Bible Authority for Bible College
Glenn B. Ramsey

The Bible teaches, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Col. 3:17). Jesus said that all power (authority) in heaven and earth had been given to Him (Matt. 28:18). To do anything "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is to do it by His authority. Since God speaks to us in these last days through His Son (Heb. 1:2), the word of the Lord must authorize all that we do - individually or collectively.

After Jesus told His disciples "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," He continued by commanding, "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 all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:18-20). This passage authorizes the disciples of Jesus to baptize and teach those things He has commanded. This may be done by one Christian according to God's requirements, two Christians, or many Christians who work together in this effort. One may then be supported by a congregation or congregations of the Lord's church while teaching the way of God. In similar fashion, two Christians or many Christians may work in this same effort and be supported by other Christians or congregations. The result of one Christian would be the work of a Bible school or Bible college conducted by one individual. The result of two or more Christians so teaching would result in what we describe as a Bible College or Bible School of Instruction.

It should be noted that Paul taught for about two years in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9-10). The result was that all Asia heard the Word! Now, we do not know what else was taught in Tyrannus' school, but we know what Paul taught! He taught the Word of the Lord! This teaching was done from Tyrannus' school in Ephesus. Any Christian man who has the ability and a similar opportunity can follow Paul's example here.

Paul later would tell Timothy, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (II Tim. 2:2). Could Timothy do this by preaching to a congregation of the Lord's Church? Of course, he could. Could he do this in a classroom with many individuals present? Of course, he could. The urgent need was to see that the Gospel was taught to men who were faithful to teach it to others. This would perpetuate the message to each generation. Such is the obligation of Christians today.

Since the church of Christ is the pillar and ground of the truth, it will support all scriptural efforts to preach the Gospel to the whole world. Just as Paul did in Ephesus, so faithful men anywhere in the world may use facilities and opportunities to impart the truth of the Gospel to all who will study and believe. Just as God was pleased with Paul in this work at Ephesus so God's people who are faithful are pleased when faithful men teach the gospel to others who will learn in Bible colleges today.

Editorial

We all live under authority, and this has been true since we came into this world. We will live under authority until the day we die. There is not a person on earth but that he or she is under some kind of authority. For the greater part mankind seems to do quite well living under different kinds of authority.

From the time of Adam and Eve until the present time man seems to have problems with submitting to God and letting His authority rule and regulate him. The masses do not want to listen to God at all, and those who claim to follow Jehovah want to be selective in their obedience to Him. Religious obedience and authority often come from different sources. Sometimes it comes from mother and father. But this will not work when it comes to acceptance with God (Matt. 10:35-39). Sometimes religious practice and authority comes from the masses. But the Lord Jesus Christ condemns such (Matt. 7:13-14). Sometimes people use what the preacher says instead of a "thus saith the Lord." But Paul warns about this kind of thing in Galatians 1:6-9.

It is often the case that a Bible school teacher will be used for doing that which the Bible does not authorize. But God warns about this kind of thing in I John 4:1. Sometimes an elder or elders are used for a certain unscriptural practice in religion. But Paul warned in Acts 20:28-31 that some would arise from among the elders who would be unscriptural in practice and teaching. Being head strong and hard-hearted is sometimes the reason for doing unbiblical things. This can be seen from III John 9-10. Some seem to think that being sincere about a matter makes it right. But this cannot be so since the Bible warns against such (Prov. 14:12; Acts 23:1-2). It is often the case that the size of a congregation is used for authority in religion. If this is the way that should be pursued, then all of us need to join the Islamic religion since there are one billion and two hundred million in this group. Sardis had a few that had not defiled themselves in the service of Satan (Rev. 3:4). On and on we might go with false authority in religion.

One of the main troubles in the church of Christ today is so many do not want to pay the price in order to follow the truth. Times have not changed, and Paul's statement to young Timothy is still true: "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (II Tim. 3:12). Countless numbers of God's servants have suffered for His sake in every generation, and it shall be forever so (Matt. 10:22). Many have left God's authoritative Bible but are still claiming to be faithful servants of Jesus Christ. Many members are out in left field primarily because of ignorance of the Bible; thus, a failure to respect and follow it and not a few preachers have apostatized for one reason or another.

