Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

There have been a good many rumors, and a considerable stir, about the fact that I added the word “doctrinal” into an article written by Lindy McDaniel in the last issue of Pitching For the Master to be published by the Cogdill Foundation. It is true that I added the word “doctrinal” to Brother McDaniel’s discussion of the differences that occasioned us mutually to decide that Pitching For the Master should be separated from the Cogdill Foundation.

Lindy is quite up-set because our “doctrinal” differences are paraded before a goodly number of non-Christian people who receive the paper. However, Lindy should not have sought to give any explanation at all as to why the paper would thenceforth be published elsewhere and by others. The mere fact that he had been traded to the Kansas City Royals would have been enough explanation, if any at all was to be given to these non-Christians.

I seriously doubt the wisdom of making any statement at all about our “differences,” but if Lindy was going to tell the non-Christian public (as well as the Christians who receive his paper, who probably would constitute 50% of his subscription list) about, these “differences,” I insisted that something more definite than “differences” be told them. In an accompanying letter, Brother McDaniel offered me the opportunity to make a statement also as to why the Cogdill Foundation no longer would be publishing Pitching For the Master, However, Lindy left me exactly three lines in which to make my statement. So rather than try to state anything about the problem in just three lines, I thought the explanation that our, “differences” were doctrinal rather than personal would be an improvement in the statement.

As long as we have published Lindy’s paper, I have had the entire responsibility of correcting his manuscript before sending it for typesetting, then of proofing it, and pasting it up for photographing. On occasions, I have had to delete several paragraphs in order to make an article fit the space available. On other occasions, I have had to write or “borrow” an article to fill the available space. I have had completely free reins to attend to these matters, at Lindy’s specific authorization.

Lindy has a good “fast ball,” and an excellent “fork pitch,” but I think even he would admit that spelling and grammar are not his forte. I suspect he would have been more than a little irritated if, after every correction I made, I had insisted (CW), indicating that I had made the change. Can you imagine the howl that would have gone up if I had deleted two or three paragraphs of Lindy’s article, in order to insert the one he authorized me also to write in that final issue? Had I written such an article, I will guarantee you that it would have spelled out specifically the points upon which we differ, and they pertain to “grace” and ‘fellowship.” Lindy himself admits that we do have “doctrinal” differences, but he says that it is our attitude about, these differences that necessitated the separation of Pitching, For,, the Master from the Cogdill Foundation. But whether we fellowship “instrumentalists” and “institutionalists,” to me goes a good bit deeper than just attitude. And that is what our “differences” were all about.

An article is in my hand from Brother McDaniel regarding my insertion of the word “doctrinal” into his article. Perhaps I should have initialed “doctrinal@ (CW), but I doubt that, he would have been any happier. And I refused to let the paper go out under the auspices of the Cogdill Foundation, and with my name listed as “Associate Editor” without some further explanation. The issue already was a month late when I received his article. I had never contacted him before for corrections I made in his articles, nor has he ever before objected to any correction, addition, or deletion that it has been necessary for me to make. Without the least trepidation, I fully and completely accept the responsibility for adding the word “doctrinal” to his statement about our differences, for he knows that we did have Voctrinal” differences, which we discussed for twelve or-fourteen hours ip February at Conroe, Texas in the home of Brother Roy E. Cogdill. I have no apology to make for doing so, and would do it again, if he proceeded to tell the Christian and non-Christian public about our “differences,” without revealing the nature of those differences.

I am writing Brother McDaniel to see if he really wants the article he sent to me published, for if I publish it, I must write a reply to it, and in my reply it will be necessary that I document his vacillation on the subject of “grace@ and Afellowship@ for at least two years. Lindy has wobbled around more on these subjects in the last two years than has the best “fork pitch” he ever served up to a batter! If he continues to insist that his article be published about my insertion of the word “doctrinal” into his statement about our “differences,” in which article he demands that I apologize for the insertion, and for misrepresenting his position, and insists that we have never discussed these matters until very recently, then I see no alternative but to publish his article (out of fairness), but also to reply to it (in order to present the whole truth on the matter).

