Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

(EDITOR’S NOTE: For the Preface to this series of articles, please see the Introductory article in the Sept. 20th issue of Truth Magazine).

POINT 4: Our brother’s writing on restoration thought which appeared in the 1968-69 Guardian is replete with quotations from H. W. Everest, J. Z. Tyler, Isaac Errett, J. S. Lamar, W. T. Moore, and John S. Sweeney (G.G., Vol. 20, Nos. 8, 39, 41, 43; Vol. 21, Nos. 1,8,9,10,11,12). There is only occasional notice of or quote from the “anti-progressives.” The various articles were more than mere historical reports; they included admonitions, based largely on quotations from these men, that we (1) grow more, (2) put emphasis on the right things, (3) avoid unwritten creeds, (4) “restudy (the) entire subject” of “Christian unity,” and (5) avoid “slavish uniformity.” After some Observations on History, we shall notice specific points-points which undermine Bible authority-which our brother has asserted. We shall consider “Christian Unity-Second Thoughts,” What Shall We Emphasize? John Locke or Jesus Christ? and What All Do We Need Authority For?

REVIEW: Observations on History. The brethren quoted thought such things as instruments, church-sponsored recreation, and centralization, along with other additions to God’s Word, are matters of lawful opinion, allowable inference, and liberty in Christ-as our brother occasionally noted, without registering disagreement (as Vol. 21, No. 27). These brethren included such practices in “growth,” and they thought “Christian unity” wouldn’t be disturbed thereby. Effective opposition to such things was considered creation of unwritten creeds, “theological hairsplitting,” and “slavish uniformity.”

If these brethren were right, then let’s fearlessly say so! The Creaths, Tants, Hardings, Sewells, Lipscombs, and a host of others charged the above brethren with drifting from the New Testament pattern, denominationalizing the church, and apologizing for apostasy. If the Creaths, Sewells, etc., were wrong, let’s fearlessly say so. We worship at the shrine of no men. Neither list of men formed a Pantheon of gods which we fear to desecrate. And, we’re glad to have all the truth they can point out.

Here is the point. The Isaac Errets, etc., are the men who promoted innovation, violation of divine silence, and addition to God’s Word. Naturally they interpreted their practices as harmless opinion. Naturally they said such was their liberty. Naturally they thought their liberal movement should not be opposed and should not disturb fellowship. They pitched their tents toward the great city of Denominationalism and soon were camped right in the middle of it. Brother J. W. MeGarvey wrote Brother Sewell in later life to admit his attempted middle-of-the-road approach was a failure on the instrument in worship.

It is striking that our brother can write nearly a dozen articles on the restoration effort without a single attempt to report that a great digression and apostasy leading back to denominationalism occurred. How can true restoration history be reported without the great digression receiving emphatic notice? Was there no digression to report – only periodic squabbles over bad attitudes, but no sinful apostasy from the ancient order in the work, worship, and organization of the church??? The digressive “lights” are quoted and reported on as though they maintained the original principle of speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent. Is it not historically true, whether various positions be analyzed and reviewed or not, that a great failing away occurred just as happened after New Testament times? Those who would learn from history so as not to repeat its mistakes will gain insight into today’s sinful apostasy by giving careful attention to yesterday’s similar occurrences.

It appears our brother sees much light in the midst of the darkness of digression, in that he constantly quotes the digressives and omits emphasis to the digression. If be is not putting light for darkness, we desire with all our being to learn that he isn’t. If he isn’t falling victim to the very arguments by which the liberals hoped to foil effective opposition, we must depend on his clarification to learn it. Our interest is not merely historical, but practical, since the modern movement away from the New Testament order uses these same arguments. Our interest is not to brand our brother; we all brand ourselves by the stands we take. Our interest is centered around concern for our brother, and those he teaches, in view of the fact that thoughts, ideas, attitudes, and principles do have consequences. (* Ed says that when he was in Fla. College, he thought his instructors indicated that books by Tyler, Errett, etc. would give him a balanced view of restoration history; he might have given conservatives more notice if it weren’t for this. On the other hand, he said he doesn’t subscribe to the view that men like Errett prepared the way for complete overthrow of Bible authority by their teaching; they were a “totally different breed” from those who don’t respect Bible authority. Ed doesn’t seem to understand that the kind of teaching these men did, and he is doing, does have disastrous consequences!)

