Truth Magazine

By Jack Gibbert

An Open Letter To “Truth Magazine” & “Gospel Guardian “

February, 7, 1974

Dear Brethren,

(Editor’s Note: The following letter from Brother Jack Gibbert is more than one year old. Keep in mind as you read the letter that the GOSPEL GUARDIAN now has a new Editor and new owners, and should be appraised by its present contents, and not by what its former Editor or Associate Editors said, or did not say. We urge you to give the new GOSPEL GUARDIAN a fair hearing. But this letter mentions the infamous FAITH MAGAZINE, and judging by some proposals “Ms. Murray’s” legal counsel has made (if we will drop our suit against her, which we most gladly will do when she identifies the perpetrators of that dastardly deed), we may soon be able to reveal to you the names of those unmanly and slanderous composers and cartoonists of that cowardly piece of sleuce and lies which evidently was mailed to the address of nearly every faithful church in America. We all would like to give credit (??) to those anonymous “heroes,” and then we intend to forget about FAITH MAGAZINE. But everyone who had anything to do with that ignominious pamphlet probably never will live long enough to gain any appreciable respect in the eyes of brethren or other journalists,-Christians or non-Christians. As lasting as the infamy of that sneak attack upon Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 shall be the infamy of that catastrophic literary sneak attack called FAITH MAGAZINE. It’s creators likely will find it to be a millstone about their neck, and a serious blight upon their character so long as honorable and decent men live who witnessed the lowest and foulest literary blow of this century. When the names of those responsible for FAITH MAGAZINE become known to us, we will identify them for you. If these men were not such sneaking cowards, they would step forth and accept full responsibility for their mischief, but more than a year has past and not a single one of those literary assassins has had the courage, or repentance, to confess his sin and his crime. “Ms. Murray” is getting nervous and has indicated she is ready to give us the names of those associated with FAITH MAGAZINE within 20 days. You will be kept informed.-Cecil Willis)

The congregation meeting in Virginia Beach, Virginia is advertised in both Truth Magazine and the Guardian. For this reason and out of personal indebtedness to the “Guardian” I write the following.

We, as well as all congregations who advertise in Truth Magazine have been the recipients of a piece of pure trash called “Faith” magazine. Permit me some observations.

First, it is obvious the writers did not expect to change the beliefs of those who advertise in Truth Magazine. They knew they had no hope of getting any of us to stop advertising therein. What, then was the purpose of such a costly slick stab in the back? To divide, my brethren . . . to divide! The writers obviously have no love for the truth, the brethren or for the church; at least not that church we designate as “sound” and “faithful.” This paper is a machination designed to cause subscribers and advertisers of both papers to take sides, build walls and to divide faithful brethren. If they can divide us, maybe they can get us to side with their, “We Be Brethren” attitude.

Second, whoever, “Ms. Paula Murray” (named in the masthead of ‘Faith’) is, it’s evident she is not a faithful Christian. If “Ms.” Murray is in fact, “Mrs.” Murray, then as a faithful Christian woman she would want to do her husband honor by letting it be known she wears his name. If, on the other hand she is “Miss” Murray, she would not care to have her good Christian name identified with a movement designed to strip women of their God given role . . . that is of course, if she were a faithful Christian. Who then is, “Ms.” Murray? I suspect she is a “front” for some “man” (and I use the term advisedly) who needs the skirt of a “Ms.” to hide behind. The “Ms.” of this world have become so much like the “Mr.” of old, and the modern “Mr.” so much like the old fashioned “Miss” that it does not surprise me to find a modern “Mr.” hiding behind the skirts of a modern “Ms.” Now if the real “man” behind the “Ms.” will stand up please, we will address ourselves to him rather than his alter ego, Ms. Murray.

Brethren, we are not going to let it work. This congregation will continue to advertise in both papers . . . at least for the present. I will say however, like Brother Devore that while I will continue to take the “Guardian” I can not ask others to do so at this time.

That last sentence hurt me for a number of reasons. (1) My first subscription to a gospel paper was for the Guardian. (2) My first articles were printed in the Guardian. (3) When we began the faithful work in Myrtle Beach, S.C. it was the Guardian that helped us get off the ground. (4) The Guardian ran a full page article on Myrtle Beach and my work there. (5) When I got behind on my reading I let all my subscriptions run out except for the Guardian. Brethren, if there’s any emotional or personal reason to side with the “Guardian, ” I believe I have it.