In talking to those gone astray, brethren, it does not take long to find out that they have little respect for the Bible and what it teaches. Tongue speaking and miracles do not bother some of them. Knowingly fellowshipping false teachers and false doctrine does not raise one small concern with many. Many of the older preachers seem not to be so mature in the gospel in reviewing their lives over against Bible teaching. Some have rejected Bible authority because they might lose a dear friend or a speaking engagement. The church of Christ is filled with preachers with little or no courage. They have taken the old denominational way out by staying as quiet as mummies or by using the sour grape argument - sour grapes when one cannot reach them.

The older preachers that have sold out to false teachers are headed for a dead end. Most of them have tried to please the liberals as far as they can and at the same time stay in the good graces of those who will tolerate them. I could call some names, but I am going to avoid this for this article. What is the end toward which these preachers are headed? They are getting old and the brotherhood of younger men is slowly but surely turning their back on them and in a short time this will be complete. But these men are too conservative for the liberals and thus they will be rejected by them. The only place they will have to turn is to the faithful few on which they have turned their backs in compromise of the truth. Will they be received back? I suppose so since many of the antis returned and were received.

The only faithful Bible college left among the churches of Christ that has not bowed their knee to liberalism and anti-ism is Tennessee Bible College. I stand ready to defend this in open or private discussion with any college or university president today. We are ready to meet anyone on their faculty or staff as well. There is already a move that we can see under way to prove this to be so. Business is picking up, and for this we thank God and take on courage. The Bible is truly the word of God, and those who respect and follow it will be saved, but those who reject its divine authority and do as they please will be lost. Thank God for the Bible!
—Malcolm L. Hill, Editor

Bible Authority for Orphan and Widow Care
David S. Hill

The Lord taught by action and example that His religion was and is to be a second mile religion (Matt 5:41). Christianity is a religion of serving others and especially those who are in need. It is a religion that produces service to others even considered our enemies (Luke 10:30-37; Matt. 5:43-48). Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was a man of compassion who could be and is touched with the infirmities of man (Heb. 4:15). He felt deeply for the poor and the downtrodden and left a great example of true compassion and service for us to follow.

One group that always seems to suffer even in today's affluence is the orphan. Society has thrown millions of dollars at the problem, yet orphaned children are always listed as the poorest of the poor. The Lord's people have offered help in some places, but I am afraid most would admit to falling woefully short of true service to those children left without parents.

Widows, while not so prevalently poor as orphans, are sometimes in great need. I am not referring to the widow who has been left with a good retirement plan and life insurance policy with surviving children and grandchildren available to help her, but I am referring to a widow indeed (I Tim. 5:5). Widows who are left without any help in this world are widows who need the consideration and service of the Lord's people.

Pure religion is said to be seen by the service one gives to both of the before-mentioned groups of people (James 1:27). When the inspired writer said "to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction," he was not instructing Christians to just go by the house of such individuals once or twice a year and say "hi". Rather, the clear meaning is to visit to the needs of these unfortunate individuals. Do you recall one of the very first problems, which faced the first century Christians, was the care of the Grecian widows (Acts 6:1-6)? Seven devout men were placed over their care. I do believe that this is a model of the importance of this area of service. These godly men were to minister to the needs of the widows. It was a problem of the early church, and the church dealt with it.

How did they address the needs of the poor and downtrodden in the first century church? Well, in addition to the example just cited, they could have helped in any number of ways because the prevailing teaching was to "do good to all especially those of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). Could they provide food for the orphans and widows in their affliction? Sure they could. Would it be possible to take them into their homes and serve their needs? Surely! Was it sinful for just one individual to serve the needs of a widow or orphan? I know of no one who would say that would be wrong. Could a group of individuals serve their needs possibly by providing a house or apartment for them? Most certainly! Where are the specifics given for this model of service? There are neither specifics nor a "thus saith the Lord" for day-to-day service to be rendered; yet, the principal is put before all to serve the needs of the widow and orphan.

