Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

There has never been a Christian who has not become discouraged at some point in his life. Sometimes life throws us such a curve that we begin to feel that everything which we have worked to accomplish has gone for nought. We see our dreams destroyed and, therefore, have no will to live in the future. It is precisely at this time that we need to be reminded that our affections and aspirations are centered, not in this world, but in that which is to come.

We are children of God. Because we are God’s children, we are “heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). We have been born again to a living hope. When we were born of the water and the Spirit, we became sons of God with the hope of sharing in the inheritance prepared by God for his children. Our hope in sharing in this inheritance is a living hope, not a dead hope. The hopes that we have in this life, being dependent upon our own abilities to obtain, are frequently thwarted. I can still remember the depression I felt when I was unable to enter graduate school because we did not have the money to afford it at the time. Hopes based on this life are frequently thwarted and become dead hopes. Our hope for inheritance, however, does not depend upon the energies of man; they are guaranteed by God and, therefore, can never be thwarted. So long as I remain faithful to God, my inheritance can never be taken from me. My hopes for receiving it can never be dashed.

In the opening verses of First Peter, the apostle wrote concerning our hope; he said, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 :3-5). A remainder of what we hope to receive at the end of this life should be a stimulus to revive our faith when it starts to wane. Let us, therefore, think about our inheritance for a while.

Nature of Our Inheritance

Each of us is aware that our inheritance is the eternal life with God in heaven after the judgment day. Yet, Peter mentioned four characteristics of that inheritance which I would like to consider with you.

1. It is imperishable. The word aphthartos means “uncorrupted, not liable to corruption or decay, imperishable.” Our inheritance is not destined to fall apart and rot. One of the most beautiful seasons of the year is the fall when all of the trees begin to radiate the beautiful colors of autumn. I doubt that there is any place on earth where this is more beautiful than in Brown County, Indiana with its rolling hills. On the peak of one of these hills, a person can see the beautiful sights of autumn for miles as the trees glisten with oranges, browns, yellows, etc. Yet, even as one sees these beautiful sights, he is reminded that these are but the products of death. The tree is going into a dormant stage for the winter, so the leaves have to die.

Our inheritance in heaven will not be touched by the process of corruption and decay. Whereas moth and rust consume the treasures of this earth, our treasure in heaven is unaffected by moth and rust (Mt. 6:19-20). Whereas the living embraces of a man and wife are interrupted by death and the subsequence corruption of, the body, our eternal inheritance cannot be affected by corruption; it is imperishable.

2. It is undefiled. Amiantos means “not defiled, unsoiled; free from that by which the nature of a thing is deformed and debased, or its force and vigor impaired.” Few things in this world are undefiled; almost all of them have a flaw in them. Some years ago, I bought my wife a diamond ring (it was her engagement ring which she got five years after we were married). Shortly after we got the ring, we noticed a flaw in it. It was a defiled stone; it was not perfect. Sometimes when I hang wallpaper, people comment on how pretty the wall is after I have finished with it; however, I know where the flaws in the job are even if they escaped the notice of our visitors.

Our inheritance in heaven will be flawless. The things which defile matters here below will not have affected heaven. “Nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come” (Rev. 21:27) into the city which God has prepared for His saints. Since it will be unmarred by things which can defile it, heaven, or inheritance, will be undefiled.

3. It will not fade away. Though there is some similarity in the ideas expressed by this characteristic and “imperishable,” there is also some difference. Amarantos means “not fading away, unfading, perennial.” Flowers are beautiful but, oh how quickly they fade away! On rare occasions, I have given my wife a bouquet of flowers. Though she quickly puts them in a vase filled with water, not many days have passed when the petals began to fall on the table. Soon the beautiful flowers have become an ugly brown which we are anxious to remove from the house. The beauties of heaven will not be like that. They will never get old to us. Unlike the child who plays with his new toy for a few days after which he puts it in his closet and forgets it, the person who inherits heaven will never tire of its beauties. It will never “fade away.”

4. It is reserved in heaven. In recent months, I have heard some say that we are presently in possession of eternal life. Peter did not think so. Our inheritance is reserved in heaven. At the present we only have access to it through our “living hope.” Jesus said that we receive eternal life “in the world to come” (Mk. 10:30). Yes, my brethren, our inheritance is not a present possession; it is reserved in heaven.

