Truth Magazine

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

By Cecil Willis

Miracles are a definite part of Biblical teaching, both in the Old and New Testaments. They are inextricably interwoven into the framework of God’s revelation of Himself unto man. Revelation itself is a miracle. When God inspired the ‘men of Old who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit in delivering and preserving His Word, this constituted a miracle. As the Word of God, the Bible stands or falls upon this very point. Either the Bible was miraculously given and miracles actually occurred as stated in the Bible, and the Bible is the Word of God, or miracles did not happen at all, and the Bible is not of divine but human origin. If miracles did not occur, then the Bible is not a special divine revelation. There is no compromise in this matter. Furthermore Jesus Christ, His birth, resurrection, and atonement for our sins, constitutes another great miracle. So the Bible abounds in statements of miraculous events.

A Miracle Defined

But before we proceed further into our thoughts on miracles., we need to pause to ask ourselves, “What is a miracle?” One’s definition of a miracle is of supreme importance. The modernist defines a miracle in such a way that it is no miracle at all. For example, a man by the name of Schleiermacher has been called the “father of modernism.” He defined a miracle as the “Religious name for any event” (Carnell, The Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, p. 18). To him, “A miracle was simply the natural seen through consecrated eyes” (Carnell). Such a definition as this says that really there is no such thing as the occurrence of a miracle, but it is merely religious fanaticism or superstition that leads one to think of a purely natural event in terms of the supernatural.

I think that a good portion of the denominational people of today would be rather shocked to learn what modern denominational preachers really believe about miracles. I sincerely believe that if some of you people would press your preacher to express his conviction on miracles, you would find that in the final analysis he believes that there never has been a miracle. Many denominational preachers mince no words in denying the virgin birth. Listen carefully while I read to you a modernistic explanation of Biblical miracles from one who at least pretends to believe the Bible. In fact, he would call himself a Christian. Yet he is no different in his attitude toward miracles than many denominational preachers. I am quoting now from H.R. Mackintosh, Types of Modem Theology, p. 16. “The Resurrection, for example, was no more than recovery from apparent death; the feeding of the multitude is erroneously set down as if it implied a marvel, whereas the real facts were much more simple-the crowd following the lead of Jesus and the disciples, took provisions out of their pocket and handed them around. At the Transfiguration, an unknown friend of Jesus, hidden in the morning mists, called out in the hearing of the apostolic three ‘This is my beloved Son.'”

Certainly some of you would be shocked to hear your preacher make statements like these, but they would not likely make such open and rash statements. Any modernistic leanings would likely be clothed in more subtle language. Not too long ago, I talked with a preacher of a denominational church who denied the resurrection. Oh, he said the resurrection was a fact, but that it was real only in the mind of the disciples. Jesus’ body was yet resting beneath the Palestinian stars. Yet with a distorted conviction as this, he had the audacity to preach a sermon on the Resurrection on “Easter Sunday.” He would not tell me what he was going to say. I asked, for I wanted to know. But with this conviction, he would either have to deny his actual belief and preach that Jesus was raised, or deny the resurrection in toto, or preach in such ambiguous language that the people never knew that in his heart he believed the resurrection belief was a hoax. I am not indicting every denominational preacher as a Modernist, for there are many of them who are yet very fundamental. But the vast majority of modern denominational preachers hold views on miracles that are foreign to the Bible. Many of them are evolutionists. Yet they are not willing to come out to attempt to prove their conviction. They would just rather that other people say nothing to the people about what they believe.

Biblical Terminology

In Acts 2:22, we have three terms that give us some insight into the miracle. It reads: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know.” Notice the words, “mighty works,” “wonders,” and “signs.” Briefly, let us study each of these words to see what we can learn about Biblical miracles. Each of these terms is applied to the miracles worked by Christ, and aids us in understanding the miracles. First, let us observe the term, “mighty works.” Why is this expression applied to a miracle? I think we may safely say that this refers to the divine energy or power necessary to perform a miracle. Man, unaided by divine power, cannot perform a miracle. So a miracle is a “mighty work.” Secondly, a miracle is a “wonder.” This term is descriptive of a miracle because it relates to the astonishment or the amazement produced in the minds of the viewers. Thirdly, a miracle is a “sign.” This is in reference to the token of God’s presence that the power to work miracles indicates. It shows God’s sanction of the teacher and/or the things taught.

Miracles Not Explainable

A simple definition of a miracle is an effect produced by a supernatural power that cannot be explained by natural forces. Two points in this definition are significant. First, it is produced by a supernatural power. Man is not capable of performing a miracle. That which man, unaided by God, can do, by definition is not miraculous. Secondly, it cannot be explained by natural forces. The laws of nature originated with God. But we do not think of that which transpires daily as being miraculous. A miracle cannot be explained in terms of natural law. Actually, a miracle explained is a contradiction. A miracle is not explicable in terms of natural law.

A Contradiction of Natural Law?

