Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Though the former editor has not ascended in “a chariot of fire,” the editor’s mantle has been passed on. Just as Elisha “took the mantle of Elijah” in determination to be a faithful prophet (2 Kgs. 2), Mike Willis has accepted the work so ably done for the past several years by his older brother Cecil. We can use this occasion to set before our readers something of the pap’s history (since many of us who are younger have come on the scene, and there are many new subscribers). We shall look at the course the paper has followed, and what course may be expected in the future. Our look at that history will be sympathetic. Appreciation should be expressed for previous labors, and hopeful anticipation for labors to come.

1. Early Years Set The Tone (1956-1962)

Leslie Diestelkamp came to the “Chicagoland” area in 1954 to strengthen the walls of Zion. Premillennialism, denominationalism, and modernism had racked the region, destroying the soundness and usefulness of seventeen gospel preachers in seventeen years. Shortly, the New Testament pattern of sound words was being undermined by growing pressures from another front. By the mid-1950’s, an internal movement was well under way, composed of a complex of overlapping elements: church support of human institutions (orphan-care institutions, colleges, camps, etc.), centralized church cooperation (“sponsoring” churches, the Herald of Truth, etc.), and social-gospel concepts (church supported recreation, social services, etc.). A spin-off from these issues was the question of whom the church was authorized to help in benevolence-only saints or also non-saints.

These early years are best summarized by brother Leslie Diestelkamp in his excellent new autobiography, `Here Am I, Send Me “:

Another major event in the fruitful fight for truth in that northern area was the beginning of Truth Magazine in 1956. This resulted from the friendship of Bryan Vinson, Jr. and myself, and our mutual desire to launch out more significantly to lead more sincere brethren out of the labyrinth of Institutional errors. I wanted to start a free paper but Bryan was more visionary than I, and we compromised by going his way. In this venture we were especially encouraged when we were joined by Ray Ferris, Gordon Pennock and Foy Vinson in a close-working partnership. A few others who were not preachers helped in financial ways with much support, especially Rip Littlejohn, Bill Lindoo and Herb Matthews.

Truth Magazine immediately began to have a significant impact on that area, and to some degree, far and wide. In those years I wrote the news for the magazine and many other articles, also. When I went to Africa in 1959, my son Karl began to write the news, and has done so ever since, except for a brief interval in it the early sixties.

It is quite easy to take old issues of Truth Magazine and trace the division. As long as I wrote the news (until 1959) I included news of the whole brotherhood. No lines were drawn. When I returned from Africa in 1961, no news was being included from those who were involved in sponsoring churches, support of human institutions by churches, etc. The lines were now drawn firmly (pp. 32-33).

Truth Magazine dealt forthrightly with the problems of modernism (as in various articles dealing with the meandering of Roy Key) but, as stated above, also reflected the growing struggle with institutionalism. Bryan Vinson, as editor, arranged a debate by anonymous disputants on “Church Responsibility in the Field of Benevolence,” which appeared in Vol. II (Mar.- Aug., 1958). From the beginning, both sides of any controversy have been able to express themselves in the paper. Of course, the monthly rather than weekly format limited the amount of space that could be devoted to any one matter, and the paper was not intended for controversy alone. News reports focused attention on many aspects of the Lord’s work, both in our land and in other lands; interest in foreign work has been strong from the paper’s start to the present. Articles were printed to teach the lost the fundamentals of the message of grace, though more space was devoted to edifying the saved (due, doubtless, to the makeup of the subscription list and to the editor’s intent to awaken brethren who were slipping into institutionalism). Every effort was made to publish a well balanced paper, a militant paper, an evangelistic paper. Though each man may judge the results differently, these early efforts set the paper’s tone for its future life.

