Truth Magazine

By John McCort

One of the subjects most frequently discussed these days is the subject of “necessary inference.” Many are questioning the validity of binding doctrines on others which have been derived from the Scriptures by necessary inference. More specifically, a few brethren are now denying the necessity of partaking of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week because the practice of communing every Lord’s Day is derived from the Bible only by necessary inference. The Scriptures nowhere directly command that Christians observe the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week. It is necessarily inferred that such was done weekly. We have the example of the New Testament Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) and thus it is necessarily inferred that if we follow the example of the New Testament Christians, we will observe the Lord’s Supper when the first day of the week comes around. (Consider also the weekly observance of the Sabbath by the children of Israel.)

To some the term “Necessary Inference” sounds rather ominous. Some visualize a dark and complicated reasoning method when they hear the phrase “necessary inference.” Necessary inference is a reasoning process that is used unconsciously by all in studying the Bible. In studying the cases of conversion in the book of Acts we find the apostles commanding the people to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). It is a necessary inference that we, today, are likewise commanded to do the same.

The Lord demands that we use necessary inference in determining that he exists. “For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). The Lord revealed himself unto man through “the things that are made.” We are expected to observe the evidence of His existence in the universe and necessarily infer that God must exist. The Lord made the gathering of evidence and drawing the necessary conclusions and inferences about His existence a matter of salvation and thus a test of fellowship. Those who did not draw the proper conclusions about His existence from the evidence in the universe were held “without excuse” in the eyes of God.

In studying the subject of baptism, it is impossible to determine, from the scriptures that baptism is immersion without using necessary inference. Suppose, momentarily, that an individual did not have access to a Greek lexicon or dictionary and had no idea whether baptism was sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. That individual could not determine that baptism was immersion without employing necessary inference. John 3:23, “And John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized.” Sprinkling or pouring would not require “much water” and thus necessary inference would demand that baptism was immersion. Acts 8:38, “And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water . . . .” Again, it would be unnecessary for them to go down into the river if baptism was sprinkling or pouring. Rom. 6:3-4, “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we also might walk in newness of life.” It must be necessarily inferred that the subject being discussed by Paul is water baptism. It must also be inferred that the burial discussed is a burial in water and not a burial of our sins in the life of Christ. It must also be inferred that being raised to walk in newness of life refers to the Christian being raised out of the watery grave of baptism. The Bible never directly states that baptism is immersion. That fact can only be derived by necessary inference. Brethren, if all matters of inference and deduction are not to be excluded from being made tests of fellowship, then you are going to have to stop making immersion a test of fellowship.

Whether we realize it or not we all employ necessary inference in our study of the Bible. A great controversy has raged over the Greek word eis, in Acts 2:38: The Baptists have argued that the word eis means “because of, with a view toward, with reference to.” They have argued that we are baptized because of (eis) the remission of our sins. They have produced a prejudiced scholar or two to substantiate their point. The weight of evidence, though, points to the fact that the word eis means “unto, in order to.” Thus baptism would be necessary for the remission of sins. We must use necessary inference to determine that eis is to be translated “unto” rather than “because of.” We gather the evidence and logically infer that the weight of, evidence overwhelmingly determines that the, Baptist arguments are incorrect. In studying almost any controversial point of Scripture, we must employ necessary inference to determine what the truth of the matter is.

Truth Magazine XIX: 40, p. 637
August 21, 1975

By Mike Willis

In the March issue of Restoration Review, Leroy Garrett continued his series on “The Word Abused;” this time, he discussed Gal. 1:8-9. Brother Garrett is methodically considering all of the passages used against false teachers to make them inapplicable to current doctrinal problems. Already he has written concerning Rom. 16:17, 18 and 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1. In each of his articles, he has somehow managed to twist the Scriptures to such an extent that he applies them against the one standing for truth and not against the innovators. Brother Garrett keeps telling us that lie is opposed to instrumental music, sponsoring churches, premillennialism, etc. However, he never has anything to say about the sin of men introducing unscriptural practices; he always opposes the one who labels the sin of introducing them as sin. He is somewhat like the Confederate soldier who kept saying, “I am a Rebel” but only shot at Confederate soldiers. A person could get the distinct impression that such a person is on the other side.

Here is the passage under consideration this month:

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal.1:6-9).

