Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

Albert Schweitzer is a perfect example of the intellectual, philosophical and practical progression which takes place when the Bible is sold down the river to liberalism. I do not mean to cast any reflection upon Schweitzer’s intellect, scholarly ability, love for his fellow man, or put in question the genuineness or sincerity of the beloved doctor and his contribution to the fight against human suffering. Schweitzer was a brilliant man. Furthermore, he was enterprising and philanthropic. He would have succeeded in any field of endeavor for these reasons. Unknown to many is the fact that before he won acclaim in the fields of theological studies and humanitarianism, young Schweitzer was internationally recognized as an organ player, organ-builder, and student of Bach. In 1906, he published a volume on German and French Art in Organ-Building and Organ-Playing, and later the same year he set forth a monograph on Johann Sebastian Bach which remains to this day the seminal work in the field. His organ recitals were so popular that he later supported his medical hospital in Africa by them.

While still young, however, Schweitzer turned to the pious and meditative life of the scholar and cleric. This in spite of his conspicuous ability in the area of music. His deep faith in God and desire to do Him service motivated his decision. He was the eldest son of an Evangelical Lutheran pastor, and the earlier formative years under the influence of one inspired by faith in the Bible had left its imprint.

But in the process of his preparative studies in theology and philosophy at the University of Strassburg, young Albert began to formulate and express radical views-views that now would be very much in vogue in most intellectual circles, but which then were known to be heretical and destructive to biblical faith and doctrine. Nevertheless, Schweitzer’s brilliance was not to be denied its due honor, even though his views were unorthodox, and he was presented the Doctor of Philosophy degree upon the receipt of his dissertation, “The Religious Philosophy of Kant.” Schweitzer served as an unsalaried lecturer at the University after his graduation, worked as an administrator and teacher, and preached for the Strassburg church. He authored numerous books on New Testament themes forwarding his liberal ideas and building his reputation. In 1906 he wrote The Quest of the Historical Jesus, wherein he interpreted Jesus not as a timeless figure whose message is as significant today as it was in his time, but as a Jew concerned with problems pertinent to his own particular time and place. But preaching and theologizing did not provide fulfillment for the young theologian and philosopher. Could it have been that somewhere along the way he lost the only thing that was worth preaching, as well as the only thing that made preaching worthwhile – his faith? I think the answer to this question ties in the direction which his life took afterward. He worked toward and earned a degree as a Medical Doctor and gave his life in service to the sick and suffering of the human race, particularly in French Equatorial Africa. In other words, the emphasis of his life and work turned from the intended business of saving human souls to that of saving human lives, from spiritual to physical service and from that which he once esteemed as eternal in consequence to that that he knew to be only temporal.

Is there a progression here that we may determine to he usual and characteristic and that can be seen in the religious leaders and movements about us? I think there is. When [hey lose their faith in the Bible and take their eyes off heaven, then they are left with only one level upon which to view things, the earthly, physical, temporal plane. Mari becomes the apple of their eye and the orchard the extent of their vision. We may compliment Schweitzer that he did not choose to waste his life in the extreme sensuality of hedonism, but we must not lose sight of the fact that his was a form of carnality-no less earthly, no less physical, and no less lemporal. We do not challenge the worthiness of the great doctor. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952 for his activities as a medical missionary in the Congo, and though we spurn his theology as despicable, yet his philanthropy was certainly meritorious. His personal sacrifice and selfless service is a noteworthy example of humanitarian principles in application. But Schweitzer’s retreat from the spiritual to the physical sphere of service is also exemplary. The esteemed physician threw out the baby and kept the bath water. Increasingly, ministers and churches have turned their attention from the commission of Christ to prepare men and women for heaven by conversion, baptism, and instruction (Matt. 28:18f f) to a “Christian Humanitarianism” suited only to making their lot a little easier while occupying this doomed planet. A lack of respect for the Bible comparable to the “Anschauung” of Dr. Schweitzer is the common denominator in it all. When it is conceded that man is lacking that spark of eternality which the Bible guarantees him, then what is there left to preach, and what to prepare for?

