Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

Everywhere we see evidence of design, planning, contrivance. Even in the animal world about us we see this. For example, there are some fowls, like the chicken, which have a crop (craw) where food is ground or prepared for preliminary maceration. These eat mostly grain and seeds of various kinds. Then there are those like the hawk, eagle, kite, etc., which eat meat. These have a stomach or digestive system entirely different from those like the chicken. Along with this stomach these birds must also have claws on their feet with which to catch the rabbit, mouse, or what ever kind of meat is available. He must also have a hooked bill with which to tear the meat after he catches the prey. Can’t you just see what would result if a bird was hatched with the hooked bill and stomach for eating meat but with feet like a duck? Or vice versa, if he had the feet with the talon, the stomach for meat, and a bill like a goose? But, not only must the various organs of his body conform in this manner, but his surroundings must also be in conformity.

The peculiar bill and tongue and claws of the woodpecker, determine that he search for his food behind the bark of decayed trees where there are insects lodged. If there were no trees with worms in them his special bill and feet and tongue would be of no use. According to the theory of evolution, the various characteristics of these fowls were developed out of necessity as a result of their surroundings. So the woodpecker developed his tongue with the barb on the end, so he could reach into the hole he had made with his unique bill while he was hanging on to the tree with his unusual feet and spear his worm which chance and fate had stored in that tree for him. Now this all comes natural to the 20th Century woodpecker. He has been that way all his life. But how about that woodpecker before evolution developed him all these wonderful accessories? Remember it takes “millions of years” for these changes to become apparent. The old timers must have had it tough. I can’t help wondering also why the worm didn’t develop some sort of escape mechanism for himself while Mr. Woodpecker was accumulating all these features. The worm doesn’t seem to have much going for him, but he is still around.

Then you take the rabbit. Everything that eats meat seems to like rabbit. Not only that, but the poor rabbit has no defense but his color and his speed. Yet after all these years that he has been the victim of all kinds of cats and dogs and wolves and men, there are more rabbits than there are cats and dogs and wolves. Why? I would ride a mule bare-back with a blind bridle and slick bit, twenty miles, to hear some champion of the theory of organic evolution explain how the early rabbits managed to step up the production to stay ahead of the enemy like they have. It won’t do to say that the rabbits with the longest legs ran the fastest and got away, so rabbits naturally developed longer legs, unless he can explain why the dogs and wolves didn’t also develop longer legs so they could catch him. They had an interest in this business too, you know, and they had as much time to do it in as the rabbit. Not only that, but the rabbits still get caught and “et.” So the only explanation, as I see it, is in the production. The rabbits just had to step up production.

There is a wasp that stings the grasshopper in just the right place to paralyze him but not to kill him. This preserves him alive. Then she puts him in a hole, lays her eggs in that hole, and covers both the eggs and the grasshopper. When the eggs hatch the little wasps have food from the grasshopper until they are big enough to make other arrangements. How did the wasp find out just where to sting this fellow without killing him? Instinct of course. But what is instinct, and how did it begin? Where did he get it? There is no creator, no intelligence behind all this, you know. It just happened this way. Such words as “time” and “instinct” cover a multitude of assumptions. When the exponent of evolution is pressed for an answer to some of these things he either “passes” or takes refuge in his favorite mantle, “given enough time.” Reminds me of the doctor who didn’t know what was wrong with his patient. The patient pressed for a diagnosis. The doctor asked, “Have you ever had this before?” “Yes, once,” the patient replied. “Well,” said the physician, “You got it again.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 39, p. 615
August 14, 1975

By Cecil Willis

Last week in our lesson we pointed out the necessity of man having faith in his heart in order to be saved. Without faith one cannot receive the remission of his sins, he cannot live the life that God intends that he live here in the flesh, nor can he enter heaven in the world to come. Faith is an indispensable item. It must be present or man cannot be saved.

Since we see that faith is so necessary, the question then arises, “How is that faith produced?” Faith is the remedy God has prescribed for man’s sins, but where can that remedy be found? If we should go to a doctor and he should diagnose our case and then prescribe some rare medicine, but should fail to tell us where this medicine could be obtained, we would have been bettered but little, if any. So it is with faith. How is it produced? What means does the Father use to induce men to believe?

