa by the Bantu Administration. Furth inquiry has established that at least one department of the Bantu Administration (the one dealing with application to build church buildings) recognizes him as “liaison.” The official in charge understands that he is not “head” of the church of Christ. I sincerely apologize to Brother Hardin for unintentionally misrepresenting this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul K. Williams (signed)

Correction appeared in Truth Magazine XIX: 50, p. 794
October 30, 1975