Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Virginia: “Recently in a gospel meeting, the preacher taught that Jesus was not the Christ until after the crucifixion. This was based on the prophecy that Christ would be raised. It was also based on Acts 2:36. I reasoned that Jesus was already the Christ before the crucifixion (1 Jn. 4:1-4; Matt. 16:16-20). Would you please comment on this?”

Reply:

Jesus was the Christ, the anointed one. He accepted this title before His death. (1) Peter said, “Thou art the Christ …and Jesus answered …Blessed art thou Simon” (Matt. 16:17, 18). (2) The Samaritan woman whom Jesus encountered at Jacob’s well said, “I know that Messiah cometh which is called Christ ….Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” (Jn. 4:25, 26). (3) “Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am” (Mk. 14:61, 62). Thus, thrice did the Lord accept the title of Christ before His crucifixion.

Psalm 2; Isaiah 2; Acts 2

As Psalm 2:2 shows, Jesus was Jehovah’s Anointed. “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” The “anointed” simply means the Christ. Opposition to the Lord’s anointed began at His birth (Matt 2). This was in fulfillment of the prophetic Psalm (Acts 4:25-27). At sundry times and in divers manners, “the kings of the earth . . . and the rulers” took “counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed,” the Messiah, the Christ (Lk. 4:28, 29; Jn. 8:59; 10:31). Finally, they called and clamored for His crucifixion. When they secured His death, they thought they were rid of Him, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (Psa. 2:6). The “king” of Psalm 2:6 is the “anointed.” So, God declares, despite their designs, I have set my king upon the throne.

The “mountain of the Lord,” the Lord’s kingdom, was established and exalted (Isa. 2:2), and its king was enthroned upon Jehovah’s “holy hill (kingdom) of Zion” (Psa. 2:6). The “mountain” of Isaiah 2 is the “holy hill” of Psalm 2. This placing of the king in power was done after Jesus’ suffering, death, resurrection and ascension (Lk. 24:25, 26, 46-49). Paul describes the setting of the king in His kingdom. He says it was effected or accomplished by the “mighty power” of God “which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come” (Eph. 1:20, 21). When was it? It was “when he raised him from the dead.” What was done? Christ was positioned at God’s own right hand. Where? He was set “in the heavenly places,” this is, “upon the holy hill” as the king of the mountain or kingdom. It was simply the exaltation and coronation of Christ. Because Jesus “became obedient unto death,” “God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name (a power, authority, or dominion)” (Phil. 2:9). Peter says the very same thing (Acts 2:29-36).

When the mountain of the Lord was established, God set His king upon that mountain. In other words, when the kingdom was established, God installed and enthroned “his anointed” as the king (Cf. Isa. 2:2; Psa. 2:6, 7). Jesus was the Christ, but He was not given His universal dominion until after His resurrection, ascension, and inauguration (Psa. 2:6, 7; Lk. 24:46, 47; Acts 2:36-38; 13:32-34). It is parallel to David. David was anointed king of Israel before the death of Saul (1 Sam. 16). David, however, exercised no authority as king until after the death of Saul. He recognized Saul as “the Lord’s anointed” even after he had been anointed as king (2 Sam. 1:14). So, Jesus was the Lord’s anointed, but He did not bear the rule until He was placed upon the “holy hill of Zion.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, p. 706
November 17, 1977

By Donald P. Ames

Churches of Christ have long disavowed the name “Campbellites” that certain of our denominational friends (?) have sought to tag on to us. Yet, I can not help but feel that if one examined some of our sermons and writings, there is indeed good cause for some of these people to feel (incorrectly, of course) that Campbell is the founder of the Lord’s church. I have just finished reading a very interesting, and good, article by Lindsey Warren in the October, 1976 quarterly issue of The Spiritual Sword (edited by Thomas B. Warren, and dedicated to fighting the extreme liberalism that has become such a problem in the liberal camp today). I enjoyed the courageous and bold approach that it took toward being ready to defend the truth in debate and amidst opposition and, to such, can add a hearty “amen.”

But there is something else about the article I wish to focus attention on for a few minutes. The article was entitled, “The New Testament And Controversy.” I assumed from such a title I would learn a great deal of New Testament teaching on the subject, and also by the fact that the first point mentioned in the “Notes” at the end was: “All conclusions in this article are based on the teachings of the Bible, the sacred revelation of God to man.” But, as I began reading, I was almost forced to ask if the writer had any ideas and convictions of his own at all, and if so, what were they?