Peter also said that our inheritance is “reserved in heaven for you.” There have been some occasions when I was traveling that I needed to make reservations in advance. The motel at which I planned to stay would reserve a room for me. Regardless of who else might come with the money to rent that room that night, they could not have it because it was “reserved” for me. I have a similar place reserved for me in heaven. God has prepared it for his saints; there is a place in it for me.

Our Hope Sustains Us

Peter continued, “In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, Jthat the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:6-7). My hope for eternal salvation is what sustains me at the times in this life when there seems to be no reason to live.

Those who have gone through some of the world’s most trying times have come through it to write that one’s goal in life was the only thing that kept them alive. “Victor Frankl, in his book Man’s Search For Meaning, out of his own struggle for survival in the Nazi prison camps, at the end of World War II was able to write, ‘There is nothing in the world, I venture to say, that would so effectively help one to survive the worst conditions, as the knowledge that there is meaning in one’s life. There is much wisdom in the words of Nietzsche: “He has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” In the Nazi prison camps, one could have witnessed that those who knew that there was a task waiting for them to fulfill were most apt to survive’ ” (Batsell Barrett Baxter, America, It’s Not Too Late, p. 26).

Of all men, the Christian should have a goal in this life–to live pleasing to God in order that he might have the inheritance which God has prepared for him when he dies. Regardless of what circumstances one may face in this life, that hope for eternal reward should be alive. He should never give it up.

Our hope fades in proportion to how involved our lives become with the things of this world. When our lives are wrapped up in the things of this world, we are high or low in direct proportion to how successfully the affairs of this world are operating. For this reason, Peter admonishes us to live as “pilgrims” and “sojourners” (1:1, 2:11). A pilgrim and sojourner is an alien in a foreign land. Sometimes aliens have to undergo severe affliction; at all times, they are away from their home. We who are Christians need to learn to visualize our lives in this world as only temporary so-journeyings as we hasten toward heaven where our citizenship- is. F. B. Meyer wrote concerning this idea as follows:

“Do we cultivate enough the spirit of the stranger? We know what it is to turn from the attractions of a foreign city, with its wealth of art, its churches and its picture galleries, its antique buildings, and the glitter of its modern boulevards, towards a tiny box of brick in a grimy street, which is endeared to us as home. We may not linger longer; we are going home. Or if we stay on from day to day, we hardly unpack our portmanteaus, and certainly do not secure a settled abode, because it is not our home. Nor are we too much troubled by the discomforts and annoyances of our hotel, or by the risings of popular excitement around. Of what consequence are such things to those who may indeed bestow a passing interest on events transpiring around them, but whose interests are elsewhere, in the place which, however humble, differs from all the world beside in being home?

“Oh for more of the tent life amongst God’s people! But it is only possible, when they catch sight, and keep sight, of ‘the city which hath foundations’ ” (Tried By Fire, p. 12).

Yes, we do need more of the pilgrim attitude in our hearts.

Last fall, my parents went out west with my brother. After twenty-one days on the road, they came by my house to visit me. Within a day of the time that they arrived, they were already talking about going home. If we Christians could develop the same love and affection toward heaven which each of us have toward our home, the major decisions in this life would be much easier to make. Our primary concern would be whether or not any given decision would alter my hope for receiving an eternal inheritance with God. Should you die this day, would you be an heir of God, one who would receive the inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, that fadeth not away, and is reserved in heaven?

Truth Magazine XXI: 24, pp. 371-373
June 16, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

Many people die every year of diseases which might be cured if discovered in their incipiency. In like manner, there are hundreds of people in the church who are on their way to eternal damnation, who might be saved if they could be made to recognize the danger that threatens them. Apostasy, like disease of the body, casts its ugly shadow, and the discerning eye can see the signs and symptoms.

