Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Some who are presently seeking to unify the various segments of the “restoration movement” have concluded that men can be united if they will only consider as necessary for extending fellowship to an individual his obedience to the commandments of Jesus and leave as matters of opinion such items as are taught by apostolic examples and necessary inferences. To demonstrate that I am not attacking an enemy of my own invention in this article, please read the following quotations:

“4. That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians further than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so. for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but properly belong to the after and progressive education of the church,’ Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have anyplace in the Church’s confession” (Carl Ketcherside, MISSION MESSENGER, Vol. 34, No. 1, p – 9).

AHowever, matters of inference and when an apostolic example binds are not so clear that all can understand the truth at once. We all have differing spiritual I.Q.s because our abilities and opportunities vary. But if we are doing our best with the I.Q. we have and the opportunities we have, we can be assured salvation. Notice that John said that we can know that we know Him and are saved if we practice His COMMANDMENTS. Jesus said, ‘If you love me you will keep my commandments (John 14:15). He did not say, ‘If you love me you will keep the necessary inferences and approved examples you will find in the N.T.’No other writer in the N. T. said this either. (Paul did not say this in I Cor. 11:1 and Philip. 4:9, as the context indicates; these verses do not mention ‘examples’ and ‘inferences). I am not ruling out the possibility that inferences and examples teach, but I am simply saying that those who are sincerely ignorant of such matters will not be condemned for such ignorance” (RONNIE COMPTON, p. 9 of a letter to John McCort).

“This writer suggests (until a better and more Biblical answer is suggested) that since God is not the author of confusion and since God is indeed fully able to plainly, clearly and irrevocably reveal his will to man, then ‘matters of faith’ are those areas wherein there is a direct, explicit command that’s binding upon all people at all times! And thus, ‘matters of opinion’ are all those areas of private judgment of men concerning Bible subjects and themes. So what does this all mean? It means that the determining factor that decides and distinguishes between ‘matters Of faith’ and ‘matters of opinion’ is the identification of a teaching as to its nature. ‘Matters of faith’ are distinguished from ‘matters of opinion’ in that the former are direct, expressly stated commands and the latter aren’t!” (Michael Hall. ‘In Matters of Opinion, Liberty!”, FIRM FOUNDATION, Dec. 18, 1973).

“For example, how often should the Lords Supper be observed:’ The Bible nowhere gives a clear, definitive answer. The New Testament tells us that on one occasion one group of Christians met to partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). It also says that other Christians ‘broke bread’ daily from house to house (Acts 2:46). Nowhere does it either lay down a law for Eucharistic observance or formulate a principle of approved apostolic example. All such laws and hermeneutical principles are products of our personal theological ingenuity” (James Robert Ross, “Real Reasons For Disunity, RESTORATlON REVIEW. Vol. 13-14. p. I 10).

“The Gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with human deductions about the Biblical text or any ‘accepted system of religious belief” – the Good News of Jesus is redemptive power in every aspect of human life” (Don Haymes, “The Restoration Illusion, – INTEGRITY, Vol. V, No. 5).

(A similar quotation could have been included from the pen of Edward Fudge from his Reprint of Articles in his article entitled “Faith Or Opinion.”) The positions quoted above have not developed overnight. I remember reading in some literature of the brethren some years ago that one could not consider an apostolic example as binding unless a divine, expressly stated commandment was underlying it. The generation who taught that could be reasoned with on the basis of the Lord’s Supper to show the necessity of considering that apostolic examples and necessary inferences were binding. But now another generation has arisen who are perfectly willing to concede that we have no authority for binding the necessity of partaking of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week and of binding that the bread of the Lord’s Supper must be unleavened. Thus, we must go back to the basics of the principles concerning authority to decide whether authority can be established by any method other than direct statement or command.

Preliminary Observation

A person cannot arbitrarily decide that he will not allow necessary inferences and apostolic examples to possess legislative authority. If God has chosen to bind in this fashion (the question which we are attempting to answer), man must be willing to submit to that authority. The reason why I am bound by the things implied in God’s word is not that I inferred them but because God implied them! Thus, I cannot arbitrarily discard necessary inferences and approved examples as a method of establishing authority. If they are discarded, reason must be given for why they are discarded!

