Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Maryland: “Can one teach the truth so as to be eternally lost?”

REPLY:

It is a certainty, as our querist readily realizes, that (1) all who refuse to teach will be lost along with those (2) who teach error ( 2 Tim. 2:2; Heb. 5:12-14; Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Jn. 9). However, this question is not related to either of these. Read it again.

Of course, if I were a Baptist or a Presbyterian, or some other who believes it is impossible to fall from grace, I would have to answer “no” without any further consideration or deliberation. Whether the question was about fornication, drunkenness, or any other sin, I would be forced to say “no” if I believed it is impossible to be lost after once being saved. Let all who believe that doctrine ponder its consequences with respect to a question of this nature. But I digress. Back to the question.

One cannot teach the truth without several factors being inherently involved and entwined. His attitude toward the truth and his hearers cannot be divorced from his teaching. One may preach the truth without love for it or for its audience. You tell me, could such an one be saved (2 Thess. 2:10; 1 Jn. 3:15)? When Paul said, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; Continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16),,it appears that he recognized the above principle. One may teach the truth, but if he does it in hidden malice and contempt, out of an impure heart and a convicted conscience laden with feigned faith, he cannot be saved (Cf. 1 Tim. 1:5). “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those who oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:24, 25).

Bitterness, brought on by slights and persecutions received from brethren, may lead one to teach the truth so as to be lost. He does not abandon the truth, but he misuses it to reek vengeance upon his enemies. Without being specific, one may resort to ridiculing and slandering those whom he detests by impugning their motives and casting aspersions in secret and subtle innuendo. What he says may all be the truth, but his polluted heart may hide a poison pen or tongue behind a vague shield of generality. If I “go after” a Protestant preacher with Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38 because I want to destroy him in some fiendish, carnal way, then will I not be lost even though I have taught the truth? Well did the Wiseman say, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23).

QUESTION:

From Arkansas: “Will an unmarried man commit adultery if he marries a woman who put away her husband for the cause of fornication?”

REPLY:

Questions on marriage are characteristically difficult and heart rending, but it appears this question can be succinctly answered by the words of Jesus, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). The Lord’s words describe a man putting away his wife, but they are, of course, equally applicable to the situation above where a woman has put away her husband “for fornication.”

If there be no “unknowns,” the unmarried man will not commit adultery if he marries a woman who put away her husband for the cause of fornication and neither will the woman commit adultery by marrying again.

Parents, are you listening? Now is the time to teach and train your children concerning God’s marriage laws! Show them the bliss and blessedness of marriage in your life before them. , Instruct them in the rights and responsibilities of the marriage relationship. Much sin and sorrow could be avoided if children were informed about both the sweetness and the seriousness of marriage.

Truth Magazine XIX: 14, p. 210
February 13, 1975

By William V. Beasley

During a brush-arbor meeting some years ago, a preaching farmer endeavored to show that sprinkling was an acceptable form of baptism. He proved it, to his own satisfaction, in spite of the apostle Paul saying, “we are buried with him by baptism” (Romans 6:3). Later that week when the farming preacher’s goose dies, his son was given the task of burying her behind the barn. The boy, remembering dad’s sermon on baptism, reasoned, as dad had, that sprinkling would suffice for a burial. Less than a week later the nld goose was ripe. She was odiferous.

Today’s dictionaries, which merely reflect current usage, support the farming preacher’s use of the word “baptism.” The current usage, “sacrament of dipping a person into water, or sprinkling water on him as a sign of the washing away of sin and of admission into the Christian church,” does not, in this instance remain true to the original definition of the Greek word. Unfortunately, for our preaching farmer, there is no other support available for contending that baptism can be accomplished by sprinkling.

Joseph Henry Thayer, prince of the Greek, scholars, Secretary of the New Testament Company of the American Committee of Revision that produced the Revised Version of the Bible (commonly called the American Standard Version), defines “baptism” (Gr., Baptisma), “immersion, submersion” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 94). All reputable Greek scholars, without exception, are in complete agreement with Mr. Thayer on this point. Turning from the Greek Lexicons to Origins A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English we read, under the heading of “baptism,” “The effectual origin lies in Gr baptizein, a modified form of baptein (s bapt-, r bap-), to dip in water, akin to ON (Old Norse, wvb), to dive . . . .” (Eric Partridge, p. 38).