One symptom is lack of spiritual appetite. How is your appetite for spiritual things? Peter said, “as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet. 2:2). Paul said to the Corinthians, “I have fed you with milk and not with meat: For hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” These Corinthians had come out of heathenism but a short time ago, and here the apostle implies that they should be able to eat meat. But they were not able. Their spiritual digestive powers still called for milk. Pause here and ask yourself the honest question’ “Has my desire for spiritual food increased since I became a Christian?” If the answer is “no,” then you have started in the other direction, because there is no such thing as “holding our own” spiritually. The only man mentioned in the Bible as holding his own went to hell for it. This was the one talent man. The Christian life is like a bicycle, either you move ahead or you fall over. The Hebrew Christians had been in the church long enough that they should have been teachers, but they needed to be taught again the first principles. They were not as well off as when they first obeyed the gospel. I am told that a wasp is larger when he is hatched than at any other time. As a rule a newborn babe in Christ is anxious to learn the Bible. He is an enthusiastic student. But as time goes by and he learns that there is no short cut, or royal road, to real Bible knowledge but that it takes a lot of time and study, he often loses his enthusiasm. Most churches have classes on the Lord’s day and some through the week. It has been my experience that not more than two-thirds of the members attend these classes. If admonished to attend, this one who does not attend has an excuse. As a rule these excuses can be exposed as worthless alibis, trumped up after he decides not to attend the classes. He is trying to quiet an uneasy conscience. He cannot let himself be truthful and say, “I simply do not care to attend these classes. I prefer to watch television.” This fellow may not know it, but he is on his way back to the beggerly elements of the world. A person need not tell me, with a straight face, that he loves the Lord and desires to “grow in grace and in knowledge of the truth,” when he spends more time reading the sports page than he spends reading the Bible.

David said of the man in the first Psalm, “But his delight is in the law of the Lord and in His law doth he meditate day and night.” He does not read the Bible day and night, but he thinks of what he has read- frequently. The law of the Lord is uppermost in his mind. I came upon a brother one day who was hoeing his garden. When we had exchanged greetings, the next thing he said was, “I was just thinking of a new argument on Mark 16:16.” He has forgotten more than some ever will learn about the Bible, but he still has a voracious appetite for knowledge of the truth.

Another common and very noticeable symptom of apostasy in the Christian is his aversion to plain gospel preaching. In preachers this symptom first shows in an overweening sweetness, flavored with a few snide remarks about those who lack the “spirit of Christ.” In the second stage, he starts talking and writing about negative preaching, and laments the “sectarian bigotry” among some brethren. Then in the last stage, he has lifted up, his eyes to horizons for beyond the wildest imaginations of his less spiritual brethren, and his “love” has outgrown a legalistic interpretation of the scriptures or concept of the church that would exclude from his fellowship that great host of God-fearing people who cannot trim their faith to “our” view of Christianity. He has now “arrived.” If you know such a preacher, take a good look at him. He will not be around long. He has outgrown the New Testament plea.

When a member of the church begins to talk about how sweet and broad minded some preacher is and how the church has just grown in leaps and bounds where he is preaching, I know what is coming next. He is about to begin to give me some advice on how to preach. He thinks the truth ought to be preached by all means. Certainly so. But he thinks there is a right way to preach it. Perhaps I preached that mixed bathing, wearing shorts, and dancing were wrong because they are productive of lasciviousness; that members of the Lord’s church ought not to take even a social drink. He thinks these might be wrong; but he knows some people who are doing things worse than these, and I might well spend my time preaching on love and be more of a “positive” preacher, not so against everything.

But if the plain preaching of Bible truth offends you, then it is you that needs change, not the preacher. “Examine yourselves whether you be in the faith.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 24, p. 370
June 16, 1977

By Bruce D. James

A statement made by John the baptizer was “Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). To the Jews a lamb could mean only sacrifice. The entire history of God’s people was highlighted by the sacrifice of lambs. Abel first offered acceptably to God “of the firstlings of his flock” (Gen. 4:4). Remember Isaac’s question: “Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” (Gen. 22:7). Israel’s great deliverance from Egypt came with the slaying of a lamb and the sprinkling of its blood on their doors. That was recalled yearly in the Passover feast where they ate a lamb that had been slain. Through the prophet Isaiah, the Messiah was understood to be “brought as a lamb to the slaughter” (Isa. 53:7), and to suffer in the place of His people (53:5). When John told the people that Jesus was the Lamb of God they should have known what he meant. It is easy for us to understand that John’s language meant that the sin of the whole world would be laid on Jesus. He was the Lamb of God who died on the cross for all men.

God commanded certain sacrifices, and the sin-sacrifice was “a lamb”– meek and quiet; “of the first year”– tender and helpless; “without blemish”– innocent of all guilt.

Through long centuries God’s people looked for the Messiah. And “when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His son” (Gal. 4:4). John met Him as the “Lamb.” John the apostle walked with Him and heard Jesus talk of dying. He also saw Him die and believed He was God’s fulfillment of all that the sacrificial lambs had meant.

