Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

This week we want to begin another line of thought to pursue for the next few issues. Beginning with this lesson, we would like to suggest some thoughts concerning “The Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ.”

Definition of “The Law”

Inasmuch as we shall be mentioning “the Law” and “the Gospel” for the next few weeks, it will be best for us to understand what the Bible means when it speaks of “the Law” and “the Gospel.” By the Law, the Scriptures ordinarily mean the Law of God which was given by Moses atop Mount Sinai. The Law is to be taken to mean the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments as well as the so-called “ceremonial laws.” Some people have divided the Law of Moses, so as to make Moses the author of the ceremonial laws which governed the worship under the Old Covenant. We will investigate this particular point more thoroughly in the coming weeks. In this lesson we are just trying to define the terms, and somewhat present the problem for discussion. In Galatians 3, Paul speaks of the Law, so as to define that of which he is speaking without doubt and beyond dispute. He says, “now this I say: a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannual, so as to make the promise of none effect” (Gal. 3:17). What is the Law? It is that which came 430 years after the promise was made to Abraham.

According to one widely-used chronology of Biblical events, the promise was made to Abraham in about 1921 B. C. The Law of Moses was given in 1491 B. C., which is exactly 430 years after the giving of the promise. Thus; the Law which was 430 years after the giving of the promise is the Law that God delivered unto the people through Moses at Mount Sinai. Then 40 years later, after their wilderness wandering, the people entered into the promised land. They entered about 1451 B. C., according to the same chronology. The Law of Moses, which included both the Ten Commandment Law and the so-called “ceremonial law” is spoken of as “the Law.” So when we refer to the Law, we are referring to the Ten Commandment Law, or the Law of God as delivered by Moses.

Definition of “The Gospel”

It is our purpose to study the relationship existing between this Law, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we mean that system by which God had purposed from eternity to save fallen man. It is referred to as a promise in some instances. In fact, Paul says, “Now unto Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to they seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). Before making any comment on this passage, let us refer to the Old Testament scriptures and see this promise of which Paul speaks:

“Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:1-3). This is the promise. The promise is that in Abraham, or in the seed, the posterity of Abraham, shall all nations of the earth be blessed. Well, to what did this promise refer? Paul tells us precisely of whom the promise spoke. “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). So this promise made to Abraham is that in Christ Jesus all nations of the earth are to be blessed. This is the good news of salvation, hence this is the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel means good news, or glad tidings, and the good news is that Christ died that men and women of all nations might be saved.

So God’s plan of salvation is called the Gospel, and it is also called the Promise. Furthermore, the Gospel is also called the Faith. Some people read the Bible, and think that every time the word “faith” occurs it is talking about believing, and they think because the Bible teaches that salvation is by faith, they have found Scriptures proving their false doctrine of salvation by faith only. But many times, when the word “faith” occurs, it is not speaking of believing at all, but it is speaking of the system of faith, the Gospel, or of the fulfillment of the Promise made to Abraham. Let us notice some instances of such a usage:

In Rom. 3:28, Paul says, “We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” Paul is saying, that one is justified by the Gospel, and not by the Law of Moses. Some people use this passage in an effort to prove that salvation or justification comes by faith only, but to so use it is to misuse it.

Again Paul says, “But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed…. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:22, 24). Here the term “faith” is used to refer to the system of faith, or the Gospel.

One other passage will have to suffice. In Jude 3, the writer says, “Contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” We are not exhorted in this passage to contend for believing, but to contend for the system of faith. So the Gospel may be called “the Gospel,” “the Promise,” or just “the Faith.” We shall be using these terms considerably in the weeks that lie ahead.

Judaism and Christianity

The problem of intermixing the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ is not a problem peculiar to our day. During the New Testament times, one of the greatest dangers confronting the church was that of mixing Judaism with Christianity. This is more understandable in New Testament times, than it is in our day. Yet I am fairly confident, that there was not much more mixing of the two then, than there is now. Those people in New Testament times had just come out of Judaism, and therefore it was rather difficult for them to leave all of their Jewish concepts, and to replace these with Christian concepts. As a nation, the Jews had lived under the Law of Moses for fifteen-hundred years. This made it all the more difficult for them to give up their Jewish beliefs overnight. An effort was made on the part of some to Judaize Christianity, and to Christianize Judaism. So considerable writing and preaching was done to show that this would not work.