The September, 1958 (Vol. II) issue was a special entitled “Return Ye Unto God,” designed for the instruction and encouragement of erring saints. This issue, later turned into a booklet which is still in print, contained Cecil Willis’ first article, “Be Thou Faithful.” “His we are; His we ever shall be if we profitably serve Him `unto death,’ ” the conclusion read. His second article was a defense of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, entitled “Holy Men Spoke From God” (Vol. III, Oct., 1958), followed by three articles of similar thrust on Isaiah during May, June, and July of 1959. Next, he had a twelve-part series on the theme of all-sufficiency, including discussion of the Savior, the Bible, and the church (Vol. IV, Dec, 1959; Jan., Feb., Mar., May, July, Sept., 1960; Vol. V, Oct., Nov., 1960; Feb., Apr., May, 1961). From the paper’s beginning in October, 1956, Bryan Vinson, Jr. edited the paper with help from Associate Editors Leslie Diestelkamp and Gordon J. Pennock (1910-1976; cf. Vol. XX, Feb. 26, 1976, p. 135). Staff Writers included James R. Cope, Ray Ferris, James Boyd, Clinton Hamilton, Bryan Vinson, Sr., John Hedge, Avon Malone, Ollie Duffield, and Foy W. Vinson. In October of 1960 (Vol. V), Editor Vinson announced that Cecil Willis was being added to that number.

II. Fifteen Years Of Diligent, Determined Labor (1962-1977)

A thirty-year old editor received the mantle of leadership in August of 1962 (Vol. VI). Gordon Pennock said, “A New Line-Up Takes the Field,” Ray Ferris spoke of “A Forward Step for Truth Magazine!”, and Bryan Vinson, Jr., announced “Cecil Willis to Edit Truth Magazine.” Cecil Willis had a statement as the new editor, as did William E. Wallace, new Associate Editor, replacing the entire old staff. The paper’s destiny had become uncertain; after some indecision, Cecil had

agreed to become editor. He later explained that the encouragement and help of William Wallace was the probable determining factor in his willingness to take the job (Vol. XIV, Nov. 6, 1969, p. 5).

The continued help of the old staff was requested and promised. Having known Brother Willis since 1951, Brother Vinson was confident of “his soundness and dedication to the truth,” “his ability and his sincerity.” Along with other articles, Brother Wallace did the “News Briefs” until April of 1963 (when Guy Roberson took it for a time). Cecil immediately began a series on “Problems In the Church” (Vol. VI, Sept., 1962, p. 242). Estimating that “99 % of our subscribers are members of the church,” he felt Truth Magazine was a good place for such study. The problems Cecil dealt with in Volume VII were Sensualism, Materialism, The Main Street Complex, and Brotherhood Elders. William Wallace supplied the editorial on the problem of Institutionalism. In April of 1964, Cecil explained, as he had from the start, that he did not edit “as an infallible brotherhood censor, asserting that no one can be heard unless he agrees with me.” He promised to continue to publish “well-written articles on controversial themes,” reserving only the right “to reply or to publish replies to such articles” (Vol. VIII, p. 148).

Subscriptions increased rapidly, largely due to the editor and his staff working hard on the matter. The subscription level has seemed to vary according to that same formula, though other factors — such as the pressures of controversy — do influence it. Before the first year ended, the paper experienced “considerably more than one hundred percent increase in subscriptions” (Vol. VII, Mar., 1963, p. 148). In June of 1963 Cecil added the subscribers to The Oracles, which had been

published on the West Coast by Luther Roberts, Thomas Campbell, and others. By April of 1964, the circulation had nearly quadrupled from the time Cecil began editing. The level was 3,000-3,500 my mid-decade, with total paid circulation topping 4,200 by October of 1970, and peaking at over 5,900 the next year. The September 7, 1972 issue noted a decline of about 500; Cecil explained it came about because pressing duties caused less attention to obtaining subscriptions (Vol. XVI, p. 678). By October 3, 1974, the mid-60’s level was hit again, followed by another loss of about 500 during the next year. The decline also parallels a very difficult period of controversy, a risk the editor took knowingly

in the interest of truth.

Seeking Sound, Strong Men

An editor must be an edit, but a paper can do much more good if several strong men labor with an editor. “Two are better than one . . . . and a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Eccl. 4:9-12). “For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counselors there is safety” (Prov. 24:6). Editor Willis has repeatedly depended upon sound, strong men to increase the effectiveness of Truth Magazine. James P. Needham began writing articles on “Preachers and Preaching” in February of 1959, and was added as an Assistant Editor in October of 1963 (Vol. VIII, p. 7). His popular column “What’s Your Question?” began to appear in the November 20, 1969, issue (Vol. XIV, p. 35). When William Wallace cordially resigned to begin work with the Gospel Guardian, he and Cecil expressed their mutual respect and love in the faith (Vol. XII, May, 1968, inside front cover-169). By that spring of 1968, Assistant Editors included Connie W. Adams, O. C. Birdwell, Luther Blackmon,: James P. Needham, and Earl Robertson. Soon to be added were James W. Adams, Roy E. Cogdill, and Ferrell Jenkins. When Brother Jenkins joined the staff in January of 1969; he concentrated his writing in the field of evidences and archaeology.

