Until one is willing to hear anything God has said on a particular subject, he is disqualified for the study of it. Again, if one is not willing to make changes in his attitude to matters involved in a subject; if he is not ready to give up his old positions, turn right about, should he find himself out of harmony with the Lord’s teaching concerning the matter, he is not qualified for its study. To illustrate: if one who has been sprinkled for baptism is “fixed” and is unwilling to admit that he is wrong on the subject, and to give up sprinkling and take immersion instead, should he find God so leads, his study of the subject will be of little, or no profit.
There is a preparation necessary to the best Bible study, a preparation of heart. Anything that God has said must be good to one. While he should recognize that one speech God may make may be weightier than another, he must not forget that every word of God is just as true as every other word and that he must not prefer one word above another, but must love it all, as God’s word.
To accept one teaching of God, one that I like and already believe, but reject another teaching, just as truly God’s word, is to reject His word; and to reject His word is to reject God.
“Is it essential to salvation?” Lately the foregoing question is the test question. Whether I shall teach a truth or not depends on whether that truth is essential to the salvation of my hearers, I am told. A strange division of God’s truth, essential truth and non-essential truth? Who made this division? Unless there is divine authority authorizing it, I certainly am not ready to be governed by it. Unless God has drawn this line down through His teaching, I have no respect for the line. Who is able to say, unguided by the Lord, what truth is essential? Who would dare to venture to tread on such holy ground?
Some of the truth I hold today, as among the most precious truths I have, is truth that many, no doubt, will be saved without. Does that argue that those who taught it to me should have kept silent, just because some brethren opposed the teaching of it? Shall we find out how little truth will save a soul, and just teach that? Shall we submit to opposition in the teaching of God’s Word that allows only that truth to be taught that the dogmatic and self-righteous may decide shall be taught? Would the Lord have us teach only what a few men, uninspired men, may decide is essential to the salvation of men? It seems to me that a more dangerous position respecting the teaching of God’s word could not be taken. It is the very essence of human creed and every man who subscribes to it subscribes to a human creed. I should as soon think of adopting any other doctrine of men. Our liberty in Christ is involved and the minute we allow such a principle of teaching God’s word to be saddled upon us, that minute we put on a human yoke. Not only is our liberty, blood bought, involved, but our very loyalty to Christ is endangered.
No man is a faithful teacher of the word of the Lord, a safe teacher, who hasn’t the courage to teach men, all men, every truth he may see in God’s word. He must do this to be faithful. Unless the teachers of the church heroically do this, the church cannot advance toward a perfect knowledge in Christ Jesus; yea, unless the church is faithful to the great principle, the greatest, perhaps, of all principles, freedom in the teaching of the word of God, it will lose the truth it has, it will become blind, dogmatic, and self-righteous. The humblest member in a congregation should be made to feel free to teach anything that he believes he has from God’s word. In teaching it he should not be intimidated by the stronger speakers, but brotherly deference and consideration should be shown him. The very hope of the church, its progress and growth in every way depends on this freedom to teach.
Whether that truth is essential or non-essential is not mine to decide. It is none of my business. God decided this long ago. It is His and only His to decide. It is presumption on my part to think about it. When I decide it is a truth from God, my duty is settled. And when my conscience decides it is an opportune time to teach that truth, liberty in Christ allows me to satisfy my conscience in the teaching of it. Even weak members are assured that they are received into the church not for decision of scruples. No “ecclesiasticism” can sit in judgment on the scruples of a conscience that is subject to God. No king, emperor, or Kaiser can say whether I may teach truth I have from God. When I decide it is truth and that it needs to be taught now, that I ought to teach it today, no human authority has a right to hinder me and all faithful hearts should gladly listen to the lesson.
Otherwise what shall we do? Are there wise men among us to whom we must go and have it decided for us as to whether a truth is “essential,” whether it is “important,” whether it is needed now, or whether it is wise to teach it now, or not? Who are these wise men and from whom did they receive their appointment?
Most assuredly it is no little matter to decide when, where, and to whom, a lesson should be taught. And I know well that the lesson is divine, and after I have the conviction that God wants the lesson taught in my day and generation, there are still grave matters to be decided about the teaching of it. Every humble child of God recognizes the burden of deciding when is the best time to teach a lesson. Not only so, but he is open to counsel, yea. he feels the need of advice. But finally, he must decide what, when, and where he will teach.
I remember years ago, I felt heavily a burden in deciding whether in a certain meeting· I should preach a certain sermon or not. I knew it was God’s truth. But would it do good to preach it there? I prayed about it and spent hours of meditation concerning it. All the counsel I got about it was discouragement from preaching it. I kept thinking about it and praying about it and the impression that I should preach it deepened until I felt that I ought to teach that church that lesson at that time. After I reached this state of conscience, there was no other course, in loyalty to God, open to me. Nobody had a right to hinder me from that course. This is so always and everywhere, so long as a conscience is made free under God.
The peace, harmony, and unity of God’s people are sacred to every loyal heart. He that does not love these next to truth itself is un-Christian. He that is not willing and glad to give up anything but conscience for their sake has not the Spirit of Christ.
But he that is so afraid of trouble and division that he is afraid to teach the truth, all the truth he knows God teaches and wants him to teach is unfaithful to God.
Certainly, he should teach in wisdom and caution any lesson that good brethren oppose. He should do it in humbleness and consideration of all who object to the lesson. They in turn should be made free to show the lesson is not Scriptural. They should be kind to him in their refutation of his teaching. As brethren they should reason together, while maintaining among themselves perfect freedom in the teaching: No one should press his teaching upon ethers. —J. N. Armstrong, in Gospel Herald.
John Nelson Armstrong Click on the link to read my article on the life of J N Armstrong. (1870-1944) was the Son-In-Law of James A Harding. He also taught at 6 Christian Colleges and was President of 4 schools, the last being Harding College (now University)