By Larry Ray Hafley
Tulips of spring time birth,
Oysters along gulf shores,
Are products, not of earth,
But of heavenly stores.
Grains of Sahara’s sands,
Moss sunning in Arctic cold,
Born not by human hands,
‘Ms God’s creation told!
The rocky mountain’s peak,
The forest’s canopy,
Both to us boldly speak
Of the Lord’s nursery.
Gazing with awe-struck stares
We bear what nature declares!
Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 9
September 18, 1997
By James Boyd
Let me speak of some hard realities. Second Timothy 4:3, 4, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” Acts 20:29, 30, “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to therefore, draw away disciples after them.” 1 John 4:1, “Beloved, criticize their error. They use believe not every spirit, but many methods to do this, which try the spirits whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out surest into the world.”
To contend that there are show from the Scripture that false teachers that have what they are teaching is true, arisen among us is an understatement. We hear the false doctrines of grace only, instrumental music, premillennialism, denial of the identity of the church and kingdom, Christians in all denominations, perversions of the teaching of baptism, theistic evolution, women preachers, a “new hermeneutic,” there is no pattern to follow, and so on. We are told that these changes are coming and there is nothing we can do about it. So confident and arrogant are the heretics.
But why should they be among us? They are not of us. They usually go out from us, but today they seek to stay with us and do their dirty work of destruction. God has provided the way to send them out by discipline. Why allow them to remain? Why use them? Why make it appear they do no harm? It is a lack of love for truth that they are permitted to remain among us. False teachers are not guiltless and neither are those who fellowship them. Many act as if Scripture were never written that forbids fellowship with them (Eph. 5:11), forbids bidding them God-speed (2 John 9-11), calls for marking them and avoiding them (Rom. 16:17), withdrawing from them (2 Thess. 3:6), and accepting the anathema Paul pronounced against such as they are (Gal. 1:6-9). For these false teachers to make headway they must silence the voices of those who con-tend for the faith and, therefore, criticize their error. They use many methods to do this, which will be the burden of my remarks. The easiest and surest way to silence us would be to show from the Scripture that what they are teaching is true, and the criticisms we make are false. But they will not do that. They cannot, but run in fear from having what they teach and practice examined in the light of what the Bible teaches. It is neither overly critical nor an overstatement to say that truth no longer means anything to them. They are usually obsessed with the world’s “scholarship,” denominations, subjective feelings, and their own self-appointed superiority.
But they are gaining much ground through such extravaganzas as Jubilee, the Tulsa Workshop, similar events in various places, youth rallies, books, papers, the schools (the Bible Departments), and general subversion of churches where they can gain control.
The Cry For Love
They make their appeal through what they call “love,” calling for “unity,” as if they were the first angels of light to consider the words. We have no objections but support love and unity. But not the perverted “love and unity” for which they clamor. What do they love? Where is love for truth? Where is love for those who love and defend truth? Their love is for error and self.
Unity? What do they call unity? And at what price? Shall we compromise truth and agree to disagree and call that the unity for which Christ prayed? They do not seek unity, but they want fellowship in spite of division. They call it “unity in diversity.” Unity must be founded on truth and agreement with the truth (Amos 3:3; 1 Cor. 1:10). They lie when they say they do not want to change doctrine, but only attitudes. Their arrogant attitudes remain the same. It is the doctrine they are changing to accommodate the sinful world, perverting the gospel of Christ, making fair speeches subverting whole houses, practicing deception and dishonesty, and being abusive beyond imagination of those who do not bow to their ways. They march to the drum-beat of human wisdom, denominational error and their emotions and feelings, with a “do your own thing” religion of theft own making.
Intimidation Attempted
This is a persistent weapon in their arsenal. They affirm a superior intellect. They have their scholars’ seminars, having learned their heresy at the feet of unbelievers. (Thatis the way to become a real scholar.) They deny biblical teaching and adopt human philosophies and theories. No faithful brother of the past is considered a real “scholar.” They parade their arbitrarily determined degrees as if that made them somewhat. We wonder where was wisdom and knowledge before their day?
