Truth Magazine

By Roland Worth, Jr.

There is nothing in the world that an excuse cannot be invented to defend. So it is not surprising that in our world of casual morals that there are a number of excuses made for ignoring the plain statements of Scripture. In some cases a little common sense will explode the argument; in other cases the Bible has already anticipated such arguments and attacked them.

“Everybody Is Doing It”

That is about as truthful as the myth of a generation or two ago that “Nobody does it.” The truth of the matter is that the standard of right and wrong is not found in a majority decision. Because an overwhelming majority of Germans hated Jews was it right for Hitler to murder six million of them? Though “everybody” was not personally involved in the crime, practically “everybody” thought nothing of being anti-Semitic.

The Bible expressly warns us against justifying our conduct by a corrupt majority. “You shall not follow a multitude to do evil . . . ” (Exodus 23:2). Christ warned us that because there is a great deal of evil in the world, love for Divine truth will tend to diminish, “And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:11-12).

“If You Haven’t Tried It, Don’t Knock It”

Life is far too short to do everything. We learn (if we are half as smart as we think we are) from the experiences of others!

The person who presents this kind of argument to us will seldom want to go out and see what it’s like to kill someone in the heat of war. Nor is he likely to want to go out and let someone shoot at him for the pleasure of seeing what it’s like. Yet Winston Churchill once remarked that there is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at and be missed! A truly unique thrill! But not one that we would recommend to others on the grounds that “If you haven’t tried it, don’t knock it!”

If this kind of reasoning were true a man being tried for murder could say: “You have no business being on my jury because you’ve never killed a person.” Would his objection be valid? Why then should a person be considered right when he makes the same argument concerning morals? In one case a person has violated human law and in the other divine law. If we would not tolerate such reasoning in regard to human offenses how much less we should tolerate it as an excuse for violating the law of God!

“It’s None of Your Business”

First, it is God’s business by right of His creation of mankind.

Second, it is your parent’s business by right of the fact that they gave birth to you.

Third, it is a preacher’s concern because it affects your relationship to God.

So let’s not talk about whether it is someone else’s business. Instead, let us address the real issue: Whether you are doing the right thing in God’s sight.

“It Doesn’t Hurt Anyone”

I suppose that Adam could have said the same thing in the Garden. Yet because of his sin death entered the world and plagues us to this very day. So stop and think for a minute: Your action may set in motion a chain of circumstances far beyond your ability to imagine.

Furthermore, it does hurt someone: You! Sin separates from God (Isa. 59:2) and any immorality you commit places that much more distance between you and Him.

“I Love The Person”

Nothing derogatory is intended but I can’t help but recall the worldly-wise words of the lady I once knew who had been through three marriages: “There is no such thing as love at first sight; there is only lust at first sight.” If you stop to think about it that statement has a lot of truth in it. You may be sensually attracted to a person by their looks but to call that love is a wee bit misleading!

Furthermore, the question is not so much whether you love the person. The more important question is do you love Christ more? “If ye love me keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and among the commandments He taught was abstention from sexual immorality (Matt. 15: 15-20).

Conclusion

Don’t be conned by a smooth talker. You can put a beautiful label on a bottle of cyanide but it will kill you just the same when you drink it. The same it true of sin.

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 13-14
April 15, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, we need to guard the tongue. “It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison” (Jas. 3:8). Every power for good is also a power for evil when misused. And, the tongue is a great power, either way it is used. “Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” (v. 5). The tongue is used to “bless … God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (vv. 9-10).

Cursing, swearing, profanity, and vile speech of every kind have become the order of the day for many people. Such speech often uses the name of God in a degrading way, to strengthen cursing and profanity. And, generally, such speech expresses extreme bitterness, disgust, or a desire for harm toward another person (for some real or imagined injury). The speaker sometimes even directs such expressions toward himself (for some weakness or mistake he has made). All such speech shows a lack of respect for God, self, and others!

The solution is threefold. (1) We must exalt God in our hearts–“love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (2) We must have a proper regard for ourselves. As spiritual beings, we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Man is the crowning work of God’s creation. God “made him a little lower than the angels, and halt crowned him with glory and honour” (Ps. 8:5). In view of his eternal destiny, man is of greater value than all material things combined. “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26). (3) Just as we are to love (seek the good of) ourselves, we are to love others. “Thou shah love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:39). Proper regard for God, self, and others stops vile speech of all descriptions.

“Polite” cursing and compromise with profanity are found in the form of euphemisms. Euphemisms are substitutes for direct cursing. To damn, in profanity, is to curse. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1975) defines “darn” and “darn” as “damn: a euphemism for the curse.” “fleck” is “an exclamation used as a euphemism for hell.” “Blamed” is “a substitute for damned.” Others include “gosh” (“euphemism for God”), “gee” (“euphemistic contraction of Jesus”), “golly” (“euphemism for God’), “doggone” (“an imprecation, or perhaps a euphemistic remodeling of God Damn”), and “confound” (“damned, a mild oath”).