The December 3, 1970, issue carried an announcement that Brother Needham had resigned to edit Torch Magazine (Vol. XV, p. 69). Two strong additions were made shortly, one a young man, Larry Hafley (Vol. XV, Feb. 11, 1971, p. 210), the other Irvin Himmel (Apr. 1, 1971, p. 323). From 1960 through 1970, Brother Himmel was publisher and editor of Apostolic Doctrine, a paper devoted largely to the first principles of the gospel; he has ably concentrated on that area for Truth Magazine. When Connie Adams resigned to edit Searching the Scriptures in 1973, Cecil observed, “In recent years; Truth Magazine has lost three Assistant Editors in order that they might become editors of other papers” (Vol. XVII, May 31, 1973, p. 467-469). Wallace had eventually become editor of the Gospel Guardian, and James Adams was later to leave Truth Magazine to serve at that same post (no official announcement made, but he no longer appears in masthead list of Associate Editors beginning in Vol. XX, Jan. 22, 1976, p. 52). Four writers leaving and becoming editors of other journals within a few yeas, is eloquent testimony to the abilities of met selected for the Truth Magazine staff during those years:

The May, 1969, issue stated that Truth Magazine would change from a monthly to a weekly paper (Vol. XIII, p. 175). For 13 years it had been “published by Truth Magazine Incorporated, a non-profit religious publication organization.” In becoming a weekly, it would be published by “the Roy E. Cogdill Foundation (formerly named the Gospel Guardian Foundation),” “also a non-profit religious publishing corporation” (Vol. XIII, Sept. 1969, p. 265). Volume XIV, number 1 (Nov. 6, 1969) was the first weekly issue, with articles by the two additional Associate Editors, Roy Cogdill and James Adams. From Cecil’s view, “the deciding factor” in going to a weekly format was the promised help of Roy E. Cogdill and James W. Adams. He had earlier observed that “the limitations of a monthly publication will not permit us to print all of the good material that comes in” (Vol. X, Jan., 1966, p. 93). The weekly format would also allow “the intent and content of the paper . . . to be broadened” to reach an audience of alien sinners as well as brethren (Vol. XV, Apr. 1, 1971, p. 323). Further enlargement came in November of 1973 with the use of 8 = by 11 inch pages, adding “about 44 % more reading material each week” (Vol. XVIII, Nov. 1, 1973, pp. 3-5). Cecil explained that attention would continue to be given to “the liberal Ketcherside `Fellowship’ position,” “worldliness,” and “other issues . . . . Some brethren say they get tired of controversy. So do I!!! But the only alternative is capitulation, and the consequence of that is damnation …. The wisdom from above will be invoked that all the good within our power may be done, and that no harm at all to any righteous cause will result.”

Another important step was taken when editor Willis announced `The New Series of Bible Class Literature” (Vol. XIV, Nov. 27, 1969, p. 50). Because he pointed out the modernism in some of the literature brethren used (such as that put out by R. B. Sweet Co.), Brother Sweet wrote asking if he might be allowed to reply. Cecil welcomed him to do so (Apr. 23, 1970, p. 369), and he did (May 7, 1970, p. 400). Cecil’s presentation of documentation ended the brief discussion. The improved literature was ready in July of 1973 (Vol. XVII, July 12, 1973, pp. 547-550). “Walking With God” was a revision of the old “Journeys Through the Bible,” and a great number of brethren-many connected. with Truth Magazine –worked to produce the all new “Truth In Live” series. (To Be Continued).

Truth Magazine XXII: 3, pp. 54-56
January 19, 1978

By Mike Willis

In recent years, several well-known brethren among us have begun to teach that the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer’s account so that when God looks at the believer, He does not see a man who sins, repents, sins again, repents, again, etc. but sees instead the perfect obedience of Christ applied to the believer. Edward Fudge was one of the first who taught this doctrine among us but recently several have begun to whistle the same tune. Most recently, I have seen the writings of Arnold Hardin from Dallas, Texas which propagate and defend this same doctrine.

