Truth Magazine

By  Mike T. Rogacs

“Love is the anticipation of pleasure.” This statement was made by an obscure self-proclaimed leader of the now dated “free-love movement” which this author happened to hear in a speech. Thankfully, there are signs that the concept of “free-love,” once so popular to talk about and to practice, is being abandoned by many who once expounded its supposed virtues. Not deceiving ourselves, we realize that many misguided individuals still press for this misnomer of freedom of the mind and bodily desires .(which is in reality not a freedom but a bondage of sin and empty vanity of gratification). But we seem to be witnessing a decline of the philosophy.

But the definition of “love” which was presented is an offspring of that movement and is a definition which far too many have accepted in one form or another. I almost cringe at the worldliness and ignorance which is represented by the statement in question. Having taken two sociology classes in college under a most liberal instructor, the statement “love is the anticipation of pleasure” smacks of modern sociological concepts. The concepts to which I was exposed, I thankfully was able to discern what in fact they were: empty and vain babblings, which in the realm of religion would quickly be labeled false doctrine. Throughout these lectures I was aware of the harm being done to other minds younger than mine. The sociological concepts of which we speak are ungodly and pitiful attempts (in the sense of how ridiculous the logic was expressed) to explain the nature of man and his actions, without any consideration being given to Biblical concepts about man. In fact, belief in God is treated as one stage of man’s development, a stage which should be changed or left behind as he develops further. Under the philosophy of sociology, there is nothing called sin and righteousness. Unusual conduct (or sin) is just deviant behavior, and normalcy (either righteousness or at least the current status quo) was itself deviant behavior at one time; but society learned to accept past deviant behavior as the present normalcy. In this “science” of thought, man is reduced to a higher evolved-animal whose behavior patterns have more impact on his mind than what similar behavior would have on lower forms of life. Therefore, the sociologist attempts to “improve” society by seeking to understand the deviate individuals and then adjust to them. Such a philosophy denies the existence of one unchangeable standard of morality and a supernatural author of the same.

We have gotten away from the definition of love twice stated before. But we have found it necessary to have the reader understand a little about the basis of the terminology. The Lord would call this background an example of “philosophy of vain deceit” and “science falsely so called” (Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20). It is a classic attempt to deny God in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary (Rom. 1:18-22). When one reads the verses we have cited in Romans chapter one, he will see the somber connection to this subject when it is understood that the instructor of my classes in sociology used to be a Congregationalist preacher. The Bible speaks of those who deny God in the face of abundant evidence. Indeed! Here is a man who was a preacher in a religion which. at least feigns a belief in the scriptures, who now teaches this brand of sociology.

Bear in mind the sociologically inspired definition of love with which we started while we in turn notice a few definitions of Biblical terms:

1. Above all remember that “sin is the transgression of law” (1 John 3:4), transgression of God’s law, that is. We will see the connection with this topic in a little bit.

2. “Love.” There are two Greek words for this English word as used in the Scriptures: a) agapato-that which “seeks the welfare of all” (W. E. Vine) or the indication is “active good will.” b) phileo-“represents tender affection”, i.e. “the love of the Father for the Son” (W. E. Vine).

From these two usages of the word “love,” we can see that .the word was not intended to convey an “anticipation of pleasure.” To be more exact, the woman who used the alien definition was referring to an anticipation of sexual pleasure. That is, to “love” someone is to anticipate the sexual pleasure you hope to achieve in the relationship. Indeed, there is no room for this interpretation of the concept of love as the word was first used by our Lord!

Notice two further Biblical definitions:

3. “Pleasure”-from the Greek hedone. “The gratification of the natural desires or sinful desires” (W. E. Vine). Note again: pleasure is a fulfilling of the desires of sin (transgressions of law) and the natural desires of the flesh.

4. “lust”-from the Greek orexis. “A reaching or stretching after, a general term for every kind of desire . . . .

We wonder if the reader can see our point coming? From all that is Biblical, it cannot be said that love is something as lowly as the seeking after of the fleshly desires of man. Love is of a higher estate. It is a. tender affection between two individuals akin to the divine union between Christ and the Father, or it can be a feeling of active good will toward others.

