Truth Magazine

The phrase cited above is only found on two occasions within the whole of the New Testament (Acts 2:37 and 7:54). In both instances the hearers were said to have been “cut to the heart” after the truth of God was preached with confident force and direct application. This piercing of their heart, however, was not the result of a mean spirit or a lack of love on the part of the preachers, but was the natural result of preaching the gospel. For, the word of God is “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

Same “Cut,” Different Response

Just as people respond differently to a physical wound (i.e., some calmly seek aid while others go into uncontrolled panic and even shock), man’s response to the “cutting” message of the gospel is also varied. In Acts 2, where Peter and the rest of the apostles were preaching on the day of Pentecost, the “cut” produced very favorable results. Luke records that upon hearing the message, “. . . They were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ . . . Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:37, 41).

On the other hand, the “cut” produced by the preaching of Stephen, a man “full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5) resulted in quite a different response. Luke states that “when they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth” (Acts 7:54). And, they eventually went on to stone Stephen (Acts 7:55ff.).

So, Why The Difference?

The different responses of those who heard these sermons cannot be blamed on the messages nor their presentation. On both occasions the listeners were Jews who shared the guilt of rejecting the Messiah and putting him to death. On both occasions the preachers spoke very pointedly concerning the hearers’ sin and guilt before God. In Peter’s sermon he convicted his audience of sin by telling them to “. . . hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know — Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death” (Acts 2:22-23). Yes, they were guilty of crucifying the Son of God and he let them know it in no uncertain terms.

Stephen was no less pointed. In a godly fashion worthy of emulation (which would obviously be rejected as unloving and overly harsh by the self-serving and worldly wise of today), Stephen specifically addressed the guilt of his hearers by stating: “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers” (Acts 5:52). Yes, they were rightfully accused of betrayal and murder.

So, why the different responses? The answer lies not in what was said, but in the hearts of the individuals who heard it. Jesus said that the preaching of the gospel is like a sower who sows seed on various kinds of soil. Three of the four types Christ mentions will not allow the word to grow unto maturity (Luke 8:11-14). The devil either has such control of the hearer’s life that the seed cannot enter the heart, or the word is given no “root” in their hearts so they fall away when faced with temptation, or the word is choked out by the “cares, riches, and pleasures of life.” There is only one type of soil that produces fruit. Jesus explains that “. . .the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience” (Luke 8:15). The whole issue is our condition of heart.

So, How Is Your Heart?

Yes, how is your heart? The import of that question cannot be trivialized. Just as the physical heart must be kept healthy in order to continue a normal physical life, so must the spiritual heart of man be kept pure and focused on God to maintain a healthy spiritual life. Solomon tells us to “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Thus, YOU determine your condition of heart.

So, again I ask, “How is your heart?” If you go to the doctor, he can hook up various electrodes, etc., to test your heart for irregularities, etc. No such machine exists for the spiritual heart. The tests for it are much simpler and can be performed by you in your own home. All you need to do is examine your response to the truth. Do you fit more with those on Pentecost who “gladly received his word and were baptized” (Acts 2:41), or with those who “when they heard these things . . . they gnashed at him with their teeth” (Acts 5:54)? A very simple test, but its results are a matter of eternal life or death.

By Connie W. Adams

We live in a convoluted world. Recently a young woman received a three-year sentence for killing her own newborn baby in a motel room. Near that time a man was given a fifteen-year sentence for killing some cats. In our nation we have had nearly forty million legal abortions in the last twenty-five years, but you had better not kill a kangaroo, rat, or any creature on the endangered species list. Partial birth abortions are now permitted. Twice Congress has voted to outlaw them and twice our President has vetoed the legislation. Animal rights groups are loud and often effective, sometimes to the point of placing the interest of animals over those of people.

