Truth Magazine

By Ken Wellever

“Let the Lord be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant,” penned the Psalmist in the long ago. Jehovah delights in the prosperity of the whole man. In like manner, the apostle John paid a great compliment to his brother in the Lord, Gaius, in his third epistle, when he wrote, “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” Most people need to be as concerned about their spiritual prosperity as they are about their physical prosperity. But Gains was of a different sort. He was already enjoying spiritual prosperity and John’s wish for him was that he would be as prosperous in a physical sense.

Could the same be said of us today as it was of the beloved Gains in the first century? Many folks would be starving of malnutrition if their physical diet was anything like their spiritual diet. In fact, some would probably be already dead from want of physical sustenance. Let us, therefore, think about some essentials to spiritual prosperity that we may grow thereby.

A Powerful Faith

To be spiritually prosperous one must have a powerful faith. The faith of the Christian is produced through the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Our faith must be in God and in Christ Jesus. Jesus said, “Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” We must believe that God “is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think” in our lives. We must believe in “the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power.” Then we must believe that we can accomplish anything we desire for the Lord with his help. Unfortunately the description of Jesus regarding those of his day is all too often characteristic of modern-day “Christians,” “O, ye of little faith.” Many who claim to be followers of Christ are cringing, cowardly creatures when it comes to working in the Lord’s vineyard. When asked to do something, their standard reply is, “I can’t.” Our question to them is, “Where is your faith?” Our Lord said, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” The first step toward spiritual prosperity is a powerful faith.

A Prevailing Prayer

We appreciate the sentiment that says, “Lord, help me to see that you aren’t going to let anything come my way that you and I can’t handle together.” Someone else has said that we need to work as if everything depended on us and then pray as if everything depended on God!

In other words, spiritual prosperity depends on a prevailing prayer. To emphasize the importance of prayer Paul admonished the Thessalonians to “pray without ceasing.” Jesus commended the prayerful disposition when he spoke the parable concerning the unjust judge and said, “Men ought always to pray, and not to faint.” Prayer is man’s medium by which he can talk to God. Prayer gives us assurance and strength. In a world when so many are unconcerned and uncaring about our difficulties we have the promise of the inspired apostle Peter, “casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.” Truly there is power in prayer that can bring prosperity.

A Personal Love

“Let brotherly love continue,” penned the Hebrew writer. “Let love be without hypocrisy,” exhorted Paul in the Roman letter. A popular song says, “what the world needs now is love sweet love . . . .” The truth that love is one of the basic principles of spiritual prosperity ought to be obvious to anyone. If we could love our brethren, our lost friends and our God with the height, depth and breadth of our soul’s being, then it would not be difficult for us to do what is right in every relationship of life.

A Persistent Effort

One of the great principles for success in any endeavor is an old-fashioned stick-to-itiveness-the dogged determination that will not quit, give up or surrender under any circumstances. Such an attitude is necessary for one to be spiritually prosperous. How many Christians have begun to fight the good fight of faith, only to lose a skirmish with the Devil and quit in discouragement? Because we lose a battle does not mean we have lost the war. Robert Bruce fought the English six times and failed, but won on the seventh try. History is replete with examples of men in every facet of life who have overcome great obstacles to achieve success in their chosen field. The negative attitude which causes Christians to give up and quit or become lukewarm and indifferent is one of the greatest foes to the Kingdom of God today. Often because Christians are small in number they think there is nothing they can do. This is not true! Sigmund Romberg said:

“Give me some men who are stout-hearted men who will fight for the right they adore.Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men and soon I’ll give you ten-thousand more.

Oh! Shoulder to shoulder and bolder and bolder they grow as they go to the fore!

Then-there’s nothing in the world that can halt or mar a plan,

When stout-hearted men can stick together man to man!

Conclusion

Dear reader, do you want to grow and become spiritually prosperous for the Lord? You can. By putting into practice these Bible-based principles, you can change your life. Determine to do so today-do not wait for your spirit to move you, move your spirit!

Truth Magazine XXI: 2, p. 18
January 13, 1977

By Eddie B. Callendar, Jr.

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye hive of God, and ye are not your own? For., ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” The preceding quotation is taken from 1 Cor. 6:19-20. It is often used, and rightfully so, to teach that Christians should not participate in the use of alcoholic beverages.

A review of three articles published in Truth Magazine determined that, in view of 1 Cor. 6:19-20, a Christian should not participate in the use of alcoholic beverages because they: 1) create a bodily dependence unknown to man in his natural state; 2) are narcotic drugs used for; purposes other than medicinal; 3) are poisons; 4) cause certain diseases; and 5) are harmful to every form of life. I,: personally know of no member of the body of Christ who will dispute the above argument because the reasons given to substantiate it are obviously valid.