Then what is a word for “anticipation of sexual pleasure”? Notice again definitions number three and four. Anticipation of pleasure is simply lust, To put it as Webster might have and the way our young “free-love” advocate should have: “Lust is the anticipation of pleasure.”

What we really have is a modern day demonstration of the age-old attempt at making that which is sinful appear to others to be a form of righteousness. To a “”free lover,” immoral sexual practices have become the center of his existence and he cannot bring himself to live with labels which brand him for what he is. So he calls his practice “love” hoping that in giving his sin a respectable name he can deceive others into believing that sin is not sin.

Yet the truth still remains in force: that sin is the transgression of law. God has given men and women a lawful way to fulfill the natural desires of the flesh, and this is in the union of marriage (Gen. 2:24; 1 Cor. 7:6-9). This is God’s law on the matter. Any other form of gratification of natural desires is a transgression of law-it is sin. Sexual activity is the result of lust, but God, who has promised a way to escape all temptation unto sin (1 Cor. 10:13), has granted unto us the way of marriage. But this God has not labeled the lawful or unlawful methods of fulfilling the natural desires “love.” Lust is lust. We are to choose between a lawful or an unlawful way to gratify such lust. But we are not free to make any transgression appear to be better than what it is by changing the labels!

It is no wonder then that the same people who have changed the word “lust” to “love” have also called for the overthrow of the institution of marriage. It is a natural impulse for the ungodly to try to destroy all that is good and right as they themselves go down in sin. An attempt must be made to justify their sinful actions to themselves-to someone-and opposition to godliness becomes the twisted solution.

Let us learn what we can from this and similar lessons. If what we learn is a motivation to gird up our loins and prepare to battle those who oppose our Lord in this matter, then so be it. The kingdom will be better for it. But let us learn also that there is yet a better form of pleasure we as God’s people can enjoy. In the Greek, the word for this pleasure is eudokia: “good pleasure; implies a gracious purpose, a good object being in view” (W. E. Vine). Let us learn to recognize sinful and righteous pleasures in this life and to seek. and do that which is pleasing to God. Our lives on this earth can only be more fulfilling, and we will find that we will gain our eternal home with the Father from this wisdom. In fact, as we examine the above definition of eudokia, is not the good pleasures that achieve gracious purposes the beginning of active good will toward others? We close by concluding that “Love is . . . active good will.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 41, pp. 647-648
August 28, 1975

By Earl E. Robertson

Ricky McPherson

Ricky Terrell McPherson, the oldest son of Randall and Beatrice McPherson, died in a three-vehicle accident some five miles east of Glasgow, Kentucky, Friday night July 18th. Ricky was born April 3, 1957. His father has been preaching the gospel for nearly a quarter of a century, laboring in areas that most of us believe to be difficult. Ricky heard the truth all of his life and witnessed it as practiced in his home. Through such influence, he, early in life, obeyed the gospel of Christ. Through the intervening years he was faithful to Christ and assisted his father in many ways as he did the work of the Lord.

Ricky loved people and the people loved him!! He was among the top athletes in all southern Kentucky. Though he was to have been a Senior in High School this Fall, many Universities had already contacted him about entering their schools and playing basketball. The love and esteem others had for this young man was seen in the hundreds and hundreds of people who came from near and far upon his death. It was perhaps the largest funeral ever conducted in Burkesville, Kentucky. His funeral services were conducted by this writer on Monday morning at ten o’clock from the Norris-Funeral Chapel and his body was interred in the Christian Chapel Cemetery near the McPherson home.

We sorrow with the McPherson family in their loss of one of the finest young men we have ever known. May the God of all comfort bless and sustain them now as He has so cared for all of us through life.

Truth Magazine XIX: 41, p. 646
August 28, 1975

By Cecil Willis

We have been discussing various phases of the subject of faith. We have pointed out the evidences supporting our faith in God, in Christ as being the Son of God, and our reasons for believing the Bible to be the revelation of God to man. After discussing those things we then proceeded into a discussion of faith viewed subjectively. We studied the necessity of having faith, and then studied together how that faith was produced. We learned from the word of God that men are made believers by the word. In our last lesson, we stated that the Holy Spirit produces faith in one’s heart, but we then harmonized this statement with the one which said that faith came by hearing the word of God, by pointing out that the Bible, the word of God, was given to us by the Holy Spirit. Thus as we were made believers by the word of God, we were made believers by the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit gave us the word of God.

