Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In the September-October 1997 issue of Wineskins an article was published entitled “I Just Want To Testify” by Dan Dozier. The magazine Wineskins is published by those supportive of Rubel Shelly, Max Lu- cado, and the Nashville Jubilee, if that helps you to identify its doctrinal stance. This article by Dozier tells us about the practice of “testifying” in worship assemblies.

The word “testify” is a Bible term. The word is translated from the various cognates of ma/rtus: ma/rtur, marture/w, marturi/a, martu/rion, martu/romai. The basic meaning of the word group is conveyed by ma/ rtus: “a witness (one who avers, or can aver, what he himself has seen or heard or knows by any other means)” (Thayer 392). The word is used throughout the New Testament to relate what the witnesses of Christ saw and heard from him. They could testify about his miracles, his words, his death, his resurrection because they had seen and heard the things that transpired. The words of the New Testament are the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the inspired words of men who recorded what they had seen and heard or had personally investigated.

However, the modern practice of testifying is something quite different. Men who lived nearly two thousand years after Christ are not qualified to give testimony about anything Christ did. They have never seen him nor heard him speak. Can you imagine a lawyer calling someone to give testimony about whether or not a man committed a crime, but the “witness” was on another continent and was not even born when the crime occurred? Such a lawyer would be laughed out of court.

Yet, the modern practice in many churches has “witnesses” “testifying” in churches about “what Christ has done for me.” These witnesses cannot testify about seeing Christ, for they have never seen him. They have never heard him speak one word. They have never touched him. Hence, all that they can testify about is their own subjective experience, whatever its nature may be.

Our brother became convinced that such testimony services were good in the church he attends, not because he found book, chapter, and verse to teach that it was good, but because of an experience his local church had. He tells how six teenagers and two adults related their experiences on a mission in poverty stricken regions of Mexico and Nassau. As they related their touching experiences of washing a child, feeding the hungry, and clothing those who were ill-clad, our brother said he changed his mind about testimonies in worship. Scripture did not change his mind, but experience did.

As a matter of fact, our brother belittles those who want to find Scripture for such testimony services before they practice them. He wrote,

Most Churches of Christ have not practiced personal testi- monies. One reason has to do with the view held by many that the New Testament is a blueprint for every practice in worship. This view holds that there is a clear pattern of worship in the New Testament, and it is to be replicated exactly in every age. It doesn’t seem to matter that the New Testament does not give a standard order of what worship was to be for any church. The reasoning goes like this: If a worship practice was present in the primitive church, that act of worship merits repetition today. If the New Testament is silent on certain activities, they had best be left out of our worship today. If you follow the reasoning, the conclusion is that we should not do “testimonies” because we have no specific, unquestionable illustrations of such being done in an assembly of worship in the New Testament.

At least this view takes Scripture very seriously, and that should be applauded. However, to use the New Testament as a detailed description of worship that outlines every form and sequence of the service is a mistake. . . . How one congregation orders its worship making use of those various elements, is up to each congregation. That is why Christian worship services look different in different cultures, and yet each one may be thoroughly acceptable and honoring to God (Wineskins 3:5, 31).

Obviously, this person has rejected the “blueprint” of the New Testament as the answer to whether or not one should have testimonies in worship. Having rejected the Bible as a “blueprint,” what use is there to quote the Bible to such a person? If one found a direct statement that said, “Thou shalt not have testimonials in worship,” he could set that aside as a legalistic interpretation of the Bible, binding cultural items of worship on people of another culture, or just reply, “I know that is what the apostle thought, but I do not agree with him.”

If there is no fixed pattern for worship, there can be no unscriptural worship. Paul said, “. . . for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). Consequently, any kind of worship is just as scriptural as any other. The group that brings in a rock “Christian” band, does not partake of the Lord’s supper (or partakes of it using light bread and water), who prays in Mary’s name, who teaches tithing, and preaches from the Book of Mormon is just as scriptural as the church in Jerusalem that “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42), according to this logic. Without a divinely revealed pattern, there is no unscriptural worship.

What Is Wrong With Testifying?

The thing that is wrong with testifying is that it makes faith rest on uninspired words rather than inspired words. Brother Dozier shows that is true from his own article. He related an incident in which his daughter Amy had “testified” to a Japanese friend and concluded, “Yasuyo was interested in the teaching about God, but what touched her heart most were the personal testimonies my daughter and others shared with her. . . .The message of Christ is of primary importance, but it very well may be Amy’s personal testimony that someday helps lead Yasuyo to Jesus Christ.” Note that Amy’s personal testimony would carry more weight than the divinely revealed message of first century eyewitnesses!

