Truth Magazine

By Bruce James

I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes unto the Father but by me” (John14:6).

“Religious Pluralism” is the attitude of the day. Some might even call it the politically correct attitude toward religion. Basically, this kind of thinking is that all religions are equal; that every religion is as valid as any other and that every religion is a way to God.

Through the process of time and use, Religious Pluralism has become the “legitimate son” of what is called post-modernism, where there is no notion of absolute truth. To those thinking this way, truth is completely subjective, that is, left up to each individual. “You have your truth and I have my truth.” They may be in conflict or be opposites and even contradictory. That’s all right! They’re still both true because there is no single, absolute truth. It’s a way of inverting our values and the reason many have lost their spiritual equilibrium. “Woe to those who call evil good.”

Really now, how dumb do you have to be to believe that philosophy? If it’s hot, it’s not cold; if it’s up, it isn’t down; if it’s true, the opposite is false! If Jesus is “the Way” to God and you must go through him, then you can’t go to God through anyone else. If someone else is “Lord and Savior” then Jesus isn’t! If he is, nobody else is! Likewise, if an action, like adultery, is labeled “sin” by the Lord then it is sin to everyone, everywhere, all the time. You really don’t have to be a genius to figure all this out! When asked by Pilate, “What is truth?”, Jesus had already prayed the answer. “Sanctify them by Your truth; Your word is truth” (John17:17). “Let God be true, and every man a liar!”

P.O. Box 456, Carthage, Texas 75633
Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 4 p12 February 17, 2000

By Connie W. Adams

Tempus Fugit Right Smart

In the interest of multi-culturalism I thought I would mix a little Latin with Kentuckian. For those not versed in either language that simply means time flies, considerably. All through my adult life I have wondered if I would live to see the year 2000. Now, here it is January 3 of that year. I was just certain that I was all ready for it. (I believe the term is Y2K compliant.) And wouldn’t you know that the first letter I wrote today, I dated January 3, 1999. I don’t really want to live 1999 over. I couldn’t stand to go through all the hype about that magical moment when the stroke of midnight plunged us into the year 2000.

Have you ever heard anything like all the fearmongering we had about this? People were frightened into stocking up on extra supplies. Pilgrims to Israel were shown on television solemnly saying that “all the signs of Biblical prophesy are right” for the rapture of the church. One lady said we had storms, earthquakes, droughts, wars and rumors of wars and that these surely meant the end is near. She looked to be as old as I am and I wondered if she had been living in a cave somewhere for the last six or seven decades. In this century we have had two world wars plus numerous lesser conflicts. All of these events have been interspersed with passing generations. The references to Matthew 24 are anachronistic — the wrong dates are assigned events described. In preparation for his prophesy against Jerusalem Jesus said, “I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36). Concerning Jerusalem Jesus said, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (23:38). Then in the time text of chapter 24 he said, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (24:34). In Matthew 24 our Lord gave definite signs for the coming judgment of God upon Jerusalem for rejecting the Lord. Those signs all came upon that generation and the prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was seized and destroyed by the Roman army.

We have been warned of impending Armageddon. In the last part of the nineteenth century, Adam Clark, the great Methodist commentator paid his respects to the speculations that were rife in his day about Armageddon. In comments on Revelation 16:16 he said:

But what is the battle of Armageddon? How ridiculous have been the conjectures of men relative to this point! Within the last twenty years this battle has been fought at various places, according to our purblind seers and self-inspired prophets! At one time it was Austerlitz, at another  Moscow, at another Leipsic, and now Waterloo! And thus they have gone on confounding and being confounded.

Time flies all right, but false prophets yet abound, from Hal Lindsey to Billy Graham. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have braced the world for Armageddon numerous times, in their history. They go from door to door scaring people half to death with their solemn warnings that the signs of the times all point to the end. Well, the end of the world will come in God’s own appointed time. But Peter said, “The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night” (2 Pet. 3:10) and the Lord gave no signal as to when that momentous day would come. The lesson for all is preparation and watchfulness.

A Great Loss

The passing of Clinton D. Hamilton a few weeks ago has left a great void in the ranks of expositors of the word. I had the privilege of sitting in several of his Bible classes at Florida College when he first began to teach there. He was then only in his mid-twenties but already a learned and able instructor in the Scriptures. His writings in the early years of the Preceptor were major contributions to the literature of the brethren. I had the privilege of working with him in a gospel meeting in Lake City, Florida in 1950. Viewed by some as overly serious, he had a fun-loving side as well and was a master story teller. We both laughed many times over the episode when our fishing boat sank and we had to wade out.

Over the years he wrote articles in the Preceptor, Gospel Guardian and for sometime wrote the question and answer column in Truth Magazine. He also wrote some for With All Boldness. His crowning work was the writing of three commentaries in the Truth Commentaries series. His commentaries on 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude, and Romans are outstanding works which will benefit Bible students for generations to come. He will be missed. Our best wishes are extended to Margaret and the children.