Now we want to turn our attention to an investigation of the nature of this power that produces the faith. Today the religious world has so mystified salvation that one hardly knows what to expect when he is saved. They tell us that first of all the Holy Spirit must descend upon one and operate directly upon his heart, and by this operation faith is produced. One must pray until God decides to send the Holy Spirit unto him; and until God decides to give him the Holy Spirit, it is impossible for him to be saved. But one might inquire, “What is the direct operation of the Holy Spirit?” There is not one person who claims to have received the Holy Spirit who can give a definition of what he has received that is agreeable to others who claim to have received the same thing.

If the reader does not think this is true, then sometime, when one of your friends tells you that he has gotten the Holy Spirit, question him about it. The only thing that he can tell you about it is that it is wonderful to have Him. This so-called operation of God is always clothed in a veil of mystery. The reception of the Spirit occurs in some odd way, and under strange circumstances. Those who try to explain what they supposedly have received use three or four nebulous, abstract phrases, and then proclaim that you cannot understand it for you have not received the Holy Spirit. As someone crudely put it: “It is better felt than telt!”

Consequence of a “Direct” Operation

Friends, I humbly ask this question: Is the power that God exerts to induce men to believe a power that is addressed to the human understanding and intelligence, or is it a subtle power of the Spirit sent immediately from God to operate upon man in some mysterious and incomprehensible manner? It cannot be this subtle power as taught by modern sensationalist, for a number of reasons.

First of all, if a man is made a believer by an immediate power from God, without the intervention of any medium, power or instrumentality, then he is made a believer without the mediator, Christ Jesus. A mediator is one who stands between two. Christ is the mediator between God and man. Denominationalists say that one is made a believer by a “direct” operation of the Holy Spirit, and they frequently define “direct” by saying they mean “without medium or instrumentality.” If there is no medium, then there could be no mediator. Denominationalists are going to say that this is a misrepresentation of their views, but one can judge their views only by the words they use to express them, and we cannot be held responsible for the mis-use of words which they might employ in stating what they believe. They deny the necessity of the mediator.

Secondly, if their contention as to how faith is produced be the correct one, then they set aside the mission of the church. One of the missions of the church is to support and to propagate the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and by thus making known the truth, men are to be saved. But if faith comes without the proclamation of the gospel, then men are saved without the work of the church and thus its mission is vitiated.

Thirdly, this view sets aside the mission of the apostles. The apostles were to preach the gospel to the whole world, so that after hearing the message the world could believe it and thus be saved by it. Christ said, “Neither for these only (apostles-CM do I pray, but for all them that believe on me through their word, that they might be one Father, as thou art in me, and I in thee, that they may all be one in us, that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (Jn. 17:20, 21). Christ declared that men are made believers through the words of the apostles, but the doctrine of denominationalism says that they are made believers “directly.” If this be so, then the entire mission of the apostles likewise is set aside as being unnecessary.

In the fourth place, this false doctrine sets aside the gospel entirely in making believers and in turning men to God. The doctrine says that God produces faith directly, and if it is done directly, it could not be done through the gospel.

Fifth, the doctrine sets aside the Bible, tracts, religious journals and bulletins, evangelists, and all similar works, as being unnecessary in making men believers. These things would all be instruments used in making men believers, but if faith is produced without instrument, then these things could not be essentials.

Sixth, the conducting of evangelistic meetings are also made non-essential. If God makes men believers directly, then He is going to do it whether we have the gospel meeting or not, and so it is a waste of time, money and effort to have meetings, if this doctrine be true.