“Christian Unity-Second Thoughts. ” In G.G., Vol. 20, No. 8, J.Z. Tyler is quoted in asserting it is not “strictly true that the Bible is the basis upon which we are to unite.” From this, our brother develops three notable points. (1) Our unity is, strictly speaking, in Christ rather than upon the Bible. (He says in Vol. 21, No. 1, that not “even the plainest New Testament teachings are the basis of unity . . .”) (2) Correct understanding does not belong to the subject of our unity in Christ. (3) John 17, 1 Cor. 1:10ff, 2 Jn. 9, and Eph. 4 do not require unity of understanding on any subject.

The Bible is the voice of Christ to us – his word given through his personal ambassadors Un. 12:48; 2 Cor. 5:20; Matt. 16:19; Jn. 10). Surely no one believes the Bible is Christ or Christ is the Bible; they are as distinct as are the Father and the Bible, and as the Spirit and the Bible. But, to talk about being united in Christ rather than upon the Bible sounds like the old, uncertain trumpet call of the denominations: the Man, not the Plan.

To unite upon the Bible is to unite in Christ. When Christ said, “Follow me” and “go thou and preach the kingdom of God,” was the hearer expected to obey Christ or his word – which? (Lk. 9:59-69) Imagine the poor fellow trying to decide whether to unite on the Man or the Plan! Imagine him trying to unite with Christ and his disciples by uniting “around Christ and in him” without uniting on the command Christ gave. Would this be “harmonious variety?” God will judge us through Christ, and Christ will judge us through his words (Acts 17:31; Jn. 12:43). Rejecting his words is equivalent to rejecting him, obeying his word to obeying him, and uniting upon his word to uniting in him.

Now, consider points (2) and (3) above. Christ prayed that his apostles might be both “mine and thine,” be filled with joy and kept from evil, and set apart-“sanctified”-unto God (Jn. 17:10-17). The pressures of the world would be great, but the power of God to reserve and unify His own would be greater. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” The same word of truth, which would reserve and unify His apostles, would be sufficient to preserve and unify all who would believe the Apostles’ preaching. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they may all be one” (vv. 17-211. God’s own are both called and kept, unified and preserved “through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Divine truth understood, believed, and practiced–does belong “to the subject of Christian unity, as such, based on such passages as John 17, 1 Cor. 1:10ff, 2 John 9; 11, or Eph. 4. “

The Corinthians had to understand spiritual gifts in the light of their Giver, purpose, diversity, and endurance (1Cor. 12-14). They had to understand that exalting human wisdom in preacher-worship undermines the gospel (chapt. 1). The relation between Christ’s resurrection and ours had to be understood (chapt. 15). A proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper had to be restored (chapt. 11). Failing to “discern the Lord’s body” would result in “damnation.” “For this cause many are weak and sickly . . . and many sleep” (vv. 27-20). Spiritual death was creeping in where life had been. Some were failing from grace. The “church” would not be “of God'” long if they failed to hear, Understand, sorrow, repent, and do works meet for repentance. In this context, Paul appeals for brethren to “speak the same thing”-to remember “my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church” (1. 10; 4:17). The truth Paul taught was “in Christ;- Corinth needed to unite upon it and in him.

In Vol. 21, No. 1, our brother says the “Man versus Plan” idea is “an unscriptural distinction between Christ and His teachings.” He adds, “It is right to emphasize the teaching of the, New Testament Scriptures in dealing with the matter of unity” so long as one doesn’t neglect or overlook “Christ’s role” in unity. But in the same place he does himself recognize the very distinction he disavows. He suggests the Philippian jailor may never have “enjoyed the benefit and blessing of additional instruction” after primary obedience in baptism. That primary obedience “embraced everything that was absolutely essential,” so the jailor could have lived the rest of his life with the man and without one iota of the plan of “additional instruction.” Our Lord never taught such a thing nor authorized us to do it. This Man without the Plan could have resulted in nothing but death (Jn. 15; 1 Pet. 2: 1-2; Matt. 28:20). The plain teachings of the New Testament are the basis of unity, for through them – and only through them – can we maintain our vital relationship with our Savior.’

What Shall We Emphasize? As already noted, Vol. 20, No. 8 and Vol. 21, No. 1 inform us we should not so much emphasize the Bible (New Testament teaching), but should emphasize Christ. In Vol. 21, No. 3, we are told, “Those who led the nineteenth century Reformation in this country” did not place “their emphasis in restoration . . . (on) the Church itself,” but on “Gods Word . . . especially in the beginning of their work, as the all sufficient canon of orthodoxy, unity, and communion.” After being told to shift our real emphasis from the Bible to Christ. now we are told the importance of shifting our emphasis from the church to the Bible. Not the church, but the Bible; not the Bible, but Christ.