Secondly, if approved examples and necessary inferences. are not binding on man, I would have no way of knowing it. There is no precept which indicates that they are not binding. Since this is the only kind of authority that some wilt allow, there is no way that they could ever know that approved examples and necessary inferences are not binding. For a man to argue, with the intention to prove, from an approved example or necessary inference that examples and inferences are not binding would be self-contradictory and, therefore, absurd. All admit that there is no explicit statement saying that approved examples and necessary inferences are not binding.

Thirdly, one needs to consider what the denial of the binding power of approved examples and necessary inferences does to the historical books of the New Testament. Rejection of ‘these reduces the historical books to a collection of interesting, perhaps informative, but otherwise dispensable curiosities. The rejection of approved examples and necessary inferences prescribes that God reveal His will to us in a well-indexed, systematic theology (some would be willing for man to make his own index) and shows no appreciation of God’s various ways of revealing His will. To do this is tantamount to the creature prescribing to the Creator how to reveal His will.

Fourthly, inasmuch as no single commandment in Scripture is personally and expressly given to Mike Willis, I am bound, to be logically consistent, to conclude that the Bible has no commandment in it that applies to me, if I take the position that no authority can be established by necessary inference. The way that I conclude that any commandment applies to me is through necessary inference. I must reason, whether consciously or unconsciously, that inasmuch as God is no respecter of persons but accepts the man who fears Him and does what is right (Acts 10:34) and that He has commanded that all men everywhere must repent (Acts 17:30, therefore, since I am a man, I, too, must do these things. Now, if a man denies the binding power of necessary inference, he must find commandments personally addressed to him or admit that there is nothing in the Bible applicable to him.

Fifthly, one must ignore the scriptures themselves to conclude that approved examples and necessary inferences are useless. We are taught that the examples of Jesus (I Pet, 2:21; Phil. 2:1-8; 2 Cor. 8:9), approved men (Phil. 3:15-19; 4:9; 1 Cor. 4:6, 16; 11: 1; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:9; Heb. 6:12) and churches 0 Thess. 2:14) are to be imitated. Too, Jesus used arguments from necessary inference to refute the Sadducees who denied the resurrection of the dead (Mt. 22:31-33). The author of Hebrews argued from necessary inference to conclude that the descendants of the tribe of Judah could not be a priest in the Mosaical system of worship (Heb. 7:12-19). Thus, one must not ‘ be hasty to reject what God has used to reveal His will to men!

Acts 15: A Study of How To Determine Truth

David Koltenbah has contributed no little amount of help, in my opinion, to the study of approved examples and necessary inferences through his exegesis of Acts 15. If you have not read that, it is available in the 1974 Florida College lectureship book (“The Apostles’ Appeal to Scriptural Authority,” Biblical Authority, pp. 80-94) and Truth Magazine (Vol. XI, pp. 234-240, 255-258, 275-281). Read it, study it, and preach it! Koltenbah demonstrates that in the Jerusalem “conference” the issue of whether Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved or not was settled by necessary inference, approved example, and direct statement, even though men through whom direct revelation could be given were present at that conference. Again, I urge you to get a copy of this work by Koltenbah and read it.

When Are Examples Binding?

Of all the subjects which have troubled me in my studies, the problem of determining when approved examples are binding on men has been as hard as any with which I have dealt. The enormity of the problem is probably the reason that some have concluded that approved examples are not binding on men. However, the problem of determining when something is binding is not peculiar to approved examples; one must also determine when commands are binding! We have concluded without serious difficulty that the commandments to wash feet Un. 13:1-20), to not carry a purse with us as we go forth to preach (Mt. 10:5-11), and to salute one another with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16) are not binding. We have a little more difficulty in arriving at a uniform conclusion with reference to the veil of I Cor. 11. However, one should not arbitrarily discard the binding power of approved examples because some are binding and some are not. If one uses this as his basis for discarding approved examples, he must, to be logically consistent, also discard the commandments of our Lord. If he decides to ignore approved examples because we are divided over which ones are binding on us, he must, to be logically consistent, also discard the commandments of our Lord since we are also divided over which of these are applicable to us (see I Cor. 11 and the covering issue).

