Plain Necessary Food of the Gospel
Christadelphian Standards by H.P.Mansfield
The Plain Necessary Food of the Gospel
Whilst we must seek a balanced diet, there is some food more essential than other.
That is as true of the Word of God as our natural diet.
The explanation of types and shadows in the narrative of the Bible, a knowledge of the historical, geographical and archaeological background of men and incidents recorded therein, or a detailed explanation of verses, is both interesting, profitable, and helpful. But it must be studied upon a foundation of knowledge that is absolutely vital.
I refer to the fundamental doctrines of the Truth.
This other knowledge is like condiments to a normal meal — it adds spice and flavour, it helps in digestion, but it requires the good, solid, plain food of the Gospel to make it really valuable.
No true workman will neglect the plain food of the Word, if he is to be among those who "needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word ofTruth."
His knowledge of the Word, and of these fundamental doctrines, can be advanced by proper Bible marking. Those who possess Wide Margin Bibles, will find in front a number of blank pages, suitably indexed or numbered. Here there is space to list an index of Bible references that will help support any doctrinal subject.
Appropriate references can be listed under such headings as "God is one," with those references which are valuable in refuting the errors of the Apostasy set out in different colour. Sometimes it is helpful to state in the margin at such references the particular reason why they are quoted.
For example, I have often quoted Acts 19:2 in refuting the Trinitarian theory. The verse reads:
"Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost (Spirit) since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost (Spirit)."
What is the point in quoting this verse in refutation of the Trinitarian concept?
Simply this: Trinitarians believe that the Holy Ghost is the third person of God. Here were "disciples" who "believed," yet confessed that they had "not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost"!
Obviously they did not believe in the Trinity!
In debate, I have pressed this point home successfully, as a sort of "softening up process" prior to bringing forth those Scriptures that plainly and affirmatively express the Truth.
It is necessary, however, at such places as Acts 19:1-2 to briefly write in the margin the reason why you would quote them in such circumstances. I have known such passages to be quoted disastrously, without point, simply because the one quoting them has forgotten the purpose he originally had in listing them. It is also a good idea to include at such places connecting references that explain the use of the term "Holy Spirit," such as: "The Holy Spirit is the power of God — Rom. 15:19." Then, after showing by a process of deduction upon the passage itself that the Holy Ghost or Spirit is not the third person of a Trinity, one is readily able to affirmatively reveal, by a comparison of Scripture, just what is meant by the term.
In opposing the orthodox concept of Satan as a fallen angel, I have quoted 1 Tim. 1:20:
"I (Paul) have delivered (Hymenaeus and Alexander) unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."
Where is the point in quoting this verse?
In debate I have asked the question, "Is it logical to believe that Paul would deliver up anybody unto such a diabolic monster as the Satan of orthodoxy is represented to be? Would he use him as an ally? And finally.
Would Satan (if Satan be as orthodoxy represents him) teach anybody not to blaspheme? Would he not rather teach them how to blaspheme?
"Is not that his function?"
This usually causes much embarrassment in those holding the orthodox view, and they generally ask, Who is the Satan referred to? Even if they don't ask, I usually proceed to explain what is meant by the use of "Satan" in this verse.
I show that the word signifies "adversary," and here relates to the world which is the great adversary of the Truth. Paul had excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander, had driven them from the Ecclesia, had disciplined them, that "they may learn not to blaspheme."
When that lesson had been learnt, the way was open for their return. In support of this, I quote 1 Tim. 5:15: "For some are already turned aside after Satan." They were not found following the fallen angel of a paganised-Christianity, but had drifted back into the world, and were following its ways (1 John 2:15-16).
Logical, clear, Scriptural explanations of such references usually make a good impression on those who are anxious to learn, and therefore, at these key references, our Bible should be so marked as to clearly set forth the reasoning to be adduced therefrom.
The Bible is Divine, it never changes — but human memory is a very fickle thing. Bible markings are an aid to memory.
>