Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

It is alarming to hear brethren express reservations about debating. A number of saints, firmly founded in the faith and grounded in the gospel, have raised an eyebrow at the mention of a debate. Why is this? Are their objections valid?

Before we consider the complaints against controversy, it must be established that such activity is in harmony with the Scriptures. The following passages should convince any one that believes the Bible that debates are scriptural. (Acts 9:29; 17:2, 3; 17:17; 18:4; 19:9; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1; Jude 3) Look up the words “disputed” and “reasoned” that are located in some of the above passages. Obviously, debates are not sinful. Then,

Why Do Brethren Object?

1. “Because some debaters are dishonest.” Even in the first century there were those who dealt deceitfully with the word of God. (2 Cor. 2:17) Every contender for the faith should say with Paul, “We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word,. but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Cor. 4:2-RSV) If debates are dishonorable because some men are dishonest and deceitful, then it has ever been so. In some of the first public debates ever held, dishonesty was displayed. “Then they secretly instigated men,. . . and set up false witnesses . .” (Acts 6:11, 13) The apostles did not discourage nor disapprove of debates because some men were dishonest. Nor should we.

2. “Because some debaters say some harsh things.” Admittedly, no one should utter a harsh statement for hurtful effect. But listen to the Holy Spirit’s recording of some debaters’ pungent, pointed words, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51). “Then Saul, (who is also called Paul), . . . said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10) Some spiritual sweeties of the present would probably refuse to endorse Paul and Stephen for debate, because they said some harsh things. Who was it that said, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell” (Matt. 23:33)? Did he not also say, “Ye are of your father the devil” (Jn. 8:44)?

3. “Because debates hurt the church’s image.” (A church which has this concept of debating probably has an image that needs to be hurt!) Sectarian sentimentalism is outrageously contagious. It seems some brethren want gospel preachers to manifest the spineless air of the denominational clergy, most of whom would not say boo to a field mouse. Wonder how badly Paul and Barnabas “hurt the church’s image” in Antioch when “the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution . . . and expelled them out of their coasts” (Acts 13:50)? Because Paul spoke “the gospel of God with much contention” in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:2), “the Jews . . . set all the city in an uproar,” and Paul and his party were forced to flee the city “by night” as common criminals. (Acts ’17:5, 10) Such “unfavorable publicity” did not discredit debate then, so why should it do so now?

4. ABecause no one is ever converted.” That statement is false. I can give names and addresses of some who learned the truth as a direct result of a debate. Granted, few may be converted, but if this will indict debates, will it not also do away with most gospel meetings, volumes of printed sermons, and hours of radio time? Paul had but nominal success when he disputed in Athens. According to the modern idea, he should have ceased debating. But he did not, and we should not.

Conclusion

Controversy has always enveloped the truth. It surrounded our Savior and abounded around the apostles. People are prone, however, to equate religious discussions with bar room brawls. Unfortunately; disputants have not always conducted themselves “as it becometh the gospel of Christ”‘ (Phil. 1:27), thus the reason for the feelings of many. But the victory of the’ Devil over the passions of men does not negate the worth of honorable argument. Controversy can be and ought to be commendable; Let us all seek to be meek in mind and humble in heart as we fight the good fight of faith.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 8
October 17, 1974

By Franklin Burns

Many major denominations teach justification by faith only. James, an inspired man of God, said, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Which will you accept, that of an inspired man of God or that of some denomination?

There are many verses in God’s word that teach we are saved by faith. Consider Romans 5:1; John 5:24; John 3:16; and John 3:36. The New Testament of Jesus Christ certainly teaches that we are saved by faith. I believe this with all my heart. But there is not one verse which teaches we are saved by faith only! If you know of a verse that you think teaches “salvation by faith only,” please let me know.

If salvation is by faith only, that would exclude repentance (Acts 11:18) which the Bible says is “unto life.” It would exclude confession which the apostle Paul says is “unto salvation” (Romans 10:9-10). It would exclude baptism which the word of God says is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 22:16); is “to put one into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13); is “to put one into Christ” (Gal. 3:27); and is to “save us” (I Peter 3:21). Are you willing to accept all that the word of God has to say is essential to our salvation’.’ Remember we will be judged by His word in the last days (John 12:48).

If salvation is by faith only, the chief rulers of John 12:4243 who would not confess Christ will be saved. Also the Jews of (John 8:31-44) will be saved, but, they were the children of the devil. Even the demons of James 2:19 will be saved if salvation is by faith only. Do you really believe the devils will be saved! If not, you do not really believe that salvation is by faith only!

We plead with you, if you are lost, to obey the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the power of God unto salvation (1 Peter 4:17-18; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Romans 1:16). If your faith is not strong enough to move you in obedience to the truth, you will be lost eternally (John 8:32; 1 Peter 1:22; Romans 6:17-18).

“So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 7
October 17, 1974

By Norman E. Sewell

“So we built the wall; and all the wall was joined together unto half the height thereof for the people had a mind to work” (Nehemiah 4:6).

The book of Ezra describes the return of the people of Israel from Babylonian captivity, first under Zerubbabel (in the first year of Cyrus the great, King of Persia, about B.C. 538), and was continued and more or less concluded under Ezra (in the seventh year of Artaxerxes-Kenosh Longimanus, in B.C. 458). During this period of time the temple was rebuilt.

The activities of Nehemiah began in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, and continued through about his 32nd or 33rd year. It was during this time that the walls of the city of Jerusalem were rebuilt. Beginning with the 3rd chapter of Nehemiah is the description of the rebuilding of the gates, and of the walls of the city. The wall was finally finished as reported in chapter 6, verse 15. It surely was a monumental job to rebuild the walls of a great city, yet Nehemiah indicates that it was accomplished in 52 days. The reason for this great accomplishment is to be found in the statement, “the people had a mind to work.” It was important to them, they could clearly see the need, so they set out to do that which needed to be done. And, they built the wall.

There is a lesson in this for the people of God today. We can do all that God desires of us today if we will but recognize the importance of the work and the need to be personally involved in doing it. Just as Nehemiah and a few of the people could not have completed the wall in the required time, neither can just a few of God’s people do all the work to be done in the time that we have. We each need to have “a mind to work.” You hear people today talking about how hard they have to work, and sometimes making fun of others who do not like to work, but you do not very often find that person doing any work for the Lord. The secret was in the hearts of the people. Not that the people of Israel were always of such a mind,but at this particular time they were. On another occasion, after Moses had received instructions from God about building the Tabernacle, and how that the people were to give all sorts of things to be used in the building of it, the people were of such a mind to give that they had to be restrained. The attitude of the people was described as, “every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing” (Exodus 35:21). They were of such a mind to give so freely that they had to be stopped because they were giving too much (Exodus 36:5-7).

Let us each have a mind to work. Surely there is work for all of us to do. There are sick to be visited, the poor and needy to be helped, and the lost to be taught and saved. This is work that we all can participate in. We can each visit the sick, we can each offer a helping hand to someone less fortunate, and we can talk to a friend or neighbor about his or her soul. Even if you cannot teach them, you can start the ball rolling; get the teacher and the student together. And let us not be afraid but recognize that AI can do all things in him that strengtheneth me@ (Phil. 4:13).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 6
October 17, 1974

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