Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“It is my belief that it is entirely unimportant what god one worships, monotheistic or polytheistic; what is important is that belief should produce the true spirit of devotion in the life of the worshiper” (The Wisdom of China And India, p. 13).

Probably very few of our readers would agree with the above quote. Members of denominational churches believe it is important “what god one worships.” In this they are correct. The Bible teaches that there is but “One God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:6). As ancient Israel was commanded, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3), so are we instructed (1 Cor. 8:4-6; 10:14; 1 Jn. 5:21). Truly, as God has said of Himself, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6).

While it is true that faith or belief should produce “the true spirit of devotion in the life of the worshiper,” it is not true that “it is entirely unimportant what god one worships.”

Parallel Statements

Let us make a few statements Which are parallel to the opening quotation and see if you will agree or disagree with them.

(1) “It is my belief that it is unimportant what Savior saves you. What is important is that you are saved.”

Most who claim to be saved would surely resent anyone who would dare say that you can have the Savior of your choice. “It does not make any difference who saves you, just so you are saved.” Whether you are a Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran; or a Methodist, you surely do not believe that the Savior is unimportant. Jesus is the Savior, and “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). Buddha cannot save. No man can save, therefore, the Savior is important. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

(2) “It is my belief that it is entirely unimportant what blood one depends upon for cleansing from sin, whether the blood of animals, the blood of Abraham Lincoln, or the blood of Jesus Christ, what is important is that one is cleansed from his sins by blood.”

What a blasphemous statement! Who is it that claims to be a follower of the Lord that can agree with such an utterance? Surely, none can! The blood of Jesus is the “blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). Christ made spiritual “peace through the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20). We are “justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9). Apart from the blood of Christ, there is no cleansing from sin. Lincoln was a great man, but all the blood his heart could pump in a thousand years could never atone for one sin of one man. Not a drop of all the blood of all the animals who ever lived can take away sins, for Jesus is the one “that loved us, and washed away our sins in his own blood” (Rev. 1:5).

Agreed So Far?

Thus far I suppose most all who profess to be children of God are agreed. That is as it should be. What we have agreed upon is:

A. Not prejudiced opinion.

B. Not what a church creed book says.

C. Not what any mere man has said.

But we have agreed upon what the word of God says. As long as we are willing to go by the Bible, we will be agreed.

(3) “It is my belief that it is entirely unimportant ;what church you are a member of, whether Catholic or Protestant, what is important is that you are a member of some church and that you are worshiping God in the church of your choice.”

Now, perhaps, we have our first open division and disagreement. However, a return to the same standard, the Bible, as we used to establish our earlier unity will promote and provide harmony on’ this point also. Some of our readers, may concur that the church is “entirely unimportant,” but the issue is not, “How many agree?” The issue is, “What does the Bible teach? Does the bible agree with that sentiment?”

We noted from Ephesians 4:6 that there is one God. We learned from Ephesians 4:5 that there is one Lord, one Savior, Jesus. To these points we agreed because that is what the Bible says. In Ephesians 4:4, the word of God says, “There is one body.” This body, the “one body,” is the church. Christ is the “head over all things to the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22, 23; Cola 1:18). There are many members of the body, the church, yet there is “but one body,” or church (1 Cor. 12:20).

In Ephesians 2:16 we find that one is reconciled “unto God in one body.” Remember, that “one body,” is “the church,” and there is “but one body,” or church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22, 23). If we are reconciled unto God, we are in that one body, for Paul says that it is the realm, the sphere of reconciliation. Furthermore, Christ. is “the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). How, in light of this, can one say the church is “entirely unimportant?” Can that which Christ loved and purchased with his precious blood be “entirely unimportant?” See Acts 20:28 and Ephesians 5:25.

