4.03 - THE RECEPTION OF ANY TRUTH DEPENDS UPON OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD IT

THE RECEPTION OF ANY TRUTH DEPENDS UPON OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD IT

There was handed to me tonight, just before I approached the stage, a query, with a special request that it be answered tonight. Nothing pleases me more than to enter into a meeting where all things are favorable for the answering of almost any type of sensible query. The program of this meeting, however, is such as to preclude that procedure. It is possible that I might discuss, during the remaining nights, the very thing about which someone would like to ask. I will read this with a word of comment.

"Does a man see the Holy Spirit when he is born again?" The word "see" is used in two different senses. Not knowing just which the person had in mind when he asked, it would be impossible for me to anticipate the thought about it. If you mean it in the sense of enjoy, I would say yes. Then the latter part: "Have you seen it yet ?" I enjoy his comforting influence and exceeding great and precious promises. In Matthew 13:1-58, we have an account of the Savior’s speaking a series of parables by the Sea of Galilee. He got into a boat, and went out, and there sat while the multitudes stood on the shore. And he spake to them first the parable of the sower, which is so simple that all of us can easily grasp it. And when he had finished the disciples came to him and said this: Master, "why speakest thou unto them in parables?" Now that was unusual—he had not been doing it that way, and they were a little bit surprised and troubled over the method of his procedure. Why speak to them in parables ? "He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hash, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hash. Therefore, speak I to them in parables: because they seeing, see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith: By hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at anytime they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." That is the reading from Matthew 13:10-15.

Now based upon that reading—and I think easily drawn from it—is a proposition that I want to state, and have you study for the time allotted. Our reception of any proposition or truth depends upon the attitude that we assume toward that thing presented. Now if you will get that statement, you have the foundation of the talk tonight. Our reception of any matter, from whatsoever source, depends wholly upon the attitude that we have toward the character who presents it. I hope to make clear to you the development of that principle.

I know that in our social relationships, and the ever-changing characteristics of the same, many of us are unprepared to meet the rapid changes and to endorse the radical things that members have seen come to pass regarding these very things. Our methods of entertainment in social relationships are not always appreciated, not always endorsed—well, why not ? Our attitude and conception of such matters forbid a hearty reception of that which is presented for our consideration. I know good and well that in our political relationships, my prejudices and my partisan Spirit, formulated in years gone by, prevent me from giving full faith and credence to a statement made by any representative of a party with which I am not affiliated. For instance, I am somewhat against dictators. I have not any too much use for Hitler, Mussolini, or any other of that would-be autocratic type. Hence, I am not in very good position to accept anything with full credence that might emanate from such a source. I think anything that Hitler might say, regarding governmental problems, should be taken with the proverbial pinch of salt. Why? Because my attitude toward his method is not good. And there is a prejudice, I grant, which must be removed if I am to walk out wholeheartedly and accept any declaration that he might announce.

I think you could take an old-time, standpat Republican, and it would be very difficult for any representative of the New Deal to put across to that man anything, however true it might be, with full confidence of genuine acceptance. Always there is suspicion that you are trying to put something over; that you have sinister motives back of it; I am afraid of you—I fear that you are not sincere. Now that principle is true regarding individuals. You may have prejudices against some man, or against some place, or some relationship, and however truthful a sentence might be spoken with reference to it, you take it with some degree of caution. For instance, when Philip actually found the Savior, a real fact, and was so elated over that discovery, and ran to tell Nathaniel, "I have found him who is called the Christ"—that did not register. Nathaniel was not prepared to receive that. And his reply was: Surely not. "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" You must be mistaken about it. Now what is the matter with him? "I am just not ready for the reception of a truth of that sort." He had opinions to the contrary. "Why I have been educated—things have been put into my mind—that forbid a hearty acceptance of your statement." May I suggest to you, friends, that a principle like this prevails in matters religious as it does in all things else? Many cannot accept the truth. Why? It is against their former teaching. "I have never heard it after that fashion." They have not been thinking thus of it. Hence, however true and plausible and reasonable it might on the surface appear, "I just know there is something the matter with it somewhere. I cannot receive it." The Savior talked about this same principle when he said (John 7:17), "If any man will to do his will, he shall know the doctrine." It depends a great deal on how you read that. Not if any man will do his will, he shall know the doctrine; that would make the doing of his will in advance of knowledge. But the other is the preparation of heart. Do I have a desire tonight to do God’s will? Am I really hungering and thirsting after heaven’s truth? Am I free from prejudices and a partisan Spirit to that extent that I can say: Lord, speak, and I will hear; command, and I will obey? Let the matter be round or flat, wet or dry, hot or cold—I care nothing about how it may be I simply want God’s word, and to that I attach my hope for eternity. I have got to reach that l point of honesty with myself—perfect candor toward the truth and an attitude favorable to the reception of God’s word, no matter whether it is in harmony with what I have previously understood, or in harmony with my party, or any other interest. If I ever get to heaven, I must first of all reach the point where I have no theory, no ax to grind, no interest in anything except the very truth of God Almighty. Hence, if any man will to do God’s will!