Perhaps the church could have a pie supper to raise funds for their care? No, the church was and is to raise funds through freewill offerings on the first day of the week (I Cor. 16:1-2). Could the church take money out of its treasury and give it to individuals to care for these people? I know of no forbidding passage. Could the church or group of churches support a group of people providing this care? What would forbid such action? The teaching is clear - "care for the fatherless and widows in their affliction." How one does this is a matter of opinion, but it is to be done. How the church does this must also fall under the same "matter of opinion."

Examine this comparison: The New Testament church worshipped on the first day of the week (Acts 2; Acts 20:7). Where did they worship? Well, in Acts 20 they were worshipping in an upper room. Did the church own it? Probably not. Could they have rented or leased it? Possibly. Then where would one go to authorize a church building owned by brethren purchased out of the treasury? No such command or example is given in the New Testament, but the clear teaching is to worship on the first day of the week. It is therefore a matter of opinion as to what facilitates the activity best. As it is often said to be "expedient" (John 11:50; I Cor. 6:12;10:23), it is simply to do what is best or most appropriate to the activity. This boils down to a matter of opinion. Most everyone takes money from the treasury to buy bricks and mortar, fertilizer, electricity, toilets, paint, trees, shrubs, signs, books, etc. Most congregations in the U.S. own their own building and property because it provides consistency and permanence for worship as God commanded (Heb. 10:25). Who could forbid the use of the money of the church treasury for best care of the orphans and widows?

Christians are to provide care for the widow and the orphan both individually and collectively as the case may be, and we are to do so as is expedient and in keeping with the will of God. The principal is clear; the manner is in the realm of judgment and expedience. Are you practicing pure religion?

Bible Authority for Church Building Furnishings
Ronald D. Gilbert

Truly, Bible authority is one of the most important and fundamental issues concerning Bible study (Col. 3:17; I Pet 4:11). Careful students of the word of God understand the Bible authorizes in four ways: approved example, direct statement, expediency, and implication.

I have observed over the years that some brethren use some of the above four points concerning Bible authority as they are convenient to their position. There are two opposite extremes that deny Bible authority. First, anti-ism denies Bible authority by binding where God has not bound. Secondly, liberalism denies Bible authority by loosing where God has bound. Some today do not like the use of "labels" such as "anti" or "liberal." However, the Bible uses terms to identify people and problems: Matthew 7:15, false prophets; Titus 1:9, vain talkers, unruly; Titus 3:10, heretic. What about the terms "faithful" and "unfaithful"?

Some brethren operate as if the Bible only authorizes by command or example. They will say, "Where is the command or example where the early church had kitchens in the church, or supported orphan homes, or had Bible classes?" They would then argue that since there is no command or example, such things are not authorized. But when you ask them where is the Bible authority for a church building, they say "That is authorized by expediency." They argue that the command to assemble necessitates a place to assemble. That is correct! However, they can see and understand that expediency authorizes a church building but fail to see how expediency can authorize other things as well. If expediency authorizes a church building, why does it not also authorize lights in that building, a P.A. system, pews, bathrooms, a water fountain, a nursery for small children, and if the brethren choose, a kitchen area to eat and enjoy fellowship together? Again, some brethren will say no, a kitchen is not authorized because there is no command or example to have a kitchen. They can get bathrooms and water fountains authorized by expediency in their minds, but not a kitchen.

We received an e-mail on our web-page for Bible questions from a man who was wanting to know if the churches we preached for used song books. He wanted book, chapter, and verse for our authority to use song books in worship. He argued that the early church did not have them, so to use song books in worship was to add to the worship. In answering this man's objection, I asked him if where he attended services they met in a church building and if they had a P.A. system and electric lights, bathrooms and a water fountain. He said yes, they did. I asked where was his authority for such. He informed me they were authorized by expediency because we are commanded to assemble. Now think about it brethren: he can find authority for church buildings, P.A. systems, bathrooms and water fountains, but not song books. That, he says, is an addition, therefore, sinful.