T. B. Larimore once wrote to a young preaching student, “The way to preach is to preach. Just get full of spirit and truth and turn yourself loose. As a good old brother once expressed it, ‘Just fill the barrel full, knock the bung out, and let ‘er come? That’s the way to preach.” A preacher who has sold the Bible down the river to liberalism is an empty barrel. Can we learn an unwitting lesson from Schweitzer?

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 789-790
December 16, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Much of the book of Acts deals with Paul’s efforts to expand the borders of God’s spiritual kingdom, the church. It tells of his efforts in cities far and near. It clearly pictures his trials, and persecutions. It tells of those converted by his preaching, and of those who rejected his teaching. Three weeks ago we studied from Acts 24 the account of the “Nonconversion of Felix.” This lesson we want to study another case of non-conversion. We are studying about a king by the name of Agrippa. The account may be read in Acts 26.

Background

You will remember that the Jews in Jerusalem rebelled against the preaching of Paul, and tried to destroy him as they had Him who was Paul’s example, Jesus the Christ. They sought Paul’s life, so that it became necessary for Paul’s to be sent to Caesarea to prevent the Jews from killing him without a trial. While in Caesarea Paul had gone before Felix and had sought to get him to repent, but in vain. Meanwhile Felix had been replaced by a man named Festus. Felix and his wife Drusilla had been sent into a distant land. When Festus became the Roman procurator, he found that Felix had left Paul in prison. The Jews readily appealed to Festus to sentence Paul to death. But Paul had appealed to the highest Judicial assembly in the Roman empire, Caesar. Nevertheless, Festus called Paul before him, but could find him guilty of nothing worthy of death, or even of bonds.

Later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesara and Festus asked Agrippa to listen to Paul. Here was Festus’ predicament: He was sending Paul to Rome to be tried before Caesar, and absurdly enough, Festus had not a single charge to make against Paul. Festus told Agrippa that the Jews were asking death of Paul, but he said: “I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death: and as he himself appealed to the emperor I determined to send him. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my Lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, king Agrippa, that, after examination had, 1 may have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not to signify the charges against him” (Acts 25:25-27).

Paul’s Audience

So Festus wanted Agrippa to help him ascertain what charge should be sent with Paul as he went to Rome. So Paul was brought before such an august assembly. Luke, the writer of the book of Acts says, “So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains and the principal men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought in.” This was probably the greatest assembly, from a secular standpoint, to which Paul was ever privileged to preach the gospel.

Two people in Paul’s audience are worthy of special notation. Festus was not at all touched by the truths preached by Paul. Festus had replaced Felix, as we have mentioned before. “But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds” (Acts 24:27). To Festus, Paul was but another step in his quest for greater political power. If he could handle Paul fairly or dishonestly, he was willing to do so to better himself. In telling Agrippa about the Jew’s request for Paul’s death, Festus indicated his complete ignorance of Jesus Christ. In speaking of these Jews, Festus said: “When therefore they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded the man to be brought. Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him of their own religion, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive” (Acts 25:17, 18). Notice the vague expressions in Festus’ language. Paul was accused of declaring that “one Jesus” was raised from the dead. Poor Festus was wholly ignorant of anything about Jesus the Savior. He obviously had been so engrossed in his political affairs that he never had taken the time to investigate seriously the Christ. There are millions of people over this country today who are so entangled in the affairs of the world, that they never seek the truth.

But in Agrippa we see a quite different person. Who was Agrippa? He is the only son of the Herod who beheaded the apostle James. When his father was eaten of worms so that he died, young Agrippa was but seventeen years old. He was the great nephew of the Herod who beheaded John the Baptist. He was the great grandson of Herod who sought the life of the Christ, and who in this attempt, had the innocent babes of Bethlehem slain in a futile effort to destroy Jesus. He was the great nephew of Herod before whom Jesus was arrayed in a purple robe and mocked. He was a man well acquainted with the events connected with Jesus’ life. At this time he was yet a relatively young man only about thirty years of age, but had the title of king.

