Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

When pioneer preachers thundered the plea for the restoration of first-century Christianity across America, they urged that men “speak where the Scriptures speak, and be silent where the Scriptures are silent.” They insisted, “Let us do Bible things in Bible ways, and call Bible things by Bible names.” Another slogan heard often in those days was this one: “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible.”

The Bible claims to thoroughly equip man for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). This it could not do if it were not the full, final, and perfect revelation of God’s will. Many religious groups profess to believe, respect, and teach the Bible, but in the final analysis they are governed by some other book.

Some churches have an official creed book. Others have a book of discipline, or maybe a catechism, or a church manual, or a confession of faith. Some use books that were not designed to be creeds, as if they were official statements of faith. They have a book that governs, and it is something other than the Bible.

There are numerous books that may assist one in studying the Bible. Such is the sole purpose of Bible dictionaries, concordances, commentaries, books of sermons, study outlines, lexicons, Bible atlases, etc. These books have their place when properly used. But no such book should be allowed to take the place of the Bible or elevated to equality with the Bible.

If we cannot give book, chapter, and verse for what we teach in religion, it is not from God. One may support a proposition by appealing to human writings, or he may defend his contention by quoting what some man has said. Notwithstanding, his argument carries no real authority unless he gives scriptural proof.

Sometimes people are told to follow the Bible, then are expected to conform to some other book. This is plain hypocrisy. We should teach people to follow the Bible, then rejoice when they conform to it.

People who complain that the Bible is not being preached in “their churches” should start looking for Christ’s church. If one finds himself attending services where the Bible is not taught, why not go elsewhere? Why support and encourage a religion that puts the Bible on the sidelines?

No book but the Bible stands as the basis for the Christian’s faith. No book but the Bible should be preached. No book but the Bible came from God. No book but the Bible is needed to officially express what we believe and practice. No book but the Bible will endure forever.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29, p. 2
May 23, 1974

By Bruce James

A few weeks ago I was discussing salvation with a friend of mine that is a member of the Baptist church. He said that he believed that as different doctors prescribe different medicine for the same illnesses, so this was also possible in the salvation of one’s soul. One preacher might prescribe faith only, another repentance, another confession, and still another baptism. It does not make any difference, it just depends on who you are talking to, or where you go to church.

An important fact my friend evidently does not recognize is that in religion-the religion of true Christianity-Jesus is the Physician (Matthew 9:12; Mk. 2:17) and in order to be healed of our spiritual ailments we must obey the Great Physician’s orders (Heb. 5:8, 9). What has the Doctor prescribed for eternal salvation?

1. Jesus said to hear (John 10:3; 6:45);

2. Jesus said to believe (John 8:24; 6:47);

3. Jesus said to repent (Luke 13:3);

4. Jesus said to confess him (Matthew 10:32 Lk. 12:8);

5. Jesus said to be baptized in water (John 3:5; Mt. 28:19; Mark 16:16);

6. Jesus said to be faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10).

This is the prescription that the Great Physician has given that will lead unto life eternal. What will you do with it? Will you obey all of the Doctor’s orders and be eternally saved, or will you reject it by believing in some kind of spiritual Aquack”? It does make a difference!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:28, p. 14
May 16, 1974

By Warren E. Berkley

The idea of sinking all our differences into a sea of “love” and sweet tolerance and uniting in division seems to be rapidly reaching every part of the religious world. Denominational bodies who have formerly harbored revenge are now skillfully defending latitudinarianism and independence of belief. Even some who have been enslaved Roman Catholics are now joining forces with Protestants to do what is called “preaching Christ.” This denominational philosophy has grown swiftly in recent years until now the distinction between unity and division is nil.

One very natural outgrowth of this indulgent attitude is the conclusion that those who do not avoid controversy and are firmly devoted to contending for their convictions are merely “picking quarrels about doctrinal differences,” and possessed with a tragic lack of “love.” It is supposed (not demonstrated by any valid appeal to the Scriptures), that we who are followers of Christ must never be so bold and “self-righteous” as to deny or even question a religious belief and/or practice held by an honest and sincere person. In cases where we question or deny a practice, we are charged with judging, and told that we do not have the right to judge. With reference to this tolerant attitude, a few observations are in order.

Logic?

Using human reasoning and logic as their foundation, proponents of tolerance make their case. After all, they say, we are all different; and since achieving religious unity would be a colossal, if not impossible task, why not just settle for “peaceful co-existence” and stop all this disputing? But human wisdom in the form of “logic” was never intended to originate spiritual truth (1 Cor. 1-2). Any attempt, then, to contend against contending on this basis is invalid. But is their plea logical?

Consistency?

It is to be regretted that those who argue against arguing cannot see their own inconsistency. Actually, practicing what they preach would require that they leave us alone! Are we to suppose that the advocates of tolerance are opposed to all religious arguments except the one in which they are engaged? We are reminded of the double-minded, anti-legalist who binds his anti-legalism on others. He actually sets himself up as a standard and judge just as do the tolerant about whom I am writing. But their inconsistency goes further!

Selective Regard For Bible

As a finicky customer makes his way through the cafeteria line, so the tolerant folks make their way through the Bible. We are encouraged to insist on the letter of the law when it comes to morality, for example, but “doctrinal matters” are not nearly so vital. Stamp out drunkenness, fornication and dishonesty even if the effort involves exposing and rebuking sinners; but let folks believe anything they will concerning baptism, faith, the church, the Lord’s supper and worship! And, oh yes be sure to pound away loud and long about the wicked party spirit, while placing little emphasis upon “unimportant truths” such as the work and organization of the church.

