Truth Magazine

By Harris J. Dark

Suppose I relate a story to just one other person, and then two of us know it. Let each of us tell another, and that makes four. If each of the four tells another, obviously eight will have heard. Do you know how many times that would have to be repeated in order for every person on earth to hear the story? Only thirty times, following the first!

If I tell another person, each of us another, and so on, after the message has been communicated thirty-one times it will have been heard by 2,147,483,648. If we allow an entire month for one person to relate the story to one other person, it can cover the earth in thirty-one months. Can we do that well with our modern methods and devices?

To be generous let us say that it will take an entire year for each to teach another. At that rate we can include all the people on earth in thirty-one years. How long will it take at the rate we are going now?

If we assume that there are already as many as 500,000 Christians in the world we can reduce the number thirty-one to twelve, hence the required time to twelve years! Remember that in accomplishing this, one-half of the earth’s population would not have to teach any one, another fourth only one person each, and no one would need to teach more than twelve others!

This would be cooperation in the finest and most effective sense. It is the best system of communication ever known. It is the one Jesus used. But, it has one great hindrance. It places responsibility on the individual, and we don’t like that! We want to shift it to the group. We prefer to make a small contribution to some mass movement, and then claim credit for everything the group does.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, p. 13
March 29, 1973

By Irven Lee

One of the most popular doctrines taught in the name of religion in America today is that we are all right. One faith is as good as another, we are told. It is admitted that there are some differences, but the idea is that we differ only on trivials that do not matter. In fact, according to the popular concept, doctrine or teaching does not matter. Many say that they do not like “doctrinal sermons.” Is this the same as saying that they do not like sermons that teach? Doctrine and teaching are synonyms. Then teachers should not teach.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8,9). The Lord revealed His will to man because doctrine and religious practice do make a difference (Rom. 10: 1-3; Gal. 1: 6- 10; Rev. 22:18, 19). The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but this does not make it right before God. “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 16:25). “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). There are many verses that deal with the sin of teaching the wrong doctrine, and no hint that whatever we teach pleases God (Gal. 1:6-10).

We should search the scriptures to see what is right (Acts 17: 11). Danger is present so we should try the spirits and beware of false prophets. (See Matt. 7:15; 1 John 4: 1; 2 John 9-11; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; Acts 20:29-31; Col. 2:8; Heb. 2: 1; Rom. 16:17; Matt. 15:9, 13, 14; Rom. 10: 1-3). Please do not teach men to be careless, and to take their own salvation for granted. Please do not be unconcerned about finding the narrow way of truth and holiness in your own case. Few there be that find it, but the Lord has pointed out the way of truth with clear marks of identity. It takes the hunger and thirst after righteousness to cause one to seek the right way of the Lord. Ignorance is dangerous and inexcusable (Hosea 4:6).

Some teach that we are saved by faith only, and some teach that salvation is not by faith only. Are both right? Is it all right to teach a man the wrong side of this issue? (Read James 2: 14-26.) The Bible emphasizes obedience just as it emphasizes faith (Matt. 7:21; 2 Thess. 1:7,8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 5:9; Mark 16:15,16). The Bible does not teach both sides of this issue. There ought to be more concern and more searching for the truth on the matter. Many things other than lack of faith are mentioned as keeping one from inheriting life. (Read Rom. 13:1,2; James 1:26; 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8.)

Some teach that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. Others say we are baptized for the remission of sins. These two ideas cannot both be right. We want to know God’s will in the matter, do we not? We need to know the truth for it is truth that can make us free. Search and see. (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:1-18; 1 Peter 3:21.) We should, as it were, leave no stone unturned in making our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10). Does one have more freedom to say that baptism, which is evidently a clearly stated command of God, is not necessary than to say that honesty is not necessary? The teaching on both is from heaven from the One with all authority.

Some teach that one cannot fall after having saving faith. Others say that we need to take heed lest we fall. Both cannot be right. We either can or we cannot fall. It is high time to search and see. (2 Peter I: 10; 2: 18-22; Luke 8:13; Phil. 2:12; 1 Cor. 10: 12; Heb. 3:6, 1114; 4: 11.) We should walk circumspectly because all roads do not lead to heaven. If a man can fall, and is in great danger of falling, is it an innocent thing to tell him that he cannot fall?