Two Theories

As to how faith is produced there are at least two theories that are very prevalently taught. These theories are so diametrically opposed to each other that they are mutually exclusive. That is, if one is right, the other must be wrong. They cannot both be right. When people recognize that the two positions are completely contradictory, then it is foolish of them to talk about love and charity to the extent that they are willing to concede that both are right. They cannot both be right or they would not be contradictory, by the very definition of a contradiction.

What are these theories as to how men are made believers? One theory says that God puts forth an immediate power, or influence of the Holy Spirit from Himself and produces faith in the heart of man. God puts forth a direct influence from His throne in heaven unto the mind of man here on earth and produces faith in his heart. The idea is that the Holy Spirit independently of any medium or instrumentality operates on the sinner’s heart and makes him a believer.

The other theory is that God puts forth his power or influence through Christ, the apostles, through the Holy Spirit that was in and inspired the apostles, and through the gospel preached by the apostles, to make men believers. This theory says that God uses a medium, an instrument to produce faith, and this instrument is the Word of God as delivered by the apostles inspired of the Holy Spirit.

Now as we have said, both of these theories cannot be true. If God does this directly, it could not be with a medium or an instrument, namely the Word of God. If God sends a direct power upon the hearts of the unbeliever, then it could not be done by the Bible, the Word of God. Both of these positions cannot be true, and therefore, there must be some way of determining just which one is right.

Relying on Human Testimony

In our discussion, what can we use as a standard by which we can determine which of these theories is right. Shall we use human testimony? But why ask that, one might inquire? Simply because that is the way that the doctrine of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart of the unbeliever is often times substantiated. One will say, “I was not reading or hearing the word, but I was made a believer by an immediate power.” It is something that they cannot explain, but they just know that it happened. Now I humbly ‘ask you, is human testimony on the subject to be the criterion of truth? If it is, then the nature of truth has been changed. Truth is no longer uniform, but it becomes a variable. If the testimony of one man is going to be accepted as truth, then consistency would say accept the testimony of all men as truth. If I should say “It is raining outside,” and another should say, “No, it is not raining,” then the argument for the acceptance of human testimony would say that both are right and that it is both raining and not raining, which is wholly insensible and irrational.

We have human testimony for the truthfulness of Mormonism, Quakerism, Shakerism, Shintoism, but does this human testimony guarantee that it is true? Certainly not! There must be a standard over and above human testimony or no uniform truth can be learned, and so we turn to the Bible and we hear Jesus say, “Thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). We accept the Bible as our standard.

What the Issue Is Not

Now for the sake of clarity, let us note some things that are not the issue. The issue is not whether God makes men believers, for if God did it directly or should choose the Word as a medium through which faith is to be produced, it is still the same God that is producing the faith. It is not whether God does it by His power, for either way it is done it is still done by the power of God. The issue is not whether God does it by the Holy Spirit, for if God does it through the Holy Spirit directly or through the Word of God as delivered unto the apostles through the Holy Spirit, it is still the Spirit doing it.

What, then, is the issue? It is whether God makes men believers through the word of the apostles, or whether he does it through some immediate, direct power of the Holy Spirit.

What the Bible Has to Say

The first scripture to which we invite attention is Luke 8:5; Christ said, “The sower went forth to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden under foot, and the birds of the heaven devoured it.”

The disciples then asked Christ to explain this parable to them, and He did so in this manner: “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil, and taken away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved” (Luke 8:11, 12). In his explanation of this parable, the Lord said that the seed that was sown was the word of God. The fruit that was sought was faith. We know, for Christ said that the devil snatched away the Word lest they should believe. Without the planting of the seed, fruit could never be produced; neither could faith ever be produced without the planting of the seed of the kingdom, even the word of the Lord. The devil knew very well what he ought to take away if he was to thwart the purpose of the sower. He should take away the seed if he was going to prevent the harvest of the fruit. Consequently, he took away the word from their heart, lest they should believe and be saved. If the word was not that which produced the faith in their heart, then what good would it do for the devil to take away the word if he wanted to prevent their believing? The devil knew that the Word of God would produce faith in one’s heart, therefore he took it away to keep men from being persuaded, believing and being saved.