Brother Garrett believes that the passage is abused because brethren do not properly distinguish between the gospel and the doctrine. Therefore, he writes as follows:

“This passage is abused in our day in such a manner that the effect is as much a perversion as it was with the Judaizers in Galatia. One is preaching ‘another gospel,’ we are told, if he holds some doctrinal error, or what is presumed to be an error, such as maintaining a TV program like Herald of Truth or using an Instrument in congregational singing. One is not a true gospel preacher if he believes in Sunday Schools or if he uses a plurality of cups at the Supper. Indeed, he comes under the same curse of heaven as would an angel that proclaims a different gospel If he is other than a faithful Church of Christ minister after the Gospel Advocate or Abilene Christian College. If that doesn’t out-Judaize the Judalzers of Galatia, it runs them a close second.

“The gospel is thus made to embrace all of our deductions, inferences and interpretations that extend throughout the New Covenant scriptures. A brother who visits from the Christian Church is not called on for anything, nor Is he even recognized as a preacher of the gospel, all because he is `wrong’ on music. And so we judge him to be bringing another gospel, which makes the music question part of the gospel. So with all these other things. A lot of our people now draw the line on all those who support Herald of Truth, or orphanages from their budgets, for this, they tell us, is bringing another gospel. We could laugh at such non. sense as all this and pass it by if it were not for the harm it does to the Body of Christ.

“One is left to conclude that such folk do not know what the gospel is. If the gospel includes all these doctrinal deductions, then it follows that no one truly preaches a complete gospel except those in one particular little sect. Not only would true gospel preachers be confined to the Church of Christ, but to only one faction within the group. . .

“The implications of all this to unity and fellowship are weighty. It means that the gospel itself, not our doctrinal Interpretations, is the basis of our being one in Christ and in fellowship with each other. That is, when one believes in Jesus and obeys him in baptism, he is our brother and in the fellowship. The Bible says as much: ‘God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord’ (1 Cor. 1:91. 2 Thess. 2:14 says, `He called you through our gospel.’ When God calls a man through the gospel, he is in the fellowship and he is our brother. This is oneness and this is unity. That fellowship is strengthened and made joyful by doctrine, but it is the gospel and not doctrine that determines the fellowship. True, one can become so grossly immoral, such as through thievery or adultery, that he separates imself from the fellowship to which God has called him, which is of course in violation of the apostles’ doctrine. But this is something entirely different from honest differences in interpreting the doctrine. No man has the right to make his own deductions a test of fellowship. There can be but one condition of fellowship: is the man in Christ through faith and baptism, and is he making a sincere effort to live an exemplary life to the glory of Christ.

“It is therefore the gospel of Christ that makes man brothers. It is apostolic teaching that strengthens the bonds of brotherhood, educates and edifies, and builds a community of love and compassion. In the gospel itself there is no place- for or reason for diversity, for we are dealing with facts to be believed and an act to be obeyed. In doctrinal matters there can be and will be diversity of opinion and interpretation. It was so with the apostles themselves. But this is good, for we stretch each other’s minds and help each other to grow in knowledge in our mutual search for truth.

“But it is imperative that we keep straight the distinctions that the Holy Spirit has made. The gospel makes us one; the doctrine sweetens that oneness. Just as sure as we allow our opinions in reference to doctrine become the test for unity, we are just that sure to create a sect and separate brothers.”(1)

Although the unity-in-diversity brethren write as if one can believe practically anything and still be a part of the church, they have a distinct creed to which every one in their sect must subscribe. The creed is that doctrine does not make any difference. Their doctrinal unity is manifest anytime that two of them write on the same subject. Notice the similarities between Garrett and Carl Ketcherside as both write on Gal. 1:8-9.

“What is the gospel? Before one can designate a thing as `another gospel’ he must be able to identify the original gospel. The gospel, by etymology, is good news. It is not a system of doctrine, a philosophy of life or a code of ethics. It is good news about a person and what that person has done for us fn our helpless, hapless and hopeless condition. It Is not a message for the saved but for the lost. It is never addressed to the church but to the world. It is designed to make believers instead of providing food for them. The word gospel is a translation of enangelion. It is an evangel and you cannot evangelize saved persons. It Is sadly amiss to talk about preaching the gospel to the church unless the church is composed of those who have never come to Christ, that is, have never obeyed the gospel. . .

“He did not accuse them of preaching `another gospel’ because they had not matured. Paul knew the difference between the seed from which life came and the daily bread upon which the children fed. He knew the difference between gospel and doctrine, and between faith and knowledge:. He knew that the gospel brought us into being while the doctrine was essential to our growth and welibefng and he did not make a test of fellowship out of spiritual digestion.