But, the Lord made no such distinction between “morals” and so-called “doctrinal matters.” Paul said that he had, “shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God,” and Jesus said that. “man liveth by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Acts 20:27; Matt. 4:4).

Self-Righteous

Among the several planks in the platform of the “leaveeverybody-alone” party is the charge that defenders of the truth are self-righteous. But, when we insist upon strict adherence to God’s word are we demonstrating self-righteousness? If the term “self-righteous” means insisting on God’s righteousness, yes! But that’s hardly the idea. In fact, those who would have their own way while refusing to submit to God’s righteousness are self-righteous (Rom. 10:3)!

Conclusion

There is only “one faith” (Eph. 4:5) and that faith is held by those who hear and obey God’s word (Rom. 10:17). To suppose, then, that one can believe one way and another believe differently on matters revealed by God and both please God is to falsely assume that there is no “one faith” which is sufficient for all men. Jude wrote concerning the “common salvation,” for salvation in Christ is enjoyed by those who, by their trust and obedience, share in “one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all,” (Eph. 4:4-6). Those who are thus related to one another by their kinship with God, will feel a burning desire to instruct others in the way of righteousness, not to exalt themselves as “know-it-alls” filled with angry pride, and out of a real love for lost souls and out of a desire to please the God who has commanded that they, “contend earnestly” for the faith (Jade 3). Though this will entail the exposure of every false way, the honest man who is determined to serve God on God’s terms will not be offended.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:28, p. 11
May 16, 1974

By Ron Halbrook

If you have not read Joe Neil Clayton’s Thunderous Silence Of God, brother you are missing a real treat. Much that we read brings tears to our eyes like those of Jeremiah for the drifting of God’s people. No one asked us to write this commendation; we cannot help writing it in these troubled days. Those who read The Thunderous Silence Of God will rejoice with renewed spirits.

Brother Clayton tells the stories of both history and scripture with clarity. His book was published in 1972 by Cogdill Foundation; no finer work on unity and fellowship has been seen by us, though the book came out before the current controversy broke into the open. The book is modestly priced and should be widely circulated by gospel preachers, elders, and parents. It not only will revive your spirits, it can do untold good if put in the hands of the young. We received our copy from a widow who is a Christian and full of good deeds; her kindness will be remembered! Her example should be often repeated in these days.

Chapter One, “Slighting a Slogan,” reveals the disillusionment James DeForest Murch (conservative Christian Church), W. Carl Ketcherside, and others have experienced. Brother Clayton refers to “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent” as the restoration “slogan,” from the standpoint of modern church history. “I am persuaded that the motto reflects the clear teaching of the scripture in regard to the principles by which the Word of God must be interpreted and applied.” But many are “straining against the leash” of restraint imposed by recognition of the impact of the thunderous silence of God. Since many call for a re-examination of the slogan, Brother Clayton proposes to accommodate them.

First our author shows that Thomas Campbell in his slogan and the elaboration of it in the Declaration and Address unquestionably viewed “the New Testament” as “a perfect model” for the church (Chapter Two: “Removing . . . the Rubbish of Ages”). Such an approach to authority and unity has been called “naive” by modern liberals, but Brother Clayton marches us through the Declaration and Address showing that Campbell admirably set forth such a view without apology. What is stated on the first page of Chapter Three (“A Limit to Toleration”) is truer now than when it was written. That is that many have claimed to see in the Declaration “the broadest sort of base for toleration of innovations.” Such claims are being made right now by promoters of the new unity movement! In the last half of the 1800’s, men like W. K. Pendleton and Isaac Errett tried to make out a case for the “permissiveness of silence” from the Declaration and the Bible. Modern proponents of “the broadest possible fellowship . . . by the present factions of the Restoration Movement” have equally misused the document. Brother Clayton ably discusses these ideas, giving attention to the “Essentials versus Non-essentials” dodge and “Nadab and Abihu on Essentials.”

Under “Delusion or Dishonesty?” (Chapter Four), the inconsistencies that have sometimes characterized those who espoused the principle of The Thunderous Silence Of God are presented. Men like Lard and McGarvey wavered in practice though not in theory. But thrill to the writings of men like Jacob Creath, “Your conventions stand upon precisely the same footing that the one now in session in Rome does-that sects, creeds, infant-sprinkling, organ grinding in churches . . . stand upon . . . as another advocate for all these innovations says, ‘They are not expressly forbidden nor commanded.’ Neither is Romanism nor Mohammedanism.” (!) In “From Heaven or From Men?” (Chapter Five), the scriptural argument for the thunderous silence of God is admirably set forth, with notice too of T. Campbell’s statement ” ‘Union in Truth’ is our motto.” Ketcherside’s twisting of such passages as I Corinthians 1:10 is disposed of. The proposition that “the specific approbation of Levi served also as a specific prohibition of Judah” is established, and Chapter Five is worth the price of the book!

Chapters Six (“The History of a Principle”) and Seven (“The End of the Matter”) are a clear call to see our responsibilities regarding the principle of Divine Silence. All through history men have had to choose-Zwingli, David, Balaam, . . . and us. Since all men will not recognize this principle any more than all men will accept any other part of God’s will, we must accept “controversy as a part of the task” instead of giving up just because controversy arises . . . like some are doing right now, we might add. The selection of Colossians 2:8 at the end was certainly timely since we are now seeing men spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit in regard to the thunderous silence of God.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:28, p. 10
May 16, 1974