Truth Magazine

By Grant B. Caldwell

The use of external sources is not the only means by which we may show the Bible to be the word of God. In fact, the Bible is its own best proof as to its authenticity. Surely, if it is the word of God, the Lord will give ample demonstration of it in the book itself. And so He does!!! Notice some of these internal demonstrations.

The Survival of the Bible

The Bible says that the scriptures, the word of God, would endure forever. (I Peter 1:23-25) In almost every period of history, however, there has been some effort to do away with the book of God. Jesus said, “My words shall not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35) You might also note such passages as John 12:48 and Rom. 2:16 which place the scriptures in the judgment.

Notice some of the extreme efforts which have been perpetrated against the Bible:

1. In Jeremiah 36, King Jehoiakim endeavored to destroy a portion of Jeremiah’s prophecy.

2. About 100 B.C., Antiochus IV burned all the copies of the Old Testament that he could find.

3. Emperors such as Claudius (A.D. 41-54), Nero (64), Domitian (81-96), Trajan (98-117), and Septimius Severus (193-211) along with others are known for their murderous nature in regard to those who would believe in the divine book.

4. Diocletian (284-305) is said to have made a hobby of killing Christians and burning their Bibles.

5. We read of the soldiers of Mohammedanism and their efforts to destroy all Bibles and kill all Christians.

6. Under the hand of the Roman papacy, the Bible has suffered much.

a. Innocent III had the French Bible burned in 1199.

b. The Council of Tarragona under Pope Gregory IX in 1234, ordered the people to submit their Bibles to be burned.

c. Wyclif was condemned for translating the Bible in 1383.

d. Charles IV issued a papal edict against the German Bible.

e. Ferdinand II burned Ten thousand Bibles in 1600.

f. The Jesuits burned 60,000 Bibles in 1637.

g. And pope after pope condemned Bible reading for Christians.

7. Even today, scoffers attempt to give up the Bible and have us do the same under the guise that it is not the word of God.

Imagine the odds against the unlearned (for the most part) and uneducated writers of the Bible penning a book that would not only withstand such treatment, but go on to become the best known and loved, most widely read, and most influential of all of the works penned by men. Can you explain it, if the Bible is not the word of God?

The Unity of the Bible

Consider, if you will, these facts: The Bible was written by about forty different men. These men did not live all at the same time but over a period of at least 1600 years. They were not all the same kind of men for some were rich, some poor, some learned, some unlearned, some kings, some common laborers. They did not necessarily know each other personally, nor did they know what the others would write. They lived in different areas, spoke different languages, and wrote under a great variety of circumstances.

We bring all of these writings together into one book known as the Bible, and yet for all the differences in the writers, there is not one mistake or contradiction in the entire writing. They indeed constitute a unit.

Though every work of man — including the most scholarly — contains errors, this one does not. Can you explain that, if the Bible is not the word of God?

The Character of the Writing

The character or style of writing in the Bible is another proof of the authenticity of the Bible. The book is unlike any written by man and yet it contains its own style.

1. The literary style, though differing somewhat from writer to writer, has some very definite points of style indicating a common author. The use of long but easily understood sentences is a feat not readily accomplished by even learned men, but common to the pages of the Bible. The continuity of thought and wording indicates likewise. This is easily explained when we remember that even though there were some forty different writers, the Holy Spirit guided the thinking of each of them.

2. One very interesting factor in the Bible is the complete impartiality of the writers. All of the weak points of even the heroes are never minimized.

3. There are amazingly intricate details given in the Bible. These are things it would seem unlikely to invent. Peter outrunning John to the tomb; the napkin being by itself; the woman wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair; etc., are all the reading of an honest and truthful account.

The Moral Standard of the Bible

Men have never placed upon themselves a moral code of such strictness as that found in the Bible. Pagan Rome and Greece were baptized in immorality, practices shocking to contemplate. (Romans 1) Christianity claims a moral standard for all people and all times, without causing the people grief in so doing.

We have but to look at the nations where the Bible is not the standard of morality to see that men would not have devised such a plan to govern their lives.

Conclusion

We cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God when we are faced with such a variety of evidences as those mentioned here. No other writing has so many evidences as to its authenticity.

I readily admit that I cannot explain these, if indeed, the Bible is not the word of God. I believe that it is.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, p. 6-7
June 8, 1972

By Cecil Willis

The history of man is the history of his digressions from Gods divine will. Man has, at one time or another perverted and polluted every divine provision of God. He has corrupted the sacred worship, distorted the organization of the church, and perverted the divine mission of the church. Again and again, man has changed the unchangeable. Herein has been the source of a multitude of digressions.

In discussions of digressions, we frequently have been content to walk around the outer edges, and snip off a few leaves or small branches from the digressive tree. In this article, and three others to follow, we want to discuss the real taproot of digression, and to discuss the appearance of this digressive principle in the past and its recurrence among us again at this present day.