The truth is, when the gospel was preached by inspired men in the 1st century, both the Man and the Plan were preached – with emphasis on the Son of God who gives the Word of God and thus has absolute authority over the People of God in all the affairs of spiritual service. The church and the Bible and the Christ. Our “emphasis in restoration” preaching, i.e. gospel preaching, must be on the absolute authority of the Son, the all-sufficiency of the Word, and the distinctive characteristics of the People of God. Digressives, such as our brother quotes, are forever trying to figure out how to emphasize some part of the gospel without emphasizing all of it; is our brother getting on the merry-go-round with them? Let us all determine, as Paul, to shun not “to declare . . . all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).

John Locke or Jesus Christ? In Vol. 21, No. 3, some excellent quotes of pioneer preachers are given. Their plea was “that the Church of Christ . . . should resume that original unity, peace, and purity which belong to its constitution, and constitute its glory” and should “conform to the model and adopt the practice of the primitive Church, expressly exhibited in the New Testament.” They thought the “authority of Scripture” and “the idea of the ancient church as a model for all time … went together and were a natural pair.”

“. . . Thomas Campbell assumed that ‘when once the principle of the sufficiency of the divine standard and model-the church of the New Testament-has been accepted, and men begin to inquire in its pages as to what is the will of God concerning his church, they will all at once fall upon the same self-evident truths of faith and practice. In this assumption, Campbell was essentially proposing his solution to the problem of disunity among professing Christians. He was suggesting unity by conformity. “

Our brother adds this explanation,

“. . . Campbell’s reasoning was partly obligated to the idea of ‘natural law, and particularly to the philosophy and reasoning methods of John Locke of England. Campbell did not approach the subject of Christian unity from the standpoint … used with other topics: i.e. to see what the New Testament itself had to say on the topic. He did not … develop a Biblical theology here. . . . “

(* I pointed out to Ed that I read the entire set of The Christian Baptist in the past year. His statement that the Campbell’s did not go to “the New Testament itself” to see what it said on “the subject of Christian unity” is totally in error. There are numerous articles in The Christian Baptist, the Campbell’s first magazine, dealing with unity from the New Testament viewpoint. When I told him this, he was, as Martin Luther once said, “silent as the fishes.”)

Locke’s “natural law” theory said man was in “original purity” before civil government began; man was endowed with natural rights, some of which were given up to civil government. He surmised that if government became oppressive, men may dissolve it and take back all their rights. He also said these propositions were “self-evident” and all could see them to be true without benefit of closely reasoned proof. Two basic points emerge: (1) the concept that man’s original state establishes standards, patterns, or norms of conduct, and (2) the concept that these propositions will be self-evident to all who look into the book of human nature.

How is the idea of patterning the church after the Bible model based on Locke’s philosophy? Is it because of the emphasis given to the church’s original state as our pattern today? There may be a coincidence of ideas, or even an increased interest in the original state of the church under the influence of the widespread interest in the original state of man. One is a spiritual interest, the other political. This won’t prove the restoration plea is based on Locke. The plea for men “to conform to the model and adopt the practice of the primitive Church” is based on the headship of Christ, the perfection of the apostolic teaching, and the all-sufficiency of Scripture (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22; Acts 2:42; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). The work, worship, and organization of the church were among the things, which the Lord himself perpetuated (1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Tim. 2:2; Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; 1 Tim. 3:15). A return to the original teaching and model of the church, as “expressly exhibited in the New Testament,” is the only “solution to the problem of disunity among professing Christians.” This is “Biblical theology,” not natural law theory. This is not what John Locke had to say, but “what the New Testament itself had(s) to say.”

Is the objection that Locke gave the idea of “Self-evident truths ‘? Locke’s idea of self-evidence was apparently based on his inability to produce real evidence for his assumptions and philosophy. The divine model of the church can be understood by all who first learn “the principle of the sufficiency of the divine standard and model.” if men learn the all-sufficiency of the divine order, inquire in the Bible “as to what is the will of God,” and lay aside human speculation, they will be united in “faith and practice.” But, Locke’s idea of assumed principles is far removed from the idea of teaching men Biblical principles of divine authority that lead to unity in faith and practice.

