Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

The Bible is the only safe and reliable standard in religious matters. Most religious organizations accept the Bible as authoritative, but we are told that it is impossible for us to understand the Bible alike. So, we want to study the subject, “Can we understand the Bible alike?” The religious world is tragically and pathetically divided. But we are told that we can never have the unity for which Christ prayed because men cannot understand the Bible alike. So, we can never be united. But is this true?

I would like to suggest in the outset of this study that if we understand the Bible at all, we understand it alike! It might be that we can misunderstand the Bible differently, but the Bible, when properly understood, does not teach one person one thing, and another an entirely different thing. Differences do not come from understanding the Bible differently.

God gave us the Bible, a revelation from God to man, to guide man from earth to heaven. Some day each of us who studied this Word, and for that matter, even if we have not studied God’s word, will have to stand before God for judgment. Jesus said, “the words that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jno. 12:48). 1 ask you, would God be treating us justly if He gave us a revelation by which we shall be judged, and to which we are amenable, and yet have clothed this “revelation” in language that is ambiguous and incomprehensible? Would God condemn us for failing to keep a law which it was humanly impossible to understand? I am sure all of us concur in saying He would not. So we can understand the Bible, and understand it alike.

Paul says we can understand it. He said, “If we have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:2-5). Paul said that when you read, you can understand the Bible. The revelation that Paul gave was an understandable one. And if it is understandable, it is understandable to you and me alike. But Paul does call it the “mystery of Christ.” Why is it called a “mystery”? Is it because it cannot be understood? “Mystery” simply means something that previously had not been known, but that now has been revealed. That which has now been revealed through the Apostles, and recorded in the Bible, is understandable.

But there are certain definite rules that must be followed in order properly to understand the Bible. (1) We must recognize that the secret things belong to God. There are some things that we might like to know about the economy of grace that we have not been told, and upon which speculation is useless. Moses said, “The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). Man needs to learn to stop where the Bible stops, and much of the religious misunderstanding automatically would cease. (2) A second rule for correctly understanding the Bible is to accept unquestionably what God says. Man is prone to rationalize, and omit that portion of God’s word that he thinks is unimportant. But God said what He meant. Isaiah said, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8, 9). (3) Religious misunderstanding would be cut to a minimum if preachers would preach the Word and not so much about the word. We need to study the Bible; not just to study about the Bible. Paul commanded Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2). And Peter adds a much needed admonition when he says, “if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). (4) Another rule in Bible study is that we must preach the Bible, without addition or subtraction. Preach all that it says, and only what it says. John commands this very thing in Rev. 22:18, 19 which says, “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, 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, which are written in this book.” And if the Bible is preached without addition or subtraction, our preaching will be just like Paul’s in substance, and this is just as it must be, for Paul said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which is preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8, 9). If these rules are carefully followed, much of the misunderstandings and divisions in religious matters would be eliminated.

We do understand the Bible alike. I would like to suggest to you that our religious divisions are not over what the Bible says, but over what it does not say. We understand the sayings of the Bible alike. It is what it has not said that we understand differently. Let us take the time to point out some examples of how we understand alike what the Bible says, but may be divided over what it does not say. In Gen. 3, we find the record of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit that God had forbidden them. For many years men have told us that the kind of fruit that Adam and Eve ate was an apple. Now where would you turn in your Bible to find that this fruit was an apple? All the Bible says about it is that it was of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The Bible no where says it was an apple. But men have not stopped where the Bible stopped. They have gone beyond what was written. I might vigorously argue with the man who says this fruit was an apple, and I might declare it was not an apple, but was a pear. We would be divided, but would we be divided over what the Bible says? We certainly would not be. Our division would be over what it does not say.

In Ex. 3:1-5, we read of Moses seeing a burning bush which was not consumed. What kind of bush was this? The Bible does not say. All of us understand the Bible when it says a bush, but suppose you and I were to argue as to what kind of bush it was, would our argument be over what the Bible says? Certainly not.

In John 3, we read an account of where Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. Now why did he come by night? Many theories have been advanced. Some say Nicodemus was too busy to come during the day; others have said that he wanted to speak with Jesus alone; still others have said that he was a coward and afraid for the people to know he was friendly with Jesus. Now you and I might differ radically as to why Nicodemus came by night, but we would not be differing because we do not understand the Bible alike. We would both understand what it said: “Nicodemus came to Jesus by night.” It does not tell us why he came by night. So in each of these instances our differences would be over what the Bible does not say.