Until I hear from Lindy, this article will suffice to tell you that I did insert the word “doctrinal,” and why I did so, and if you want greater explanation, let Brother McDaniel ask for it, and it will be forthcoming, in ample supply. I am sorry to see Lindy line up again with an element that seems determined to turn the Lord’s church into a sort of ecumenical conglomeration, and I have sought diligently for about two years to prevent this from happening, as a considerable host of brethren already know, including Brother Lindy McDaniel. To borrow Robert Jackson’s favorite expression again: “We shall see what we shall see!”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 3
August 8, 1974

By James R. Cope

Six hours of daily Bible study for 36 years is the background of The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, 274 pages, cloth bound, by Franklin Camp. This production. lays the axe to the root of every aspect of “Pentecostalism” inside and. outside the church. Unlike many writers, the author ignores no difficult passages. For example, he devotes a full chapter of 43 pages to the Eighth Chapter of Romans. The basic thesis of this work is that Joel 2:28-32 is the background of every New Testament reference to the Holy Spirit from Acts 2 forward and inferentially includes every statement Jesus made about the Holy Spirit in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and is, therefore, “the key to understanding the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.”

The author points out that revelation, inspiration, and confirmation always go together. He declares that the Holy Spirit miraculously revealed God’s mind to man, guaranteeing the purity of the truth, and then miraculously confirmed the revelation lest it be “impossible to distinguish between a genuine revelation and a counterfeit one.” Since revelation is completed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, there is nothing which the Holy Spirit now reveals or does apart from or in addition to the written Word. Camp unequivocally denies that saint or sinner receives the Holy Spirit miraculously or non-miraculously or that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian miraculously or non-miraculously.

The following expresses the author’s sentiment very clearly:

“In the study of the Holy Spirit and His work, it is vital to remember that at one time there was no written revelation. The Spirit revealed the Word directly to the apostles and others that had received miraculous gifts. It is easy for one to read passages that belong to this period of time and equate these passages with the time after revelation had been completely revealed and confirmed. This is obviously a fatal mistake because now we have a complete, written revelation. It is difficult for us to think in terms of a time when there was no written revelation. When passages that have to do with this preceding period are confused with the time afterwards when revelation was completed, it results in a complete misunderstanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctification . . . . It is absolutely necessary to keep clearly in mind passages and their contexts which have to do with the miraculous while revelation was being given, and not apply them to present-day when we have a written revelation …. We have no problems generally in leaving miracles in the apostolic age. Since the reception of the Spirit and the miraculous belong together, why not leave the reception of the Spirit in the apostolic age with miracles? Someone may ask, But what do we receive today?

We receive the gospel, the teaching of the Spirit. Is the gospel complete? If so, what could the Spirit supply today apart from the gospel? If the Spirit supplies something apart from the gospel, then it must be evident that the” gospel is not complete. If the gospel is complete, and the Spirit does not furnish anything apart from the gospel, would not the reception of the Spirit be a useless reception? It seems to me that our problem has come from the attempt to make a distinction where there is none in the New Testament. We can leave the miracles in the apostolic age where they e ong, but then we attempt to make a distinction between the miraculous and the non-miraculous reception of the Spirit. This is a distinction that the New Testament does not make. This is the source of the confusion.”

The author points out that every reference to the Holy Spirit in Acts, yea, in the entire New Testament, specifically states or infers the miraculous. Convincingly he argues that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38 was miraculous just as miraculous as was “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 10:45. He distinguishes between “the gift of the Holy Spirit” and “baptism” in the Holy Spirit but believes both terms express supernatural power. He denies, therefore, that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” was immediate upon baptism for remission of sins and was in every instance except upon the apostles (Acts 2) and the house of Cornelius (Acts 10,11) imparted by the laying on of an apostle’s hands (Acts 8:17; 19:6). Camp takes the position that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is not only proof of the New Testament’s inspiration and God’s final witness to the divinity of Jesus but that this event also marks the cessation of miracles and the end of the “age” (world) of Matthew 28:20. He further argues from the Book of Revelation and other scriptures that Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

Time and again the reader finds himself asking, “But what is Camp’s answer to ‘this or that question?@ only to find as he reads on that the author overlooks few, if any, objections which have been or may be filed against his position.