Thus, we do not need a new frontier of discovering what the Bible teaches on unity, except in the sense that we should constantly examine what we preach in the light of God’s Word. The principle of establishing unity by conforming to God’s standard of teaching is valid, has been preached before, and comes from Jesus Christ, not John Locke. (* I never could get Ed to specify exactly what has been borrowed from Locke. In fact, he told me he wasn’t really familiar with Locke’s philosophy! I’ve read this statement on borrowing from Locke from liberal Christian Church writers and wonder if Ed picked it up from them, instead of from a careful comparison of Locke, the Campbells, and Scripture.)

What All Do We Need Authority For? In Vol. 2 1, No. 5, we are told that “everything not authorized in scripture was to be put out of the church,” according to pioneer gospel preachers. “. . . their reason for this was that such unauthorized practices” create “disunity,” when they are forced on those who object. Such “unauthorized practices” were not considered “condemning in themselves. ” So, though “human standards of orthodoxy” were opposed and condemned when they blocked unity, they were not wrong for those who could maintain unity along with their human traditions. Our brother says, “the wrong-unless-authorized concept” later “came to be regarded as a guide for positive action” and “a standard of orthodoxy.” Thus, tests of fellowship don’t need to be authorized except when they are a problem in blocking unity in a particular situation.

Why do tests of fellowship need to be authorized at any time in the first place? Because only Christ has authority to institute terms of fellowship. Certainly, yielding to those terms does result in unity-unity on the terms of Bible teaching, the teaching of Christ. The institution of such tests is a “positive action” and thus those who act under Christ as Head must have a thus-saith-the-Lord. When the church institutes “positive action” in its work, worship, and organization, it still must act under Christ as Head and therefore have a thus smith-the-Lord. Since Christ has all authority, all religious activity must be approached by asking, “What does Christ say?” When this is done, unity results. When human traditions are embraced, (1) we stand condemned for acting without divine authority (Eph. 1:22; Matt. 28:18), and (2) unity may or may not be disturbed, depending on how many accept the traditions. Not only when alienated brethren are seeking unity, but in all religious activity whatever, the question of authority for what we do is basic.

We appeal in love for our brother’s clarification-not because he is expected to answer every question a person might imagine, but because he has apparently already publicly taught positions, which undermine Bible authority, i.e. Christ’s authority.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 48, pp. 5-9
October 11, 1973

By Jimmy Tuten Jr.

I have been told that most salesmen spend three-fourths of their time looking for someone to sell to (prospecting it is called) and only one fourth of their time in actual selling. This shows us how important good prospecting is to the salesmen. However, a salesman is a good prospector only when he “targets prospects, ” i.e., he looks for a certain type of individual, one with certain qualifications and needs. He knows that if he talks to anyone else, lie is wasting his time. He tries each day to “target in” only oil those who measure up to his standards. Only then does prospecting pay off.

Our Bible speaks of a wise man winning souls (Prov. 11:30). Furthermore, “they that turn many to righteousness” will shine as stars forever (Dan. 12:3). We keep stressing the importance of soul winning. We do a lot of “prospecting” for prospects. Many seem to have little success and become discouraged. Perhaps we have been spending too much time with people who are long-range prospects, or should not (for the present at least) be considered as prospects at all. We need to seek out “target prospects” and zero on these. We will have a lot more success winning souls to Christ if we seek those who are the most interested in the gospel and convert them. We can always come back to those who show little or no interest. In this way we can turn many more to righteousness.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 48, p. 2
October 11, 1973

By Irvin Himmel

Five years ago the opportunity presented itself for my family and me to locate in the lovely little city of Temple Terrace in the Sunshine State. Having spent the first several years of our married life in Florida, my wife and I were happy to return to this area. We since have felt no regrets in making this move.

My work with the church in Temple Terrace has made possible a close observation of Florida’ College. The meetinghouse of the church is diagonally across the street from the campus. A sizeable number of students attend here, but other congregations have just as many students, and some years more, in their attendance. No church in the Tampa area is thought of as “the college church.” For this I rejoice.

My home is about five blocks from the campus. My wife has taught in the music Department of Florida College for three years. I have known several members of the faculty and administration for about a quarter of a century. As an irregular visitor at chapel during the school session, I hear the whole student body singing praises and receiving edification. In the student center I hear the common gripes, lighthearted conversation, and inform although sometimes serious airing of problems.

