Truth Magazine

By James Sanders

Everyone nowadays has some scheme or plot for setting things aright. He knows what is wrong and how to correct it. Colleges, for example, are filled with students who have found the solution to the world’s woes. And yet – these same students usually cannot even find their razors in the morning. Even churches are not without assault. Every congregation has those who have nothing to offer but criticism. “The personal work program will never work.” “No need to have a meeting – no one would come anyway.” “The only way we’ll ever solve our problems here is to hold a few funerals.” And on it goes. Nothing is right and everything is wrong.

In the political sphere there is even more turmoil. Just about everyone knows what is wrong with the country and how to remedy it. But come to think of it, I cannot recall a time when it was ever right. There have been times when it was right for you and you and you – but never all at the same time. Perhaps rather than trying to remedy something we should be trying to make out with what we’ve got.l Some time ago, I ran across a new solution to the war in Indochina. It seems Paul Lindstorm, a denominational preacher in Illinois, has discovered a new work for a church. Lindstorm announced that unless the then President Nixon took action by the middle of May to free American prisoners – he with his elite commando unit of 105 American volunteers and thirteen foreign mercenaries would storm the Communist POW camps and release the prisoners themselves.2 You read it right. Won’t we ever get Church separated from State? Preachers (in some cases even gospel preachers) are in politics more than the politicians are. Everything is in chaos. The world is just like an insane asylum. There is not a person in it who will admit that he is crazy.

Problems and solutions – how should the Christian view them? Is there no balm in Gilead (Jer. 8:22)? “In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him” (Ecc. 7:14).

Our devotion to the Lord must not vary. It cannot be affected by outward events and circumstances. In the day of prosperity (and it is but a day), we are to be joyful. With gladness of heart we are to serve Him. And in the day of adversity (and that too is but a day), the servant of the Lord must consider. There is a judgment to come which will rectify all seeming irregularities. We must be patient for greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world (1 Jno. 4:4b). “The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof” (Psa. 97:1). This world belongs to Him who made it. This is my Father’s world.

Of personal calamities, let the servant of the Lord again consider: “Difficulties are God’s errands; and when we are sent upon them we should esteem it a proof of God’s confidence – as a compliment from Him.”3

1. Donald Day, The Autobiography of Will Rogers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1949), p. 292.

2. “World Scene,” Christianity Today, May 12, 1972, p. 48.

3. Henry Ward Beecher.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 7-8
January 15, 1976

By Norman E. Fultz

Almost never is there an abundance of workers for any facet of service in the Lord’s church, and filling the vacancies is therefore not an easy task; and the persons charged with the responsibilities of making assignments do not have enviable tasks, for they are often the object of criticism because of some of the assignments made. The question of whom to use in public service or teaching roles is a live one in most congregations. Since various factors are involved, some are often used whose use is of questionable wisdom. It is a common practice in too many congregations to use, both in the public worship periods and in the teaching programs, some members who are plainly unfaithful. Their use often results in sneers and ridicule against the church as a whole.

But, someone querries, who are the unfaithful? There are several factors that may be considered. Unfaithfulness in attendance is by no means the only barometer, but certainly should not be ignored. Hebrews 10:25 is still in the Bible. General unfaithfulness in daily living is a fact often unchallenged in some who are used in the work of the church. Paul advised the Philippians, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ . . .” (Phil. 1:27). The New International Version renders the passage, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” But unfaithfulness might better be understood by considering faithfulness. Faithfulness encompasses continuing in the doctrine of the apostles (Acts 2:42), of Christ (2 Jn. 9), holding the traditions of the apostles (2 Thes. 2:15). It signifies being full of faith and living a life harmonious to the word of faith. Unfaithfulness is a failure in this regard.

What possible reasons could one give for using the unfaithful? Sometimes the person involved is a prominent person in the community and a nominal member of the church. The use of such prominent citizens is prestigious. Or the use of some who are unfaithful may be brought about by pressure exerted by some influential members, themselves not as spiritual as they should be and who because of friendship with and sentiment toward the unfaithful appeal for his use. In still other instances, the unfaithfulness may not always be known by the faithful. There always have been hypocrites.

When objections are raised about the use of those in question, in an effort to justify their use, it is argued that their use may encourage them to become faithful. But there is another side to that coin. Their use might just blind them to their own unfaithfulness – “After all, I must not be too bad since they still use me?” Or their use might encourage less diligence from others who see them being used in spite of their unfaithfulness

In an attempt further to justify the use of some who are not faithful, the question is often sneeringly raised, “Who is to make the judgment since no one is perfect?” Admittedly there are some problems, but let us not forget that we do have a standard. And there is such a thing as one who is spiritual (Gal. 6:1), one who is faithful (2 Tim. 2:2), and one who holds fast the faithful word (Tit. 1:9). Let us therefore be wary lest we create an irreverent situation by making use of some who ought not be used (Psa. 24:3-4). And, like it or not, someone does have to make judgments.

Some “not-so-hypothetical” situations can illustrate the awkwardness caused by using the unfaithful. Suppose a fellow who engages in social drinking is a Bible class teacher. What can be expected of him when questions arise from the class regarding the use of intoxicating beverages by the child of God? Or suppose a fellow who does not know what a night service of the church even looks like is making the announcements. He admonishes everyone to be back for the evening and midweek service, but everyone knows he has no intention of being there when he says it. Or what about the teacher of a class who frequently forsakes the assembling of the saints trying to adequately instruct the class which has progressed to Hebrews 10:25? Or the person who lets every ball game, horse show, or other amusement come between him and the services of the church trying to drive home a lesson on “seeking first the kingdom” (Mat. 6:33)? Not only does the use of the unfaithful create an air of awkwardness, but must surely be laughable to some members and to aliens and repugnant to God.

Whom then should we use? Well, I have known a few coaches of basketball teams through the years, and it seems fairly standard procedure for them to make use of the team members who show up for practice and who follow the rules calculated to keep them in proper shape. And I have even known of a few instances where some players who did not feel like they needed the practice had their uniforms taken away from them or where they were penalized by having to warm the bench for a few games. But there are some Biblical principles we might profitably notice, negatively and positively.

There are some things that do not determine who should be used. Physical age of the child of God should not prohibit. Gideon was “the least” (probably meaning the youngest) in his father’s house; but God could use him to deliver Israel from Midian (Judges 6:15); and Samuel was a child when God first spoke through him (1 Sam. 3:1-18); and do not forget the four Hebrew children of Daniel 1-2. On the other, hand, Moses was eighty when God called him from the burning bush to go and deliver Israel from Egypt (Acts 7:23,30). One’s educational standing need not deter. Of Peter and John it is said, “they were unlearned and ignorant me” (Acts 4:13), but of Paul that he had “much learning” (Acts 26:24). Yet all accomplished much in the Lord’s cause. Furthermore, material .possessions are not a determinant. Gideon’s family was poor in Manasseh (Judges 6:15); but Abraham was “very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. 13:2), and both of them made the honor roll of Hebrews 11.

There are some things, though, that should determine who is used in the public service of the church. Since there are some that are spiritual (Gal. 6:1; Rom. 8:5-8), some who are faithful (2 Tim. 2:2), some who are learning (Heb. 5:12-14) and growing (1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:18), let these be used. The service of the Lord should be conducted by those whose lives reflect His teaching, not by those whose use make the church a laughingstock and a reproach.

It would be well for us to remember that we can “be a vessel of honor, sanctified, and meet (fit or useful) for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” But to do so, one must “purge himself” of those things that are dishonourable (2 Tim. 2:20-21).

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 6-7
January 15, 1976

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