Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Paul was at a place called Troas on his second journey when a vision appeared to him in the night. He saw a man from the country of Macedonia who was saying, “Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” The apostle and his companions came to Philippi, the ranking city in that section of Macedonia, after concluding that the Lord had called them to preach the gospel in that region. The Romans had planted a colony at Philippi.

Lydia and her household were the first converts at Philippi. Notice what the Bible says about this woman in Acts 16:12-15.

1. Lydia was a business woman. She was a seller of purple. This could mean that she sold a dye that was used in staining fibers, or it may mean that she sold cloth or garments that had been dyed. It is said of the rich man in Lk. 16:19 that he was clothed in purple and fine linen. Lydia did not allow her business interests to keep her from higher interests. Many people use their trade or occupation as an excuse for not serving God. In some cases, one’s business becomes so absorbing that he has no interest in spiritual concerns: Lydia was converted because the Lord was more important than her career.

2. Lydia was a foreigner. She was from the city of Thyatira in Asia Minor. We are not informed of how long she had been at Philippi when Paul and his coworkers arrived. Her being away from her native land did not cause her to forget about religion.

3. Lydia was a praying woman. Paul and the other preachers who were with him learned that it was customary for prayer to be offered by a river side on the Sabbath. They spoke to the women who resorted to that place. Lydia was among them. It is likely that these women were of the Jewish race. Perhaps there were not enough Jews around Philippi to build a synagogue, so a few faithful women were praying regularly at a designated spot by a river side each Sabbath.

4. Lydia worshiped God. Most of the people in Macedonia were idolaters. People were converted in some cases from idolatrous worship. But Lydia had the advantage of believing in the true and living God before she heard the gospel. However, her being a prayerful worshiper of God did not make her a saved person without the gospel. Paul did not go along with the idea that one religion is as good as another. He knew that Lydia was lost in spite of her devotion.

5. Lydia heard the truth. Paul and his companions “spake” (v. 13); Lydia “heard” (v. 14). This is the first step in converting anyone to Jesus Christ. “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father; cometh unto m8;” said Jesus in John 6:45. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

6. Lydia had her heart opened. The Lord opened her heart. This was accomplished through tile power of the gospel which she heard. The Bible does not say that the Lord opened her heart that she might hear, but it says she heard, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). It is by means of the gospel that the Lord opens hearts. First, Lydia heard the word. Second, by the influence of that word her heart was opened by the Lord. Third, because her heart was opened she gave heed to what she was taught to do.

7. Lydia was baptized. This harmonizes with what Jesus told the apostles when they were being sent forth in Mk. 16:15, 16. “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Lydia was not saved by faith only. She demonstrated her faith in obedience. Jesus requires baptism as a demonstration of faith, and the remission of sins depends on this kind of faith (Acts 2:38, 22:16).

Both Lydia and her household were baptized. To use this case as justification for infant baptism necessitates the following assumptions: (1) that Lydia was married; (2) that she had children; and, (3) that her children were yet infants. Lydia’s household could have been her servants. If she was married and had children, they could have been mature enough to know right from wrong, and would have been proper subjects for baptism. Other passages make it clear that baptism is for repentant believers, therefore infants are excluded.

8. Lydia shared in gospel work. After being baptized, she besought Paul and his fellow workers to abide in her house. This offer of hospitality was not a mere courtesy. She “constrained” them. She was indebted to these men who had taught her the truth. She wanted to provide them with lodging as an expression of her appreciation and to show her interest in their important work. Afterward, when Paul wrote to the saints at Philippi, he said, “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine . . . For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now” (Phil. 1:3-5). From the time of Lydia’s conversion to the time of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, the saints at Philippi had shown a willingness to share with the apostle in his good work.

The account of Lydia’s conversion is one of the many impressive narratives showing how people turned to the Lord under the influence of simple gospel preaching in the days of the apostles. The same gospel is still being preached and souls are still being converted.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, p. 674
November 3, 1977

By Jady W. Copeland

In the May 8th issue of Truth Magazine (1975), I wrote an article on “Are Blood Transfusions Wrong?” The conclusion to which I came in that article included my understanding of Acts 15:19-21, namely that this is not a blanket prohibition of the apostles and elders to eat blood in all generations of time, but that it was prohibited then because of the strained relationship between Jew and Gentile. The four things mentioned in verses 20 and 29 were things common to the Gentile Christians as they often practiced them prior to their becoming Christians. However, they seemed to have offended many of the Jews and, thus, in cementing the relationship between Jew and Gentile, it seems to me that Peter and the apostles were telling the Gentile Christians to refrain from these things in view of that relationship. From 1 Cor. 8 and 10 we learn that the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to idols was not, in all cases, sinful so if Acts 15:19 is a blanket prohibition (even for us today), it seems to me that you have a contradiction. Therefore, after studying the passage further in Acts 15, I have come to the conclusion as stated above.