Conversion

We have recently reprinted an old work which is indeed a classic: Conversion by B.F. Manire (the B.F. stands for Benjamin Franklin). This work was originally published in 1880. It is a collection of sermons preached numerous times by the author. The material is thorough and presented in a straightforward but interesting manner. The first time I saw this work was in the late 1960s when I worked with Cecil Willis at Brown Street in Akron, Ohio. He had found a copy of this out-of-print book and loaned it to me. I prepared some material for meeting sermons from it and have used some of that material many times. Once I was asked to preach a meeting on conversions at Hueytown, Alabama. Much of the material used in that meeting followed the arrangement of Manire’s book. I am so pleased to have it in print now and to have my own copy of it. I would take exception to a few positions he takes, but with those exceptions I would heartily recommend the book to all gospel preachers. Young men would be well advised to secure a copy and digest it. You can order a copy from Truth Bookstore (1-800-428-0121).

Humanist Manifesto 2000

Paul Kurtz, former editor of the Humanist and also of Humanist Manifesto II has now issued Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism. The work takes shots at religion which it describes as “magical thinking and myth-making.” It advocates international law with a global court with “sufficient power to enforce its rulings” with an international “police force” with such grand intentions to be financed by a system of international taxation. It calls for sex education for children, the absolute right to abortion, the abolition of capital punishment, the granting to homosexuals all rights presently enjoyed by heterosexuals, including the right of marriage, multi-cultural studies and other gems of human wisdom arrayed against the teaching of the Bible. Among their edicts you will find this: “Although parental moral guidance is vital, parents should not simply impose their own religious outlook or moral values on their children or indoctrinate them.” Folks, we had better wake up and get ready.

Box 69, Brooks, Kentucky 40109
Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 5 p3 March 2, 2000

By David Dann

In the book of Acts, the inspired historian records that, “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). Therefore, the name “Christian” refers to a disciple of Christ who has been forgiven of his sins and brought into a peaceful relationship with God. It is obvious from the context of Acts 11:26 that a Christian is one who is a faithful member of the Lord’s church in a given location. From time to time, the question of whether or not there are faithful Christians among the various denominations is brought before us. This question is nothing new, for in 1837 Alexander Camp- bell wrote:

I observe that if there be no Christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans; and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church! This cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects (Millennial Harbinger 411 [1837]).
We are living in a time in which those who advocate tolerance and acceptance of diverse and contradictory religious views are considered noble. Since religious tolerance and acceptance is currently looked upon with such favor, the most popular answer to the question under consideration would certainly be the same answer as that given by Campbell.

However, It is important that we base our views upon the word of God, rather than on the popular opinions of men. When pondering the answer to this important question, we need to consider:

Jesus In Relation To Denominations

1. Jesus did not die for any denominations. Prior to his death and resurrection, Jesus made the statement, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). The Lord’s church was brought into existence on the Day of Pentecost following his resurrection (Acts 2:47). Paul assures us that, “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). Paul also encouraged the Ephesian elders to, “to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). The Scriptures clearly establish the fact that Christ gave his own life and blood to purchase his church. Since there were no denominations in existence in the first century A.D., we can be sure that Christ did not give his life for any of them.

2. Denominationalism is against Scripture. The very spirit of denominationalism is one of division and sectarianism. In direct opposition to this, Jesus prayed for his followers, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). The apostle Paul condemned the spirit of denominationalism in the church at Corinth by writing, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10).

What Is Required In Becoming A Christian

1. The New Testament clearly states what one must do in order to become a Christian. In speaking to the saints at Rome concerning their conversion to Christianity, Paul writes, “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18). Obviously, men are expected to obey the gospel message in order to become Christians. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

2. Denominations teach error on this subject. Many denominational groups teach that one is made a Christian and is saved by faith in Christ alone. On the other hand, James says that man is justified, “not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24). Some groups have replaced true baptism, which is immersion in water, with sprinkling. Others have neglected the need for true repentance in conversion (Acts 2:38). It doesn’t take long to realize that what the Bible requires of individuals to become Christians is a far cry from what is required by the creeds of denominationalism.

What It Means To Be A Christian

1. The term “Christian” literally means, “Christ-like.” Those who would properly wear the name “Christian” must be of the disposition to live as Jesus lived. This is most clearly defined by Jesus’ attitude toward the will of the Father. In regard to this, Jesus said, “I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29). In other words, those who claim to be Christians must be disposed to always do those things that are pleasing to God.

2. Denominations prevent individuals from living like Christians in the true sense. In various forms and in various ways, denominations teach and practice error with regard to salvation, sin, and the work and worship of the church. To many denominations, the Bible is regarded as an outdated antique that has been replaced by human opinion. Little regard is given to the authority of God’s word, and little effort is made toward truly doing those things that please the Father. As a result, it is impossible for those who are involved in such groups to truly live as Christians (2 John 9).

Conclusion

While it is possible for a person to truly obey the gospel in a denominational setting, such would surely be the exception to the rule. If we wear the name of Christ, then we are expected to obey Christ. “‘Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate,’ saith the Lord” (2 Cor. 6:17). 

