Truth Magazine

By Keith Ward

Many have tried to discredit the Bible’s authority over our lives. Some say it has no value because its truths are dated and not applicable to modern times; others maintain that scribal copying errors have so corrupted the text that it is no longer the word of God. A third group feels that so much is lost in translation that we cannot take the Bible as a rule of faith. Even many in the church will accept only the words of Jesus; unless they find the words in red letters, these people discount their value. Let us turn to the Bible itself to answer the arguments of these critics, scholars and Jesus-only people.

Jesus’ Historical Position Parallels Ours

Jesus’ attitude toward the Old Testament shows his reverence for scripture as the word of God. Many do not realize that Jesus stood in approximately the same relationship to the law of Moses as we do to the New Testament. Jesus lived 1,500 years after the giving of the law; we are 1,900 years after the writing of the New Testament. Jesus had a text that had been copied for centuries and nearly lost during the reign of idolatrous kings (Remember how Josiah found the lost copy when he restored the Temple, 2 Chron. 34:14-23). We have the New Testament which has been copied for centuries and was nearly lost during the Dark Ages. Roman culture was at its zenith and scholars scoffed at the peasants backward belief in God and in life after death. Today, even theologians are teaching, “God is dead,” and our society has no room for God. By examining this parallel, we see how we ought to treat the inspired New Testament.

By observing how the Son of God treated and used the Old, we can grasp the power and relevance of the New.

All Must Be Fulfilled

Jesus did not dismiss the Old Testament as outdated or say that its truth was lost in scribal errors. He stated that it all must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). Further, he said, “Till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all things are accomplished” (Matt. 5:18). Hebrew looks like chicken scratching and would be even more susceptible to scribal error than New Testament Greek. In spite of this, Jesus said that not even one of the smallest marks would pass away until all was fulfilled. A jot and a tittle are comparable to the dotting of an “i” or the crossing of a “t” in English.

Jesus used scripture as the ultimate authority. “It is written,” left no room for appeal; it was unanswerable. He obviously believed that short scripture quotations were authoritative and valid, though such is often patronized as “proof-text quoting” today.

Scripture Terminates Temptation

Appeal to scripture terminated the temptation in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11). Satan three times tempted Jesus and three times Jesus answered with a quote from the Law of Moses (Dent. 8:3; 6:16, 13). Satan did not appeal to the fact that the law was 1,500 years old, had been copied by innumerable fallible scribes, or that an ink-drop or fly speck could change the meaning of the Hebrew. Both Jesus and Satan recognized that the quotes were accurate and authoritative. Despite elapsed time and numerous copyings and translations, it was still the word of God.

Better than Testimony from the Dead

When Jesus related the story of Lazarus and the rich man, he placed the scripture above the testimony of one raised from the dead.

Consider how closely you would listen to a friend whom you had seen dead and buried, but a year later rang your doorbell. Being skeptical, you would check fingerprints and shared memories, until at last you were sure he was your dead friend come alive. Would you not strain to hear every word of his message from the beyond? When the rich man requested that Lazarus be allowed to return and warn his brothers, Abraham replied, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

Words Inspired not Merely Concepts

Jesus gave attention and significance to the smallest detail of the language. Modern scholars reject much scripture to avoid “being picayune,” or they appeal to possible scribal error. They do not feel that we can trust the words of the scripture, but should deal only with general teaching and broad concepts.

The Son of God based an argument on the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the yodh. When teaching the Lordship and eternal nature of the Messiah, Jesus posed a riddle (Matt. 22:41-46). David said, “The Lord said unto my Lord” (Psa. 110:1). “The Lord” is Jehovah; “my Lord” is the Messiah. Jesus asks how the Messiah can be both the son of David and David’s Lord. The Pharisees could not answer. We know that it was because Jesus, the eternal Son of God, was born of a virgin in David’s lineage. Jesus’ opponents recognized the argument as valid and unanswerable, although it was based on the little word “my.”

In the same chapter, Jesus based his argument for life after death on the verb tense used by Moses (Matt. 22:31-32). “1 am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, .and the God of Jacob” (Ex. 3:6). At the time Moses wrote, these men had been dead for hundreds of years. Thus, when Jesus states the axiom, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” he has shown that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive at the time God spoke. Therefore, man has an immortal soul. Today, men say we cannot trust the words of the scripture because of various possible meanings and difficulties of interpretation. Jesus, the divine interpreter, used a verb tense as his only proof of man’s immortality.