Peter believed and wrote, “His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24), and that we were redeemed by the “precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1:19). Paul wrote, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).

In Rev. 14:4 there is reference to a company of people who “follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.” It is not enough to take refuge in the atoning power of the blood of Christ. We must follow Him “whithersoever He goeth.” This is accomplished through faith and obedience to all that Christ has commanded.

And while certain unbelievers have labeled Christianity as a religion of weakness, scorn is held for the One who allowed Himself to be crucified. His meekness is interpreted as weakness. But Rev. 6:16 reveals that the very One who in meekness suffered for the sins of the whole world will one day cause all who are impenitent to tremble. This will be the day of Judgment, the day of the wrath of God.

To really “behold” Jesus, to see Him as the Lamb of God, is to cause one’s life to never be the same again. After seeing Him as the pure, sinless, spotless Lamb of God, everything else seems insignificant.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, p. 365
June 9, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the title above, Leon Cole, Florence, Alabama, wrote:

“What began as a legitimate protest to including the colleges in the budgets of the churches, questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher who often would benefit financially if it were adopted, and an effort to make the church a glorified welfare agency, or to ‘glamorize the church’ by watering down the gospel, degenerated into the formation of a sect.

“This sect was led by some preachers who sought to have the preeminence, and it was not long till a creed was formulated. The basic tenets were: One church may not help another in a cooperative work under any circumstances; Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 are limited to individuals, and benevolence by the church is to saints only; church property is sacramental, and eating on the premises is forbidden, some even declare weddings and funerals should be excluded from the church buildings.

“Very little space needs to be given in refuting these inconsistent and erroneous contentions. According to the teaching of this sect, if a family where the parents are members of the church are destitute, the church could not contribute from its treasury to that family if there were children too young to be members unless the parents would refuse to let the children eat. Galatians 6:10 does apply to the church for at verse 11 it is said, “ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.” Then in Galatians 1:2,2 Paul wrote to the ‘churches of Galatia,’ therefore, Paul told the churches of Galatia to do good unto all men. If we cannot eat on church premises neither could food be eliminated on church premises. As Brother Foy Wallace says, ‘according to this notion rural churches must return to the old fashioned ‘out-houses’ and urban churches have a problem to solve! (First Century Christian, July, 1976, p. 7).

Brother Cole opposes (1) “including the colleges in the budgets of the churches;” (2) certain “questionable projects;” (3) efforts “to make the church a glorified welfare agency;” (4) glamorizing the church “by watering down the gospel.” We are in complete agreement with our brother on these points. We oppose the same things. However, Brother Cole laments the degeneration of these “legitimate” protests “into the formation of a sect.” If “a sect” such as he has described has indeed evolved, we stand with him in revulsion and abhorrence against it.

Our brother says, “This sect was led by some preachers who sought to have the preeminence.” Who are these men? How does he know this was their attitude? Can he read and search the hearts? One would think that the Diotrephes disposition would more likely tend to reside in those who sought to “glamorize” and capitalize on the church. Further, if these men truly sought preeminence, they sought it with the wrong crowd. Their political astuteness leaves much to be desired. The popular path a century ago was to advocate missionary societies. The surest way to be flushed into “brotherhood oblivion” was to withstand them. Today, those who contend against benevolent societies achieve the same obscurity.

Tenets Of The Creed

Brother Cole catalogs four tenets of the creed of this “sect.”

(1) “One church may not help another in a cooperative work under any circumstances.” The tenet is certainly unscriptural. New Testament churches did cooperate under some circumstances (Acts 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 & 9). Those who say “one church may not help another (church) . . . under any circumstances” are surely wrong. Will our brother cite the local church or name the gospel preacher who believes that church cooperation “under any circumstances” is forbidden? He knows some of this persuasion, or so he intimates. We call upon him to tell us who they are.

(2) “Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 are limited to individuals.” We agree with the “sect” that these texts are directed to the individual rather than to the congregation. Still, there is no justification for benevolent societies if the verses were directed to churches. If James 1:27 (“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”) is to the local church, it does not authorize the church to contribute funds to a benevolent organization. It would simply instruct the church, not the benevolent society, to do the work. If Galatians 6:10 (“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”) instructs the local church to do good unto all men, it does not authorize the church to contribute funds to a benevolent organization so that the benevolent organization may do the work. If Galatians 6:10 allows the church to donate money to benevolent societies, does it not also authorize donations to Baptist owned and operated benevolent societies? After all, the good is to be done “unto all men.” So, if it applies to the local church’s making a contribution to a benevolent organization, why not make it to a Baptist benevolent society as well as to one operated by those “of the household of faith?”

