Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

I resisted the temptation to entitle this article, “The Smart-Alecks.” I am temperate by nature and my nature won out, but it was close. The Lord’s people in various and sundry places are plagued with self acknowledged knowledgeable men. It used to be that unlearned and ignorant men could preach the gospel plan of salvation and establish a church after the New Testament order. Opposition came from the sects, but they were heathens, and their Sauline persecutions were oxen kicking against the goads. But any self respecting ox soon finds that he does not get a kick out of his kicking, so the denominations left us alone.

But now we have a gospel intelligentsia, a spiritual brain trust. These fellows are making it hard for us boorish preachers of meager mental acumen to simply preach the gospel and urge folks to love it and live it. We are urged to “re-evaluate” our “structured forms” of work and worship and to dally in “dialogue” (a smart guy’s term for the savage and harsh word “debate”) about true grace and meaningful faith. We are encouraged to be tolerant while our bright, young men drink from the wells of denominational concepts and spue forth the same. We are beseeched to smile a lot and seek to be as learned as some tell us they think they are. Until, however, it is proven that preaching the New Testament system makes me as foolish as some tell me it does, I think I will prefer to be foolish rather than wise in my own conceit.

Now, I ain’t got nothing against education nohow. If that plane statement don’t convince you, then it is beyond my ability to learn you any better. I do desire to keep growing in mind and spirit, but I am not so eager to obtain an education that I will consent to study and learn a great deal that is not so in order to say I know something. That much, I do know. I rather enjoy discussing “true grace.” In fact, I enjoy it so much that every time I preach the gospel I talk about it (Acts 20:24; Titus 2:11, 12). As to the structured forms, which need no re-evaluation unless the Holy Spirit wants to rewrite and revise the New Testament, Peter proclaimed such things as congregational government in a real structured fashion, and then he said, “this is the true grace of God wherein we stand” (1 Pet. 5:12). Evaluating true grace is one thing, but I have no disposition or inclination to reevaluate, which means, when you clear the fat away, revamp and expand. No need to exclude me from a re-evaluation exercise as I choose not to show up.

My adamant attitude is indicative of the typical “Church of Christ formalism.” When you are enlightened, you can perceive Pharisaical traditionalism in simple New Testament Christians. If you are content to preach the truth and intent on folks obeying it in an ordered and scriptural manner (Col. 2:6), you probably did not notice my “rigid ritualism” received by tradition from my exclusivist forefathers on the frontier. If you, for example, preach “damnation” even half as much as you sweetly tone the word “salvation,” you also are structured, unenlightened, and intolerant of pious faces that are “searching” to find themselves in the maize of the contemporary religious scene. Welcome to the club.

If the enlightened ones are a curse to be accursed, what shall be done about them? There are obvious steps-study with them, teach them, pray for them (avoid sitting down on the floor and holding hands with them when you do). When you are finished with your endeavors, though, you will remain confined in your narrow-minded, stereotyped “Church of Christ faith,” and most of the wise ones will be oh so much wiser in their ways than before. So, you are not likely to succeed. “But this does not solve the problem of what to do with them,” you protest. Well, you will not have that concern much longer. With a swan song of, “We are forced to leave the Church of Christ branch because of its uncharitable, hostile, bickering intolerance of Christian love to God’s people in all segments of the Christian spectrum,” they will take their leave. Over their shoulder they will yell “grace” and decry your “one true churchism.” They may still profess to personally be opposed to mechanical instruments of music in the worship, but they can tolerate it much better than they can stomach your “incessant, public harangues” against it, so off they will go to write a book telling us why they were conscience led to abandon us. When the book comes out, I will read it if they give me a copy. It will be easier to weep over it than it will be to read in it, for they will be gone, but they will think I am.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:9, pp. 5-6
January 2, 1974

By R. L. (Bob) Craig

(EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article by Robert Craig appeared first in THE BIBLE STANDARD, November 5, 1973. It shows that others have been worried about some of the things appearing in the GOSPEL GUARDIAN. Robert Craig and Kent Ellis co-edit THE BIBLE STANDARD, a sixteen page paper which is printed twice each month. Subscription price to THE BIBLE STANDARD is $3.00 per year, and may be ordered from P.O. Box 3284, Austin, Texas 78764.-Cecil Willis.)