How did we get to such a place? Acceptance of the general theory of evolution has led inevitably to the conclusion that man is simply a graduated animal, no more, no less. As such, it is reasoned, he is not entitled to more consideration than any other animal. In some cases, not as much. Say all you will about high-blown scientific theories. The fact remains that when you teach long enough that man is an animal, it is inevitable that he will begin to behave as animals governed by instinct and without conscience. If the survival of the fittest is the guiding force of evolution, then on what grounds can ethnic purges or the Nazi Holocaust be condemned? Such a notion contributes directly to dehumanization and to anarchy in the moral realm.

Jesus was questioned one time about whether or not it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. A man with a withered hand was present. Their concern was for their point of argument, not the welfare of the man with the withered hand. Jesus said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:11- 12). He proceeded to heal the man. What Jesus stated here was based on a generally accepted premise: A man is worth more than a sheep.

God’s Natural Order

In the creation, God made man of a higher order than the animal king- dom. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26). Man was created to have dominion over the rest of God’s creation. That is where the issue is joined with the humanist. He does not believe that there is a God to create anything and explains it all with the general theory of evolution. If there is no God, then animal rights people have a point. But that is a mighty big IF.

Given that premise, then abortion, suicide, euthanasia and the extreme views of some environmentalists make sense. But if man is here as the result of divine creation and is made in the image of his creator, then that makes him unique in the universe. There must be something special about man. Dogs do not write books nor do monkeys build hospitals. What animal possesses a conscience? Man alone in the universe is endowed with the rational ability to receive divine revelation and act upon it. All the pontificating of men of science every time they find some old bones as to how old they might be and where they fit into the scheme of evolution cannot change the fact that man is of a higher order than the brute.

The Psalmist’ Question

David pondered the vastness of the universe and wondered why man had been so wondrously blessed. He said “When I consider Your Heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For you made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen — even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas. O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth?” (Ps. 8:3-8).

Here we are, tiny specks on one small planet. We are 240,000 miles from our moon and 93 million miles from our sun. As scientists develop more sophisticated equipment to look deeper into space, we are amazed at the number of solar systems far beyond our own. Yet, here is man on this earth stamped with the image of his Creator, blessed with the ability to receive revelation, ponder it and act upon it to his own betterment. No other creatures in the known universe are so advantaged.

The conviction that man was created by Almighty God can only tend to make us better. How do you account for man’s desire to worship? If he does not worship the true and living God, he will worship something of his own making. But he will worship something! Birds build nests, but do they build altars? Otters build dams, but do they build houses of praise? The belief that the God who made me and addressed special revelation to me so that I may thereby please him makes me sensitive to my responsibility to him and to others made in his image as was I. Take that away from us and life becomes a journey from nowhere to nowhere with no rules, no compass, no map. All that is left is a selfish struggle for survival. If I have to injure or maim a fellow human on the way, then there is no standard to determine the rightness or wrongness of the action. If there is no God then there can be no basis for ethical or moral behavior.

In a question period after a debate between Phil Roberts and the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, I asked the atheist what ethical standard would make it wrong for me to hang him. He thought a moment and said, “Well, it would be unpleasant for me.” I asked “Yes, but what if it would be pleasant for me?” Whose pleasure prevails? Would it not be the stronger of the two? Isn’t that what the survival of the fittest is all about?

Our Modern Dilemma

As long as origins are taught without reference to God; or human behavior (sex education, abortion, suicide, euthanasia, homosexuality, communal living), or death education, or a hundred other issues with no reference to a divine standard by which all such matters are to be finally determined, then just that long we will have lying, cheating, divorce, murder, and mayhem in our streets, homes and schools. Judges and juries will pervert justice. Presidential and Congressional scandals will continue. Homes will disintegrate. Anarchy will reign.

There is much talk of getting back to basics in education. The most basic question of all is “In the beginning

            ? “I am going to put GOD in that blank. What about you? When I do, that will solve a multitude of issues including the subject of this article.

By Mike Willis

A recent issue of the Indianapolis Star contained an article entitled “Catholics’ faith and the Bible” by John F. Fink (July 26, 1998, D3). Fink wrote,

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but the Catholic faith is not based on the Bible. That’s because the Catholic Church existed before the Bible. In fact, it was the Catholic Church that determined what books would be in the New Testament — even what books would be in the Catholic version of the Old Testament.

