Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Romans 13 has been used occasionally to lend credence to the doctrine that approves a Christian’s active participation in war. As Foy E. Wallace put it ai he commented on this passage, “If the civil government is legally and morally right, the military is automatically and equally so, for the civil government cannot exist without the military to uphold and support it. This statement is so self-evident as- to be a virtual truism” (Wallace, Sermon On The Mount And The Civil State, p. 138). Brother Wallace went on to point out that his views changed because he could not reconcile in his own mind the inconsistency of, as he put it, “How God could approve the institution, but not approve the Christian’s acting in that institution.”

On the surface, if certain assumptions and liberties are granted from the text of Romans 13, this passage would prove a conflict to one who stood opposed to war. Let us consider, though, just what the passage does authorize. We are able to use wisdom and balance in applying hermenutic principles to other passages. Let us try to use the same effort here.

Subject to What?

Romans 13 demands that the Christian submit himself to higher powers (i.e. human government and authorities). In what way are we to subject ourselves? Absolute submission in every part of our life is not called for, as we can easily recognize. The wife is told to submit (to subject) herself unto the husband “as unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:22). This is parallel to the Christian’s submitting unto government as “a minister of God to thee for good” (Rom. 1:4). We would not think of taking Eph. 5:22 out of context to force a woman to submit to her husband’s demands to sin. It is assumed that the woman is subject to her husband only within the realm that the husband has authority to demand submission. A woman’s first responsibility is to serve God (1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22). Saints are to obey “them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves” (Heb. 13:17). But we know that elders, or those who have “the rule over you,” who sin are to be rebuked before all (1 Tim. 5:19-21), and that elders would one day need to be withstood as false teachers (Acts 20:29-31). The child is instructed to submit himself to his parent’s will “in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1). Again, this is not a blanket approval by God for every demand that a parent might make upon a child. A youth has a first responsibility to serve God (Matt. 10:32-39; Rom. 14:23).

Does this mean that all these passages that enjoin submission are empty commandments because God makes exceptions? No. But it does mean that our first submission of will is to God, and any other submission of will is to be accomplished within the framework of authority that God gave to those “higher powers” whether they be to governments, husbands, parents, masters, or elders.

How is Government a Minister?

What then is that area of authority given to Government in which a Christian must submit himself? Paul was not considering Government exhaustively in Romans 13, for if he were he would have qualified his statement in verse 3, “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” It is so obvious “as to be a virtual truism” that government is not always a terror only to the evil, as the scriptures abundantly testify (Acts 5:17ff; 7:lff; 8:14; 9:1,2; 16:22-24 etc.) Obviously, what Paul meant in this verse and throughout is that government, as God ordained it, is “a minister unto thee for good.” The ideal of government is a power which makes and enforces a system of law upon a society. This power is backed up by the power or authority of penalty even unto death: “But if thou doest that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain.” The sword is hardly a symbol of punishment, but of death. Government has the right to take the life of the criminal under law. In protecting the innocent, the law-abider, from the criminal the government acts as “the minister of God to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Note however, that government’s authority to act with God’s approval (“A minister of God to thee for good”) is only within a certain framework: “Do . . . good, and thou shalt have praise of the same . . . do evil, be afraid . . . he beareth not the sword in vain. “Government docs not act with God’s approval when it permits or encourages wholesale slaughter of its citizens for the preservation of its own continuation. Neither does it act with God’s approval when it persecutes and prosecutes the law-abider while permitting injustice by failing to restrict the evil-doer. Government steps beyond its God-given bounds when it acts outside of law, either internally or against another sovereign nation. The function of God-approved civil power is something attended to continually which we support by our taxes (13:6). This function could hardly be war! it is a generic function “attended to continually” by all nations.

