Truth Magazine

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

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Continuing our study of handling aright the word of truth, I shall now point out that such is required when dealing with the examples of conversion recorded in the book of Acts. A proper division of the word recognizes the distinction between.

The Essential And The Incidental

By the word, essential, is meant that which, in the nature of things, constitutes the process of conversion, and such things as are made necessary to conversion by divine appointment. The word, essential, is a derivative of the word, essence, which is defined as, “that which constitutes the particular nature of a thing” (Webster). He defines the word, essential, as, “Necessary to the constitution or existence of a thing.”

Conversion is essentially a change. Webster defines it as, “The act of turning or changing from one state to another.” Wheat, by the process of milling, is converted (changed) into flour. Flour, by another process is converted (changed) into bread. As used in the Bible, the conversion of man involves a threefold change.

1. A change of heart. Jeremiah said, The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?” (Jer. 4:9). It is thus obvious that a change of heart is essentially a part of the process of conversion.

2. A change of life. That “all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), is Paul’s indictment of the human race. Thus a change of life is essential to conversion.

3. A change of state, or relationship. In his unsaved state, man is in the kingdom of Satan. Paul’s work as an apostle was to “turn men from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18). He reminded the Colossians that they had been “delivered out of the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Col. 1:13). Thus conversion is essentially a change of man’s state, or relationship.

Made Essential By Divine Appointment

To this three-fold change in man, there are conditions that are essential by reason of the fact that God has commanded them. Without obedience to these conditions he remains in his lost state.

1. God has appointed faith as the means of purifying the heart. Peter said, “And he made no distinction between us and them (Jew and Gentile, M.B.), purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9).

2. God has appointed repentance as the means of a change of life. John the Baptist exhorted those who came out to him to be baptized, to “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8). When asked by the multitudes what they must do in bringing forth such fruits, he pointed out that such repentance required a radical change from their former manner of life (Luke 3:10-14).

3. God has ordained baptism as the means of changing one’s state, or relationship. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Before baptism, one is outside of Christ and in the devil’s kingdom. In baptism one leaves the kingdom of Satan and enters into Christ and his kingdom. Before baptism, one is a servant of sin. After obedience from the heart, in baptism, one is a servant of righteousness (Rom. 6:17, 18).

We may say then, that the essentials of conversion are, that the gospel must be preached (1 Cor. 1:21). The heart must be purified by faith. The life must be purified by repentance. The state, or relationship must be changed by baptism into Christ.

These essentials are all found in the great commission given to the apostles by Christ, when he sent them forth to preach the gospel to all nations (Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:46, 47).

Incidentals

An incidental is defined as, “Happening as an occasional event forming an incident; casual; not necessary to the chief purpose” (Webster).

That there were such incidentals involved in the conversions recorded in the book of Acts is obvious to all careful students of that book. These were incidents that, while not essential to the conversion of the subjects) yet which served an important function in preparing, or setting the stage for the preaching of the gospel which led to the conversions. It needs to be observed, too, that while the essentials of conversion were uniform in each example, the incidentals varied, their presence being determined by circumstances peculiar to each situation.

It must be remembered, too, that the conversions recorded in Acts occurred in an age of miracles, and consequently those incidentals often involved miraculous phenomena. Since, as we have pointed out in previous articles, the age of miracles has ceased, such incidentals could not be involved in any conversion today.

We are now prepared to study some of the conversions of the book of Acts, and to note the distinction between the essential and the incidental in each example.

The Conversion Of The Jews On Pentecost

This conversion is recorded in the second chapter of Acts. The events of that day began with the baptism of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Was it essential to conversion? If so, it would have been necessary to every conversion today. But the fact is, it was incidental, and fulfilled the promise of Christ regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit who would guide the apostles into all truth, and call to their remembrance the things that Jesus had taught them during his personal ministry (John 14:26; 16:12, 13).

The essentials of this conversion conform to all the requirements of the great commission. The gospel was preached (Acts 2:22-36). They believed the message. They repented. They were baptized (Acts 2:37-41).

The Conversion Of The Eunuch

In the conversion of the eunuch, recorded in the eighth chapter of Acts there are two incidentals of miraculous nature: 1. An angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, directing him to go down to the Jerusalem-Gaza road (Acts 8:26). 2. The Holy Spirit directed Philip to go near and join himself to the chariot in which the eunuch was riding (vs. 29).

These were merely incidentals that served to bring the preacher and the man to be converted together.

The essential characteristics of this conversion again follow the pattern of the great commission. The gospel (Jesus) was preached (vs. 35). The eunuch believed (vs. 37, K.J.V.). Repentance, though not specifically stated, is implied. The eunuch was baptized (vs. 38).