This short paragraph pinpoints several differences between Roman Catholicism and the New Testament revelation. Consider these:

1. “Catholic faith is not based on the Bible.” We are agreed that is so. As a matter of fact, Fink’s article was the follow-up of another article in the May 24 issue of the Star which defended Catholics’ prayer through and worship of Mary. Fink candidly admitted, “Some Catholic beliefs are not based on the Bible.” That being so, what the Bible says about beliefs not based on God’s revealed word is pertinent. John, the Apostle of love, wrote, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11). In Revelation, he said, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (22:18-19). Despite these grave warnings, Mr. Fink candidly admits that the Catholic faith is not based on the Bible.

Fink’s admission that the Catholic faith is not based on the Bible is an admission that the Catholic faith is an apostate faith. Catholic faith is based on four things: (1) The teachings of the Fathers as conveyed through the ecumenical councils; (2) The word of the pope as he speaks ex cathedra; (3) The teachings of the apocrypha; (4) The teachings of the Bible as it is translated from the Vulgate version. Much could be said about each of these, such as the contradictory teachings of the Fathers; an examination of the ex-cathedra statements of the papacy in comparison with the Bible; the errors and unique teachings of the apocryphal books; errors in the Latin Vulgate translation; etc.

2. “The Catholic Church existed before the Bible.” There is some truth in this statement, but it is mixed with enough error that it needs to be sorted out. The New Testament church began on the day of Pentecost following the crucifixion of Jesus. It existed after the Old Testament was completed and before any part of the New Testament was written. The church of the New Testament had no papacy, no cardinals, no archbishops, no bishops (in the Catholic sense), no separate priesthood, no clergy-laity distinction, or inter-congregational organization of any sort. It did not believe in purgatory, the worship of Mary, or any other uniquely Catholic doctrines. So, the Catholic Church is not the church in the Bible.

However, the New Testament did foretell an apostasy in the church (2 Thess. 2:1-12; 1 Tim. 4:1-3). This apostasy began before the New Testament was completely revealed and it culminated in about the sixth century with a universal pope and what is now recognized as the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, in its incipient form of apostasy, did exist before the New Testament was completed, but it was not the church which Christ promised to build (Matt.

16:18). The Roman Catholic Church is the culmination of the apostasy that began to develop in the latter part of the first century, the incipient forms of which are condemned in the New Testament.

3. “The Catholic Church determined what books would be in the New Testament.” That simply is not so. From the time that the New Testament books were revealed, they were considered the revealed word of God. Paul wrote, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). They were received as the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13) and passed from one congregation to another (Col. 4:16). The books were received as “inspired” of God because they were written by an apostle or prophet. Those books whose origin was uncertain went through a period of uncertainty before they were universally recognized as inspired. However, even this was done long before the Council of Carthage met in A.D. 397, as Mr. Fink asserts. One can see the books of the New Testament quoted as Scripture, not only in the New Testament itself (Luke 10:7 is quoted as Scripture in 1 Tim. 5:17), but also in the apostolic fathers. For ex- ample, Clement quotes Acts 20:35 (2:1), Titus 3:1 (2:9), and 2 Corinthians 3:3 (2:10) in just one chapter. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is dated A.D. 95-96 (Lightfoot, The Apostolic Epistles). This demonstrates that the New Testament was already recognized as the word of God two centuries before the Council of Carthage.

