Preaching A Critical Study (VII.)
Proposition VII — The basis or reason for the erroneous conclusions drawn in the position which "Words and Attitudes" advocates.
We will enumerate these in order that we may give the instances that demonstrate and fully warrant the conclusions which we have drawn concerning them.
1. Our friends have not fully and fairly presented the definitions of the terms by which they have sought to establish their positions.
When an authority is cited to define a term, honesty and fairness demands that the full definitions be given. One cannot be allowed to go to some authority and from among the several definitions or shades of meaning given select the one that suits his purpose and limit the term to that one in all of its usage. This is the first and fundamental error our friends have fallen into. They have done so with the word Preach and two of the words in the Greek from which it is a translation — Keerusso and uangelizo. The review already given of these terms plainly evidences that fact that they seek to limit their meaning to that which serves their purpose and have refused all others. They seemingly either do not know or refuse to recognize that a word — the same word — can have different shades of meaning and can be used in different senses. Our friends should know better than to follow such a course in any matter and especially when they are studying the Bible. By such a course as they have followed it would be easy to establish that the idea of instrumental music inheres in the word "psallo" as it occurs in the New Testament and the very tactics which they have employed are the same as those employed by our digressive brethren in their attempt to justify the use of instrumental music in Christian worship. There can be no doubt that basically and originally the word "psallo" did mean to "pluck the strings of an instrument" — but in its New Testament usage it never means that. If our friends do not know better than to treat definitions in the manner in which they have treated them, they should not be attempting to set the whole church right about something. If they do know better, they need to examine the honesty of their own hearts before making an attempt to reach conclusions and teach anybody anything. The complete catalog of the definitions accompanying this paper is enough alone to forever refute their theory to any honestly inquiring mind.
2. They have relied upon assertions by their own authority and wisdom for which they cannot offer any proof and evidence and which therefore are wholly unwarranted and untrue.
On this point witness the meaning which they seek to give to the word "proclaim." "We understand the meaning of the word proclaim when it is used in secular discourse. It always carries an official connotation." This we dispute and deny and ask for the authority that so defines the word in "secular discourse" or anywhere else. We cite you to Webster in the definitions given above as evidence that it is not the meaning of the term. According to Webster, and even our learned friends should consider him as pretty good authority, the word means to make known by public announcement; to promulgate; to announce; to declare; to publish. This definition does not even include the idea of "official connotation" much less limit the word to that.
Then again look at another assertion: "It is evident that the proclamatory function is an essential and necessary adjunct of the legislative function." No one denies that proclamation or making known that which is legislated is essential and important but how is it connected with the legislative function except that both are essential and that through legislation the proclamation is provided for as are all other matters for legislation has that very function basically — to provide and determine. Our friends were struggling to fix their theory concerning preaching inseparably to the work of divine revelation by the apostles in the New Testament and they just made their own rules in order to get the idea across. What they say is not so. While the apostles also preached and carried the glad tidings of the gospel, God also provided another function or agency for this purpose that isn't any more connected with the apostolic office than is the work of an elder or deacon and that is the work of an evangelist. The apostles revealed all of them, taught all of them, and Paul, himself, appointed elders. By the same rule could assert that the work of an elder is an adjunct of the legislative function of an apostle and inseparably connected with it and ceased when it ceased.
Many instances of such assertions can be found in the paper but we call attention to only one more, "The words messenger, apostle, ambassador and herald are all closely related and each should be easily understood. That one should act in any of these capacities without being specifically designated as such is foreign to our normal experience." Here we have the idea again of tying the work of an evangelist into the apostolic office without any proof except the assertion of our brother which we do not think as much of as he evidently does. It becomes evident that our brother does not even understand what the apostolic office was in the New Testament Church. Hear him again on this point, "As we see Jesus carefully selecting certain men for His purposes, though what He saw in these particular men, He alone knew, it is obvious that the latter case is true. The instances of the Holy Spirit choosing between two men, Barsabbas and Matthias, with the same apparent qualifications again makes it evident that Jesus selected His ambassadors, apostles according to qualifications that no one except Him ever can know." Here is overlooked the fact that the primary qualification of every apostle of Christ, including Matthias when he was selected to take the place of Judas, was to be an eye witness of the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord. (Acts 1:8; 1:21; II Peter 1:1621.) Christ appeared to Paul for this very reason. (Acts 26:16-18.) They were the ambassadors of Christ as well as eye-witnesses and spoke with His authority as such. (II Cor. 5:20; I John 4:6.) But where did Jesus select the evangelists or preachers of the New Testament age personally and specifically like He did the apostles? And where was such a qualification as being an eye-witness of the Lord demanded of the evangelist in the New Testament? These men were not selected to the "office" and then given the qualifications to enable them to do the work. They did the work and became evangelists because they were doing the work of evangelists. The idea that they were selected to do the work and then given the qualifications for it is absolutely without any scriptural proof whatever. It is a mere bold assertion and rests upon the authority of our friend.