The Conversion of Saul Of Tarsus

In the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, Christ appeared to him in a blaze of divine glory on the Damascus road. Is a personal appearance of Christ essential to conversion? If so, then everyone must experience such a personal appearance, or he is not converted. That leaves out this writer for one.

The fact is, Christ did not appear to Saul to save him. The purpose of Christ’s appearance is stated in Jesus’ own words, “For to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness, both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee” (Acts 26:16). It is thus obvious that the purpose of Christ’s appearance was to qualify him to be an apostle. Years later, Paul referred to the fact that he had seen Jesus as proof of his apostleship (1 Cor. 9:1).

In its essential points the conversion of Saul followed the pattern of all other conversions recorded in Acts. A gospel preacher was sent to him (Acts 9:10-12). He believed in Christ (Acts 22;10). Of the fact that he repented, what better evidence could we have than that he became a preacher of the faith of which he once made havoc (Gal. 1:23)? He was baptized (Acts 9:18).

The Conversion Of Cornelius

In the conversion of Cornelius and his household, there were three outstanding incidents. 1. The appearance of an angel to Cornelius. 2. Peter’s vision on the housetop. 3. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the audience.

Each of these served a purpose that was incidental, and was no essential part of the conversion, itself. The visit of the angel was to instruct Cornelius to send to Joppa for Peter (Acts 10:5). The purpose of Peter’s vision was to remove a long-standing prejudice of all Jews concerning social intercourse with the Gentiles (vss. 27, 28). The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was to convince Peter and his Jewish brethren that the gospel was for Gentiles as well as Jews (vss. 44-47; 11:17, 18).

Essentially, Cornelius’ conversion, like all others under the great commission, consisted of hearing the gospel preached (Acts 11:14), faith in Christ (Acts 15:8), repentance, though not specifically stated, yet implied, baptism in the name of Christ (Acts 10:48).

From the foregoing observations we thus conclude that while incidentals varied according to circumstances peculiar to each case, essentials were uniform and constitute a clear pattern for conversion today.

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 665-666
October 27, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Major Contribution or Characteristic in Approach to Unity: Saxon King Otto I (962) restored the Western Roman Empire which became known as the Holy Roman Empire, and asserted German influence over Roman synods or councils. Otto and his successors “appointed their own popes” and introduced “Germanic features into Church organization” (Dvornik, p. 47). The princes scattered in various regions of the West viewed themselves as priest-kings, supreme over all spiritual and temporal affairs in their domain. Thus, “the synods of the bishops were transformed into national assemblies presided over by the kings” (Dvornik, p. 48). For over a hundred years after Otto, the Roman popes struggled to increase their own power “in order to save Western Christianity from becoming a conglomerate of national prestige of the papacy,” but allowed them no voice (Dvornik, p. 50).

The actions of Lateran synods in 1123 and 1179 established the triumph of the popes, in place of the emperors, over both temporal and spiritual affairs. Unity (spiritual and temporal) was then pursued by the popes and through general councils of bishops convened by the popes. In medieval times, the popes replaced the emperors as supreme over all affairs of church and state. Once emperors recognized popes, now popes recognized emperors. Claiming to be over all affairs of life, the pope certainly saw himself as the central figure in shaping unity. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII said, “We therefore declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff’ (Rouse and Neill, p. 29).

The Lateran Councils of Rome: 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215

The Lateran Councils were a series of councils “convened in the Lateran Church at Rome” by the popes (Rowe, p. 247). Civil authorities and the Pope agreed according to the Concordat of Worms (1122) to curtail the power of the civil authorities to appoint men to ecclesiastical offices, i.e. the right of investiture. The princes of the West had long considered this their prerogative, as suggested earlier. The Lateran Council of 1123 confirmed the Concordat of Worms restricting the civil power of investiture, thus beginning a new era in church-state relations.

As corruption grew in the Western Church, reformers began to arise. The Lateran Council of 1139 rejected the church-state reform views of Arnold of Brescia and opposed those who followed Peter de Brins’ religious reform views. The papal claims of Analetus II were set aside. Some clerical reform was initiated, as against simony (the buying of church offices) and concubinage.

Emperor Frederick Barbarosa I reasserted the right of investiture according to the traditional view of Western princes. But in The Peace of Venice (1177), he was forced to relinquish the power. The Lateran Council of 1 ? 79 confirmed The Peace of Venice. It also authorized military crusades against two tenacious groups of religious reformers, the Waldenses (followers of Peter Walde) and Albigenses (reformers in AN, France). As church historians have often observed, the blood of such martyrs only serves to spread their doctrines. The teachings of the Waldenses and Albigenses would continue to circulate in Europe and to stir the spirit of reform; this was one of the influences which eventually led to the Protestant Reformation, which could not be stopped by might or main!