What the Bible Says

I know that you could not believe this doctrine if you only considered these consequences of it, but let us note some scriptures which show how people are to be saved. In a previous article we pointed out a number of passages teaching that men are made believers through the word, but now let us note that the power exerted through the word is a power that appeals to the intelligence of man, and is not some power that is inexplicable, non-intelligent, and mysterious. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). The power in the gospel is the power of intelligence. It contains divine intelligence, and thus it is addressed to men and women of intelligence. When honest souls hear it, they are moved by this divine message to believe it and obey it. “For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). It was by the gospel that they were begotten unto a new life or new birth, and did not occur as modern teachers would have us to believe it occurred. They refer to receiving of the Holy Spirit miraculously as the new birth, but Paul says that it is by the gospel that we are begotten. It was not in >ome mystical manner that the Corinthians were iegotten, but when Paul brought the power of the gospel to bear upon their intelligence, they were moved to respond to it.

The Lord defined the plan of salvation as a teaching process, rather than something that you are “to get.” Today the denominationalists teach that we must “get” the Holy Spirit before one can learn the things of the Spirit. It is a matter of getting the Spirit, and as one gets the Holy Spirit, he is said to have gotten salvation. And then, having received both the Holy Spirit and salvation, he may be taught the things of the Spirit. Christ said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:15, 16). They were to be taught in order that they may be saved. The gospel was that which they were to teach. It was such that it would appeal to the intellect of man, and once being taught the gospel, man could be saved by obedience to it by believing and being baptized according to its commands. In Matthew’s parallel account of the great commission, “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19, 20). The gospel was something to be taught and not something to be gotten, and yet Paul said in Rom. 1:16 that the gospel was the power of God unto salvation. So, salvation is something that appeals to the intelligence of man, and something the conditions of which must be taught to man.

Further, the Lord said to Paul, “But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end .have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister, and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:16-18). Paul was to be responsible for teaching the Gentiles that they might have remission of sins and an inheritance, but it was to come through teaching, and not through some mysterious means. It was by the power of instruction that appealed to the intelligence that their faith was to come.

Paul says, “It pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). In every instance of the conversion of man in the New Testament, someone taught him the things that he had to know. It was always done through preaching that appealed to the intelligence. “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (Jas. 1:18). “Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth” (I Pet. 1:23).

The Power of God Unto Salvation

“The Almighty puts forth intelligence through Christ, through the Apostles, through the Holy Spirit, and through the Gospel, preached by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, to the understanding and heart of the sinner, makes him a believer, and turns him to the Lord. This work Is In some instances, ascribed to God; In some instances, to Christ; in some instances to the apostles; in some instances to the Holy Spirit; and, in some instances, to the Word. But he who would express the whole, in one sentence, says God does this work through Christ, the apostles, the Holy Spirit, and the Gospel. But it is the same, no matter whether ascribed to God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the apostles, or the Word. The power of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit is put forth, through the gospel, to save man.” (Benjamin Franklin, the Gospel Preacher, Vol. I, pp. 74, 75.)

Objections Raised

But someone objects and asks: “Is there power in the mere word to quicken a sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, and turn him to God? Is there power in ink and paper?” First of all, men of faith do not refer to the word of God as the mere word. We read, “For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any twoedged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and. intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The Bible is not the dead letter that some would have you believe it is. But pause and reflect for a moment: If God chose to exert power through His word, wouldn’t it be the same power as though God were to choose to do it directly? One need not argue the power of the word of God when its power is continually being demonstrated. We see the stouthearted made submissive, the haughty made humble, the strong man made to cry, as they are brought face to face with the teaching of our Father as it is revealed in His word.

If God sends saving power directly upon the sinner without any medium, then why would a church send gospel preachers to a foreign land to teach them about God? If God should decide to save them, He would do it whether they were taught the Bible or not. If the doctrine be true, and if they were taught, but God did not decide to send them saving power, they still could not be saved. Denominationalists betray their doctrine of a direct operational saving power every time they send a preacher into a foreign land or even every time they have a meeting. These things are not necessary, if what they teach is true.