Mr. Fink alludes to the Catholic Church including the seven apocryphal books and minor additions to other books of the Old Testament in their Bibles. That the Jews rejected these books is clear from contemporary Jewish writings. The first century historian Flavius Josephus said, “We have not a multitude of books among us, disagreeing and contradicting one another, as the Greeks have, but are confined to twenty-two, that we are bound to believe, and these twenty-two books comprise the history of the world from the beginning to this day” (In Answer To Apion, Book I, 455). The 22 books of Josephus’ numbering correspond to our 39 books today because they combined some books which we separate today (for example, the 12 Minor Prophets were treated as one book; 1-2 Samuel was treated as one book, as were 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles). Furthermore, the New Testament alludes to the completed Old Testament canon in Matthew 23:35, where Jesus mentioned those who had died unjustly in the Old Testament from the blood of Abel (the first man in the Bible to die) to Zacharias (the last man to die as recorded in the Old Testament), based on the Jewish arrangement of the Scripture which places Genesis as the first book of the Old Testament and 2 Chronicles as the last. Hence, the canon of Old Testament Scripture existed in Jesus’ day and was mentioned with approval by him. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament never quoted from any apocryphal book as an authoritative word of God. Even the Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognize the apocryphal books as part of  the Old Testament until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.

Mr. Fink’s statements about the Catholic Church and the Bible are revealing, helping us to understand why the Catholics and Protestants form separate religious groups.

By Kenneth D. Sils

Not long ago, the Southern Baptist Convention had been meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah for their annual convention. It has been reported that they have amended their system of beliefs to reinstate the following statement, “A wife is to graciously submit to her husband.” Consider three observations concerning this ruling.

First of all, it was interesting to hear from the many liberal women pundants all over the television news shows speak about this archaic, narrow-minded, ridiculous, oppressive and Neanderthal type of mentality which would even dare think a wife should be in submission to her husband. You would think from their hysteria that these women have been projecting on television that Hitler had just invaded America to begin throwing all women into gas chambers. Oh, the panic of having to live the Bible way!

Secondly, missing in this discussion I have observed from anyone in the media is, “What does the Bible say about the issue of wives submitting to their husbands?” This is the reason why there is so much confusion on all subjects of morality. Without a standard of morality and ethics, what else can there be but confusion. The New Testament makes the answer of Jesus Christ quite clear. Ephesians 5:23-24 says, “For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” The husband is the head of the wife in the same light as Jesus is the head of the church. The wife is to submit to the husband in the same manner as the church is to submit to Christ, in everything! To reject these truths from the pen of the inspired apostle Paul is to reject the authority of Jesus Christ himself. This issue has no room for debate. This issue should not be controversial. The apostle John wrote in 1 John 3:4, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness and sin is lawlessness.” Women who refuse to submit to their husbands in everything are sinning against their husbands and against Jesus Christ.

Is there any surprise in our day of women’s liberation that the divorce rate is sky high? Is there any wonder why many congregations across America have been finding themselves in bitter divisions for the laws of God are cast aside by some who call themselves Christians in the name of equality, fairness, and womanhood?

There is a third observation I want you to consider about this ruling. Friends, you do not need a denominational church to determine which laws given in the New Testament apply to the church of Jesus Christ today. The Southern Baptist Convention does not have authority from God to repeal or reinstate this law or any other law of Christ in the New Testament. Actually, in their attempt to do so, they have usurped the authority of Christ unto themselves, granting themselves unlimited power to make laws for their congregations. In the New Testament, there was no such thing as a Southern Baptist Convention or any other earthly church headquarters. We read that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). Since this is the truth, there is no room for the Southern Baptist Convention or any other governing religious authorities making laws, amendments or rules for believers in Jesus.

The church we read about in the Bible had no earthly governing theological body who dictated which laws that would be enforced religiously. Christians in the New Testament followed the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42), and the apostles’ doctrine is the New Testament, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians understood the seriousness of John’s instruction when he wrote in 2 John 9, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” The doctrine of Christ is complete in the New Testament and real true Christians are satisfied with the doctrine of Christ.

Ladies, be content to accept the truths of Jesus Christ by submitting and respecting your husband in everything. Men, let’s remember that God has placed upon us the responsibility to be the head of our wife. When we consider the headship of Jesus towards his church, we observe a loving, caring and compassionate leader. If you will exercise this type of headship towards your wife, your marriage will blossom into the joy God designed marriage to be. Don’t try to change the truth that God has given concerning the roles of men and women in marriage. Try living like Christ would have us to live. You’ll discover that Jesus knew what was best all along.