Introduction
The fall has had a terrible effect upon
man—not only physically
(in that he is now subject to death and its effects) but
morally and
spiritually as well.
Morally, man is clearly
defective. By virtue of becoming a sinner, the machinery of his
moral being has, so to speak, been thrown out of gear. It may still
work after a fashion (he is not without a conscience) but only in a
flawed and imperfect way—hence the wide differences in attitude
among men to with respect to morals. However, the effect upon the
spiritual aspect of man,
by reason of its greater delicacy and sensitiveness, has been
absolutely disastrous. A cracked water–pipe may in measure serve its
purpose, but no electricity will pass along a broken wire. Thus in
the spiritual sphere man, though naturally a religious being, (in
contrast to the lower creation), is
absolutely dependent upon a divine
revelation. In fact, nothing relating to man should be
regarded with so much distrust as his religion, despite the fact
that this is precisely the sphere where his self–satisfaction most
prevails. Thus every one is convinced that all religions are wrong
except one—the exception being, of course, the particular one with
which he is associated!
A Revelation
from God
Now since man belongs to a fallen race, and as it
is in the spiritual sphere that the effects of the catastrophe are
most felt, he ought to be always ready to test his religious tenets
by whatever standard is the true one. Of course men may differ as to
the standard, and as to how the testing process should be carried
out, but all thoughtful persons will agree on the soundness of this
principle.
So as Christians, and believers in the one true
God, what guarantee do we have that what we believe is actually
true? To many in Christendom, even the posing of this question will
seem scandalous and profane. They will set themselves to angrily
shout it down, just as the worshippers of Artemis did with what they
deemed to be heretical (see Acts 19: 34). Such a reaction is
indicative of a blind faith in which the intellectual faculty is wilfully
disengaged. In real faith,
the mind is enlightened.
How is this brought about? By the Holy Spirit acting upon the soul
through means of the Word of God. Thus in new birth, the one born
again is not only born of Spirit but of water—water being a figure
of the Word of God (see John 3: 5; Eph. 5: 26; James 1: 18; 1 Pet.
1: 23). I
believe, because God
has
spoken to me, in His
Word.
Now there are many so–called ‘holy’ books in
this world, but the volume to which the Son of God habitually turned
to as the standard of truth was the OT. He asked the Jews “What is
written in the law?” (Luke 10: 26) and “Have ye never read in the
scriptures?” (Matt. 21: 42), and three times he dismissed the attack
of the Devil with the words “It is written” (Matt. 4: 4, 7, 10).
He never referred anyone to any other
book. Thus it is not possible to diminish in any way the unique
position of the Scriptures, without at the same time bringing into
question the uniqueness of Christ’s Person. If He was who He said He
was, then Scripture occupies the place that He gave it. The two
stand or fall together.
Thus the Bible is the divine revelation—the
means by which we
know what God has
said, and hence that Christianity is true. Take the Bible away, and
you are left with the mere thoughts, reasonings and feelings of men
as to the what and how of religion. It may be dressed up in what
looks like Christian garb, but without the revelation it can only be
worthless mysticism. In genuine Christianity, we
know, because God has
told us, and He has told us in
His Word. We are not left
with vague uncertainties—the Bible is certain and tangible.
Departure
In the early history of the Assembly, we find the
first Christians persevering “in the teaching and fellowship of the
apostles” (Acts 2: 42). The OT revelation had been completed some
four centuries earlier in the prophet Malachi, and the NT revelation
was then being “revealed to his holy apostles and prophets” (Eph. 3:
5). Through the ministry of the apostle Paul, that final revelation
was completed (see Col. 1: 25). Of course this does not mean that
the Spirit does not speak today, but it is always with reference to
the revelation. The Word and the Spirit, if I may put it this way,
always go together.
Now of course many centuries have passed since
the days of the apostles and the question naturally arises as to how
far Christians have departed from “the faith once delivered to the
saints” (Jude v3). With very few exceptions, most who profess
themselves Christians will reply that the measure of this must be
Scripture, pointing us back to the Bible, and probably the NT in
particular. Yet this unanimity is merely apparent not real. Many
will object to a direct appeal to the Scriptures. Oh yes they
believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but their interpretation
and understanding of it must be governed by the traditions and
customs of Christendom, and filtered through the thoughts and
opinions of respected authorities. Is this attitude the exclusive
preserve of the more superstitious wing of Christendom? No. You will
find it in Protestantism, you will find it in Evangelicalism, you
will find it everywhere. Indeed, it is
hardly difficult to find persons who are very sound as to what they
believe and practise, both individually and ecclesiastically, but
with whom, in reality, the authority of the Scriptures have been
diminished, whether unwittingly or not.