About three years ago, while at the Florida lectures, I picked up some samples of Truth Magazine. When I got home and read them I realized that this was the kind of material that first attracted me to the Guardian but which was no longer appearing in its pages. The Guardian had become . . . well, “ho-hum.” Truly, I could never be led off by any error in it, I could not stay interested in an article long enough to finish it, let alone consider it.

At the lectures this year it was pointed out what a Gospel Preacher is. He is not the fellow who just says that baptism is an immersion; even the Catholic Bible has that taught in the foot notes. He does not even just say that the Lord’s church sang songs in worship; Clarke the Methodist commentator said that much. Nor does he just teach that the Lord’s church is made up of autonomous congregations; our liberal brethren do that. No, a Gospel preacher is the fellow who draws a circle around those things and declares that things outside of the circle, i.e., sprinkling, mechanical instruments and sponsoring churches, are wrong and will lead you straight to Hell. This, brethren, is what the Guardian has failed to do much of in the past three years . . . draw circles and name those things that are outside of it. It is my hope, and I am sure the hope of many others, that the Guardian will once again take up the chalk, go to the board and draw a circle.

BROTHERLY,

Jack Gibbert

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, pp. 294-295
March 20, 1975

By Cecil Willis

Last week we began our discussion of faith and pointed out that faith was nothing more than mental assent or intellectual persuasion to any given fact or promise which is outside the realm of the five senses, which faith is such that it must be based upon evidences presented. Since this faith which we have must be founded upon evidences presented, it is our purpose now to discuss the evidences supporting our faith in God.

The Christian finds himself obligated to give reasons for his faith as we read in 1 Peter 3:15: “But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord, being ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.” The hope that the Christian has of entering into eternal life is dependent upon the existence of such a Being as God that has the power to grant those things for which we hope. This passage, then places the responsibility upon every Christian to give the reasons for his faith in the existence of such a personality as God.

Man’s mind is so constructed that he cannot accept as a fact any idea for which there is no evidence. It might be that I will not investigate the evidence myself, but will place confidence in the idea because of the examination of the evidence by others in whom I have confidence. That evidence might either be correct or incorrect, yet it must be sufficient to persuade one’s mind or else he can have no faith in that idea. It is our purpose in our study to examine the evidence for God’s existence ever seeking for its honest conclusion.

The statesman, Jefferson said: “It is hard to believe in God, but much harder not to.” By this he meant that the evidence amassed for God’s existence was so overwhelming that one could do nothing but acquiesce and believe when confronted by such a mass of persuasive evidence as can be given for God’s existence.

Knowledge of Self

The first evidence which we want to consider for God’s existence is the knowledge of ourselves. One says: “How is it that I can argue to the existence of God from a knowledge of myself?” Let us just reflect for a few minutes about some things that each of us knows about himself. It is certain that no one of us understands everything that we should like to know about ourselves, but there are some things that man so universally knows of himself that they are beyond dispute.

Augustine, years ago, in disputing with the skeptics of his day, used an argument, which through Descartes, has come to be a famous one, concerning the thinking of the soul. His argument was, “I think, therefore I am.” From this argument, and from common sense, we know that we exist. From our existence and experience we know other things about ourselves. We choose to refer to all our knowledge concerning ourselves simply as the “knowledge of self.” Every person realizes that he has some limitations. There are some questions that he should like to answer, but because of human limitations he cannot. In every realm of human endeavor there are some limitations beyond which man cannot go. Therefore we can say that man has the idea that he is limited, finite, imperfect, evil and dependent. But the question arises, “In comparison to Whom does man measure as imperfect, finite, limited, evil and dependent?” There must be some Being to whom man is comparing himself when he says that he has these limitations. There must be some Being somewhere who knows no such limitations. Man cannot conceive the finite, except as he is compared to the infinite. Man cannot be reckoned imperfect except when compared to Him who is perfect. We cannot say we are dependent, except as we place ourselves along side Him who is independent. In every inadequacy, imperfection, limitation, and dependency of man, whether he is conscious of it or not, he is referring to Him who is not so limited, and that Being who is not bound by human limitations, the Christian calls God.