One may not agree with all of Franklin Camp’s conclusions, but he who reads his book on the Holy Spirit will have a stimulating mental exercise and a refreshing spiritual experience. I consider it the outstanding book on the subject ever to come to my attention. Maybe I like it because the author says many things I have believed for many years. If, however, I disagreed with most of it, I would still say that it is the most thought-provoking work on the Holy Spirit that I have seen. I believe that any person who wants a simple detailed analysis of many difficult-to-be-understood scriptures can profit greatly from a careful study of this work. I predict for it a wide distribution. Order from Truth Magazine Bookstore, Box 403, Marion, Indiana 46952. Price: $6.95.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 2
August 8, 1974

By Daniel Petty

One of the greatest battles ever fought during the Restoration Movement of the nineteenth century was the controversy over the introduction of instrumental music in the worship of the church. It is the purpose of this paper to 1)resent the controversy as it first began, to notice the arguments concerning the silence of the scriptures and the question of expediency, and to show how it finally became with many a test of fellowship, which ultimately led to division within the Movement.

An Innovation

The origin of the controversy goes back as early as 1851, when there was a brief flare-up of the issue in Kentucky. On February 22 of that year, a man who signed his name “W” wrote a letter to J. B. Henshall, associate editor of the Ecclesiastical Reformer. In that letter, Henshall was asked to state his views on the subject of instrumental music, in view of the fact that all of the denominations were using them. Henshall replied by saying that when people begin to desire such “helps” in their devotion to God, then this is a sign of worldly mindedness and a lack of real spirituality on the part of such people. This particular article is indicative of others to appear in the Ecclesiastical Reformer during these early years. All of these articles show a trend that was beginning to exist. On the one hand, there were some who felt that the denominations were using instruments, and the brethren were falling behind in the “progress” of the day. Others felt that instruments belonged to those lacking real spirituality.

John Rogers, an old preacher from Kentucky, became greatly concerned over these articles, and in August of 1851, wrote to Alexander Campbell, urging him to commit himself on the subject of instrumental music in the worship in the churches and dancing in the home. Concerning the past efforts of the Restoration, he asked the question: “Has the object of this warfare, for more than a quarter of a century been to introduce instrumental music into our meetinghouses, and the elegant, healthful, inoffensive, improving practice of social dancing into our families?”1 Later that year, Campbell wrote a short essay on the subject in which he attributed the use of the instrument by the denominations to their “carnal hearts” and their lack of Aspiritual discernment.” He than said: “But I presume, to all spiritually-minded Christians such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert.” 2

The subject arose briefly in Millersburg, Kentucky. Aylette Raines, who kept a diary for many years, made the following entry April 27, 1851: “Brother S(aunders) wishes to introduce the melodeon into the church.”3 However, Raines was bitterly opposed to all innovations, so the melodeon was not introduced. This was the prevailing attitude during the 1850’s. Instrumental music was not a strong issue, and most of those men who ever spoke out on the subject considered it an innovation which was brought in by those destitute of spirituality, and as a mockery of those things which were sacred. In an 1856 issue of the Gospel Advocate, Tolbert Fanning said that he “regarded the organ and violin worship, and even the fashionable choir singing of our country, as mockery of all that is sacred.”4

Very little was said about the subject until 1860. At this time, a letter was written to Ben Franklin, asking him to express his views on the use of the instrument. Franklin was then editor of the American Christian Review, a paper which came to play an important role in the controversy. His first article against the instrument appeared in the Review in January, 1860. Ironically, he suggested some cases where the use of the instrument might prove to be an advantage; for instance, “Where the church never had, or have lost the spirit of Christ,” or “If the church only intends being a fashionable society, a mere place of amusement.” 5 Shortly after the appearance of Franklin’s article, he heard from L. L. Pinkerton of Midway, Kentucky. Pinkerton said in that letter:

