Truth Magazine

By Sherrel A. Mercer

Revisionism was once a recognized characteristic of the propaganda machine of the international Communist Party. One only needed to read or hear a few sentences to know that the facts of history were changed, twisted, and restated to further the peculiar political aim of the Party. It was very common to read descriptions of the United States as a colonial, imperialist power, bent on gathering any and every foreign possession under its flag. Never mind that the quest for freedom for the oppressed dictated much of American foreign policy the last two hundred years. It was also very common for a ruler in Soviet Russia, for example, to be so disgraced that his name was removed from streets, buildings, and cities, as if he never existed!

The Lord’s church has a fight on its hands now with revisionists. The list of subjects is growing; we could consider marriage/divorce as a bellwether, with error of every kind being found on every front. That which was once sacred has been redefined in terms to better suit the ear, the audience, or the untrained conscience. A sermon today on marriage, from some revisionist preachers, does not even sound like a sermon on the same subject from the same Scriptures preached thirty or forty years ago.

A common denominator of the revisionist preaching today is an individual spokesman who is personally affected or afflicted by the plain truth on a specific subject. Matthew 19:9 is suddenly rethought and retaught in the light of the son, daughter, brother, sister, or whomever, that is disciplined by the plain truth of that Scripture. The fact that the plain truth condemns an action causes the truth to be redefined in a way so as to soften its effect.

The apostle Paul was once chastised by Festus, who told Paul, “Much learning doth make thee mad.” (Acts 26:24) Much learning did not make Paul mad, but it seems to make preachers revisionists today. There are those who value learning and education so much that any pronouncement from any scholarly source becomes truth, without the need for any scrutiny. And if the scholarly pronouncement conflicts with the revelation of Scripture, the revisionist rewrites the Scripture, instead of demanding the proof of the pronouncement.

The biblical account of creation is a good example. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that God could and did create the world, including man, in six days. There is absolutely no reason to require periods of billions of years for anything that is made to have been made. And there is absolutely no reason to place blind faith in evolution or the big-bang theory, simply because that modern learning teaches it dogmatically for the truth. Any time evolution has to stand the test of scientific scrutiny by minds that are intellectually honest, evolution fails miserably to explain the origin of the world we know.

Some Christians want to revise Genesis 1 and 2 to fit evolution, and they end up as theistic evolutionists. But they can find very little comfort from Scripture for such a position. Others simply must have long periods of time for God to do his creative work. Such a requirement destroys the step-by-step relationships defined from day one to day six of the creation week. It simply limits God. Others try to find a fit by saying that the living part of this world was an instantaneous product of divine creation, after several eons of time had transpired with nothing alive — plant or animal — occupying the earth. This position claims “inorganic evolution” as dogma, and allows God a last- minute presence. Somehow, I cannot relegate God to a last-minute bit part.

I am saddened greatly by the posture taken by informed Bible teachers when confronted with the modern-day scientific learning of their children. If the parent is not to be considered hopelessly out of touch with current ideas, or if the parent does not want to be relegated to less than usefulness by the children, the parent becomes a revisionist and begins to teach something other than Genesis 1 and 2 as the authoritative answer to the origin of the world.

One of the preachers we supported has become a revisionist about creation. Whatever the reason, he is not teaching what he taught before, and he is not teaching the simple truth of Genesis. He no longer sounds the clear teaching of creation in six twenty-four hour days. Please do not misunderstand me: a revisionist can be taught, and he can be returned to the simplicity of the scripture. Much effort has been made to try to right his ship. But it is often difficult to restore such a one, especially if (1) he begins to blame others for his obvious doctrinal predicaments, (2) he begins to attack the messengers of truth, and (3) begins to defend himself or his own position instead of defending the truth. Having determined to our own satisfaction that the mentioned preacher had fallen into all three of these weaknesses, we elders had no choice but to suspend our support for that preacher.

Our position as elders has always been to support preaching, not preachers. There is a great difference. Our responsibility, locally or afar with the men we support, is to know the individual well enough to know if we are supporting truth or supporting a man. If we are simply supporting a man, we have missed the point of the scriptural pattern.

We strongly believe that godly men everywhere, serving as elders, need to reinforce their responsibilities toward the defense of truth. After all, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. But if local leadership acquiesces in the idea that a preacher is the spiritual leader of the congregation, or in the idea that a preacher has the benefit of the most learning and must therefore lead the elders, then the divine pattern is destroyed.

