Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

One of the hardest problems, or so it seems, for many people to grasp is that those who have not heard and obeyed the gospel are lost. They are not lost because no one bothered to preach the gospel to them, but because they have sinned (Rom. 3:23; 6:23)! This was the very reason Christ came into the world (John 3:16); if we could have been saved in our ignorance, there would have been no need for Him to, have died on the cross. If we could have been saved in our ignorance, then the last thing on earth we should want to do is to preach the gospel to people, because in so doing we remove that ignorance and thus condemn all who do not obey. But, the gospel was not given to condemn, but to save (Rom. 1:16). And this is precisely what is accomplished when the gospel is preached to a world that is lost and dying in sin.

Certainly the Bible abundantly teaches that man is accountable to the law of Christ. Paul declared in Acts 17:30 that “God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent.” Now, if man was not subject to the law of Christ today, then of what should they repent? Does not repentance imply that you have done that which is wrong? This truth being established, we note that Peter demanded in Acts 2:38 that those present “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of the forgiveness of your sins . . . .” He did not say, “For the sin of not obeying the gospel,” but rather “for the forgiveness of your sins.” Thus, they had to have done things that violated the law of Christ-they had to be subject to it already. In 1 Cor. 6:9-11 Paul affirmed that the Christians in Corinth had formerly been guilty of the sins of fornication, idolatry, adultery, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. To have formerly been guilty of these things clearly demonstrates they were subject to more of a law than having just not obeyed the gospel. Paul also referred to himself as “formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor” (1 Tim. 1:13). Certainly he realized he was guilty of more than just a disbelief of the gospel.

Ezekiel 3:18 clearly demonstrates that ignorance of the law of God does not excuse the man who is guilty of violating it. “When I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die’; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.” Paul endorsed this principle in Acts 20:26-27, and indeed this is the very reason we need so desperately to feel the urgency to carry the gospel to the world that they might be saved (Mark 16:15-16). We need to remember that the only way to God is through Christ (John 14:6), the only way to be reconciled to God is through Christ (2 Cor. 5:18), and the only way to obtain the forgiveness of our sins (thus to be found acceptable in God’s sight) is by the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5). Thus to cling to a hope that we can be saved in ignorance is to repudiate the teachings of the word of God (2 Thess. 1:8).

But in view of these teachings, some still persist in returning to Rom. 4:15 and contending that those who have never heard the gospel (and sometimes those who have not yet obeyed the gospel also) are not subject to the law of Christ. To so contend is to deny the plain teachings we have already looked at! This is parallel to the Baptist argument that since Rom. 5:1 says we are “justified by faith,” then baptism is not essential. Such just does not follow. You can not align one scripture in direct contradiction to other plain passages and be “handling aright the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

No one can properly apply Rom. 4:15 unless it is kept in the context of what Rom. 4 is discussing. Paul was not affirming here that God had ever excused anyone from being under a law to Him. Even in the Old Testament, the Gentiles were under the moral law while the Jews were under the law of Moses. Chapters 1-3 clearly show that both had rejected God’s laws and thus “all have sinned.” Rather, he is pointing out that the law of Moses had been given to the Jews, and even though they were unfaithful to it, it did not apply to any other. Abraham did not violate it, because it was not given to him. The Gentiles did not violate it, because it was not given to them. In the same way, salvation today is not by means of the law nor are we condemned if we do not keep the law of Moses today, because it was not given to Christians either (cf. Gal. 3). Instead, we are saved by faith-that faith which comes by hearing the word of truth (Rom. 10:17), rendering obedience to it (Rom. 6:17), and no longer permitting sin to reign in our mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12-13).