Since moving to Temple Terrace I have participated actively in the Florida College Alumni Association-four years as vice-president and currently as president. I encouraged the organization of the Tampa Bay Chapter and am a member of it. Working with the alumni has brought me in contact with some sharp criticism of the college from a few former students, and warm praise from others.

My acquaintance with the college dates back to 1949 when I came as a student after graduating at Freed-Hardeman. The school was opening its fourth session. The program was then on a four-year basis. In the spring of 1951 about a dozen students received degrees. We were the second graduating class. After leaving Temple Terrace in the summer of 1951, 1 kept in touch with the college’s program through its publications, friends, and occasional visits to the campus.

I suppose I have had a fair opportunity to see Florida College from the outside and inside, at its best and at its worst, in its triumphs and in its sorrows, by means of its faculty and by means of its students, on crowded lectureship days and on lonely summer days, from the alumni’s point of view and from other viewpoints, through carefully prepared propaganda and through off the-cuff remarks, from a distance and at close range, by observing its products and by studying its record.

Florida College has faults. There are areas of neglect. Decisions sometimes prove unwise. Its board is not infallible. Its administration makes mistakes. No one can guarantee that every faculty member will be tops. Some students turn out to be bad apples. The school is a human institution.

Florida College faces dangers. In stressing spirituality it must not imagine itself a divine organization. In maintaining accreditation it must avoid sacrificing principles. It must be flexible without lowering its standards. It must have adequate financial support or die. In standing ready to defend its aims and objectives it must refrain from being too sensitive to criticism. It must be on guard lest it defeat its purpose for existing.

Every college on earth has faults, struggles with problems, and faces dangers-one kind or another. I am impressed that Florida College acknowledges its faults, works to find solutions to its problems, and shows awareness of the dangers before it.

I do not believe that any man can predict the future of Florida College. Will it remain on its present course or digress there from? Who knows? Who can predict what a particular local church will be in ten years, twenty, fifty, or a hundred? Who can predict what a person is going to do in future years? Who can predict what a periodical may teach in another decade or two?

Although numerous human institutions may render services that are beneficial to God’s people, the survival of the church does not depend on a college, a publishing company, a building contractor, an electric company, the public schools, the postal service, a bank, or even the government of the United States. One may discuss the virtues of a service organization or a particular form of government without leaving the impression that the church would die if that human arrangement ceased. I believe the church of our Lord would go right on with its work if every college in the world closed its doors, or if the public school system shut down, or if the present government of our nation collapsed. I am not advocating that colleges close, public schools cease, nor that the government be overthrown. I am saying that the church of God can function without these forms of education and political government.

Fully aware that Florida College is a human institution with faults, dangers, problems, and an unknown future, and realizing that God’s kingdom does not rest by man-made enterprises, I now desire to describe some qualities, which to my mind make the little school outstanding.

Florida College offers quality education in a wholesome environment. A private school is free from the political governmental control that has turned many public educational institutions into centers for changes in social patterns and lowering of moral values. Popular public sentiment shapes the policies of tax-supported schools. Private educational bodies make their own rules in accordance with their objectives. Compare the dress code at Florida College with the undressing permitted by state universities, or the rides against profanity with the kind of language permitted even in the classroom in state schools, or visit the campus and observe the general student behavior, then pay a visit to a state-operated school.

Florida College employs dedicated men and women. Most administrators, faculty, and staff members, in my judgment, are hard working, self -sacrificing, God-fearing people. Their devotion comes not from the conviction that the school must live or else the church will die; to the contrary, they are loyal to their educational work because they love young people and want to help them prepare for their chosen professions under good moral and spiritual conditions. I admire people who show more concern for the work they do than for the dollars they earn. There are equally dedicated men and women who follow other pursuits.

Florida College practices discipline. Tough decisions fall on the dean of students and the discipline committee. A student who is suspended may think he has been given a raw deal, but if he only knew the heartache and prayerful deliberation that preceded his removal and could realize the necessity of enforcing rules, he would not complain. I have visited chapel on occasion when the whole student body was being informed of some student’s removal and precisely why. No doubt some offenders are never caught, but students understand that the school has a reputation of dealing firmly with infractions of its basic rules.

Florida College enrolls some of the best of young people. There are always a few who were sent to be reformed, a few who goof, a few who go off on wild tangents, and a few who excel in being oddballs. The majority of the 350 to 450 students who come to Temple Terrace each fall prove to be splendid persons while in this community. My association with the students has contributed to my personal appreciation of what the college is doing. A few who reap the benefits of studying at the college afterward come under influences that prompt them to challenge everything for which the school stands.