Some of the same brethren, however, that ever so forcefully endorse this argument will close their eyes and ears to it when it is applied to the use of tobacco. This they will do in spite of the fact that: 1) the use of tobacco is habit forming the same as alcohol; 2) doctors such as Dr. Norman Doorenbox (Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmocology at Ole Miss) reveal that “tobacco is the most dangerous of all popularly consumed drugs in the United States”; 3) the Encyclopedia Americana states that “Nicotine is extremely toxic . . .” (a poison); 4) the Encyclopedia of Family Health asserts that smoking causes many disorders of the human body such as respiratory infections, neuralgia, headache, inability to sleep, cancer, and others; 5) nicotine is harmful to all forms of life as it causes nerve paralysis and is even used as an insecticide. Dr. Doorenbox further stated that a pack of cigarettes takes six hours off a life..

Practically every reason why a Christian should not drink alcoholic beverages is also a reason why a Christian should not smoke tobacco. Why can brethren not see the parallel? Do we honestly try to see the parallel, or are we often blinded by our own emotions?

In addition to the reasons already stated, I must contend that the Christian who smokes is a detriment to the cause of Christ for I, in my few years on this earth, have actually seen the confidence of a prospective convert shaken by seeing members of the Lord’s body smoking because, “I thought ya’ll (members of the Church) were straight. I would never have expected to see any of ya’ll smoke.” As hard as it may be for some to swallow, smoking is naturally associated with drinking, gambling, and worldliness in general. And, good reader, it does make a difference what other people think about us (1 Peter 2:11-12, 1 Thess. 5:22).

The New Testament teaches that we, as Christians, are to be examples of righteousness and virtue to the lost (1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Peter 1:5). The Apostle Paul stressed that we should not be stumbling blocks (1 Cor. 8:9; Rom. 14:13, 21). Every act in which we engage is to be to God’s glory (I Cor. 10:31) and by His authority (Col. 3:17). Could you really, and without shame, stand before Jesus Christ and blow your dirty smoke in His face when He comes again, any more than you could shamelessly stand before Him with a whisky bottle in your hand? Please read 1 John 2:28.

In this article I have presented a minimum of seven valid reasons why a Christian should not smoke. I challenge anyone to come up with one good, justifiable reason why a child of God should smoke.

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 13-14
January 6, 1977

By Donald P Ames

It is a bit sad today to watch various liberal brethren get all upset and concerned about what is happening to the’ church today. In their efforts to “save the church,” they have begun new journals and’ increased the furor of the battle regularly. They have laid aside the old blankets of “Love covers all” and “Where there is no pattern,” and almost sound like the olden days when the Gospel Guardian stood on the forefront fighting the. good fight of faith. They have made an about-face, and are now demanding a return to the word of God and authority for various practices being introduced by the ultra-liberals. Some have even gotten so “nasty” they have had the audacity to actually call names of people being marked as false teachers.

As these young ultra-liberals continue following the liberalistic teachings of Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside in opening the doors of fellowship ever wider and further from the truth, we hear the present “conservative liberals” attempting to draw a line to stop such activities. They object to such publications as Mission, and even to the Firm Foundation (now pushing the doctrine that examples are not binding at all), and have even begun publishing new books that have a ring more conservative than formerly.

But, the sad part of it all is that they still cannot see it is the doctrines they themselves began nearly thirty years ago that has laid the foundation of their problems today. They cannot understand why the word of God no longer concerns these ultra-liberals, when they themselves raised them on a diet of “We do many things for which we have no authority.” And even more saddening, they still fail to see their own inconsistencies and failure to abide by the Word of God while expecting others to give heed to it.

Now, just to make sure some of my brethren who are moving in the other direction do not misunderstand my reasoning from here on, let me pause and make this clarification: I find nothing in the Word of God that justifies the objections presently being raised against such private organizations as Florida College, the Cogdill Foundation, or even in individually supported orphan home! When the Willis-Jenkins Debate is printed, I believe the printed discussion, along with the others now being conducted in Searching The Scriptures and Gospel Anchor will go far in laying this error to rest again-as it was during the days of Garrett and Ketcherside’s original errors.

But, I fear many of those in the liberal camp have never yet comprehended completely what the battle for the past thirty years has involved. They are looking at the end results of some of their own projects (such as the error and self-perpetuation of the Herald of Truth), wringing their hands and crying, “How did this ever come about?” Yet, they are continuing to defend the error that gave birth to this very apostasy!

In the August 1975 issue of Contending For The Faith, which is “sponsored by and under the oversight” of the Shaded Mountain elders in Birmingham (and yet also charges $2 per year for subscriptions!), Ira Rice opens a back-door hint for closer fellowship with the “antis” in his fight against “liberalism.” Note his comments: “I get a large charge out of brethren who consider his paper `liberal,’ as you mentioned the brother there who throws it into the trash. It is anything but that! . . . I admit that I feel far closer to those who oppose intercongregational cooperation than I do toward the liberals” (p. 16). Well, this is one writer who is not taken in by such an approach, and shall continue to brand Ira Rice as liberal, and back it up with his own comments. In fact, in the very same issue, Brother Rice forever laid any doubts any might have had to rest, and confirmed that he has not understood what the arguments against institutionalism for the past century have even involved.