Since God commands “all men” (Acts 17:30) to repent, and since the grace of God has appeared “to all men” (Tit. 2:11) teaching them God’s way, and we are to preach the saving gospel to “all the nations” (Matt. 28:19) that they might be redeemed from their “sins” (Acts 2:38; 22:16), let us not avoid that awesome responsibility by seeking refuge in the false theory that the ignorant and untaught will still be saved in spite of their sins. Instead, let us be armed with this knowledge and realize the urgency of the hour upon us! It may well be true that “they had it once” (Col. 1:23) and rejected it, but that is no excuse for those dying in ignorance today (Ezek. 3:18)-nor for us to withhold it from them. We are not assisting or helping those who are lost in sin by giving them false comfort in “that was before you obeyed the gospel,” or “but you did not know any better then.” Sin is still sin, and those practicing such will be lost! Let us boldly apply the saving gospel of Christ to all such that men might be saved before it is too late (Col. 3:25).

Truth Magazine XXI: 21, p. 322
May 26, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

As a Christian, if a brother came to you with a serious personality problem, what would you do? What if you were approached by the family of someone “clinically psychotic?” What response would you make to one who had lost contact with reality in one way or another, either by rejecting the world in paranoia (excessive or violent distrust and rejection of others) or by withdrawing from the world in schizophrenia (loss of contact with stimulus and disintegration of personality)? What would you offer to the person who was chronically depressed and unable to function in their work? If your response would be, “I am not qualified to help” and to send them off to an “expert” in psychiatry, you may have done them the greatest disservice imaginable.

Mental Illness?

When Psychiatry speaks today of “mental illness” they mean a vast spectrum of behavior which is not illness at all. There are organically caused varieties of behaviour that have nothing to do with the mind of man. Schizophrenia, for instance, can sometimes be caused by a brain tumor, or a chemical disorder, like diabetes. These organic causes produce perceptual difficulties: hallucination, blurred sight, crossed dominance in visual perception, hearing disorders, etc. A person’s ability to cope with life may be hindered by drug abuse. “Pep” pills, sometimes taken by people who have to stay awake at a night job, students studying for an exam, or obese people on a doctor controlled diet, can cause irritability, suspicion, and hallucination. Even such “innocent” medication as birth control pills (a hormone pill) can cause personality and behavioral change.

A person’s ability to cope with life’s problems can be affected by toxin buildup in the system by kidney and liver disorders. Lack of sleep can also produce buildups of harmful toxins in the body. Stress produces toxin buildup, and consequent behavioral change. Stress can even kill you. The four year long presidential campaign of Harrison in 1840 killed Daniel Webster. Harrison himself, died of exhaustion after only a month in office, making him the shortest lived president of them all. (And we thought modern campaigns were grueling!) Stress can come in many forms: noise stress, pain stress, the stress of anxiety or grief. Any stress over a long period of time can lead to physical disorders that affect behavior. The “shell-shock” of recent wars is a vivid demonstration of how environmental stress can affect ones ability to function properly.

Humanistic psychiatry does not even consider behavior caused by lust and its product as sin. It does not consider man’s anti-social or irreligious behavior as condemnatory but as “sick.” This “sickness” according to modern thought is brought on by external rather than internal causes. The world (and the brethren) have been so indoctrinated by the psychiatric ethic, that those who have the tools and ability to help those in the grips of sin, often do not. They defer to the “specialist” and his humanistic methods.

After recognizing the place of medicine to deal with organically induced behavior problems, does it necessarily follow that the Christian must defer to the psychiatrist for treating behavior that is sin induced? God forbid. If a person has a physical checkup by a medical doctor and there are no physical causes for his problem, then the counselor who must deal with the “patient’s” problem must be a Christian, not a psychiatrist.

Who Can Help If Not Christian?

Modern psychiatry offers no solutions to one who is a Christian. Often “therapy” and “analysis” makes new problems instead of dealing with those that already exist. There are “therapy-induced” problems that make any real help almost impossible to be received (such as the woman who has told her problems would be solved by finding a lover. She did. She still has her problems, as well as the guilt and complications of the sin of fornication.). In my own experience, I have known of saints who left the Lord, His commandments, the church, and made shipwreck their faith and morality at the insistence of their psychiatrists. One woman committed herself to a mental institution, and left the next day when her counsellor told here that the base of her problem was all of her “hang-ups” in religion.