Do you agree or disagree? Again, as in each case before, we have cited-Scripture to sustain the truth and to deny the opening statement. If you now disagree with these Scriptures concerning the “one church,” what right do you have to demand that I agree that the blood of Jesus is superior to the blood of animals? Why insist that Christ, not Buddha, is the Savior? After all, if you can deny what the Bible teaches about the church, why cannot someone else deny what it teaches about Christ being the Savior? Surely, you see that the Bible is right. You see the truth about the church-“There is one body.” Now that you see the truth, accept it, believe it, obey it and be saved (1 Pet. 1:22; Heb. 5:8, 9).

Truth Magazine XIX: 31, p. 482
June 12, 1975

By Steve Wolfgang

“Buy the truth and sell it not; yea, wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Prov. 23:23, ASV). In this proverb, the Wise Preacher has distilled for the ages a principle which is as applicable today as it was when first spoken thousands of years ago. Keil and Delitzsch comment perceptively on the passage as follows:

“To buy the truth, i.e. to shun no expense, no privation, no effort, in order to attain to the possession of wisdom; and to sell it not, i.e. not to place it over against any earthly possession, worldly gain, sensual enjoyment.”

Although spoken before the gospel was first preached in its fulness, these words of wisdom present several fundamental concepts which can be found repeatedly in the New Testament.

Buying: Count the Cost

The idea of “buying the truth” may involve several things. Jesus clearly taught that there would be some expense involved . in becoming citizens of the kingdom of heaven. We may be called upon to sacrifice “social prestige,” or to surrender things which are momentarily pleasurable in order to receive a more enduring kind of happiness and fulfillment. It may be necessary for us to surrender financial “security” or to cease to be involved in questionable practices which might be profitable to those who are not Christians. We may even come to be estranged from family or close friends (cf: Matt. 8:19-22; Lk. 10:57-62). Jesus plainly taught that we need to count the cost which may be involved. One who intends to wait until it will be “easy” for him to change and become a Christian, when he will not have to give up anything, or until there is nothing left to prevent him from so doing, will likely go to his grave still waiting. We need rather to “calculate” the stakes involved and act accordingly (cf. Lk. 14:25-33).

“One Pearl of Great Price”

But it is equally evident that our Lord taught that whatever the cost of discovering the truth, it is not (in the words of the apostle Paul) “worthy to be compared with, the glory which shall be revealed to usward” (Rom. 8:18). Jesus expressed it in these words:

“The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a merchant seeking costly pearls; and having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had, and bought it” (Matt. 13:44-46)

“And Sell It Not”

But the quest for and acquisition of the truth is only one half of the proverb-and the fact that the wise man felt constrained to include the second portion indicates that he understood a sad fact about human nature-the tendency to lose our zeal, or our sense of perspective and value, as time progresses. Centuries of church history, and Biblical history as well, bear mute witness of the multitudes who, having once grasped the truth, held it not fast “unto the end” (cf. Heb. 3:5-6, 12-14; 6:11-12; Rev. 2:10).

Selling It Out: Apostasy

Jesus Himself taught that there would be many vvho, having once heard the truth, would have it “choked out” (cf. Lk. 8:4-15). One need not even peruse the pages of church history to see the innumerable demonstrations of this principle; even in our own generation there are ample examples of those who, through discouragement, for the praise of men, out of a love for “the wisdom of the world,” because of malcontentedness, or for an unnumbered host of other reasons, have “sold out” the gospel, and thus their spiritual inheritance, for a “mess of pottage” (cf. Gen. 25:27-34; Heb. 12:14-17).