I suggest that we approach approved examples in the same way we approach the commandments of Christ: we must assume that they are binding unless a reason exists which indicates that the command or approved example is not binding. From time to time, brethren have listed some of the reasons why approved examples might not be binding. (Rather than listing those reasons here, I will refer you to these sources for further study: Biblical Authority, Cogdill Foundation, pp. 156-198 and Walking By Faith, pp. 22-28.) One does not have the liberty arbitrarily to pick and choose which commands and examples are binding and which are not. Neither does he have the liberty to blanketly discard every approved example or necessary inference, as was done in the quotations at the beginning of this article.

Let us not forget the destiny to which those whose quotations we cited at the beginning of this article are taking us; they are wanting to establish fellowship with the liberal Churches of Christ and the Christian Churches. Thus, they are trying to make fellowship with one another conditional only upon obedience to the plan of salvation and the moral code. (Who gave these men the right to select which commandments were the most important for men to obey has not been named.) The discussion of the authority question is not simply an harangue over some remote, unimportant issue. It is a discussion that will ultimately decide whether those who have brought the instrument into the worship and those who have introduced the sponsoring church concept, recreation in the work of the church, and other social gospel features, are to be considered false teachers or not. I believe that they are false teachers who must be marked and rebuked; others believe that they are not false teachers and, therefore, can be fellowshipped. This is the issue.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:38, p. 8-10
August 1, 1974

By William V Beasley

AProve all things, hold fast that which is good” (I Tim. 5:21). When a new thought is presented those who have a closed mind say, “That is not what I have believed, therefore it cannot be true.” The honest and open minded individual will weigh carefully and consider fully. What I am about to say will be new to many who read it. Is your mind open or closed?

Men, for a few moments please imagine two things. First, that you are going to have an operation or other treatment in the pubic region of your body. Secondly, that the ratio of male and female doctors in this country was reversed. That is, that the vast majority of doctors were women with only a few male doctors here and there. Question: How far would you drive to be able to be treated by a male physician? If you are like most of the men with whom I have spoken, a two or three hundred mile trip would not be excessive. Why? We are too modest to let a woman, even a woman doctor, examine our private parts.

Why then do we not expect the same degree of modesty from our wives, daughters and sisters? Are men supposed to be more modest than women?

Provoking One’s Husband

There is another thought to consider. What husband has not at some time been upset, even if never openly admitted, at the thought of another man examining his wife’s pubic area and/or her breasts? There may be some who have never been upset by such, and there will undoubtedly be those who chose to “not remember” such.

On the other hand, I have yet to even hear of a husband who objected, even to himself, when his wife was examined by another woman (nurse or doctor).

“Am I My Brother’s Keeper?”

A third consideration cannot be ignored. What about the doctor? Doctors are human (high bills and all), and can be tempted just like any other man. We, as Christians, have a responsibility to our doctor (and everyone else) even greater than his responsibility to us.

The Big Lie

Oh yes, we have all heard the big lie that “doctors see so much that it means no more to them than a mechanic working on the engine of an automobile.” Hogwash! Such simply is not true.

The receiving of an MD degree does not create a god who is above temptation, or even a man without natural desires. I know this is true because doctor’s wives have babies. I know it is true because some doctors have been honest enough to reveal their thoughts. For a shocking revelation see Reader’s Digest, April 1973, pg. 262, the two final full paragraphs on the page. Note especially what the doctor wrote on the chart of some women patients. If one doctor wrote such on the patient’s chart, what did he imagine in his heart? What have other doctors thought when our wives, daughters or sisters were being examined?

Clarification

I am not saying that every female patient tempts every doctor every time he examines her. Some women because of age and/or physical condition would not be as likely to tempt. But what about the young, well endowed women?

The child of God, not a physician, is to be an example “in purity” (I Tim. 4:12). We, as children of God, are to live on a higher plane than does the world, yes, even higher than does the worldly doctor, and we admit freely, if we are honest, that we can be tempted. Why then swallow the lie that says a doctor is above such? There may be some doctors who are never tempted by what they see, but these are things which we can not know. Regardless of how professional his demeanor, how grand-fatherly his appearance, his heart, with all its thoughts, is beyond our scrutiny.

Conclusion

Am I saying that women must stop going to male doctors? No! When given a choice, even if it means a little inconvenience, a little extra traveling, it would be good to find a female doctor, especially if one needs an obstetrician or a gynecologist.