Modern psychiatry readily admits that the same percentage of patients get better without analysis as do with it (This Week Magazine, “Farewell to Freud”, 9/8/66, as quoted by Adams in Competent to Counsel, p.3). Two out of three inmates in mental institutions eventually show improvement regardless of the treatment given. Modern psychiatry interprets this as a direct result of its expert treatment. The fact of the matter is that the same ratio got better 100 years ago in the barbarious “lunatic asylums” without the benefit of modern hypnosis, psychoanalysis, cold baths, shock treatments, placebos, etc. (Time Magazine, Feb. 14, 1964. p. 43).

Psychiatry operates on the assumption that sinful or bizarre behaviour is caused externally rather than issuing from the heart of man (cf. Jas. 1:14,15). Freud, the “father of modern psychiatry and psychoanalysis” was a Jew, and called himself a “hopeless pagan.” He divided man’s spirit into three parts: (1) The Id – the animal or “natural” part of man which includes all selfish drives, aggression, and the sex urge. The Id, accoring to Freud, was constantly seeking expression through the (2) Ego – or the conscious part of man, the man of the moment. The part of man that held the Id in check and was responsible for all of man’s problems was the (3) Superego. The superego was defined as the “conscience” of man, or the “socialized” man. The superego is supposed to be an artifical part of man formed by the pressures to conform presented by home, parents, school, teachers, peers, society, religion, and other man-made institutions. The problem of human behaviour, as Freud saw it, was a natural result of the conflict between the id and superego. The resultant “subconscious” conflict produced feelings of “false guilt” and anxiety that bore fruit in unusual behaviour by the ego. The “medical model” is still used in varying degrees by today’s psychiatry. The psychiatrist relieves the patient’s conflict by taking sides with the “id” against the superego. The patient is told to “ventilate” his feelings in various ways (it is dangerous to not express our feelings of hostility and lust. But, not according to God. Cf. Prov. 14:29; 29:11; 29:20; 22:24,25). By giving vent to anger and pent-up resentments in emotional outbursts, the psychiatrist hopes to prevent the buildup of conflict described earlier between the id and superego. “Resocialization” is employed to break down the patient’s social and moral “hangups.” A recent form of resocialization finding wide spread acceptance is mutual fondling, caressing, and handling in group sessions. Patients have been encouraged to fondle one another in the nude while basking in warmed swimming pools. Masters and Johnson, the “sex-specialists” (who incidentally are divorced and remarried) have set up “training clinics” that provide high-cost instruction by professional counsellors (real prostitutes) in overcoming sexual problems.

Modern psychiatry places the blame for sinful behaviour anywhere but upon the one actually demonstrating it. The “sick” person is not responsible. The “alcoholic” cannot help himself. He has a “disease.” “The sinner is not responsible, religion is responsible;” psychiatry declares, “the home is responsible, society is responsible.” The result is that the state is reluctant to prosecute the “psychopathic killer” or the “socially deprived killer or criminal.” Criminal action is overlooked for the “temporarily insane.” Parents overlook such clear passages as Prov. 23:14 and 29:15-17 and refrain from disciplining their children for fear of damaging their personalities. Brethren in the church are cowed into overlooking such sins as homosexuality, perversion, chronic lying or fault finding, as sickness and send such people off to another town and church with the admonition “see a doctor” (cf. Gal. 6:1-5). Humanistic psychiatry cuts away at the very foundation of our relationship with God, namely, that each man is responsible for what he does (Rom. 2:6-11). The science and the philosophies of men have given us evolution and its inherent rebellion against God’s word and trustworthiness. The “experts” have given us humanistic “higher criticism” with its attempted destruction of the inspiration of the scriptures. “Higher education” has given us the “Doctor of Philosophy” and has robbed man of his moral right to stand justified or condemned according to God’s word. One can no longer read and understand the word of God without a degree and a commentary. This same intellectual structure in the world has given us godless psychiatry. If the scriptures do not give the Christian the tools and ability to deal with basic human problems as promised us by God (2 Tim. 3:16,17), then the Bible is useless, the message it brings is without value, and Christianity is a sham. But I believe God, “according to his divine power has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who has called us to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3).