“No honest opinion held by one who is in Christ Jesus and who respects his lordship, is `another gospel.’ Since it is the gospel which forms the basis of the fellowship with the Father, the Son and with one another in Christ, such an opinion can never be made a test of union or communion in Christ. A man may hold a view as to the perseverance of the saints, the manner of the resurrection, or the second coming of our Lord, and he may prove to be as wrong as one could be, but he cannot be debarred from citizenry in the kingdom of heaven by the other subjects, any more than one can be disenfranchised in the United States because he disagrees with the government space program or holds the view that it is impossible to reach the moon.

“No man `preaches another gospel’ simply by being mistaken about some aspects of the will of God, otherwise one would need to know perfectly the divine will or be a perverter of the gospel. It is absurd for those good brethren (and they.are numerous) who oppose the centralized control represented in the Herald of Truth program, to brand those who defend the program as ‘preaching another gospel’ and ‘apostatizing: Those who do so, regardless of motive, reveal that they are ignorant of what constitutes both gospel and apostasy.”(2)

No one can fail to see the similarities between these two men’s writings. Regardless of how much Garrett and Ketcherside might preach “unity-in-diversity,” remember that they practice unity-in-doctrine. No one can be accepted into their sect who does not believe that doctrine is unimportant. Every issue of the papers of both of these men which I have read has been designed to propagate this one false doctrine and to attack the positions of anyone who disagrees with it. They have used every device available, from direct argument to lampoon, to influence the minds of men to believe their heretical teachings. Ketcherside and Garrett represent a sect within the church which has distinct doctrinal beliefs; their party organs spread the heresy; the men are actively engaged in proselytizing and in subversion designed to destroy the church as it now is.

Reviewing The Position

To review this position, one must only write an article on “gospel and doctrine.” Garrett constructed a straw man to represent his opponent’s defense, and then proceeded to tear it down. Of the three arguments his opponents are supposed to have used, I had never heard of two of them; his answer to the third was visibly weak, Here is his argument:

“A lot of effort has been expended to show that what the apostles taught the churches was gospel, but this can be done only by twisting the scriptures. 1 Pet. 1:25 is often referred to, always in the King James of course: ‘This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.’ All the improved versions correct this error in translation to read: `This is the gospel which was preached to you.’ Nowhere does any apostle preach to a church. The language is rather like this: ‘as I teach everywhere in every church’ and ‘Teach and urge these duties. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up.

“One preaches the gospel, which is the good news; but he never preaches duties. One preaches to the lost but not to the saved. The scriptures are rigidly consistent in making this distinction. Otherwise it would not use language like: ‘Every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ’ (Acts 5:42). Why would the Spirit use both terms If there Is no important difference? It shows that they not only proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, but they also instructed the people in reference to its implication.

“Acts 20:7 is another passage that Is bruised and battered in an effort to find preacher preaching to the church. The King James is again the culprit, having Paul preach to the saints gathered there at Troas on the first day of the week. The improved versions all read something like: ‘Paul talked with them: This is the word for sharing or dialoging, but not for preach. Rom. 1:15 is also brought into play, for ‘I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome,’ could, if viewed superficially, be understood to mean that Paul wanted to go to Rome so that he could preach the gospel to the saints there. But he doesn’t say anything like that. The preceding verses show that he wanted to ‘reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles,’ and this he always did by proclaiming the gospel to the lost. He was quite clearly talking about the saints when he says in verse 11: ‘I long to

see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine: Since the letter was also intended for the unbelieving Jews In Rome, it is evident that his plans to preach the gospel in Rome would be an effort to win them to the faith.”(3)

I have never heard anyone make arguments on 1 Pet. 1:25 or Acts 20:7 to show that the gospel can be preached to the church. Brother Bill J. Humble answered Garrett’s quibbles on Rom. 1:15 when Brother Garrett was using the same argument to prove that a church could not have a located preacher. One needs only to see the context of Rom. 1 to see who the “you” of v. 15 are The “you” of Rom. 1:15 are described in the preceding verses as (1) the called of Jesus Christ (1:6), (2) beloved of God (1:7), (3) saints (1:7), (4) children of the Father (1:7, note the usage of “our”), (5) men of faith (1:8, 12), and (6) men to whom Paul wanted to impart spiritual gifts in order to establish them (1:11). These terms do not describe unbelievers; the ones meant by “you” were Christians. Therefore, when Paul wrote in Rom. 1:15, “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also . . . .,” he completely destroyed the gospel-doctrine distinction posited by these brethren. Here Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the baptized believers in Rome. But, Garrett said, “Nowhere does any apostle ever preach to a church.” Too bad that Paul did not know that!