Some time ago I wrote an article questioning the associate editor of the Gospel Guardian, Edward Fudge, on his explanation of 2 John 9. He had taken the same position as had Carl Ketcherside and Cleon Lyles in times past. Their idea is that this verse has to do altogether with the divinity of Christ and has nothing to do with overstepping the boundaries of the gospel. Some were critical of my efforts but most were of the notion that more needed to be said-and, seemingly, that little article got the ball rolling. Truth Magazine has really jumped into that battle on Ketchersidism and the turn the Gospel Guardian has taken.

A little later, the editor himself, William Wallace, my friend and contemporary, flung himself into the battle by defending those he referred to as “second generation” preachers. I then dealt with his “second generation” junk in another article. Evidently Wallace, Fudge, and the G. G., consider Bob Craig and the Bible Standard too insignificant to call by name and to consider what we say, hence, Fudge has given no explanation as yet on 2 John 9 and Wallace just takes side-swipes at us; kinda like brushing off a little dog that might be nipping at your heels. (If he will check our ownership statement and compare it with his, he will see that, even though we are little right now, we are growing every day while the Gospel Guardian has dropped considerably from the 5000 plus when I was printing it for Roy Cogdill.)

We have a good article by Ron Holbrook in this issue dealing with Ed Fudge so I need say little along that line except to concur with Ron and add that Ed’s position for a good while is that mentioned. While preaching for the little church in. Sweetwater, Texas, he collaborated with Jerry Phillips (who was holding them a meeting at that time) and Larry Fluett, liberal preacher in Sweetwater, to move the conservative brethren back with the liberals with the concept that “there is not enough difference between the two groups to warrant separation.” Fortunately, Robert Hargrove, faithful man of God in Sweetwater, would not allow this to happen.

Very recently, Fudge has written an article in the G. G. explaining his position on fellowship. Rather than just plainly stating forthrightly what his position is, he quoted from a speech made by James Adams in the Arlington meeting, and said, “I believe precisely, exactly and fully what the following paragraphs state . . .” Now James Adams doesn’t need me nor anyone else to defend him. He is well able and willing to do that himself and is doing it right now in Truth Magazine, but for the benefit of our Bible Standard readers, I give this explanation which further shows the character of the young G. G. editorial writer. The main point Edward is using from brother Adams is the statement “I have never made these matters a test of fellowship.” If you will carefully examine the speech made by brother Adams (you can read it in the book, The Arlington Meeting) you will find that he was answering a question posed by a liberal preacher in regard to people like James having made cooperation, etc., a test of fellowship, hence causing division among God’s people. James was showing that this was not so–that the liberals were the ones who had hung out the quarantine sign to begin with. And, if Edward had read all the article, which I think he did, he would have heard James say, “I just cannot have fellowship with you when I am placed in the position of having to participate in things I believe to be wrong. When such is demanded of me, I must withdraw myself even if it requires me to start a new congregation.” Now-Big Question: could Ed Fudge have fellowship with them? Would Ed Fudge withdraw himself? If so, then his position is not the same as James Adams. If he could not, then what does he mean by saying “I do not make this a test of fellowship?”

So much for Fudge. Let’s get back to William Wallace and the title of this article. I’m afraid that William is too much like his daddy; when someone tries to tell him something, he bows his neck and becomes obstinate. I wrote him a letter a good while ago pointing out how the G. G. was no longer the militant journal it once was and even offered to buy him out. (This was before the Fudge alliance.) He would not sell (i.e., not to me) and observed that some (probably me) mistake obnoxiousness for militancy. Perhaps. But his dad and uncle Cled and uncle W. E. Brightwell surely used to be obnoxious-and got the job done.