Religious people differ in name, in the type music offered to the Lord, and forms of church government. Some partake of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week while others leave it off for months at a time. Do these things matter? These are called little things, and men say that they do not matter. Bricks are small building blocks, but there are large buildings that could be taken down one brick at a time. Every detail of instruction given by the Lord and His apostles concerning His church has been changed by some denomination or another. Why did He give the instruction if these things do not matter? We, as was Moses concerning the tabernacle, are given a pattern which we should follow (Heb. 8:5). The Bible gives us ‘all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

To mock at baptism, which is a picture of His burial and resurrection, and to deny its significance is no little thing. Is sprinkling the same as the burial and planting mentioned in the scripture? (Rom. 6:4,5; Col. 2:12.) It is not minor if commanded by the Lord. None of His commandments is to be treated lightly (I John 2:3,4; 5:3; John 14:15,21,23). Christ purchased His church with His blood, and built it according to God’s eternal purpose. His testament describes in detail its terms of membership, its work, its form of worship and of government, and its standards of conduct for its members. Who has the authority to change a single detail? The facts are there for those who would follow the pattern and walk by faith. Seek and find.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, pp.11-12
March 29, 1973

By Larry Ray Hafley

It is thought by some that if one presents a predicament to an opponent of the gospel that is embarrassing or humiliating or offensive that he does not proceed in a proper spirit. Is this true? Is it impossible to put false teachers and their doctrines in a bad light without also casting a negative reflection on the truth? Some so think, but it is not true, and anyone who believes it to be demeaning or undignified to put errorists and error in a shameful position does not do much toward honoring Christ. Jesus regularly and frequently crucified the Pharisees and their leaven and put it to an open, public shame, and who would charge the Lord with stepping below the level of dignified dialogue?

The Lord took advantage of situations that allowed him to put down human hypocrisy and traditions. He healed on the Sabbath, but before doing so he challenged those who dared to question the propriety and lawfulness of it (Mt. 12:10-13). This no doubt cut them to the quick.

The greatest controversialist who ever lived was Jesus. His words were honed in truth. Antagonists were rebuffed and rebuked with such incisive, pervading skill that they felt offended and were squelched in painful silence. See Matthew chapters 12, 15, 21-23. If some of the darlings of the day had been present when the Lord withered his objectors with arguments of multi-horned dilemma or berated them with questions revealing their rather unglamorous condition, they would have blushed in that sweet spirit of pompous piety and wagged their heads saying, “There must be a better way to do it.”

Well, if there is a better way, the Lord did not know it, and the apostles did not practice it. At least Paul’s contention kept him in jail or fleeing for his life. Usually the ones close on his heels were “the devout and honorable women and chief men of the city” who raised persecution and expelled him out of their coasts (Acts 13:50). Note that the “dignified” ones opposed the apostles then, and their descendants, however inadvertently, do so now.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, p. 10
March 29, 1973

By Connie W. Adams

For a long time now, Vernon M. Newland, editor of The Crusader, a paper which sets forth the views of the conservative Christian Church, has been publishing a “statement” which is really a challenge concerning the words psalmos and psallo. It is his contention that it has never been proved that these words had come to exclude the instrument by New Testament times. Some of our readers may recall that a year ago in this column we pointed out the error of his assumptions concerning these words and offered to engage him in oral or written discussion or both. We offered the columns of this paper to carry such an exchange, provided he would also carry it in his paper.

Several months passed without a word from him. We mentioned the matter again in this column. Editor Newland did not so much as show the courtesy to reply to my letter. He has not mentioned it, or my articles in his paper, to the best of my knowledge (others have sent me copies of his paper). Further, both William H. Feist and I sent money over a year ago for a year’s subscription to his paper. Neither of us has ever received the first copy nor have we received our money back, though I mentioned this a few months ago in this column. We therefore suggest that our editor friend not only needs help on psalmos and psallo, but also needs at least a short course in common courtesy and a long one on basic honesty. I am not only willing to deny that the New Testament authorizes the use of instrumental music in worship under the terms psalmos and psallo, but I am also willing to affirm that it is dishonest to accept money for a product without either providing the product or returning the money. What say you, editor?