In Every Nation

Even a dictatorship, a monarchy, or socialistic government maintains laws against adultery, theft, perjury, extortion, and other such anti-social behaviour (13:8,9). The evil-doer is prosecuted under law in every nation, in every time, as God wills. Christians are not therefore to oppose such powers. On the contrary the Christian is to “cast off the works of darkness . . . and put on the armour of light walking honestly, as in the day” (13:12,13).

But war is a work of darkness by any standard of judgment. Even those who support a Christian’s right to participate in such readily agree “war is hell.” (Why is it Brother Wallace can see a conflict in the operation of government and opposition to war, yet mentions no conflict in the authority of war and its inherent sinful character?) War is not an act of restraint and vengeance executed upon the evil-doer; it is outside law and without law. Far from resembling the police, courts, and law-making institutions, it better resembles wild-west range battles, Ku Klux Klan lynchings, and mob destruction such as was witnessed during the French revolution, the Russian revolution, and the Spanish civil war. No effort to establish guilt before sentence was ever made of the populations of Dresden, Hiroshima London, or Pearl Harbour. And even if individual guilty or innocence could be established-what would have been proven? Merely that one man was a facist, another a communist, a socialist, or a democratic republican. Racial differences, economic disparities, political variations, personality differences could be established-but criminal action? If this be cause for war, we must for consistency, kill some of our brethren who differ with us on these points-as indeed we did during the War between the States.

Romans 13 is a “proof-text” but not for those who would justify the taking of life outside of law, without restraint, in the name of patriotic “justifiable” war. (I challenge any brother to find any “justifiable war” fought by Americans). Romans 13 is Paul’s admonition to respect authority when it upholds what is good. But, it will never justify the Pandorian box of horror men call “War.”

Truth Magazine XX: 43, pp. 678-679
October 28, 1976

By Cecil Willis

For many weeks we have been studying the plan of salvation; studying faith, repentance and baptism from different viewpoints. After having studied each of these commandments from its different aspects, for the next few weeks we want to study the application of these rules as they are applied in the lives and conversions of different individuals as recorded in the book of Acts.

The books of Acts is a history of the growth of the church, and involved in the growth of the church must be the conversion of certain individuals. One of those individuals who was gained into the fold of the saved as the church enlarged was a young man named Saul. We want to notice what is said concerning the conversion of this young man, and then see how it corresponds with what the Bible teaches about the necessity of believing, repenting and being baptized.

Persecuter of the Pious

The first time the Bible mentions this young man who in later life was to exert such a tremendous influence upon both the church and the world, is at a mob gathering in which a Christian evangelist is called in question concerning his preaching. In the city of Jerusalem, Stephen, the evangelist was questioned about his preaching. He rose to explain what he was declaring and to defend himself. After he had discoursed quite at length on Jewish history and had told them how the Jews had always rebelled against God, and had killed the prophets that God had se ‘ nt to warn them, the Jews were angered. Finally he charged that those Jews to whom he was speaking were no better than their fathers, and that they had killed the prophets. It Was then that the mob rose up against Stephen and stoned him to death. As Stephen preached, “they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul” (Acts 7:57-58). This is the first time that the Bible mentions this young few, and here he is taking care of the coats of the men that killed the speaker for God, Stephen. Luke, the writer of the book of Acts adds, “And Saul was consenting unto his death,” showing that Saul was not only the coat keeper, but that he gave his sanction to the incident.

Saul was not satisfied to kill only the evangelist, Stephen, but he then set in motion a wave of persecutions which carne over the church in Jerusalem, that eventually led to its dispersion abroad. The Scripture says, “And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him, But Paul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women committed them to prison” (Acts 8:1-3). In the first two verses of Acts 9 more is recorded about this man Saul and his efforts to destroy the church of the Lord. “But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and asked of him letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” This was his attitude toward Christians.

As Paul later spoke of his own previous activities, and how he had so diligently, and fervently fought to suppress the cause of Jesus of Nazareth, he told other details of his persecutions. In Acts 22:4,5 he said, “and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering unto prisons both men and women, As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished.” In Acts 26:9-11, Paul said further, “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 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 the blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities.”