So, William has been warned about such as Fudge, Phillips, Trainer, et al., and, true to family tradition, he bows his neck. He not only defends these “second-generation” writers but accuses all of us who would be critical of either he, them, or the Guardian, of practicing what he calls NeoMcCarthyism. Well, if some people had listened to McCarthy back in the 40s and 50s we would not be in such a mess, nationally, as we now are. And if people will listen to the “Neo-McCarthyites,” we might still preserve a portion of the Cause we all love and cherish. But if we hearken to the likes of Fudge, Phillips, and Trainer, we are in for much more destitute times, spiritually speaking. And if brother Bill doesn’t open his eyes or soften his neck, the Gospel Guardian will be a second Mission Messenger.

Specifically, brother Wallace defends young Randall Trainer. Randy wrote an article concerning “Theological Liberalism at A.C.C.,” in which he said there was none. Several took exception to that article and that conclusion. A.C.C. liked it and reprinted it as did the Firm (?) Foundation. Brother Wallace says: “Some do indeed turn off second-generation preachers and then maul and maim them. This is what was done in the case of young Randall Trainer.

Frankly, I am more inclined to accept the conclusions of a novice who was on the scene two years at Abilene Christian College, concerning theological liberalism, than the reports of someone who seems to have an axe to grind. The mauling of young Trainer was wrong and did not at all disprove what Trainer actually and precisely concluded.”

Since I have had personal contact with young brother Trainer, I believe that he is completely un-qualified to write on the subject as he seemingly doesn’t know what liberalism, either theological or otherwise, is. One who had been on the A.C.C. scene for years said there was such-Eugene Clevenger. Randy (Bill says he is a novice) was on the scene two years and says there is none. Randy is steeped in the sentiment of Carl Ketcherside to such an extent that he is blinded. While here in Austin, he refused to meet with a sound church and chose rather one of the most liberal and excused himself by use of the Ketchersidian concept of “Well, after all, no congregation is perfect. It is just a matter of degree.” He was so blind that he even made the observation that John Allen Chalk, then preacher at Southside, was as conservative as I, Bob Craig. I leave to all readers who even slightly know of me or Chalk, to draw their own conclusion concerning whether young brother Trainer is to be considered as a competent observer of “Theological liberalism” at A.C.C. or of anything else.

This Ketcherside looseness is catching on with lots of people, whether we call it by that label or not. It is past time for William Wallace to quit pussy-footing around and cut these fellows off from writing or else take them to, task when they get off the trolley. If he will not, then he must bear the consequences, and the guilt of what is inevitable.

In closing, Bill says that anyone whose writings have been used to make them appear dangerous should have the same opportunity to be heard in the same journal. He, or they, have my personal invitation to appear in our pages in defense of their loose attitude.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:9; p. 3-4
January 2, 1974

By Cecil Willis

From the time when God interrupted the natural processes of history and intervened by giving a supernatural revelation, there has been an almost endless discussion concerning the potentiality and priorities of reason and revelation. We might even go further and say, not only have there been discussions, but there have been very definite ostensible tensions between reason and revelation.

Man seeks the most reliable standard by which to live. Since man has come to conceive of truth as the best standard of life, much of man’s effort is expended in seeking the proper means of arriving at truth. Every person is compelled to act in accordance with what he thinks is best. In order for a proper criterion of action to be established, the philosophical problem of epistemology must be injected into the discussion. In this article, actually our discussion will revolve around the problem of “how can we know?.” Is it possible for one to derive a pattern of life from the inductive processes of naturalistic logic alone, or should there be a proper proportion of reason and revelation, or must there be an exclusive position taken, relying solely upon revelation for one’s supply of every kind of knowledge? These are the questions we must face.

Inasmuch as this has somewhat been an age-long problem, perhaps the best way to get a general perspective of what has been done toward solving the perplexity may best be by an historical survey of the various positions that have been taken. We shall try to categorize the varying views expressed in the history of this issue.