1Let us now examine what the Bible says about the “gospel” and the “doctrine.” Didache’, the Greek word which is translated “doctrine,” is defined as follows:

“1. teaching, viz. that which is taught . . . one’s doctrine, Le. what he teaches . . . doctrine, teaching, concerning. something. . . 2. (the act of) teaching, instruction. . . :’ (Thayer, pp.144-145).

“Among the Gks. this is used in the sense of `teaching,’ Instruction’ …. with a strong tendency to restrict it to the fact, so that didaskein or didaskesthaf can normally be used as an alternative . . . . In the LXX. . . . didache is thus syn. with the Rabbinic talmud, which signifies `teaching’ in the sense that it might denote according to context either `teaching’ or “being taught’ . . . . The New Testament follows this usage fairly closely” (Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 2, pp. 163-164).

Euangelion, the Greek word which is translated “gospel,” is defined as follows:

“I. a reward for good tidings . . . 2. good tidings…. In the N. T. spec. a. the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus, the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom …. After the death of Christ the term to euangelion comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, then to return in majesty to ly defined as the glad tidings of salvation through Christ; the proclamation of the grace of God manifested and pledged in Christ; the gospel” (Thayer, p. 257).

Kittle gave the derivation of the thought of euangelion from “besrah” (Heb.) to demonstrate that the primary connotation of the word is “the good news of victory.” When used irr the New Testament, the fact that Jesus died for our sins makes the preaching of Jesus a message which is especially one which might be described as “the good news of victory” (Vol. 2, pp. 721-735).

From these definitions, let us draw some conclusions. (a) The basic idea connoted by didache is “to teach;” the basic thought connoted by euangelion is “the good news of victory.” (b) The content of the message cannot be learned from the words themselves. The didache could as easily be that of Balaam as that of Christ; the euangelion could as easily be that of victory over the Persians as victory over sin and death. (c) The content of the message is not necessarily different when both didaches arid euangelion are used; that which is taught can be the good news. Obviously, this is the case in the New Testament; that which is taught is the good news of Christ’s victory over sin and death.

If our conclusions are true, then the following should be and are found in the New Testament:

(a) The gospel being preached to both saints (Rom. 1:7, 15-16) and aliens (Mk. 16:15-16), the assertions of Ketcherside and Garrett notwithstanding.

(b) The doctrine being preached to both aliens (Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 5:28; 13:5, 7, 8, 10, 12; 17:19) and Christians (1 Cor. 4:17; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 4:2; Acts 2:42).

(c) Things which are called the gospel also referred to as doctrine. That which has freed us from sin is called both doctrine (Rom. 6:17-18) and gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 1:16). That which leads to Christian maturity is called both doctrine (Mt. 28:20; Acts 2:42) and gospel (Gal. 2:14; Eph. 6:15; 1 Tim. 1:10-11).

(d) The “word of truth,” which is identified as the gospel (Col. 1:5; Eph. 1:13), should be applicable to both saints and sinners. In keeping with this, the “truth” is that which frees one from sin (Jn. 8:32; Jas. 1:18) and anyone who does not obey it is lost (Rom. 2:8; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8); it also is that which produces sanctification (Jn. 17:17-19). Thus, one must not only obey the truth, he must also walk in it to keep from being lost (Jas. 5:19; Gal. 2:5, 14; 3:1; 5:7).

No one of us would deny that there is a distinction between becoming a Christian and maturing as a Christian. Undoubtedly, a person must not know every apostolic commandment in order to become a Christian. Therefore, there are some things which are taught before baptism and some things which are taught after baptism (Mt, 28:20). However, to maintain that (IJ the former are exclusively called “gospel” and the latter are exclusively called “doctrine” and (2) one can break the fellowship of the saints only over differences pertaining to the “gospel” are false positions nowhere justifiable in the Scriptures.

