Truth Magazine

By John McCort

The tendency of people to form cliques and elite confederations is universal in its scope and has spanned the ages since the beginning of the world. The . church has not escaped this universally cancerous flaw in the characters of men.

Spiritual conceit is a major cause of strife and alienation in the Lord’s church. Some have the idea that they are on a superior spiritual level. They feel that they are tuned in on a special spiritual wave-length and somehow they are more mature spiritually than anyone else. This elite group feels that they must develop special insights that the “common” brethren do not have. While they bask on their theological pedestals in the radiant sunlight of their singularly “special insights,” they take potshots at the “ignorant brethren.” This form of conceit forces them to reject orthodox scriptural modes of worship and develop, some unorthodox doctrinal views so as to render them singularly peculiar. Any scriptural; however “unorthodox,” method of worship and doctrinal point of view is acceptable. Unorthodox methods of worship become intolerable when they are employed to set apart a group who are trying to form a spiritually elite clique whose initiation requirements consist of developing unorthodox insights which cannot be grasped by the brotherhood in general. College students especially need to be warned of the danger of becoming wise in their own conceits and of being overcome by youthful impetuosity and brashness.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 8
October 3, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Of course, we are concerned only with the religious implications of this question. We know that it is our lot to live in a generation that finds the masses sadly divided in religious matters. It seems that many people are ready to take this state of religious division all too lightly. We seem to forget that religious division is the very antithesis of Christ’s prayer. Jesus prayed to the Father, “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (John 17:20, 21). Later we find the apostle Paul commanding one of the first century churches like this. “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). We readily can see the Lord’s attitude toward religious division. He hates it. Yet men are ready to dismiss this sad state of religious affairs with a casual, “well, we all have a right to our own belief.” So I want us to attempt to answer the question, “Does every person have a right to his own belief.?”

Religious Liberty

First, let us answer this question by saying, “Yes, in one sense every person does have a right to his own belief.” By that answer, I simply mean that legally, according to our constitution, every person does have a right to believe what he will religiously. And so long as I have my present attitude, I will be no party to restricting any person or party’s right of religious liberty. We ought to be thankful that our country does not try to compel us to be any particular thing religiously. One can enjoy this same freedom as an atheist if he chooses to be one. In the preamble to the constitution our forefathers stated that one of their purposes in founding this country was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” In the Bill of Rights we are guaranteed religious freedom. Article I says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The religion of Christ cannot be based on coercion, and no true disciple of His will ever try to found it upon such. So does one have a right to his own belief? Legally, and constitutionally he does have. In the eye of man he is granted this privilege.

But the thing with which we are concerned at the moment, is this: “Does one have the right to believe what he wants to, and to do as he chooses, before God?” Man tells us one can believe as he will, and join the church of his choice and yet have God’s approval. Has God no right to decide what man is to believe, and has God no choice as to what church I should become a member of?

Men seem to think it matters little whether one believes the truth or a lie. Jesus said: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Error cannot be substituted for truth in God’s plan for man’s redemption. It takes truth to save men’s souls. Paul says there are some who love not the truth, and for this cause God sends them a strong delusion that they might believe a lie that they might be condemned (2 Thess. 2:10-12). It is true that God will not compel a man to obey His commands, but it is likewise true that God will punish a man for not obeying His command while in the body when he reaches the world to come. With God there is a difference between the truth and a lie. With man, truth and error in religion, seem of equal importance, or perhaps we should say, equal unimportance.

Does a man have a right to his own belief in mathematics? Suppose I owed you five dollars, and when I came to repay the five dollars, it was my very firm conviction that two and two make five. Would the fact that I am conscientious in this belief satisfy you? Does a druggist have a right to his own belief when it comes to filling a prescription? Is it all right for him to substitute an ingredient of his own choosing for that prescribed by the doctor? Does the citizen of a kingdom have a right to obey or disobey a decree of the king? You see, it is only in a religious realm that we maintain that a man has a right to believe what he will. Let us turn to our Bibles to see if God approves a man believing and doing what he will. If so, then we should be content to let one go on doing as he chooses. If not, we should become more concerned with turning men from the ways of error to the ways of God.