Truth Magazine XXI: 20, pp. 316-318
May 19, 1977

By Robert Jackson

In our study, we are talking about issues. that divide us, and therefore in dealing with this, of course we find no joy because we have no joy in division. But as a result of being divided, then we must face the issue of what it is that is causing the division. If you want to get it down to the basic principle, the cause of division is a lack of respect for the authority of Jesus Christ. In our study thus far we have emphasized that division has been within our ranks in regards to the missionary society since 1849. That divided the body of Christ over the lack of authority. There was no Bible authority for a missionary society under a board of directors to receive funds from churches of Christ to do ‘the work of anything. God has never authorized this.

Secondly, we talked about the division that has come within our ranks over the sponsoring church. Getting away from a missionary society under a board of directors, they have placed the same work and the same activity under elders, leaving the impression that this sanctified the matter because it was under a local eldership. And this is not so. The elders have no God-given right to oversee any thing outside of the local congregation. They have the oversight of the flock of God which is “among them” (1 Peter 5). They may put a Sponsoring Church under the eldership and still be without Bible authority. As a result of this, brethren have divided the body of Christ by promoting the sponsoring church, the Herald of Truth, etc. They created a motherhood church which violates the principles and the teachings of God’s word.

Then we discussed the issue that has divided us in regards to benevolence. Certainly the church is to relieve its own needy. I gave you book, chapter and verse, and showed you that the issue is not: “Should the Church care for its needy?” I also brought to your mind how the church met its need. Each local church is to tend to its own business-they may appoint men to see after the people in need among themselves. Secondly, if there is a church in need away from them, they sent directly to the elders of that church. They did not send through any kind of benevolent society. None were in existence in New Testament days, and there ought not to be any today. Now this does not mean that a benevolent society does not have a right to exist and that individuals may not support it if they so desire. But tacking these institutions on to the churches is the very thing that has divided the body of Christ.

I was citing the Gospel Advocate Quarterly to prove to you that such objections have been offered in years gone by, and that it is not something that has just been created within the last few years. I want to notice again the Gospel Advocate Quarterly, the same one of 1946, on page 340, when the writer is dealing with 2 Corinthians 8, in the work of benevolence. Now listen carefully: “This is the Lord’s method of raising money and it will suffice in any case. There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work that the Lord expects His people to do.” So then we find here the Bible authority of raising money, and secondly, that the church is sufficient to do its. own work, that it needs no other charitable organizations. I say a hearty “Amen” to what they said in 1946. But now then, the people who endorse the benevolent society today say that we need these charitable organizations, they they should be tacked on to the church. As a result of that, they have divided the body of Christ. Now they say that division has come because we opposed such. No, that is not so. The division is a result of brethren pressing these institutions upon the churches of Christ and dividing them; and in 1946, the brethren took the same position that I am taking today.

When we look at the orphan home issue, and this is a very emotional issue, there are really two views of this among some of the brethren. One view is that an orphan home has the right to exist as long as it is separate and apart from the church-under a board of directors-and then the local churches of Christ may support that institution. I have in my hand here a little tract that was published and put out in regard to the Potter Orphans Home in Bowling Green, Ky. This little tract was published by Brother Ben Taylor. Let me quote you what he had to say: “The Potter Orphan Home and School is not attached to any local church and governed by the elders of a local church. It stands independent of the oversight of any local church of Christ. The elders of any or all churches of Christ may serve the Potter Orphan Home and School in an advisory capacity, but not as authority, which would attach it to the church.” Listen again. “For the elders of any local church to assume the oversight of an orphans home would expand their authority beyond their scriptural limitations and would destroy the autonomy of the local church.” Now Brother Taylor is taking the position that the only way that an orphans home has the right to exist is under a board of directors, and then the churches of Christ may support it. One question: If we have an organization under a Board of Directors and they are doing the work and the church has a right to support it, could we take the orphans out of the orphans home and put preachers there and let the churches send money to this institution and send out preachers? Then what do you have? You have the missionary society, my friend! That is exactly what you have. You have a benevolent society and you have a missionary society, and both of them exist without divine authority. And the churches of Christ have no Bible authority to support either one of them in any sense of the word.