If It Were True

If Brother Ketcherside’s distinction between gospel and doctrine were true, some objective criterion would be needed by which one could distinguish what is gospel and what is doctrine. No one has yet methodically distinguished the two. Is what Jesus said regarding marriage and divorce which is recorded in the gospels to be considered gospel or doctrine? Is what John said about the humanity of Jesus in the doctrinal section, the epistles, to be considered gospel or doctrine? No one has told us how to distinguish gospel and doctrine. Everyone who makes the gospel-doctrine distinction with whom I have talked or after whom I have read always uses a purely subjective basis of distinguishing the two. If I seem a little reluctant to accept the gospel doctrine distinction, the reason might be that all of the pet doctrines of those with whom I talk always fall under “gospel” but all of what they call my “pet doctrines” always fall under “doctrine.” Those who are going to take the position that a distinction exists between gospel and doctrine should establish some objective means of distinguishing the two.

Secondly, if we admitted that a distinction between gospel and doctrine actually existed and that an objective criterion for distinguishing the two had been found, the conclusion that one should not divide over “doctrine”still would not necessarily follow. If we assume that “the gospel ‘consists` of seven facts about a person” (the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification of Jesus), as Brother Ketcherside maintains, then every commandment found in the New Testament relative to withdrawing fellowship must fall under the heading of “doctrine.” That would include matters such as the way one treated his brother (Mt. 18:15-17), immorality (1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 1:8-11), heresy (2 Jn. 9:11; Tit. 3:10-11), etc. To say that one can be disfellowshipped for errors relative to the gospel but not for errors relative to the doctrine would be tantamount to saying that a person could be disfellowshipped for denying the resurrection but could not be disfellowshipped for forsaking the assembly, refusing to partake of the Lord’s Supper or refusing to give. (Ketcherside’s position that fellowship can be broken for moral turpitude contradicts his position that a distinction exists between gospel and doctrine and that unity cannot be broken over doctrinal matters.) Two of the seven churches of Asia were condemned for tolerating the very kind of doctrinal errors which Ketcherside says must be tolerated. Apparently, John did not believe in Ketcherside’s unity in diversity (see Rev. 2:14-15, 20-24).

Thirdly, since fellowship cannot be broken over matters of doctrine, anything which the New Testament labels as doctrine (didache) must be a matter over which the church cannot divide. Here are some Things labeled doctrine in the Scriptures, false views concerning which must be tolerated if the gospeldoctrine distinction is true:

(a) False views about Jesus (2 Jn. 9-11). (For the sake of argument, I here am granting that “doctrine of Christ” means “doctrine about Christ.”) Notice that the discussion regarding the humanity of Jesus is called “doctrine.” Our unity-in-diversity brethren do not object to using this passage regarding the humanity of Jesus against those who deny the deity of Jesus. Since this falls under the category of “doctrine” and we should have unity-in-diversity regarding doctrinal matters, the logical conclusion is that we could fellowship Jews, modernists, and atheists-those who have diverse Aews about Jesus.

(b) False views concerning the resurrection of the dead (Mt. 22:33). The context of Mt. 22:33 indicates that Jesus was discussing the resurrection of the dead. Since the scriptural position regarding the resurrection is there called “doctrine,” could we have fellowship, a unity-in-diversity, with those who deny the resurrection of the dead?

(c) False views concerning what one must do to be saved (Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 13:12; 17:19). That which Paul preached to unbelievers and which freed one from sin is called “doctrine.” Therefore, one must maintain that one can have a unity-in-diversity regarding what one must do to be saved. Can a person scripturally fellowship all denominations which teach unscriptural plans of salvation? (Perhaps this explains some of Garrett’s recent comments concerning Baptist baptism.)

(d) False views regarding any part of Jesus’ teaching. The word “doctrine” (didache) is used generically to describe the sum total of the teaching of Jesus and the inspired apostles (Acts 2:42; 5:28; Rom. 16:17; Tit. 1:9; Mk. 1:22, 27; Jn. 7:16-17; 18:19). Therefore, any false doctrine regarding any subject concerning which Jesus taught can and must be tolerated, if the distinction between gospel and doctrine is true and if one must practice a unity in diversity in doctrinal matters. Hence, we have arrived at universalism.

Fourthly, since the idea that we can have unity in diversity would fall under “doctrine” and not under “gospel,” why can we not have unity-in-diversity regarding the unity-in-diversity position? Ketcherside condemns magazines such as Truth Magazine for agitating “doctrinal” issues (issues such as the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions, etc.) but Mission Messenger is likewise agitating a “doctrinal” issue (unity) concerning which we can, according to his reasonings have a unity-indiversity. If I believe that unity can be maintained by doctrinal conformity and he believes that we must have a unity-in-diversity in doctrinal matters, our disagreement is a doctrinal disagreement concerning which we can have a unity-in-diversity. What justification can be found for magazines such as Mission Messenger, Restoration Review, Integrity, and Fellowship agitating this doctrinal issue? Our conclusion under this section must be that if Brother Garrett’s gospel-doctrine distinction were true, he, of all men, is most inconsistent because he is trying to agitate a doctrinal issue when he believes that we can have a unity-in-diversity on doctrinal issues; he is trying to get doctrinal conformity on the doctrine that says we can have a unity-in-diversity in doctrinal matters.