2121 Rathburn Rd. East, Apt. 106, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L4W 2X3
ddann@idirect.com

By Wayne S. Walker

There is a theory that has been gaining a degree of popularity in come circles among brethren recently which claims that everything taught by Jesus during his personal ministry on earth pertained only to the Jews under the Old Testament and thus has no application to us under the gospel as an expression of God’s will for us today. This is a relatively new doctrine to me, although it may have been around longer than I am aware. Unfortunately, there are some among “conservative” churches who have apparently accepted it, perhaps altered or adapted it to suit their own needs, and are now teaching it too.

The claim is made that Jesus did not personally reveal or establish New Testament doctrine during his ministry to Israel as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and that only the teaching found in Acts 2 through Revelation 22 is the new covenant of Christ and the basis for our faith, salvation, and worship. Therefore, I wish to present a short series of articles to examine this issue in more detail.

One argument made is that a person’s will does not come into force until after he is dead, and we all recognize that this is true. “For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives” (Heb. 9:16-17). Therefore, it is alleged that nothing which Jesus said before his death can be an expression of his will for mankind today because that did not come into force until after the cross.

To begin with, we do recognize that the Old Testament went out of force when Jesus died on the cross. At the time Jesus shed his blood, he broke “down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances” and did so “through the cross” (Eph. 2:13-16). In fact, Paul writes, “Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Col. 2:14). In its place, he established a new covenant (Heb. 8:6-7). And, as we have already seen, the New Testament could not go into force until after Christ died. So the issue is not when the Old Testament law went out of force or when the New Testament went into force. We agree that Jesus lived and died under the Old Testament law.

However, some expressions of the content of Jesus’ New Testament were definitely made known before his death. “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you while being present with you” (John 14:23-25). Here, Jesus told his apostles, before he died, that at least some of the words which he had already spoken to them while present with them would be the basis upon which both he and the Father would come into a person and make their home with him and therefore must be kept.

Consider some examples. Jesus promised to build his church (Matt. 16:18). Is the building of the church a New Testament concept or is this merely an explanation of the Old Testament law? Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper (Mark 14:22-25). How could Jesus say, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many,” if only those things stated after Pentecost can pertain to the new covenant? And Jesus taught about the new birth (John 3:3-5). Is this applicable only to the Jews, or is this an expression by Christ during his lifetime of something that would apply after his death? The answer to this question is found in 1 Peter 1:23. Peter said that what Jesus taught about the new birth would be applicable under the New Testament.

Some reply by saying that this is like Old Testament prophecies of the church. If the Old Testament could predict the church, but we are not under the Old Testament law, then Christ could talk about building his church, or the coming Lord’s supper in the church, or being born again into the church, and yet the words of Christ before his death are not necessarily law for us. However, this overlooks the fact that God makes a big distinction between hearing the words of Old Testament prophets and hearing the words of Christ. In Matthew 17:1-5, when Jesus was transfigured with Moses and Elijah before Peter, James, and John, God himself said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” We are to hear Christ, rather than Moses and Elijah. But that would not be true if what Christ said pertained only to the Jews, because what Moses and Elijah taught pertained only to the Jews too. Hence, what Christ said, even while on earth, is implied to be different.

Thus, this helps us to understand how God speaks to us today. God speaks to us by his Son (Heb. 1:1-2). Therefore, because God has chosen to speak to us by his Son, it would seem that what the Son himself had to say is important. What did the Son have to say? “Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’” (Mark 1:14-15). Did that which was spoken by the Lord pertain only to the law of Moses? No, what was spoken by the Lord pertained to the gospel which both the Jews then and all people ever since then must believe.

Therefore, the teachings of Jesus, spoken while he was alive and recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do express some of the terms of his will or testament, even before those terms actually came into effect. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” (Matt. 24:35). If this theory is correct, then the words of Jesus did pass away at the cross! “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him — the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). Yet, how can what Jesus said judge us at the last day if what he said pertains only to the Jews under the Old Testament?

The argument has been stated that if Jesus actually revealed any of the terms of his will before he died, then the people to whom he spoke were under two testaments at the same time. But this is simply not true. A person makes up his will before he dies, and may even reveal some or perhaps all of the terms, including any conditions that may have to be met, of that will while still alive, even though the will does not actually go into force until after his death. I guarantee that this will never happen, but to illustrate, suppose that my father called me and said, “Son, I have several thousand dollars and am stating in my will that this money will be yours if you bury me in a certain place after I die.”

There is absolutely nothing that I can do about this request now, because the will is not in force. But my father has stated something that is in his will and must be adhered to after his death to gain the benefit. And so it is with Christ and his will or New Testament. The fact that it had no power while the Testator lived necessarily implies that it did exist in some form while the Testator lived. Christ’s will may not have been fully revealed until later, but it did exist, and may well have been expressed, before his death, even though it did not actually come into force until after he died. And this is exactly what I believe to be the case.

310 Haynes St., Dayton, Ohio 45410
Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 4 p22 February 17, 2000