So far as is known to me, or, I presume, to you, I am the only “preacher” in Kentucky of our brotherhood who has publicly advocated the propriety of employing instrumental music in some churches, and that the church of God in Midway is the only church that has yet made a decided effort to introduce it. The calls, for your opinion, it is probable, came from these regions.6

The church at Midway is the first congregation on record to use the instrument, though it is impossible to state whether it was the first congregation among the Disciples to do so. It is generally accepted that the instrument, a melodeon, was introduced at Midway, about the year 1859.7 This case marks the beginning of the controversy. Up to this time, as we have seen, the instrument was almost universally rejected among the Disciples, and would continue to be considered by many as “a grievous innovation in the Christian Church that our Heavenly Father does not approve of.” 8

Silence of the Scriptures

In the 1860’s, the issue began to grow hotter. Men began to reject the instrument for other reasons than because of its offensiveness. In 1861, Isaac Errett spoke out in an article in which he seemed to oppose the instrument. He said the instrument was “born of pride, begets pride, and tends to formalism.”9 The melody in the heart was to be sought rather than that which would appeal to the sensuous attractions. He thought the instrument would be a hindrance rather than an aid in the worship of the heart. But he made a rather significant statement when he said “the New Testament knows nothing of choir singing and instrumental music.”10 This statement formed the basis for most argumentation of those opposed to the instrument.

J. W. McGarvey was one who based his objections on this principle. In 1864, he spoke out, saying that if the Bible taught instrumental music, he wanted to have the scriptures. In one article, he dealt with the common attempts at justification of the practice through the Old Testament. His argument was as follows:

How, then, are we to decide whether a certain element in Jewish worship, or in the worship of heaven, is acceptable in the Christian church? Undoubtedly we are to decide it by the teaching of the New Testament, which is the only rule of practice for Christians. Whatever is authorized by this teaching is right, and1whatever it condemns is wrong. in us, whether it belongs to the service of the Jews or the service of angels.11

McGarvey held that in the Christian dispensation, the New Testament is the only rule of practice for Christians. Any attempts to justify instrumental music from the Old Testament were, as he saw it, made of no account by, virtue of the simple fact that the New Testament said nothing of the practice regarding Christians. He continues:

We cannot, therefore, by any possibility, know that a certain element of worship is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation, when the Scriptures which speak of that dispensation are silent in reference to it. To introduce any such element is unscriptural ana presumptuous.12

The first to answer McGarvey was A. S. Hayden. Hayden said that he was not advocating the use of the instrument, but considered it to be in the realm of expediency. His objection was rather because he objected to McGarvey’s argument on the silence of the scripture. He maintained that this argument was “suspicious” and that the silence of the scripture was not sufficient ground for rejecting it.

McGarvey wrote again in order to reply to Hayden’s objections, and essentially repeated his position,

The scriptures, however, which speak of the acts of worship under the Christian dispensation are silent in reference to this element; they furnish no authority for it; therefore it is will-worship to make use of it.13

To McGarvey, the silence of the scripture on instrumental music answered the arguments made by some that it was practiced in the Old Testament, or that it was a matter of expediency.

Moses E. Lard was also very quick in voicing his objection to the instrument. His argument was also the silence of the scripture. He says:

….. what defense can be urged for the introduction into some of our congregations of instrumental music? The answer which thunders into my ear from every page of the New Testament is, none.14

To Lard, anyone who would attempt to introduce instrumental music into the church should be considered “an insultor of the authority of Christ, and as a defiant and impious innovator of the simplicity and purity of the ancient worship.”15 It is evident that these men who opposed the instrument on the grounds of silence of scripture had come to accept this silence as being just as authoritative as a direct command, and to violate this authority was to break the law of God, just as much as breaking a positive, direct command.