Christians who love God, self, and others properly will avoid all such speech. Sinners need to obey the Gospel of Christ to be forgiven of such speech; they must believe in Christ, repent of sins, confess Jesus Christ, and be baptized in water for remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16, Rom. 10:10, 1 Pet. 3:21). “their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more,” God promises (Heb. 8:12).

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 11-12
April 16, 1976

By Irvin Himmel

`Most denominations teach and administer some kind of an act which they call baptism. In some cases, the truth is set forth about the action of baptism but not about its design. Some do not follow the New Testament regarding either the action or design.

A lot of folks have submitted to denominational baptism (whatever kind or purpose), and it is hard for them to see why they need to be baptized in the name of the Lord. When attempts are made to teach them, a familiar response is, “Well, I am satisfied with my baptism.”

The fact that someone is satisfied with his baptism does not prove that it is right. (Some are satisfied with their condition without anything that is even called “baptism.”) The important question is not, `Am I satisfied?’ The vital question is, ‘Have I satisfied God?’

Sprinkling and Pouring

Some preachers pour a dash of water on a person’s head, or it may be a mere sprinkle, and they call that action baptism. The person who has submitted to sprinkling or pouring may say, “I am satisfied with my baptism.”

God is not satisfied with sprinkling and pouring. How do I know? I know, not because I am playing God or sitting in judgment, but because His word plainly says we are “buried” in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12). We cannot substitute an action of our own choosing for that which God has prescribed and expect to find approval with Him.

John’s Baptism

Paul found some men at Ephesus who had been baptized (Acts 19:1-5). They were perfectly satisfied with their baptism until Paul raised some questions. He correctly made them dissatisfied so they would want to obey the Lord. Their problem was not in the kind of action to which they had submitted; they needed teaching on the purpose of baptism.

Paul’s questions brought the admission that these people had been baptized unto John’s baptism. John baptized for the remission of sins (Mk. 1:4). He taught the people to believe on the Christ who would come after John. Paul explained the difference between this baptism and that commanded by Jesus (and which is New Testament baptism). The result: “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord.”

Some men of the twentieth century would have argued with Paul, “That is not enough difference to amount to anything. I am satisfied with my baptism.” Fortunately, the men at Ephesus did not so reason.

Common Misconceptions

A lot of people think they have been baptized “for the remission of sins” when the fact is that they have not. Some think baptism is essential to salvation but only in the same sense that one must partake of the Lord’s Supper or perform some other duty to please God. They do not understand that sins are washed away by Christ’s blood when one is baptized, and not before baptism.

Some denominations make baptism essential to membership (in that denomination) but deny that it is essential to salvation. This kind of baptism is an institutional act, a denominational baptism, not the baptism taught in the New Testament. One who has submitted to such baptism may be satisfied with it, but where is the scriptural evidence that God is satisfied with it?

The Purpose of Baptism

If one knows that baptism is designed to put him into Jesus Christ in order that he might obtain remission of sins, why would he submit to baptism into a denomination which teaches salvation before and without baptism? Foy E. Wallace, Jr., writing on the purpose of baptism, put it this way: “If one is baptized into the Baptist church, he is not baptized into Christ, because Christ is not in the Baptist church and the Baptist church is not in Christ. If he is in it, one might be baptized into it and get into him; or if it is in him, one might be baptized into him and get into it. But he is not in it, and it is not in him, therefore no one can be baptized into him and get into it, nor be baptized into it and get into him” (,Torch, Nov.-Dec., 1950, p. 28).

New Testament baptism is not designed to put one into a false religion. If one has been baptized into a man-made religion, a denomination, or a cult, he has not been baptized for the purpose taught in the Bible. Baptism is “for (unto) the remission of sins” or to “wash away” sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). Remission is found in Christ, not in a denomination, therefore we are “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Furthermore, we are “baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). That one body is the church of Christ, not a denominational body (Col. 1:18). And the body of Christ is not the lumping together of all the denominations!

Have I truly obeyed God in baptism? Is He satisfied with my baptism? One must be taught right on the subject of baptism to be baptized scripturally. Let everyone examine himself by the Bible and make sure of God’s approval.

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 10-11
April 16, 1976

By Daniel H. King

A few years back a song of political protest repeatedly echoed the chorus, “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?” The endless circle of human folly and ill-consideration were elucidated and made light of in a list of specifics in the song. Political malcontents, though, are not the only ones who have somewhat to say about the redundancy of human experience in returning over and over again to the same mistakes. without ever seeming to learn. History is often said to “repeat itself.” The wise-man Solomon noted this human trait in Ecclesiastes 1:9-11: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there by any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.” Israel of old was reminded time and time again by the prophets of God that her repeated faithless actions would lead to disaster. It was not until her people found themselves in a foreign land among strangers that they awoke to the reality that God’s wisdom is not to be taken lightly (Isa. 55:8, 9; Jer. 10: 23).