Now, let us apply these rules to more important instances. One of the greatest controversies that has ever existed in religious circles has been over what constituted baptism. Does a person have to be immersed to be baptized, or does sprinkling or pouring constitute baptism also? The world is divided over this point. But let me suggest that our division is not over what the Bible says, but over what it does not say. Let me quote the Bible’s description of baptism. I want us to read two passages from the Scriptures. First, 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, so we also might walk in newness of life.” Now, Col. 2:12: “having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” Notice in both of these passages that Bible baptism is described as a “burial,” and’ there is a “raising” up from the water. Now let us see if we can understand the Bible alike? We are agreed that baptism is to be in water. The Bible says it is to be a burial. Now of the three so-called “modes” of baptism, do all and, if not, which one or ones constitute a burial? Is sprinkling a burial in water? Is “pouring” a burial in water? Is immersion a burial in water? I will guess that every one of us answered these questions alike. Sprinkling and pouring do not constitute a burial in water. Therefore they are not Bible baptism. What about immersion? Any religious organization that practices baptism will admit that immersion in water for the correct purpose is fiaptism. We are agreed that immersion is baptism. Then why are we divided? Because some insist that sprinkling and pouring will serve as well for baptism as a burial. What does the Bible say about sprinkling and pouring constituting baptism? Not a thing in the world. If you think it does, find it in your Bible, and if you find it, I would like to be notified where I can find it in my Bible. All admit a burial in water is baptism, for the Bible says so. So we do understand the Bible alike. Our division is over something not found in the Bible.

We might mention the subjects of baptism. Who should be baptized? The Bible says the believing penitent who confesses his faith is to be baptized. (See Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 2:38; 8:37.) But some insist that babies should also be baptized. Do they deny that penitent believers, who confess their faith, should be baptized? Not at all. We are agreed on what the Bible says. But they insist there is no harm in doing something for which there is no authority in the Bible. In this instance why are we divided? Because of something not found in the Scriptures.

Let us also apply these principles to the name of the church. The church is known by several different names in the Bible. It is called “the church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2) and “the church of the Lord” (Acts 20:28); several congregations are called “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). There is much division today over what name the church should wear. But I wish you would note that the division is not over whether these names found in the Bible are correct or not. All agree it is proper to refer to the church as “the church of God,” “the church of the Lord,” or the “church of Christ.” But many others want their church to wear some name not found or even remotely mentioned in all of the pages of the Bible. Again this is an instance of being divided, not over what the Bible says, but over what it does not say. We all admit that these names found in the Bible are correct. So why not just accept them rather than create a human name for the body of Christ.

There is division in the religious world over whether we should just sing, or whether it is right to have mechanical instruments of music in our worship or not. What does the Bible say? It commands singing in many passages. (See Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15; Heb. 2:12 and others.)fAre we in disagreement on these passages? Not a bit. All agree it is perfectly right to assemble and have congregational singing. So none can say our difference in this particular is the result of misunderstanding the Bible. But our difference is over whether it is right to have something in our worship of human origin, unauthoritized in the New Testament and introduced centuries after the establishment of the Lord’s church.

Again I remind you. We understand the Bible and understand it alike. We are divided because some men want to add things to the church which are not found in the Bible. We need to resolve to speak where the Bible speaks, and to be silent where the Bible is silent; call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways. When we do this, our divisions will cease.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 3-5
October 17, 1974

By Donald Willis

Commanded by Jesus

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

To Wash Away Sins

AAnd now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord@ (Acts 22:16).

AThe like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ@ (1 Pet. 3:21).

Immersion In Water

“And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38).

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4).

“Buried with him in baptism.. .” (Colossians 2:12).

Puts One Into Christ

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into, his death?” (Romans 6:3).

For All People

“Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).

“And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21).

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 2
October 17, 1974

By Hoyt H. Houchen

For many years we had “dreamed” of a trip to Bible lands to view places where Jesus, Paul, and others have been. This “dream” was partially realized last June 10-23 when several of us were able to visit Greece, Turkey, the islands of Patmos and Rhodes, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Cyprus.

One of the highlights of this delightful tour was a visit to Baalbek, Lebanon, about fifty miles east and a little north of Beirut and about thirty-five miles north and slightly west of Damascus, Syria. It is beautifully nestled between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains at an altitude of 3,580 feet above sea level. To quote Julian Huxley: “Baalbek is the show place of Lebanon.”