As these doctrines have been circulated, there has been the charge that these brethren are teaching Calvinism. Fudge, Hardin, and others utterly deny this charge. They deny that they are guilty of teaching Calvinism. Indeed, Arnold Hardin wrote in defense of the periodical Present Truth as follows:

“This branding and choosing sides is of the devil! And these gossips that would set brethren against brethren ought to be marked in the true sense and meaning of Paul. I have received much good from the Editor’s writings in Present Truth. Why should anyone-reading that paper or any other—be called upon to answer to some of these ‘fense riders’? I am quite capable of recognizing Calvinism when I see it! (The Persuader, Vol. XH, No. 1, August 23, 1977).

If Brother Hardin has the capability of recognizing Calvinism when he sees it, as he says that he has, I can only conclude that he has accepted Calvinism. For this much I know, the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is part of the warp and woof of Calvinism. Consequently, if he has the ability to recognize Calvinism when he sees it, I can only conclude that Arnold Hardin has knowingly accepted the doctrines of Calvinism.

In the remainder of this article, I propose to define the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account and to show that it is part of the theological system known as Calvinism. I invite your consideration of the following material.

Defining The Doctrine

Inasmuch as most of us are not too acquainted with the doctrine of imputation, I would like to begin by carefully defining it.

“Imputation, in the O.T. chashab, in the N.T. logizomai, is employed in the Scriptures to designate any action, word, or thing, as accounted or reckoned to a person; . . . The word imputation is, however, used for a certain theological theory, which teaches that (1) the sin of Adam is so attributed to man as to be considered, in the divine counsels, as his own, and to render him gusty of it; (2) that, in the Christian plan of salvation, the righteousness of Christ Is so attributed to man as to be considered his own, and that he is therefore justified by it” (“Imputation,” M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. IV, p. 524).

The doctrine has three distinct features to it. Although my brethren have not accepted all three features of it, I want to set the doctrine in its total theological content.

“Three acts of imputation are given special prominence in the Scripture, and are implicated in the Scriptural doctrines of Original Sin, Atonement and Justification . . . the term ‘imputation’ has been used in theology in a threefold sense to denote the judicial acts of God by which the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity; by which the sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Him; and by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. The act of imputation is precisely the same In each case. It is not meant that Adam’s sin was personally the sin of his descendants, but that it was set to their account, so that they share its guilt and penalty. It is not meant that Christ shares personally in the sins of men, but that the guilt of His people’s sins was set to his account, so that He bore its penalty. It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them, but that His righteousness is set to their account, so that they are entitled to the rewards of that perfect righteousness” (“Imputation,” James Orr, Editor, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. H, pp. 1462-1463).

This article is designed to consider one of these three acts of imputation, namely, the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the account of the believer. It makes no pretension to discussing all three of these acts of imputation as mentioned in these quotations.

However, there is one thing that I want to make crystal clear from these quotations, namely, the relationship that these doctrines of imputation sustain to each other. Regarding the logical connection which all points of Calvinism sustain to each other, the Encyclopedia Brittanica said,

“Through faith also the believer receives justification, his sins are forgiven, he Is accepted of God, and is held by Him as righteous, the righteousness of Christ being imputed to him. This imputed righteousness, however, is not disjoined from real personal righteousness, for regeneration and sanctification come to the believer from Christ no less than justification; the two blessings are not to be confounded, but neither are they to be disjoined. The assurance which the believer has of salvation he receives from the operation of the Holy Spirit; but this again rests on the divine choice of the man to salvation; and this falls back on God’s eternal sovereign purpose, whereby He has predestined some to eternal life and some to eternal death. The former he effectively calls to salvation, and they are kept by Him in progressive faith and holiness unto the end” (“John Calvin,” Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1944 edition, Vol. IV, p. 633).