They answer critics, “You are not qualified to question me,” or, “Where did you get your Ph.D.?” Some people could strut sitting down.
While they profess a greater “spirituality” than the lowly faithful Christian, they claim discerning between right and wrong is to judge. But they do it! They say we are not in the line thawing business. But shall we not respect the lines God has drawn? When we do, we are not sinfully judging but judging righteous judgment (John 7:24). How loudly they criticize criticism if the criticism is directed toward their false doctrines.
They Say Come Personally And Privately First
They would silence their opposition by contending their opponents must fast come to them personally before any criticism can be made. It matters not to them that they are propagating theft heresy openly, loudly, and publicly. But if you object, you must go into their corner to speak with them before refuting it. That is a false doctrine. They pervert and misuse Matthew 18: 15-17 for such a stand. That passage deals with personal matters. When one teaches publicly false doctrine, that is not a personal matter. That is a matter of truth versus error, and that is the business of brethren everywhere.
I have dealt with many liberals personally and privately, but they lie. They will say one thing privately, and then publicly continue their false doctrines. But they do not practice their own doctrine. They will openly castigate their opponents without ever contacting them first about it. They, being liberals, permit themselves a double standard. They make their tirades against the church and faithful brethren openly and publicly. Indeed, the legs of the lame are unequal. They are a double minded people, and dishonest to the core.
Do you criticize Catholic doctrines? Have you first gone to the pope? Do you oppose Mormon doctrines? When are you going to Salt Lake City? Such trash they speak!
Blame The Division On The Faithful
Division exists and is growing. But the cause is error and those who teach it. We were united and prospering until liberals became malcontent with truth and began their vicious devouring against faithful brethren who contend for the faith once delivered. But, like Ahab did Elijah, they blame God’s people for the strife. They whine, “You are going to drive people away.” This is like the complaint made against Jesus in John 6. But he did not change his doctrine to suit the whiners. False doctrine is what causes division, not standing for the truth as revealed in Scripture. They do not recognize who the real troublers of Israel are.
Straw Men
By “straw men” we mean fake and pretended issues and positions that never really existed, and then the “courageous” destruction of those “men.” For instance, liberals will accuse the church of driving people to incest, as was done on the DLU Lectureship by Gayle Napier. Shelly accused the church of teaching people they can and do work their way to heaven. The church is accused of making women second class citizens because the church teaches God’s word on the role of women in the church. They love to parade what they consider to be the shortcomings and failings of some brethren and with a wide brush paint everybody that same color. But the truth is, they lie, and do so knowingly. Their conscience is so seared they have no respect for right and wrong unless it advances their agenda. What they really want is to displace God’s will with their own. Because some elders fail and are even bad, they pro-pose to invalidate the governmental organization of the church. Because some preachers are immoral, they conclude all are that way. Because everybody does not do everything they ought to do, they conclude everybody is a hypocrite. Because some have tired of the Lord’s pattern for worship, they inject a “religious Hee Haw” instead. What they cannot understand is that human failure and weaknesses do not justify changing God’s law. Because some do not sing well does not mean we should let some “professional” chorus do the singing and everybody else listen, then applaud. (To be continued in the next issue.)
Reprinted with permission from Knight Arnold News, 4400 Knight Arnold Rd., Memphis, Tennessee 38118-2948
Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 1
By Bruce James
God the Son grieved at the tomb of Lazarus, over Jerusalem, and when the widow woman came out of the city with her dead child. In these instances he had compassion for those in their loss. In Genesis 6:6, God looked at the world and he was grieved, that is, his heart broke in two.
If there was ever an expression of divine love, it was in the knowing of the potential of his rebellious child and how he was moved to grief again and again and again. Most parents can understand this as they plead, reach out, long for, and weep for the wayward son or daughter. Patiently they wait as did the father of the prodigal son. All he longs for is to see in the distance the shadow of his child coming home. He runs to meet him at breakneck speed. He kills the fatted calf, welcomes him home, and there is much rejoicing. That is the heart of God.