Is the New Testament as Strong?

It is clear that the Son of God believed in the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament. We can trust it to be word for word exactly what God said, modern scholars notwithstanding. Can we trust the New Testament in the same manner, or is it subject to human error? Jesus promised that the New Testament would be as strong as the Old. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will shew you things to come” (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit was to guide the Apostles into all truth. Therefore, when they finished speaking, no truth was left unrevealed that God desired man to know. The Holy Spirit spoke from God and the Apostles declared what the Holy Spirit gave them. This is the same method used to reveal the Old Testament which Jesus taught was all powerful (2 Pet. 3:20-21). Thus, the New Testament is the word of God. The apostles themselves recognized their inspiration and often spoke of it.

The Apostles Claimed Inspiration

Peter placed the writings of Paul on the same plane as the Old Testament (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter says that unsteadfast men wrest with the epistles of Paul as they also do with other scripture. That word “other” shows that Peter believed that Paul’s writings were scripture. Peter commands his reader to remember two things (2 Pet. 3:2). One is the words of the Holy Prophets (the Old Testament); the other is “the commandments of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.” Peter states that the words which he and the other apostles spoke and wrote were in truth the Lord’s. Paul also claimed inspiration when he wrote. “The things which I write unto you they are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). He did not imagine them or devise a logical system of philosophy; they were given him by God. (Other passages where writers claim inspiration are: 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Cor. 2:4, 13, 2 Cor. 13:3, Eph. 3:25). Jesus promised it. The apostles claimed it. Are we going to call them liars by denying the verbal inspiration of the New Testament?

Role-To Preserve

The role of inspiration in preserving the scripture word for word as God meant for us to have it is seldom studied. Almighty God, the creator spoke to man. It is inconceivable that our all-powerful, all-wise God would allow his word to fall into a state of disrepair. The Holy Spirit guarantees that the truth was correctly recorded in the right words (1 Cor. 2:13), and preserves those words for future generations. Having once given man the truth that he intended to be the standard until the end of time (Acts 2:39), God did not fumble the ball and leave us without a guide to save our souls.

The Bible does not contain the word of God; it is the word of God. “God having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son” (Heb. 1:1). Old and New Testament alike are the very word of God, given and preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Means and Methods and the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit sometimes dictated word for word what the prophet was to write. Moses was commanded, “Write these words” (Ex. 34:37). On this occasion he was merely a secretary who took dictation from God. Much scripture does not seem to be dictated. The authors are permitted to use their own style and background. Their vocabularies and grammatical ability vary widely. In such cases, the role of inspiration is to guarantee that the words or illustrations the author chooses exactly express the will and word of God. The author is given some freedom in his writing, but not the freedom to err.

Revelation and Inspiration

What is inspiration? Often it is described as “Godbreathed,” which means that God breathes the words into the mouths of the men who speak. But this does not answer, “How?” Perhaps more can be understood if it is compared to something it is not.

Revelation and inspiration overlap in many areas, and some mistakenly believe that they are the same. It was necessary for many things to be revealed. Creation is a good example; man could not have learned,the origin of the universe unless God told him. However, other things such as the shipwreck in Acts 27, can be known exclusive of revelation. Luke was there and suffered the storm with Paul, thus, he could write from memory. It was not necessary for the Holy Spirit to reveal what happened. In the case of revelation, inspiration insures that what has been revealed is correctly recorded. In the case of personal memories or research, inspiration protects the truth from a faulty memory or a poor perspective and guarantees that it is correctly recorded. Revelation makes truth known that could not otherwise have been learned. Inspiration guarantees that what is recorded is truth and preserves it.

Revelation and Understanding

It is evident that the inspired men did not always understand what they were doing. Luke investigated and researched. Seemingly, he did not know that he was inspired, that the Holy Spirit moved him to write. He said, “It seemed good to me . . . to write” (Luke 1:1-4). He was not commissioned to write as was John (Rev. 1:19). Luke took it upon himself to “write in order” the narrative of the life of Jesus. Neither did the Holy Spirit reveal anything to him, he talked to witnesses as would any biographer who wrote the life of a great man, “even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.” He researched, “having traced the course of all things accurately from the first.” Luke was moved by the Holy Spirit, and though he did not know that he was inspired, we do. Paul quoted Luke’s writing in the same sentence as a statement from the law, and made it equal with that statement (1 Tim. 5:18).