Now I think there are many who would not mind becoming Christians if God would let them dictate the terms on which that should be brought about. I think numbers of people would be perfectly willing to live what they call the Christian life if God would allow them to set up the standard. Plenty of people are willing to worship God if God will let them do as they please and have whatsoever may strike their fancy. There is deception and delusion in all that. It is my firm belief that no man can possibly reach heaven until he gets to the point where he can say, "Lord, here I am, what is my duty? What does the Bible teach? Show me the way—I want God’s truth!" Jesus said if a man gets in that attitude, that position, with reference to truth, that man "shall know the doctrine." I verily believe there are angelic Spirit? to minister unto all such as shall be heirs of salvation. The Ethiopian officer, the secretary of the treasury of Queen Candace’s government, was exactly of that type. He was studying the Bible, wanting to know what the will of the Lord was. And when it was unfolded, then and there, he was ready to obey it. I think Cornelius, at the head of the Italian band, was another. He wanted the truth, and was seeking for it, hungering and thirsting for it, and doing what he could to learn it. God saw to it that he learned the truth and understood the will of the Lord. Christ therefore said, "If any man will to do his will"— what about it?—that man "shall know it"—not may, nor might, nor perhaps, but in the providence of God, the light of truth shall shine round about him and the path of duty will open up clearly before him.

Now let us get back and see if that has any connection with the reading. Jesus had spoken the parable of the sower, and the disciples came and said, "Master, why do you speak to them in parables?" Why not come out and tell it with all directness? Here is the answer: Because "unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," but unto them it "is not given." Now shall I conclude that there is partiality on the part of God and that some represent the very elect who from before the foundation of the world were designated unto eternal life? And of those to whom it is not given to know, we must say they were "non-elect," and regardless of all things, it is impossible for them to receive the truth? That would be foreign to the teaching of the Bible, and a conclusion hastily drawn, and wholly unwarranted. Why was it given unto some to know and not given unto the others? Well, the same thing is true tonight, and that scripture is just as applicable this very hour as it was when spoken on the shore of Galilee.

Study the matter just a minute. To whom was it given to know ? To the disciples. Well, why ? Some months before that, they had bidden good-by to things of this earth and to the material concerns of the world. They had left their respective occupations and had followed after the Savior, sitting at his feet, learning the wonderful lessons, watching the performance of miracles, with mouths, ears, and eyes open, anxious, ready, willing, wanting every word that came from his precious lips. They were studiously seeking the truth. What about them, Lord? Unto them it is given to know! To that very kind it is given tonight.

Well, why is it not given unto the others? You heard me read exactly why. "This people’s heart is waxed"—or become—"gross." "Their ears are dull of hearing, their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Well, what about them? It is not given to that class to know the will of the Lord. They shut their eyes and stopped their ears and barred the door of their hearts— hear it!—a man of that kind cannot learn—it is impossible for that man ever to learn the truth. Why? He does not want the truth. He will not have teaching. He will not sit and hear and weigh honestly what might be said. He is opposed to the proposition. He closes his eyes and ears and heart for fear he might learn something which he does not want to know. Therefore, unto that man, Christ says, it is not given to know.