How many parents have waited up night after night for their child to come home? What do they feel inside? A little anger, but, oh, the grief. Hearts melted by disappointment. Those that are parents can find consolation in the fact that God understands a parent’s grief. He says, “I have nourished and brought up my own children, but they have rebelled against Me” (Isa. 1:2). As grieving parents we can lay our heads on the shoulder of our grieving heavenly Father. He has been there! He understands! In fact, he is there today! Now, multi-ply your grief over one rebellious child a million times ten million and you will have just a fraction of the grief God felt when he looked on Noah’s or Lot’s generation. When God looked down, he saw the heart of man and his heart broke in two. Can you imagine how God feels today? Since Adam, Cain, Noah, and Lot, he has paid the ransom to set his children free. He bought our freedom and it cost him all he had, his only Son. The only one who never broke his heart died for all who ever had. Now we, like Adam, have it all. Paradise of the heart is ours for the asking. Paradise in eternity is ours; it is coming. Isn’t it only right that his expectation for those who have tasted the cup of redemption is greater than his expectations of Noah’s day? Nevertheless, what does he see as he looks on the world as it is today?
God sees scoffers, immorality, decadence, apostasy, violence, contempt, and business as usual. When the heart of God is broken and grieved to tears over the sinfulness of the world, how can those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb go on living as though it were business as usual? Have God’s standards changed since the cross? The church of the Lord ought to be on its knees before God, not joining in the pursuits of the world, renewing our commitment to the One who loves us so much. As God had a plan for Noah, he has a plan for us today. He wants us to build the ark according to his specifications that we can bring those seeking peace, freedom and security into the refuge of God. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord because Noah walked with God. He wants us to walk with him too.
We ought to be laying aside every weight and the sin that so easily besets us. We ought to be seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness at any cost. We ought to be men and women with only one goal, one purpose in life. That is to walk with God. We cannot live with a “business as usual” mentality. We have work to do! Our task, our mission, is not to sit around in little groups condemning society for its ills. God said it would be like this. His is not a call to complain, but a call to battle.
Instead of being discouraged, let us understand that these are exciting and wonderful times to be alive. We have the privilege to pioneer as Noah with the pattern for salvation, worship, and work of God’s kingdom etched in the eternal scrolls of God’s word. We have this power to enable, to lead, and to guide us, We have the example of the worlds of Noah and Lot to remind us. We have it all! All we have to do is fall down before our precious God and make ourselves totally available! All the while we must realize that we are on a mission, “to seek and to save the lost.”
Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 5
September 18, 1997
By Tommy L. McClure
A Bit Of Humorous Sophistry
Humorously Exploded
In November, 1903, J. Carroll Stark and Joe S. Warlick debated, at Henderson, Tennessee, the proposition: “The word of God authorizes the use of instrumental music for praise in the church of Jesus Christ.” Stark affirmed; Warlick denied. Stark and Warlick agreed to write their speeches, trying to retain certain features of the oral debate, and the result of theft efforts was a book of 198 pages published by McQuiddy Printing Company, Nashville, Tennessee bearing the date 1910.
Characteristic of liberals, innovationists, renegades, and spiritual rebels who are galled by admonitions to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11), Stark labored to make it appear that Warlick and his brethren were the cause of the trouble and division relative to mechanical instruments of music. His general idea was: If you fellows would quit opposing what we are doing, we could be at peace, ignoring the fact that unity in error is not genuine peace in the first place, and is the only thing worse than division in the second place.
The tactic is by no means new.
1. Ahab used it when he met Elijah whom the Lord had sent to him. “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, `Art thou he that troubleth Israel?’ And he answered, `I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou halt followed Baalim”‘ (1 Kings 18:17, 18).
2. The unbelieving Jews, by means of “certain lewd fellows of the baser sort,” set the city of Thessalonica “on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason,” but told the rulers that Paul and his company were guilty of having “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17: 1-8). They, not Paul, started the ruckus! Paul had simply preached the Lord’s death, resurrection, and Messiahship: but they, in their envy and unbelief and by the base men they mustered, created the uproar!