The prophets knew they were inspired, yet often did not understand what they wrote. Peter comments that they searched “what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto” (1 Pet. 1:10-11). They spoke the words of God, but were not permitted a full understanding of what they had said.

Some men spoke, neither realizing that their words were divine, nor understanding them. The classic example ig Caiphas, who prophesied, “One man should die for the people” (John 11:49-52). Caiphas referred to the death of one whom he considered a revolutionary in order that Israel might maintain her remaining independence and not be crushed in a futile revolt against Rome. John reveals that Caiphas prophesied of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus death for all men.

All were Inspired

All these groups of men spoke by inspiration: Peter, Paul, et al, who knew they were inspired and understood what they spoke; Luke, et al, who understood but did not realize that they were inspired; the prophets who knew they were inspired but often did not understand their words; and Caiphas who neither knew nor understood.

It is the words that are inspired, not the method or the man. No matter how great or small the man’s understanding, the words are given, guaranteed, and preserved by the Holy Spirit. We can depend on them. (Additional copies of this article may be ordered from Keith Ward, above address.)

Truth Magazine XIX: 49, pp. 773-775
October 23, 1975

By Cecil Willis

(Editor’s Note: Though the following poems have been printed many times in several papers and bulletins, perhaps there are some of our younger readers who have never seen them. Ben Bogard was perhaps the ablest Baptist debater that ever lived. It is said that he debated our brethren about one hundred times. On the other hand, W. Curbs Porter was the ablest negative debater that I ever heard. He was unexcelled in repartee. Perhaps you will enjoy his poetic reply to Baptist Bogard. Some softies of today would think such an exchange undignified. But somehow, those were the days when the Lord’s church grew most rapidly in modern times. Truth never shines more brightly than after it has been through the heat of controversy. – Cecil Willis)

The Preacher’s Coffee by Ben M. Bogard

“I have a pleasant story, which I wish to tell in rhyme,

About a circuit preacher who lived in recent time.

He was a circuit rider for good John Wesley’s brand;

And rode the finest circuit in all the blessed land.

At one of his good charges, some members, not a few,

Became quite sorely troubled about the word `into’.

The Good Book says quite plainly, in Acts in chapter eight,

`They went down into water,’ as Baptist people state.

The preacher preached a sermon of extra zeal and might;

And to his satisfaction, he set the passage right.

`Into’ does not mean `into’, but only `at’ or `nearby’.

They went down to the water and got a small supply.

But near the place of worship, there lived a sister Brown

And for her splendid cooking she’d gained a great renown.

Her yellow-legged chickens, her luscious cakes and pies,

Had often made that preacher roll up his weeping eyes.

And her delicious coffee! In all the circuit round,

The preacher oft admitted, its like could not be found.

So when he preached his sermon with extra power and length

He loved at the Brown’s table to revive his ebbing strength.

But sister Brown was a Baptist, the strongest in the land;

She oft reproved the Methodists for changing God’s command.

She heard the preacher’s sermon, and thought the subject o’re.

Then asked him home for dinner, as she oft had done before.

She ground her good brown coffee, her kettle steaming hot,

And put it ‘at’ or `nearby’ the famous coffee pot.

She poured her guest a cupful (I think it was no sin).

‘But you forgot, dear sister, to put the coffee in.’

‘No, no, dear sir, that’s coffee; I ground a good supply,

And put it ‘at’ the kettle (`into’ is ‘at’ or ‘nearby’).

By the logic of your sermon (I thought it rather thin),

If ‘at’ or ‘nearby’ is ‘into’, I put the coffee IN.

So if you will truly promise, no more such stuff to teach,

I’ll go and make some coffee, in line with Bible speech.

And this time I will follow instructions to the dot,

And put the coffee INTO, not `at’ or `near’ the pot!”

Sequel to the Preacher’s Coffee by W. Curtis Porter

“Just then in stepped a preacher, who wears a Bible name,

The simple name of ‘Christian’ of apostolic fame.

God put into the Bible no human names to wear;

And hence he was contented, the inspired mark to wear.