I am saying we need to consider these things; we need to Aprove all things, hold fast that which is good.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:38, p. 7
August 11, 1974

By Dale Smelser

Some are asserting that there is sufficient latitude in the grace of God to accommodate the various aberrations found in the numerous groups considered a part of the Restoration Movement, and this on the premise that God’s grace pardons doctrinal error. But when we study God’s pattern for our service, the epistles, we learn that such conclusion is unwarranted.

Paul was a recipient of grace and taught of God’s magnificence in it, yet one of his most emphatic censures concerns the dissemination of doctrinal error. As an example, he castigates Hymenaeus and Philetus, and their belief that the resurrection was already past (2 Tim. 2:15-18). This is decidedly doctrinal, not moral. Yet, Paul, the Spirit’s chief exponent of salvation by grace, would not tolerate the corruptive influence of such upsetting ideas. And any concept tolerating the advocates of corruptive error, simply because they have been baptized into Christ, does not square with the necessity for sound doctrine and speech laid upon us in I and 2 Timothy and Titus. How can we tolerate what God does not?

In an attempt to lessen the menace of equally significant doctrinal error, some, as Ketcherside, even have distinguished between gospel and doctrine. To them, the gospel is constituted only of truths as to the identity and function of Christ, and how we are brought into grace; doctrine has to do only with the beliefs and service of those who have been saved by grace. Then in a classic example of arbitrary and non sequitur reasoning, we are told that “gospel” error is significant and damning, while “doctrinal” errors are not especially so.

But that comprehended in the term, “the gospel,” is not so restricted as thus imagined. For, in the gospel is revealed God’s righteousness (Rom. 1: 16-17). In this revealed scheme of righteousness there is instruction to the end that, through Christ, right-wiseness is both imputed and retained by our conditional submission and continued service. All this being classified as God’s righteousness (Rom. 10: 1-4; 6:19), and that being contained in the gospel (good news), all of this instruction must be included in the gospel. It is the totality of the message that is good news, not just a few of its wonderful facts.

To see further the contrast between Paul and some brethren in their permissive ideas about doctrinal error, Paul did not say of Hymenaeus and Philetus, “These are brethren whom we love and who are saved by grace in Christ, and since there is no condemnation in Christ, their error need not be condemned or stand in the way of fellowship.” (Admittedly, some within the purview of these remarks would be more subtle.) He did indicate that Hymenaeus and Philetus continued not among those whom the Lord knew as his and labeled their doctrine, “unrighteousness” (2 Tim. 2:19); it was opposed to the righteousness of God, that contained in the gospel.

Why should not theistic evolution, premillennialism, and institutionalism be considered just as insidious and corruptive of God’s order today, and call for the same kind of response seen in Paul? I know the gospel teaches salvation by grace: justification imputed as a gift through faith, or utter yieldedness and trust. But I do not know of a single passage in the gospel that tells me to overlook the corrupting errors.of someone because he is genial, was at one time saved by grace, and still accepts the fact of Christ’s deity.

But I have seen some flawed ratiocination to that end, dividing truth into (1) that which brings us by grace into Christ, and (2) that which sustains us there. That is all right as an observation, but not as a basis for a creed of permissiveness that seems to make moral degeneracy the only part of sustaining truth which should prompt a disruption of fellowship. The inference would be that the day and frequency of the Lord’s supper, the kind of music in worship, and the type of organizational function utilized by churches, would all lack temporal relevance and eternal consequence, and that all variations should be tolerated.

I hope this is not the conclusion of very many, but any principle that would make those things pertinent to fellowship would be fatal to what they have concluded about whom they have fellowship in Christ with on the basis of justification by faith. Such is really only an application of Ketcherside’s creedal distinction between gospel and doctrine, just using more careful terminology to refer to what is distinguished.

It would be better to divide error into that which is inconsequential regarding action, and that which precipitates disobedience and unfaithfulness. Using salvation by grace to soft-pedal the significance of doctrinal error that has to do with action is a fallacy. While thinking principally of grace, of what God has done, such ones appear to have neglected the concept of God’s sovereignty; his right to require specific service and the necessity of our giving it. It has been well observed that one truth isolated from others becomes perversion. So, it is here, for being saved by grace does not diminish our loyalty to God and his word one whit. Having been saved from sin on God’s terms, the gospel of grace only provides for our lapses and inadequacies, not for continued intractability or incredulity. No, God has not required perfection in his children, save in the matter love (agape, Mt. 5:44-48), but he has required faithfulness (Rev. 2:10; 2 Cor. 4:2; Rev. 17:14), that is, reliability, trustworthiness. Justifying behavior which the word of Christ does not justify, and that is what one does when he accepts a practitioner of error as just, makes one not a trustworthy servant of Christ, and thus unfaithful. Being unfaithful to what God has declared, how can one lay claim to trusting God, or being justified by faith?