Note the following by Ira Rice in the same issue: “If the so-called Christian colleges were teaching only Bible and Bible-related subjects, then I would not know of any reasons congregations as well as individuals could not pillar and ground the truth thus taught.” In other words, an organization set up and operated by individuals as a private organization separate and apart from the church, for the express purpose of teaching the Bible, could be church-supported. This is precisely the same position held by Dale Larson, president of York College in York, Nebraska. In a personal letter to me, dated December 9, 1971, he reaffirmed this: “The Board of Directors affirmed from the beginning that there would be nothing unscriptural with congregational money going directly and exclusively to the teaching of the Bible. You know this has been my personal position.” In addition, almost monthly, other congregations across the nation have mailed out pleas for other churches to help them send students to both public and private schools (mostly foreign-there is still too, much opposition to church-supported schools in America for them to openly face the music at home).

Such reasoning as just illustrated opens the floodgates for the church to support any human institution that happens to be doing a work similar to the work the church is doing. Certainly there is no consistent position they could take that would allow them to condemn the Missionary Society as originally set up in 1849 and still maintain the previously mentioned positions. It is my firm conviction we have become guilty of condemning a thing by name only (“surely you would not think I would condone such a thing as a Missionary Society”) and have absolutely no concept whatsoever about the nature, organization, and function of such an organization. Consequently, following nothing but a “traditional” position, we have swallowed the whole camel before we ever knew it was even in the tent!

But, again returning to the same issue of his paper, Brother Rice continues, “On the other hand, take orphan homes. God told us all-individuals and congregations alike-to take care of orphans. Any home where orphans are taken care of ,thus becomes an orphans’ home. Since the command (by necessary implication) is generic, then we are left free as to how to carry it out. To bind one way of doing this is to bind where the Lord has loosed.” First of all, let me begin by challenging him for the authority for such a bold assumption! He has stated a broad generalization of orphan care, let us see if he can find the scriptures that support it. Secondly, since he himself has stated “any home” (I wonder if that includes the antis’ too), and since he has argued the “how” is not binding (when will we get him to understand it is not the “how” but the “who” we are trying to get them to face?), the Baptist orphan homes evidently can now begin looking for more contributions from the churches of Christ-surely he would not become “anti”‘ and begin “binding” which homes the churches could care for!

It never ceases to amaze me how some brethren can see some things so clearly and yet be so blind on other things which are an exact parallel. If the church can support organizations separate and apart from the church-be it an orphan home, school, “Bible” school, or a Missionary Society-it can support them all. The scripture that justifies the one justifies the other as well. No, these liberal brethren have not changed their stripe, they. have just found another animal that has a stronger stink!

To paraphrase the words of Christ in Matt. 13 and adapt them to a modern-day setting, we could say, “Hearing ye shall hear, but only what you want to; and seeing ye shall see, but only those things that do not affect your pet projects: for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should awaken and realize that their various human institutions and schemes are unauthorized by the word of God also, and thus be forced to give them up and be converted and return to the simplicity of the New Testament again.”

No, to stand with such a position against rank “liberalism” is about like joining hands with the Baptists because we both agree the Methodists are wrong on sprinkling. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord-in His way and in His plan! But, O that our liberal brethren could wake up and learn the lesson of history the past century has wrought, as well as the simplicity of the New Testament pattern and the safety God designed within it.

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 12-13
January 6, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Virginia: “Can it be established from the New Testament that capital punishment is pleasing to God in our day and time?”

Reply:

Capital punishment is defined by Webster, ” execution as punishment for a crime; the death penalty.”

The Eternal Principle

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6). This text states: (1) The act, murder; (2) who shall execute the murderer, “man;” (3) The reason for the retribution, because man is made in God’s image. All men in all eras are made in God’s image (Acts 17:29), therefore, in every age the murderer may be executed “by man,” that is, by man duly constituted to execute the sentence. To do away with capital punishment, one would have to eliminate the principle upon which it stands. Has the premise of Genesis 9:6 been altered?

The Precepts of Moses

Sundry sins were punishable by death under the law of Moses. Kidnaping, dishonor to parents, murder, and a host of others too numerous to chronicle here, all drew the death penalty (Ex. 21:12-17). God delivered laws through Moses. God also gave penalties for those who violated those laws. Often, that penalty was execution, death, capital punishment. It was performed “by man,” by men authorized to render the punishment. “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses” (Heb. 10:28).

In The New Testament

We owe the government its due (Matt. 22:21). One function of civil government is to protect the good, law abiding citizen. Another duty of government is to serve God as “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). We must submit to government’s right to punish the wicked “for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet. 2:13, 14). Paul put this principle and his life on the line when he said in court, “For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die (Acts 25:11). Paul said he could have been guilty and he could have been “worthy of death,” that is, a fit subject for capital punishment. As such, he was willing to die. How could Paul have said this if government had no right to execute him? How could he have volunteered to submit to execution, even though guilty, if capital punishment was not a legitimate operation of government?

“The man” appointed to execute the criminal is civil government, “the minister of God,” who “beareth not the sword in vain” (Rom. 13:4). The sword is at once the emblem and instrument of punishment and death. Rulers are “a terror …to the evil” (Rom. 13:3). A portion of that “terror” is seen in the fact that they have the duty to kill those who have committed acts “worthy of death.”

Truth Magazine XXI:1, pp. 11-12
January 6, 1977