The Lateran Council of 1215 confirmed the procedure of turning over condemned heretics to “the secular arm” (civil power). This necessity to resort more to torture, physical punishment – and even death – shows how widespread and entrenched the spirit of reform was getting to be. The Council authorized Crusades-milita. y campaigns with approval ana promise of spiritual blessings from the Church-against the Waldenses, Albigenses, and Egypt. In 1215, King John was forced in a great struggle with his underlords to sign the Magna Charta in England; this was a major breakthrough for the development of limited government. The Council roundly condemned the Magna Charta. More on the religious side, transubstantiation (at Mass the bread and juice miraculously turn into the actual flesh and blood of Christ) was made an article of faith. Also, annual confession and communion were to be required of all at “Easter.”

Council of Lyons, 1245

The Council at Lyons was called by Pope Innocent IV over the objections of Emperor Frederick II. Frederick claimed for himself what he denied to the Pope: supremacy over all spiritual and temporal affairs. The Council deposed Frederick (the last emperor-priest), released his subjects from obedience to him, and invited the Prince-Electors of the Holy Roman Empire to elect a new ruler. This action ended the famous Hohenstauffen dynasty in Europe. The removal of Frederick and replacement of the Hohenstauffen dynasty is “one of the greatest triumphs of the medieval, papacy (Dvornik, p. 57).

Council of Lyons, 1274

This council was called by Pope Gregory X. It effected a temporary reunion with the Greek or Eastern Church. A new Crusade against the Moslems in the East was called for. Several matters related to European and world politics were dealt with. Pressures for reform had some positive results within the Church, as can be seen by this council’s reform of the papal election procedure.

Council of Vienne, 1311

Pope Clement V convened the Council at Vienne as a concession to French King Philip’s demand for an end of the Knights Templars. This military order had served the popes during the Crusades of the past; but their continuing existence in Europe was a threat to the power of civil sovereigns. Extreme pressure from King Philip resulted in dissolution of the Knights Templars by the Council of Vienne. In order to blunt the impact of reformers known as Spirituals (followers of ascetic John Peter Olivis), some reforms were announced in the name of the Council. A call for new Crusades was issued, to continue the long-standing series of wars against the Moslems in the East. Promises were made by some secular rulers, but the call went unheeded as far as practical results; “the idea of a Crusade had lost its attraction” (Dvornik, pp. 64-65).

The Council of 1311 also established language chairs at main universities in Europe. These chairs in Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and Chaldean ironically encouraged the kind of scholarship which was later utilized to translate the Bible into the common tongues. Thus, indirectly and certainly unintentionally, this Council contributed to the power of Protestant Reformation!

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 663-665
October 27, 1977

By R. L. (Bob) Craig

I have preached the gospel for about 35 years. During that time I have also been an employee with, or an employer of, literally, hundreds of different types of people. Some of these people who have worked under my supervision and over which I had power to hire and fire, were drinkers, fornicators, liars, profane and a few were homosexual or lesbian (gay).

All of these are in the category of sin, and I shall proceed to prove that in just a moment, but I cannot remember a single instance in which these people were refused employment or fired because of these sins, unless it would be the sin of lying. This sin cannot be tolerated by an employer, not because lying is a sin, but because the liar is not a person who can be trusted to handle the business of another.

I say all that for the purpose of saying that, so far as I know, the question of human rights or civil rights in regard to any of these people has never been violated even back in the years when you called some of these things by bad names and whispered when you discussed them. I do not know how everyone has reacted to them, but the above is my experience. As long as a person did his job and did not allow his sin to interfere with his work, then what he did in his off hours were of no concern to me or these other employers I have mentioned. In other words, I believe that the “Gay Rights Movement” of the present day is not designed to obtain these above mentioned rights for these people but for the purpose of making sin respectable. And, as far as I am concerned, I have no time or disposition to discuss the political or social aspects of this situation. And, even though I do not agree with all aspects of the Anita Bryant campaign, I believe that she is not fighting against these people having equal rights of employment, etc., but is fighting the idea of homosexuality or lesbianism becoming respectable.

What some of these people, and many others have seemingly forgotten and evidently do not care about, is that employers and land-lords also have some rights. Some land-lords, and if I were one I would be in this category, will not allow people who are not lawfully married to one another, to “shack up” in their house and apartments. They do not want to make their respectable apartments into “houses of disrepute” which is about all you can make out of most of the “living in” arrangements without the benefit of marriage that is presently taking place. The lesbian and homosexual arrangement would certainly fall into this category. They have no legal right nor God-given right to their illicit arrangement therefore a land-lord ought to have the right to refuse lodging to such. Does he have no rights? I will agree that there are several arrangements that God does allow that men have prejudiced their minds in regard to and these people need some kind of legal protection.