Isaiah Boone Grubbs objected to the instrument on the same grounds as the above men. He noted that Christians are to keep the ordinances of the apostles, namely Paul, as though they were the ordinances of Christ. To Grubbs, singing was one of these ordinances, and must be preserved just as we received it from the apostle. Nothing should be instituted that would be a substitute or an addition to this ordinance. He wrote:

As all things in Christian worship, as in every other department of the Christian religion, are thus to be done “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” or by his authority, it follows that “inflexibility extends to public worship.”16

The sentiment seen in Grubbs, and all the other men above mentioned who opposed the instrument, was the sentiment inherent in the slogan of the Restoration Movement, first initiated by Thomas Campbell: “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”17

Expediency

On the other side, those who favored the instrument based their whole apology for its use upon the matter of expediency. They did not consider silence sufficient reason not to use the instrument. Though he later came out stronger against the instrument, W. K. Pendleton in 1864 looked upon it as a matter of expediency. He admitted the silence of the scripture and the fact that the early-church did not practice it. Yet he did not consider this as being a conclusive argument against it. He said,

But this does not settle the questions after all-for there are many things established and right, in the practical affairs of the church in this 19th century, that were not introduced in the days, nor by the authority of the apostle-questions of mere expediency.18

Pendleton thought of the instrument in the same sense as using a meeting house or a song book. J. S. Lamar, in response to the previously mentioned article by I. B. Grubbs, said in 1868 that “what the Scriptures declare. or necessarily imply, is law, anything not inconsistent with law, belongs to the domain of freedom.”19

The champion of this line of reason came to be Isaac Errett. In his paper, the Christian Standard, he stated:

The New Testament furnishes no standard of music, the melody of the heart being made emphatic. But the requirement to sing, implies whatever is necessary to the performance of it. Hence’we have hymn books, tune books, tuning forks, choirs, etc., not because these are commanded, but because we are commanded to sing, and these are necessary to enable us to sing to edification. 20

He insisted that the difference between the two parties was not a difference of faith or of walking in God’s law, but a difference of opinion as to the means necessary to obey the precept to sing. But though he considered it an expedient, proposed to aid in carrying out the duty of singing, he 11 advised against it as not necessary to that end, and as tending to create strife in many of our churches.”21

We have seen one view of expediency; there was no law against the use of instrumental music, so it was permitted by expediency. But there was another view of expediency. Robert Richardson pointed out that expediency was not without the law, but within it. Before there could be expediency, there must be law. In 1869, J. B. Briney wrote an article in Apostolic Times entitled, “The Doctrine of Ex. pediency.” He said in this article that expediency did not give the prerogative to say in what manner an ordinance should be carried out. As to singing, this should be done with the human voice. Expediency could determine whether the person sung bass or tenor, but it could not go further to add to or subtract from the ordinance. To Briney, the instrument could not be called an expedient because it was such an addition to the ordinance. Briney also denied the expediency of the instrument on the grounds that it was “an accompaniment of pride, and of fashion, and vanity, and of dancing, and theater going, and the like,”22 rather than an appeal to one’s true spirituality. C. L. Loos said that the question of the expediency of the instrument had been tested by experience. It could not be considered an expedient, because of the division and strife which it had caused, and because it attracted the idle, irreligious “runabouts” who assembled for no other reason than to hear a musical performance.

A Test of Fellowship

Thus we see that there were two attitudes toward the instrument. One insisted that it was a matter of expediency, while the other insisted that it was an unauthorized, human innovation into a divine worship, and therefore, sinful. The inevitable result was the question of whether. the use or nonuse of the instrument should become a test of fellowship. Of course, to those who considered the instrument a matter of expediency or opinion, it would not be a test of fellowship. Isaac Errett held this opinion, and at the same time counseled against its use because it was to some a stumblingblock. In an 1870 issue of the Christian Standard, he said.