3. Our friend has garbled quotations both from the Bible and from other writers in order to justify his conclusions.
He seeks to make quite a point in the beginning of his paper from the passage, "this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." We have exposed his mis-use of the passage in the preceding discussion but we suggest that he would not have fallen into this error if he had read the context and given the whole quotation pertinent to this particular statement which he selected. The word in this passage means the enduring and abiding word of God referred to by the prophet quoted (Isaiah 40) and is an affirmation of the steadfastness of God's word. The paper misses the point entirely.
Again he garbles Ephesians 4:11-16 as we have shown already. He refuses to take into consideration all the apostle said and selects only that part which serves his purpose. You can establish any kind of a theory by tactics like that. Sectarians have always used them. A Christian should know better than to treat the word of God in that manner.
But he treats the quotations he gives from men in the same manner. He cites a passage from Vincent's Word Studies, and from Hastings Dictionary for the purpose of trying to prove his position when it is a well known fact by anyone who is acquainted with the two authors that they do not agree with his position at all. He misrepresents them by aligning them with his position. They practiced all of their lives as teachers and preachers of their doctrine, though it was not the gospel, what our friend tries to leave the impression they condemn — being supported for their preaching and teaching. He does them just like he does every other quotation, quotes just enough of what they taught to leave the impression that they agreed with him in his position which is absolutely untrue. They practiced and taught otherwise all of their lives. Either they have been misrepresented in the smattering quotation being applied to our brother's position as in harmony with his theory or they were hypocrites who practiced all of their lives what they believed to be wrong. He can have his choice.
But I want particularly to show his manner of citing authorities by giving in full the quotation he gives from David Lipscomb and then giving another from the same author, same book, and on the opposite page from the one given. This is a glaring mis-representation either willfully made or so carelessly made as to be inexcusable. He quotes from Lipscomb as follows:
"No one preaches now in the same sense as those who went forth as heralds to proclaim a new revelation from God; those since repeat it. One is a preacher in the true sense of the word; the other, a teacher of what has been preached or proclaimed by the heralds sent forth from God, endowed with the Holy Spirit to guide them into all the truth."
This quotation was directly given from Lipscomb's commentary but the same statement is given, and the paper refers to that fact, in Lipscomb's and Sewell's Questions and Answers. So our brother knew of what Lipscomb said in the latter place and could have and should have known, if he didn't, of the rest of what Lipscomb said on the same subject. We give the quotation from him found on the opposite page of "Questions and Answers" — the paper's quotation comes from his comments on Romans 10 on page 501, Questions and Answers, and on the next page — same opening — page 502 and extending into 503 we have this comment from him in answer to the specific question involved in this discussion:
Brother Lipscomb: Did Christ or any of the apostles teach that preaching should cease when the New Testament was written?
"The Savior, in his commission to the apostles, said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe or do all he commanded you." Under this commission the apostles were commanded to teach and baptize all nations, and to teach those baptized to observe or do all he commanded the apostles. This certainly requires those baptized to do all he commanded the apostles to do. This seems to make it as obligatory on the Christians of every succeeding generation to teach all nations of their generation as it was on the apostles to teach all of that generation. Can any one tell why this does not require the Christians of each succeeding generation to preach the gospel as much as it required the apostles to do it. If that part of the commission that requires that those taught by the apostles to teach others has been abrogated, when and by whom was it done? When was the teaching to cease? In Acts 8 we have an account of the persecution that arose with the death of Stephen. "And they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." Verse 1. "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." V. 4. We have the example that those taught by the apostles understood it was their duty to preach the word wherever they went. Those scattered abroad first preached the gospel in Antioch. Acts 11:20. They clearly understood it was the duty of all Christians to preach the gospel wherever they went, and it was an essential part of their religion to do this.