Example of Cain

Cain did not have a right to his own belief. Back in the Old Testament we have the account of God’s dealings with two brothers. God commanded that the two sons of Adam offer a sacrifice. One did as God commanded; the other did not. “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect” (Gen. 4:2-5). Now let us notice what happened. These two brothers offered sacrifices. With one of them God was well pleased; the other’s sacrifice God rejected. Why? Was it because God had a particular dislike for Cain’? I think not, for Paul on several occasions declares that “God is no respecter of persons.” What made the difference? Paul says God was pleased with Abel’s offering because it was offered “by faith.” He says, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts: and through it he being dead. yet speaketh” (Heb. 11:4). Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable because it was offered “by faith.” Cain’s sacrifice was not accepted because it was obviously not offered “by faith.” But does this mean that Cain did not offer what man would consider a good sacrifice, or that he was insincere in his offering? Not at all. Well, what was wrong? He did not offer the sacrifice “by faith.” What does one do when he does something “by faith”? Paul says “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). When one does something “by faith,” he does so because the word of God commanded him to do so. These passages indicate that God had told these brothers what kind of sacrifice to offer. There would have been no fairness to these brothers, Cain would have been done an injustice, if God had not told them what kind of sacrifice to offer, and yet have rejected the sacrifice that Cain brought. So the difference between what Cain did, and what Abel did was that Abel obeyed the Lord, and Cain did not. Cain presumed that some other kind of sacrifice would do as well as the kind that God had commanded. But the lesson that we want to learn at the moment is that in the matter of worshiping God, Cain did not have a right to his own belief. Had his sacrifice been offered “by faith,” as was Abel’s, certainly it would have likewise been accepted. Cain had the right to do what God commanded, but Cain did not have the right to change what God had said.

Example of Naaman

Naaman did not have a right to his own belief. Naaman, you will remember, was captain of the host of the king of Syria, a great and honorable man, but the Bible says he was a leper. There was a prophet of God who could tell Naaman what to do to be healed of his leprosy. “And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee,, and thou shalt be clean. But Naaman was wroth, and went away and said, Behold` I thought, he will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of Jehovah his God, and wave his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage. And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great things, wouldst thou not have done it? How much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash and be clean? Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God, and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean” (2 Kgs. 5:10-14). Naaman did not like the way the prophet of God treated him in telling him what to do to be healed. He had thought that since he was a great man, certainly the prophet would do some great thing in telling him how to be cured. But the prophet did not even so much as go out to the chariot of Naaman. Rather, Elisha sent a servant out to command him to dip in the Jordan. And when Elisha commanded Naaman to dip in the Jordan river seven times, the Bible says Naaman “was wroth.” He became angry. Why? He thought, “the very idea of me, a great man of Syria, having to dip seven times in that dirty little Israelitish Jordan river to be healed.” As soon as he heard what the prophet commanded him to do, it was then that he decided not to do it. He did not like the commandment of God through the prophet. He decided he would rather do his dipping in the rivers of Syria. But, Naaman did not have a right to his own belief. He thought the rivers of Syria would do just as well, but nothing will do so well as what God has commanded. But when he did precisely as God had instructed, Naaman was made clean from his leprosy.

The Lesson Today

You do not have a right to your own belief. All of us have a right to share in the “one faith” we find mentioned in the Bible. Very often we hear someone say, “Well, you have a right to your belief and I have a right to mine.” They mean by that you can believe what you want to believe, whether it is in the Bible or not. But Paul says, in Eph. 4:5, that there is Aone faith.” I cannot harmonize Paul’s statement that there is but one faith with that of my contemporaries when they tell me you can have your faith and I can have mine. Remember, we have emphasized that our nation rightly has given us the privilege of believing what we want to. In fact, it grants us the right to believe nothing if we so desire. But before God, you do not have a right to your belief. You do have a right to share the “one faith.” This faith, Jude says was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). But it just so happens that God is sovereign. He alone has the right to decree what man shall do in religious matters. It therefore becomes the solemn duty of the citizens in the kingdom of God to acquiesce to what the King has said.

The Lord Jesus has given us certain commandments to obey that are as repulsive to some people as Elisha’s command to Naaman was to him. In fact, many have turned away in the same frame of mind as did Naaman. He was wroth. Many have been angered by the simple commands of Christ. Jesus said “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” But today millions throughout the world obstinately refuse to do His will. They cannot see what being baptized has to do with being saved, and they say we have a right to our own belief, and if we do not want to be baptized, we will not. Baptism is not a commandment from man. It is God’s command. If you are going to be cleaned of your sins, you are going to have to obey all of God’s commands, just as Naaman had to, to be cured of his leprosy. Indeed, in religious matters and before God, you do not have a right to your own belief. But you do have the right to share in the “one faith,” with no civil government forbidding.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 3-5
October 3, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION: From Kentucky: “Was the jailer in Philippi asking for physical or spiritual salvation?”

