Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

What do you do with bulletins, gospel papers, memeographed lessons, and other printed teaching materials after reading them? After one use, often such material is thrown out or laid aside. Why not put such materials to good use? We are on this earth to do all the good we can, by whatever means is at our disposal. After we benefit from using teaching materials that come into our hands, we should give thought to sharing that benefit with others. This is one way to plant the seed of truth along the way in life. Freely we have received good from the word in print, and freely we should extend that good to others.

Our family and friends could learn from these lessons in print. Brethren in foreign lands, such as in Africa and in the Philippines, are begging for such material. Eyewitness accounts have come of such printed teaching material being passed from hand to hand, village to village, and town to town until it literally falls to pieces! As a song says, why so thoughtless do we linger while the fleeting days go by? Too often we neglect the simple things we can do, and excuse ourselves by talking about things we cannot do.

Young preachers like myself can benefit from lessons taught in the past, if someone would be so thoughtful as to offer them to us. We do not “inherit” an understanding of past battles, losses, victories, failures, and successes-and older saints are sometimes heard lamenting our lack of perspective about such things. The printed page helps younger men to learn from the struggles of past yeas, but that printed page in the possession of older brethren is often buried in boxes, stored in trunks, or stashed up in attics where no one can use them. Ultimately, they will be thrown out or burned up in “spring cleaning,” perhaps by someone else who has no interest in such things.

For instance, the Bible Banner published in the 1940’s can give insights and perspectives to many of us who were only born in that decade, or since then. Older brethren who took and saved those papers may not think to offer them to younger men now, and in many cases have even forgotten having them stuck back somewhere. When I mentioned this to an older brother a couple of years ago, he said, “You know, now that you mention it, I think I have some of those out back in the chicken coop.” Sure enough, he did. And, he was glad for me to have them, droppings and all! I was glad to get them, droppings or no droppings! I am still searching for most of the Bible Banners and would be glad to hear from some reader. But this article is not intended to simply increase my files. If some older reader has a stack stuck under the bed or in the garage (where they are doing no one but the rats any good), why not offer them to some younger man who will be thrilled and benefitted from something only going to waste now.

Quite a few older readers have back issues of papers printed in the last 25 years, but most young men born within that time cannot obtain those issues. Good lessons can still be learned from old copies of the Gospel Guardian (I am still searching for volumes 4 and 5), Searching the Scriptures (anyone have volume V, numbers 2 and 3; VII, 6 through 12; VIII, 1 through 11; IX, 6 ?), and Truth Magazine (wish I could find volumes I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, 8; XI, 12). Many brethren have these papers stacked or boxed up for years back, and do not know what to do with them. Upon asking, a number of times I have been taken by some brother to the dusty attic of an old garage to look through magazines that ultimately will end up in the trash. While you have the chance to put these into the hands of someone who will use them, why not do so? Mention what you have not only to younger preachers but also to any younger men who are active in the Lord’s work. Not everyone will be interested, but those who are will not be able to thank you enough!

While on the subject of sharing the printed page, many of you can also do someone good by sending Truth Magazine to them. By sending just one subscription, you will bless someone 50 times a year. Better yet, send 50 blessings a year to ten different homes for only $5.00 per month, or to 20 homes for $10.00 per month. People in foreign lands who do not have the money we have, often write in asking for Truth Magazine but having no way to pay for it. Why not pay for a foreign subscription? In the meantime, do not forget to look in the attic or garage, maybe even under the bed!

Truth Magazine XXII: 26, p. 422
June 29, 1978

By Bobby L. Graham

The Revised Standard Version

This version, a purported revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, has served as a vehicle for modernism since its publication. Its appearance in 1947 was the result of an effort on the part of liberals, especially the liberal National Council of Churches. Its translators were extremely modernistic, denying the inspiration of the Bible and the deity of Jesus Christ.

One of the major faults of this version is its omission of italics whenever words have been supplied by the translators, thus giving no indication of where the sacred text spoke or where the translators spoke.