Notice that the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is part of the warp and woof of Calvinism. This is the theological basis for their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. God does not hold the saint accountable for his sins (whether they be committed ignorantly or willfully makes no difference to Calvinists, although my brethren inconsistently try to make some distinction) because he sees the perfect obedience of Christ instead of the sinfulness of the believer. The imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ is the theological justification for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

Of course, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is related to all of the other points of Calvinism. No one whom God has called can in any way fall from grace or else the sovereignty of God is thwarted. Hence, the attending doctrine of election must be logically accepted. But, if election is accepted, then the doctrine that some are reprobates because of God’s divine decree must also be accepted. Then, one can logically backtrack through the entire system until he is compelled to accept inherited total depravity, irresistible grace, limited atonement, unconditional election, etc. Calvinism is a system. If one accepts a part of the system, he is logically compelled to accept the other parts of it.

To further confirm that these doctrines relate to each other, I want to consider some other evidences. Keep in mind that the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is the theological justification for the belief in the perseverance of the saints. In its chapter on “Of the Perseverance of the Saints,” The Westminster Confession of Faith states the following:

“1. They whom God bath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly preserve therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

“2. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree. of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of graces from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof” (6.086-6.087).

Notice that this quotation shows the relationship of these doctrines to each other. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ is the theological justification for the belief in the perseverance of saints. The perseverance of the saints is based on the doctrine of election. The interrelationship of these doctrines reminds me of the song about the ankle bone being connected to the leg bone, the leg bone being connected to the knee bone, the knee bone being connected to the thigh bone, etc. They are all related to each other.

Calvinists on “Imputation”

Since some are challenging whether or not the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is a part of Calvinism, let us go to the Calvinists themselves to find the answer.

1. John Calvin. Here is what John Calvin had to say about this doctrine:

“I reply that `accepting grace,’ as they cuff it, is nothing else than his free goodness, with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes an with the innocence of Christ and accepts it as ours that by the benefit of it be may hold an as holy, pure, and innocent. For Christ’s righteousness, which as it alone is perfect alone can bear the might of God, mast appear in court on our behalf, and stand surety in judgment. Furnished with this righteousness, we obtain continual forgiveness of sins in faith. Covered with this purity, the sordidness and uncleanness of our imperfection are not ascribed to us but are hidden as if buried that they may not come into God’s judgment, until the hour arrives when, the old man slain and clearly destroyed in an, the divine goodness will receive an into blessed peace with the new Adam” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter, XIV, No. 12).

Notice that Calvin argues just exactly as I stated. He stated that the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ was the reason why saints do not fall from grace. As a matter of fact, his statement resembles that which some of my brethren are writing today. Let us consider other statements from the Institutes.

“Therefore, we explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives an into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists In the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” (Book III, Chapter XI, No. 2).

. . . It is quite clear that Paul means exactly the same thing in another statement, which he had put a little before: ‘As we were made sinners by one man’s disobedience, so we have been justified by one man’s obedience’ (Rom. 5:19p.). To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Grist is reckoned to an as if it were our own?” (Book III, Chapter XI, No. 23).

2. The Second Helvetic Confession:

“Imputed Righteousness.. For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not Impute them to us, but imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as our own III Cor. 5:19ff; Rom. 4:25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us” (5.108).

3. The Westminster Confession of Faith:

“l. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justified: not by Infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any things wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves: it is the gift of God” (6.060).

Conclusion

Can anyone now doubt that the doctrine of the im?utation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is part of the theological system known as Calvinism? Brother Hardin might write, “I am quite capable of recognizing Calvinism when I see it!” but I am not willing to let his statements that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not Calvinism be my basis of determining whether or not it is Calvinism. I must infer that (1) he recognizes Calvinism and has accepted it knowingly or (2) he was wrong when he wrote, “I am quite capable of recognizing Calvinism when I see it!” There can be no doubt that the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is Calvinism. These evidences are too obvious!

What has happened is this: my brethren are attracted by the certainty of salvation which Baptists and other Calvinists feel. They want that same degree of certainty. Consequently, they have accepted the theological doctrine on which that certainty rests. However, these brethren ignore their inconsistencies. This doctrine is a part of a total system. If one. accepts a part of this system, he is logically compelled to accept all of it or to show how it can be consistently accepted while denying the other parts of the total system. Whereas theses men are wont to write about the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, they are not likely to deal with this aspect of the doctrine.

