The Infallibly Safe Course
When I was a "young preacher," which was more years ago than I like to think about, I had the privilege of reading a book of sermons, by that grand pioneer preacher, Benjamin Franklin. One sermon in that book was entitled: "The Infallibly Safe Course, or, The Way That Is Right, And Can't Be Wrong." I am quoting the title from memory, and it has been all of fifty years, I think, since I saw the book. It may be that I have not accurately given the title. But, the idea has stuck in my mind through the years. I have used the topic for many sermons, and I have earnestly endeavored to follow the principle set forth by Franklin in that sermon.
If indeed it be true that "God has spoken unto us" as the Bible declares, it must be true that "we" can understand what God has said to us. It must be true that there is a course that all of us may pursue in which we will be infallibly safe, even though we may not be able to answer all the different questions that people may ask.
As I recall, the first problem that Franklin set forth, was that of a difficulty brought to the attention of a sincere seeker for truth, by the disagreement of an unbeliever and a believer on the word of God. The believer and the unbeliever are both educated men, they have fine libraries, and both have time to study. Presumably, both are not only students of the Bible, they are students of history, and biography. They are both well read in Science. Yet, one of them is a firm believer in the Bible, and the other is an avowed unbeliever. He insists that there is no God; or maybe he contends that there is no truth in the Bible, and there is no home of the soul beyond this vale of tears.
Now, the problem confronting the seeker after truth by this sort of situation is this: If these learned men, these educated men, can not agree about this matter, how am I, an uneducated person, to know which is right
Suppose You Can't Answer All The Questions Involved.
And suppose you can't know which is right. We live by faith. Is there a course you can pursue here in which you will be infallibly safe? Let's suppose the unbeliever is correct in all his contention, and it turns out that there is no God, no heaven to gain and no hell to shun. What have I lost by being a Christian here? I think I am a better man by being a Christian. I think I am a better husband, a better father, a better citizen of this world. I know I have known joys unspeakable, and the sorrows that have swept my soul here have been endurable because I believe the Bible. Then, if at death all this is past and forever gone, I know I have had as full a life and as joyous as the unbeliever could possibly have had. So, if the unbeliever is correct in all his contention, I have lost nothing by being a firm believer in the word of God.
Turn the matter around. Suppose the Bible is true. Suppose the infidel is wrong in all his contentions. Suppose there is a hereafter. And, in the bye and bye, there is a resurrection of all the dead, and Christians are gathered around the great white throne. Infidels are also gathered there to be judged, that is to hear judgment pronounced.
In that case, what has the unbeliever lost? I think it is perfectly manifest, that there is a course one can pursue in such circumstances, in which he will be infallibly safe, even if he can not answer every argument the unbeliever can make. Franklin also presented the case of the two preachers who argue about the unconditional election to eternal life. The solution is just as easy and as simple here.
Then, there was the case of one man arguing that all will ultimately be saved, and a man just as devout as he arguing against universal salvation. If they can't agree, how am I, an uneducated person, to know which is right? The solution is just as simple and easy. If all men are going to be saved, then I'll be saved anyhow, and it will not it hurt me to believe all the Bible teaches, and live faithfully here below. If Universalism is false, I am still safe.
All through the years as a Christian and as a preacher I have tried to pursue a course that is right. I believe the Bible is right. Yet, I have tried to pursue a course in which I am absolutely safe even though I might be mistaken about many things. I have endeavored to follow this principle with reference to the Missionary Society question. Suppose it should turn out in the end that Missionary Societies have God's approval? One argues for them, another argues against them. Suppose I can't decide which is right. They are not set forth in the Bible. The early church got along without them. It is safe to follow the example of the Apostles and the early church. God will not condemn us for so doing. But suppose it should turn out that God considers them wrong in the end? What about those who have built them up and used them? Since the early disciples preached the gospel to all creation under heaven in the lifetime of the apostles, without any missionary societies, it is infallibly safe to stand aloof from them now.