Florida College seeks to stay in its place. I have been asked if the school does not to some extent dominate the church here. Apparently some critics would be happy if it did. My answer is strongly in the negative. It is my personal conviction that the college officials go out of their way at times to prevent anything that might have resemblance to control over church affairs. And the local churches are vigilant against contributing to the college. Although he meant well, I disagreed with one brother who objected to the Temple Terrace congregation’s letting a few college students use songbooks for gatherings in their dormitories. He thought that was a contribution to the college. Several local high school students had been using the books for singings in their homes, but no one supposed the church was contributing to the public high school! The students wanted the books for personal use in both cases, not for school use. If anything, brethren in this area bend over backwards to keep the church totally separate from educational institutions.

There are good brethren who have written some pretty hard things about colleges, which offer courses in the Bible. They are positive that every such college will go the way of Campbell’s old Bethany. For all I know, this may prove true, and these very preachers may go the way of old Alex by digressing in later life, and the congregations for which they preach may go the way of the old Bethany church, and the periodicals for which they write may later take the liberal route of the old Millennial Harbinger. In the meantime, I must appraise things on the basis of what they are, not on what they may one day become.

Although I do not agree with every turn that Florida College takes, I recommend it to qualified young men and women. It deserves support from people who value its work and who feel a responsibility in educating youth. While others are plugging periodicals, books, tracts, debates, and the like, I am using this means to record my present impressions of a school. If it is wrong to voluntarily write what some will label a “commercial” of an educational enterprise, may God forgive me, and may He show abundant mercy on my good brethren who write such glowing “commercials” of their publishing enterprises!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 47, pp. 11-13
October 4, 1973

By Ron Halbrook

(Editor’s Note: An introductory article to this series in which Brother Ron Halbrook is reviewing the position of his dear friend, Brother Edward Fudge, appeared in the Sept. 20th issue. If you have access to that introductory article, but have not yet read it, I suggest you do so before reading this article.)

POINT 2: Our brother shows a fundamental split in outlook by his concept of how the Bible teaches or authorizes. We’ve already seen how he apparently discusses violations of divine silence and additions to God’s Word as though they were lawful opinions and part of our. liberty in Christ. He discusses these same practice’s (instruments, socializing, centralizing), not only as opinions within the realm of liberty in Christ, but also under the expression “matters of human inference.” In this context, he explains we must be careful not to exclude anyone from fellowship because of their weakness of intellect-i.e. they might infer the above practices to be scriptural, we might infer them to be unscriptural, and neither position affects fellowship; see his article on faith and opinion referred to above (in Christian Standard, etc.)

Our brother says that the following statement should be read and “reread,” that it embodies “the entire teaching and work” of the Campbells on “unity,” and that it “is suitable for all times”:

“Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, maybe truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection … no such deductions can be made terms of communion (or fellowship).”

Our brother approvingly quotes, “We dare not, therefore, patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference;” then he quotes, “It is cruel to excommunicate a man became of the imbecility of his intellect.” “All things not expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God” are “matters of human inference” (emphasis original). Thus, the instrument, centralizing, and socializing mentioned are “matters of human inference.” So, we should not be separated in fellowship just because we “may not be able to see alike” regarding instruments, etc. The user of such inventions should not require the non-user “to see alike nor should the non-user forbid the user. Note the reference to weakness of intellect as the cause of not being able to see alike. (* Along this line, we discussed what he called our “human system of interpretation,” especially as he sees it evidenced in our debates with those embracing institutionalism. I told him it is his duty as a gospel preacher to expose and refute this “human system of interpretation” which he says is so much like that of “the scribes and Pharisees.” Once he exposed the false, he could teach us how to handle aright the Word. “No,” he said he could not do that. For one thing, he can only offer his own human system of interpretation, he explained. “Mine is only a more scriptural human system of interpretation,” he said. I pointed out that Christ showed us the Bible teaches by necessary implication when he presented such arguments as Matt. 22:31-32; he responded that perhaps Christ knew how to do this, but we don’t. I pointed out that Ed has no trouble seeing one can take all the Bible says on primary obedience to the gospel, and thus understand the subject; any change is a sin and forbidden, though the particular change not be specified in the Bible. I asked why the same is not true about understanding worship or organization, with changes being sinful; he said, “It’s just not the same!”)