“We know God as that Being over against Whom we are perpetually set, upon Whom we completely depend, and to Whom we are finally responsible” (Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 160). The thought is expressed by John Calvin: “Thus a sense of our ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, depravity, and corruption, leads us to perceive and acknowledge that in the Lord alone are to be found true wisdom, solid strength, perfect goodness, and unspotted righteousness; and so, by our imperfections, we are excited to a consideration of the perfections of God” (Carnell, op. cit., p. 160). So from consideration of our limitations one cannot but argue to that transcendent Being, to Whom we compare as finite, Who is perfect in all His ways (Ps. 18:30), which Being the Christian by revelation in God’s word has chosen to call Jehovah God.

Moral Law

The second argument to which we call your attention as being a part of the cumulative evidence that is presented in support of the Christian’s faith in God is the existence of moral law. “Man is a moral being. He is a creature not only of appetites and passions, but he is also a creature with standards of right and wrong, of justice and duty, which make him a moral creature” (Hamilton, Floyd, The Basis of the Christian Faith, p. 51). The most immoral of men feel a sense of duty to moral law. The worst drunkard is ready to admit that he ought not to do as he does. All of us admit that we should not kill one another. Now why is it that we ought to do some things and ought not to do others? What is it that classifies some things as being right and yet others as being wrong? One of the things that amazed the philosopher Kant was that in every man there was a sense of recognition of responsibility to moral law.

Since the existence of moral law is in man, and all of us think of some things as being right and others wrong, the timely question might be asked, “Just what makes a thing wrong?” Why does one feel he is doing wrong when he goes out and gets drunk and spends all of his time and money in riotous living? Just because he is taken from his family and might be even unfaithful to his responsibilities to them, why does he reckon himself guilty? Why is it wrong? There can nothing be said to be wrong with his action except that it does not conform with God’s law. It is wrong simply because it is antagonistic to the infinite holiness of God, which is; the standard of all morality. Even the atheist who doe&:not believe in God recognizes moral law, and yet can give no reason for his recognition of it. There are things that are wrong to an atheist but there is not one living that can tell you why they are wrong.

In America there is an atheistic association called the 4 A’s. The four A’s stand for the Association for the Advancement of Atheism in America. In 1947 the Secretary of this association was asked by a Christian in public discussion what would be wrong with one man or group of men lynching another man, or shooting him, and he could only reply it would be inconvenient or unpleasant (Bales-Teller Debate, p. 45). In other words, there can be no moral law except as given by God. The immoralities committed are but perversions of God’s moral law. Many of our so-called moral acts and practices are perversions also of God’s moral law, but which we think are moral within themselves. We have noticed that there is a universal recognition of some standard of moral law. The existence of this law implies the existence of a Law-giver, for no law could exist until someone had given it, but moral law does exist, and therefore there must likewise be the existence of the great Law-giver, and God only can be this Law Giver. For as we have seen, a thing is right as it corresponds with God’s holiness and his laws of Holiness, and a thing is wrong as it fails to correspond with God’s laws and standards of holiness. Therefore the existence of moral law implies the existence of a Law-giver which the Christian refers to as God.

Design In Creation

The third argument for the existence of God to which we invite investigation at this time is that of design in the universe. The universe is so constructed that it connotes design and if it does demonstrate design, then there must be a Designer. That the universe is a Cosmos instead of a Chaos it seems there should be no rational dispute. But lest there should be, let us just note some of the features of nature that show us there must have been purpose and plan behind the construction of the universe.

Do the heavenly bodies just accidentally happen to act as they do, or is there design behind it all? Certainly they must have been planned! The exactness of the operation of the heavenly bodies, by which the astronomers can look into the heavens and tell exactly to the second when there will be eclipses of one planet by another, even thousands of years before they happen, demonstrates that they did not just happen to be as they are accidentally. With David we proclaim, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Psa. 19:1, 2). Or with Moses we might say, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

It is said that Benjamin Franklin, while on a mission to Paris, France, at a time when French skepticism reigned supreme at least in that land, made a replica of the universe. Upon seeing the wonderful piece of work, an atheist friend asked, “Who made it?” Franklin replied, “No one did, it just happened” (Hardeman, “If Not God then What?” p. 2). Wouldn’t it be a lot easier for a minature or a reproduction of the real accidently to have just sprung into being than for the universe itself?