As one approaches a problem such as this one, he is dealing with the very essence of philosophy. Philosophy is one’s search for knowledge, and knowledge will never come into one’s possession without employment of reason or revelation or both.

Priority of Faith

Virtually in every age, there has been a group of philosophers who have maintained that faith is prior to reason. Revelation has been held to be self-sufficient. In the New Testament period, and immediately following, the Gnostics claimed to have knowledge. Christians also claimed to have knowledge. Their strife was not in their claim, but in the means by which they had arrived at this knowledge. The disciples of Jesus declared that their insight to truth had come to them by revelation of Jesus Christ.1 But the Gnostics rejected divine revelation and claimed to know without God’s word. They knew by reason alone. The book of Colossians is thought to be a reply to the Gnostic heresy, showing that divine truth comes only by revelation from God.

The post-apostolic writers continued to dispute the audacious claims of reason and to assert the necessity of a prior faith. Tertullian, in the seventh chapter of his book, On Prescription Against Heretics, attempts to show the “foolishness” of philosophy. He says that all heresies are instigated by philosophy. The heretics and the philosophers continually discuss the same subject matter. And with blistering irony, Tertullian says:

“Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down, an art so jar-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh in its arguments, so productive of contentions-embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing!”2

Tertullian goes on to declare in oratorical style that the man who had the knowledge of the gospel needed nothing else. He was sufficient in Christ. Hear him as he says in the now famous passage:

“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon (Acts 3:5) who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. (Wisd. 1:1). Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the Gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.”3

But the attitude of Tertullian is perhaps best, reflected in the most famous expression preserved of his writings. In speaking of the Bible teaching of the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ, he said, “It is believable, because it is absurd; it is certain because it is impossible.”4 This statement was in direct contrast with the views expressed by both Clement and Origen, both of whom were members of the church in Alexandria. They said that revelation must be reasonable. Tertullian believed that the individual’s immediate intuition of God is the surest witness to truth he could have-surer even than rational proof and even surer than revelation. For Tertullian held that revelation is to “enlarge the knowledge the soul already possesses.”5

Augustine also held that faith was prior to understanding, but his views were not as exclusive of reason as were Tertullian’s. He held, with Justin Martyr, Clement, and Origen, that there was a fundamental agreement between reason and revelation, but that reason was not capable of arriving at the truth. But reason could agree with the truth once it was declared by revelation.

Prior to Augustine’s “conversion,” he was a Manichean. He was earnestly seeking for a well-founded basis for faith, and to his surprise, found that the truth about God, the evidences for God’s existence, were not understandable by reason alone. The existence of God was not demonstrable, he concluded. Augustine concluded that adequate proof for the existence of God was to be found within each human spirit, whether the individual gave heed to it or not. He, like Tertullian, thought that truth is to be grasped, not by; sense, but by intellectual intuition. Of course, the sensationalists of his day sought to contradict this claim.

Augustine said that one must believe in order to understand. This statement was equally applicable to religious and secular truths. There were many commonly accepted secular truths that were not demonstrable. One could not demonstrate mathematical truth. By reason, one could not conclude seven plus three equal ten. Moral truths were also not demonstrable. How could one demonstrate that one ought to seek wisdom? Nor could his’ epistemological truth, “I think, therefore I am,” be demonstrated. From these instances Augustine concluded that truth is superior to human reason. Reason alone could never grasp truth. So one had to believe in order to receive truth. Augustine said: “Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.”6One had to believe that there was something to be understood before he could seek its understanding. So one had to begin with faith in order to end with understanding, whether this search was for secular or religious truth. Yet in this kind of system, faith was prior.

It is difficult to classify Anselm in the categories we have set up to follow in the writing of this article. In a very real sense, he is an Augustinian. He speaks the language of Augustine. But in another sense he is a Thomist. Hence we shall refer to him under both headings. Almost repetitious of Augustine’s sentiments, Anselm said:

“I do not endeavor,’ O Lord, to penetrate thy sublimity for in no wise do I compare my understanding with that; but I long to understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed; I should not `understand.”7

Augustinians may not all say the same thing, but at least they have one thing in common; they all assert the priority of faith over reason.