(3) “Benevolence by the church is to saints only.” If “by the church” refers to the local congregation in its collective sense, then we agree with the sect’s tenet on this point. No passage in the New Testament would “make the church a glorified welfare agency.” The passages which deal with congregational benevolence involve assistance to saints. Let Brother Cole find an exception.

(4) “Church property is sacramental and eating on the premises is forbidden.” We reject the sect’s view. The church is sacred, for they are God’s people, but church property is not sacramental-“that which is used in or connected with the administration of a sacrament” (Webster). The vital issue is the work of the church. The church may provide the facilities to perform work assigned to it. Has the church been charged to provide social meals, entertainment and refreshment? If so, it may provide kitchens, dining rooms,, and playgrounds. These items are scriptural provisions if they are to carry out the

function of the church. Does Brother Cole know of a passage which authorizes the church to provide common, social meals, refreshment, and entertainment? One wonders if the general dining use of church facilities is limited to “saints only.” After all, the church, according to our brother, must do the same for all men, so why not open up the non-sacramental church facilities for social purposes to every one? Or does church property suddenly become “sacramental” if an innocent little group of orphaned Cub Scouts wants to use the building once a week?

Considering Cole’s Comments

(1) “According to the teachings of this sect, if a family where the parents are members of the church are destitute the church could not contribute from its treasury if there were children too young to be members unless the parents would refuse to let the children eat.”

Brother Cole could not have presented a more prejudicial, baseless misrepresentation, if he had been speaking of brethren known to me; but, alas, he was speaking of an unidentified “sect.” If this sect believes as he has represented them, we stand with our brother against them. Surely, in the general relief of the destitute saints in Acts 11:27-30 and Rom 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; and 2 Cor. 8 & 9, there were parents with children who were not Christians. Parental duty is to provide for their children. When the parents cannot do this, they are in need, in want, and relief is sent to them.

But let us feed Brother Cole out of his own spoon. “According to the teachings of Brother Cole, if a benevolent society where the operators are Baptists and the housekeepers are Baptists are destitute, the church could not make a donation from its treasury to that benevolent organization of poor, helpless, starving Baptists, unless, of course, they refused to let the children eat.” Or could it, Brother Cole?

(2) “Galatians 6:10 does apply to the church, for at verse 11 it is said, ‘ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.’ Then in Galatians 1:1, 2, Paul wrote to the ‘churches of Galatia,’ therefore, Paul told the churches of Galatia to do good unto all men.”

If Brother Cole’s analysis will work to prove that verse 10 is addressed to the church, then it ought to work to prove the same thing with respect to verse 12. “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:12). Using Brother Cole’s reasoning from Galatians 1:1, 2 and 6:11, we should conclude that some were trying to circumcise the local church in its collective capacity! Is that true, Brother Cole? Were the Judaizaers in Galatia seeking to have individuals or local churches circumcized-which? If “you” in verse 11 is the congregation, the “you” in verse 12 is the congregation. But individuals were being bound with circumcision, not churches (Gal. 5:1-4; 6:12). The local church is not under consideration in Galatians 6:10-12, unless one can circumcise it.

(3) “If we cannot eat on church premises, neither could food be eliminated on church premises.”

Food might be eaten on church premises just as incidentally as it is eliminated, or will our brother say that the church may plan and provide facilities for the church to come together for general toilet use as they do for eating purposes? Answering a brother according to his folly is hardly worth the effort.

“Colleges In The Budgets Of The Churches”

Brother Cole believes that it is a “legitimate protest” when one is “anti” or against including “colleges in the budgets of the churches.” Brother Cole, KB. Hardeman and Batsell Barrett Baxter have publicly stated that benevolent societies in the budgets of the churches is no different in principle to “including the colleges in the budgets of the churches.” Those brethren contend that contributions from churches “stand or fall” together. The right to contribute to one is the right to contribute to the other. Evidently Brother Cole does not so believe. He knows something Brethren Baxter and Hardeman do not know. What is the difference? Where did those brethren miss the point, Brother Cole?

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, pp. 363-365
June 9, 1977