We all are a part of the content of the universe, and so we see design in our bodies. Take for example, the body of an hour old infant. The blood flows through its body just the same as it does through our own bodies. It has been said that the blood system in our bodies is more complicated than the water system of a giant city like New York. Think about all of the water pipes in your own home, then of all of them in the city, and then think of all of them in New York City. Your body, and the body of an hour old infant, has within it a blood system even more detailed and complex. Did all of this just happen or did someone plan it? One might just as well say that our bodies just happened to be as they are and were not planned, purposed, or designed. The universe does denote design everywhere we look. Design necessitates a designer, and this Designer can only be Jehovah God.

Existence of Life

The fourth and final argument which we shall now submit as supporting the Christian’s faith in God is the existence of life. That life exists at present certainly no one would deny, but either life has always existed or it had a beginning. If one should say that life has always existed, not only would he contradict all of the biological sciences, but he would also find himself affirming the same thing which he ridicules the Christian for affirming, namely the eternity of life. The Christian affirms the eternity of God. The evidences of geology demonstrate that life has not always existed and thus it must have had a beginning. Where did life begin? Did it begin with matter or God?

The atheist and evolutionist affirm that matter is eternal and that somehow millions of years ago by a chance reaction in the environment, something occurred by which a movement was set up within this matter that eventually resulted in life. In other words, life came from matter. The atheist is very hesitant to affirm that life began with matter, or what is commonly called “spontaneous generation,” but. actually this is what he inevitably is forced logically to believe, for it has either always existed or else at some time life came from the non-living. Since life could not always have existed, according to atheistic data, then it had to have a beginning, which beginning had either to come of mind or matter. If it began of matter, then life would be a product of chance. This would mean that the living came from the non-living, the moral from the nonmoral, the spiritual from the dead mass of insensate matter.

Isn’t it more reasonable to believe that God who has all power created us and the universe, than to believe that we came from that which has no life itself, namely matter? Man has never yet been able to create or reproduce life. Only God can do that. This shows that life had to have its beginning in something higher than man, which could only be in the supernatural realm, God himself being the Creator. Is it not much more reasonable to say with David: “Know ye Jehovah, he is God: It is he that hath made us, and we are his” (Ps 100:3).

Supporting the Christian’s faith in God is evidence, which as yet has not been met with counter-evidence. Four of these evidences we have listed in this article: (1) Knowledge of Self; (2) Moral Law; (3) Design in the Universe; (4) Life itself. So as Jefferson said, “It is hard to believe in God, But harder not to.” Yes, there is everything to demand that we have faith in God-the book of nature, the book of reason or common sense, and above all these the book of God which says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, pp. 291-293
March 20, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Texas: “It is agreed that Christians should marry Christians, but does `only in the Lord’ in 1 Cor. 7:39 mean only a Christian?”

REPLY:

“The wife is bound by the law as long. as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). This text and its phrase “only in the Lord” has claimed the energies of Bible students through the years. It is a difficult text in some respects. I do not profess to have all the answers. (I do not even know all the questions!) But with an open mind and Bible we can approach this passage with a sincere desire to know the will of the Lord. When we have dug around the foundations, when we have excavated and mined the precious ore and metal of Divine truth, let us resolve to preach and practice what we have learned.

(1) The Context: In 1 Corinthians Paul spends space responding to items written to him, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me” (1 Cor. 7:1; cf. 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 15:35). We do not know what they had written to him, but the circumstances the Corinthians displayed may have prompted and provoked his utterance, “It is good for a man not to touch (marry-LHR) a woman.” To avoid sexual immorality’ one should marry. Not everyone could be celibate as Paul.(1 Cor. 7:2-9).

Next, Paul discusses Christians married to unbelievers (1 Cor.7:10-16).Had the Corinthians asked him about this? Possibly. Then he comments on maidens, “Now concerning virgins” (1 Cor.7:25). Again, it is likely the Corinthians had asked him about this matter. Thus, this topic with its attendant advice and admonition continues through verse 38. The “So then” of verse 38 is a conclusion of the thought commenced and introduced inverse 25. In verse 39, he refers to the married status. Inverses 10-16, he urged those married to unbelievers not to leave their companions. In verse 12, he says, “Let him not put her (the unbelieving wife-LRH) away.” In verse 13, he says, “Let her not leave him (the unbelieving husband-LRH).” In verse 39, he summarizes the substance of what he stated in verses 12 and 13. “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth.”Well, Paul, suppose her husband is dead? “But if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to marry whom she will; only in the Lord.” That is, this time, under the circumstances of the “present distress” (vs. 26), you must marry a believer, a Christian, one who is in the Lord.