It seems somewhat odd that some brethren understand that the Bible authorizes in ways other than command and example in some areas, but not in others. There is Bible authority for church buildings and church building furnishings; that authority came through expediency.

Bible Authority for Church Buildings
Kerry Duke

We are obligated by Scripture to assemble together for worship (Heb. 10:25). The authority for having a church building flows from the obligation itself. The duty to assemble for worship requires a place to worship. Authority for a church building is inherent in the obligation to assemble. If we assemble, we must assemble somewhere. We must have a space of ground large enough to accommodate the assembly and shelter sufficient to protect us from the weather. If we cannot fulfill the duty to assemble for worship without having a place to worship, then a place of worship is as necessary and as authorized as the worship assembly itself. The obligation to assemble for worship implies having a place to assemble. A place of worship is a necessity, not a mere convenience; its authorization is contained in the obligation to worship. When God gives an obligation which by its very nature implies the necessity of a humanly-decided manner of carrying out that obligation, but He does not specify the manner in which it is carried out, then that manner is authorized by God as long as it does not violate any biblical teaching. That manner of carrying out the obligation is an expedient and is authorized by God. Now an expedient matter has both a necessary and optional aspect. It is necessary in that the divine obligation must be carried out in some manner; it is optional in that the manner itself is a matter of human device. To say that a place for worship is implied by the obligation to assemble for worship is to say that a place is necessitated, required, or demanded by the obligation. This is the strict sense of the word imply. It means that whatever is said to follow must follow. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the command to sing implies the authority to play an instrument, since playing an instrument is not necessary for singing. But it is correct to say that God's command to Noah to build the ark implied the authority to use tools, since tools were essential to its building. It is not correct to say that the statement that Lydia "was baptized, and her household" (Acts 16:15) implies that infants were baptized, since one can have a household without having infants. But it is correct to say that the command to "Go" (Mark 16:15) implies a way of going.

Paul rebuked the Corinthians, asking, "Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" (I Cor. 11:22). This question implies that they assembled at a certain place and that this place was somewhere other than their houses. The same implication follows from I Corinthians 11:34: "And if any man hunger, let him eat at home." The setting of this chapter is the worship assembly. The Corinthian congregation had "come together into one place" (v. 20). The problem was not where they were eating but when. They were eating a common meal during worship. When Paul says, "Let him eat at home," he certainly is not giving an exclusive pattern about where to eat. His words do not mean we are forbidden to eat at a restaurant; Paul is simply referring to what normally or generally occurs. Paul does not mean that we cannot ever eat in a church building, but that if our purpose for assembling at the building is to turn the Lord's Supper into a common meal, we need to eat somewhere else.

A church building is a place where we meet to reverence and worship God, but it is not a holy place in itself. We need to be consistent about this aspect of church buildings. Restrooms are part of church buildings today in America, but church buildings in some countries have no restrooms. Most American church buildings have a vestibule, while those in some parts of the world do not. Are these parts of the church building authorized? Can money from the church treasury be used scripturally to pay for such things? I know of no one who would argue that it is unscriptural to pay to build such. But some believe it is sinful to eat in the church building. How can using a restroom in a church building be right and eating in the church building be wrong? How can it be scriptural to build a room (vestibule) for people to visit in (with all the laughing and joking we do there) and yet be unscriptural to have a room for the same people to eat it? The last time I posed these questions to two fellows who were arguing that eating in a church building was sinful, one of them replied that his congregation had restrooms because the state required them in church buildings. So, according to him, a state requirement makes a thing right which is in itself wrong! If a church chooses not to have a kitchen in their building, that is their right. But to call the practice sinful is a different matter, and those who do so are hopelessly inconsistent.