Our faith does not rest on the fallible testimony of people such as Amy, but it rests upon the divinely revealed word of God. Paul wrote, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). The personal testimony of Amy or anyone else cannot produce saving faith! Our faith rests on the miracles that Jesus performed in the presence of eyewitnesses. John wrote, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).

The Muslim who visits poverty stricken regions of Mexico and Nassau can produce the same kind of testimony as the children in his local church. Does their washing a filthy baby, clothing the ill-clad, and feeding the hungry prove that Muhammad is a prophet? If not, how can our children doing the same prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God? A person giving his personal, subjective testimony about some religious “encounter” proves absolutely nothing about Jesus!

This issue focuses attention on the heart of what is wrong with some preaching among us. Gifted speakers are able to relate some emotionally moving human interest story that will move one to tears, relate another story that causes one to break out in laughter, and wrap up his “sermon” with a third story that makes one feel warm inside. However, such stories do not and cannot built faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Churches that are fed a steady diet of preaching that has little or no Bible content are filled with men who, at the very best, have a weak faith!

Conclusion

We do not need to change our public assemblies to have “testifying.” We already have all the testimony we need to create and build faith — that is the inspired words of the first century witnesses. What can the words of a person born 2000 years later prove about what occurred in the first century? Rather, let us preach the testimony of the witnesses. One who will not hear the witnesses of the Bible is not of Christ. John wrote, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6).

By P.J. Casebolt

“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). By a special act of creation, God created woman, mothers, and motherhood. I would like to wield the pen and strike a blow for motherhood at least one more time before the term becomes completely meaningless, or even extinct. Mothers are already an endangered species in our modern society, and if some continue to have their way with respect to abortion and the deterioration of family values, the extinction of motherhood may become more fact than fable.

All are agreed that many of our social and moral problems are a direct result of deterioration in the home. Yet, not enough are willing to do anything about the problem. According to the latest statistics, well over half of all mothers work outside the home. And, the time and emphasis spent on being a mother suffers accordingly. Again, if some feminists and like-minded “liberators” of womanhood and motherhood have their way, all mothers will be out of the home and the children left over from the effects of abortion will all be turned over to surrogate day-care centers which will be partially or completely supported by taxes. Even those of us who are trying to salvage the institution of motherhood will be forced to support those practices which are destroying the very thing we are striving to save.

As in most matters, there are exceptions to the general rule. We recognize situations which are affected by widowhood, shiftless fathers and husbands, childless couples, or even homes where the children are grown and gone. But the exception is supposed to prove the rule, not become the rule.

A lot of emphasis is being made on the matter of “pro-choice” and a woman’s right to fulfill her own ambitions. Should not at least equal rights be accorded those women who choose to remain in the home and make motherhood their number one priority in life? These latter are fast becoming the minority, and are beginning to be regarded as second-class women. I believe that we should take the time in our speech, and space in our writing, to commend every woman who wants to devote all of her time to being a woman, a wife, and a mother.

The Bible is filled with examples of “mothers of Israel” who emulate and exonerate the institution of motherhood. One mother’s love for her child was so strong that she was willing to let an impostor have her child rather than see the child put to death (1 Kings 3:26, 27). But, another mother encouraged her daughter to dance before a king and to have John the Baptist’s head cut off (Matt. 14:3-11). We have all seen children creating havoc in stores, church buildings, and other public places while their mothers were either nowhere to be seen or were totally oblivious to the actions or safety of their own offspring. News headlines and police blotters are filled with accounts of child neglect, and even abuse and murder. But I noticed something last summer that reaffirmed my faith in mothers and motherhood.

Several mothers were together while their offspring played nearby. It was difficult to tell which offspring be- longed to which mother, but all of the mothers seemed to be keeping an eye out for the little ones. If a problem seemed to be developing, one of the mothers would go check it out. If some bully began to mistreat his or her playmates, a mother would discipline the rebel. On one occasion, the father intervened in a squabble, and sent one of the big bullies sailing with its tail tucked between its legs. I mean, literally. You see, I live in the country, and a herd of cows and calves graze, feed, sleep, and play in the field by our house. And as J.D. Tant used to say, “Before God,” these cows acted more like mothers than do some mothers of the human race. I noticed that some mothers saw to it that their calves were fed and cared for even before the mother’s own personal ambitions were satisfied. My heart took hope. If all else fails, maybe we can turn to the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air for some basic lessons in mother- hood. Once we learn the basics, we can begin reading our Bibles instead of reading after psychologists intoxicated with human wisdom, and listen to the Lord instead of some self-styled liberator who only wants to bring the women and children of our country into bondage of the flesh.