REVIEW: Again, we point out that our brother is using a word, which has two meanings without distinguishing between those meanings. The word is “inference.” He is confusing “necessary implication” (sometimes called necessary inference) with “differences of opinion on matters of speculation” (or, purely human inferences).

The Bible teaches by direct command (Mk. 16:16), divinely approved example (Acts 20: 7), and necessary implication (Matt. 22:23-33). Whatever God says by necessary implication, we must hear by necessary inference. When God prohibits violating His silence or adding to His Word, we must recognize (or infer) that adding instruments, etc., is just as wrong as adding hamburger trimmings to the Supper-though neither is specifically named as sin. These are inferences we must make if we are to recognize the terms of our Lord’s covenant with us! Failing to do so would bury us, in a few years, in an avalanche of human additions, 4 inventions, and traditions; the pure and simple Word of God would be lost in the landslide of human vanities, as the history of the Disciples of Christ denomination demonstrates!

Men sometimes infer when God has not implied. These are the human inferences and speculations, often found in creeds, which the pioneers were fighting (as in the quotes our brother sometimes uses); see Apr. 12, 1973, Gospel Guardian article “God’s Revelation Designed to be Understood-Ill.” God says (1) “Go,” and men infer a complex system of church centralization; (2) “Preach,” and they infer an exclusive hierarchal system; (3) “sing,” and they infer everything from tin buckets to philharmonic orchestras; (4) “fellowship,” and they infer everything from the smell of coffee to the smell of hot tar going on the roof of a new gym. Creeds are largely formalized inferences on predestination, centralization, etc., which are inventions of human inference in matters where God has not implied. God forbids such opinionating, speculating, violating his covenant, and adding to His Word. Such is not necessarily implied, not within our liberty, not within expediency because not within the law of Christ. Such is the sinful invention of men drifting from Christ as the only Head and from the Bible as the only authority (Jn. 10; Eph. 1:22-23; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Our brother’s argument hinges in part on his suggesting God wouldn’t cause one to be lost whose intellect was too weak to infer what God implied. True, but the danger is extreme in saying this means necessary implication isn’t binding. The next step, on the same premise, is to see that one might be too weak to recognize a divinely approved example, and to set that aside as not binding. Then, one might be too weak to recognize a direct command, so it can be set aside. Thus, the Bible is overturned completely. Our brother won’t travel this road to its end in this writer’s judgment, but such teaching will surely start others down a path from which there is often no return.

Dear brother, we do not desire to hurt you, but we long for some appropriate explanation or clarification.

Underpinnings Cut

POINT3: The scriptures urge us not to add to, substitute for, or take from the Lord’s will, truth, gospel, covenant, and doctrine. We are not to violate divine silence. Some pertinent passages are 1 Cor. 1:10, Gal. 1: 8-9, 2 Jn. 9, Jude 3. Others include Acts 15-24; 1 Cor. 4:6,17; 1 Tim. 3:14-15; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Heb. 1:13; 7:14; and Rev. 22:18-19. Our brother has been cutting some of these underpinnings which have kept us close to the New Testament pattern and which show it is imperative to continue in that pattern.

He has commented on all the passages in the first list, which is why they are given separately. He thinks none of these passages apply to “doctrinal” issues-like instruments, etc. Numerous times he has written that 1 Cor. 1:10 does not require us to teach the same “doctrine,” but only to have “unity of sentiment, of aim, of spirit, of love” (as June 20, 1968 Guardian). 2 Jn. 9 doesn’t require us to continue in the teaching Christ gave through his apostles as per Acts 2:42, but only to certain specific teaching about Christ (Vol. 24, No. 37, G.G.). Gal. 1 and Jude 3 apply only to the “gospel” in the limited sense of first principles relative to primary obedience (as in Vol. 21, No. 44, G.G).

REVIEW: 1 Cor. 1:10. Paul did not write to tell Corinth that (1) it would be “nice” if they could grow into better faith and practice on the name, morals, worship, organization’ and doctrine of the church, but (2) until they got around to it, or even if they finally couldn’t “see eye to eye” with Paul, they would be “the church of God” anyway. All their goodness or rightness on these or any other matters could not make them merit salvation. Yet the security of the believer and identity of the church is plainly conditioned on faithfulness in such matters. The fact is Paul did not merely appeal for good attitudes in aim, spirit, and love for 16 chapters, though that is certainly interwoven in his appeal. Paul appealed in the name, person, and authority of Christ for the brethren to “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; ” then he required unity in faith and practice on such matters as the name, morals, worship, and doctrine. When he concluded with the appeal to “stand fast in the faith,” he certainly meant to include all that was presented by divine authority in this very epistle (16:13); along with this, he showed the importance of attitude, aim, spirit, and love (vs. 14).