Revelation Supplements Reason

The next category of thinkers we are considering in the discussion of the specific provinces of reason and revelation is that of those who say revelation supplements reason. These individuals hold that there are certain spiritual truths that are capable of logical demonstration separate and apart from revelation. They are mediators between the preceding category and the succeeding one. But while holding that some truths are logically demonstrable, they also believed that there were many which were not. So in order for all truth to be given, God had to inform man by revelation of those truths which man was unable to arrive at by demonstration.

As we had just mentioned Anselm in the preceding section, it is appropriate that we begin with him in this division, as we asserted he could be classified under both headings. How Anselm would harmonize this contradiction in his position I am not sure, but we shall try accurately to state what he said. While Anselm had so plainly stated that one could not understand without first believing, he also said that without the presuppositions of faith, he could demonstrate the existence of God. In the famous “ontological proof,” he purported to give a purely logical demonstration of the existence of God. This proof would exist within the individual mind, if it is demonstrable, whether there was a divine revelation or not. Anselm was so encouraged by, the ease with which he had demonstrated God’s existence, he went on to demonstrate other Bible doctrines, or at least he thought he had. In his Monologium and Proslogium, he “proved” that God was a Trinity of Divine, Persons by “conclusive dialectical arguments.” And in his Cur Deus homo, he sets forth his rational proof necessitating the incarnation of Christ. The incarnation occurred because it was logically necessary. It could have been no other way, without disproving the validity of logic. Anselm , says he,

Aleaving Christ out of view, as if nothing had ever been known of Him, proves, by necessary reasons, the impossibility that any man should be saved without Him. Again, in the second book, likewise as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown as no less patent rational truth, that human nature` was ordained for that purpose, viz. that some time the whole man should enjoy a happy.immortality, both in body and in soul, and that it was necessary that this design for which man was made should be fulfilled;’ but that it could not be fulfilled unless God became man, so that all things which we hold with regard to Christ had necessarily to take place.”8

Others of this clan took a milder or lessened view of the capabilities of a rationalism to declare the teachings of God’s Word. Yet all considered under this heading felt that some of the teachings of the Scriptures could have been discovered by reason alone.

Should one select a classic writer as being representative of this system of thought, certainly he must choose the now official philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church, “St. Thomas” of Aquinas. He is an excellent example of one who held this empirical theological epistemology. He maintained that he began with the sum of his sense impressions and from these concepts could prove that God existed.

Thomas said: “It seems that the existence of God is selfevident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene said, the knowledge of God is naturally inplanted in all. Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.” 9 Thomas meant; by this natural knowledge that is implanted in us, that we have the inherent qualities that enable us to know Him. He stated it this way: “To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature.”l0

However, to the credit of Thomas, it should be noted that he said sense impressions and natural intuition enable man to know God only in “general and confused way.” “From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as he is in His essence.”11

Even though Thomas realized reason alone was not enough, yet he did feel that his famous five-fold proof constituted a demonstration of God’s existence, and that these proofs were not dependent upon divine revelation for their support. This approach has come to be set aside as inadequate by many modern apologists. With the insight which he had received from revelation, ;Thomas, and others set out to view nature to reach certain conclusions. But after reaching the destination, they then turn back, pleading pure empiricism. Aristotle, studied nature, and from it could only detect an impersonal Unmoved Mover. Do modern Thomists have any more insight into nature, or did they have access to more data than did the ancient Philosopher? But Aarmed with the conviction that the Trinity is the true God, Thomas had no difficulty re-introducing into the system of Aristotle such notions as divine creation, exemplarism, and providence. The very eagerness which Thomas evinced to renovate Aristotle is glaring proof that he anticipated nature with a God that he found by other than empirical means” 12 As another critic of Thomas said: “Thomas and others, coming to the universe on revelational assumptions, could find God written in every area of it; there is more significance than usually thought in the statement that only a Christian could have framed the five-fold proof.” 13 But as this article does not intend to be a critique of the various views, but merely a chronicler of them, we must proceed.