Furthermore, my brethren are not as consistent as the Calvinists in the application of their doctrine. The Calvinists use the personal righteousness of Christ to cover every sin. My brethren limit the application of Christ’s personal righteousness to sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh. I have yet to read anything from the pens of these men to warrant this distinction. If Christ’s personal righteousness is applied to my account, why won’t it cover all of my sins instead of just certain kinds of them. Have my brethren accepted a distinction in sins similar to that of the Catholics (mortal and venial)? Then, too, I wonder how many sins of ignorance and of weaknesses of the flesh this will cover. For example, if through the weakness of my flesh I lost my temper and committed murder and then died of a heart attack, would Christ’s personal righteousness cover me?

My brethren refuse to grapple with these inconsistencies. Rather than do that, they prefer to write about their assurances of salvation as a result of this doctrine. One thing is certain, however, they have accepted a part of the theological system known as Calvinism as the evidences cited in this article clearly show.

Truth Magazine XXII: 3, pp. 51-53
January 19, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

From the apartment house in which I live here in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, it is about thirty-five miles to the Sears Tower, the world’s tallest building. On a clear day or night it can be seen from this apartment building. But between here and there; and then, throughout the whole city, lies a vast jungle – a sprawling mass of humanity compacted together in mansions and shacks, in neat rows of clean houses and in rat-infested tenements, in town-houses and in condominiums, in skyscrapers and in flats.

Twenty-three years ago when I first moved to Chicago-land the city had a reputation for wickedness, but I felt quite safe in walking in its parks alone or on its streets even at night. But things have changed here, and such activities are now very dangerous. Yet it may be no worse here in proportion to the population than in other areas of the country, generally. The fact is now well-known that the crisis in American is not in Chicago alone, but it reaches to the very crossroads of this great nation. Crime reaches into the lonely rural areas, violence reaches even the small towns, safety seems to be almost nowhere. People fled the cities a few years ago to rear their children in the security of the countryside, but now there is no use to run — there is no secure place.

Rebellion At Home

The moral crisis of which I write may indeed have been escalated by improper behavior by high officials of government and it may have been implemented by various social changes in the national scene. Liberal interpretation of law, reckless abandonment of authority and lawlessness in high places have all contributed to moral decay in the nation. But the real crisis is still at the crossroads! The family has always been the bed-rock foundation of society, and out of family circles have always come the men and the morals that were to determine the destinies of people. And when the family circle has deteriorated, then the very stalwart fabric and fiber of society has been destroyed. And that is the crisis we face today in Chicago-land and in every highway and by-way, every town and hamlet, every state and city of the nation.

These words should not be misunderstood. I am not a prophet of doom nor a pessimist who sees no good anywhere. I do not believe the whole country has gone to the dogs. I believe most of the people are still good, law-abiding folks. A relatively small minority have `become corrupt that they make it look bed for everyone. Yet, in this vast mass of law-abiding people, this “majority” who are basically good folks, the family circle is usually a broken circle, the home is insecure and an attitude o: despair prevails. Husbands become fugitives, wives seek “fulfillment” outside the home, children go home only when everything else is closed!

Most importantly, Christians are being swept up in this storm of rebellion against God-given directives for the family. Husbands, wives, parents, children — the whole family structure — seem to accept the new way of life as inevitable. The joy and peace, the tranquility and serenity that should characterize the family circle have been replaced by fear and dread, by anxiety and depression. Feelings of helplessness and despair prevail. The home, which God designed to be the cradle of civilization and which, historically, has always been the bulwark of the nations, has been neglected by husbands, deserted by wives and despised by children. Our society may be on the brink of disaster because the family circle, the foundation of that society, has crumbled beneath the weight of prosperity, materialism and worldliness.

In the very same way that the nation prospers economically but falters morally, the Lord’s church grows in our generation as it has seldom done before, yet it constantly loses doctrinal and moral vitality. If this loss of internal strength is not halted the church may follow the historical path of denominationalism: that is, the church may lose its identity as the “pillar and ground of the truth” and it may cease to be the spiritual house that is portrayed in God’s Word (see 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 2:5). If the spiritual crisis that is now obviously imminent is not averted, the impact of the church may be little more than a social and cultural power.