Is there any wonder why there is trouble in Judah? 

We cannot assume that the forgiveness of our sins is immediate and automatic, just because we enjoy a relationship with Jesus Christ. Many people today behave as if this were so. It is worthwhile therefore, to examine this important question.

Forgiveness for the alien sinner results from compliance with the will of God: (1) Faith in Christ (Acts 15:9 — “cleansing their hearts by faith”); (2) Repentance regarding past sins committed (Acts 2:37, 38 — “What must we do? Repent . . .”); (3) Confession of faith in Christ (Rom. 10:9, 10 — “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”); and, (4) Baptism into Christ for remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). The consistency of all biblical examples of response to the gospel of Christ gives us the definite impression that there is a pattern for acceptance of the grace of God by the alien sinner. When those requirements are met by the submissive penitent, then God grants forgive- ness of sins. This is what is sometimes referred to by Bible students as the “first law of pardon.”

In similar fashion, forgiveness of sin for the Christian results from compliance with the will of God for him or her: (1) Repent of the particular wickedness committed (Acts 8:22 — “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness . . .”); (2) Prayer for forgiveness (Acts 8:22 — “and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be for- given thee    . . .”). This passage assumes that there exists a pattern delivered to us by the apostles for access into the forgiveness of sin for the child of God also. Some Bible students have called it a “second law of pardon.”

Consistent with this pattern is John’s discussion of “walking in the light” and the momentary failures which may occur in our lives: “If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:6-9). This passage demands that we confess our sins, and so put them behind us. Making a clean break with sin is most important to the process, for otherwise we have not met the terms of pardon set by God in his word.

I believe that it is this situation which is described by Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians, when he wrote:

For I fear, lest by any means, when I come, I should find you not such as I would, and should myself be found of you such as ye would not; lest by any means there should be strife, jealousy, wraths, factions, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults; lest again when I come my God should humble me before you, and I should mourn for many of them that have sinned heretofore, and repented not of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they committed (12:20-21).

Evidently these church members were guilty of sin which they had “swept under the rug,” feeling that because they had ceased committing the wrongs, they were therefore forgiven by God. Paul’s stern rebuke is clear evidence that one cannot merely “forgive himself/herself” by such personal fiat. This is the same thing as “pronouncing oneself forgiven!” More is assuredly required.

Behavior of this kind assumes that sin is against one’s own self, whereas the Bible says sin is against God. Sin is principally an offence against the nature of our Holy God. It does denigrate the human spirit and diminish one’s estimation of himself, but that is not the point of forgiveness. Sin insults the holiness of God: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And done that which is evil in thy sight; That thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, And be clear when thou judgest” (Ps. 51:4).

It also assumes that forgiveness takes place in one’s own mind, whereas the Bible says forgiveness takes place in the mind of God. David begs for God’s pardon, recognizing that he (God) is the offended party, and so, the one who must forgive: “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, That the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, And blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me” (Ps. 51:7-10).

A few years ago a major tax case was settled with the Internal Revenue Service by a country music star. He owed millions to the IRS, and the Tax Service eventually settled for significantly less than was actually owed. He was forgiven of a rather large sum of money owed to the government in the form of taxes, interest, and fines. Note, please, that this forgiveness could never have been granted to him by his own “blotting it from his mind” or simply “forgetting about it.” The terms of repayment and forgive- ness were set by the IRS. He met the conditions and was absolved from payment of the remainder. God does the pardoning, and sets the conditions of our pardon, just as the IRS did for him!

Finally, it assumes that we may set our own pattern of pardon, whereas the Bible teaches that God sets the terms of pardon and has left us a pattern for receiving forgiveness in Scripture. As Paul put it in rebuke of the Corinthians for setting their own standards of right, “What, came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?” (1 Cor. 14:36). We must follow the divine patterns: “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Sin must be renounced and repented of to be forgiven. We ought not to want any unpleasant surprises at the Final Judgment. Jesus says there will be some (Matt. 7:21ff). Make a clean break with any sinful practice in your life now by repenting and confessing it to God if it is of a private nature, and to God and your Christian friends if it is publicly known. Do not make a small matter of it by simply considering it a part of the past, though, for the stakes are far too high! When God blots it out his book of remembrance, then and only then, may we dismiss it from our minds, forget about it, and go on with our lives.