Now, then, that puts the responsibility, friends, upon every individual present. Do I tonight, solemnly and seriously, personally and individually, want to go to heaven when I die? No one on earth can answer that but me. Do I want to know what the will of the Lord is? Or am I such a partisan that I want my party to prevail, to triumph regardless? Do I gloat? "I expect to win out! I will down the other fellow!" Now a man of that sentiment is certain to go to hell. Do I want God’s will to prevail, even though it might go contrary to my opinion? I must reach that point where God’s will is supreme if heaven is ever mine in prospect to share, and I pray God tonight that each one may be able to say, "Lord, I am ready to give up all preconceptions; I am ready to forget any prejudices or former ideas; I want to come with open, honest frankness and say, ’Lord, speak; let me hear thy truth; command, I will obey,’ and I will not stop to figure out why nor wherefore nor raise the point, ’Will not something else do, and cannot I get by with this?’ "

Now then, with that as a setting, I just want to ask you some things tonight, for personal investigation. Friends, what is your attitude toward this book? First, with reference to its inspiration. Do you believe that this book is inspired of God ? Do you believe this Bible was by inspiration given? Are you sold on the idea that holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit? I trust that I am speaking to a company who have not a doubt respecting this. Do we not believe that the Bible was breathed into men of old—that this book is not the product of man, but God’s word, directed, inspired, and prompted by the Holy Spirit?

Assuming now that the audience is a unit on that, there is another point right in connection with this. There are two schools of thought at this place: The position of one is that it is ideally inspired. What is meant by that ? That God gave the writers the idea and allowed them to frame it in their own language and to present it according to their conception and relationship toward the same. Then there is another school. Here is its view: That the Bible is inspired, word by word, verbal inspiration of God’s book. Much depends upon your attitude toward these matters as to what you will be, what you will do, and what you will practice out in life. Well, the strongest argument against verbal inspiration is this: That verbal inspiration would destroy the individuality and the style of the different writers. Clearness of thought and accurate selection of words are essential to the expression of truth; but peculiarities of style have nothing to do with such. If that objection be valid, it would follow that God would be unable to tell Peter the very words that he desired told and that it must be left to Peter to arrange them after the general manner and make-up of Peter’s decision along those lines. What is style? Well, it has to do with the arrangement of sentences and phrases; the use of connectives and the selection of synonyms. You might as well say that God could not make two styles for different blades of grass or leaves of the trees or two people, absolutely different, as to say that God was unable thus to fit his words, one by one, suited to the method by which Paul, Peter, James, or John might express themselves.

We have many illustrations of that kind that reduce the professed argument to nothingness. I heard someone tell this story that seemed to me to illustrate the very point. A gentleman from the country once walked up to the postmaster and inquired about a letter. He was handed one. He went off and stayed for ten or fifteen minutes trying to read it, but could not. Finally he brought it back to the postmaster and said, "I am unable to read this letter. I think it is written in some foreign language. And I would love to get you to help me decipher it." The postmaster said, "The only language I know is American. I do not know anything about foreign languages such as French, or German, or English, but I will do the best I can with it." So he took the letter and, with the aid of a dictionary, carefully studying it for a while, called the patron and said, "I think I have this thing worked out. I do not want you to take it too seriously, because it might not be this way; but I think your letter says this, ’Your Uncle James, being advanced in years and being debilitated, physically and intellectually, by reason of the frailties that attach to the encroachment of senility, and having suffered severe financial reverses, in a moment of temporary dementia, precipitated his own demise.’ I think that is it, but in American language here is what it means, ’Your Uncle Jim got old, lost his wad, went nerts, and bumped himself off."’ Here are two ways of telling the same thing, as you can see. Now you get the two styles. The very same thing is told, but the idea is clothed in quite different styles. The point is made just the same, and while one fellow went way around by the Joneses and finally got to the point, the other one cut right through—his style was to rob it of all superfluity and go straight to the point.

Without further discussion tonight, I believe without a shadow of doubt, God spoke every word, one by one, unto those to whom he had assigned the task of penning his will toward man. I am told that the expression "Thus saith the Lord" is in the Bible some two thousand times. Let me just quote to you one or two passages. 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, "Now we have received not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God; which things also we speak"— now watch it—"we speak not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Now, Paul, what have you said? We have received the Spirit of God, and we teach those things, not in the words of man’s wisdom, but in words which the Holy Spirit bath spoken. But again, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when you received the word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Not the idea—but the word! Brethren, that is not merely it—that is it! Why argue or have misgivings or doubts about a thing concerning which the Bible is so clear?