Another of its major faults is its attack on the miraculous conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit by means of its faulty rendering of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” and its change of Mary’s “I know not a man” in Luke 1:34 to “I have no husband.” Another area of the modernistic attack is the deity of Jesus, His being the only begotten Son of God: In John 3:16 and in five other verses the expression “only begotten” is mishandled in such a way as to cast doubt on the deity of Christ and to verify the deliberate attempts of the unbelievers on the translating committee. The New English Bible, the British counterpart in the liberal movement of the Revised Standard Version in the United States, does the same damage in the areas of Jesus’ miraculous conception and His being the only begotten Son of God. That pernicious paperback perversion, Good News for Modern Man, dogs the same thing to Jesus’ deity.

This RSV also butchered Jesus’ avowed relationship to the Law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17 by having him say that he came not to abolish, but to fulfill. To the contrary, He did come to abolish it according to God’s eternal purpose and to enact a better covenant to take its place. Paul even said that the Old Law had been abolished by Jesus’ death on the cross (Eph. 2:15). Yes, the same version has Jesus doing exactly what they have Him saying He did not come to do! The point of Matthew 5:17 is not the abolishment of the Law, but Jesus’ attitude and action toward it. He meant that he did not come to destroy it, to run roughshod over it and to disregard it, but rather to respect it, to observe it, and by so doing to fill it full or to complete it; and that means abolish it!

The final area of fault in the Revised Standard Version that we shall concern ourselves with in this brief study is its omission of the final paragraph of Mark 16, for which there is completely adequate evidence that it was a part of Mark’s original record of the life of Christ. The RSV, however, leaves it out of the text and relegates it to the position of a footnote.

On the basis of these and other glaring weaknesses, the RSV does not deserve a place with the King Tames Version and the American Standard Version. Its poisonous parts are enough to render it unusable for teaching the whole gospel and for propagating New Testament Christianity.

Truth Magazine XXII: 26, pp. 421-422
June 29, 1978

By Mike Willis

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy. But when I was there they were not straight-forward about the truth of the Gospel, I said to CEPHAS IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter’s apostasy was a weakness of the flesh. When the Jews from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he was afraid (2:12) of what their reaction might be when they saw him eating with Gentiles in violation of the law of Moses. Consequently, he withdrew from them and stood aloof. The rest of the Jews in the congregation at Antioch followed his lead, including Barnabas, Paul’s devoted companion.

Many of my brethren are telling me that sins which come as a result of weakness of the flesh are automatically covered by God’s grace. They write that the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer so that sins pertaining to weaknesses of the flesh are automatically forgiven by God. Yet, Paul said, “he stood condemned” (2:11). Now, who am I to believe, my brethren who ,say that the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer to cover such sins which come as a weakness of the flesh, or the apostle Paul who said that Peter was condemned? I choose Paul, what about you?

We observe also Paul’s method of handling this disagreement. Instead of just “lovingly overlooking these differences,” Paul withstood Peter, as the ringleader of the apostasy, to his face. He publicly rebuked him-in the presence of all. Who can believe that Peter’s apostasy was of such a nature that he was denying the seven facts of the gospel or the one act that brought one into fellowship with God. If the gospel-doctrine distinction were true, this apostasy was a doctrinal apostasy. Yet, Paul could not extend fellowship to the man who was apostatizing; instead, he publicly rebuked him. I would that some of my “grace-unity” brethren would take a lesson from this and spend a little of their time rebuking to the face in the presence of all those brethren who are preaching that instrumental music in worship violates no scriptural principles, that sponsoring church organization is not organizational apostasy, that sending funds from the church treasury to support benevolent homes and colleges is not a violation of the scriptures, and that church involvement in recreation is not a violation of the mission of the church. Instead, they mingle with those who pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ without ever rebuking them of their sins.

Gal. 4:11

I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

This passage appears in the context of the Galatians observing days, months and years. By reverting to the observance of these Jewish feast days, the Galatians were recognizing the Mosaical law as binding on them. Consequently, Paul considered their observing of these days as a sign of their belief that the Old Law was still binding on them. To go back to the Old Law and keep its commandments would make Paul’s labor be in vain. Why would his labor be in vain? The reason seems obvious; it would be void of result. He had labored to save the Galatians; if they reverted to observing the Mosaical law, they would be lost and his labor would be worthless, so far as productive fruit was concerned. Hence, this passage is further proof that one could lose his soul through returning to observe the Mosaical law. Doctrinal apostasizes about matters other than the seven facts and the one act are damning.