One of the intentions of the Roman epistle is to give the people to whom it was addressed an insight into the relationship existing between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. Some in Rome obviously thought that they could be saved as were those who lived under the Old Testament Law. So Paul wrote to correct this false impression. The Galatian epistle was written because some of the members of the church were on the verge of going back to the Law, and even already some of them were intermixing the Law and the Promise. So Paul writes to teach them that Christianity is a religion separate and independent from Judaism. The Hebrew epistle has a similar intention. Certain ones of the Jews that had been converted to Christianity were getting a little discouraged. So Paul wrote to them to encourage them to continue in the Faith, and to warn them of going back to the Law. These brethren were being severely persecuted by their former Jewish brethren and this persecution had something to do with their retreat toward Judaism. Paul rebuked them for giving up, saying, “Ye have not resisted unto blood, striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4). The indication is that there was great danger that they were going to have to shed some blood because of renouncing Judaism, but he said you are giving up before you even shed your blood. So one can readily see that this problem of intermixing the Old Testament and the New Testament laws was a problem confronting the church.

It is likewise a tremendous problem in the world today. There are probably as many false doctrines taught because people do not understand the relation of the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ as any other misunderstanding we might mention. Some denominations exist as separate bodies simply because they want to intermix the Gospel with a touch of Judaism, and this touch of Judaism is often a rather heavy touch.

There are some individuals today who try to bind the carnal act of circumcision, and to say that it is an obligation upon these living today under God’s Law. This sounds rather absurd to virtually all religious was a part of the Old groups are violating the groups, because circumcision Covenant. But these religious same principle.

There are some organizations that keep the Sabbath Day. They do not meet upon the First Day of the week as the New Testament church did, but they meet on Saturday. Why? Because they try to bind on people today a portion of the Law of Moses.

There are some religious organizations which burn incense in their worship. Why? Not because of any commandment found in the New Testament, the Gospel of Christ, but merely because it was a part of the Law of Moses. They mix the two laws and come out with a conglomeration that is not distinguishable as either Christianity or Judaism, but is a mixture of both.

The vast majority of religious organizations use mechanical instruments of music in their worship service. They sometimes resent others inquiring as to why they use their instruments. Many, many times individuals have asked me why the church of which I am a member does not have a piano or an organ to accompany its singing. I take no offense at their inquiry. In fact, I welcome it. But let someone ask them why They have an instrument or music to accompany their singing, and when they search the New Testament for the authority for it, and fail to find it, they become offended. Usually, they reply by saying, “Well they had mechanical instruments of music in the Old Testament, didn’t they?” To which one must reply, “Certainly so,” but it just so happens that we are not living under the Old Testament Law. Friends, with all respect for the people who do this, this is but another attempt on the part of man to intermix Judaism and Christianity. Instruments of music are no part of Christian worship, but were a part of the Old Testament worship.

There are others who think a preacher or a “priest” has to make intercession for the sinner, and that they have to make confession to some man in order to get their sins forgiven. Under the Old Testament, the priests had to offer the sacrifices, and they did stand between God and the sinner. But not so in the New Testament. Christ is the High Priest, and each Christian is a priest, so each person can pray to God for forgiveness. This is another example of mixing the two systems.

So it is apparent that this was as much a problem in New Testament times than it is today.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 3-5
January 15, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Calvinists of various shades and shadows picture and portray the sinner as a passive, inactive recipient of divine grace. Calvinism says the sinner is unable to answer the call of the Spirit for the same reason that a dead man cannot obey oral commands and verbal demands. A corpse cannot act until it is given life. Correspondingly, a dead sinner cannot perform until the Spirit of God quickens and renews him. If the poor sinner has the misfortune of being left out of those whom God has elected to be saved, he is doomed and damned, and there is nothing he can do about it. Worse still, there is nothing God or the Spirit will do about it, for, according to Calvin, it was God’s “good pleasure” to damn the damned. The Spirit will not effect a “work of grace” on his heart, and he cannot hear or heed on his own. “Nevertheless God continues to hold them responsible to respond to his call” (The Five Points Of Calvinism; p. 3).

Hypothetically, even if the Spirit were to feel remorse for the sinner and rebel against God and operate on his heart, it would not accomplish anything. The surgery would fail because Calvinism says Christ did not die for the sinner in the first place. So, the Holy Spirit need not bother.

The Definition Of “Dead”

All agree that the sinner is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). The sinner is spiritually dead. The Calvinist says this means the sinner is unable to move. Like a corpse in a coffin, he cannot respond. But is this the meaning of the term “dead” as applied to the sinner? Paul defined the term for us in Col. 2:13: “And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” To be quickened (made alive) is to be forgiven. Therefore, to be dead means to be unforgiven. Further, Paul showed that to be “quickened” is the same as being saved. See.. his interchangeable use of the terms in Eph. 2:1,5. To be made alive is to be saved; therefore, to be dead is to be unsaved.