"All teaching the word of God publicly or privately is preaching .... The Christians of every age are under the same obligation to preach the Gospel to every creature that the apostles were." (Emphasis mine.)
Thus it can easily be seen that when Brother Lipscomb said in the quotation given from him "No one preaches now in the same sense as those who went forth as heralds to proclaim a new revelation from God," he did not at all mean what our friend tries to make the quotation mean and that is — "No man can preach now in any sense." That is our brother's position and I repeat that he either did know that Brother Lipscomb held to no such position as that or he could have known it if he had really been interested in correctly representing Brother Lipscomb. This is but a sample of the reasons our brother has fallen into his error. He has gone about searching for something that he wanted to justify and seizing upon anything that appeared to help his case along and has not honestly and prayerfully been searching for the truth. He needs to get the idol out of his heart, put a desire for the truth in its stead, and humble himself before God that he might know God's will.
4. But the basic and fundamental thing wrong with our brother is his attitude.
Hoping that we may not become his enemy by telling him the plain truth about himself and in the belief that it actually is the basic difficulty, he has manifested in his discussion with this writer and in the paper which he has written about the most arrogant, egotistic spirit that I have seen displayed by anybody. I am not saying that to be unkind but because I believe there is much evidence of it in what he has written. If sparing his feelings would help him more, we would be glad to do that, but I seriously doubt if that would be the way to help. He has just enough knowledge of the Bible and Greek and related subjects to make his attitude dangerous. He has trusted in his own understanding instead of studying carefully, and upon such a basis he has been arrogant enough to call in question the scholarship, sincerity, wisdom, honesty, of all the generations gone before in the Church of God, and even to slander all those today who at greater personal sacrifices than he knows anything about have given their lives, surrendering their right to home, business, prosperity and security financially, and almost everything else in an effort to teach men and women the will of the Lord, persuade them to accept it, exhort and admonish the people of God to faithfulness and thus to save themselves and as many others as possible. Witness such statements as these in the paper:
"It seems as if the inductive arguer is pre-committed to this conclusion and is determined to arrive there by whatever means is necessary." This is an indictment of preachers and teachers in general.
"The difficulty has arisen from the fact that the reformers and restorers accepted this usage without question and so it comes down to us today." "The claim of the modern-day evangelist to his `calling' is based upon just such misapplications as this. By a tenuous process of so-called reasoning, the work of Timothy is also inferred to apply today; but to call this inference necessary is to slander the logical processes."
"Anyone thinking critically may readily realize that Timothy was already an evangelist." Thus their assumption rests upon an effort to discredit the mental capacity, reasoning ability and information of all others."
"As a result of the misunderstanding of the principles I have here discussed, the church of today is torn and confused by division on all sides, by ignorance and lack of self-confidence among the members, by a lack of qualified elders, who misuse their authority and place their obligations and responsibilities on others; by being made merchandise of to support a hundred schemes and thousands of men who seek to evade the direct commandments of God to earn their own living, by false teaching of the most insidious nature."
In the mind of this young brother the generations preceding and the one of today have missed the point entirely and lost the way completely on this matter, and he has come forth by his wisdom and learning to point out the common mistake of the whole church throughout the ages and rescue us from tradition and error. Thus he sets all others at nought and counts himself only to be wise enough and intelligent enough to have learned the truth of this matter. Everyone is out of step but Johnnie.
It seems that just a little careful and humble thought would have been extremely profitable to him. We hope and pray that what has been said may cause him to re-appraise himself and re-study the truth on the points in which he is in serious error. He has pronounced judgment upon the whole Church, condemned families and friends, alienated himself from the Church and its fellowship and is leading others into perdition with him including his own children, all for the sake of a foolish and hurtful theory which God is not responsible for and which the Word of God does not teach. We appeal to him and pray for him earnestly and assure him that the time and effort required in this article have gone into the effort to reach him with the hope that he knows and realizes that if not for our interest in him and the salvation of his soul and our regard for the truth of God the effort would certainly not have been made. This we expect and hope for and pray may be our only reward.