“Baalbek” means “town of Baal” and the name seems to have been of Phoenician origin. The Seleucids called the city “Heliopolis” (“the city of the Sun”). One of the great wonders of this place is the enormous stones which were used by the Romans in erecting three temples in honor of Jupiter, Bacchus, and Venus. These temples were a part of a massive complex, the work probably starting as early as Augustus and continuing for three centuries. The sight of Baalbek was most likely chosen by the Romans because it was strategically located in the heart of the Fertile Crescent on the cross roads of the ancient civilizations and midway between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. When the Romans occupied this part of the world, they acknowledged Baal and erected a temple in his honor, referring to it as Jupiter (not to be confused with the Greek-Roman Jupiter, Zeus). It has been said that at Baalbek are “the tallest columns ever built, the largest stone blocks ever used, and the boldest architectural engineering feat ever carried out by man.” We saw immense hewn stone blocks which formed a part of the foundation for the temple of Jupiter, each weighing about 400 tons. A part of the west wall of the temple is made up of three huge stone blocks known as the “Trilithon,” each estimated to weigh 800 tons. It is no wonder that it was impressive that only a few days before our visit here, about 75 of us, Christians, stood on Mars Hill in view of the Acropolis and the ruins of pagan idolatry, and Brother Homer Hailey cited Paul’s sermon recorded in Acts 17. And now in a secluded area at Baalbek, in the midst of ruins which stand as a reminder of what was once the greatest concentration of pagan worship that the world has ever known, our group gathered on Lord’s day to pay homage to the one true and living God, the one in whom “we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Invited to speak on this occasion, I spoke on “The Power of God” and included some of the following comments in my brief discourse.

Baal was one of the chief gods of the Canaanites. Elijah made the test on Mount Carmel (1 `Kings 18) between God and Baal. Jehovah God answered from heaven with fire, the altar to Baal was consumed, and 450 prophets of Baal were slain.

Baal was the god` of fertility and in the Spring of the year there was much sex activity among his worshipers, immorality was practiced and many women sacrificed their virginity. In the Fall of the year the god was said to die and this was a time of mourning and funeral rites. Animals, food, and drinks were sacrificed to Baal, human sacrifices being rare, only in times of extreme stress or calamity.

Paul enumerated the pernicious sins of the Gentile world in Romans 1 and of the Gentiles he wrote: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen” (Rom. 1:22-25). When men have attempted to seek God through the avenue of nature, they have inevitably become idolaters.

Pagans have always worshiped their gods by the structures and art of human hands such as we saw at Baalbek, Ephesus, and other places. But tributes of architectural structures are not limited to the pagan world. We visited mosques in Damascus and Jerusalem ornamented by intricate and gorgeous mosaics in homage to “Allah” and we saw inside of monasteries which featured tedious wood and stone carvings, rich and laborious paintings, and skillfully carved images and statues. The one true God whom Christians worship is not to be served by such devices of men. In his discourse on Mars Hill, Paul told the Athenians: “The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands (Acts 1.7:24).

Idols have never turned men to God, but men have turned from idols “to serve a living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). This conversion was made possible only by the power of the gospel (Rom. 1:16). Lydia and her household were converted by the preaching of the word (Acts 16:14, 15). God has demonstrated His power in a number of different ways at different times, but the only power that He exercises in the converting of the human soul is the gospel of Christ. When men obey it they are saved from past sins and they are in relationship with God.

We observe that while scenes in lands which we visited are of special interest to the Christian, and while we were thrilled to walk in places where Jesus, Paul, and others had walked, it is more important for all of us to walk in their steps by emulating their lives (Matt. 5:13, 14; Tit. 2:11,12; 1 Pet. 2:21) so that someday we can go to heaven. This is what this life upon earth is all about.

Pagan monuments of antiquity, magnitude, and magnificance now stand in ruins as a result of wars and earthquakes. Only a few columns, stone blocks, cornices, artifacts, and entablatures now remain. But the word of God continues to convert and dwells in the hearts of those who obey it.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:48, p. 12, 14
October 10, 1974

By Edward Bragwell]

Amazing Grace is a good old song. I have sung it from early childhood. If some of the printed matter on “grace” that I have read lately is true, then it must be more amazing than I had thought.

This newly defined grace is a kind of warmed over, but just half-baked, version of the Calvinistic concept of grace imputed righteousness. It allegedly covers some of a Christian’s sins unconditionally. Yet, it is not broad enough to cover an alien’s sins nor sins wilfully or knowingly done by Christians.

In order to dramatize their point, these brethren talk a lot about a Christian who ignorantly goes over the speed limit (a sin-Rom. 13:1-5). wrecks, and is killed. Will that man be lost? Now, that is nearly as good as the one about the man going to the creek to be baptized, a tree falls on him and kills him on the spot! Will that man be lost?

But back to our unfortunate speedster. Let us just have a big crash while we are at it. While we are just pretending maybe all that will really be hurt will be some foolish notions of brethren. Since these writers do not tell just why the poor fellow was speeding maybe they won’t mind if we supply the reason. He was speeding because he was too busy talking to his passenger to notice the speedometer. You see, his passenger had just learned that Jesus is God’s Son and was to be told about repentance and baptism. This poor fellow was killed too. Wait, there is a second car in the wreck. It is driven by a good brother who knows he is going too fast, but he was in a hurry to get to the church building to baptize a man. The second driver was killed too.