Selling It Short

But there is another way of “selling the truth” which occurs, perhaps, more often than common apostasy, and which, because of its subtle nature, is more apt to affect faithful Christians; it is selling short the power of the gospel to save those who will believe it (Rom. 1:16-17). When we believe that the gospel cannot save, and churches cannot grow, without some hot-shot, supercharged, well-educated, “full-time” preacher (whatever that may be), without a “good location” (translation: a new, quarter-million-dollar building, preferably “across the tracks” in a white, upper-middle-class section of town), or without some “super-dooper” special, mass communication program-brethren, we have sold short the saving power of the gospel of God! There is nothing wrong with a “located” preacher who receives his full financial support from a church, or with nice, commodious church buildings, or well-developed personal work “programs,” or congregations that are “friendly” toward the visitors; but these things are not the gospel. If the growth of the first-century church had been dependent upon these and other like things, it would never have survived to the dawn of the second century! It is the gospel which saves, and church buildings, teaching programs, located preachers, friendly Christians, etc., while useful, are merely means to the end of presenting the vibrant, soul-transforming word of God to as many people as possible. When we suppose that the gospel cannot save, or that people cannot and will not be converted, without these “extras,” are we not as guilty of “adding to” God’s word as those who festoon it with the doctrines of men and then follow such a perverted gospel straight into apostasy? May we each one encourage others to “buy the truth,” paying whatever price may be necessary, and strengthen our own resolve to “sell it not,” come what may!

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, p. 477
June 5, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the above caption, Bedford Andrews wrote in the Missionary Baptist Searchlight of February 10, 1975. He discussed the baptism of John in general and the reference in Mark 1:4 in particular. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Mr. Andrews correctly and scripturally concluded that in Mark 1:4 John “baptized in water all who repented and came for water baptism. That is all there is to it.” If that had been “all there is to it,” we would not be writing these lines, but Mr. Andrews could not resist making a few comments on Mark 1:4. “Notice,” said he, “in Mark 1:4 it says, `. . . baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.’ The word `for” as used here many times means “because of” instead of the other way it may be used. For example see verse 44 of the same chapter. Here the leper-already cleansed, mind you–is told to offer `for” thy cleansing. Now, did he offer to get to be clean, or because he was already clean? Well, Jesus had already cleansed him of leprosy and after cleansing told him to offer `for” it. How do we know this is the proper use of the word `for” in the term `. . . baptized for the remission of sins,’ Mark 1:4? Because those who repent of sin have everlasting life, are saved, born again, sons of God, in the family of God, etc. Acts 11:18; Gal. 3:26, and other Scriptures. Mind you, baptism is for the remission of sins, but the ones repenting, and only those, were baptized by John the Baptist; therefore, we must conclude `for” as used here to mean “because of” and not in order to obtain remission.”

Does This “For” Mean “Because of?”

Mr. Andrews tortured both his grammar and his doctrine. His argument on Mark 1:4 is based on the meaning of `for” in verse 44. Unfortunately, the Greek word “for” in verse 44 is peri,,,while in verse 4 it is eis. “For (pert) thy cleansing” appears in Mark 1:44 as quoted by Andrews, but it is “for (eis) the remission of sins” in verse 4.

After being healed of his leprosy, Jesus said, “See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them” (Mk. 1:44). The last expression of ‘for” is the Greek preposition, eis. It is “for (eis) a testimony unto them,” while the first phrase is “for (pert) thy cleansing.” To say the least, Mr. Andrews was careless. To say the worst, he was deceitful. Surely, he was simply unaware of his error.

But the leprous man was not formally cleansed. True, he was “cleansed” in that his “leprosy departed from him” (Mk. 1 1:42), but according to Leviticus 14:2-9, he was ceremonially unclean. The leprosy was healed (Cf. Mk. 1:42; Lev. 14:2). But he was “to be cleansed” after going through the prescribed ritual (Lev. 14:7, 8). Only on the seventh day was he declared “clean.” So, Mr. Andrews argument fails and falls whether or not the term “for” is the same or not

The leprous man was to offer “those things which Moses commanded for a testimony” (Mk. 1:44). The last ‘for” is the same word as appears in Mk. 1:4, “for the remission of sins.” Was the leper to offer “because of” a testimony, or “in order to” declare unto them? Certainly, he was to make the offerings, not because a testimony had been rendered, but in order to effect testimony unto them. So, the argument on “for” backfires. John baptized those penitent ones “for the remission of sins.” Compare Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38.