The divine definition:

QUICKENED = BEING SAVED FORGIVEN

DEAD = BEING UNSAVED OR UNFORGIVEN

Thus, the term “dead” as applied to the sinner is not parallel in all respects to the physical corpse. A dead man cannot hear. So, the Calvinist says the dead sinner cannot hear the Gospel. This perverts Paul’s definition of the term, and what is equally as bad, it “makes void” the very words of Jesus in John 5:25. Said He, “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” First, the dead_ hear, then they live. The Calvinist, however, puts the passage in reverse and perverts; Christ’s words when He says the dead sinner cannot hear until after he is made alive by the Spirit.

JESUS: DEAD HEAR, THEN LIVE

CALVINIST: DEAD ENLIVENED, THEN HEAR

In Rom. 11:14,15, Paul used the term “dead,” not to indicate inability to act, but to refer to the condition of being lost, unsaved. “If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” If the Calvinist is correct in his definition of dead when he says the dead sinner is unable to act, Paul was wasting his time. He was seeking to “provoke to emulation” those who were dead. How do you provoke a corpse to emulation? Paul wanted to save some of them if he could. Their salvation would be “life from the dead.” Again, salvation equals life, while being unsaved is equal to being “dead.”

Dead In Sins And Dead To Sins

The sinner is “dead in sins” and cannot obey the Gospel says Calvinism. He has to be quickened by the Spirit before he can act. “You might as well ask a corpse to obey you as to ask a dead sinner to obey the Gospel.” Being dead in sins, the sinner cannot obey according to Calvinists.

If this be true; what of the child of God? He is said to be “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:24). Should we conclude that the child of God cannot sin? If the sinner’s being “dead in sin” means he cannot obey the truth, then the fact that saints are “dead to sin” ought to prove that saved ones cannot commit sin. If we use the Calvinist’s definition of “dead” the conclusion is inescapable, i.e., the Christian cannot sin. However, the saved may obey sin in the lusts thereof (Rom. 6:12,13,16). Thus; the term dead does not imply the absolute impossibility of acting, whether on the part of the saint or the sinner.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 2
January 15, 1976

By Irvin Himmel

Broadly speaking, astrology is a pseudo-science which pertains to the celestial bodies and their influence on human affairs. It has its :roots in the ancient paganistic religions. From Babylon it spread to other parts of the world. It is not surprising that men who worshiped the sun; moon, and stars would suppose that these heavenly bodies had control of human destiny.

“Judicial astrology” is the philosophical concept that man is a miniature replica of the universe, so each person reflects in himself and his circumstances the pattern of the heavens at the time of his birth, and that the pattern of the heavens at that time describes that person. The horoscope is a chart by which it is claimed that one may learn what is in store for him.

Astrology appeals to people who have a strong desire to know the future. In this age of frustrations, fears, and uncertainties, instead of turning to the Bible, God’s revelation of His will, large numbers of people are turning to astrology.

Recently someone handed me a newspaper clipping of an article by John R. Hawkins, a member of the American Federation of Astrologers. This gentleman shows more bias than objectivity in his attempts to make the Bible uphold astrology.

First, Mr. Hawkins takes us back to Gen. 1:14-16, where God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years …… This passage says absolutely nothing to the effect that these heavenly lights have control over all human affairs. They are signs declaring the glory of God (Ps. 19:1), signs by which we may find the point of the compass, and signs of changes in the seasons. What the astrologer needs is a proof text that these luminaries are signs of what is going to happen in each individual’s span of life.

Hawkins remarks, “In the New Testament we find Christ referring to the weather in relation to the sky.” So what? The fact that the sun, moon, and other celestial bodies have bearing on weather conditions, changes in the seasons, and the like gives no proof that they determine such human affairs as romance, marriage, business transactions, state of one’s health, and personality makeup.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for being able to read weather signs but not the signs that the times of the Messiah’s reign were at hand. The “face of the sky” and the “signs of the times” (Matt. 16:1-4) were altogether different. He referred them to the sign of the prophet Jonah, which was not an astrological sign, but the prophet’s miraculous deliverance from the whale (Matt. 12:38-40). Hawkins jumps from this to the “sign of His coming” in Matt. 24, and like the premillennialists, confuses what Jesus said about abnormal conditions prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and what He said later in the chapter about His personal return. I judge that it has not occurred to Hawkins. that the language of Matt. 24:29 could be figurative (Compare Ezek. 32:1-10; Isa. 13). The professional astrologer wants people to think that wherever the Bible mentions a sign it is to be understood as an astrological sign. Jesus did not endorse astrology.