By Irvin Himmel

The ten-tribe kingdom (Israel) had been destroyed by the Assyrians and its people taken into exile. The Babylonians afterward had defeated the Assyrians, emerging as a world power. The two-tribe kingdom (Judah) had been taken captive following Babylon’s rise to power. Now Babylon had lost its dominance and the Persians were ruling.

A lovely Jewish woman known as Esther had become the queen through the providence of God. A wicked man named Haman had persuaded the king to issue a decree, which, if carried out, would result in the extermination of the whole Jewish race.

Mordecai, a relative of Esther, urged her to speak to king Ahasuerus. Admittedly, it was dangerous for anyone, including the queen, to speak to the king uninvited. He had the power of life and death. People normally waited until they were called by the king before attempting to discuss any matter with him. But this matter was of utmost urgency! Esther seemed to be in the best situation of anyone to talk to the king about Haman’s plot.

Mordecai said to Esther, “. . . Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Mordecai was thinking that perhaps the very reason Esther had been made queen was so God could use her to preserve his people from utter destruction (Esth. 4:14).

The story of the book of Esther is of absorbing interest. It turned out that Esther was in the right place “for such a time as this.” She courageously spoke to the king and saved her people.

The time in which we live may be one of crisis, opportunity, challenge, or difficulty. Whatever the case, “for such as time as this” (our own day), there are needs to be met.

This is a time when many younger people do not respect elders in the church. For such a time as this, a young person can have a good influence on others by setting the example of working respectfully and harmoniously with the elders. Remember Peter’s exhortation, “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder” (1 Pet. 5:5).

This is a time when women’s rights are being dis- cussed and championed. For such a time as this, young women who are Christians can show their faith in the word of God by remaining in subjection to their own husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1) and by complying with the restrictions of 1 Timothy 2:12. Older women can teach the younger women “to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:3-5).

This is a time when many are indifferent to their responsibilities as christians. For such a time as this, the faithful should renew their efforts to show zeal, enthusiasm, and fervor of spirit. “Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord” (Rom. 12:11). Others can be admonished and encouraged.

This is a time when certain self-appointed critics are downgrading gospel preaching as a “tradition” that needs discarding. For such a time as this, we need people who will stand flatfooted on such passages as 1 Corinthians 1:21 and 9:16. Let us say with Paul, “I am ready to preach the gospel.”

This is a time when immorality among teenagers has become an accepted lifestyle. For such a time as this, a teenager who is a Christian needs to keep himself pure. “Everybody is doing it” does not justify wrong. Paul urged the young preacher Timothy to “keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). There are some teenagers who have committed themselves to moral purity and are keeping their resolve.

This is a time when material things have become an obsession and people are too preoccupied to think about their souls. For such a time as this, a truly spiritually- minded person stands tall like a giant. The Scriptures teach, “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:1, 2).

This is a time when religion has become a tangled network of endless confusion. For such a time as this, the New Testament points us to the simplicity of the apostolic order of things. Cultism, denominationalism, sectarianism, and humanism are perversions. The Word of God shines brightly to illuminate one’s pathway.

This is a time when “political correctness” has distorted the thinking of the public mind. For such a time as this, God’s people must continue to speak out against lying, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, pornography, gambling, and all other such evils. Some who know the judgment of God against wickedness, not only do wicked things, “but have pleasure in them that do them” (Rom.1:32).

This is a time of competition, tension, and hurrying to and fro. For such a time as this, we need the Good Shepherd to calmly lead us beside still waters. Jehovah said through the psalmist, “Be still, and know that I am God” (Ps. 46:10). Concerning matters beyond our control, let us relax and trust in the Lord. The same Master who calmed the troubled waters of Galilee can bring serenity and tranquillity to our lives. Our anxieties only add to the complications. One’s life can be powerful without being a raging storm.

By P.J. Casebolt

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written . . .” (Gal. 4:21, 22).

The Galatians had already heard the message of Christ and him crucified (Gal. 3:1), and Paul marveled that they had been “so soon removed . . . unto another gospel,” which was not really another gospel, but a perversion of the true gospel (Gal. 1:6, 7). Like Israel of old who had left “the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13), the Galatians had forsaken the law of Christ, the Spirit of Christ, and the grace of Christ for bondage under “the weak and beggarly elements” of the old law (Gal. 4:9).

When people make a comparison of two completely different ideas, and choose the one of lesser value, about the only alternative we have left is to show them the folly of their choice. Paul did this by challenging the Galatians to “hear the law” which they had chosen, even a law which was inferior to the law of Christ.