I wrote the following poem in 1988 when I was in a meeting at Monticello, Florida. The sister in whose home we were staying received a telephone message one day that her mother had died. I noticed tears in her eyes when she hung up the phone. I can’t stop tears for mothers, but maybe I can help fellow pilgrims see through them more clearly.

A Tear for Mother

There are, it seems, so many kinds of tears

Those born of pain, of sadness, and tears of joy as well;

Some kind will follow us all through our years

But we’ll grow wiser since that first, lone teardrop fell.

 

We have a different feeling in our heart

For father, sister, brother, children, loved ones all;

It’s there when first we meet and when we part,

Renewed by mem’ries, songs, by pictures on the wall.

 

For mothers, too, we have a special love

Because the love they give is special, diff’rent still;

It’s gentle like the call of mourning dove,

And melancholy like the woodland whip-poor-will.

 

So, mothers, be a mother while you may,

For no one else can fill your place, Be so dear;

And when it comes your time to go away,

Somewhere there’ll drop for you a special tear.

By Donald P. Ames

In Ecclestiastes 12:12, Solomon wrote, “Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weari- ness of the flesh.” He did not mean that one should choose therefore to be lazy and excuse himself, but rather that he needed to select his goals and study aids carefully. I sup- pose every preacher asked would have certain books and aids he would recommend, and maybe few would pick the same ones all the way through. Yet we do recognize they can, in their proper role, be a great asset in helping us learn what others have also spent much work on to accumulate. In looking at such, though, let us always remember that they are the works of men, and therefore are not infallible. They are aids to help us in our search for truth, and should not replace the study of God’s word itself!

First and foremost, one of the best aids to good Bible study you can have is a good Bible! If you can find a good Bible with a concordance, maps, cross references, and per- haps notes in it, this alone can be a tremendous help. You must beware, of course, in selecting a good Bible in that many of those with notes therein on the market today are tainted with premillennialism and the notes are designed to teach this false doctrine. But, having secured a good Bible, next learn to make notes in it. Some people are afraid to write anything in it because it is “God’s book.” But if you are going to study and make it useful, you are going to have to be willing to highlight and make notes on difficult passages, as well as cross-references of your own to other key passages. As you begin to master the things found in a good Bible, you will have much of what you are looking for to get started. It is not an easy search, but the key to beginning.

The second thing I would recommend is to learn to make notes from sermons, bulletins, and tracts that you can refer back to. These are usually free within your local congregation. Maybe even the preacher will provide you with a copy of his outline on special lessons (some churches put such lessons also on cassette for members to listen to). Good study aids do not have to cost you an arm and a leg if you but utilize the opportunities in front of you. Set up a file of topics, and file these notes under those topics so you can refer back to them later on. Now you have a start.

However some are interested in getting a library of their own started, and are seeking recommendations on good books. May I suggest before you start spending a fortune on books, look around. Sometimes the preacher, elders, or other teachers may have them in their library already. If so, pause and take a look at them — they may or may not be what you are looking for, and this can help you make that determination. Some have sought Thayers Greek Lexicon in the belief a little knowledge of the Greek would help — not realizing they would have to first of all know the Greek before they could even use such a book. I would not recommend it to the average Christian seeking to get a few good books for his library. If you really want a book that can tell you a little about the Greek, I would recommend Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, which tells you the different Greek words and their meanings from various English words you look up. But too often we think the Greek is the answer to everything, when in reality a good understanding of the English is what we need.

As a basic starting place, there are certain books I feel ought to be in a Christian’s library that can be a big help to them. A good concordance (I like Young’s) can assist you in looking up many passages you might want to find and can’t. Also a good Bible Dictionary can fill in the back- ground to many ideas, customs, and meanings. Davis is a good one, so is the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Another excellent help, still very useful, is the Pocket Bible Encyclopedia by C.R. Nichol. Here are many references, and well arranged, without heavy investing. Next, I would recommend a good Bible atlas. There are several on the market, but one that can really make it all come to life is History and Geography of the Bible — A Study Manual by Bob and Sandra Waldron. The Senior High Truth In Life series (Yr. 2, Bk. 4) can also be an excellent selection to provide basic information for many.