“Tradition has Abraham as an astrologer and mathematician. No wonder God referred to Abraham in relation to the stars of heaven,” says Hawkins. Tradition is not reliable. Jesus taught that men often make void the word of God through their “tradition” (Mk. 7:13). One does not need to be a disciple of astrology to be impressed with the heavens! To reason that Abraham was an astrologer because God said his seed would be as the stars of the heaven (Gen. 22:17) is about like arguing that Abraham was an oceanographer because God said his seed would be as the sand upon the sea shore.

Astrologer Hawkins contends that Joseph understood the meaning of the sun and moon and the eleven stars in his dream (Gen. 37:9), so this must have been knowledge passed down from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob and his sons. “If Joseph knew the meaning of the sun and moon, surely he wouldn’t have stopped there: he would know the significance of the other planets.” What logic! One simple fact is completely overlooked: Joseph knew what the symbols in this dream meant for the same reason he knew the meaning of the symbols in the dreams of the baker, the butler, and Pharaoh. Interpretations belong to God (Gen. 40:8; 41:16). It was God, not astrology, that gave understanding to Joseph.

Hawkins even attempts to line up Paul on the side of the astrologers. “Paul understood that the planets had differing power that God had set in order.” This is supposed to be inferred in 1 Cor. 15:39-44. Read the passage and you will find that Paul no more said that than he said the fishes have differing intestinal systems that God set in order! Mr. Hawkins assumes that if someone in the Bible refers to the sun, moon, or other heavenly bodies in any way he (1) was an astrologer, (2) had been taught astrology, or (3) endorsed astrology. His arguments to prove astrology by the Scriptures are too weak to stand un under close examination.

Astrologers were among the “wise men” called in by Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 2, but they were powerless to make known the secret which God revealed by His prophet Daniel. The real answers to life’s problems are found in the revelation of God recorded in His Word, not in the silly predictions of astrological charts.

In Isa. 47:12,13, “the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators,” are classed with “enchantments” and “sorceries,” The Israelites were warned against the “observer of times,” “an enchanter,” and other deceivers (Deut. 18:9-12).

One woman is reported to have stayed in bed for a week because the signs were not right for her to leave the house. This illustrates the fatalistic philosophy of astrology. The sincere Christian follows the Bible, not a horoscope. He trusts in God, not an astrological diagram. He knows that he has freedom of choice rather than supposing the stars control his course.

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 13-14
January 8, 1976

By A. C. Grider

We are living in a time when people could “care less” for spiritual matters. Hence the title which stands at the head of this article. In this regard, times have been better in the past. But we seem to have reached a new low in getting response to our efforts. I wonder if times will ever by any better along this line.

The work of the preacher grows more difficult and frustrations become greater as time goes on. Go out and talk to a man whose soul we would like to see saved and invite him to services. He shakes it off with, “I ain’t a making you no promises.” He seems to think he owes the preacher a promise. When (and if) he finally does come, it likely will be a “one time only” thing, and even then he smirkingly acts like he has done us a big favor by coming. Or try to talk to him on the spot about the salvation of his soul and he is much too busy to listen. Or else he will shrug it off as if something else was far more important.

We go to members of the church who seldom attend services and plead with them to be more faithful. They will shake it off with, “I know I am not coming as I should. I know I should come.” These so-called Christians seem to think they owe the preacher this much of a concession. When (and if) they do come as result of the exhortation, it will likely be a “one time only” thing and again they go back to being unfaithful. So it is necessary to try, try again.

What can we do; what can we say to get sinners, both in the church and out, to see that it is not for our sake nor even for Jesus’ sake that we want them to obey the gospel? Why can’t they see it is for their own good and for the sake of their own soul that we plead with them? I am reminded of a story the late N.B. Hardeman used to tell. He had engaged in a very heated discussion with a cantankerous old sinner, but to no avail. The argument waxed hot and Hardeman became impatient. Hardeman later said, “I thought once I would tell him to go to hell. But, on second thought, I knew he would go anyway so I didn’t tell him.” That is a kind of humorous thing and in a way seems to be a little harsh. But in all seriousness, it might open some eyes if some people were bluntly told to go to torment. At any rate, alien sinners and erring Christians many times are “careless souls” and they continue to “linger.” I don’t know anything to do or anything the Lord wants us to do but keep trying to get them to do what they must do to be saved.

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 12-13
January 8, 1976