Now if I understand this newly defined grace, the first driver is covered by an ignorance clause. His passenger is not covered because, though ignorant and sincere all right enough, he was not yet in Christ. The second driver is not covered because, though he thought he had a good excuse, he knew that he was speeding and that it was wrong. You see, the first driver gets in under the doctrine that the perfect life of Christ is imputed to those in Christ to cover their sins. Christ lived a life perfect enough to cover the sin of the ignorant speeder, but not perfect enough to cover his passenger’s (though he was more ignorant than the driver) nor does it cover the wilful sin of the second driver. Amazing Grace indeed.

There is a man to whom God does not impute sin (Rom. 4:8). The reason that sin is not imputed to him is not some special arrangement for God to overlook sin, but because his sin is forgiven (v. 7). Forgiveness of sin is conditioned on repentance, both for aliens and children of God. The alien must REPENT and be baptized (Acts 2:38). The erring child of God must REPENT and pray (Acts 8:22; cf. 1 John 1:7-9). A grace that promises salvation to one child of God without repentance and to another only after repentance is amazing. Sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh are supposedly taken care of by the perfect life of Christ-but not sins known to be sin by the sinner. I wonder what happens to a brother who knowingly sins but is too weak in the flesh to avoid it.

The DEATH of Christ covers our sins, when we meet the terms of pardon (Matt. 26:28; Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16; 1 John 1:7-9). But the Bible simply does not teach that the perfect LIFE of Christ stands before God as a substitute for our imperfect lives. We are made righteous by the redemption of the blood of Christ (Col. 1:14). This is how grace covers our sins. It forgives them when we repent and turn from them.

What about sins that we do not know about? David prayed. “Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” (Psa. 19:12). “Secret faults” were not merely sins done in secret. They are contrasted to presumptuous sins (verse 13). He knew that such sins were against him, so he prayed to be (acquitted – NASB) cleansed of them.

If a Christian’s sins through ignorance are simply not taken into account by the Lord, then Paul did brethren a disservice by writing several times: “I would not have you ignorant.” Preachers had better stop right in the middle of the Great Commission. They should teach enough to baptize folks in order to place them under the perfect life of Christ-but stop short of “teaching them all things whatsoever (Jesus) commanded” lest they learn and can no longer be covered by the ignorance clause of this new law of grace.

Brethren, all this talk about God’s overlooking sins of ignorance and fleshly weakness is a cover up. It is but a rationale for fellowshipping baptized believers who practice unscriptural works, items of worship and organizations for the church. That is the root of the matter. Let us riot forget it. We are not judging anyone’s motives, but merely stating what is clearly evident on the surface from the writings of these men.

The ones whom I know that are teaching this new-found brand of grace, to their credit, still teach some conditions of fellowship. One must have been baptized (immersed) for the remission of sins. One must be sincere, just ignorant and fleshly weak. Yet, if we suggest that there are other conditions, we become guilty of setting up ourselves as judges. But, the very area of judgment where one has not the right to pass judgment, the area of motives and attitudes, is where they pass judgment. They try to pass judgment on how much one knows and whether he is sincere or not. One may know what one does and that such is wrong, but only God can know for sure why he does it and if he knows better. If one plans to widen fellowship (and benefits of grace) to include all good honest, sincere, but mistaken brethren-regardless of how unscriptural their congregations have become-he is going to have to play God a lot. He is going to have to pass judgment on his brethren’s heart so he can fellowship the sincere and ignorant ones and cast out the insincere and knowing ones. He has his work cut out for him.

I am thankful for God’s grace. With Paul, I can say, “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). I shall continue to sing about it. I plan to pray “without ceasing” that God will continue to extend his grace in the forgiveness of my sins, all my sins, as I repent and strive to know and do better. He is faithful. He will forgive (1 John 1:7-9).

I also pray that I will in no way encourage a brother to depend on his sincerity or ignorance to get him by. Of course, we must leave final judgment to God. He knows all the facts. If He wants to save both speedsters and the unbaptized passenger, that’s fine with me, but I am not going to be presumptuous and hold out promise to anyone that God will save them from any sin without repentance. I will let God handle such_ cases, if they exist, and continue to teach what the Bible says that one must do about his sins, whether he be an ignorant or knowledgeable brother or alien sinner. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.” (2 Thess. 3:18):

Truth Magazine, XVIII:48, p. 11-12
October 10, 1974