Before proceeding to give our reasons against instrumental music in public worship, we desire to elaborate more fully the thought presented in our last article on this subject, namely, that the real difference among us is a difference of opinion as to the expediency of instrumental music in public worship, and therefore, it is wrong to make this difference a test of fellowship, on one hand, or an occasion of stumbling, on the other. 23

Though Errett held this view, it is commendable that he was opposed to forcing it on those who objected to its use, thus causing division. Those who favored the instrument on the grounds of expediency readily admitted that they could worship just as well without it-But those who opposed the instrument could not say that it did not matter to them. With them, it was a matter of faith, and thus a sin to use it. Many began to draw the line of fellowship with those who continued to force the instrument into the churches.

Ben Franklin strongly wrote against the views of Errett:

We put it on no ground of opinion or expediency. The acts or worship are all prescribed in the law of God. If it is an act of worship, or an element in worship, it may not be added to it. If it is not an act of worship, or an element in the worship, it is most wicked and sinful to impose it on the worshipers. It is useless to tell us, It is not to be made a test. If you impose it on the conscience of the brethren and, by a majority vote, force it into the worship, are they bound to stifle their consciences? Have you a right to compel them to submit and worship with the instrument?24

Clearly, to Franklin instrumental music was no matter of opinion. Man had no-,right to add an element of human origin into the, worship. In reference to these, he felt that the brethren should “mark them who cause division.”

Isaac Errett and Ben Franklin are representatives of the two principal views. These views are poles apart. It was evident that there was no compromising or midway point between these two positions. As many churches continued to use the instrument, while others continued to oppose it, the division became greater, and the hope of reconciling the matter became smaller. The instrumental music Controversy eventually became one of the main factors causing the division among the churches of Christ.

Footnotes:

1. John Rogers, “Dancing,” Millennial Harbinger, Fourth Series, I (Aug. 1, 1951), 467-468.

2. Alexander Campbell, “Instrumental Music,” Millennial Harbinger. Fourth Series, I (Oct., 1851), 581-582.

3. Alonzo Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky (Lexington: Christian Churches, 1932), p. 373.

4. John T. Lewis, The Voice of the Pioneers on Instrumental Music and Societies (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 19321, p. 120.

5. Joseph Franklin and J. A. Headington, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (St. Louis: John Burns, 1879), p. 409.

6. Franklin and Headington, pp. 409-410.

7. Homer Hailey, Attitudes and Consequences of the Restoration Movement (Rosemead, California: Old Paths, 1952), p. 201.

8. Selina Campbell, Home Life and Reminiscences of Alexander Camp bell (St. Louis: John Burns, 1882), p. 420.

9. Isaac Errett, “Church Music,” Millennial Harbinger, Fifth Series, IV (Oct., 1861), 558.

10. Ibid., 558.

11. J. W. McGarvey, “Instrumental Music in Churches,” Millennial Harbinger. Fifth Series, VII (March, 1864), 511.

12. Ibid., 512.

13. J.W. McGarvey, “Instrumental Music,” Millennial Harbinger, XXXIV (Jan., 1865), 89.

14. Moses E. Lard, “Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing,” Lard Quarterly, I (March, 1964), 331.

15. Ibid.. 332.

16. Isaiah B. Grubbs, “The Generic Principle of the Christian Religion,” Millennial Harbinger, XXXIX (Nov., 1868), 628-633.

17. Earl West, The Search for the Ancient Order (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1965), 1, p. 47.

18. W.K. Pendleton. APew-Renting and Organ-Music.@ Millennial Harbinger, Fifth Series, VII (March 1964), 12b.

19. J.S. Lamar. AInstrumental Music,@ Millennial Harbinger, XXXIX (Dec. 1868), 666.

20. J.S. Lamar. Memoirs of Isaac Errett (Cincinnati: Standard, 1893), II.p.39.

21. M.C. Kurfees, Instrumental Music in the Worship (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1950), p. 224.

22. Lewis, p. 144

23, West, II, p. 88

24. West, II, p. 89.

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