This is the story of the persecutor, Saul, told in his own words years later, when he had himself become a member of that cause which he formerly fought. He bad done almost all that any persecutor, regardless of how vicious, or barbarous, could have done. He had had a part in the stoning of Stephen, scattered the church abroad, committed men and women into prison, sought to make them blaspheme the name of God, and finally, when they were put to death, Saul spoke his word against them.

All during the time that he was so violently opposing the Christian cause, Saul had no compunction of conscience about doing the things he did. Saul did not feel that he was doing wrong when he went out to hunt down Christians like they were wild animals, for he thought that Jesus was an imposter, and a blasphemer, and therefore, he felt responsible to do everything that he possibly could to liquidate those that followed Christ. In Acts 26:9, he said, “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Paul felt no sense of guilt as he went out to kill the disciples of the Lord. He said, years later, as he stood before the council, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day” (Acts 23:1). Even though he was a murderer of Christians, and his conscience did not condemn him for it, still he says that he was the chiefest of sinners. Pan] said, “Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). And he also declared that they could not say that while lie persecuted the Way of Christ, that he was insincere, for he was a respectable worshiping Jew at the time. He said if any man could trust in his attainments of the flesh, that lie was that individual. He declared “though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh, if any other thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews: as touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless” (Phil. 3:4,5).

If there was ever anything that completely exploded a doctrine, this is one instance in which that is done. Today there are many teachers, and adherents of the theory that says if a person thinks that he is right, or if one is sincere in his religion, he will be acceptable to the Lord, Paul says that he lived in all good conscience before God even while he was persecuting the church. lie further says that all the time that he lived in this good conscience before God, he was the chief of sinners. Here is a chief-sinner who is living with a good conscience, and therefore it should be admitted by all that conscience is not a safe guide, for this man followed his conscience, and it led him to be a chief sinner. Only God’s word is a safe guide.

Penitent and Praying

After Paul had for some time punished the Christians in the Jerusalem area, he went to the high priest and secured permission to go to the North to the city of Damascus, and there bind all those that he found calling on the name of Jesus, and return them to Jerusalem to make them suffer. It was while on the road to Damascus, along with his traveling companions, that the Lord Jesus appeared unto him. As they were traveling toward Damascus, there appeared an extremely bright light, which Paul later described as being “brighter than the noon day sun'” and he fell to his feet. A voice out of heaven said, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”, and Saul answered, “Who art thou Lord?” The Speaker, answered, “I am Jesus, of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” Paul answered, inquiring, “What wilt thou have me do?”

Here in the life of Paul has been made a change already. He realized that he has been in error all this time that he has been fighting against the cause of Christ, and no longer does he believe that Jesus is an imposter, but now he calls him “Lord,” and offers himself in a contrite disposition before the Lord, and proposes to do what the Lord would have him do

It should be pointed out how this event differs from the teaching of men. Most denominationalists who teach that one must receive the Holy Spirit personally and directly, teach that this experience is to save. Here even though Saul encountered Jesus, the experience was not to save him. If the experience through which he was going was for the purpose of salvation, when Saul inquired of the Lord what he must do, surely the Lord would have told him, “Saul, you do not have to do anything, for you are already saved,” But such was not the case. Christ told him to go into Damascus and there it would be told him what he must do. Whatever Christ required him to do in order to receive remission of his sins was to be told him after he arrived in Damascus. But we do know that this much had been done in the conversion of Saul. No longer, did he think of Jesus as a wicked and deceiving man, but now he knew Him to be the Son of God. He had now become a believer.

By the appearance of the light, and the power of God, Saul had been made blind, so his fellows led him into the city of Damascus. In Damascus he went into the house of one named Judus, and there he took no food. At the time that the preacher sent by God came to birn, he was praying. This indicated that he had changed his mind, which is repentance, Repentance is (he resolution to quit sin arid to obey God. Certainly Saul had done that. But still he was not saved. He was only a penitent believer.