But, what about benevolent societies? One brother will argue for them as strongly as J. B. Briney ever argued for Missionary Societies, and another will argue against them just as strongly. Many brethren, not able to grapple with the arguments become confused, and say, if the preachers can't settle such questions, how am I to know which is right? Isn't there a course we can pursue here, in which we are infallibly safe. Do the advocates of these benevolent societies contend that they are necessary?
"No Pattern" Pullias says on page nine of his tract, "Where There Is No Pattern":
"Actually, orphans are being, or have been, cared for, to my personal knowledge, in a wide variety of ways: in private homes without outside help; in private homes with other persons paying for their care; in houses owned by local congregations where widows and their children have been placed and supported by the congregation; in orphan homes under the elders of a local congregation, taking in many children, with other congregations and individuals cooperating to provide the necessary support; and in orphan homes organized by brethren for the care of homeless children, operating under a board of directors and supported by congregations and individual contributors."
In this sentence Pullias is trying to convince us that the last two mentioned are only "ways" of caring for orphans. Notwithstanding the fact, they are benevolent societies. But, according to his statement, they are wholly unnecessary. He tells how orphans "have been, and are being cared for" in ways that are not objected to by any one. The benevolent society is consequently, wholly unnecessary. There can be unity among brethren without them. Then, it follows that it is infallibly safe, to care for orphans as brethren have cared for them over the years. The churches had no such societies in the days of the apostles. We could get along without them now, and have unity and harmony among the churches.
And this "Sponsoring church" hobby that is causing so much trouble today. Is there a solution to the problem? Is there a course we can pursue in which we shall be infallibly safe? We got along without such a set-up for a long time. It was a question considerably agitated about a hundred years ago. The Missionary Society was the outgrowth. In 1910, at Henderson, Tenn., the church there, proposed to put an evangelist in West Tennessee, with several other churches helping to support him. N. B. Hardeman and A. G. Freed were elders of the Henderson church at that time. J. D. Tant was there and stated in a speech that he did not believe in such church "cooperation." (I ran across a note-book recently in which I took some notes during that meeting. And I have that note set down to Tant's credit.) When a report was made by G. Dallas Smith, through Gospel Guide, and came to the attention of David Lipscomb, he printed it in the Gospel Advocate, and asked: "What is that but making a missionary society of the elders of the Henderson church?" It has been argued by some in recent years that brother Lipscomb was not opposed to churches sending money to the Henderson church, but was opposed to a "meeting" at Henderson setting up such an arrangement. Such explanations have been made by those who were not there.
Brother Lipscomb definitely opposed the set-up which is identical with the "Sponsoring church" set-up today. David Lipscomb was definitely opposed to it. So was F. B. Srygley, whom I knew intimately for many years. R. L. Whiteside and C. R. Nichol opposed such a set-up for evangelism; and I might mention John T. Lewis, and C. E. W. Dorris, and James A. Allen and many more old stalwarts, who are not eclipsed by any preachers of today. I am in good company when I stand with these men. Brother Lipscomb killed that "sponsoring church" set-up that the Henderson church was about to start, and the work never did get under way.
Is there a safe course we may pursue with reference to the matter?? Let's suppose that it is scriptural. Will God condemn those of us who can not in conscience support the set-up? The early church in the days of the apostles got along without it. We believe it is safe to follow the apostles. It is infallibly safe. We could all be together in peace and harmony now if that human set-up were not pressed to the division of the church. But, let's suppose it is pleasing to the Lord. And in the end He will punish those who have been instrumental in building up the thing to the disruption of the peace and harmony of the body of Christ? Then, those who oppose it are on safe ground. What about those who have supported it? As I said before, I have all through my life as a preacher, tried to occupy a position in which I would be infallibly safe. I still cling to that principle. I think my judgment is as good as that of any preacher today, but, if my judgment is faulty in some matters, I occupy a position that is right and can not be wrong!