Gal. 5:2-4

Behold, I Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

This doctrinal apostasy broke one’s relationship with Christ and, consequently, with the disciples of Christ. Those who taught and accepted the doctrine that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved were severed from Christ and fallen from grace; Christ was of no benefit to them. Furthermore, they were morally obligated to obey the entire Mosaical law for the same reason that they felt compelled to obey the ordinance pertaining to circumcision.

Gal. 5:9-10

A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. I have confidence in you in the Lord, that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.

The danger of this doctrine spreading throughout the Lord’s church concerned Paul. He knew that it had to be stopped. Consequently, he expressed the confidence in the Galatians that they would follow his commandments as expressed in this epistle and adopt no other view. Indeed, it is a shame that Paul had not been liberated from the legalism of the Law! Poor soul, he had not yet learned that there are a multitude of views. He did not know that the Lord’s church is divided over thirty-seven thousand different things and that, therefore, we cannot expect everyone to understand the Bible alike. He was naive, so naive that he expected everyone to have the same view of the matter! Pardon my sarcasm, but when I compare what the apostle of inspiration said with what the apostles of the grace-fellowship faction are saying, I get rather upset. These men are denying the gospel which saves us.

Paul again indicated the damning influence , of this heresy which existed among the brethren in the churches of Galatia. He said, “the one who is disturbing you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.” Like the passage in 1:6-9 and 2:11, this passage indicates that this doctrinal apostasy would damn one’s soul. Even if the gospel-doctrine distinction were true, one would still be obligated to prove that deniers of doctrines revealed in God’s holy word can be received in the fellowship of the saints. Passages such as the one which we are studying certainly would negate the premise. Paul expected everyone to adopt the same view; those who did not would bear his judgment.

Gal. 6:1

Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted.

As I read the literature that is circulating among us, I see articles written which imply that the man who sins through ignorance or through the weakness of his flesh will not be held accountable for these sins. To these people, the grace of God is somehow automatically extended to forgive these men, whether through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account or through some other theological manipulation. Yet, this passage shows that the man who is “overtaken” (AV) in a fault is guilty of sin, separated from God and in need of restoration. “The point of the prolempthe is that Paul has in view a fault into which the brother is betrayed `unaware,’ so that it is not intentionally wrong” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. TV, p. 14). This sin committed in ignorance was not automatically covered by the grace of God. Though it occurred “unawares,” the man was still guilty before God and in need of restoration. A saved man does not need to be restored. The man who is separated from God is the man in need of restoration. Hence, this passage shows that those who are unintentionally guilty of transgressing God’s holy commandment stand guilty before God and in need of salvation.

Conclusion

Those among us who are willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to false brethren among us, need to learn the lessons pertaining to fellowship found in the book of Galatians. Apparently, those who extend the right hand of fellowship to those who are using instrumental music in worship, supporting from the church treasury missionary societies, distorting the government of the local church through the sponsoring church arrangement, perverting the mission of the church through involvement in church support of recreation, education, and benevolence of non-Christians, etc. do not view these men as false teachers. If one reads their writing, he will soon see that this is the case. They engage in no exposure of these sins; rather, the only sin that they seem interested in exposing is the “sin” of exposing false teachers!

The situation in these papers resembles to a greater degree than I like to admit what I see going on in America. In America, Anita Bryant is castigated for condemning the sinful homosexual. In the church, the man who exposes these false teachers for what they are is the can condemned. A man can call for church involvement in any activity he may desire with impunity in the eyes of the majority of the brethren, but let him expose one of these false brethren who are involving the church in sinful activities, and he becomes a “troublemaker.”

My brethren, we need to go back to the Bible to let it be our guide in matters pertaining to whom we will fellowship and how much false doctrine can be tolerated. When we decide to conform ourselves to the Scriptures, we will not be arguing among ourselves over whether or not those who pervert the work and worship of the church can remain in the fellowship of the saints.