The price paid for a church building is often a matter of contention. But church buildings in this country that are modest by our standards would be extravagant in some cultures. How much is spent on a church building is a matter of stewardship, and congregations need to be as wise as possible in making this decision. But members need to be careful about making statements such as, "I think it is wrong to spend that much money on a church building." Unless this person can prove from the Bible how much money can be spent on a church building, then he should be content to voice his concern, but not call the decision wrong. We should remember that we are to be stewards of our money in our homes as well. The person who is dogmatic about how much money (and no more) may be rightly spent on a church building may need to ask himself whether or not he has spent too much on his car, house, or other belongings. Let us encourage and use wisdom in the Lord's cause, but let us do so using good sense and a spirit of fairness.

FHU-How Sad, How Sad
Malcolm L. Hill

In the spring of 1954 a man by the name of W.A. Bradfield came to Livingston Academy to recruit students for Freed-Hardeman College. I did not know much about Freed-Hardeman at the time, but I did know that I wanted to preach the gospel. I talked with different ones about the school, and they told me if I was going to be a preacher I needed to attend Freed-Hardeman. I was told, "They will make a Bible preacher out of you." So I decided to go there.

In due time I met the entire faculty at Freed-Hardeman. I got to know very well Brothers H. A. Dixon, C. P. Roland, E. Claude Gardner, Frank VanDyke, W. A. Bradfield, W. Claude Hall, G. K. Wallace, and Olan Hicks. These were some of the best men I have ever known on this earth. They loved and respected the Bible and taught their students to do the same. They hated the false doctrines of denominationalism and the false teaching within the church of Christ. They not only stood for the truth itself but taught us to do the same.

The president has much to do with an institution of higher learning, and especially is this so when it comes to private schools. Brother H.A. Dixon was one of the very best men I have ever met. He was a scholar in the true sense of the word and unmovable when it came to Bible doctrine. He forbade us to clap our hands when the college chorus sang psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. How different it is today. Hand clapping takes place in the chapel services from time to time. Not only is this so, but there are faculty members at Freed-Hardeman University at the present who teach that hand clapping is the same as saying "amen." David Lipe and Ralph Gilmore are two of those who believe such.

Anti-ism was going strong during the 1950s. The antis tried to make their way in at Freed-Hardeman in those days. Brother Dixon, along with the faculty of that time, would have nothing to do with this movement. They did more than their share to fight the battle against anti-ism in those days. Extreme anti-ism showed up on the campus at FHC from time to time and Brother H. A. Dixon took the lead in opposing this church-wrecking doctrine and was strongly supported by his faculty and staff. It got so bad one year during the annual lectureship that Brother Dixon had to appeal to the civil law in order to have peace on the campus. It was not of his making, but he knew he had to attend to it and that he did in a Christ-like sort of way.

But what about the president of Freed-Hardeman University today? He not only runs with the liberals but invites them to come on the campus to speak to the students. Just a few years back they had F. LaGard Smith to come to the campus to speak. They have Basil Overton to come often and speak to the students, and Brother Overton has appeared with many liberals on programs at Heritage Christian University. They have invited Marlin Connelly, a Nashville Jubilee speaker, to speak at the Freed-Hardeman Lectures. They invited Don McLaughlin to speak to the students just a few years back, and he is as liberal as Rubel Shelly. They not only invite John Dale to speak to the student body from time to time, but he has been placed on the Board of Trustees of Freed-Hardeman University. Brother Dale has fellowshipped the Roman Catholic Church in Murray, Kentucky. Jack P. Lewis is a regular speaker at the FHU annual lectureship, and he teaches that elders virtually have no power over the church at all. If you question the above statement, get his book and read it. They have on their lectures in 2003 at least 16 people who have knowingly and intentionally fellowshipped the liberal crowd without registering open opposition to these people. Brother H. A. Dixon and the faculty in the 1950s would never have thought of going along with such activity as is going on at Freed-Hardeman University at the present, and thousands living today know this to be the truth.

