Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In the past twenty centuries there have been tremendous changes wrought in our manner of life. Our customs have changed. Our manner of dress has undergone changes. Methods of transportation and communication have been radically changed. Many of the things around us have changed. But in the midst of this changing world, there has been one constant change. There has been one thing that has not changed. That is man. Men today are the same as men were in New Testament times. We have the same natures. We commit the same sins. It is true that in many instances we have changed the names of some sins, and in others we no longer look upon these acts as sin. But for the most part, men today are no different than men were in the time of our Lord. Being the same, under the same circumstances, some men today will react as some men did in Bible times, and other men will react as other men did in Bible times. We should be thankful that not all men have reacted in the same way.

There was a governor of Palestine in the long ago that had a tremendous decision to make. Unfortunately for him, he had not the courage to decide in favor of what he knew to be right. I am speaking of Pilate. You will remember that a raving mob of Jews had taken Jesus and were bent on killing him. But they first had to get the consent of Pilate. Pilate was pressed into a dilemma. Pilate wanted to release Jesus, and so he proposed that he either release Barabbas, a murderer and a robber, or that he release Jesus. He felt confident that the Jews would prefer to see Jesus released than Barabbas. But Pilate was not acquainted with the depths to which the mind of man can be brought. They were going to kill this man who accused them and condemned them if it was the last thing they did.

When Pilate asked which one he should release, they said, “Barabbas.” The Bible says “Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified” (Matt. 27:22). In this passage, Pilate asked a question which every man that has ever graced this earth has had to ask and to answer. Many of these men have asked the question and answered it without ever being aware that they were doing either. Some have tried to evade the question. When confronted with “What shall I do then with Jesus?”, many have tried to answer by saying, “I won’t do anything with Him.” “I will neither oppose Him nor favor Him.” “Toward Him I will be indifferent.”

There may be many questions upon which you can be indifferent, but this is not one of them. Even though you decide not to decide, you have already decided. Jesus said, “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth” (Matt. 12:30). All you have to do to decide against Christ is to fail to decide to accept Him. There is no middle ground. There is no half-way house.

Man’s reaction to Christ today varies. But it is not more variant than it was in New Testament times. I want to point out some of the ways in which people in the New Testament answered the question, “What shall I do then with Jesus?” As you read this article, see if you can put yourself into one or more of these classes. Have you answered this question as did these of whom we are about to study?

“Crucify Him”

The first group to whom we call your attention will be those mentioned in the very text with which we began. When Pilate asked what they should do with Jesus, without a moment’s hesitation, they cried out “Crucify Him.” The crucifers of Christ have riot all lived in the First Century. The evangelist Stephen shocked his listeners when he told they would act just like their fathers did. He said, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers” (Acts 7:51-52). The Jews in Stephen’s time would have committed the same sins as did their fathers had they lived in the same age as did their fathers. Many today, were they transposed to the past would commit the same crime as did the Jews of the First Century. They crucified Christ. Many today would have assisted them. In fact, many are doing just this. Paul spoke of some who could not be brought to repentance. He said, “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, arid put him to an open shame” (Heb. 6:6). In the same epistle, Paul spoke of those who “hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and bath done despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29). What sin did these commit to cause Paul to say they had crucified the Son of God afresh? It was the sin of which so many are guilty. They turned their back upon the law of Christ; this law was sealed with His blood of the new covenant. So #o reject Christ’s law was to reject Christ’s blood. If you have rejected His law, you have answered the question, “What shall I do with Jesus?” in the same way as did those who crucified Jesus.

“Sell Him”

Judas Iscariot answered the question, “What shall 1 then do with Jesus?” in a slightly different manner, but the result was the same. Judas answered the question by saying, “Sell Him.” And this is precisely what he did. Judas saw in Christ an opportunity to make some money. It was not much money, but Judas’ love for Christ was so little that it did not take much money to get him to betray his Lord. The Bible account of Judas’ reply to the question reads as follows: “Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto them” (Matt. 26:14-16). All of us are familiar with the fact that Judas carried out his covenant with a kiss. Judas sold Christ. I wonder if we have done likewise. Are you selling the Christ for a few pieces of silver? Are you willing to let a few pieces of silver come between you and your duty to the Lord Jesus?

There are many people today, who like Judas in the long ago, see in Jesus an opportunity to make some money. Christ has become a commercialized Christ in the hands of many men. For the right price some men are willing to preach any doctrine the people want. Paul warned us about such men: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3,4). Preachers of the truth are not popular men. The Bible teaches us that there will be but few saved. Men do not like to have their sins condemned. They want someone to preach to them who will tickle their ears and tell them what they want to hear. For a price, some men will acquiesce. Do not ever think that men will not pay a price for men who will preach what they want to hear.