Paul must have been quite surprised when the message came to him that young King Agrippa wanted to hear him concerning the faith in Jesus Christ. It would likely have been no surprise to Paul had he been told that Agrippa would like to see him beheaded, for so had been the actions of all his ancestors. Paul certainly was very thankful that there was a possibility of saving one of this family who had done so much to hinder the cause of Christ.

Paul’s Sermon

The entire content of Paul’s sermon seems directed at this young King Agrippa. Paul began by saying, “I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: whereof I beseech thee to hear me patiently” (Acts 26:2, 3).

Paul’s effort was to make a point of contact with Agrippa. He told of his past life. Paul said that he was a Pharisee, one of the strictest sect of the Jews religion. Paul was saying that at one time I was a Jew in faith just as these, my accusers are. Not only was Paul a Pharisee, but he was a fiery persecutor of the church in Jerusalem before his conversion. Paul told Agrippa that before his conversion to Christianity, “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Narzareth. And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them. And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities” (Acts 26:9-11). Paul went on to tell Agrippa that even at the time the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him, he was on the way to Damascus to find any saints he could, bind them, and bring them back to Jerusalem for persecution.

This must have really set Agrippa to thinking. He must have thought, “This man once thought and acted like my father, and grandfather did toward this one Jesus.” Certainly he was impressed with Paul’s sincerity and honesty for one would not have purposely told the story that could cost him his life if he were not sincere in it. But Paul, regardless of personal costs to himself, was intent on winning this young king to Christ if he oossibly could. So he related the story of Christ’s apearance to him while on the way to Damascus. Many scholars have expressed a belief that this is the greatest sermon Paul ever preached. Paul concluded this great discourse by saying, “Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say would come; how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim the light both to the people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22, 23).

Festus had been sitting there and listening to what Paul had spoken to Agrippa and had listened to about all he could stand. In modern parlance, we would say Paul was “stepping on Festus’ toes.” So in retaliation to what Paul had spoken, Festus interrupted Paul’s sermon by crying out with a loud voice, “Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad” (Acts 26:24). Festus’ explanation for the marvelous events transpiring in the life of the apostle was that Paul was going crazy. You have studied too long. This event has been reenacted thousands of times. Some preacher of the Gospel of Christ declares something that hits someone, or something that they do not believe, and rather than measure what is spoken in the light of truth, they try to discredit the speaker. Oh, he is just an ignoramus, or a fanatic. But, this attitude is no more acceptable to God today than it was when Festus employed these tactics.

Paul virtually ignored Festus’ statement and went back to work trying to save the King. Paul said, “I am not mad, most excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner.” Paul seemed unimpressed by Festus’ insinuation, for he had a greater work of trying to persuade this king.

Effect of the Sermon

Paul had taught Agrippa to the place where he was in position to obey what he had heard. Paul asked, “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian” (Acts 26:27, 28). The King James Version quotes Agrippa as saying, “almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Probably Agrippa could hardly realize that Paul had so nearly persuaded him to say that father and grandfather were wrong in persecuting the cause of this one, Jesus.

This is a tragic situation. Here was a man that has been touched by the Gospel, almost persuaded, but instead of listening again, he turned and walked away. The Bible says, “And the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them,” and they departed from Paul’s presence.

Are there not many people who have studied with us from time to time that are “almost persuaded”? In Agrippa we find a case of “near conversion.” Are there not other cases of near conversion in our world? One can walk away from the preaching of the Gospel today, but in judgment, the righteous decrees of Christ will still be there to judge him, and he can only walk away to enter into eternal punishment. If you are almost persuaded, I say with Paul, would to God that you were not almost, but altogether persuaded to become a Christian. Agrippa was almost persuaded, but only being almost persuaded, he was lost. Almost persuaded people are in no better condition than those not touched by God’s truth at all. Agrippa was in the same lost condition as Festus. If you are almost persuaded, become altogether persuaded, and obey the Gospel of Christ. An almost persuaded person is no Christian at all.