But then there is another view. Brother Guy Woods in his lectureship at Freed-Hardeman College in 1960, made this statement: “The orphan home is as much the home of the orphan as your home is yours, and exists by the same divine sanction. It follows therefore, that those who opposed the orphans home have arranged themselves against divine institutions rather than human ones.” Now, see what a contrast! The man at Potters Orphans Home said that it is a human institution under a Board of Directors, designed by human wisdom, not by divine authority. Bro. Woods says that it is a divine institution. So they are really divided.

But the truth about the matter is it is not a divine institution. It is a human institution, arranged by human wisdom, and I challenge Bro. Woods or anyone else to show in the Bible where there is an arrangement for such an organization as Potters Orphan Home or Tennessee Orphan Home. Even though they may do a good work, that is not the issue. Even though they be relieving the poor, that is not the issue. The issue is: Do they have a right to exist, and can churches of Christ send their money to it to do the work that they say the church is to do? Again let me press this point: If the church has the right to do that, then could they take the orphans out and put preachers there and send out preachers? “Oh,” some of the brethren would say, “No. That makes it a missionary society.” Well, here you have got a benevolent society. Why not let the church be the church, and leave these societies out of the church? Then everything would be just fine.

What has divided us? What has caused the division? The division has been caused as a result of brethren building institutions, tacking them on to the church and pressing brethren to support them-and then criticizing, condemning and branding the people who do oppose them. The only reason that we oppose them is because they exist without Bible authority. Now, my friend, this is the issue that is dividing us today, and until brethren stop tacking institutions on to the church, they are going to continue to divide the body of Jesus Christ.

But do you know what all of this led up to? Let me bring to your mind what this really led up to. Some of the brethren who started fighting for the orphans home and benevolent institutions also wanted to bring the college into the church treasury. Now for a while the brethren said, “No, the college is a human institution and therefore it should not be supported by the church.” Well, brethren backed off and they started talking about taking care of orphans. They said, “The church has a right to make a contribution to a benevolent society.” Then they said, “If you oppose that, then you are opposed to taking care of the poor.” “If you oppose the missionary society, then you are anti-evangelism.” Colleges were being supported by churches, and they also wanted to get more support, so they said, “Well, if you have got a right to support the orphans home, you have got a right to support the colleges.” The next thing you know, we find churches of Christ supporting colleges, turning their funds over to them to be used by human institutions.

“Oh,” they say, “Now brethren, the college is just doing the work of the college. The college is simply teaching the Bible, which is a good work-and the church ought to be ready for every good work.” Bro. Pullias stated this in his tract, “Where There Is NQ Pattern,” which was delivered in 1957 at David Lipscomb College, he said, “When the Christian College does all that it claims to do, the church has no less to do. None of its work has been taken over by the college, and the college exercises no control or supervision over the church.” But, question: Where is the authority for the church to turn its supervision over to the college? Where is the authority for the church to send money to the college and let the college use it? Now, my friend, get this: If the church sends money to the college, who has the oversight of it? Does the local church tell the college what to do, or does the college decide to use the money in the way they see fit? Now then, they have got to come to an agreement. First, if the church sends the money to it and tells the college to use it as it sees fit, who has the oversight of it? The local church? Why no, the college does!

I want to know where there is Bible authority for the church to support any college? I care not if they teach the Bible or not. Where is there any Bible authority for it? Oh but someone says, “Brother Jackson, they are doing a good work.” I am not arguing about the good work. I believe they are doing a good work. But they are doing a wrong work when they take money from churches where they have no business.