Another Look At The Passage

The Judaizers in Galatia represented a type of heresy with which we need to become better acquainted. Apparently, they were a party within the church which tried to mix the Mosaical Law and the Law of Christ. They wanted to hold on to Christ with their right hands and to the Law of Moses with their left hands. The significant point for this discussion is this: they did not deny the truth about the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation, and glorification of Jesus Christ. (These are the seven facts about a person of which the gospel is said to be composed, according to Brother Ketcherside.) They did not repudiate baptism in any sense whatever. They believed in both the facts and the act. The Galatian apostatizers were children of the same Father as was Paul. Somehow, Paul thought he was best serving God by attacking these children of the Father! Yet, the Galatian apostasy was a doctrinal apostasy. For this reason, the apostasy becomes more relevant to us. If we granted the illegitimate distinction between gospel and doctrine advocated by the unity sect, we are dealing in this passage with a doctrinal apostasy, according to their definitions! If this issue had been handled as they suggest doctrinal differences are to be handled, Paul would have ignored the issue and emphasized that both groups were children of the same Father.

The Judaizers were specifically demanding that all Christians had to be circumcised in order to be saved (cf. Acts 15:1). To Paul, this was serious because it involved a perversion of the gospel of Christ. Thus, he said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” The Galatians were returning to the Mosaical ordinances; a mixture of Christianity and Judaism was not pleasing to God. Paul could not passively watch his brethren apostasize; there were important issues at stake. So, he warned, “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached, let him be accursed.” Distortion of the’ revealed pattern cannot be tolerated. Frankly, I cannot see any difference in appealing to the Old Testament for scriptural authority for instrumental music in worship, tithing, etc. and in appealing to the Old Testament for scriptural authority for circumcision. One is just as much a distortion of the gospel as is the other!

And Remember!

Let us never forget why Ketcherside and Garrett and those who believe as they do are maintaining that a distinction exists between gospel arid doctrine: they are trying to find some scriptural justification for establishing fellowship with those who use mechanical instruments of music in the worship, practice unscriptural church organization in the form of the sponsoring church, support human institutions, and believe in premillennialism. Before they can persuade people to fellowship these false teachers, Garrett and Ketcherside have to unteach them. Therefore, Garrett is trying to discharge every scripture used against false teachers. If we grant him his premises, we must reach his conclusions. Therefore, we must carefully examine his premises.

Endnotes

1. Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused. . .’ If We Or An Angel Preach Any Other Gospel,” Restoration Review, XVII: No. 3, pp. 42-46.

2. Carl Ketcherside, “Another Gospel,” Twisted Scriptures (St. Louis, Mission Messenger, 1965), pp. 4, 7-9.

3. Garrett, op. cit., pp. 44-45.

Truth Magazine XIX: 40, pp. 632-636
August 21, 1975

By Donald P. Ames

The title of this article comes from the headlines of an article that appeared in the Newport (Ark.) Daily Independent, April 16, 1975, as UPI science editor Al Rossiter, Jr. reported on the vital statistics compiled by Dr. Frank A. Seixas, medical director of the National Council on Alcoholism. Although Dr. Seixas acknowledged there was no proof alcohol caused cancer, there was an abundance of evidence that chronic alcoholism is strongly linked with oral cancer and cancer of the esophagus. This link was even stronger when coupled with another habit-forming practice-smoking!

According to an interview in CA, a cancer journal published for’ doctors, Dr. Seixas found that those who smoked 40 cigarettes per day and drank more than three ounces of whiskey were 15 times more susceptible to oral cancer than the general public. And, according to another study, those who drank and smoked heavily had a risk of cancer of the esophagus 25 times that of the non-drinker.

Exactly why this risk is linked so closely with smoking and drinking was not readily known-but it was there! It seemed that the alcohol may have increased the activity of the cancer-causing agents already discovered in cigarette tars; or possibly slowed normal salivary flow, prolonging exposure to tobacco tars, according to Dr. Seixas. The risk increased directly with drinking (for instance, heavy drinkers were found to have 10 times the risk of moderate drinkers).

