Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 20
October 10, 1968
NUMBER 23, PAGE 12-13

De-Emphasis Of The Word

Tom O. Bunting

There is a great movement today, among brethren, to lessen the importance of the written word. They try to tell us that it's not to be trusted, it isn't accurate, man has altercated it over the years, we need a new translation, etc. They are tormented by the constant reminders; "speak where the Bible speaks", "the Bible is the Word of God," "give me book, chapter, and verse." Statements like this keep ringing in their ears. They would like to strip the soldier of Christ of his sword of the Spirit, the word of God. Yet, they try to do so with caution. I feel that this movement is evident in publications of some brethren today, and perhaps is part of that which is behind the recent movements for miracles, speaking in tongues, and later revelations! De-emphasizing the written word.

Brother Wm Banowsky, in 20th Century Christian, Feb. 1967, in his article on "The Person of Christ", is struggling against the written word. The definition which he gives for faith is not the definition given by God! Why would one avoid the Bible definition when there is one so handy in Heb. 11:1,2? He tells us that faith is "a personal relationship with Christ." Does the Bible anywhere speak of faith as a "personal relationship with Christ?" Our relationship with Christ involves more than faith. He goes on to say that today faith has lost its original meaning. (Although he did not use the original meaning). We are told that we speak of "the Christian faith," "defending the faith," and someone has "left the faith." You have to be on guard at all times, for brethren seem to have a way of carefully mixing together terms that should not be listed together! It is possible to mislead people by this process. In the three terms that he listed, two of them speak of "the faith" and the other only "faith." The phrase, "the Christian faith" is faith of a certain person, otherwise it would not need the adjective 'Christian.' The other two are scriptural terms and speak of "the faith," the gospel. So where one may miss the original meaning in the first, he certainly does not with the later two!

Another place where he mixes together scriptural terms with human practices is in paragraph five. He says, "The symbols of faith"...(You talk about missing the original meaning! What on earth are "symbols of faith"?) From the list that follows, it seems he had in mind innovations of modern religions; but right along with "clergy, creeds, mass, penance"; he puts baptism. Am I to understand that these are all classified with equal importance? Is baptism in the same category as clergy? or creeds? or mass? Baptism is from the Bible. You can read of it in "the faith," but not these others! With careful manipulation of terms, some can be made to think that believing in scriptural doctrines and practices are as wrong as believing in human doctrines and practices.

Brethren are accused in the article of having done a much better job restoring "the faith" than we have in restoring faith. Christians in general are accused of believing in "the faith: instead of believing in Jesus Christ." I'm afraid from the article that brother Banowsky has confused "the faith" with human creeds. He seems to think that Bible doctrines fall in the same category as the doctrines of men. What is his example of this failure? "Most religious people can, while perpetuating the symbols of faith, lose touch with the very object of faith, Jesus Christ." I certainly understand how that the "clergy, mass, penance, and creeds" causes people to lose touch and sight of Jesus Christ, but I can't see how this applies to those who believe in the word, for Jesus said, we must believe His words. He illustrates his point from the days of Kiekegaard in Denmark saying, "Personal communion with Christ had been forgotten as men gave themselves wholeheartedly to the faith. — (emphasis his.) In an effort to de-emphasize the word, we are told that one can give himself wholeheartedly to the faith and not be in communion with Christ. Implying again, that restoring the word and following it exactly will not do the job.

Again he tells us of a young girl in a cathedral, bowing before an altar and weeping. Then states, "She literally had faith in the faith...- Perhaps, he believes it, I can't. She had faith in the traditions and doctrines of man. Brother Banowsky can't seem to distinguish between the doctrines of men and "the faith." She had faith in this human institution with its creed. She did not have faith in "the faith.". If she had she would not have been worshiping God in this manner. If she had believed "the faith", she would have known that "every plant the father has not planted shall be rooted up (Mt. 15:13).

The impression is left that the Bible is not to be trusted. In this statement, "the Bible should not be defined as the supreme object of trust." Maybe the key, or catch, is in the word "supreme." But with the entire article casting doubt upon "the faith" and making ridicule of those who place confidence in the word; the implication is that the Bible is not to be trusted. It sort of leaves a bad taste. It doesn't ring clear.

We are warned about not letting our faith "terminate in the Bible as the object of worship." Certainly a fair warning. The object of worship is God! However, this warning is mixed in with other ideas and illustrations, which seem to cast some doubt upon the written word. The Jews of John 5 are given as an example of this "Bible worship." He tells us that they, the Jews, knew the scriptures so well that they did not recognize Jesus Christ. That's not what this passage teaches. This passage tells us that they had not accepted Christ because "ye have not his word abiding in you" (vs. 38). They needed to search the scriptures. Just like many of us today need to Search The Scriptures! They would have to leave their traditions! They did not believe Moses, for had they believed Moses, they would have believed on Him, for Moses testified of Christ (Jno. 5:46-47). Perhaps, I make too much of this, but I find the article simply an effort to reduce the importance of the written word in the mind of brethren, to make Bible doctrine sound like traditions of men!

He speaks lightly of the expressions like "back to the Bible" and "speak where the Bible speaks." The whole article contains denominational ideas and implications. You frequently run across expressions like "know Christ as personal Savior." The Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. all say the same thing. The article appeals to those who teach salvation by faith only. It will appeal to those who say they "treasure" the Bible, while at the same time they do not heed its teaching. It will appeal to those who claim to "accept Christ as a personal Savior", while remaining in their human institutions. It appeals to those brethren that say the Bible is the authority, but they don't have book, chapter and verse for their practices. It appeals to those brethren who say "we do many things without authority."

Of course some ridicule has to be made about those who do not do. He ridicules those who have confidence before God because of things they do not do. Yet, the very ones who make the charge have confidence before God because they are not `legalists.' They have confidence before God because they do not oppose the 'church supported human institution.' Yes, I have confidence before God in things I do which God has commanded in His word. I also have confidence before God in things I do not do. There are things God has commanded and there are things God has forbidden! One should have confidence before God when not doing the forbidden things and doing those things commanded.

The entire article is an effort to de-emphasize, lessen the importance, of THE WORD OF GOD. When the truth begins to hurt, then men try to pass it off with a shrug of the shoulders, saying, "legalist, Bible worshipper, you make the written word too important — accept Jesus as your personal Savior."

One cannot separate these two, Christ and His words. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..."; also said, "the words I speak are life" (Jno. 6:63). You will not believe in the Christ unless you believe the words. (Jno. 5:38-46); (Jno. 20:30-31). Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Rom. 10:17.

Teachers of error will always try to distract, de-emphasize, or ridicule in order to lessen the importance and the force of "the faith"!