Commentaries should be approached with caution. Many get all excited about getting a “quality” set, little realizing how much they cost and how infrequently they may be used. The Truth Commentaries are an excellent set I would recommend, but to the average person just beginning to put a library together, they may seem “out of the question.” If you want a good basic set, therefore, I would recommend the Zerr Commentaries, recognizing you will probable decide to add individual ones on special books as you advance in learning and study. The Bible Study Textbooks by GOT can be a very good, inexpensive, simple starting point that can fill that answer for many as a starter — especially on books you do not need greater depth on or study too frequently. To that, I would add Answers For Our Hope by Marshall Patton and the books of R.L. Whiteside (Reflections, Doctrinal Discourses, Kingdom Of Promise And Prophecy). Whiteside’s books are especially useful to the beginner in that they not only deal with many topics of interest, but contain a Bible index in the back of every passage referred to in the book, hence serving as a sort of commentary as well. They ought to be in every library! 

Roy E. Cogdill’s books The New Testament Church and Walking By Faith are two excellent books to be included. To that I would also recommend the Cogdill-Woods Debate on the problems of institutionalism. Many times debates on special topics can be excellent choices if you have the patience to read and digest the arguments and wish to see and examine both sides of the reasoning. Some do not care for this method of study though (regretfully), prefer- ring to study it from a thought-out one-sided presentation instead. Individual topics would thus have to be weighed. A few I recommend are: The Holy Spirit: His Person And Work (Tuten), The Gospel Plan Of Salvation (Brents), and Biblical Criticism (McGarvey). Also I would recommend Donnie Rader’s Divorce And Remarriage (and not because he got together this special!)

No library is complete without something about our “roots” as well. I highly recommend Search For The Ancient Order (West), Vol. 1 and 2. To some, they have almost climbed out of reach in cost, but stop and consider what you spend on other books and magazines or newspapers. They are still an excellent source of the restoration movement here in America. To these could be added The Life And Times Of David Lipscomb and J.D. Tant, Texas Preacher along with W.W. Otey. To these I would recommend They Being Dead Yet Speak (Florida College Lectures 1981) and Their Works Do Follow Them (Florida College Lectures 1982). When the biography of Roy Cogdill is published, I would definitely recommend it be added to these as a study of church history. For those who do not wish to spend what Search For The Ancient Order costs, the Senior High Truth In Life series (Yr. 2, Bk. 2) is an excellent study. Also Yr. 3, Bk. 3 (Evidences) and Bk. 4 (Marriage and the Home) are good studies.

Depending on your area and problems, others might recommend other books and subjects. But, to this, if you could add a subscription to Truth Magazine, you will probably cover many of those same studies and topics. No doubt after this hits print, I may think of others I wish I might have included, but these are foremost in my thinking for a good beginning library. Remember: they are just the works of men (not infallible), and they are aids (not to replace the study of the word of God itself). Consult with your preacher, elders, and others before spending big sums and see what they might recommend on special topics. Choose carefully, prayerfully, and cautiously; then “study to show thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15).

By Chris Reeves

(Note: This article was taken from material in a larger outline entitled “Out With the Old and In With the New: The Cry of the New Hermeneutic” by the same author. This thirty page outline has many useful quotes and references about the New Hermeneutics, a refutation of each of the main points of the New Hermeneutics and a large bibliography. This outline can be ordered from Truth Bookstore.)

Over the past ten to fifteen years we have seen a new theory being promoted among some of our brethren regarding the study and interpretation of the Bible. This theory has been called the “New Hermeneutics” (hereafter, NH). Hermeneutics is a big word but it simply means “interpretation.” Hermeneutics is the process of interpreting the Scriptures. According to the NH, the old way of interpreting God’s word must be abandoned for a new and improved method of Bible interpretation. What is the “old way” or the “old hermeneutic”? For starters, NH advocates say that using commands, examples and necessary inference to establish Bible authority is an old, man-made tradition dating back to the days of Alexander Campbell and this method must go. In addition to this, NH advocates want to abandon any method of Bible interpretation that seeks to find a pattern of truth in a fixed body of first century teach- ing (the New Testament), in order to apply that pattern of truth to the 20th century church. In short, we are told by these NH advocates that we should abandon any rational, “systematized” method of Bible study for an “existential” (emotional) experience with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. A good example of the current and typical NH approach to a study of God’s word is found in an article by John Allen Chalk entitled, “My Life with the Bible: A Meditation on Hermeneutics” (Wineskins, January/February 1994, 20). In this article he writes:

As a child the Bible was a gargantuan intellectual challenge grasped only by the Olympian personalities who came to my little country church and were entertained and hosted by my family. The Bible in those days was a battleground site, a textbook, an anthology of proof texts, understood correctly by a few, misunderstood by most (especially outsiders). The Bible in those days could be contained in a syllogism or a series of syllogisms by which all arguments could be won and all disputes settled quickly and cleanly.

As a young preacher and throughout my full-time ministry years the Bible for me changed slowly through painfully intense study from a sermon text source to a variegated but coherent guide for God-given life shaped by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and actualized in the personal presence of the Holy Spirit. This was a private, intimate, and often troubling journey about which I could say nothing that would belie my confident pulpit pronouncements. In these years I discovered a personal walk with God centered in daily devotional Bible study (as opposed to technical Bible study for sermons and classes which I was compelled to pursue). The controversy in Churches of Christ over the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit erupted in the 1960s just as I emerged from several years of personal search through the Bible for authentic spiritual and moral power. This quest inescapably led me to a new existential decision about Jesus as the living Word of God and a new personal relationship with God’s Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures must be interpreted (Neh.8:8; Luke24:27, 45). The question is, “Which hermeneutic will we use to interpret the Scriptures?” The one set forth by Jesus and the New Testament church, or the NH set forth by some our brethren in recent years? Instead of looking to a NH to interpret God’s word, why not look to the New Testament? What does the New Testament itself say concerning the proper use of Scripture? We should let the New Testament determine how we ought to interpret the Scriptures. There is much to be said against the NH. (See the thirty page outline mentioned above, or the article entitled, “The New Hermeneutic,” Guardian of Truth, October, 6, 1994.) Since this special issue of Truth Magazine is devoted to the topic of how to study the Bible, this article will focus on the New Testament Bible study methods that NH brethren want to abandon. Not only can we learn something about the NH, but we can also learn how to study the Bible along the way by looking at some New Testament examples of Bible study. The best manual on hermeneutics is the New Testament itself.

NH advocates want to abandon the use of the New Testament as a pattern or blueprint. They say that the New Testament was never intended by God to be a “pattern” or “blueprint” that we must follow today. They do not believe the Bible is “propositional revelation” (revelation that sets forth a definite, certain statement of truth that must be understood and obeyed), and they say we should not study the Bible to find truths to obey. They claim that “pattern theology” or “pattern hermeneutics” is an invention of the 19th century church. The New Testament on the other hand teaches us that we must follow it as a pattern. Paul wrote to Timothy and said, “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). When each New Testament Christian began his new life in Christ, he first obeyed the “form (pattern) of teaching” (Rom. 6:17) found in the gospel, and then he continued on by following the pattern of the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42) and the teaching of Christ (2 John 9). A good Bible study method begins with the approach that the New Testament is a pattern for my life and I’m going to search out what that pattern is, follow it and hold it fast.

NH advocates want to abandon the practice of establishing Bible authority by the use of direct statements (or commands), approved examples, or necessary inference. The NH advocates tell us that the “tri-fold hermeneutics” (command, example, inference) is a man-made tradition of the last century and it should be rejected. They claimed that the New Testament does not teach us anything today by apostolic examples or necessary inferences. These examples and inferences are not binding today — explicit statements alone are authoritative. Christ alone is our example. “We are Christo-centric!”, they say. We are told to go to the gospels for our examples, not to Acts or the Epistles. The topic of how to establish Bible authority is covered elsewhere in this issue but a couple of observations are in order here. First, God is the one who has used these three methods throughout time to teach his will. Looking for direct statements, examples, and inferences did not originate in the last century. Long before the 1900s God was using these three methods to teach his will. God teaches by means of these three methods and man learns God’s will by studying what God has said directly, what he has implied (inferences) or by his approved examples.