REPLY: The Context: Acts 16:9-40

Paul met with success in Philippi. He also faced great opposition and persecution. “We. . . suffered. . . and were shamefully entreated at Philippi” (1 Thess. 2:2). Public attention was called to the efforts of Paul and his company. This came about as a result of the spirit which Paul cast out of “a certain damsel.” The uproar which followed was broadcast throughout the city as Acts 16:19-24 necessarily implies. (See words like, “trouble our city” and “the multitude.”) The jailer was not unaware of the work of Paul. He knew who Paul was. Even the possessed damsel knew and had cried for “many days,” “saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.” The jailer, therefore, could not have been ignorant of the nature of Paul’s work. Though he assuredly did not know the truth, he knew Paul and Silas were preachers of God and of some kind of spiritual salvation.

The jailer was commanded “to keep them safely.” The men who “do exceedingly trouble our city,” are not to escape! The jailer, “having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” At midnight, the jailer was aroused and awakened from his sleep by “a great earthquake.” “Seeing the prison doors open, he drew. out his sword and would have killed himself, supposing te prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm; for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

Physical Salvation?

If we eliminate physical salvation, we shall establish spiritual salvation. Physical salvation cannot be what the jailer was requesting.

First, the reason for killing himself was already past. The prisoners had not escaped. When Paul cried, “Do thyself no harm: for we are all here,” that removed the threat to his physical life. It was the jailer’s life for the escaped prisoners, but none of them had fled. “Knowing that death was the penalty for allowing prisoners to escape, he was about to act upon the Roman code of honor, which required a man to die

by his own hand if necessary to escape that of an enemy or an executioner. It is not likely that he rushed to this desperate resort without some outcries which indicated his purpose, and which were caught by the quick ear of Paul, whose loud voice snatched him back, in the very nick of time, from the brink of eternity:

“As soon as the jailer could collect his senses he remembered that the speaker who had called to him had been preaching salvation in the name of the God of Israel, and he instantly perceived that the earthquake, the opening of the doors, and the unlocking of the fetters were connected with him, and were the work of his God. Seizing this thought, and glancing into the black eternity from which he had just been rescued, his own salvation, rather than the security of his prisoners, at once absorbed his thoughts. At sunset, when coldly thrusting the apostles into the dungeon, he cared nothing for them, or for the salvation which he knew they had been preaching; for then he was in the midst of life and health, and all went well with him; but at midnight, when he had been within an inch of death, a change as sudden as the earthquake passes over him, and he falls trembling at the feet of his prisoners.” (J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary On Acts Of Apostles, Pp. 101, 102.)

Second, the answer given by Paul and Silas is absurd if physical deliverance is the object of the jailer’s inquiry. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” What does believing on Christ have to do with his physical life in this situation? Why include his family, his “house?” They were in no physical danger. “But,” someone objects, “Paul and Silas misunderstood the question,” How do you know? The jailer did not correct them. Are you better able to tell what the jailer was asking than Paul and Silas were?

What is to be gained by the unfounded assumption and assertion that the jailer was asking about physical salvation? We conclude that the jailer was asking a question parallel to that ask by those in Acts 2:37. The jailer wanted to know what to do to be saved from his sins, from the wrath of God which is to come upon the ungodly. This is clearly shown by the context of Acts 16.

(Now, will someone ask if the Jews on Pentecost were asking for work, for employment, when they implored, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 2
October 3, 1974

 

By Ron Halbrook and Steve Wolfgang

Mission Magazine (Box 2822, Abilene, Texas 79604) has been thrashing around in search of a new basis of unity since its beginning in 1967. From the start, it has been certain of but one thing: the approach of restoring the New Testament standard as the basis of unity is anathema. In this tradition, “Six theses are nailed to the door of the restoration principle” by R. Lanny Hunter in an article entitled “Restoration Theology: A Schoolmaster,” in the June, 1974 issue. Following are a few excerpts which will be reviewed.

The Six Theses

“Although understandable, it is unfortunate that we have not critically evaluated restoration theology. For if the fundamental principle upon which we base our religious conviction is defective, it does not matter how meticulously it is followed, the result will be distortion of the Christian faith.”