Considering the fact that the American Cancer Society estimates 24,000 Americans will get oral cancer (of which 8,000 will die of it) and 7,400 new cases of cancer of the esophagus will be found this year (with 6,500 deaths), why would any Christian want to risk his life and health on either drinking or smoking? Paul tells us our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, in which we are to glorify God (1 Cor. 6:16), and we are to present our bodies a living sacrifice to God (Rom. 12:12). Have you ever thought of God’s reaction if the Jews had willfully and indifferently selected a sick and diseased animal to sacrifice to God? Do you think He will be pleased if we present our bodies-and then seek to contaminate and destroy that which we offer to God (see Heb. 10:26-31)? Will God be satisfied with less than the best we can give Him?

Indeed, Christians need to beware the very appearance of evil (1 Thess. 5:22); and seek not to imitate what is evil, but what is good (3 John 11). Doing this, we will make no provision for the lusts of the flesh (Rom. 13:13-14). We will avoid becoming an occasion for stumbling to others (Matt. 18:7), but rather seek to be examples that will lead others closer to Christ (2 Cor. 3:2). Such is not only healthy, but pleasing to God, too-thus we win both ways! Indeed God’s ways are best, though Satan’s are hard to destroy when they get their grip upon us. Do you exercise self-control (2 Pet. 1:6), or yield to the addicting habit of drugs?

Truth Magazine XIX: 40, p. 632
August 21, 1975

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

There is no question that we do not study the Bible as much as we should and such reasons as “lack of time” or “difficulty in understanding” are sometimes offered. For many, however, the underlying reason is often that they do not find the Bible “interesting enough” to beckon, command and maintain their attention. This is a serious charge and one that we must look at critically. It is not enough to brush aside this observation with a pious, “Anyone who doesn’t think that the Bible is interesting just doesn’t love the Lord” kind of statement because it is apparent that many sincere Christians who really do love the Lord at times find the Scriptures a less-than-interesting volume. It would be worthwhile then for us to spend a few moments considering some contributing factors to the idea that the Bible is uninteresting and then offer some concrete suggestions for making Bible study the valuable and interesting endeavor that it ought to be for every Christian.

Stumbling Blocks to Interesting Bible Study

1. Low Expectation. This is a somewhat complex problem owing to several factors, but suffice it to say that many have made up their minds beforehand that they will be bored to death when they attempt Bible study; and sure enough, such people often find just what they expected to be the case! This low expectation may be accounted for by several reasons. First, the potential Bible student may have had an , earlier unsatisfying experience with Bible study in the past that blocks his perspective. When in younger years, a person rarely has a long attention span with much of anything; add to this a boring Bible class teacher who rarely made any relevant application of the Bible material to the student’s life and it is easy to see why some might be discouraged from independent study. Furthermore, there is the generally unfriendly propaganda set forth by irreligious peers and acquaintances who call the relevancy of the Scriptures into question whenever the opportunity presents itself. Consequently, this “low expectation” can account for some disinterest on the part of some who find the Bible boring.

2. An Unrealistic Approach to Study. Many are simply too impatient to gain very much from Bible study. Sensing its importance, some expect too much too soon and as a result are sadly discouraged when instant understanding is not forthcoming. On the other hand, many have such an exaggerated view of the difficulty of Bible study and of what it consists, that they resign themselves ahead of time that most of the Bible is “too hard” for them anyway. Thus they are content to leave such study to the “experts.” Either of these two impressions, one characterized by impatience and the other by a false view of the difficulty of Bible study, are unrealistic, foolish hindrances to profitable study. In the first place, why should we be any less patient with the Scriptures than we are with secular fields of study? Surely we did not know, nor expect to know, everything about Mathematics, Science or History the moment we opened a textbook; why do we demand such .an unrealistic measure of accomplishment in a short time with God’s word? Secondly, why would anyone think that God would communicate unto His saints in a manner which was intentionally difficult for them to comprehend? If we believe in a wise and benevolent heavenly Father, we must also believe that He has given us a revelation which the “common man” and his family can read and understand. Bible study cannot be relegated to a realm of “secret knowledge” which only “professional experts” can decode.