Repentance, Salvation, and Acts 11:18

Mr. Andrews says “those who repent of sin have everlasting life, are saved, born again, sons of God, in the family of God, etc. Acts 11:18; Gal. 3:26.” His statement is true only if he uses the term repentance as it is used in Acts 11:18. In this text, the Jews rejoiced that God had granted the Gentiles “repentance unto life.” This includes their believing in Christ and their obedience to the command to be baptized (Acts 10:34, 35, 43, 48). After their belief and baptism, it is said that God had “granted repentance unto life” unto the Gentiles. After, “mind you,” and not before.

However, if Mr. Andrews means that one has “everlasting life” and is saved the very moment he repents, he has himself in conflict with his doctrine. Missionary Baptist doctrine says repentance precedes, comes before, faith. Thus, if one is “born again” the moment he repents, he is “saved” and has “everlasting life” before he believes. Hence, Mr. Andrews would make faith unessential to salvation or at least subsequent to it.

And that is the way Andrews was using the term. He is considering repentance prior to baptism in Mark 1:4. At the point of repentance, one is “saved” and “born again,” he says. Thus, according to Andrews, one repents, is saved, and then is baptized “because of” the remission of sins. And since faith follows repentance in the Baptist Scheme, he has one not only “saved” before baptism but also before faith.

Mr. Andrew’s Predicament

Let us try that last paragraph on Mark 1:15. The Lord said, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” According to Andrew’s usage of Mark 1:4, one is “saved” and has “everlasting life” after he repents, but before he is baptized. Will he deny this logic on this passage? Let him attempt it. Compare Mark 1:4 and 1:15. On Mark 1:4, Andrews says, “Repent (be ‘saved, born again’) and then be baptized ‘because of the remission of sins.” That is the gist of his argument. Parallel-wise, let him explain the statement eleven verses later: “Repent ye (have ‘everlasting life, are saved, born again’) and believe the gospel.”

Mk. 1:4-(1) Repent (2) Salvation (3) Baptism

Mk. 1:15-(1) Repent (2) Salvation (3) Believe

IF NOT, WHY NOT?

In his haste to explain away any connection between baptism and the remission of sins, Mr. Andrews ‘has crossed himself and Baptist doctrine. Will he tell us why salvation comes before baptism in Mark 1:4 but why it does not come before faith in Mark 1:15? With his reasoning, one may use Acts 11:18 in considering Mark 1:15 as readily as he uses it in Mark 1:4. So, Andrews has salvation appearing before both belief and baptism.

Today, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his (Jesus’) name among all nations” in this manner: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10;10). “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, pp. 475-476
June 5, 1975

By H. L. Bruce

George Herbert once said, “He who cannot forgive others breaks the bridge over which he must pass himself.” Benjamin Franklin put it like this, “Doing injury puts you below your enemy; revenging one makes you but even with him; forgiving it sets you above him.” “Forgive and forget.” Charles Spurgeon said, “When you bury a mad dog, don’t leave his tail above the ground.” Many a man will be lost, not because he was a liar, adulterer, or murderer, but because he refused to forgive.

Terminology

There are seven words in the scripture which denote the idea of forgiveness, three in the Hebrew and four in the Greek. In the Hebrew Old Testament they are “kapar, ” to cover; “nasa, ” to bear-take away guilt; and “salah, ” to pardon. “Nasa” is used of both human and divine forgiveness. The other two, “Kapar” and “salah, ” are used only of divine forgiveness. In the Greek New Testament the words are “apolyein, ” “charizesthai, ” “aphesis” and `paresis.” “Apolyein” is found numerous times as “to put away,” e.g. a wife (Matt. 5:31), but only once to signify forgiveness (Luke 6:37). “Paresis” is also found only once (Rom. 5:23), and suggests “disregarding,” but without any suggestion of indifference. “Charizesthai” is used only by Luke and Paul, and only by the latter in the sense of “to forgive sins” (2 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13, etc.). It especially expresses the graciousness of God’s forgiveness.