Philosophers and theologians who have held that part of God’s revealed truths could be grasped by natural reason alone have lived in almost every age. All have given way to the prominence of Thomas, so with him, we will close this category of our discussion.

Priority of Reason

Our review has been progressive. We observed the system which says revelation is the only means of arriving at truth. Next we noticed those who taught that some revealed truth could be derived by reason. Now we are ready to consider the period or class of thinkers who are pure rationalists. They attempt to live within the limits of reason alone. This is an exclusive attitude as it feels no need for revelation.

The roots of this modern philosophical disposition reach far back into history. It had its inception in Arabic philosophy. The early proponent of this movement was Averroes. He felt that absolute truth was to be derived, not from any given revelation, but from reason. And to him, reason had become personified, in the person of Aristotle. Any doctrine that could not be gained from a perusal of Aristotle’s dissertations could hardly be germane to the philosophers.

Averroes believed that all truth could be given to mankind by the exploitation of logic. But if all truth could be arrived at by this system of rationalism, why was there any need for revelation at all? To this Averroes replied by stating that different individuals have varying capabilities. Not every man is a philosopher. Not every man is capable of following logic to its end. But every man does need truth by which to pattern his life.. So to Averroes, the Scriptures are not given to be of benefit to the philosopher, for he could know all they say before they were given, but the Scriptures were given for the unphilosophically inclined beings. So that actually, there could be no conflict whatever between reason and revelation. If ever there should be a contradiction, the harmony must certainly lie in correction of an illogical process, or ruling out a pseudo-revelation. This disposition to harmonize reason and revelation is exemplified in Averroes’ book, The Agreement of Religion and Philosophy.

Every rationalistic philosopher since Averroes has essentially followed in his steps, for this is rationalism by definition. It is the conviction that one can arrive at truth without relying upon a supernatural revelation. And it can be said that genuine rationalists must believe in the essential agreement between reason and revelation. They must conclude that what is true in a revelation is in agreement with the truth deduced by reason. And Christians would agree that what truth can be logically deduced by reason would be in agreement with supernatural revelation. The issue is whether any proposition is to be accepted which is not capable of logical demonstration, but whose veracity is totally dependent upon the authenticity of revelation.

Reason Examines Revelation

No one doubts that there is a definite relation to be sustained between reason and revelation. The medieval and modern theologians and rationalists recognize there is a sphere of relation between the two. But the problem has been that of ascertaining the proper province and limitation of both.

the Bible is given is to tell man how to be saved. So one can rightfully say that the Bible has limitations in the areas of knowledge it uncovers. It is a Book of spiritual truths, and one would make a mistake to accept it as a text-book in mathematics.

At the same time, one must realize that reason has certain boundaries set for it, beyond which it cannot go on its own power. It is admitted that many of the facts of life and science can be discovered by naturalistic reason, but at the same time, one can never logically proceed to spiritual truths. If there is any truth at all in revelation, it plainly is the truth that the Scriptures furnish the Christian completely to every good work. 14 The apostle Peter goes on to state that the knowledge one receives through the revelation of Jesus Christ provides one with “all things that pertain to life and godliness.” 15 The Scriptures teach that the truths given to us by God are adequate to guide one from earth to heaven, if man will but follow them. This fact must be accepted by reason, or else reason must contradict it, by asserting that the whole of revelation may be discarded, leaving man to stumble through life and toward Judgment on what light can be shed forth by one’s immediate intuition and logic.

However, if one admits that God’s revelation to man is adequate to do that for which God gave it, namely, give man instruction as to how to obtain remission of sins, and an entrance into heaven, then he is faced with the question of declaring the utility of rationalism at all. For if rationalism is not to be used to the exclusion of revelation, and even if it should be admitted that rationalism could arrive at some spiritual truths, yet if one admits the adequacy of the Scriptures, rationalism could therefore arrive at no truth than those already expressed by divine fiat. And if rationalism simply reiterates what God has already said, it can give no additional light.