Truth Magazine XXII: 26, pp. 419-421
June 29, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

“1. In an older congregation where there are no elders, does the business meeting replace the eldership? 2. If the business meeting replaces the eldership, can it make decisions without consulting the located preacher, just like the eldership? 3. In an older established congregation where there are no elders, does the located evangelist have equal, partial or no voice with all other members in the business meetings?”

Reply:

I do not know the events that have precipitated these queries. The answers which follow are not to be taken and applied to a local situation where conditions and factors may exist that are unknown or unrelated.

Answer to Question One: The response to this question depends in part on the function of the “business meeting” and the “eldership.” Elders are to “watch for . . . souls” (Heb. 13:17). They are to shepherd, to feed the flock (church) of God. This is done by being examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:2,3). Elders, as superintendents or overseers, are to guard all the flock (Acts 20:28). This they do by teaching. Elders are concerned with the physical and spiritual needs of the members (Acts 11:30; Jas. 5:13-15). These duties are assigned to elders by the Lord. Shall we presume to assume these works may be done by “the business meeting?” If so, by whose wisdom?

A business meeting is scriptural and expedient. It need not cease when elders are ordained. One might ask, “When elders are appointed, do they take the place of the business meeting?”

The age of the congregation is of no consequence in this regard. Whether it be young, middle-aged, or old, “the business meeting” cannot properly replace “the eldership.” This question would not be entertained if brethren had a scriptural concept of the work of a bishop. Because elders have been transformed into general building security and maintenance men, check signers and approvers, and gospel meeting schedulers, it is accepted that in the absence of such august men the business meeting is a substitute. And with a carnal view of the eldership, a business meeting is indeed a fine replacement for it, if not an improvement. If there was not so much woeful ignorance and error concerning the work of elders, the business meeting would not be considered in the same class. That such a question can be asked is a reflection upon Christians and elders.

Answer to Question Two: This question is based upon a “yes” answer to the first, so we shall not directly respond. Actually, the heart of this question is couched in the one that follows. However, a comment may be in order with respect to elders making decisions without consulting the local preacher. They may do this with all propriety, but under ideal working conditions, they would probably not need to do so very often. Elders should not be the secret service, the covert operations organization of the church. Their leadership should be based on mutual love, respect, and knowledge of the church. This bond of peace will not find them making many decisions that are unknown or unexpected by the flock they tend. Elders should be working closely with a preacher due to the common goal of their respective labors (Titus 1:5-2:15). It would certainly be unwise for an evangelist and the elders to be without acquaintance and communication in their tasks. True, a preacher is not an elder. Elders may make decisions without consulting him, but in a harmonious and effective relationship, the occasions are rare.

Answer to Question Three: Members who have worshiped for years in one place often fancy themselves as the real church while the preacher is a “new” face who is to be tolerated because he is essential and until he goes on his way. He is always an outsider, never one of “us.” For this reason, those who have “for years” served as unofficial “leaders” of the church regard the preacher’s presence in a business meeting as an intrusion. His suggestions, especially if they are not in agreement with the powers that be, are threats.

On the other hand, a preacher who moves into a new area must be aware of his limitations. He is a foreigner to some extent, and he should proceed with caution lest he appear as one who is coming in “to take over this here church.” A preacher may unintentionally put the brethren in “an older established congregation” on the defensive when he sets forth his mere “proposals” that sound like marching “orders” to the brethren. He should go slowly and earn the respect of the brethren as he learns them and the community. If he does not, he will alienate himself. It requires patience and forbearance on the part of the evangelist and the brethren. Perhaps a dose of Ephesians 4:1-3 is in order-“. . . walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

With brotherly kindness and charity, an evangelist will be accorded the same treatment as any other member. Where there is pride, selfishness, and the spirit of Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9), you may expect to find envy, strife, quarrels, partyism, gossip, slander, evil surmisings, “and such like.” It is an unhappy story that has been told all too frequently. It is a tune whose haunting and depraved melody will not be silenced.

Truth Magazine XXII: 26, p. 418
June 29, 1978