“Restoration theology begins with the assumption that the Christian church is (or has been) apostate, and that it must be restored to its original form in order for the church to receive God’s approval and for Christians to be able to work and worship acceptably within it. Restoration theology proceeds on the hypothesis that the Bible’s basic purpose is to provide a pattern or blueprint on which such a restoration can be made. Thus in liturgy, organization, ritual form, and doctrinal ideology, the New Testament provides a God-ordained pattern for the church which must be meticulously followed. . . The pattern, once discovered and implemented, is the basis for religious unity.”

“Restorationists should not be faulted for failure to completely live up to an ideal if the ideal itself is flawed.”

“In my judgment the restoration principle, as an interpretive philosophy of the Bible, has several fundamental defects that make implementation impossible.”

“How can we be so confident that the Bible teaches what. we believe it teaches when many other denominations which are equally devout, equally concerned, equally intelligent, and equally scholarly fail altogether to find our kind of church in the pages of the New Testament? Are we alone right and all others wrong?”

“We shall undertake to analyze restoration theology by focusing on six of its major defects (Footnote: The author would like to acknowledge his debt to Morrison’s The Unfinished Reformation for helping crystalize his thinking at this point.):

(1) Restoration Theology regards the church as given by God in the New Testament, rather than given by God in history. “

Restoration “is not a divine directive…. There are many different philosophical approaches to biblical interpretation. There is no method which has God’s imprimatur, nor is there any method which is inherent in the scriptures themselves.”

“We may proceed by observing that the conviction that the Christian faith requires restoration of the structure of the primitive Church is without foundation, in either the spirit or the letter of the New Testament.”

“(2) The spirit of Restoration Theology is in irreconcilable conflict with the spirit of unity.”

“. . . it is a practical impossibility for men to understand the Bible alike in the precise detail necessary to develop the uniformity required for unity in a pattern church.”

“Thus, in the latter half of the twentieth century, instead of being a force for religious unity we have become one of the major obstacles to its achievement. We are part of the problem, not part of the solution. As we contemplate this fissiparous process, we might be driven to the conclusion that our basic theological premise is faulty. In reality, the restoration principle is the mother-concept of sectarian division.”

“(3) Restoration Theology makes the authority of Christ subordinate to the authority of the Bible.”

“For all of the importance of the Bible, it should not be the true focus of the Christian’s loyalty. Christ alone claims ‘the undivided loyalty of the Christian and he alone is the sole authority in the church.”

“Those who would restore New Testament Christianity should begin by restoring Christ to the place he held in the primitive church and not allow the Bible to compete with him for authority.”

“(4) Restoration Theology assumes that a standardized and jealously guarded body of belief will keep the church from drifting into apostasy.”

“Instead of the church drifting into apostasy as feared, it is more securely protected against heresy by the challenging free flow of ideas.”

Romans 14 will “allow the individual Christian to hold his own opinions, follow his own convictions, and be answerable to the master alone.”

“(5) It is impossible to restore the first century church.” “In applying restoration methodology we find that custom, culture, and the Greco-Romano-Semitic ethos are so indivisibly suffused throughout the doctrine and form of the New Testament church that they cannot be separated.”

“(6) Restoration Theology produces a repository of pride at the depths of the collective spiritual life of the Church.”

“Within an open fellowship, our differences, as we freely intermingle and interact, would stimulate, guide, and enhance our spiritual life beyond anything we have known in our sectarian isolation.”

“The letter which kills will be consumed by the Spirit which gives life.”

Removing the “Nails”

Lanny Hunter laments the lack of critical evaluation of the restoration principle. We lament his lack of critical evaluation of the alternatives. “How can we be so confident that the Bible teaches what we believe it teaches when so many other denominations “who are devout, concerned, and intelligent do not “find our kind of church” to be God’s will.@ “Are we alone right and all others wrong?” Substitute “religions” for denominations and “Christ” for church; how now?

This lands us on the fundamental question: is there an exclusive faith and practice presented in the New Testament, binding upon us by divine authority? Are we required to believe and teach any certain pattern concerning Christ? or the Church? Must we adopt, exclusively, the testimony concerning Christ-his divine Sonship, his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, reign, offer of salvation, example of life, authority over God’s people? And how shall the church be organized, what worship shall it engage in, what mission adopt? Is there a basis and pattern for discipline? What shall be its message and doctrine? Are the testimony, teaching, and practice of the New Testament church our exclusive pattern? If the answer is no, then we are without chart or compass, without a standard. We have no basis for confidence that God approves our faith and practice any more than that of the denominations – indeed, than that of Buddhists, Moslems, and the rest! As Boston University philosopher Edgar Sheffield Brightmen said, “Christian Science and Roman Catholicism . . . both cannot be true at the same time unless the universe is a madhouse” (An Introduction to Philosophy, N.Y., Holt, 1925, p. 56).