3. Outmoded Translations. We realize that this is a “touchy” area of discussion, but all must admit that some of the most popular of the older translations communicate in ways and with words that we no longer use. No one we know speaks in Elizabethan English; why should we sentence ourselves to the use of a linguistically outmoded version which tends to hide the power of God’s word to many readers? We can talk about “beauty of expression” and “reverential grandeur.” but what really counts is whether the message is communicated in a clear and concise manner. We are not calling for an abandonment of anyone’s “favorite translation,” but for a simple recognition that many need a more direct and forceful rendering than some older version can provide. Thus, an outmoded translation that appears stale and obsolete can become a stumbling block to those looking for a vibrant, relevant application to their lives. But it goes without saying that along with contemporaneity, we need faithfulness to the original text, something which some currently popular “versions” (notably Good News For Modern Man and the Living Bible) are woefully lacking. Two of the more outstanding versions of late are the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version (New Testament only at this time). These translations have their weaknesses as well, but they combine the best of both worlds-faithfulness to the original and a modern way of communication.

Helpful Suggestions Toward Interesting Bible Study

1. Having the Proper Respect for the Word. This of course must always come first. Let the student be aware that the Book he holds in his hand is a revelation from the Creator of the universe! He should ever be aware of its power. The same word which created and upholds the world (Heb. 11:3) is present within the pages of the Bible (Heb. 4:12). Paul called it the “dynamite” of God (Rom. 1:16, 17).

2. Read the Bible as if for the First Time. This is a tall order, but if attempted it will reap one many benefits. Imagine yourself the recipient of the letters written to Timothy or that the local church of which you are a member had been sent the letter written to Corinth. You will be amazed at the fresh insights you will gain by putting yourself personally into the Scriptures, which is of course what God intended for you to do. Become involved with each character: stand with Peter on the day of Pentecost as he preaches that momentous sermon; identify yourself with the Jews who here first heard the news that the crucified Jesus had been resurrected! Fill your soul with the exciting teaching and activity of the Lord Jesus during His earthly sojourn! Imagine reading this for the very first time! It is important to let our children know that these are real characters who actually lived, not abstract truth in a philosophical religion preached only from pulpits. Only when we become personally involved with the Scriptures can they be the relevant force in our lives that they were designed to be!

3. Have a Definite Objective in Mind. Bible study must always have as its aim an answer to this question: “What does this Scripture mean in my life?” Bible study for its own sake will spark no one to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. We must always be looking in our Bible study for a personal application in our own individual lives; left in the abstract, these facts will only take their place alongside other “nice” information that has been collecting dust in the corridors of our minds for years. The new Christian should select the books that will help him the most-those that are relevant to his new life in Christ. The gospels are a good place to begin, for in them we learn of the grand character of our Lord and Savior whose coming was the theme of the Scriptures from the beginning. The epistles teach us what godly living is all about and lead us to further faith and growth in Him. After a firm foundation in these concepts, it is good to examine then the Old Testament and discover its place in God’s plan of redemption. From this base, one can then continue on to the “meatier” and more challenging books in the Bible.

4. Consider Difficult Passages a Challenge. All Bible students will encounter passages, entire chapters (and perhaps even whole books!) which are somewhat perplexing. God’s purpose or meaning may not always be readily apparent for these sections of the Bible. Let the student not be discouraged, but consider such a challenge to be eventually overcome with conscientious study and contemplative prayer. Hard passages are not “unlocked” overnight. It is right and proper to seek help from other faithful Christians well-grounded in the word arid to supplement one’s personal study with good study helps like Bible dictionaries, word studies and appropriate commentaries. The latter should not be a replacement for personal “digging” into the word but rather as a helpful “mind-provoker” to different avenues of thought.

5. Recognize the Scriptures For What They Are: God’s Seeking After Man. God loved us before we loved Him. The story of redemption is not man’s search for God, but God’s search for man. After Adam sinned, it was not he who called out “Where are you, Lord” but the Lord calling, “Where are you, Adam?” (Gen. 3:9). Let us put the emphasis right where it belongs-upon the amazing grace and love of God! He was not content with anything less than the giving of Himself on the cross for our redemption. Such a realization cannot but provoke us to diligently search the Scriptures daily in hopes of pleasing Him who sought us when we were astray.

Conclusion

These suggestions are offered in hopes of stimulating Christians toward an exciting journey into the word of God. Because we are weak, we will no doubt go “excuse-hunting” for reasons not to study the Bible, but when these occasions come, let us have the presence of mind to look back to the cross. There are perhaps other ways of making the Bible more interesting and appealing, but none can be more motivating than the simple realization that Peter so well expressed, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68) and those word are our possession in the book we call the Bible.

Truth Magazine XIX: 40, pp. 630-631
August 21, 1975