Truth Magazine XX: 50, pp. 787-789
December 16, 1976

By Jeffery Kingry

Gnosticism is a system of philosophy that sought to destroy the New Testament church in the first century. John’s first epistle combats this influence that was prevalent in the church at the time. The situation that brought this error into the church parallels a condition ,hat exists today. Many years had passed from the dawn on Pentecost; the church then had large numbers of 1, second and third generation” Christians. As Jesus had prophesied, “The love of many shall grow cold” (Matt. 24:12). Being a Christian had become an inherited responsibility, a traditional habit, rather than “walking in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). There were those who were no longer content with being a “new man” in the Lord. They were tired of standing out as separate from !he world. They wanted a “new song” to sing, a “relevant” truth to embrace. The threatened destruction of the church to which John addressed himself came not from without, but from within, as had been prophesied (Acts 20:29, 30).

As William Barclay put it, “The trouble which 1 Jn. seeks to combat did not come from men who were out to destroy the . . . faith; it came from men who thought that they were improving (the truth). It came from men whose aim was to make Christianity intellectually respectable. It came from men who knew the intellectual tendencies and currents of the day, and who wished to express Christianity in terms of these current philosophical ideas. It came from men who felt that the time had come for the (church) to come to terms with 1he secular philosophy and with contemporary thought” (Barclay, DSBS, Letters Of Jude And John, p. 5).

Gnosticism was the “secular philosophy . . . and contemporary thought” of the day. It was based upon ,he assumption that only the intellect or spirit of man was of any value, and any philosophy worth following would “liberate” the mind from the flesh. The very word gnosios, from which the Gnostics took their name means “to know.” Since the Gnostics sought “to know” everything, they plumbed the depths as well as the heights. The Gnostic not only looked for God in the light, he also sought God in darkness. John refers to this in 1 Jn. 1:5.

The Gnostic exists today in varying forms without the church, personified in those Eastern Religions which seek a “higher peace” through intellectual meditation. It can be seen in the denial of material reality by the Christian Scientists. It can be observed in another form in the “other-worldliness,” withdrawal, and bodily abuse of some Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religious orders. To a certain degree Gnosticism is reflected in the humanistic influence of Higher Criticism, in that these critics believe that the intellect of man is the only avenue through which a “knowledge” of Jesus (“The Historical Jesus”) shall ever be accomplished. There is one thing all facets of the Gnostic philosophy have in common: their denial of the simple, non-mystical, and practical teaching of the Scriptures. The Gnostic wants more than a simple way of life that ends in heaven. He desires a mystical experience that reflects upon his intellectual ability and stamina “to know.”

In 1 John, though, it is revealed that we are “to know” God, not through gnostos, but through ginosko. Gnostos means to subjectively learn something,.to have an intellectual knowledge of something. Paul used the word gnostos in Rom. 2:20, “An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge (gnostos) and of the truth in the law.” The Jews knew the facts of the law, but seldom the right application (cf. vs. 21-29). Paul’s conclusion was that it was not the man who knew the law that was saved, but the man who lived by faith in obedience before God (vs. 29). Vine says of another usage by Paul in Rom. 1:19, “Because that which may be known (gnostos) of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them:” Literally, “The knowledge of God,” referring to the physical universe in the creation of which God has made himself knowable, i.e. by the exercise of man’s natural faculties, without supernatural revelations as those given to Israel” (W. E. Vine, p. 300).

But John does not use the verb gnostos, he uses ginosko. Knowing God is not something achieved by disciplined meditation, as in knowing a fact. Knowing God is having a relationship with God through the revelation of God’s word. The difference in these two words can be seen easily in Eph. 3:19. Paul prayed in verse 16 “that God would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; ,hat ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know (ginosko) the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge (gnostos), that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.”

“Knowing” God means having the right kind of relationship with God. “I am the Good Shepherd, and know (ginosko) my sheep, and am known (ginosko) of mine” (Jn. 10:14). The hireling of verse 13 may know (gnostos) all about the sheep, but he has no relationship with them. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew (ginosko) him not” (Jn. 1:10). Why did they not know him?”