What about those six shiny nails driven by Lanny (more like a few old rusty straight-pins, borrowed almost verbatim from C. C. Morrison, notable liberal of the Disciples of Christ, in his book The Unfinished Reformation)? (1) The New Testament is a record of what God approves and disapproves for His people in history-a selected record (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:13-15). Does the New Testament preserve a norm of church structure meant to be always remembered and observed? Yes, the written things are inspired and selected by God, normative for the affairs of the church and meant to be always remembered and obeyed (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Tim. 3:14-15; 2 Pet. 1:14-15). Lanny says there is no approach to Scripture “which has God’s imprimatur.” Then any and every method is permissible and the author must concede there is as much “divine directive” for our “method” as for any other, including his!

(2) “The spirit of unity” must find the basis of unity. If the New Testament order is not our pattern for faith, practice, and unity, then we face the prospect of an ever-widening circle of fellowship. Morrison is remembered as editor of the ultra-liberal Christian Century, in which Ronald E. Osborn wrote, “Disciples who have repudiated restorationism have no adequate basis for justifying their congregationalism, weekly communion, immersion-baptism, . . elders and deacons … or other distinctive practices. They have even less guidance for formulating new procedures except what may be uncritically absorbed from the culture” (Sept. 25, 1963, p. 1164). This kind of expanding brotherhood (“spirit of unity”) cannot stop short of brotherhood without barriers, i.e. the brotherhood of man in the old humanitarian sense! And the moment one stops anywhere short of that, he not only has a basis of unity, but a “mother-concept” of division. When “the spirit of unity” recognizes a basis of unity, it has also recognized a basis of exclusion.

(3) The authority of Christ is revealed and expressed in the New Testament exclusively; this makes man subordinate to Christ, not Christ to the Bible. (Matt. 28:18; Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13). He tells us to restore and emphasize Christ, not the Bible; we trust he does not offer this as a “rigid pattern.” Christ cannot be separated from his voice (the Bible). “The sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (Jn. 10). To follow Christ is to follow his word.

(4) There is no absolute guarantee against apostasy, but yes, God has willed that we guard the “body of belief.” Lanny’s “nail” managed to fly directly into the face of Jude 3 here (cf. 2 Tim. 2:2). Rom. 14 is always the golden text for those trying to enlarge the borders of unity and fellowship; under this banner brethren have marched all the way to the humanitarian “brotherhood of man.” Any stopping place short of that can be removed by the next fellow quoting Rom. 14. We simply cannot escape the job of going to the Bible to find out what God has bound; only then can we go to Rom. 14, which allows liberty where God has not bound or loosed. We are at liberty where there is no “body of belief” revealed, but not beyond (Jude 3).

(5) We can retain the basis of faith, practice, and unity “the first century, church” had: the inspired teaching. They had it in the men; we have it in the book. But if custom and culture cannot be separated from divine revelation in the inspired writings, then perhaps the inspired teaching concerning Christ is a cultural adaptation of Buddhism or Communism! Thus the New Testament is made a haystack in which the pin of saving truth is indiscernible.

(6) Some worshiped the brass serpent; the abuse of what God commanded does not nullify God’s command. Neither the “repository of pride” Lanny has seen nor the arrogance of super-spirituality we have seen settles the real issues here.

Lanny offers “the Spirit which gives life” (i.e. elements of faith and practice for which we cannot give book, chapter, and verse!) in place of “the letter which kills” (adhering to the Bible pattern of faith and practice). The voice of Christ is still speaking in his word-God’s word-the Spirit’s word (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16). If the voice of Christ is found anywhere outside the New Testament, then it can be found everywhere, in every religion, in every philosophy. We trust no quotation from the “letter which kills” will be cited as an objection to this point!

Students of restoration history must wonder why brethren cannot se all this is a rerun of a very old film. Those who feed on the Morrisons, DeGroots, and Osborns ought to se where this alternative position leads. When the College of the Bible in Lexington, Kentucky took this path after J.W. McGarvey=s death, it no longer turned out men who sought to exalt Christ by exalting the word of Christ; it now turns out men who preach this Agreat message@ to a lost and dying world: AChrist is a process, not a person.@ The other side of the fence may look greener . . . until we get there. Let us be satisfied with the faith and practice presented in the New Testament to the exclusion of all else.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 12-13
September 26, 1974