In the meantime, God appeared to Ananias, a pieaclier there in the city of Damascus, and told him to go to Saul, and tell him what he must do. Because of Saul’s very severe persecutions against the brethren, his reputation was known far and wide, Consequently, Ananias was very hesitant to go to Saul. But God told him to go ahead, and speak to him, and that he would find him praying.

Ananias went to the appointed place and there he found Saul praying. He went in, touched him, and Saul received his sight. Then Ananias said, “Brother Saul, why tarriest thou, Arise, be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). When Saul had been back there on the road that went to Damascus, the Lord had told hirn to come to Damascus, and there it would be told him what lie must do. Now it is that he learns through the God-sent preacher what he must do. He is told to be baptized and wash away his sins.

Let us pause, and reflect on what Saul, the persecutor, did to be saved. First, when the Lord appeared to him, he became a believer; then he had a change of mind, for no longer was he seeking out Christians to slay them, but now he was waiting for the gospel preacher to come to him, and tell him what he must do to be saved from his wickedness. Finally, when the preacher came, he told him to be baptized, and wash away his sins. What did Saul do? He believed, repented and was baptized to wash away his sins. This is exactly the same thing that you or I must do to be saved.

When was Saul saved? Sorne have said that he was saved on the road. If so, was it when he fell to the earth? This could not be for this was before he even knew who the Lord was, for when Christ spoke to him, he asked “Who art thou Lord?” Certainly no one would contend that one could be saved by obeying Christ before he even knew who Christ was.

The main reason why men make an argument as to when Saul was saved is to fortify their contention that baptism is inessential to salvation, Was Saul saved before he was baptized? If he was, he was saved before he knew it, for he asked the. Lord while on the road, what he must do, and then when God told him through Ananias to be baptized, he readily obeyed. If he was saved before he was baptized, Jesus did not know anything about it, for he told him that he would have to do what would be told him in Damascus, and this commandment was for him to be baptized. He was saved before Ananias knew it, if he was saved without baptism, for Ananias told him to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins. If he was saved without baptism, he was saved before God knew it, for God sent Ananias the preacher to Saul to tell him what he had to do to be saved. If fie was saved without being baptized, he was saved before his sins were washed away, for Ananias told him that he was to be baptized in order to have his sins washed away

Saul was saved just like you and I will be. Saul believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, he repented of his sins, arid then he obeyed the commandment of God to be baptized and to have his sins washed away. You can be saved in no other way. If when this life is ended for you and me, and one day we enter the eternal kingdom of God, it will be because you and I obeyed God by believing, repenting, arid being baptized, and then living out lives in accord with the teaching of the word of Christ.

Truth Magazine XX: 43, pp. 675-677
October 28, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, we should honor Jesus Christ as God’s Son. “God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil, 2:9-11). Many people are wondering: How can we honor Christ at special times of the year? The answer is simple: The same way we honor him at any time of the year! How is that?

(1) We honor Christ when we study Gods- Word and pray to Him in Christs name. Those who “searchted) the scriptures daily” are “noble” in God’s sight. Jesus said, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” Not only must we listen to God’s voice in His Word, but we must also draw close to the Father through His Son as we “pray without ceasing” (Acts 17:11; Jn. 6:63; 1 Thess. 5:17). (2) We honor Christ when we obey the Gospel, and tell others that their sins can be forgiven too. When Jesus sent his Apostles “into all the world” to preach “repentance and remission of sins in his name,” he gave the conditions of salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Those who are converted should go “every where preaching the word” (Mk. 16:16; Lk. 24:47; Acts 8:4). (3) We honor Christ when we worship God every Sunday and live as He directs throughout the week. After obeying the Gospel, we must “continue(d) steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine.” Under the guidance of inspired Apostles, “upon the first day of the week . . . the disciples came. together to break bread.” That is, they partook of unleavened bread and juice of the grapevine to remember Christ’s death. Consistent with such profession of faith, they “put off . . . the old man” and “put on the new man . . . in righteousness and true holiness” each day of the week (Acts 2:42; 20:7; Eph. 4:21-32).