The article comprised a total of 16 1 / 2 pages about 3 / 4 the size of one page of Truth Magazine. In that space, the first full page was spent solely in introducing his material, thus leaving us 15 1 / 2 pages for the body. Bit, what was glaringly noticeable was that if Alexander Campbell had not lived, the writer would not have had very much to tell us about what the New Testament had to say about controversy (and this problem is not just limited to our liberal brethren). Alexander Campbell was directly referred to by name a total of 104 times in that article and alluded to (“he said,” etc.) as authority another 86 times! That makes a total of 190 references to Campbell as an authority within one article. Even most of the conclusions reached were not “the N.T. thus affirms. . .”, but rather “Thus he concluded . . . .” I would suggest the writer needed to look at Gal. 1:12.

I am not accusing the writer of not using any scriptures, because he did take a couple pages abandoning Campbell long enough to form some arguments of his own to tell us somewhat of what the New Testament taught-often using clumps of scriptures at the end of a point to support it. Omitting his introduction with a large clump of scriptures on another point entirely, he did refer to 148 scriptures. But since his subject was “The New Testament and Controversy,” and not ‘Alexander Campbell and Controversy,” such overwhelming reliance on Campbell cannot help but make one wonder which was really his authority? It is good to read and learn about great preachers. It is good to respect a man for his grasp of Bible teaching on a subject. But let us beware that we do not become so wedded to the “Restoration Movement” that we begin erecting our own “founder.” Let us do our own thinking, form our own arguments, and reach our own conclusions!

We can profit from their material and be thankful for their studied writings, but when a subject is “The New Testament and ,” let us talk about what the New Testament says on it, not what Campbell, Lipscomb, and others taught. These men also made their mistakes. They are not our authority and we need to recognize them no more than any other preacher living today-except for the work they did during their time.

Such frequent quoting from the writings of early preachers as was done in this article quickly lends support to the idea Campbell must be more than just a good gospel preacher. “He must be some sort of authority.” “They derive their doctrine from him.” Could it be some gospel preachers are creating their own problems?

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 701-702
November 10, 1977

By Dennis C. Abernathy

As the title of this article states, we want to talk about “name calling,” “one’s attitude,” and “Matthew chapter 23” in connection with preaching the gospel of Christ. There are some today, as there have always been, who do not like it, when names are called from the pulpit. “Don’t attack the denominations,” they say. “It will do no good.” “It will prejudice the hearers and drive them away.” They will accuse you of using “bullying and badgering” tactics under the guise of “preaching the truth.” They will leave the impression that you (in trying to justify name-calling) are just trying to cover up your bad attitude.

I simply ask, “Is it wrong to ever call names (identify the source of sin) in preaching?” Is it wrong to identify a false teacher? Is it wrong to name a denomination and refute their false doctrine? Is it wrong to mark and identify a heretic or a sower of discord among brethren? I just wonder if it is brethren? I have always thought it to be proper to do the aforementioned things in preaching. I have always used the examples of Paul, Stephen, and the Lord Himself for authority to do this: Paul called a man the “child of the Devil” (Acts 13:10). Why did he do that? Verse eight says he was trying to “turn away the deputy from the faith.” Verse 10 says he was “perverting the right ways of the Lord.” Now I realize fully that Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost and his “very words were given to Him by the Father.” Does that mean I cannot preach like Paul preached today, simply because I must use the written word? Are there any today who try to turn people away from the faith? Are there any today who pervert the right ways of the Lord? If one today is doing what Elymas did in Acts 13, would he not be a “child of the Devil”? Then why label one as having a bad attitude for calling a person what he is? I see nothing wrong with calling a person a child of the Devil (after all, what is a person if he is not a child of God?).

I submit to you that the same is true concerning Jesus and what He said in Matthew 23. People still do as the Pharisees did. It has nothing to do with “looking into a man’s heart.” It has to do with his action. Can we not know if a man is hypocritical if he is saying one thing and doing another? That is surely the case with Paul rebuking Peter to his face. Did Paul have to “look into Peter’s heart” to recognize that? (Gal. 2).

Brethren and friends, I do not believe we should “cram the truth down another’s throat,” or “intimidate and harass” one in our preaching. We should use common courtesy in our preaching. We must “preach the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). But my friends, I do not believe this implies softening down our preaching to “smooth words and fair speeches.” Let us attack error on every hand, call sin what it is, correct the sinner and rebuke the false teacher calling names if we must. H. Leo Boles in commenting on Matthew chapter 23 stated, “This condemnation and warning of the scribes and Pharisees has its practical value -today” (New Testament Commentary on Matthew, p. 441). To that I say Amen!