Some time ago, I read about a man (who had recently died) who since 1950 had been traveling over the country in tent meetings and over wide television coverage, by preaching a popular, ear-tickling message accumulated assets of above $50,000 (Jack Coe). He sold his Lord for a great deal more than thirty pieces of silver. Another very popular preacher in our country took in over $3,000,000 in one year (Oral Roberts). People are paying quite a price for his ear-tickling sensationalism. Some time ago one of our local newspapers reported the financial result of a four-week meeting in Canada. The poor preacher took in only $218,000 in those four weeks (Billy Graham), but he had expenses of $119,000. After everything was paid the preacher had only $99,000 clear. As a preacher of the gospel, I must make sure that I am not seeking the favor of men, but of God. Paul said, “if 1 were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

“Almost Persuaded”

There is another man who met the Christ through a gospel sermon preached by the apostle Paul. This man had to decide what he was going to do with the Christ. This man was King Agrippa. Paul spoke in his presence, and concluded his sermon to Agrippa by saying, “I know that thou believest.” Agrippa was now compelled to make a decision. He knew about the Christ, but what would he do with Him? There are many bothered today with the question, “What will I do with Him?” We should be much more concerned with “What will I do without Him?” I am sorry to have to say that Agrippa set a pattern that has been the downfall of many men. Agrippa’s problem was not that he did not know about the Christ. He knew. Here is his decision as to what to do with Jesus: “And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian” (Acts 26:28). He was almost persuaded to become a child of God. Here was a man with good intentions. He was just about persuaded. Now read Paul’s answer to Agrippa: “And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little or with much, not thou only also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds” (v. 29).

So far as the Bible tells us, Agrippa died almost persuaded. We have no other record of him changing his mind. We are not told that he became altogether persuaded. He likely died in the condition revealed in this passage. If he did, he died outside of Christ, without the benefits of Christ’s death, and thus lost forevermore. His good intentions would not take him to heaven.

A song has been written on this sad passage of scripture. There are three short stanzas to it. It reads as follows:

“Almost persuaded” now to believe;

“Almost persuaded” Christ to receive;

Seems now some soul to say, “Go Spirit, go thy way,

Some more convenient day, On thee I’ll call.

“Almost persuaded” come, come today;

“Almost persuaded,” turn not away;

Jesus invites you here, Angels are lingering near,

Prayers rise from hearts so dear, O wand’er, come.

“Almost persuaded,” harvest is past!

“Almost persuaded,” doom comes at last!

“Almost” cannot avail; “Almost” is but to fail!

Sad, sad, that bitter wail- – “Almost- -but lost!”

This song is but another way of saying what a poet has said-“Of all the words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, “It might have been.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 47, pp. 739-741
October 9, 1975

By Franklin Burns

If there is one thing the present, day world needs more than anything else it is a sense of sin. The world regards sin too lightly. The reason many people do not come to the Lord is that they do not feel they are sinners. Therefore they do not realize how badly they need the Lord.

Sin is the one thing that endangers our happiness for both time and eternity. Sin separates man from God and drives a wedge between men. It sets man against his best friends. Sin has marred and scared the world. Sin cuts deep and slashes into character, deadens conscience, and destroys the soul bit by bit. Paul said, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Think of the awfulness of being eternally lost! It is to be lost in Hell, lost in outer darkness, beyond the presence of God forever. Hell is a lake of, fire where teeth gnash, lost souls shriek! Let us notice briefly some of the things God’s Word says about sin.

Sin is Transgression

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This means “to miss the mark, to veer away from that which is .right. It is a general term embracing every form of wrong-doing, all divergence from that which is right” (Guy N. Woods, Peter, John, Jude, p. 260). “It properly means lawlessness in the sense that the requirements of the law are not conformed to or complied with; that is, either by not obeying it, or by positively violating it” (.Albert Barnes, James, Peter, John, and Jude, p. 314). The New Testament contains the law of Christ. We are to be governed and regulated by this law. John says, “whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9). Some brethren who have a considerable amount of education and aspire to be recognized as scholars tell us that the expression “doctrine of Christ” in (2 John 9) cannot refer to the doctrine which Christ taught. They say it means only the doctrine about Him, that He has come in the flesh. Without being a scholar, any one can see the thought in 2 John 9 is the same as in 1 John 3:4. To break the limits set by God is to sin and to have not God, no matter what particular limit is broken. 1 John 3:4 and 2 John 9 show the sin of doing in religion those things which God has not commanded us to do. Therefore if we practice or teach anything that is not revealed in the scripture it is sin.

Jesus tells us in the Sermon on the Mount about some men who had been religious, zealous, sincere workers for the Lord. In the judgment they expected to go to heaven, but He said, “and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:21-23). What was their trouble? Why were they lost? They had transgressed God’s law; they had disregarded the will of God.