“But, what about the tradition of religious holy days, like Christmas and Easter?” someone asks. The Father said nothing about such. The Son said nothing. The Spirit said nothing. God did warn against “commandments and doctrines Of HIM” He said of those who “pervert the gospel of Christ,” “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.” When Christ said human doctrines make worship his disciples feared some “were offended.” “But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:8-14; Col. 2:22; Gal. 1:7; 4:10-11). Much done at special times of the year to honor Christ, is no honor in God’s sight!

(1) Christ is not honored by beer, wine, and liquor parties. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” It is a shameful disgrace at any time of the year to engage in “drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties” Prov. 20:1; 1 Pet. 4:3 NASV). (2) Christ is not honored by making debts we cannot pay. We may give gifts to anyone in December or any other time. But, it is always wrong to make promises we know we must break. “Providing for honest things” does not mean “buying” (?) gifts we can never pay for (2 Cor. 9:21). (3) Christ is not honored by special” religious services unauthorized by Christ. Masses and other religious services unauthorized in the doctrine of Christ are sinful. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (2 Jn. 9).

Truth Magazine XX: 43, p. 674
October 28, 1976

By Dennis L. Shaver

I am firmly convicted that it is impossible to teach one of the above subjects by itself. The more I see taught and written on these subjects, the more I am convinced such is true. I believe that for a christian to single out one of the above subjects, is at best, poor judgment. For years denominatiODalists have singled out Love, Grace, and Faith. The teaching they perpetrate is completely false and foreign to the word of God. It has been said that some in the Lord’s body have singled out Works. If this be true, then they are as wrong as anyone else who fails to declare the whole council of God. I am sure that the real problem is not that christians teach works only, but that we teach works more than anything else, because that is what we differ on. If you went into the home of a christian who was living in adultery would you teach him the importance of the Lord’s Supper? Most likely you would teach him what the Bible says about adultery. The same is true when we teach those outside the body of Christ. We talk about Love, Grace, Faith, and mostly Works. Why? Because that is where we differ. I do not believe that many have taught works only. If so, then I have missed it. Every christian needs to be “well-rounded” in his knowledge and teaching of the Bible. Just because one brother seems to be teaching “works only” does not mean I should teach “love or grace” to the exclusion of works. This kind of teaching is not “well-rounded.” What happens here is that we have two men, supposedly christians, failing to teach all of God’s will.

A Christian, who intends to teach and preach all the truth, can leave false impressions, and misconceptions by singling out one of these subjects and giving it “overemphasis.” I am not questioning their sincerity or motives, I only say it is poor judgment. When one subject is “over-emphasized” it always results in the neglect of another related subject. This does not necessarily mean that false doctrine has been taught. It does mean that only part of the truth has been set before the listeners. Such was the cause with Abram and Sarai. Abram chose to emphasize the fact that Sarai was his sister. He did not actually tell a lie, or teach false doctrine, but he failed to tell all the truth. The final result was misconception on the part of Pharaoh. This can happen today when one “over-emphasizes” Love, Grace, Faith, or Works. These subjects are so closely related that it is hard to teach one without the others. To do so often results in those who hear us gaining false impressions.

When we teach the word of God let us not be guilty of “over-emphasizing” mail’s part in salvation, nor let us “overemphasize” God’s part. The Bible is a tool honed to perfection. We need to use that tool as it has been designed and not as we see fit. Let us remember that the Love of God extended Grace toward man, and man by his Faith, performs the Works of God. Thus we obtain salvation by each of these avenues, but not by one only.

Truth Magazine XX: 42, pp. 670-671
October 21, 1976