Now I will tell you what you do, my beloved friend. You take your Bible and show me one time where a New Testament church ever supported a human institution-a benevolent society, a missionary society, or a college. Today we hear people talk about the “Church of Christ college.” I want to know where there is a “church of Christ college”? Where did the Lord ever build one or design one? Where did the Lord ever tell how one was to be organized? If it is a divine institution, you ought to be able to read about it in the Bible. If it is not in the Bible, then there is no divine authority for it.

Oh but somebody says, “Now preacher, you are just anti-college.” No, that is not the issue. I believe that a college has a right to exist. It has a right to accept contributions from individuals. It has a right to teach the Bible. It does not have any Bible authority to take any money from churches, and neither do churches have any right to send any money to colleges. They violate New Testament teachings, they violate Bible authority and they act without a “thus saith the Lord” when they do. And this is what has caused division within the ranks of the body of Jesus Christ. Now they can cry anti all they desire, but they must bear the burden of the fact that they are the ones who divided the body of Jesus Christ! First the missionary society, the sponsoring church, the Benevolent Society, and then the college.

But you know it is a rather strange thing. When you boil it down, they say, “Well now preacher, there really is no way how to do a good work, just do it any way you want to. The Lord said, `Do good, be ready for every good work’-and there is no wrong way to do it.” Well, my friend, if there is no wrong way to do it, then what is wrong with doing it through some human institution? some denomination? through Catholicism? or through any other way? If there is no order, there can be no disorder! If there is an order, then we ought to do it like the order, and the order is to do it like they did in Bible days. Let each local church tend to its own business, send out its own preachers, take care of its own poor, send directly to the church where they need help, and when the need is met, stop that contribution. Let each church teach its own members. Let the college be the college, and let the church be the church, and let them be separate. If not, there will continue to be division. (Concluded next week.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 20, pp. 314-316
May 19, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

(Author’s note: This article was sent to the Houston Post during the 1960 presidential race. Some of what I said was published, but all my documentations were deleted. You see this is what Catholic Popes and other high church men have said.)

I have read with interest the articles pro and con on the controversial subject of Mr. Kennedy’s religion. But those which are directed against religious bigotry miss the point. There are likely a few people who are prejudiced against the Catholic Church as a religion, but the overwhelming majority of those who will oppose Mr. Kennedy because he is a Catholic, are not doing so because of the religious nature of his church, but because of the political aspects of it.

That the Hierarchy has always been, and is now, opposed to the religious freedom expressed in article one of our constitution, is subject to abundant proof, even from the writing of the Popes. This I presume, will not be denied by any informed Catholic.

Following is a sample of this proof:

“From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, of writing or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man” (Great Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII, 161).

“Hence, from all that we have hitherto said, my beloved son, it is clear that we cannot approve the opinions which some comprise under the head of Americanism” (452).

This is also found in a book titled The Church Speaks To The Modern World, p. 80, published in 1954 by Doubleday. Again from the same Pope Leo XIII:

“Catholics cannot be too careful in defending themselves against such a separation. In fact, to wish that the state should separate itself from the church would be to wish,. by a logical sequence, that the church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens. It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists” (Leo XIII, G.E.L., 262).

“The Roman Catholic Church, convinced through its divine prerogatives of being the only true church, must demand the right of freedom for herself alone, because such a right can only be possessed by truth, never by error. . . as to other religions, the church. . . will require that by legitimate means they shall not be allowed to propagate false doctrines. Consequently in a state where the majority of the people are Catholic, the church will require that legal existence be denied to error. . .” (Civilita Catolica, April, 1948.)

This country which was predominantly Protestant opens wide her doors to the Catholic Church to preach her doctrine unrestrained. Now if she will open the doors of those countries where she holds sway and allow all Protestants the same freedom which Catholics have here, we will have some faith in the claims that are being made that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy is not un-American in her view of religious freedom.

Truth Magazine XXI: 20, p. 314
May 19, 1977