Second, learning God’s will in this way is not a man- made tradition. We have divine approval from God for this method because this is the very method used by Jesus and the New Testament church. I encourage you to study the following passages and others like them and see how authority for a practice is established by this method: direct statements (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; 15:1-9; 19:16-23; 22:34-40; 28:18-20; John 12:28; 14:15; 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Pet. 3:1-2; and 1 John 2:3-5); approved examples (John 13:15; Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 4:6, 16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:5-7; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 1 Tim. 1:16; 2 Tim. 3:10,14; Heb. 13:7); and implication/inference (Matt. 12:23-47; 16:5-12; 22:23-33, 41-46; Luke 4:25-30; 1 Cor. 1:13; Heb. 4:6-9; 7:1-17). In one passage alone (Acts 15), we find Christians learning God’s authoritative answer to the question over circumcision by Peter’s implications (vv. 7-11), Paul’s examples (v. 12) and James’ direct statements from the prophets (vv. 13-19). New Testament Christians followed the direct statements, approved examples, and implications given to them by God. We should do the same if we want to truly be New Testament Christians! We should study our Bibles looking for God’s will found in direct statements, indirect statements (implications/inferences), and approved examples.

NH advocates want to abandon making the silence of God prohibitive. The Scriptures teach that if God is silent on a matter, we are not allowed to act in that area; that is, his silence prohibits us from acting. But NH advocates say that when God is silent we have permission to act. They say that God did not intentionally remain silent. God simply didn’t get around to talking about various things in the Bible, therefore, God gives us the freedom to do those things that he did not talk about. However, many times in Scripture we are told that we are to act by the word of God, not by the silence of God. Paul said, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Think about it. There is no “hearing” in silence; no “word of God” in silence; hence, no “faith” in silence. When men act upon the silence of God, they are not acting by faith! Silence does not express God’s authority or God’s approval. We cannot determine what God wants for us by what God does not say. Study the context of the following passages which teach that God’s people are not to act if God is silent: Exodus 14:13-14; Leviticus 10:1-3; 24:12; Numbers 9:8; 15:34; 20:8,11; 1 Samuel 13:12; 1 Chronicles 13:1-14; 15:13; 2 Chronicles 26:18; Jeremiah 19:5; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Acts 15:24; Galatians 1:6-9; Hebrews 1:5, 13; 7:11-14; 2 John 9-11. When we study God’s word we need to spend our time studying his word, not his silence. We engage in “Bible study,” not “silence study.”

NH advocates want to abandon the use of the New Testament as a book of case law or as a constitution. These advocates believe that the New Testament is not a book of law, but rather a collection of “love letters.” These casual love letters “dashed off by an apostle to a church” were not meant to be used as law for a rigid guideline, but they should be viewed more as good “take-it-or-leave-it” suggestions for modern man. The New Testament does not so teach. It does not claim to be a collection of “love letters.” The New Testament is the “new covenant” law of God (Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:10; 10:16), the “law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:22; Gal. 6:2) and the “perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25; 2:8, 12). Remember on Pentecost (Acts 2), it was “the law” of Jehovah that went forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:1-3). And keep in mind that if there is no “law,” there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 1 John 3:4). The New Testament is our law book. Just as we would sit down and study various laws to see how we must live in our community (traffic laws, tax laws, zoning laws, etc.), so we must sit down to a study of God’s word looking for the laws by which he governs every aspect of our life (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

NH advocates want to abandon the use of deductive reasoning and logic when trying to learn God’s will. Again, their argument is that our current hermeneutic is a man-made tradition carried over from the “Restoration Movement” of the last century. They say we use deductive reasoning and logic today to study the Bible because Alexander Campbell and others were fond of this method. According to them, anyone today using reason and logic in their study of God’s word is a member of the “Rationalist / Inductive School.” They say that emotion, not reason, is what is important in Bible study. But what does the New Testament say? First, let’s define a few terms (all definitions are taken from the Webster’s New World Dictionary). Don’t be scared by the words being used here. “Reason” simply means “the ability to think, form judgments, draw conclusions, etc.” “Logic” is the use of “correct reasoning.” “Deduction” means “the act or process of deducing; reasoning from a known principle to an unknown, from general to the specific, or from a premise to a logical conclusion.” “Rational” means “of, based on, or derived from reasoning.” “Inductive” means “reasoning from particular facts or individual cases to a general conclusion; the conclusion reached by such reasoning.” We must remember that God has given each of us mental capabilities and he expects us to use them. These varied mental capabilities, in part, are what separate us from the animal kingdom.