How is this brought about? By very subtle
means. Let us look at four things that men set great store by, yet
which the enemy of souls has craftily used to undermine the
authority of God’s holy Word:
Customs,
Traditions,
Intermediaries and
Conditions. What I
mean by these will become clearer as we proceed.
Customs
A
custom is simply a common
way of doing something, and there are many among Christians.
Sometimes these are firmly based on Scripture but, more often than
not, the connection is much looser, and in many cases they have
arisen simply because it ‘seemed good’ to the brethren. Many saints,
for example, insist on having a white cloth on the communion table.
There is nothing wrong in this, and no reason for changing the
practice, but the Scriptures mention neither a cloth nor its colour.
Customs have no authority in themselves—the
only authority they carry (if at all) is that which is derived from
the Scriptures. The less they are based on Scripture then the less
the authority they have. Of course, it is very easy to blur the
distinction between custom and what is definitely NT practice, such
that the former is invested with all the weight of the latter. To
hear some people talk, it is very clear that they regard the local
company with whom they gather as being an exact replica of what
pertained in NT times. This kind of attitude is plain silly. As
Christians, we depend entirely on what God reveals to us by His
Spirit in His Word—and He has not seen fit to give us every feature
of Assembly practice in NT times. He has given us
enough to walk
pleasing in His sight, but it would be presumptuous to be dogmatic
about details on which Scripture is silent. Those who are truly
spiritual will be the first to admit that much of what they do is
merely customary—which while
commending itself to the conscience as
being a good course of action, has, in reality, no explicit
authority from the Word.
Traditions
Customs that are longstanding in nature are
probably better termed
traditions—something
that has been handed down—and
it is here that Christians frequently run into more serious
problems. By the very fact that traditions have the prestige of age
attached to them, they assume greater weight in the mind than
something which was only taken up yesterday. The test for both
however is the same:
What does the Word of God say?
The scribes and Pharisees were great ones for traditions. In Matthew
15 they criticised the disciples for transgressing “what has been
delivered by the ancients” (v2) in the fact that they did not wash
their hands when they ate bread. The Lord is withering in His
response: “Why do ye also
transgress the commandment of God on account of your traditional
teaching?
For God commanded saying, Honour father
and mother; and, He that speaks ill of father or mother, let him die
the death. But ye say,
Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift,
whatsoever [it be] by which [received] from me thou wouldest be
profited: and he shall in no wise honour his father or his mother;
and ye have made void the commandment of God on account of your
traditional teaching” (vs 3–6). He takes them up on their own
ground: they had made a stand on the traditions of the elders; He
demonstrates that those traditions had nullified the Word of God.
Traditions are thus exposed as being of
no relevance when it comes to matters to which a soul should
take heed. What matters is what God has commanded. There is an
intended contrast between v4 “For
God commanded”, and
v9, “teaching [as] teachings commandments of
men” (my emphasis).
Of course some will say that the persons the
Lord had before Him were unregenerate Jews, and that is very true,
but it would be a foolish mistake to think that genuine believers
are immune from the obstinate grip of tradition. It is, for example,
traditional for many believers to have regular rounds of meetings at
which selected brethren are invited to speak. Such meetings have (in
the past) proved very useful for the edification of the saints, and
they surely continue to be so, but the fact that something is
profitable does not make it Scriptural. In Rom. 12, the teacher is
to occupy himself in teaching, and the exhorter in exhortation (see
vs. 7, 8). There is no sense in Scripture in which he is to wait
until he is
invited—it is his
responsibility to exercise his gift. Again, take the preaching of
the Gospel. What is the testimony of Scripture? “How shall they
preach unless they have been sent?” (Rom. 10: 15). Thus a speaker
goes because he is
sent, not because he
is
invited. Nor can the force of this be evaded by making out that
invitation and sending are the same thing. Look at the OT
Prophets—most were sent, but few invited. If this fact is to be
dismissed by saying that the Jews were in a bad state, and the
Church is something different, then why does Paul speak of a time
when professing Christians “will not bear sound teaching; but
according to their own lusts will heap up to themselves teachers,
having an itching ear” (2 Tim. 4:
3)? Such a state is
facilitated by
brethren having an exclusive and quasi–clerical group from which
speakers are selected. The responsibility of the company is not
invitation, but ensuring that their arrangements are such that the
Word of God can come to them, irrespective of the fact whether it is
pleasing to their ears or not. As for the preaching the Gospel, well
that is not actually the responsibility of the company at all!
Intermediaries
In the well–known incident of the woman at the
well, the woman went away into the city and told the men “Come, see
a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?”