Well, again, my friends, what is the attitude that you have tonight toward the Bible with reference to this point: its completeness, all-sufficiency, fullness? Is the book of God complete? Is there something to be added? Do you accept this as a complete revelation of God’s will to man and man’s duty to God? Do you subscribe to the statement of Jude when he urged that men ought to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints? Is that your attitude and disposition? Doubtless you say "yes." Don’t you then see that you could not accept the Mormon idea that a revelation was made to Joe Smith? Jude said it "was once for all delivered to the saints." That settles it—there hasn’t been anything since. Do you not see that you cannot subscribe to the idea of the Christian Scientist that God told Mrs. Eddy something and told her to repeat it. Contrast that with Paul’s statement—"I was caught up unto the third heaven, I heard things that were unlawful for men to utter." But this woman says "God told me to tell it—he would not let Paul utter it, but he gave it to me." And that is a long time after Jude said, "Once for all delivered to the saints." Friends, the acceptance of the Bible teaching precludes the addition of revelation since the pen of inspiration was dropped from fingers weary on the lonely Isle of Patmos, almost twenty centuries gone by. That settles it.

Well, again: If you subscribe to the idea and have that attitude toward the Bible, that here is a full revelation of God’s will to man, and in it there is programmed our duty to ourselves, to our fellow men, and to the God of our being, subscribing to that and believing that God has given unto us all things pertaining to life and Godliness, and that "the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, completely furnished unto every good work," you cannot endorse any other attitude. If you cherish those statements, which I have read with little comment, then what? Do you not see that you cannot subscribe to any sort of human booklet in the form of a creed, discipline, confession of faith, or church manual? Do you not understand that you already preclude the possibility of such? When a man comes along with any kind of human document, supplementary to the Bible, and declares allegiance, and subscribes to that, what does it spell? The Bible is not as complete as it should be. It is lacking in some matters; therefore we have adopted this human booklet by which to be governed. Now I bid you think on that just a moment, and see whether or not you really believe the Bible to be complete. But all manner of excuses are offered. Why I have heard them say, "Brother Hardeman, now I know that I have done that, but don’t you think that we ought to have our articles of faith written down?" I surely do. "Well, then, here is our booklet." Do you mean to say by that that you have articles of faith which are not in the Bible? If so, you had better look out for your articles of faith—something wrong somewhere. I would be ashamed of myself tonight if there was a single article of faith to which I subscribe that I could not turn to in God’s book and read. And if I can have it in the Bible, why do I have to have some "big men" get off in the corner and write it down again ? "But, Brother Hardeman, we must have some rules and regulations governing our church." Now lust wait a minute what does that spell? First, we have got a church that God knew nothing about, and in his Bible there are no rules or regulations governing our church—I know that is the truth, there is none "governing our church." Do you mean to say, though, that in the Bible there are no rules or regulations governing the church bought with his blood? If there are, then what is the excuse for having a human book, be it called this, that, or the other? Friends, that is the wrong attitude toward God’s book. What you need is faith implicit, undoubted, absolute in the all-sufficiency of the word of God.

Well, let us see again. What is your attitude toward the Bible with reference to prophetic matters? I know there are prophecies galore in God’s book and what conception do you have of them? Just what approach do you have respecting the same? Well, what is a prophecy? First, it is the unveiling of events in the distant future that would preclude the possibility of accident, or merely coming to pass as a guess. Second, a prophecy must be sufficiently far in the future to preclude the prophet’s living long enough to have any part in the fulfillment of the same. Third, there must be such a sufficiency of events and characteristics of it as to preclude the idea of chance. And fourth, prophecies are not to be accepted until they are fulfilled.