The 301 Cubit Ark

Mission magazine carried an article by this title in the December, 1971 issue of that paper. It was written by Dr. Lanny Hunter, a dermatologist in Flagstaff, Arizona, and apparently an active church worker in his area. I have never read an article by one professing to be a member of the church, which contained more error per cubic inch than this one piece. The writer reveals a denominational concept of the church and gives evidence of having absorbed more “theology” than scripture. He laments the “isolation” of the church from the mainstream of denominationalism and says that while we may have kept out some undesirable things, we have also denied ourselves many good things, which would elevate us and make us more effective in God’s service. He fears that this leaves us “no standard by which to judge our religious efforts except ourselves and our own interpretation of biblical literature” and adds that such “prolonged isolation” may result in a “robust religious mediocrity.” Paul said “let us walk by the same rule” (Phil. 3:16). That implies two things: (1) the presence of a standard and (2) the ability to recognize it in order to walk by it. Denominationalism is a plant, which the Father did not plant (Mt. 15:13) and therefore does not constitute an acceptable standard by which to measure anything.

He attacks the “restoration principle” which assumes “that the Bible provides a pattern on which a restoration can be made.” He calls in question the idea of having command, example or necessary inference to establish scriptural authority. He said “Suffice it to say, there is nothing in the New Testament canon which states that future generations must go back to the Bible for detailed instructions for work and worship. Nor is there any scripture which gives substance to the assumption that command, example, or necessary inference’ is the interpretative key to grasping the significance of scripture.”

This is no-patternism in its rankest form. It is the gateway to every form of error denominationalists can contrive, but more than that, it leads to infidelity as its final consequence. If there is no pattern for work and worship, then there can be no violation of such, and man is left to his own ingenuity to implicate the church in whatever work he thinks would be good and to engage in whatever form of worship may please his taste. As far as the question of how something is proved scriptural, Acts 15 demonstrates the use in the early church of all three avenues of arriving at authority. Peter argued from necessary inference when he showed that God gave the same gift when the gospel began among Gentiles that be did when it began among Jews, and that “therefore” they should be received on equal terms. Paul and Barnabas argued from approved example by showing that God had confirmed their work among Gentiles with signs following. James cited the direct statement of Amos as applicable to the point in question. The issue was settled and notice of it was sent to all the brethren. But Hunter does not believe that what happened among them establishes a “normative” situation for the action of Christians in this age. He thus relegates the New Testament to the theological scrap pile.

Hunter is afraid that we have reduced the New Testament documents to “key-punch cards” manipulated by “theological systems analysts” in order to “program Christians in exhaustive, minute detail.” It is sometimes hard to tell about brainy theologians, but I think he was abusing us!

All through the article he scores the idea of viewing the New Testament as a pattern for the present. he does not have any more respect for the Old Testament for he implies that it would have been perfectly correct to have built the ark one cubit longer than God said, had it appeared to Noah the prudent thing to have done. Yet, Noah “by faith prepared an ark to the saving of his house” (Heb. 11: 7). Men of faith do exactly what God tells them. The Old Testament provides many worthy lessons for us (Rom. 15:4). Likewise, the New Testament provides 11 all things which pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1: 3). In scripture God’s man is given everything to make him complete (2 Tim. 3:1617). Peter said, “if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (I Pet. 4: 11). Jude said the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3, NASV).

It would take a much longer article to reply to every false statement in this piece of ultra liberalism. But hold on, tight. Mission gives awards each year to the best articles which they have carried. Hunter’s article was hailed as “article of the year” in 1971! That should not be too surprising in a journal which gave the “article of the year” award a year or so before to a piece advocating theistic evolution. If Hunter is correct, then the scriptures are not all sufficient and any of the details of his article are but side issues. That anyone professing to be a gospel preacher would give such an article the time of day, much less acceptance is a sad commentary on the fortunes, which beset the people of God today. I have even heard of some young men who say they are enlightened, who think this article was a brilliant and thought provoking work. All I can say is that I pray the churches, which love the truth and want to walk in the old paths, may be spared such brilliance!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, pp.9-10
March 29, 1973