When we search the Scriptures we find that God approves of, and demands the use of reasoning in the teaching and learning of his word (Isa. 1:18; 41:21; 1 Cor. 10:15; Rom. 12:1 (KJV); 1 Pet. 3:15). Jesus (Matt. 22:15-46), Philip (Acts 8:35), Paul (Acts 17:2-3, 17; 18:4, 19; 24:25; 26:24-25; Rom. 2:1-3; 1 Cor. 15:12-19), Apollos (Acts 18:28) and the author of Hebrews (3:4; 7:1-17) all used reasoning, logic, rationality, deduction, and induction to teach God’s word. We should use the same mental powers to study it. Take for example the need to become a Christian. The whole question of becoming a Christian involves rationality, reasoning, logic, deduction and induction. No- where in the Bible does my name, “Chris Reeves,” appear. No verse in the whole Bible says something like, “Chris Reeves do this . . .” How then do I know that any part of the New Testament gospel is for me, “Chris Reeves,” if my name is nowhere mentioned? Very simple. I conclude that I too, must become a Christian by reading the facts, principles, cases, and examples found in Scripture. Yes, emotion is important in our Christianity, but so also is a rational sound mind. God expects both (2 Tim. 1:7). A very important study method that must be used each time we sit down to study God’s word is the “inductive method.” First, gather all the Bible information on a topic (observation). Second, learn what that information means (interpretation). Third, draw a conclusion about that information (deduction/induction). Finally, obey what that information teaches (application).

NH advocates want to abandon any claim to know the truth. We cannot know the truth or have the truth, they say. The wholeness of truth lies beyond the grasp of the human mind, and they say that “truth” is not fixed, but ever-changing. They conclude that since we cannot know everything, we cannot know anything for certain. The Bible teaches differently. We can know the truth (Prov. 23:23; 1 Tim. 4:3; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:26; 1 John 2:21; 5:18-20; 2 John 1). Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). God’s word is truth (John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13). The truth can be heard (Eph. 1:3), obeyed (1 Pet. 1:22) and followed (2 John 4). The church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). We must defend the truth (Jude 3; 1 Pet. 3:15) and speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). If we do not know the truth, we will be punished (2 Thess. 1:8). We do not know all there is to know, but what God has revealed to us is truth, and we can know it and respond to it (Deut. 29:29). While it is true that many do not know the truth in the Bible, it is not because the truth is unattainable. It is because these people do not love the truth (2 Thess. 2:10), nor do they want the truth (2 Tim. 3:1-7). When we study the Bible we should study to find God’s truth, and then apply that truth to our lives to make us better people. Bible study is not to be purely academic. It is supposed to be practical.

NH advocates want to abandon the approach that all Scriptures are equally important. NH advocates criticize us for having a “flat” Bible where all truths are held equally important. NH advocates talk about the “core gospel,” the “fundamentals of the faith” or the “seven essential items of Christian faith” (as per Eph. 4:4-6). Misusing Matthew

23:23, NH advocates say that there are “weightier” matters of the gospel upon which we all must agree (like the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ), and the “less weightier” matters of doctrine are mere opinions upon which we all agree to disagree (like the work, worship, and organization of the local church). This is similar to the “gospel-doctrine distinction” made by some brethren a few years ago. Of course, the NH advocates cannot tell us exactly what the “core gospel” is. They have been adding to it and taking from it for years, and they cannot agree among themselves what it should include. The truth is that all of God’s word is equally important and all of it must be used as a basis of fellowship (2 John 9-11). “All things” that Christ has commanded must be observed (Matt. 28:20; cf. Acts 3:22). “All Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and “all wisdom” (Col. 1:28) is necessary to make us complete. When you study your New Testament, don’t study looking for what is and is not essential, picking and choosing what you think is important and is not important.

“Out with the old and in with the new” is the cry of the NH. But for those of us who are interested in pleasing God, let us be content to use the Scriptures in the way that Jesus and the New Testament church used them. We do not need a NH. We need the hermeneutic of Jesus and the New Testament church. Let us not abandon what is clearly established in God’s word. Let us study the Bible to (1) examine the pattern and hold it fast, (2) receive our authority from God’s direct statements, implications and approved examples, (3) hear what God says, not what he does not say, (4) learn the law of Christ and abide by it, (5) draw conclusions about what God wants for our lives today, (6) hear, understand and obey God’s truth, and (7) find and obey all things that God requires for our lives as Christians. I appeal to all brethren to follow the example of Jesus and the New Testament church, as they seek to study the Bible and handle accurately the word of truth today.