Sometimes people define a miracle as a contradiction of natural law, but this is not a proper definition of a miracle. Miracles do not contradict natural law, they supercede it. David Hume automatically ruled out the possibility of miracles when he defined a miracle as a contradiction of natural law, because he already had postulated the premise that nature is uniform. If nature is uniform, then a contradiction, or a violation of the uniform laws would be impossible. A miracle is not a contradiction of natural law, but is a superceding of natural law by the Power that formulated the natural laws. He, who established the principles that make it possible for the scientific investigator to predict the mathematically assured conclusions as to what will occur under a given circumstance, could also suspend these principles and superimpose different ones. This action results in a miracle as defined by man.

Reasons For Denying Miracles

We have already pointed out that the modernists deny the possibility of miracles. Of course, the atheists do also. Several years ago, there was a statement of the death of Dr. Ernest Barnes in The Indianapolis Star. He was a former Anglican Bishop of Birmingham, England. The reports say: “He rejected belief in miracles …. He doubted the validity of the virgin birth and Christ’s physical resurrection.” Now, why would a modernist or an atheist deny the occurrence of miracles? Let us suggest two reasons why miracles are denied. First, they deny miracles because they have never experienced one. They are foreign to their own experiences. I must admit that I have never witnessed a miracle first hand, and I deny that anyone living today has witnessed a miracle. But to say that because we have not experienced a miracle, therefore they never occurred is absurd. This would necessitate one denying all of the annals of history that do not come within the narrow scope of his personal experience. Not long ago, I heard a young atheist state that he denied the resurrection of Christ because he did not witness its happening.

Secondly, they tell us that miracles are precluded because they are contrary to natural law. But this is merely to state the same problem in different language. If miracles did occur then, they obviously are not contrary to natural law. As a Christian, I certainly would be glad to weigh the evidence for Biblical miracles on the same scales that these modernists or atheists use to weigh any other historical event. We have precisely the same kind of evidence for Christ’s resurrection that we have for any other historical event. A close personal friend of mine several years ago discussed the proposition, Resolved: “There is good evidence for the resurrection of Christ,” with a University of Illinois professor. He demonstrated that to deny miracles, one must either be inconsistent, or deny history. For to deny the historical testimony for miracles, one must likewise deny the testimony for all history.

The fact of miracles in times past does not imply that miracles are yet occurring today. The Bible denies this, and so does the very purpose for which miracles were previously performed. MacCartney made a very curt expression while speaking of the possibility of miracles. He said; “When you face this question of miracles, it all depends upon what kind of a God you believe in, and whether or not you spell his name with a Capital G.” (MacCartney, Christian Faith and the Spirit, of the Age, pp. 70, 7 1). If one believed in some god that is equal or only slightly superior to man, he may have occasion to deny the possibility of miracles. But if one believes in the God that created this universe, that even now upholds all things by the word of His power, One infinite in power, then miracles are possible. Admit God and miracles are possible, acknowledge sin and miracles are probable, recognize the need of salvation and miracles are necessary. For God’s message to man is a miracle.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:38, p. 3-5
August 1, 1974

By Luther Blackmon

When Colonel David Crockett was making the race for a second term in the congress, he stopped one day to speak with a man who was plowing. When he introduced himself the man said, “Yes, I know you Mr. Crockett. I voted for, you last time, but I won’t do it this time.” Crockett asked the man why he had changed his mind about him. “Well,” said the farmer, “you either do not understand the meaning of the constitution, or you don’t respect it. In either case you are not a good man to send to congress.”

Crockett was dumfounded. He knew that he respected the constitution and thought he understood it. He asked the man to explain himself. “Gladly,” said the farmer, “You voted to appropriate $20,000.00 for those people in Georgia who lost their homes in the big fire.” Crockett was further puzzled and said, “Surely you don’t object to helping those unfortunate citizens.” “No,” replied the man, “I am not opposed to helping people in distress. But there is nothing in the constitution that allows appropriations for charity, Mr. Crockett. If so, where is it?” Crockett spent the night with this man, and they talked far into the night. The farmer said, “The money you fellows handle was paid into the treasury by the people who elected you. The people expect you to appropriate that money according to the rules laid down in the constitution. The constitution is their only safeguard. Twenty thousand is not a lot of money, and the cause for which you spent it is a noble one. But it was a violation of our constitution. And when congressmen take such liberty with the constitution, no matter how small the amount or worthy the cause, they set a precedent that will ultimately destroy the meaning and power of the constitution. Once that is done, there will be no safeguard. The amount could just as easily have been twenty million and the cause not so worthy. We can find a way to help our distressed citizens without violating the rules of the constitution.”

Crockett said the man convinced him that he had done wrong in doing what he thought was a good thing. He promised the farmer and his friends that never again would he be guilty of such.

The Bible is the constitution of God’s Church. Wouldn’t it be fine if all the preachers were as honest as Davey Crockett, and all the brethren knew the Bible as well as that man of the soil knew the constitution? And wouldn’t it save all of us a lot of grief and perhaps our souls if we had as much respect for the Bible as the farmer had for the constitution? If people would start making the preachers produce Bible authority for all their teaching and practice, there would be a religious revolution. The sincere ones would have to change some of their preaching and practice and the others would be eliminated.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:38, p. 2
August 1, 1974