Let us now notice another scripture that tells us what produces faith in the heart of a man. All are familiar with the conversion of the first Gentile to Christianity, but let us rehearse some of the more significant details as they relate to our present study. As Cornelius gave his own account of the events, and as Peter related Cornelius’ account of the matter, we find that God did not send the Holy Spirit to Cornelius while he was in Caesarea and give him faith, as I have heard denominational preachers say. They say that God sends the sinner faith just like He does rain. We are told the sinner has nothing to do with it at all. God did not send Cornelius faith, but He told him where he could find a preacher, and then He sent the Spirit who appeared unto Peter and told him to go to Caesarea and teach Cornelius. Notice how Peter tells the Jewish brethren what Cornelius had told him: “and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house” (Acts 11:13, 14). How was Cornelius to be saved? He was to be told “words whereby thou shalt be saved.” This is perfectly consistent with Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 1:21: “For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe.”

Sometime later there arose some controversy as to the matter of circumcision and so in Jerusalem Peter again related the matters as they occurred in the conversion of Cornelius. “And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter. And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them. Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:6, 7), Peter said that the Gentiles should become believers by the hearing. Hearing what; by the hearing of the still small voice that so many today say caused them to believe? No, by the hearing of the word of the gospel by his mouth. Faith was to come by hearing the gospel. Peter says that you are made believers by hearing the gospel, and if Peter is right when he says faith comes by hearing the gospel, then the people today who say that the Holy Spirit operates directly upon the heart to save are wrong. Which shall we believe? The words of Peter the apostle, or the testimony of some man as to how he was made a believer.

Our Lord made a plea unto the Father that his disciples may all be united, “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us; that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (John 17:20, 21). What is said? Christ said, ‘I am not praying for just these alone.’ “These” who? “These” apostles, the disciples, gathered about Him. What about them Lord? ‘I am not praying for the apostles alone, but for all them that believe on me through their word.’ This prayer embraced the church in all ages, every disciple of the Lord. But how are they made believers? Christ said, ‘I am praying for all them that believe on me, through their word.’ Christ here affirms that beievers are made through the words of the apostles. If there are persons who are believers through some means other than through the words of the apostles, then they are not included in this prayer uttered by our Lord. The Lord did not even pray for them, if such a class as this exists. This one passage should be sufficient to prove that men are made believers through the words of the apostles and not through the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

As John gave the purpose for the writing of his gospel, he very plainly stated how men are made believers, “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name” (John 20:30, 31). The stories that are recorded in the gospels, the biographies of Christ’s life, were put there that you may be moved to believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. The many mighty works, wonders and signs which He so unquestionably did are such definite proof that He was sent of God that John said that He had selected just a few of the many and written them down that they might, when read, produce faith also in the hearts of men and women. These things were written to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when this was accomplished the ones who believed it could have life in His name. What was the book that John had written? It definitely was the Gospel according to John, and those things written there are to produce faith. How are people made to believe? What means does God use to induce men to believe? John says it is the writing of men such as himself.

If there were not another passage in all of the Bible as to how men are made believers, the one that we are about to cite would be sufficient to close the discussion forever if men would only put confidence in what God has said to us and would put aside their notions and opinions. Paul says, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him. whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things! But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:13-17). Paul, how does faith come? ‘It conies by hearing.’ By hearing what, Paul? “By the hearing of the word of God” (KJV).

If these passages that we have just cited be true, then the doctrine taught today that the Holy Spirit has to send a person faith before he can believe is fallacious. These scriptures abundantly assert that faith is produced by the hearing of the word of God.

Conclusion

Still as we have said, this does not mean that God does not do it for God does it through His word. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit does not produce faith, for the Holy Spirit did it by delivering the word of God. It does not mean that faith is not produced by the power of God, for God exerted his power to produce faith through his word.

It will be our purpose next week to spend our time in a discussion of the part that the Holy Spirit plays in producing faith, and to show that it is not done by the Holy Spirit directly without instrumentality or medium but that the Holy Spirit does it through the Bible, the word of God.