With the brethren, it seems that they always must take up some old worn and tattered philosophy or practice which is just about to go out of style among the denominations, and at just about the time that the denominations are beginning to see their blunder and lay it down. History testifies of many specifics to this generalization. But one that is with us now is the Social Gospel concept. The Social Gospel movement was initiated by liberal theologians of the last century who had lost their faith in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. They claimed that this was the actual Gospel preached and practiced by Jesus-but even they knew better. They “demythologized” the Bible, completely humanized the Christ, and watered down His Gospel to the point that it could not even be recognized. The emphasis upon this world which characterized the thinking of its proponents is quite easy to explain: these people had lost heir hope that there would be a life after this one. What is difficult to understand is how the thinking of Social Gospelism came to be accepted by conservative religious people. They did not accept the major premise (that the Bible is a human book), but swallowed the minor premise whose acceptance should have been conditioned upon the former. So, who said that people are logical? Explain it as you will, the movement gained impetus and the banner of Social Gospelism was raised by many conservative denominational groups. Social concerns: education, integration, starvation, depravation, recreation, etc., were the order (disorder!) of the day.

The pervasiveness of this kind of thinking became so strong that we saw priests getting into politics, preachers leading civil rights demonstrations, and religious bodies becoming socially conscious in every way. Throughout this period only a blind man would say that the church of the Lord was able to stay pure and undefiled. It is now a fact of history and honest historical reflection that the Gospel was diluted by this putrid, malodorous, men-pleasing and God-dishonoring human philosophy (Col. 2:8). I remember one of my teachers at David Lipscomb College telling of how a Baptist man had once shamed him for not being more socially conscious and for not encouraging Churches of Christ to be socially concerned. I have always thought that he told the story for my benefit, since I was the only one in the class that objected to their many “good works”. He was, however, (though unawares) making a most valid objection to his cause. He was allowing the thinking of the denominational world, personified in that one man, to shame him into disregarding the law of God in this matter. That teacher, along with many like him, has led brethren and churches away from the Bible and into apostasy by following the line of least resistance on this point. Think of what an awful and harrowing experience it must have been to him to admit that our time was so taken up by preaching the Gospel and lifting lost humanity out of the muck and mire of godlessness and denominationalism that we do not have the time to waste on being “socially conscious” in the sense intended! I am not sorry to say that I have no apology to offer. People who are brought out of the wretched state of poverty of spirit (damnation) to become rich toward God (saved) will be better people and will make for a better society. I will try to preach the Gospel to them and save their souls and then encourage them to live an exemplary life before the world. There is no greater favor nor service that I could ever do them. As I have opportunity I will attempt to work that which is good toward all men (Gal. 6:10). Aside from this I have very little social consciousness. This is so for the same reason that I have only a minimum of political consciousness. What small amount that I can conscientiously and scripturally do to make this a better country in which to live and a better government under which to function-that, God being my helper, I shall attempt to do. But I am aware that kingdoms and governments rise and fall and along with them the societies that existed within their domains. Jesus and his apostles were neither political activists nor social workers. Their work had its influence in both spheres as it did in every other phase of human existence, but to place a false emphasis on either for that reason is certainly out of order.

Yet Social Gospelism, one of the factors that has split the church and alienated brethren all over the world, is going out of style. It still is in its heyday within the church. But some of the denominations are beginning to see that while they are pouring millions of dollars and endless hours into social causes their numbers are dwindling and the thinking of their leaders is ranging ever-farther afield from any kind of Biblical approach to anything.

In the February 10, 1975 issue of Time magazine, under the title, “The Hartford Heresies,” this influential publication reported a “document of theological protest” which was issued at Hartford, Connecticut by eighteen prominent theologians from nine denominations. Called also an “Appeal for Theological Affirmation,” the document condemns thirteen pervasive ideas said to undermine the concept of “transcendence,” i.e., the idea that God and His kingdom have a real, autonomous existence apart from the thoughts and efforts of humanity. Their statement takes issue with some of the most popular liberal fashions of recent years, including secular Christianity, political eschatology and the human potential movement. Three, of the assertions (there are thirteen in all) are particularly interesting, since they call into question the thinking present in Social Gospelism. They condemned as “false and debilitating” the theses that:

10. “The world must set the agenda for the church. Social, political and economic programs to improve the quality of life are ultimately normative for the church’s mission in the world.

11. “An emphasis on God’s transcendence is at least a hindrance to, and perhaps incompatible with, Christian social concern and action.

12. “The struggle for a better humanity will bring about the Kingdom of God.”

Here we have a clear admission that “social, political and economic programs” in the church are merely instances of “letting the world set the agenda for the church.” That’s what we have been saying all along! We knew that the Bible did not command any purpose for the church other than evangelism, edification, and benevolence to needy saints (Eph. 4:11; 12). We have been rightly saying that the world was the source of this new “Gospel” and not the Bible (Gal.1:8,9). It looks like some of the denominational folks, having nearly drowned in it, are now admitting that the Social Gospel is not from the Bible and are renouncing it, while some of our gullible brethren are still wading up to their necks in it. “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 7-8
April 16, 1976