Friends, where is the justice in sending one man to hell for not believing, and in sending, another man to heaven for believing, if God is the miraculous sender of faith? It is no longer the responsibility of the man for not believing, but it becomes God’s responsibility for his unbelief, if this doctrine be true. I have talked to men who have told me that they were just as sincere as they possibly could be when they went down to the front of a meeting house of some denomination and prayed for the saving power. One time a man told me, “I stand before God, and He knows thqt I wanted to get the Holy Spirit, but J couldn’t.” According to the doctrine here being discussed, if he died and went to hell, it would not be his fault. One has the same right to believe this man in what he said about wanting “to get” the Holy Spirit as he does to believe others when they say they `got” the Holy Spirit. There would be no justice to such an action if God sends salvation directly.

God does not produce faith in some non-intelligent manner, but through the gospel of Christ men are begotten again unto a living hope. It is a power that is addressed to the intelligence of man. Thus we plead with you to study the word of God and by the evidences presented therein believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and obey the commandments contained in the gospel that you might some day stand in the presence of God justified eternally.

Truth Magazine XIX: 41, pp. 643-646
August 28, 1975

By John McCort

One of the subjects most frequently discussed these days is the subject of “necessary inference.” Many are questioning the validity of binding doctrines on others which have been derived from the Scriptures by necessary inference. More specifically, a few brethren are now denying the necessity of partaking of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week because the practice of communing every Lord’s Day is derived from the Bible only by necessary inference. The Scriptures nowhere directly command that Christians observe the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week. It is necessarily inferred that such was done weekly. We have the example of the New Testament Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) and thus it is necessarily inferred that if we follow the example of the New Testament Christians, we will observe the Lord’s Supper when the first day of the week comes around. (Consider also the weekly observance of the Sabbath by the children of Israel.)

To some the term “Necessary Inference” sounds rather ominous. Some visualize a dark and complicated reasoning method when they hear the phrase “necessary inference.” Necessary inference is a reasoning process that is used unconsciously by all in studying the Bible. In studying the cases of conversion in the book of Acts we find the apostles commanding the people to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). It is a necessary inference that we, today, are likewise commanded to do the same.

The Lord demands that we use necessary inference in determining that he exists. “For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). The Lord revealed himself unto man through “the things that are made.” We are expected to observe the evidence of His existence in the universe and necessarily infer that God must exist. The Lord made the gathering of evidence and drawing the necessary conclusions and inferences about His existence a matter of salvation and thus a test of fellowship. Those who did not draw the proper conclusions about His existence from the evidence in the universe were held “without excuse” in the eyes of God.

In studying the subject of baptism, it is impossible to determine, from the scriptures that baptism is immersion without using necessary inference. Suppose, momentarily, that an individual did not have access to a Greek lexicon or dictionary and had no idea whether baptism was sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. That individual could not determine that baptism was immersion without employing necessary inference. John 3:23, “And John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized.” Sprinkling or pouring would not require “much water” and thus necessary inference would demand that baptism was immersion. Acts 8:38, “And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water . . . .” Again, it would be unnecessary for them to go down into the river if baptism was sprinkling or pouring. Rom. 6:3-4, “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we also might walk in newness of life.” It must be necessarily inferred that the subject being discussed by Paul is water baptism. It must also be inferred that the burial discussed is a burial in water and not a burial of our sins in the life of Christ. It must also be inferred that being raised to walk in newness of life refers to the Christian being raised out of the watery grave of baptism. The Bible never directly states that baptism is immersion. That fact can only be derived by necessary inference. Brethren, if all matters of inference and deduction are not to be excluded from being made tests of fellowship, then you are going to have to stop making immersion a test of fellowship.

Whether we realize it or not we all employ necessary inference in our study of the Bible. A great controversy has raged over the Greek word eis, in Acts 2:38: The Baptists have argued that the word eis means “because of, with a view toward, with reference to.” They have argued that we are baptized because of (eis) the remission of our sins. They have produced a prejudiced scholar or two to substantiate their point. The weight of evidence, though, points to the fact that the word eis means “unto, in order to.” Thus baptism would be necessary for the remission of sins. We must use necessary inference to determine that eis is to be translated “unto” rather than “because of.” We gather the evidence and logically infer that the weight of, evidence overwhelmingly determines that the, Baptist arguments are incorrect. In studying almost any controversial point of Scripture, we must employ necessary inference to determine what the truth of the matter is.

Truth Magazine XIX: 40, p. 637
August 21, 1975