Have you accepted the Bible statement as to how faith is produced in the heart of a man and given up the idea that it is done independently of the word of God? Paul says “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 39, pp. 611-614
August 14, 1975

By Jeffery Kingry

Jesus was utterly contemptuous of the efforts of the Jews to please God by form rather than substance, He accused them of rank hypocrisy. “This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mk. %:7, 8). He also accused them of the worst form of legalism: circumventing personal responsibility and calling it “service” given unto God.

Corban

“Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honor thy, father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father and mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do alight for his father and his mother” (Mk. 7:9-12).

The law required that “honor” be given unto the parents. The application that Jesus made is that this honor includes caring for their needs from the substance of the children (cf. Jas. 2:14-17). Yet the religious leaders of the day said that this responsibility can be neglected and overlooked if the support that would ordinarily go to the parents is given away to God’s temple. Here was an effort to circumvent responsibility given by God by offering it up in service in another area. Jesus’ point is that service to God does not conflict with any other responsibility given by God!

The Preacher’s Family

For years the brethren have looked to and admired the fine example set by the pioneer preachers. Buts there is one part of their life and work that is appalling. These men left their homes and family for months at a time to preach the Gospel. The “meeting preachers” who is gone six months and more a year from home is the modern heir of that heritage.

In the book The Life And Times of Elder Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin’s son Joseph wrote of the attitude of his father, and the effect it had upon his family. “He was never at home except in protracted meetings . . . the preacher himself, away from home much of the time, and in the society of brethren ready to make him comfortable, has comparatively an easy time ., . . It sends thrills of distress through his soul as he sits down to a table groaning under all the luxuries of the land to remember the scanty supply on the table spread for his wife and children at home . . .many a woman, under such experience, has either sickened and died prematurely, or living, become pettish and melancholy, so that neither she nor her children could ever be happy. But, Mrs. Franklin, left alone for more than half the time for many years, living often in some out-of-the-way place for economy’s sake, destitute of luxuries, and often poorly supplied with the necessities of life, cut off almost entirely from society, continued patiently, enduring all for husband and children’s sake, for Jesus’ sake, keeping up her spirits and living in hope, until, in God’s good providence a better day should come. Tears she shed-many bitter tears of sorrow and deprivation at her forlorn and almost widowed condition . . . many a time has her eldest son stopped in his childish pursuits and gazed upon her countenance as she sat looking afar through the window, yet evidently seeing nothing with the natural eye, and he wondered what she could be thinking of-why was she so sad? The quick maternal feeling would catch the gaze . . . would bid him go and play again; then, turning her head away, would wipe the unbidden tears from her eyes. The son would sometimes see that too, and go away more bewildered than ever” (pp. 69-71).

The wife of “Taccoon” John Smith died in grief after she lost her children for want of a father. She left her brother as a baby-sitter, as her husband was away as usual in a meeting, and went to a sick neighbor’s home. While she was gone, the house caught fire, and quickly burned to the ground. Two of her children were burned to death.

Brother Smith finally received word of the tragedy and made his way home as quickly as he could. But, his wife would not be comforted, and was buried in the earth beside the ashes of her two children (West, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 1, p. 245).

By what standard do we justify the tears of these wives, and the fears of their children? By what standard do we authorize a man neglecting his wife and family, leaving the burden of child-rearing, provision, and nurture upon a weary and lonely wife? By what eternal pattern do we excuse the hours of loneliness and longing of a faithful wife waiting for her husband to return home to hearth and bed? To what apology of righteousness do we attribute the unfaithfulness and resentment of the preacher’s children as they grow to maturity with only a “sometimes father”? It is corban. “That whereby thou mightest be profited by me is given as a gift unto God. And ye suffer him to do naught for his family . . .”

“His Commandments Are Not Grievous”

Jesus demanded that service truly rendered unto God does not conflict with any other responsibility given by God. The law of Christ says, “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it . . . nourish and cherish (her) . . . if any provide riot for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel . . . Likewise ye husbands dwell with (your wives .according to knowledge . . . that your prayers be not hindered . . . . Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence . . . defraud ye` trot one the other, except it be with consent for a time, a ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Cor. 7:3).