As many of the Filipino brethren take Truth Magazine and since I was in the Philippines last April along with Brother Harold Trimble, I ran into a number of brethren there who questioned me on my article. Eating balute (unborn chickens and ducks still in the shell, and cooked) is a common practice in the Philippines as well as the eating of blood in other forms. Thus, it is a much greater “issue” there than in the United States. The position of brethren in the Philippines has been, and is, what my position had long been with reference to eating blood-namely that it is simply wrong to eat blood in any form. And since it seems to have caused quite a discussion among Filipino brethren, I have decided to write this article concerning attitudes with reference to such things in the hopes that Brother Willis can print it.

Not only have I changed my mind on this passage, but many brethren in the states do not agree with me. It is one of those “issues” I suppose on which there is a great deal of disagreement, but has never caused much trouble since not many people in the states desire to eat blood anyway. I certainly do not desire to eat it (had no “hankering” to eat balute even in the Philippines) and do not make an issue on the subject with those people with whom I disagree. I do not think any less of anyone who disagrees with me on the matter and (as always) realize the possibility of my being mistaken on the matter. I am willing to be taught. But since it seems to have caused some discussion among Filipino brethren, I wanted to appeal to them, and to all, to study the matter very seriously, and be fully assured in his own mind (Rom. 14:5). It is surely not an issue that should cause hard feelings. I appeal to my many Filipino brethren that I met and love to study the matter, but if it is going to cause any kind of hard feelings, then as the apostles wrote, you should refrain from such. Out of love for one another, and the desire for unity such things can be resolved in practice without any trouble at all. It is not a practice (such as the institutional question) where it would involve the whole congregation, but is an individual matter on which each must decide for himself. But I would, in view of the situation in the Philippines, urge brethren there not to eat blood as it might cause a brother to stumble. Even if one there might decide I am right about it, I think (knowing the situation there) it would be in the best interest of unity and love among brethren to refrain from such a practice. As I told some of the brethren while there, this is my own belief in the matter. Study the question for yourselves, and cause no hard feelings or trouble in the matter. There are a number of things I have had a desire to do in life, but have refrained from doing them because I thought they might harm my influence or cause a brother to sin. I do not eat blood. I do not want to eat blood, and if for no other reason than to keep from leading my brethren into sin, I would refrain from doing so. I would not want them to take me for an example and cause them to do that which they believe to be wrong (1 Cor. 8:7-13).

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 669-670
October 27, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

Hardly a week passes now but that we see in some religious paper an account of division in some church over such things as church support of vacation resorts, youth centers, colleges, church hospitals, homes for unwed mothers, church kitchens, banquet halls, brotherhood programs under one eldership, brotherhood organizations to take the place of the old missionary societies (we are reluctant to call them that now because of the stigma of the name “missionary society” which set the pace that wrecked the church a century ago), “Campaigns for Christ International,” “Gospel Press,” etc.

To those who love the Lord and His people, this always is an occasion of sorrow. Sorrow, because when a church divides there is always the breaking of ties and the alienation of friends and relatives. This often leaves scars that will never heal. Then there is the blighting effect that division has on the church in the community. Such a crisis as this nearly always causes some of the weaker members to become discouraged and drop out. The world will mock and deride us and the devil will gloat. Then last; but not last, where there is division such as this, there is always sin. Paul said to the Corinthians, “For ye are yet carnal: For whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men” (1 Cor.3:3). In some cases, both sides may be guilty, but one thing is sure, where there is division, somebody is guilty of sin. Woe unto the ones who cause division in the Lord’s church.

Division’s Sometimes Necessary

As sinful as divisions is, it is not always true that all those involved are guilty of sin. Sometimes the situation becomes such that it is sinful for some not to separate. themselves from the others. There comes a time when those who respect the truth and want to live by it have no choice but to walk out and start a church where the work can be carried on in harmony with New Testament teaching. Where would the church be today if some brethren had not walked out when the missionary societies and instrumental music were forced upon them? When prejudice has not yet crystalized the sentiment of a church against honest investigation of the issues involved, I would certainly encourage brethren to stay on and study the matter with mutual patience and forbearance as long as there is hope of saving a church from the curse of innovation. But when a Christian continues on in a congregation that is engaged in unscriptural practices, knowing that he can do nothing to change the condition, he becomes guilty with the others, because he is lending his influence and giving his money to aid those who are corrupting the Lord’s church. John said, “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed, for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 10, 11)

Some Excuses

Nearly every time a church divides there are some who, knowing the truth, still refuse to go with the few who go out and establish a faithful New Testament church. There are many reasons for this. Of course, there are always some who just do not care. They know what the Bible teaches but have no conviction. There is not much loss to the effort here, because these would not be worth much if they went along. They will not be worth much where they stay. They are going with the biggest crowd. They can get lost in the crowd and what they do not do will not be noticed. When you are in a small group your laziness and good-for-nothingness shows more. It is embarrassing.