Then Mrs. Brown he questioned, if surely she’d admit

Whether `into’ had the meaning which she had given it.

She said she would most surely, and who would dare say not.

`No coffee’s in the vessel, till put into the pot.’

Then gently spoke the preacher: ‘Don’t censure preacher Jones;

You have spoken condemnation, to yourself in strongest tones.

No need to hold tradition; such never has sufficed.

The Bible says that baptism puts people INTO Christ.’

‘No, no,’ replied the hostess. `Such preaching is a sin.

Sir, the preacher gives baptism to those already in.’

‘Well, well,’ then spoke the preacher, `it surely gives me fun,

To see this faithful Baptist throw down her Baptist gun.

If ‘into’ has the meaning you have given it at last,

Your shot at circuit riders, has gone into a blast!

Then Phillip and the eunuch went ‘into’ the creek;

For they were ‘in’ already – and had been for a week!

When Christians are invited ‘into’ that heavenly clime,

They’ll really not go ‘into’ – they were in it all the time!

And when the Lord will banish, the wicked ‘into’ hell,

They’ll merely stay ‘in’ pleasures, on earth they love so well.

You thought the coffee `into’ the coffee pot,

But it was `in’ already, and really boiling hot.

Now, Mrs. Brown, please promise, that you’ll not have the gall,

To hit folks with the Bible, unless you take it all.

The Bible says so plainly (to which you have referred),

‘They went down into the water,’ I trust its every word.

It tells us that the righteous go `into’ mansions fair;

It tells us that the wicked go down ‘into’ despair

It tells us just as surely, not only once but twice,

That that which is called ‘baptism,’ puts people `into’ Christ.

Now take it all, dear lady; false preachers you can rout.

Or else just raise the window, and throw the Bible out!”

Truth Magazine XIX: 49, pp. 771-772
October 23, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

“CHICAGO (UPI)-Proclaiming bawling babies the greatest obstacle to the people of God since the barbarians, a Roman Catholic priest has launched a `Ban the Babies’ movement. The Rev. Frank E. Fortkamp, who proclaims himself the `founding Father of the Ban the Babies Movement,’ calls for `an ecclesiastical directive from the highest authority’ to bar babies from the Mass.

“The Pennsylvania priest says the constant crying from infant church-goers makes it impossible for him or any other preacher to get their messages across from the pulpit. `It’s unfair competition. Masochistic as most of them are anyway, most congregations are far more enraptured with yelping youngsters than preachers,’ Fortkamp writes in the August edition of U. S. Catholic.

“The only way to get God’s word to the people is to get the little people out of earshot by order of the highest available Church authority, he says. `Yes, I plead, Ban the Babies! And not just to that artificial wasteland the ‘cry room’ where their collective din shivers the soundproof glass. No! Ban the babies from church altogether,’ writes Fortkamp.

“‘Give me liturgy or give me death! There’s no need to give death to liturgy at the merciless hand of infantile cacophony. Surely a church so boastful of its decade of progress toward reform will soon get its priorities in line.’

“Fortkamp’s article is entitled: `Don’t trust anyone under thirty months’ ” (Chattanooga News-Free Press, August 2, 1974, p. 2).

Comments

You probably think I am going to pounce on the “Rev. Frank E. Fortkamp” with every key in my typewriter. If so, you are wrong. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to assist priest Fortkamp. His movement, if successful, will keep all “yelping youngsters” under 30 months out of Catholic Church services. It will, therefore, prevent many Catholic mothers from attending Catholic Churches for 2.’/z years. And, brother, anything that keeps parents and innocent babies from the clutches of Catholic Churches, I will heartily endorse and encourage! Do I hear an “Amen?”

Besides, after compulsory absentia bans the babies and prohibits the parents from attending for, such an extended period, how many will crank up and start going when the child is past 30 months? Not many, but if any do begin to attend, the problem will be magnified and intensified. Ask any parent who ever waited until the baby was 2 1/2 years old before taking him to his first church service. The “infantile cacophony” is nothing to be compared to the behavior of an untrained 2 1/2 year old church-goer. When the Catholic sees the difficulty of trying to tame a youngster who has had no experience in going to services, he will likely become disgusted and quit the Catholic Church. Hallelujah!