It is true that some have at times shown an unholy rancor toward their brethren, and have evinced anger at any disagreement with themselves. Some have been too ready to break ties with others pettishly, unnecessarily, impetuously and precipitately. Such in their smallness have desecrated fellowship for the most trivial of matters, even when a differing idea had nothing to do with essential conduct. But repudiation of such must not vitiate the loyalty Jesus Christ is due, and cause us to tolerate that which is intolerable to his revelation. Such toleration will produce a doctrinally emasculated brotherhood, standing for almost nothing. The resulting lack of militance will further lessen respect for the authority of revelation, and consequently lessen ardor for converting sectarians who are not following it, and man’s being saved by grace will suffer an immense reversal as far as its incidence is concerned.

Brethren are going to continue to differ. Where those differences are of personal application, and not corruptive of collective service, nor disruptive of our common faith and hope, let us be longsuffering and forbearing. But let us continue to try the spirits. And where the influence of a man or doctrine is sinister and the error malignant, let us stand with the word as a sword unsheathed. No, the answer to the divisiveness of hypersensitive implacability and spiritual paranoia is not permissive tolerance of doctrinal error which is inimical to working righteousness (Acts 10:35).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:38, p. 6-7
August 1, 1974

By Larry R. DeVore

In Matt. 16:18 we read, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it” (NASB). Jesus promised to build His church; He only promised to build one. not two, nor twenty, nor two hundred-Only one! He said that he would build it upon “this rock.” What is this rock?

In the Greek text, the word “rock” is from “petra” meaning “a mass of rock” (Vine, pg. 302). In contrast to this, Peter’s name in Greek is “Petros” meaning “a stone.” Jesus said the church would be built, not on Peter, a stone, but rather on this large rock mass, or bed-rock. To what is Jesus referring? Let us look at the context. In verse 16 Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (NASB). Does this not suggest that the rock upon which the church is to be built is Jesus Christ? This is in harmony with other scripture. He is the one who was given such power to accomplish such a feat. “All authority (power) is given me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). Paul said, “As a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation.” What foundation had he laid? “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 3: 10-11). How had Paul laid that foundation? By preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified. See I Cor. 2:1-5. Again in Eph. 2:20, Paul says, “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.

The foundation of the church is Jesus Christ. The church is not built upon the apostles, but upon the foundation of the apostles, and that is Jesus Christ.

Also, in I Peter 2:4-8-Peter quotes Isa. 28:16 and Psa. 118:22 as referring to Jesus who is “a living stone,” “a choice stone, a precious cornerstone,” “the stone which the builders rejected,” “a stone of stumbling and rock of offense.” Are not all these images in harmony with Jesus’ statement, “upon this rock I will build my church”?

The Roman Catholic Church claims the church was built upon Peter, the opposite of Biblical truth. In the notes of the St. Joseph Ed. of the Confraternity-Douay Version of the Bible, the Catholic writer says, “The rock was Peter. Of course, the strength of the foundation comes from Christ.” The only thing wrong with that statement is that is not true! The Scriptures we have noted prove it. Many Protestant theologians have also given lip service to the idea of Petrine church foundation while claiming to reject popery. For example, Dr. Robert G. Bratcher in the Todays English Version (the infamous “Good News for Modern Man”) translates Matt. 16:18 as “And so I tell you: you are a rock, Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” This unfortunate translation is inaccurate. These “great theologians” have missed the point. The church is not built upon the apostles, but upon the foundation of the apostles and that is Jesus Christ. All need to accept this vital truth! Jesus promised the church, He died for it, He received power to establish it, and He did establish it on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:1-47. He is the head of His church (Eph. 1:22-23). No man on earth can scripturally be the “vicar of Christ.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:38, p. 5
August 1, 1974