Some of my brethren seem to .think that one needs to go back to the original Greek or some other book to define sin. That “sin” applied to different subjects is suppose to mean different things. Brethren, whether it be the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of God, the support of organizations foreign to the doctrine of Christ, the wearing of names unauthorized by the law of Christ, sin is sin! This is evident from the fact that one must go beyond the law of Christ to practice any of these things; therefore they are all sin. We should be careful, therefore to stay within the limits of the law of Christ. To go beyond is sin.

What is not practiced according to God’s word is sin. “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17). How does faith come? Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17), and without faith we cannot please God (Heb. 11:6). Paul declares that “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). One cannot do by faith that which God has not commanded, and concerning which God has no revealed will; he cannot know that such is pleasing to God. No one can know the will of God except as God reveals it (1 Cor. 2:10-16). We cannot walk by faith and act on opinion or human wisdom.

This is one of the reasons why we refuse and condemn the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. This is one of the reasons we cry. out against human institutions raiding the treasuries of the church of our Lord. We walk by faith, but faith comes by hearing God’s word, and what is not of faith is sin.

Wasted Opportunities

“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin” (James 4:17). If we know what is right and we do not do it, we are guilty of sin. In fact we are self-condemned. Jesus said “and that servant, which knew his Lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes” (Luke 12:47). This is why we fear for the eternal welfare of many members of the Lord’s church: One may be clean morally, but if he neglects to do good, serve mankind, help the weak and poor, spread the gospel, attend the services of the church, give as he has been prospered, and support in an aggressive way the religion of Christ, he is a sinner before God.

We should turn in the fear of God from all sin, cultivate a hatred of sin and walk humbly before God. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11).

Truth Magazine XIX: 47, p. 738
October 9, 1975

By B.J. Thomas

The belief in materialistic evolution has grown, over two decades, with amazing rapidity. It has been widely published, talked, discussed, taught, and propagated. When one’s faith begins to tumble it usually begins in a class where evolution is taught as a fact.

What is evolution? The very word “evolution” can mean many things. Mere change is not the issue. The battle of truth is fought on two fronts. The first is organic evolution, the belief that everything now in existence came from a single change, billions of years ago, and man evolved over countless millions of years from a one cell amoeba through fishes, then through amphibious animals-as snakes, lizards, and frogs-and then through different land animals-from opossums, apes, and ape-like animals to his present complete state. This is the atheist position. A fantastic fairy tale. As one man said, “It is a marvel what people will believe if it isn’t in the Bible.” The second is theistic evolution. This is a belief in the theory of evolution-that all life evolved in this manner through vast periods of time, but God started it off. The theistic evolutionist is a compromiser. He wants to believe evolution and the Bible at the same time. He tries to fit Genesis one and two to his theory. It can’t be done. It is impossible.

Why does a person believe in the theory of evolution anyway? Basically, it is because he does not want to accept the Bible account of creation. Evolution presents the alternative. Henry M. Morris has aptly described the situation in his book, The Twilight of Evolution, “The main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!” Personally, after talking with hundreds of evolutionists and after reading hundreds, probably thousands, of evolutionary books and articles, the writer is more and more convinced of two facts: (1) There is not one shred of genuine evidence, either in science or scripture, for the validity of evolution; (2) The only reason why most people seem to believe in evolution is either because they want to believe in it or else because they have been cowed into accepting it out of fear of being called ignorant.”

The theory of evolution is groundless. It is fraught with countless absurdities. The evolutionist tries to prove his theory in the following areas: Biological Classifications, Natural Selection, Vestigial Organs, and Missing Links.

Biological Classifications

The evolutionist believes all life developed from lower to higher forms. He tries to rest much of his case on comparative anatomy. By this he attempts to compare the anatomy of man with lower forms-up to the ape family. When he gets to the ape family he points out all of the resemblances, and from this comparison he concludes that there must be kinship. He argues that animals have eyes, ears, and lungs just as man, and from this he concludes that they have a common ancestry. It proves they have a common creator. God created all of them.

To point up the absurdity of his case, there are questions the evolutionist cannot answer. If there is no God, and man and beasts have a common ancestry-if they came from the same natural source-why is it wrong to kill a man, and not a cow? The only answer I have ever heard to this question is that man is more intelligent. Then how about people who are mentally retarded. Then, too, if this were so, it would be a whole lot worse to kill a cow than a dodo bird.

Another question evolution cannot answer! If life came from dead matter and there was a crossing of the kinds, where is a record of it and why does it not happen again? A vegetable has never evolved into an animal; a snake has never evolved into a bird. Their theory requires the crossing of the kinds, not once but many times. The law in the book of Genesis is that everything brings forth after its kind.