2 Jn. 9. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Certainly John was dealing with a particular error, but it is unfounded assumption to claim he meant no other error violates the doctrine of Christ. Does “the doctrine of Christ” mean only “the doctrine Of Jesus living in the flesh”? An atheist could affirm this and thus have “both the Father and the Son.” One objects that the context says “Jesus Christ,” meaning the Lord of glory, came and that an atheist wouldn’t accept that, then we observe that the Lord of glory holds all authority in his own hands (Eph. 1; Matt. 28). Thus any practice promoted without authority is in violation of the doctrine that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to live, die, raise, and reign. The reigning Christ declared his will to inspired men on the subject of worship, and any who persist in changing, adding to, or taking from that will do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Lord of all glory; men must repent of such sin or perish (1 Cor. 11:23, 30; 2 Jn. 9).

“The doctrine of Christ” or “the doctrine of the Lord” is the same as “the right ways of the Lord,” “the faith,” and “the word of God” (Acts 13:5-12). Such doctrine, word, ways, or faith includes all the revelation of God to men, all that distinctly originated in heaven and not of men (1Cor. 11:23; 16:13; Gal. 1: 11-12; 2:11-14). In the very same way, “the doctrine of Balaam” was not simply one particular doctrine about Balaam, but all that he stood for in faith or practice that originated of men and not from heaven;” the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes,” was not one particular doctrine about the Nicolaitans, but was all that certain ones stood for that originated of men (Rev. 2:13-14). “The doctrine of Christ” is “all the counsel of God,” “the gospel of the grace of God,” the message of “the kingdom of God,” the faith and word and ways and will and covenant and truth of God, i.e. all the revelation of God to men (Acts 20:24-27; 13:5-12; 1 Cor. 16:13). The point of 2 Jn. 9 is that all men who are not content to dwell therein sever themselves from God. The point of vs. 10 is that as they persist in their progression beyond divine revelation, they are to be recognized, marked, and severed from the fellowship of faithful brethren.

Gal. 1:8-9. All that Paul taught originated in the Lord; this included both matters of primary obedience and matters of worship and organization. He did not receive his teaching “of man … but by the revelation of Jesus Christ … For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” To neglect or reject any such divine revelation is to leave the gospel, fall from grace, come under condemnation, and die spiritually (Gal.: 6-12; 2:11-14; 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:23-34). Thus, Paul forbids hearing any other messenger or message in Gal. 1:8-9; that prohibition protects all the counsel or revelation of God, not just some particular. segment of it.

Jude 3. Jude likewise points to the necessity of holding inviolate the entire revelation of God. “Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” If no particular item of “the faith” was dealt with in Jude, “the faith” still would not mean anything less than the total revelation of God. If we identify one or two particular items, we must certainly understand that those few items are a part of “the faith;” but it would be folly to say those few items constitute “the faith” in toto. Jude mentions “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness,” a challenge to the faith.

He also specifies the danger of despising authority-which is challenging divine authority through failing to submit to those who represent that authority. “To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever” (vs. 25). Civil powers, parents, and the inspired men all represent divine authority (Rom. 13; 1:30; Eph. 6:1; 1 Cor. 2:13; 11:23). “The faith” isn’t limited to faith, repentance, and baptism. When men do not recognize the authority of the inspired men in matters pertaining to the work, worship, and organization of the church, they are undermining “the faith.” We must respond to the trumpet call of Jude 3 as we face innovations in the church! Anything for which there is not a thus-saith-the-Lord is not of the faith nor in the faith.

(*Ed says my review on these passages does not answer the careful exposition of them that he has previously written. In that case, it shouldn’t be too difficult for him to show in writing how I have erred. Will he do it? )

The more of these underpinnings our brother cuts, the more it appears that he doesn’t believe any scripture forbids us to add, to, substitute for, or take from the Lord’s Word concerning his church and related doctrinal matters. If the appearance is correct, the necessary conclusion is: those who centralize, use instruments, etc., are in unity with Christ and should be accepted without question by faithful brethren. If he believes such practices are positively wrong and sinful, let him please clarify and specify exactly what scriptures teach it.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 47, pp. 3-7
October 4, 1973