What does the “Pennsylvania priest” propose to do when “bawling babies” are presented to him for “baptism?” Would he call for “an ecclesiastical directive from the highest authority” to terminate the sprinkling of infants? Why not? After all, their squalling might shiver the baptismal font-horrors! Can we imagine that infants will be kissed, “blessed,” dabbed with water, and then kicked out of the church for 30 months? Would this be a form of earthly purgatory?

Catholicism wrests Mark 10:14, as do Protestant sprinkler systems, to prove infant baptism-” Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” Well, how would Mr. Fortkamp answer this passage if it were pressed upon him against his proposal? I would caress my forehead, punch my chest twice, and turn my collar backwards to hear his answer.

Speaking of an “artificial wasteland” and “the greatest obstacle to the people of God since the barbarians,” the Roman Catholic Church is again disgraced from within. Will Mr. Fortkamp be disciplined? Not on your life-he will be applauded. Oh, the Pope may not approve his movement, but neither will he publicly censure it as the preposterous proposal of a man who is of the neuter gender, spiritually speaking.

If Fortkamp’s liturgy is exemplified and typified by his “Ban the Babies” nonsense, then adults ought to cry while he speaks. He ought to be put “out of earshot by order of the highest available Church authority,” but he will not be and perhaps it is just as well. Maybe some thinking soul will be sickened and repulsed by such degenerate tripe and turn in obedience to the New Testament “movement,” which says “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Stranger things have happened.

Truth Magazine XIX: 49, p. 770
October 23, 1975

By William C. Sexton

It is such a grand privilege to be a child of God that each person ought to be challenged to ask: “Who may be a child of God? How may one become a child of God?” Each should ask, “What are the results of being a child of God?” Many have not been impressed with the greatness of being a child of God, evidently, and such is one of the saddest situations in our land today. However, some who have been impressed with the greatness of being a child of God have not really been challenged to see how or in what manner such can be accomplished. They have not been awakened to the need to search out the information that will enable one to determine “who is” a child of God and who is not. Thus this article is designed to challenge us to examine the word of God relative to how one can become and be sure that he is a child of God and what the results of that relationship really means.

Therefore, by examining the text of Gal. 3:26-29 and the context, we wish to establish these three points: (1) That all who are children of God, are such “by faith.” (2) That to be a child of God, “by faith” one must have acted on his faith; (3) That all who are children of God by faith have a common inheritance. So, being a child of God “by faith” involves:

1. Being Distinct from the Law! Notice the “for” in these verses and in some other significant verses in this chapter: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ” (v. 26). The Greek word translated “for” here is gar, a conjunction. The Greek word is defined by two authorities: “II, It adduces the cause or gives the Reason for a preceding statement or opinion,” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 109); “Conjunction used to express cause, inference, continuation, or explain” (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 151). In English, of course, the word “for” may be used as a preposition or a conjunction, and it is defined by Webster, “because; seeing that; more formal than because and used to introduce evidence or explanation for an immediately preceding statement,” when used as a conjunction. So, the “for” of this verse is a conjunction, connecting what is to follow with what has preceded, giving an explanation or as evidence of the previous statement. By backing up to v. 19 we can see that the following points are made: (1) Why the law was given-it was added because of the transgression four hundred years after the promise had been made to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3); it was to be in effect “till the seed” should come to whom the promise had been made; it was educational, a school-master, making men aware of sin. (2) Now, the faith had come! Therefore, the law was no longer effective! As evidence of this-“ye are all the children of God by faith” and not by the law! Whereas under the law men became children of God by having Jewish parents, under the faith men and women became children of God by learning to “know” Him (cf. Heb. 8:11). Most of these Galatians were Gentiles, not Jews; thus his argument was effective in getting them to see how they were children of God-“by faith”-thus showing that the law had ended and the faith was now operative.

As further proof that this line of thinking is correct, notice the real purpose of the book of Galatians! Those Galatians had been converted by the preaching of Paul, the apostle, as he presented the gospel. However, after he had gone on to another part of the country, other teachers had come in and tried to persuade the Galatians that they need a supplement to the gospel. These Jewish teachers had argued that the Galatians really needed a part of the law, especially circumcision if they were going to be saved. Paul expressed his disappointment in them, because they had turned to “another gospel” so soon (1:6-10). He tells them that there really is just one gospel, and he had preached it. So, when they turned to something else, they were really turning away from God! So, here the word “for” is used to show that the law was no longer in effect-its purpose had been fulfilled and its time had expired.