A preacher, like any other parent, has a responsibility to his children that he cannot call “corban” because he would like to hold thirty meetings a year, or so immerse himself in local work that he has no time for his children. The responsibility for raising children is put squarely on the shoulders of ,the father. “Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The “provide” of 1 Tim. 5:8 includes more than putting food on the table. A father can give all the “good things” of life to his children and still fail them by not providing them with the attention and time they need.

A brother in Christ once sought to justify his treatment of his family by saying, “It is not the quantity of the time I spend with them, but the quality.” This is true only to the extent that quantity does not replace quality, but claiming that neglect is justified by the quality and intensity of the time spent when one is at home is wrong. Nothing replaces regular, consistent, repetitive parenthood and loving. Children need the confidence of having a home, consistency of two parents. A wife needs consistent “due benevolence.”

The Conflict

Scriptures deal with the evangelist’s responsibilities. In the “pastoral epistles” to Timothy and Titus, Paul’s instruction was of a local nature to be fulfilled on a continuing bassi in a local congregation. To be sure, Paul made a choice in the kind of “meeting work” he did. He laid the foundation, and left the building to others (1 Cor. 3:10). In doing the kind of work he chose, he willingly sacrificed his right to a family to do his work more effectively (1 Cor. 7:26, 27, 32, 33, 7)., But Paul had a right to have a wife and family, and still do the kind of work he did. But, he told us, by inference, how that kind of work was to be done: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” (1 Cor. 9:5)?

A man can be a preacher and a husband and a father, and not fail in any of his responsibilities. But, to “excel” as a preacher at the expense of one’s family is to incur the wrath of God. “This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 38, pp. 605-606
August 7, 1975

By Jimmy Thomas

Truth Magazine recently made an appeal for “first principle” articles. They reported barely enough on hand for one issue. An associate editor expressed fear that some might consider this request as a sign of their “mellowing” or going “soft.”

For some time I have been concerned about the lack of preaching designed to convert the lost, especially in gospel meetings. I have attended meeting after meeting without hearing one sermon devoted altogether to nonmembers. My book of sermons by preachers from yesteryear show that these men preached much on subjects like “Rightly Dividing the Word,” “Sin,” “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” “Examples of Conversion,” and “The Identity of the Church.” Such teaching challenged sinners and lead many to examine and embrace the truth.

Now-a-days meeting sermons are on “The Home,” “Christian Living,” “Attendance,” “Demonology,” “Archaeology,” etc. I have found that some brethren will really compliment a sermon on “dancing” and “mini-skirts,” but seem to care little for a lesson on “The Blood of Christ.” It also distresses me that preaching on these fundamentals might be mistaken by some as a sign of “softness.”

I have always felt that the “Big Meeting” was a time to bring your neighbors and friends to learn how to be saved. Not that it would not be good for them to hear other sermons, it is just that right now they need “first principles” worse.

Some say,”The church needs to be converted before we try to convert the world.” That may be true, but members can be taught, these things on Sundays throughout the year. Furthermore, most churches have had ample time to be converted if every they will be. I am not saying that sermons to Christians are wrong in a series of meetings, but they should not be the main thrust, unless the meeting is designed and announced for that purpose.

We are not baptizing many during meetings anymore. Few “outsiders” even attend. Members are not working to get them to come. We think that if we have visitors from other congregations, our meetings are successful. I have even noticed that song leaders go through a whole meeting and never lead “Oh, Why Not To-Night” and “Almost Persuaded.” We are just not putting much emphasis on seeking the lost.

The old cliche is, “Well, that has been preached so much that everybody has heard it.” But, that is precisely the point at issue; everybody has not heard it. Those who are not Christians most certainly have not. Our children haven’t. And it is not going to hurt any of us older members to hear it again. I dare say, some couldn’t tell another how to be saved anyway. The old gospel story should always sound sweet to those who are saints.

Brethren, we need more of the old fashioned preaching on “Faith,” “Repentance,” and “Baptism.” If we don’t get to it at once, a greater apostasy than any of us has ever seen may loom upon the horizon.

(from the Bulletin of the Hickory Heights Church of Christ; Lewisburg, Tennessee.)

Truth Magazine XIX: 39, p. 604
August 7, 1975