(John 4: 29). As a result, “many of the Samaritans of that city
believed on him because of the word of the woman who bore witness”
(v39). However, when they were brought into actual contact with the
Lord Himself, they said to the woman “[It is] no longer on account
of thy saying that we believe, for we have heard him ourselves, and
we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world” (v42). This
little story illustrates the mark of all those who are truly acting
as ministers of blessing under God’s hand. The woman gives testimony
to Christ and the men believe on Him
through her. At this
point the intermediary is of some importance. But things must not
stop there: the minister is only a means to an end. That end is when
the men are brought into direct contact with the Lord themselves at
which point the intermediary
ceases to be of importance.
What is the case with the One who is the
living Word is also the case with that which is the written Word.
Thus just as the objective of a true minister is not to gather a
flock to himself but to bring his hearers into obedience to Christ,
so he does not wish to bring them to rest upon what
he says, but to lead
them to a place where they are resting for themselves upon what the
Scriptures say. Ministry
that does not lead to this result is fundamentally defective and
likely to produce a second–hand faith—one that appears healthy
enough when things are going well, but whose shallowness is exposed
in the trials of life. We need the Scriptures to build us up in our
most holy faith otherwise we may find ourselves “always learning,
and never able to come to [the] knowledge of [the] truth” (2 Tim. 3:
7).
Sadly, this state of things is more prevalent
than might be supposed. Speak to Christians and you will find that
many believe things, not because they are in the Bible, but because
they have read them in some respected book or heard them said by one
whom they hold in high esteem. They may not even be able to point
you to any relevant Scripture references, but even when they can,
they are often incapable of providing a satisfactory exposition
themselves, merely parroting what they have got from others. Mr
so–and–so saw it that way so it must be right! If you present
Scriptures to them which appear to conflict with what they say, then
they may be remarkably reticent to let go of what they believe as
true. For them, authority rests not exactly in the Scriptures as
such, but in the ‘approved’ exposition of it. In an attempt to rebut
what I am saying, some will turn you to Acts 8 and what the
Ethiopian eunuch said as to his inability to understand the Word of
God: “How should I then be able unless some one guide me?” (v31).
However, these overlook the fact that the eunuch was not yet a
believer. No Christian should allow anyone to come between himself
and the Word of God. As for the Christian teacher, the thrust of his
ministry should not be to make his hearers (or readers) dependent
upon himself, but to bring them into a Berean state of mind
“receiving the word with all readiness of mind, daily searching the
scriptures if these things were so” (Acts 17: 11).
Conditions
Anybody ministering the Word among the saints
ought to “speak—as oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4: 11)—that is, as a
mouth–piece for the Holy Spirit. In connection with this, it has
been said that since the assembly is God’s temple or dwelling place
today (see 1 Cor. 3: 16, 17), then it follows that ministry
delivered there (God being present) is invested with an authority
that is lacking elsewhere. This appears to be a very plausible
argument, and indeed the writer has great sympathy with it—at least
in the sense that when the saints are gathered together under the
right conditions, the ministry delivered is likely to be of a high
calibre, and able to shed a good deal of light on the understanding
of Scripture. Just as the OT saint would go up to Jerusalem to
inquire of God in his temple (see Ps. 27: 4), so modern–day saints
will find a unique help when assembled together under the hand of
the Lord.
However,
ministry has no authority of
itself. Wherever it is delivered, and under whatever
conditions, it is only authoritative in so far as it is in keeping
with Scripture. The authority of ministry of the Word is the Word
itself. Of course, ministry delivered in spiritual conditions is
likely to be in accord with Scripture, but it is perverse when
saints are not allowed to question whether the ministry is
Scriptural simply because it is said to have been delivered under
so–called ‘temple conditions’! The parallel between that kind of
situation and the Pope speaking
ex cathedra ought not to
go unnoticed.
There is a very solemn passage in 2 Cor. 11
which speaks of Satan’s ministers as “ministers of righteousness”
(v15)—that is, as operating in the religious sphere. And the fact
is, the more spiritual the company and the more wonderful the
ministry, then the more likely that Satan will infiltrate it with
his own servants, and, being the arch–deceiver that he is, they will
look and sound like the real thing. How are the saints to be
preserved? In the language of the apostle John, they are to “prove
the spirits, if they are of God” (1 John 4: 1). How are they to
prove them? John instructs the saints to compare what
they say, with what
God has said. For us,
the principle is the same. Everything, without exception, is to be
tested by the Bible. Indeed, we ought to be very thankful that God
has given us a very
tangible resource by which even the simplest saint can be sure
that what he hears or reads is according to the truth.
Conclusion
Paul writes to Timothy “that in [the] last
days difficult times shall be there” (2 Tim. 3: 1). Those times have
surely come. All around us we see standards slipping, truth being
abandoned and evil advancing. In such a situation as this, what is
the saint to do? What is his resource, and where is his place of
safety? Is it in customs or traditions?
Is it in following man or his ministry?
No. “As for you let that which ye have heard
from the beginning abide
in you: if what ye have heard
from the beginning
abides in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father” (1
John 2: 24, my emphasis).