2. As to the Manner! The word “for” in v. 27 introduces the manner in which they had become children of God “by faith.” “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” May we ask how many were the children of God “by faith?” Paul’s answer: “as many of you as have been baptized into Christ . . . .” Some questions are in order. What has to precede baptism, in order for these people to be baptized into Christ? This passage does not tell us, but there are many others that do. Let us look closely at some relevant passages. (1) From Hebrews 11, we learn that one must believe two things relative to God: that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. However, in John 8:24, we learn chat faith in Jesus’ deity and Sonship is essential, too! Thus, faith in God and Christ constitutes a prerequisite to being baptized “into Christ.” (2) In our search further, we find that repentance is essential before one can be baptized into Christ (Lk. 13:5; Acts 17:30-31). Thus he who has not repented cannot be baptized into Christ. (3) Matthew 10:32-33 reveals the fact that confession is essential, and Acts 8:37 presents the same truth, while Paul in Romans 10:9-10 tells us the same thing. So, without confession by mouth that Jesus is Christ and Lord, one cannot be baptized into Christ!

The interested reader should be interested in what happens in baptism. Looking closely at passages, we determine that one is “buried with him by baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4). Also one will notice that he is “baptized into his death” (Rom. 6:3). With close observation of the text in Galatians, one will see that he puts on Christ in being baptized. Then he will notice that it is in baptism that he is raised to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Now, one who is really interested in ascertaining the truth will recognize that this is what the Lord has said and not man, and even if this is so contrary to what he has heard man teach he will still accept the Lord’s teaching in preference to man’s.

Are there children of God “by faith” who .did not become such by this act? I am aware of the fact that many preachers teach that all children of God are such before and without ever being baptized. In fact they say, “if you have to be baptized to be saved, then that means water salvation.” However, where is the passage that teaches there are any children of God other than those who are such “by faith?” There is no passage, and all who say that there are children of God “by faith” without having been baptized are doing so on the authority of men alone! I have people tell me, “You are saved by faith and not by baptism.” Beloved, notice this passage closely: see that we are saying that you are saved “by faith” when you, by your faith, are baptized into Christ! All spiritual blessing are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). How did you get into Christ? Look at Gal. 3:26-27 and Rom. 6:3-4. Beloved, there is not one way for some people to become a child of God by faith and another way for other people! The same terms are for every person, rich or poor, black or white, young or old, American or foreigner (Acts 10:34-35).

3. As to the Benefits! Being a child of God then breaks down distinctions, (vs. 28-29): “for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Nationality is no longer an important factor when it comes to being blessed as a member of God’s family. Neither social status, nor sex distinctions are of importance in being an heir of God. Being “one in Christ,” then entitles one to all of the benefits. He is Abraham’s seed, and he is an heir according to the promise made to Abraham long ago (Gen. 12:1-3). Peter describes the inheritance (1 Pet. 1:3-4) as being incorruptible, undefiled, reserved in heaven and kept by the power of God. Thus it is that which will last forever, never becoming tarnished in any way, and no one can ever take it from us-because it is held by God. Paul, then tells us that we have reason to “rejoice” (Phil. 4:4). We should then be the happiest people in the world, that is, if we are indeed children of God “by faith.” As the man from Ethiopia went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:39), all who having demonstrated their faith in repentance and confession are baptized into the Lord have reason to. rejoice. They have their sins forgiven, and are added to the body of Christ, the kingdom of heaven, the family of God. They then have the greatest opportunity available to man: teaching the unsearchable riches of Christ (cf. Eph. 3:8).

So, in closing, may I challenge you to answer in your own mind-what it means to be a child of God by faith. Are you real sure that you are? Have you become such in the same manner that Paul says the Galatians became such? If you think that you became a child of God “by faith” without being baptized into Christ I challenge you to do two things: (1) show me the passage that so teaches; (2) tell me what this passage means. My only concern is that we all may spend eternity in heaven. If I am trusting in the wrong thing, then please teach me; if you are not following the Scriptures, then you are not trusting in the right one and you are lost. I want you to be saved, and I promise to keep trying to get you to save yourself (Acts 2:40) before the period of grace is passed.

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, pp. 765-766
October 16, 1975