So much for the political, civil and social side of this matter. What about the Bible? Does it allow homosexual or lesbian activity or does God regard such as sin? Now remember, these people do not regard themselves as being sick so we are not putting some kind of sickness over which people have no control into the category of sin. These people are saying that they should have the “right of choice” in regard to their sexual lifestyle. This is not something that they have to do, this is a choice that they have made for themselves. No one else has made the choice for them.

I am well aware of the fact that all kinds of morality cannot be legislated. But we are talking about what God desires. Does He have any rules in regard to the marital relationship. And, anyone who has even casually read the Bible knows that He has. In the beginning God ordained that man and woman should come together as husband and wife and that relationship was to continue “until death do us part.” That is, basically, what everyone who enters into such an arrangement makes a vow to do. I recognize, also, the exception to that rule but we will not discuss that right now. The point is that anyone who desires to follow the Bible and serve God will follow His rules and regulations. If they make their own, then they are not following God neither do they have the proper respect for Him that they claim to. All right, any arrangement other than that stated in the Bible, is an arrangement made by man himself, and God has been left out. A marital relationship between two women or two men is not what God ordained. If the state or the denominations founded by men allows such, it will still not be God’s will and therefore will fall into the category of sin.

If there was nothing more in the Bible than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, that would be sufficient to make people know God’s feelings toward “perversion” of His marital and sexual law. If you have not read the story or have not read it in a long while, now would be a good time to get your Bible and turn to Genesis 18:26 and read through the 19th chapter. Sodomy is the legal term now used for sexual perversion and it originated with Sodom and the sexual perverts who lived there. These people were not condemned because they were sick, but because they were wholly given over to a perversion of the law of God in regard to the marital arrangement.

Then, in the New Testament, please read beginning with Romans 1:20 and then to the end of the chapter. Nothing could be any more emphatic than these verses to let people know how God feels about the homosexual and lesbian relationships. Notice: “.. . . women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly . . . did not like to retain God in their knowledge . . . who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Anyone who believes the Bible knows that it teaches against such. How can the churches of today condone any such? How can the people who are engaged in such, think that they are well-pleasing in the sight of God? People are called on to repent of every misdeed they are guilty of, and perversion is one of them. These people do not have to continue as they are; they can change if they want to serve and please God. Until they do, they stand condemned in God’s sight. The law of the land cannot change that and all the demonstrations and protests will not alter it. These people are seeking for respectability in the eyes of society and in the sight of God, but sin is not respectable, and never can be even if all people everywhere accept it like they did in Sodom.

Nearly all these people have become Bible-quoters. Their main verse is that spoken by Jesus concerning the woman taken in adultery: “Let him that is without sin, cast the first stone.” The idea is that we all sin, therefore, no one has the right to call anyone else a sinner or to judge concerning another man’s sins. I will agree that none lives above sin. If we could live perfectly then we would not need Christ; He is the atonement for sin. At the same time, people are called upon to not “continue in sin” (Romans 6:1-2). These people also need to look further into their favorite verse and see that Jesus told this woman to “Go and sin no more.” We must get control of ourselves in every way possible. When we are striving to overcome sin in our lives, we need all the help we can get which includes others trying to overcome sin, also. When all are doing that, we will become a help to one another. Then, striving against sin, when we make a mistake through our human weaknesses (not because we have determined that we are going to live in sin, regardless) the grace of God has been extended to forgive as we repent of that misdeed. Certainly, we all sin, but let’s not let it become a way of life.

So, we are not opposed to all people having a right to live, get employment, eat in a restaurant with others, sit in the same compartments on public transportation media, nor do we think that anyone ought to be mistreated because of their sins. But we are greatly concerned about those who would try to make sin, whatever it is, respectable. I have no more regard for the gossip, perhaps not as much, than I do for the pervert. The liar is one who cannot be trusted by anyone and I have no respect nor regard for him, not only because he is a sinner, but because he is one who is not trust-worthy. Gossip and lying and perversion can never be respectable because God has placed them in the category of sin and sin is the only thing that will separate man from God.

Let’s make our fight against sin. And let those who are engaged in it give it up and turn to God in true repentance and he will receive them. If we are going to serve God, it will have to be His way and not mine or anyone else’s. What I think or what I practice has nothing to do with it. If I am the worst hypocrite on earth, that will still not make your sin respectable, will it? It may make you feel better to find someone you can criticize and someone who also sins, but it will not justify you in God’s sight. You can not go to heaven on the coat-tail of another and you can not escape hell on the misdeeds of another.

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 661-663
October 27, 1977