The Basic Assumption

The basic assumption of the digressive is that there is no New Testament binding pattern. In 1940, A. T. Degroot, the now famous Disciple of Christ historian, wrote a book entitled The Grounds of Divisions Among the Disciples of Christ. Degroot charged that the assumption that there is a pattern revealed in the New Testament is the ground of the various divisions among professed Christians. Degroot stated his intention in the book as follows: “It is the purpose of the present work to trace the genesis and exodus of the divisions which have come to pass in the Restoration movement. In the process of this uncovering we shall endeavor to ascertain the generating cause of these schisms. Having made our investigations in advance of the writing of this Introduction, we are ready to set forth our thesis, namely: that the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive” (pg. 8).

Degroot is perfectly willing to admit that the early leaders in the Restoration effort believed that the New Testament contained a normative pattern. In speaking of the position of Thomas Campbell, as declared in the Declaration and Address, Degroot said: “It was the underlying assumption of Thomas Campbell that the New Testament contained the pattern of a one-and-only primitive Christian Church” (pg. 4). Indeed, it would be a contradiction in terms to speak of a Restoration movement and then to deny that there was anything normative about the New Testament church to restore. Degroot admits that Alexander Campbell, in his early years, shared his fathers concept about the New Testament containing a divine blueprint.

The Anti-Complex

Degroot spoke of what he called the “anti complex,” and by this he meant the disposition to look upon the New Testament as a blueprint for the church for all times to come. The “anti complex” was the disposition and belief “that the New Testament contains the blue prints and specifications of a one-and-only primitive Christian church.” (P. 50). Since Alexander Campbell, in his early years, shared this belief, Degroot therefore says, “In the formative years of the Disciples Alexander Campbell became the spiritual father of the present day Churches of Christ, or conservative branch of the Restoration Movement” (p. 51). What was there about Campbell in his early years that made him to be called “the spiritual father of the present day Churches of Christ”? It was the fact that he then believed the New Testament was for all time a divine pattern.

This so-called “anti -complex” Degroot referred to as “the conservative or more literalistic forces. . .” (p. 93). Of this conservative group of brethren, Degroot said: “It was the tendency resident in every religion of a Book to interpret that religion in a very literal manner, involving an exact reproduction of the forms and methods of the ancient faith.” (P. 92). This “anti complex” resulted in the “habit of demanding chapter and verse as authority for every office and work in the church. . . .9 (P. 123). Later when mechanical instrumental music and missionary societies were introduced (which admittedly were no part of the New Testament church), Degroot said conflict was inevitable. “Only an abandonment of the proof text method could ease the tension created by these different practices” (p. 184), and back then a host of our faithful brethren were unwilling to give up the “proof text method.”

The 50 – 50 Brethren

As the various new practices were introduced, conflict was inevitable between those who believed the New Testament contained a once-for-all-time pattern, and those who did not believe the New Testament was normative Back then, they even had their “middle-of-the-road” brethren, who parallel the effort of the present day Firm Foundation and its enigmatic editor to stand in the middle of the road. Some of the brethren (notably J. W. McGarvey, Moses E. Lard, Robert Graham, W. H. Hopson, and L. B. Wilkes of the Apostolic Times) sought to defend missionary societies and yet strongly oppose mechanical instrumental music. They had the same problem with consistency that the Firm Foundation now has as it attempts to condemn the church support of orphan homes under boards and the church support of colleges, even while they attempt to defend sponsoring churches.

Degroot said the “50-50” brethren (as he called them) had the least defensible position. He said, “A case could be made for a legalistic design of the church . . . if one accepted the premise that the purpose of the New Testament was to reveal the blue print and specifications of unchanging modes of work and worship.” (p. 121). Or, one could deny the New Testament was intended to reveal a pattern, and some justification could then be found “for new experiences in religious life and labor” (p. 121). But neither position could justify entirely those who “took a 50-50 position.” But the tide a century ago was against those who contended that the New Testament was a divinely given blueprint to be reproduced in every age. Degroot said such brethren were “a progressively diminishing constituency.” (p. 121).

Division Comes

Eventually there was an open rupture in the church. The division followed the lines of those who believed the New Testament was normative, and of those who did not believe the New Testament pattern was binding. Degroot said, “From the time of the 1906 Church of Christ lapse into an unrelieved worship of as (sic) assumed pattern church in the New Testament, the Disciples have been free to explore the field of unity with a more experimental mood.” (p. 194).

The taproot of digression was the assumption that there is no pattern. The early leaders of the Restoration effort believed in a pattern. Degroot admitted: “The orthodox teaching of the Restoration leaders was that the New Testament contained perfectly discernable blue prints and specifications of a one-and-only church. This remains as the assumption of the present day Churches of Christ” (p. 217). More correctly, it might be stated that this was the posture of the Church of Christ in 1940. Soon thereafter the digressive spiel of “no pattern-ism” was to be heard throughout the land, even among certain ones in the Churches of Christ, as I propose to show in later articles.