Friends, there are four statements regarding prophecies that are absolutely true. First, what it is. Second, how far distant must it be, beyond the realm of the life of the man making it, to prevent his serving as an agency in bringing it to pass. Third, not simply one point, but a sufficient number of points to prevent its being an accident. And, fourth, prophecies are not to be given full credence until after they are transformed into historic certainty. Now then, what is your attitude toward the Bible? Do you believe the statement made by Moses (Deuteronomy 29:29) when he said: "Revealed things belong to man, unrevealed belong to God." Now where is my fear and what is my disposition toward matters of that kind? Well, I believe the Bible. God said in effect, "Hardeman, if you believe the Bible, you speak those things that are revealed." That is what belongs to man. And don’t you seek to be wise above that which is written, and whenever a prophecy comes to pass, then what? Believe it and recognize the fact that it is no longer prophecy, but is now a matter of history. Friends, that is the right attitude to assume toward all that, and my reception of any statement whatsoever, by any man made, depends upon that attitude! Now if I am disposed to search my own wisdom, draw my own conclusions, play upon my imagination, and paint pictures by my own ingenuity, then what? I transcend my authority and likewise the realm of Holy Writ and get out into the farthest depths of those things concerning which man absolutely knows nothing. But, when that thing has come to pass and sufficient evidence of its fulfillment is produced, then what? I preach that as an historic fact. Well, that is my attitude toward it.

Now again, what is the attitude that anybody ought to have toward error, be it whatsoever kind it may? I just regret that on all of these points there are divisions in our land—first, division regarding the inspiration of God’s book; that is lamentable. Second, regarding the completeness of it, therefore the excuse of supplementary books in the form of church manuals and directories, etc. And again, with reference to prophetic declaration and on to the last regarding error. I think, brethren, that there is growing up among us a sentiment that my duty as a preacher is this: preach what you believe, what you conceive to be true, but let all things else alone. Now if preachers and those who advocate such were consistent about it, I would have more respect for them. But that very same fellow who may offer such counsel to me, and urge such procedure to be my duty, does not hesitate to criticize and condemn evil in general. He considers it error to have marble machines in Nashville. He opens his mouth about the liquor issue, and fights all kinds of evil. To be consistent with his principle, he should just go ahead and be sober himself and say nothing about the other fellows drinking liquor. And if some man wants to put up a saloon next door to him, he should not open his mouth. His theory is: preach your own doctrine and let the other fellow alone. And if someone wants to put a race track in Tennessee and license gambling, say nothing about it. Did you ever notice that very kind that are so wonderfully particular and object to any preaching against religious error are out on the public platform condemning all the errors in the social, in the political, and in the general realm of human affairs? Why not be consistent? There is a growing disposition to apologize for truth when preached and error when condemned. Friends, that is the most dangerous idea and the most pernicious attitude threatens the peace and the unity of the church of God tonight. In the very same charge that Paul gives Timothy to preach the word he also said: "Reprove, rebuke, and exhort." Now Paul did not say, "Son, preach the word, preach the truth, let everything else alone." That disposition, friends, would never have planted the cause of truth upon the face of God’s earth. When Paul, when Christ, when all of them were in the midst of the Jewish controversies of their day, they kept not silent respecting error. "Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear." That is the teaching of God’s word. It is the duty of the church to expose error and to declare the truth. Any preacher who will not do both is unworthy of the name. Every member of the church must do likewise. That is what Paul said to Timothy. It is as much my duty to point out the error of young men, of young women, as it is to teach them the truth of God’s word. I want to sound it out now. Boys and girls who come to FreedHardeman College, with which I have a connection, are not only taught the truth—they are taught the pitfalls, and the doctrines, and the errors that are along the pathways, so that they can stand out like a stonewall, immovable, absolutely firm and solid against every wave of doctrine contrary to the teaching which we have received. Now that is my attitude. I, of course, believe it the right one. But again, friends, what is your attitude tonight toward the Bible with reference to its being a book of Absolute Authority,/? Is the Bible just a book of general directions, outlining the general policy, with all details to be worked out by sanctified common sense, or is the Bible specific in those things that would lead a man out of darkness into the kingdom of God ? Is it specific and does it go into detail with reference to how the child of God ought to worship the Father? What do you think about it? Is it just a general broad-gauged book of principles with the details and specifications left to every man’s own idea, or does God Almighty outline the path of duty from the time we leave the world of sin until by and by we sweep through the gates into his everlasting and eternal presence on the ~ other shore? Think on these things.

I want those in this audience who are not to become Christians by obedience to the will of God. If you desire to do his will, if there is a disposition of heart and mind to accept it tonight, the invitation is gladly tendered.