In this context, Paul is considering a particular situation. Where this circumstance does not obtain, the order cannot be enforced. One should not generalize a specific. Paul goes on to say in verse 40 that he believes a widow should remain unmarried. Why? Because of the “present distress” (vs. 26). Do brethren today encourage widows to remain unmarried? Do we tell widows today they will be “happier” if they remain unmarried? No, but Paul did. If brethren are consistent in their general use of verse 39 when they say every widow in all ages and situations is always bound to marry a Christian, then they should first advise every widow to remain unmarried. If they bind verse 39 in all ages, at all times, why not verse 40? But why did Paul tell the widows then they would be “happier” if they did not remarry? Because at this time marriage was under the handicap of that “present distress.” Under similar circumstances, the same advice should be given today as was given in verse 40, but when that condition is not prevalent, the advice is not extended. Likewise, with verse 39. If a widow marries after her husband dies, let her marry only a believer due to the “present distress,” and the “trouble in the flesh” (vs. 28).

(2) “In The Lord:” The expression “in the Lord” is used several times in 1 Corinthians (1:31; 4:17; 7:22; 7:39; 11:11; 15:58). Each time it refers to a sphere or location. It has reference to place and not to manner.

Conclusion: Some in Corinth wondered and inquired, “Should we put away our unbelieving mates?” And Paul replied, “No, live with them if they be pleased to live with you; however, in the present distress, in this difficult period, if your mate dies and you marry again, marry only a believer. Although, in my judgment, one would be happier, better off, if they just remained unmarried.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, p. 290
March 20, 1975

By William C. Sexton

There seems to be a great need in the Lord’s church today for “Spiritual Critics.” There are many critics of the destructive type, who seem to have something of the negative nature to say about a lot of people. But they usually show a deficiency in spirituality, lacking the qualities which would enable them to carry out the Lord’s instructions to the faulty trespassers in an effective manner.

A “critic” in the strictest use indicates a person who attempts to make an objective judging so as to determine both merits and faults. A “spiritual” person is one who is concerned with the eternal well-being of himself and others. He is conscious of his duty and privilege of observing the life of his fellow-citizens in the kingdom of Christ, and when he sees a brother “overtaken in a fault,” he recognizes that it is his job to try to “restore” that brother. He, likewise, realizes that there is danger involved-he may be “tempted” himself and thus fall into the same trap. He is very conscious, also, of the seriousness of the brother’s condition. If not restored, he will lose his soul. If he does not attempt to restore his faulty brother, his soul also then is at stake!

Experience and “use” of the word of righteousness give one the skill to “discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:11-14). This skill is needed so badly in the, Lord’s church today-on the congregational level, it seems to me. It is not uncommon at all to have a brother talking about the weakness of another, the acts committed by another, to learn that nothing has ever been said to the erroring person, the trespasser. Yet, the Lord’s instructions are clear, to the point, and emphatic regarding the action that is to be taken in this respect.

1. First the trespasser is to be rebuked (Lk. 17:2). He is to be contacted and confronted with the charge “between thee and him alone” (Matt. 18:15).

2. Secondly, the one who has been trespassed against is to take “one or two more” with him and attempt to get the Trespasser to “hear them.” (Matt. 18:16)

3. The third step is to take it and tell it to the “church” hoping that he will “hear the church” and correct his life. (Matt. 18:17)

4. The fourth step is to be taken only “if he neglect to hear the church”; then he is to be considered as a “publican” and a “heathen.”

If the Lord’s plan was followed, by spiritual people, I am sure that before the fourth step was reached in many cases the person who had been “overtaken in a fault” would indeed be restored! But, when the Lord’s plan is neglected and unspiritual people posing as spiritual spread “bad news” all over the community of the “evil” member, Satan is succeeding in destroying the souls of many in hell.

May I therefore impress upon you the need for Spiritual Critics? May I provoke you to consider the potential for advancement in this great field? The rewards are everlasting, possessing qualities that cannot be stolen or transferred; they are reserved in heaven, having the greatest security guards that can be found anywhere. The pay will begin immediately and continue to increase as time passes. However, if you are looking for an “easy buck,” a “prestigious” position, and worldly luxury, then you need not apply. You would be disappointed and you would only disappoint many other people. Will you be a spiritual critic?

Truth Magazine XIX: 18, pp. 285-286
March 13, 1975