Reason must be applied to revelation. Man is not to be expected gullibly to accept every claimed supernatural revelation, else the contradictions between the “revelations” would rule out the supernatural element altogether from these revelations, leaving nothing but books of contradictions. Contradiction is not the quality of God, but of man. Man just decide upon the origin of revelation by evidence. It would be irrational to attempt to decide the origin of a given “revelation” by that revelation itself. To do so would be to argue circumlocutiously. One cannot get assent of his reasoning faculties to submit to a divine oracle, unless he is satisfied it is indeed a divine oracle. So when one investigates the Scriptures to determine whether they are the product of man or God, reason is examining the Scriptures. If the “revelation” is found to be the product of fallible man, without supernatural guidance, it should be discarded as a supernatural revelation, and should be placed in the library of human products. But if one’s investigation leads him to the conclusion that the work being investigated is the work of God, it should be read accordingly.

Revelation does not pretend to reveal all knowledge. The Scriptures do not teach there is nothing that man can learn that is not revealed in the Scriptures. There are many fields of knowledge that the Bible leaves wide open to the investigation of the scientific man. It is not the purpose of the Bible to give us a wealth of information on geography, astronomy, history, linguistics, etc., but the reason for which

A little over a century ago, Brother Robert Milligan published a book entitled, Reason and Revelation. In this work he stated some of the provinces of reason in matters pertaining to divine revelation. He said these provinces are: (1) Decide on the origin of the Bible (pp. 15-153); (2) Decide on the canon of the Scriptures (pp. 154-212); (3) Decide on the integrity of the Scriptures (pp. 213-346); (4) Decide on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (p. 271); (5) Decide on the proper theory of inspiration (p. 271); (6) Decide on and apply the proper rules of exegesis (p. 286 ff.); (7) Acquiesence to whatever God has revealed.

Reason should be used to decide the origin of the Scriptures. If then, the revelation is concluded to be a divine revelation, then the fullest extent of one’s mental ability should be employed in seeking to grasp what God has said, and the whole of man’s will should be consumed in applying what God has commanded to one’s life.

A captain a battle field may receive a message claiming to have been sent by his general. The captain must decide whether it really came from the general or not. If his decision is affirmative, it therefore becomes the duty of the lesser officer to submit humbly to what his superior says. If man’s infinite Superior speaks, man must listen, and obey.

Footnotes

1. Galatians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 2:13.

2. Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. VII.

3. Obid. Ch. VII.

4. Tertullian, De Carne Christi. 5

5. Fuller, History of Philosophy, pp. 351, 352.

6. Augustine. On the Gospel of Saint John, xxix, 6.

7. Quoted in Gilson, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, p. 24.

8. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, Preface.

9. Thomas, Summa, I Q.Z, A 1.

10. Loc. Cit.

11. Thomas, Op. Cit. 1. Q.Z, A. 2.

12. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 132.

13. Henry, Remaking the Modern Mind, p. 231.

14. 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

15. 2 Peter 1:3, 4.

Bibliography

Augustine, On the Gospel of Saint John, xxix, 6; in Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages. Gilson, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1938, p. 19.

Casserly; J. V. Langmead. The Christian in Philosophy, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951.

Carnell, Edward J., An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, Third Ed., Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950.

Fuller, B. A. G., A History of Philosophy, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1959.

Gilson, Etienne, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938.

______ The Unity of Philosophical Experience. New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1952.

Henry, Carl F. H., Remaking the Modern Mind, Second Ed., Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952.

Milligan, Robert, Reason and Revelation, Cincinnati, R. W. Carroll & Co., Publishers, 1868.

Anselm. Cur Deus homo. Preface, S. N. Deane’s translation, pp. 178, 179.

Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. VII; in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo, 1887, vol. 3, p. 246.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:8, p. 3-7
December 20, 1973

By Irvin Himmel

Nothing is more clearly revealed in the Scriptures than our dependence on God’s grace for redemption. Paul said to the saints at Ephesus, “by grace are ye saved” (Eph. 2:5). Everyone who is permitted to enter heaven will be there by grace.

Today there are teachers, even in the church, who have warped conceptions of grace. Some seem to feel that grace is the big “cover-up” for whatever they want to allow that is not taught in the Bible. There is endless speculation about what grace may do. Having no desire to join the ranks of the conjecturers, I offer the following facts revealed in God’s word.

1. Grace does not circumvent Jesus Christ. It is folly to imagine that God’s saving grace may somehow take a circuitous route that by-passes Jesus Christ. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). God demonstrated His loving-kindness for sinful man in the gift of His Son. In Christ “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). Saving grace is found in Jesus, not out of Him. Paul said to the Corinthian Christians, “I thank my God always on your behalf for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:4). The grace that saves comes to man by or through, not apart from, Jesus Christ.

2. Grace does not ignore the Gospel. The good news of justification through Christ is referred to as “the gospel of the grace of God” and “the word of his grace” (Acts 20:24, 32). To preach the gospel is to distribute saving grace. The saints at Colosse were reminded of “the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth” (Col. 1:5,6). It was not until the gospel was preached in Antioch that people turned to the Lord and the grace of God was “seen” in that locality (Acts 11:19-23).

3. Grace does not permit access apart from faith. “Access” is that which gives admittance, entrance, or introduction. One must show faith in Jesus Christ in order to gain access into saving grace. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1,2). Since faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17), one must hear the gospel to enter God’s favor. “For by grace are ye saved through faith . . .” (Eph. 2:8). God provides salvation through undeserved favor; man accepts that provision of grace by means of faith.

4. Grace does not rule against baptism for the remission of sins. The faith which gives access into grace is active trust-confidence expressed in cheerful obedience. God requires that we show faith by being baptized, and that demonstration of faith is unto the remission of sins. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). Peter preached repentance and baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). But he acknowledged that it is “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” that we shall be saved (Acts 15:11). Salvation by grace requires faith, and faith requires baptism unto the forgiveness of sins.

5. Grace does not give license to sin. The law of Moses was given to show the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Under the law sin abounded. “But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. . . ” (Rom. 5:20). Does this mean that the more men sin, the more grace will be shown? Or, as Paul worded the question, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” He answered, “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1,2). The triumph of God’s grace over sin is not to be interpreted as a license for the Christian to indulge in unrighteousness. “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof” (Rom. 6:12). “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly . . .” (Tit. 2:11,12).

6. Grace does not offer unconditional security. Just as our entrance into saving grace is conditioned on our willingness to show faith in Jesus Christ, our remaining in that grace is conditioned on our willingness to continue in faith. The Hebrew writer warns us that one may “fail” or “come short” of the grace of God (Heb. 2:15). The Galatians were called “into the grace of Christ” but afterward accepted false teaching that “removed” them (Gal. 1:6,7). Paul wrote to them, “ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). This explodes the theory of once in grace, always in grace.

7. Grace does not save on the basis of human merit. The Bible sometimes uses the word “work” to convey the thought of activity that earns, or effort that deserves reward. In this sense Paul used the word when he wrote, “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt” (Rom. 4:4). Our salvation is based on faith, not something earned or deserved, “that it might be by grace” (Rom. 4:16). This is why boasting is excluded. “Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:9). Actions in exercise of faith are sometimes called “works” (James 2:24), but they are not in the category of efforts that earn or merit. No man deserves salvation. God’s grace saves and shows our inability to reach heaven by our own might, ingenuity, or deserving. God owes us nothing; we owe Him everything.

I have used this negative approach to show some of the revealed limitations which God places on grace. Hopefully, this will point out that God’s saving grace is not a mystical catch-all for whatever odds and ends. the speculators in theology may wish to conceal. And let us stay with revelation, giving no honor to speculation.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:8, p. 2
December 20, 1973