Natural Selection

Charles Darwin propagated the “survival of the fittest”-meaning the offspring of the most fit inherited only the best characteristics-enabling only the fittest to survive, and each improvement evolved into other improvements and changes. This theory was called “Natural Selection.” In nature, just the opposite of this is true. You can not argue. against a demonstration. The best does not survive without special care, painstaking effort and trial and error education. Put a few fine cattle with scrubby ones, and left to themselves, they will all become scrubby. The “weeds” take over. Every farm boy knows this.

Vestigial Organs

Evolutionists contend that certain organs in the human body are useless organs and are throwbacks from different ages when man was developing and evolving to his resent state. These include the appendix, the small muscles which attach the ear to the skull, and the tonsils. However, the more science learns about the human body, the less it labels any organ as “useless.” A good definition of science is that man learns what God already knows. The fact that these organs may be removed without apparent ill results, does not prove that they are useless. A man may live a useful life with his eyelashes cut off, but they are useful on.

Missing Links

The grossest kind of misrepresentation in this evolutionary idea is the so-called “Missing Links.” The tragic thing is that young people are made to believe that missing links have been found. All of them have turned out to be hoaxes, fakes, and frauds. For nearly forty years the “Piltdown Man” was palmed off on the public as the half-million year old missing link. In 1912, twenty fragments of bones were discovered near Sussex, England. From these fragments, the “Piltdown Man” was constructed. In 1950, scientists began to question this. Later, the whole thing was discovered as a grand hoax, and these 20 bone-fragments were the bones of a modern ape. All of the others have turned out about like this. Some others are: the “Neanderthal Man,” the “Cro-Magnon Man,” the “Java man,” the “Peking man,” and the “Heidelberg man.” It is amazing what a few bone-fragments, a wild imagination, and lots of Plaster of Paris will do. The `Missing Link” is still missing.

Conclusion

The Bible is authored by God. The creation story is true. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . .” (2 Tim. 3:16). In selecting the writers of the Bible, God selected “holy men” (2 Pet. 1:21). They taught words “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth” (1 Cor. 1:13).

Brother R. L. Whiteside had about the best description of the fantastic fairy tale of evolutidn that I have read. He said, “I have heard many big fish yarns, but the evolutionists ask us to believe the biggest one yet. Somewhere in the remote past, they say, a fish flapped out on dry-land and his fins turned into legs. After that, the story of Jonah and the whale seems easy.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 46, pp. 733-734
October 2, 1975

By Ralph Edmunson

“Since individual Christians make up the church, what is the difference between people supporting orphan homes individually and supporting them collectively?” This is a question which has been asked frequently in the last few years. We believe that a proper understanding of this principle would go a long way toward healing the breach in the brotherhood.

There are several passages of scripture that definitely demonstrate that there is a difference between the actions of Christians as individuals and the same acts done by the church collectively.

Matt. 18:15-17: “And if thy brother sin against thee go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.” When one individual sins against another individual, two members of the church are involved, but, it is not the church acting. Later, other witnesses are called and then there are three or four members of the church in on-the action. Still, the church is not involved, even though they are all members of the church. But if the individual members cannot work the problem out, they are to “take it to the church.”

1 Tim. 5:16: “if any woman that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” From this it is evident that when an “individual Christian” woman relieves her own needy relatives, it is not the church doing it; she is acting as an “individual Christian.” Likewise, when, according to verse 8, a Christian husband and father provides for his own family, this is not the church acting. In each case they are the same individuals who make up the church, yet they are acting, not as the church, but as individuals. There is certainly a place for the church collectively to act, for verse 16 refers to the church “reliev(ing) them that are widows indeed.” This certainly restricts the benevolent work of the church to special cases; but the individual Christian is not so restricted.

1 Cor. 12:14: “For the body is not one member, but many.” Again, here is definite evidence that there is a difference between the actions of Christians considered individually and collectively.

Acts 5:3-4: “Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?” Notice that Peter makes two assertions and one implication concerning “individual” possessions: First, Before the land was sold, it still belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Ananias. Second, After the land was sold, the money they received for it was still theirs. Third, Peter implies that after Ananias and Sapphira had laid the money at the apostles’ feet, it no longer belonged to them. It now was a part of the “pile of money” that they and other “individual Christians” had been contributing for the aid of the needy Christians.

As far as can be deduced from the inspired record in Acts, there was nothing compulsory about donating all of one’s material possessions to the church. Ananias was condemned, not because he withheld some of the price, but, because he lied about it.

The “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:30-37) affords an excellent example of what we are talking about. Here was a man who needed help now; so the Samaritan gave him assistance as an individual.

Examples are abundant from the material realm which illustrate this difference between individual action and group action. For instance, let us ask the question a little differently: “Since individual citizens make up the United States, what is the difference between Americans’ supporting a private horse show individually and supporting it collectively (that is using federal tax money)? We can easily understand this principle in politics: the principle is the same in religion.

Truth Magazine XIX: 46, p. 732
October 2, 1975