Indeed, the crisis at the crossroads will determine the destiny of the nation, for “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Most of all, the crisis at the crossroads will determine the quality of the church, for no church can rise above the level of quality that characterizes the families that constitute the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16, 17). God said to Solomon, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14). If God’s people will be faithful today, then surely God will bless us and our land and his church. Our faithfulness certainly must include devotion to the Word and to the church -fidelity in doctrine and in religious activity. But it must also include righteousness and holiness that prevails in, and emanates from, the family circle. If these essays can serve to help all of us see the reality of the crisis and if they can help in some small way, at least, to halt the deterioration of home life, then my time in writing and your time in reading will have been well spent. So, let us study, in succeeding chapters, ways to bring greater joy and success, as we, in our daily lives, meet the challenge of the crisis at the crossroads. Our next chapter will be a consideration of “Broken Circles.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 3, p. 50
January 19, 1978

By Fred A. Shewmaker

In Acts 15:3 we read about Paul and Barnabas “being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.” This is a description of their journey “to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about” the question of Gentile circumcision (v. 2). Before making this journey “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation” (v. 2) with those who were telling Gentiles, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (v. 1).

From this it is evident that “the conversion of the Gentiles” which “caused great joy” was not conversion to Judaism. “The conversion of the Gentiles” is described by James in v. 19, “Them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” In order to turn to God it was necessary to turn from something. These Gentiles had turned from the false religion of idolatry. In this study we will examine the changes necessary in order for a person to be converted — turn from an existence without God to God.

Paul wrote Gentile Christians at Ephesus, “Remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:11-12). Necessary to an alien’s conversion are changes that must take place in the mind The first of these changes is a change of one’s acquired knowledge. Jesus said, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mike, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man” (Mt. 7:24). The Heavenly Father said of Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Mt. 17:5). Again Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me” (Jn. 13:20).

Jesus sent His apostles, saying unto them, “Go ye into the world, and preach the gospel” (Mk. 16:15). Therefore, necessary to conversion is an acquired knowledge of the gospel. If a person acquires knowledge of the gospel and rejects it, that person cannot be converted. When one acquires knowledge of the gospel, to be converted there must be also a change of what the mind accepts. One’s mind must accept the validity of the gospel. One apostle wrote, “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (Jn. 20:30-31).

When one has heard the gospel and believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the mind must continue the process of change by changing what it approves. The alien approves ungodly activities. For him to be “turned to God” the mind must change to approve the things required of servants of God “God . . . now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). “The Lord is not slack concerning his promises, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pt. 3:9).

One may change by acquiring knowledge of the gospel, accepting “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” and approving the things required of servants of God without revealing these changes of the mind to another. This also must change, if one is to be converted. One of the changes necessary to conversion eliminates the possibility of being a secret servant of God. That is the change of what one acknowledges.

The person who has not acknowledged Jesus Christ, the Son of God as Lord must openly do that. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32). Paul write, “With the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10) and “Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God and Father” (Phil. 2:11).

There is, yet, another change necessary to conversion. It is not enough to acquire knowledge of the gospel, in the mind accept “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” approve the things required of servants of God and openly acknowledge Jesus Christ, the Son of God as Lord. We might illustrate this by considering one who is an alien to the United States: He may acquire knowledge of the United States, in the mind accept that the United States is the greatest nation on earth, approve the constitution of the United States and openly acknowledge the greatness of the United States and remain an alien to the United States. What is lacking? For an alien to become a citizen he must change his allegiance.

Paul wrote unto the Colossians about “giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12-14). For the alien to be converted, “turned to God,” he must be “translated into the kingdom of” God’s Son. This necessitates redemption through the blood of Christ (“the forgiveness of sins”).

Paul wrote, “As many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins” (Acts 2:38). If an alien who has no allegiance to Christ will not change and give his allegiance to Christ by being baptized to obtain forgiveness, he will never be translated into and become a citizen of the “kingdom of God’s dear Son.”

If in your life you have not experienced conversion, my friend, make the changes necessary to turn to God: acquire knowledge of the gospel; accept “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;” approve the things required of the servant of God; acknowledge Jesus Christ the Son of God as Lord before men; give your allegiance to Christ and become a citizen subject to our Lord Jesus Christ!

These are the changes which take place when one hears the gospel, believes the gospel, repents of his sins, confesses his belief that Jesus Christ is Lord and is baptized to obtain forgiveness of sins. Be converted, my friend! Turn from the service of Satan to the service of God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 45-46
January 12, 1978