Because men loved the darkness rather than the light . . . he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made evident, that they are wrought in God” (Jn. 3:18-21).

How can we know God? How can we tell if others know God? How can we tell if one is in darkness?

(1) By Keeping His Commandments: “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of’ God complete: hereby know we that we are in him. He that says he abides in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as Jesus walked” (1 Jn. 2:3-6).

(2) By Abhorring and Avoiding Sin: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God . . . when he (Jesus) shall appear we shall be like him . . . And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as Jesus is pure. The one who commits sin, violates God’s law, for sin is the transgression of law, and you know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideih in him sinneth not. Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth what is right is right, even as Jesus is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:2-7).

(3) By Keeping a Pure Conscience: “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things” (1 Jn. 3:18-20).

(4) By Loving the Brethren: “Beloved let us love one another. For love is of God, and every one that loveth God is horn of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, pp. 781-782
December 9, 1976

By Keith Ward

Solomon declared, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). A boy raised to be honest will not steal or lie; a child raised in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” will not apostasize once free from parental power; a girl taught modesty will not become a bra-burner.

Bad Attitudes

Parents who have failed object that the proverb is general and not absolute. To illustrate the general nature of proverbs, they cite those where opposite courses are enjoined (26:4-5), and those with obvious exceptions; e.g. we know of poor people who ungraciously badmouth prospective help (18:23). “If true, it would be a violation of free will ” some cry. Considering the number of those who claim to be exceptions, perhaps the general statement should be opposite, “Train up a child in the way he should go and he will depart from it as soon as he gets away from home.”

What “Way” Do We Teach?

Rather than make excuses, parents ought to examine their lives to see if their actions undermine their verbal teaching. A lesson on honesty falls flat when the child remembers the story Dad told the state trooper to avoid a ticket. Soon the child learns the real lesson being taught-morals are useful words and make good conversation, but they are an impractical way to live.

Does your child hate church? Does he boast, “When I am on my own, I won’t go?” Perhaps this attitude extends the complaints he has heard every time the preacher went overtime, reflects the excuses Dad made when called on for service, stems from the greater interest Mom shows in pleasing the baby in front of her than in pleasing God in worship, recalls the number of Dad’s naps followed by a hearty, “Good sermon today” to the preacher.

If he thinks all Christians are hypocrites, it results in part from the numerous cuts and slurs he heard from the back seat. The bulk of the evidence rides in the front seat.

Inevitably, the child leaves and the parents ask, “Where did we go wrong?” or declare, “We raised him better.” When approached, the now grown child replies that Mom and Dad made him go to church, that he does not have to go anymore, and therefore will not.

Obviously, no amount of verbal teaching can ever overcome the training given by the parents’ example, If a boy or girl from a family like this is saved, it will be by the influence of someone else and in spite of his parents’ “training.”

Trained in the Way

Proper raising combines teaching with training by example. My parents set high standards to live by so they could show us the way. Though too young to read, I was instructed, “Sit up and listen to the sermon; you may not understand now, but will remember it when you are older.” It is amazing how much I do remember; of course, the main lesson was reverence. That my parents listened, I had no doubt because they dissected the sermons on the way home to bring pieces down to our level. Their major complaint was (and still is) “too much story telling and not enough Bible.” Dad was available for service and often drove distances to help when a small church had only one man. Attendance was automatic which upset non-christian families when we would not go “to church” with them or skip services for get-togethers.

I rebelled for a time, but patterns carved so deep, seed so carefully sown and tended does not die.

An Attitude That Profits

The only way to treat the proverb is as if it were absolute. With prayer and trembling care, train your children up in the Lord’s way. The parallel with grace is strong. Every Christian must obey the New Testament strictly as if works do save; then in trusting faith depend on God’s grace. The parent must treat the proverb as absolute in the way he approaches child training. If the child departs, he ought to feel that somewhere he failed instead of justifying himself as an exception to the rule and with much soul-searching and prayer, wait on God’s judgment and grace.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, p. 780
December 9, 1976