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, p. 701
November 10, 1977

By Johnny Stringer

A court has recently ruled that five adult followers of Sun Myung Moon be returned to the custody of their parents for 30 days. Moon is a religious charlatan who uses his young disciples (called Moonier) to enrich himself. The parents of these five Moonies argued that their children had been brainwashed into joining Moon’s Unification Church, hence needed to be returned to their parents for a period of “de-programming.”

The April, 1977, issue of Reader’s Digest contains an article written by a parent whose son was successfully deprogrammed. He says that Moonier employ such tactics as depriving their recruits of proper food and rest and programming every minute of their waking houvs, so that they are “psychologically worn down until they’re brought under complete mind control and fall into a trance somewhat like an autohypnotic state where their wills aren’t their own-they belong to Moon.”

Such charges of brainwashing have been made against other cults, and it has been popular in recent years for parents to hire a “deprogrammer” who kidnaps the young cultist and takes him somewhere to deprogram him. The most popular and successful deprogrammer has been Ted Patrick, now serving a jail sentence on charges growing out of his deprogramming activities. I will not comment on the question of whether or not it is constitutional for the court to make a full-grown adult a captive of his parents because of his religious beliefs, but I believe that, apart from that question, some observations on this matter are in order.

First, we should not let the term “brainwashing” lead us to absolve the young convert of his personal responsibility for his sin. It was of his own free will that he first became involved with the Unification Church and came to be in a position which allowed the Moonier to brainwash him. If he had previously looked to God’s word and put his faith in it, his knowledge of truth would have prevented him from being susceptible to the nonsense taught by Moon. Those who permit themselves to be led into error are responsible before God and must pay the price (Matt. 15:14).

This point brings us to the matter of parental failure. The anguish which parents experience when their children join such cults is understandable. They become so terribly concerned for their children’s welfare that they hire a professional deprogrammer to kidnap their children, or they seek custody of their children through the courts. It seems to me that their concern is a wee bit late. They had about twenty years in which to influence and mold the thinking of their children, but failed to take proper advantage of it. Had they used that time to instill in the hearts of their children a love for God’s truth and devotion to it, their children would be prepared to recognize the errors of deceivers such as Moon.

I do not know what my children will do when they become adults, but their mother and I are doing our best to provide such training and guidance as will lead them to be Christians. If after the years of teaching which we provide, they still join up with some cult such as Moon’s Unification Church, we will consider them to be responsible for their own decision. It will break our hearts, but we will realize that they knew the truth, hence are without excuse for their sins. Consequently, we shall have them neither kidnapped nor legally returned to our custody for deprogramming-not after twenty years of efforts to prevent them from being led into religious error. We will have already had our opportunity with them.

The problem is that parents fail to provide their children the spiritual training they so sorely need (Eph. 6:4). As a result, their spiritually ignorant offspring are susceptible to the propaganda of such false teachers as Moon. Having thus failed to avail themselves of the twenty years they have already had to influence their children, they kidnap them or seek legal custody so that they can now have a chance to influence them away from the cult.

The religious leaders can also be blamed. It may be that the parents attended church regularly and took their children to church; but the teaching the children received from their parents and preachers did not ground them in truth and give them something in which to deeply believe. Rather than pointing them to the scriptures as the authoritative teaching by which their lives should be governed (2 Tim. 3:16-17), the parents and “pastors” probably told them that one church was as good as another and that it did not matter what one believed or practiced as long as he was honest end sincere!

Finally, it should be pointed out that those who have preached religious tolerance, proclaiming that we should not condemn other beliefs, opining that one church is as good as another and that it does not matter what we believe as long as we are sincere, have absolutely no business acting disturbed and distraught when their children become Moonier. If one church is as good as another, Moon’s Unification Church is as good as any. Yet, while some will tolerate many religious beliefs, they draw the line when it comes to such cults as Moon’s. The truth is, however, that any religion not taught in the scriptures is just as destructive to the soul as Moon’s religion is. I would just about as soon my children join the Unification Church as any other church not found in God’s word. Religious error condemns (2 Thess. 2:1012), whether it is propagated by Sun Myung Moon or by Billy Graham is immaterial.

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, p. 700
November 10, 1977