For different reasons, many religious people, including some in churches of Christ, journey back into the fulfilled, abolished law of Moses for sundry religious practices. As a general rule, these same people do not even hear what that law says about their favorite doctrine or practice. As a result, they are left without any authority or encouragement in their futile efforts from either the law of Moses or the law of Christ. In addition, such advocates are branded by both the law of Moses and the law of Christ as workers of iniquity,” or lawlessness (1 Sam. 15:22, 23; Matt. 7:23).

There are those who use mechanical instruments of music in worship because they like them, not because God likes them. Having no authority in the New Testament by way of command, approved apostolic example, and therefore not even a necessary inference, these “workers of iniquity” (lawlessness), return to the “weak and beggarly elements” of the Mosaic law in an attempt to justify the use of their mechanical instruments of music.

In their journey back to the Old Testament, passing efforts may be made to use the Greek term psallo or the symbolic language of Revelation to justify mechanical music in the worship of the church, but when they are faced with the conclusion that every worshipper (not just the piano player) has to psallo, and that the symbolic language of Revelation will also admit different colored horses and other beasts, birds, thunder and lightning into the worship of the church, these defenders of mechanical music generally end up saying, “David did it.”

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law” (of Moses) with respect to your mechanical instruments of music in worship, “do ye not hear the law?”

The law of Moses specified that certain instruments of music be used by specified men among the Levites, at specified times (Lev. 23:23-25; Num. 10:1-10; 1 Chron. 16:4-6, 40-42; 23:3-6, 30-32; 2 Chron. 29:21ff). On many of these occasions, burnt offerings and sacrifices and the observance of sabbaths and other feasts were also enjoined in conjunction with the instruments of music. Also, these things were obligatory to the Jews “for an ordinance for ever throughout your generations” (Num. 10:8).

Some of these instruments of music were invented by David. God permitted (or suffered) their use as he did other practices under the Mosaic dispensation, but all such practices ended with the Jewish generations along with the law itself (2 Chron. 29:25-28; Amos 6:1-6; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14-17). Even while David and others were using specified instruments of music at specified times/seasons, by specified Levites (Ps. 81:1-4), David said, “I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. This also will please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs” (Ps. 69:30, 31). God had no pleasure in these “burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin,” and the Lord said, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second” (Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10:5-10).

As Paul said to the Galatians concerning their departure from Christ back to the “weak and beggarly elements” of the law, I say unto the users and defenders of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church, “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written . . .” (Gal. 4:21).

Having heard what “the law” said about instruments of music in worship, and having seen that the advocates of that practice do not even conform to the law in the use of their instruments, let us hear the law on similar subjects, such as the Sabbath, polygamy, divorce and remarriage.

The Sabbath pretenders of our day not only return to “the law” for justification of Sabbath keeping, but they compound their error by dividing asunder the very law which they pretend to honor. Sabbatarians claim that the Ten Commandments constitute the law of God, and that the statutes/judgments/ordinances which Moses wrote in a book constitute the law of Moses; that the law of Moses was abolished at the cross, but that the Ten Commandment portion (including the Sabbath commandment), remains.

The terms “law of Moses” and “law of the Lord” are used interchangeably in the Scriptures (Luke 2:22-24; John 7:19). When Jesus died on the cross, he fulfilled and abolished the entire law, not just part of it (2 Cor. 3; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14-17); he took away the first law/covenant, including Sabbath observance (Deut. 5:2, 3, 15), “that he may establish the second” (Heb. 10:9; 9:15-17). No one observes the Sabbath today as it was given, and no one is stoned to death for failure to observe the Sabbath. “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law” with respect to instrumental music, Sabbath observance, polygamy, divorce and remarriage, “and such like” (cf. Gal. 5:21), “do ye not hear the law?”

When children of God attempt to justify themselves by “the law,” they fall from grace (Gal. 2:21; 3:11; 5:4). And let those who reject the law of Christ for the law of Moses, then refuse to hear the very law which they claim to honor remember this one thing: you will not escape with just the penalty of death by stoning for despising “Moses’ law” (Heb. 10:28). There is a “much sorer punishment” awaiting those who have forsaken the cleansing fountain of the blood of Christ and have returned to “broken cisterns” which can no longer hold even the blood of animal sacrifices (Heb. 9:13, 14; 10:29).