Then there are some who say, “My children have their friends here and I just hate to take them away.” Are these more interested in their children’s social status or their souls? Do they think their children can grow up in a church that disregards New Testament authority and come out sound in the faith? When swans are hatched from buzzard eggs you may look for this.

Others say, “Their elders are opposed to this move, and I don’t want to be guilty of rebellion against the elders.” I wonder if they are that conscientious about attending all the classes and meetings arranged by the elders? Anyway, where did we get the idea that the elders have the right to forbid a group of Christians to leave the church where they serve and start another congregation. Suppose some members of a church live in a town twenty miles away and one day they decide to start a church in the town where they live. If the elders refused permission they would have to continue driving twenty miles to worship. And, if some outsider came in and started a church in that town, these members who were driving twenty miles could not place membership in their own home town. Do you believe that? If the elders can forbid forty members to go out and start another work, they can forbid one to change his membership to another church. I recognize that brethren should consider the elders and counsel with them concerning the starting of another church, and in normal condition abide by their decisions in the matter. But when elders are spending the money of the church in supporting things for which they can offer no scriptural proof, and in many instances will not even try, I would not feel bound by their decision. I have a higher obligation than that which I sustain to the elders. The Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands. But we all understand that this is a relative submission. Her first duty is to God, and her husband comes second. The same is true with regard to the children and the parent relationship; the citizen and the government. And it is also true that the Christian is taught to be in submission to the elders, but when the elders command one to do something that God has not authorized, he “must obey God rather than man.” I would ask these brethren who have such reverence for the eiders, “What would you have done if you had lived a century ago and h.-.d been members of a church in which the elders decided Lo support the Missionary Society?” Would you have obeyed the elders? If you say that was different, you assume the very thing to be proven, that the Missionary Society was unscriptural, but that the things that are now dividing the church are scriptural. If you believe they are scriptural, then you should take a stand and fight for them, after you have found the scripture that authorizes them. If you think they are unscriptural, then you should help oppose them.

Elders not Official Interpreters

Elders have the awesome responsibility of feeding, overseeing, ruling and being examples to the flock. Certainly faithful elders deserve our respect and cooperation. They are set to “watch for our souls as they who must give account. . .” (Heb. 13:17). But they are not set over the church as official interpreters of the Word. And they have no arbitrary authority. Christ has all authority (Mt. 28:18), and that does not leave any for the elders. Elders have the charge to rule the church under Christ and in harmony with His Word, just as the wife is told to submit to her husband “as it is fit in the Lord” (Col. 3:18). And when elders demand that the flock submit to their decision and refuse to even allow the matter to be discussed in the light of scripture, they are “lord(ing) it over God’s heritage,” and the Christians have no more obligation to obey them in that matter than the wife would be obligated to obey her husband’s command that she prostitute her body to support him.

If this sentiment gains general acceptance, that the decision of the elders regarding the work of the church must be accepted without question or even study, then it is only a matter of time until the church has a human creed. Our freedom to study the Bible and decide for ourselves has been our great strength. It has kept us from the shackles of a human creed. And when we relinquish this freedom, even to the elders, we might as well have a priest or a bishop to tell us what we may believe and do, as do the Catholics.

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 668-669
October 27, 1977

By Robert Vezinat

About two years ago last June, Brother Truman Smith and I made a visit to the island country of Haiti to see what, if any, opportunities existed there for the work of the Lord. We were not exactly prepared for what we found. In my estimation this is the poorest country I have ever seen in all my life-not excluding the poverty-ridden people in Viet Nam where I served in the military. The people in Haiti seem to have absolutely nothing by way of material possessions; they are almost literally on a starvation diet. There is no kind of government assistance for them; they survive by their own efforts, or they die. And the death rate there is far higher than one might be ready to believe. I talked (French) to many of them, and more than one of these poor people told me that they ate about once every other day!