3. The Missionary Society advocates accused the op-position of being anti-missionary, anti-cooperation and the cause of division (see Otey-Briney Debate). But what church divided over the Missionary Society before the society was introduced? Not one! Who, then, was to blame for the division? That’s right those who introduced the thing!
4. Human benevolent promoters and advocates accused those who would not go along with their unauthorized projects of being “antis,” “orphan haters,” “church-busters,” “hard-hearted,” and “void of love.” My! What a bunch of low-down rascals we were, according to them! But, who were really the “church busters” on this matter? Again, I ask, what church divided over human benevolent organizations before somebody set up one? That pinpoints the raisers of the ruckus!
5. Herald of Truth and sponsoring church promoters tried to make it appear that we who opposed their unscriptural projects were anti-congregational cooperation and a bunch of jealous soreheads. But there was no trouble over these matters until some congregation “assumed” (remember that word?) the oversight of a work to which all congregations were equally related and tried to get their hands into the treasuries of all churches possible, using pressure tactics which would make the most unscrupulous politician blush with shame! They were the ruckus raisers!
Following is a sample of liberal sophistry, a bit humorous, and the humorous answer given by a valiant and gifted old “war horse” of days gone by. Since the Stark-Warlick Debate is now out of print, I think younger preachers should be given a chance to learn about the matter here quoted, and I gladly share with them the information.
Stark’s First Speech
When one worships God, the worship is between himself and God. When Daniel bowed himself in Babylon with his windows open and his face toward Jerusalem and offered prayer and supplication to Jehovah, was he responsible for the beating of the tom-tom by the Babylonians in or around his house, or for any of the excesses of the city? If I enter my closet to pray in secret to Him who heareth in secret, if a hen cackles, must I leave my devotions and go and club her off because the Scriptures say nothing about hens cackling? Surely our worship is not what it should be if we cannot worship with surroundings we have not chosen. If I am hymning my devotion to God and inside or outside some one is playing an instrument in praise to His name, must I stop my praise and go over and raise a fuss to stop his devotions? Am I responsible for his unlawful praise, if it is unlawful, or is he responsible for mine? Our worship is between us and our God; and what others may do in praise to God’s name is not a concern of ours, except to teach them what God has said, unless God has said nothing. Will God be more likely to accept my praise of song if I go over and raise a row with my brother because he does not praise God as I command him? If I stop my hymning out of pure dogmatism, will God vouchsafe acceptance to me, even though his praise is rejected? Who said: ‘Thou shalt not judge another’s conscience?’ Does he not stand or fall to his own Master? What am I, that I shall judge another man’s conscience? If I do not play, is it any of my business if another does? Can I not hymn my praise, though another acts unlawfully? If I stand there and am singing and one here is playing a harp, does that interfere with my worship of God? Not if I am worshiping as I should (15-16).
Warlick’s Reply
Brother Stark wants to know if, when praying in his closet, an old hen cackles outside, whether he should cease praying and go outside and compel the hen to quit cackling until he has finished his prayer. Of course not in that case. Neither does any one object to the organ playing on the outside when not in the worship. I now ask my brother whether he would continue his prayer if some one should go outside, get that old hen, bring her into his closet, and compel her to cackle while he worshiped, and thus compel him to cackle with her or else cease cackling entirely. He would, no doubt, leave his own closet in the possession to the two intruders. Does he say that he would object? But what could he do? Would not the man reply: “You will just submit or get out. You must not speak where God has not spoken; and I challenge you to show in all the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, where God has said, `Thou shalt not bring a cackling hen into the sanctuary of the saints;’ and, besides, does not David say: `Let everything that has breath praise the Lord?’ This chicken has breath; let it praise the Lord?” My brother, how do you like this argument? It is precisely like what you offer in favor of the organ. If there is any difference, it is better than you can find for your proposition (31-32).
There you have the “hen argument” made and answered! Want to know what I think at this point? I think Stark’s old “cackling hen” became Warlick’s old “clucking settin’ hen” and flogged Stark in the face till she brought blood! But, I want to know what you think!
Guardian of Truth XLI: 17 p. 22-23
September 4, 1997