During the years of Brother Dixon's presidency at Freed-Hardeman the liberals did not feel at home when on the campus nor did the antis. When one attended the lectures at Freed-Hardeman in those years, he knew who he was going to hear and what he was going to hear. Nowadays we do not know who nor what might take place. The Freed-Hardeman Lectures used to be the place where the faithful would go to be built up in the most holy faith. Now days it is a bastion for liberals and fence straddlers in most cases. Just about anything and every kind is there and is used.

Freed-Hardeman has been for some time and still is a thorn in the body of Christ. The University has helped the liberal agenda perhaps more than any other school among us of higher learning. Some are quick to ask, how can this be so? To which I am ready to give my reply. Freed-Hardeman has several each year on their lectureship program who teach the truth on whatever they deal with except the theme and the practice of Christian fellowship. Such men are mixed and mingled with those on the lectureship program who are either off on doctrinal points or they practice open fellowship. Now what do we mean by open fellowship? We mean that some fellowship whoever they please whenever they please regardless of what the Bible says or teaches. Whenever men fellowship false doctrine or fellowship those who fellowship false doctrine when they know such to be the case and a matter of fact without openly opposing such, they sin (II John 9-11; Eph. 5:11; Rom. 16:17-18). Freed-Hardeman has in days gone by and still has those on their lectureship programs and other religious events who are liberal or who lean towards liberalism. In addition to such they have some men on their religious programs who would not teach false doctrine in word, but they are short on teaching and practicing Christian fellowship. This confuses many in our brotherhood who do not know better. Freed-Hardeman does the same thing that J.W. McGarvey did when he tried to please both sides relative to instrumental music in worship to God. Brother McGarvey said, "it won't work" and we still say it will not work.

Let me give you a few examples of what is going on at Freed-Hardeman. Alan Highers would not directly fellowship Don McLaughlin of Atlanta, Georgia, but he will appear at Freed-Hardeman on programs and Brother Alan knows that Freed-Hardeman has used McLaughlin for a religious activity. McLaughlin is just as bad as Rubel Shelly. William Woodson would not appear on a program with Rubel Shelly but will appear on programs with those who have fellowshipped Rubel Shelly who are on the Freed-Hardeman lectures. Freed-Hardeman uses Basil Overton and one cannot get further out in left field when it comes to Christian fellowship than Overton has as he has worked for years for Heritage Christian University (formerly International Bible College). The worst enemies the Lord can have are those who cause His church to commit spiritual adultery (Rev. 2:20-21). This weakens the body of Christ considerably. When men straddle the fence quietly and unbeknowingly to innocent and unsuspecting brethren, it does great damage to faithful preachers and teachers of God's holy Word. Such weakens the impact of the messenger of God. We can cite case after case of this kind at Freed-Hardeman in the past 20 years, and it gets worse day by day.

Freed-Hardeman is the last Trojan horse or golden calf in the church today. Many refuse to acknowledge where she used to be and where she is now. I suppose some do not care enough to know or find out. There are those who are afraid to speak out because they have their own persons in mind and what might happen to them if they did open up and say what they know. The majority attracted to Freed-Hardeman today are the liberals and the fence straddlers. It is a half-baked school with a done side and a raw side. One side is burnt and blackened and the other side is raw. At the present it has its hot side toward earth and its cold side toward heaven. It is trying to be neither for nor against the cause of Christ. On the one hand it says yea, yea and on the other it says nay, nay. It is the home for those who dream about what it used to be but refuse to see what it really is at the present.

If Brother Hardeman were alive today, his counsel would not be heeded. If Brother Dixon were alive today, his stand would be pushed aside. We hear much talk about Freed-Hardeman University, but let us all understand that talk is cheap. There are some still on the earth that would like to see the meat of repentance come from Freed-Hardeman, and then they will believe. The judgment day is coming for sure and then God will take care of the business at hand. Freed-Hardeman University may dust the pictures of the great men of God from time to time and say, "Oh that they were still alive and with us" but their deeds of the present tell us the story of where they stand.