Brother Smith and I quickly found a young man who was more than willing to be our guide. We had arrived in Port-Au-Prince, the capital of the country, but decided to try to start a congregation in a small town called Leogane, which is about 25 miles from the capital. Due to the terrible condition of the roads, it takes about two hours to travel these 25 miles. Arriving in Leogane, we went through the town telling the people that at 7:00 o’clock that night we would be showing a religious film at a certain place, and inviting them to come. It would be free. When the time came for the meeting, we had about 250 people who had turned out for the occasion. The showing of the film took a bit longer than would have been the case here at home, since I had to translate it into French.

We went through the entire series of films (the Jule Miller strip) and the crowds increased each night. When I had finished translating the last strip, I asked how many of them felt the need to be baptized. Quite a few raised their hands. However, we could not baptize them that night as we had no body of water available. But the next day we drove to the sea (in the little Honda that we had rented), and I baptized a total of thirteen. We had to make several trips, since the small Honda could not accommodate more than two or three at a time. I am confident we could have baptized several score of these hungering, searching people if we had only had time to remain with them. But we could not. And, worse still, we had no one to leave with these babes in Christ to strengthen and further teach them.

Second Trip

I returned to Haiti alone one year later. Brother Smith did not accompany me on this trip since he did not speak French, and felt that his going along would not be as essential as it was the first time we went. My second trip was also very successful and very fruitful. What I was really looking for this second time was some good man among the converts who could be trained and trusted to be left there to preach and teach.

After much searching I finally found a young man who spoke English very well. He told me he had been baptized for the remission of sins, and he was preaching for a group who called themselves “the church of Christ.” However, I found this group, in spite of the fact that they baptized for the remission of sins, closer to the Baptist teaching than anything else. However, I stayed with this young man a full week, trying to teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly. We established another congregation at a place called Achet (or Archiet, depending on how you pronounce it), and I left this young man to preach and teach. We erected a makeshift building for about $200.00 (my money); and after my return to my home (Cleveland, Texas) I supported this man from my own funds. Then the Cleveland church agreed to take over the support, but desired me to make a quick (and unannounced) visit back to the island to further check on the work. What I found was both encouraging and discouraging. In the four months of my absence the church had grown to about one hundred souls-but due to their ignorance (and perhaps some lack of honesty on the part of the young man I had left there) several false teachings had come into the church, some of the women were leading in public prayers; contributions were being taken up in the various Bible school classes (amounting to practically nothing, however, since the people were so poverty stricken). The young man told me that if I felt the things they were doing were unscriptural, they would change. But I felt they might be doing it for policy’s sake, and not out of any real conviction. So I returned to Cleveland, depressed and discouraged. I stopped my support of the young man, and advised the Cleveland brethren (where I preached) that I felt it would be unwise at that time to make any contribution toward that work.

The Future?

However, that second trip did uncover one ray of hope. I found another young man (among those whom we had baptized) who was also preaching the gospel. He was a “country boy,” very poor, and very humble. He seemed determined in every way possible to do exactly what the Book said, as nearly as he could understand it. Being from the country, he had not had contact with the more “sophisticated” (and, therefore, probably less sincere) people of the city. I believe this young man holds real promise for the building of a faithful congregation in that area.

However, there is no way at all by which I can contact him without going back to Haiti. There is no mail delivery; there are no telephones; there is no way to contact him except to go there in person. The congregation is about ten miles out in the country, and the last five miles of that journey must be made by foot.

I want to go back to Haiti and make another effort to establish a faithful church there. It is very easy to baptize these simple folk. They are extremely poor, and have very little in this life to look forward to; because of this, they find the gospel, with its promise of a home in heaven, far more inviting than most people here in the States. They are open and receptive. Since I speak French (my native tongue), I can converse with these people without effort. The people are ready; “the fields are white unto the harvest.” I want to go to Haiti for an extended visit within the very near future; and then a bit later I want to move there for a year or two and establish a few congregations. I would like to make Haiti my field of labor from here on out, alternating between periods of work there and periods her in the States.

I make this appeal to see if there are churches or brethren who would be interested in having fellowship in this venture. If you want to make inquiry as to my background and teaching, I refer you to Brother Grover Stevens in Lubbock (who helped me to understand what the problems of the church are when I was a student. in the Lubbock Sunset School of Preaching), to Brother Roy Cogdill who knows me and knows of my work with the church in Cleveland, Texas; and to Brother Yater Tant who has held meetings for the church in Hobbs, New Mexico when I was preaching there, and who knows of my life and work. I am now working with the Highway 9 Church of Christ in Corpus Christi, Texas. If any church, or individual, wants to help me in going to Haiti, please contact me at the address given: 4902 Wexford, Corpus Christi, Texas 78411.

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 667-668
October 27, 1977