The most common New Testament word for forgiveness is “aphesis.” It conveys the idea of “sending away” or “letting go.” The noun occurs fifteen times. The verb with the same meaning is used about forty times (see Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 226).

The God of heaven, through the greatest and grandest book that was ever written, offers unto us the most sublime blessings extant. Among those blessings, one will find the forgiveness of sins. Jehovah-God promised through the prophets and inspired the New Testament writers to confirm, that he would remember our sins no more (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12; 10:17). Through God’s communicated revelation, we find extensive teachings on remission of sins. In it we read, “I will heal their backslidings, I will love them freely” (Hos. 14:4). “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32).

The Need For Forgiveness

The need for forgiveness is universal. In Gal. 3:22, the apostle Paul wrote, “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” Along this same line, the apostle John concluded, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:810).

It is necessary that we not only recognize the scope of our guilt before God, but we must also have a forgiving heart. As a matter of scriptural ethics, there are no limitations whatever as to the number of times that we forgive others. Jesus taught that we extend forgiveness “seven times a day” (Luke 17:4), and until “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22). Limitlessness is the idea! We will not be forgiven of our heavenly Father if we fail to forgive others their transgressions (Matt. 6:14-15; 18:23-35). We should forgive, on and on, those who sin and turn to us for forgiveness.

Duty to Forgive

We are our brother’s keeper and we have a responsibility to each other. If a brother sins against us, we have a responsibility to try to save him. In Matt. 18:1518, Jesus said, “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” Another passage emphasizes the same enjoined obligation. Jesus said, in Luke 17:3, “Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him.” In far too many instances the obligation to rebuke a brother, with a view to his restoration, is completely ignored.

On the other hand, we also have a responsibility: If a brother has something against us, we have an obligation to go and seek reconciliation. Jesus said, in the sermon on the mount; “Therefore if thou bring thy gift before the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matt. 5:23-24).

According to this, we have an obligation either way: If we have been transgressed against, we have an obligation to go, rebuke and try to restore. If, on the other hand, we know of one who has “aught” against us we have a responsibility to go and be reconciled.

In many instances, the hard, cold truth is that problems exist when the involved parties do not want them solved. Grudges are held without any desire or intent to forgive. Then there are offenders who have too much adamant, stubborn pride to repent. When conditions like these exist, unsolved problems may be expected to linger. However, when all parties are respectively penitent and forgiving-conciliate and restoring-problems will soon be amended. We should heed and practice the inspired admonition, “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye” (Col. 3:13).

The Cost of Forgiveness

It is not only important that men have a forgiving attitude toward one another, but we all must receive forgiveness from God or else we will die in our sins and consequently, meet the Lord unprepared (see Jn. 8:21). In Revelation 21:27 we read, “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” To understand the importance of forgiveness, look to Calvary. Jesus Christ came into this wicked, sinful world, lived among men, died the ignominious death on Calvary’s cross for the sins of mankind. My friend, he died for us. The Hebrew writer said “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). In another text, the apostle Paul wrote, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). Christ died for us. He considered our sins important. His blood is the price paid. He poured it out that we might have forgiveness of sins. According to Luke, Jesus said, “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47).

Alien sinners need forgiveness. In their state of alienation, they are lost. In describing their plight to the brethren at Ephesus, the apostle Paul explained, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

In order for them to be saved, aliens must believe in the Deity of Jesus (Jn. 20:30-31, repent of their past and alien sins (Acts 17:30), confess Christ before men (Romans 10:9-10), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). In doing this, they enter Christ (Gal. 3:27). It is in Christ that “redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” can be enjoyed (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, pp. 470-471
June 5, 1975