The thesis of Degroot in his book is that there is no pattern for the church revealed in the New Testament. This is the ground of Digressivism, and whoever holds that premise is digressive, regardless of whether he wears the label “Disciples of Christ” or is called a member of the “Church of Christ.” Degroot concluded, “If more than a century of demonstration may be termed historical proof, it should be clear that there is no blue print of a single church in the New Testament.” (p. 219). While Degroot, like so many other digressives (both past and present), did not like the label “liberal,” at least he said: “. . . the non-conservative Disciples have come to view as illusory the idea that a Golden Age of perfect men and institutions existed in the past. They distrust lets-go-back defeatism.” (p. 220).

Degroot then stated again, in closing, his premise: “It is, to the writer at least, evidence in abundance that the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive.” (p. 220). Now, why have I devoted so much time to this discussion of Degroots book? It is in order that you might see that “no patternism” is the basic digressive principle. A century ago a small group of brethren took their stand that there was a divinely revealed New Testament blueprint for the church, which should be reproduced in every century. The “non-conservative” (Liberal!) digressives maintained that the New Testament did not contain a divine pattern, and therefore that the New Testament was not normative at all. It was this basic disagreement that aligned the Churches of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ in their respective camps.

In the articles to follow, I want to show that there are now among us once again those who deny that the Scripture reveals a pattern which we should follow in all ages. Such pattern deniers (which cause them to result in being pattern-perverters) also do not like to be called “liberals.” But they are the logical and historical descendants of the Disciples of Christ of a century ago.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, p. 3-5
June 8, 1972

By Larry Ray Hafley

In the book of Romans, salvation is ascribed and attributed to a number of items. One is saved:

1. By the gospel: “The gospel” is “the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believeth” (Rom. 1: 16).

2. By the Grace of God: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24).

3. By faith: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5: 1).

4. By the blood of Christ: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (Rom. 5:9).

5. By obedience: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from smi, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17, 18).

Are these five statements a mire and mixture of confusion and contradiction? Should we accept some and reject and refuse others? Should one acknowledge salvation by faith, obedience, and grace, and then say that the gospel and the blood are not essential? Or should one advocate salvation by the gospel, the blood, and obedience, and repudiate faith and grace? Certainly and absolutely not! We must receive and believe all that God says.

The question or issue is, “When were the Romans made free from sin? When did they become new creatures and begin to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus?”

Answer: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life… ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:3, 4, 17, 18).

Have you done as they did, or have you obeyed another form of doctrine?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, p. 2
June 8, 1972

By Dennis L. Shaver

The attitude of some individuals, concerning religious matters, is just as we have suggested in the title. We are speaking not only of our denominational friends, but most especially of our own brothers and sisters in Christ. Those that are supposed to have brotherly love one for another, yet profess the above attitude when discussing the word of God.

It has been said that “one should never argue politics or religion.” In one way this statement is true. Arguments rarely are of benefit to any. However, discussions in which both sides keep an open mind can be of great benefit. We need not to prove our point, but rather, what does the Bible say. But, whenever one sees the beginning of a disagreement, one can see the barriers being thrown around the disputants. Then each one yells: “What! Me Wrong?”

If one disagrees with us concerning the gospel of Christ, we need to understand with who the disagreement is. We seem to always take it as a personal insult to our knowledge, and therefore great arguments follow. After all, we have to defend our reputation, dont we? When we understand with whom they are disagreeing, then we can understand that one does not defend his reputation. Samuel thought the people of Israel had rejected him, but God told him they had rejected Him (I Sam. 7:8). And, if they refuse to accept the truth, we need be sorry for them as the words of Christ shall judge (Jno. 12:48).

Too often we manifest the attitude that we are right and everyone else is wrong. The attitude of some is: “Ive already made up my mind, dont confuse me with the facts.” Then we have those who consider themselves infallible. “How could he ever think that I would be wrong on that point?” “Hes got some nerve, disagreeing with me.” Thus they, have the feeling that anything they say must be right, and how could anyone think they are wrong. The New Testament gives a good example of just this kind of attitude. In Acts 26:9 Paul states “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Then in I Tim. 1:13 Paul says; “. . . but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief.” People today who feel they are always right, are just like the apostle Paul before he obeyed the gospel, ignorant and unbelieving. We are told in Jno. 8:32, “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

If we know the truth, have knowledge as we should, then we should know better than to believe our opinions are always right. The only time we can be sure we are right is when we agree with the word of God. The prophet Jeremiah stated in Jer. 10: 23, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps.” In Prov. 12: 15 we read, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.” Prov. 14: 12, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.” Let us be careful that our attitude does not send our soul to the eternal torments of – hell! Rom. 3:4, “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar …” If we are not in agreement with the word of God, let us admit mistake and let the word of God always he accepted as true, and the opinions of men false.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 30, p. 13
June 1, 1972