Our preaching farmer might be excused for not knowing the Greek or even the etymology of the word. The strongest proof, readily available to all, is not to be found in Greek scholarship or in etymological studies, but in the New Testament. “John the Immerser” (Matt. 3:1, The Emphasized New Testament: A New Translation, J. B. Rotherham) baptized “in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there” (John 3:23). When Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, “they both went dower into the water, both Philip ant the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38, ASV). Yes, we are “buried with him in baptism” (Col. 2:12).

What did our preaching farmer do about the old dead goose? I do not know. But if he was determined to sprinkle and was also consistent, he may have continued to work around the barn asking himself, “Smell? What smell?”

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, p. 205
February 6, 1975

By Cecil Willis

How’s That Again?

Some of us country boys really get ourselves in trouble when we try to use too many large words. Every once in a while, we exceed the limit of our vocabulary. And it just happened to me! In the December 12th issue of Truth Magazine I made reference to Brother James W. Adams’ “inimical way” of writing the truth. The word I should have used to convey the thought intended was “inimitable.” James W. Adams does have an “inimitable way” of writing the truth. The word “inimitable” means “not capable of being imitated; being beyond imitation.”

But unfortunately, I used the word “inimical, ” which has an entirely different meaning. I am hurrying to get this correction written before Brother Adams has had time to write me about the blunder! When Steve Wolfgang yesterday called the blunder to my attention, I said “I am going to have to get out my big dictionary in order to get out of that!” But the big dictionary doesn’t help me either. Anyway you look at it, “inimical” means “having the disposition or temper of an enemy; viewing with disfavor; hostile.” Now quite a few of Brother Adams’ “unfriendly friends” would say that I inadvertently used the correct adjective to describe his writing style.

Jestingly, I told Brother Wolfgang that the two words were on the same page and in the same column of my dictionary. Furthermore, the different inflections of the two words adjoin one another. But the two words are poles apart, insofar as meaning is concerned. I apologize to Brother Adams for choosing the wrong word to describe his admirable writing ability and style. Oh, there are times when I wish I could say, “But my secretary did it, ” or “The typesetter made a mistake and the proofreaders overlooked it.” But neither excuse will work in this instance. Brother Willis himself is going to have to accept full “credit” (?) for this blunder.

I guess I could say that what I meant to say was that Brother James W. Adams is “inimical to that heresy,” which is one of the illustrations that Webster’s Third Unabridged Dictionary gives of the proper usage of the word “inimical.” Toward every heresy, and particularly toward heresies that recently have arisen among us, may it be said that Brother James Adams has “the disposition or temper of an enemy.” He views “with disfavor” and is “hostile” toward every teacher of error. Indeed, false doctrine is completely “inimical” to everything for which Brother Adams has stood throughout his. life as a preacher.

Now what makes my embarrassing blunder all the more inexcusable is the fact that I must confess that I knew the meaning of both words (really, I did!!). But somehow the similarity in sound must have caused me to overlook their great difference in meaning. The moral to this little article is simply this: “Brother Willis, you had better consult your dictionary a little more often.” This is nearly as embarrassing as my misspelling of the word “Alleged” in the title of an article written for a “Special Issue” of the Gospel Guardian several years ago. Having discovered my error in spelling (I spelled it “Alledged”), I was just sure the erudite editor of the Gospel Guardian would correct my mistake. But he let it slip through also. So I must continue in my unending search to grab up all those issues of the Guardian, lest my ignorance be further exposed. I just hope that Brother Adams will not now write me “inimically” regarding my failure to use the correct word, “inimitable.” If he were to do so, that could hurt!

Apology No. 2

While I am “confessing,” I might just as well confess that Brother Bill Sexton has written to tell me that the article I published under my name in the November 28th issue of Truth Magazine was really an article that I had borrowed out of Pat Hardeman’s book of Radio Sermons. In the preface to that article, I stated that some radio sermon manuscripts that I used twenty years ago were going to be used. I recited Luther Blackmon’s definition of originality as being “the art of forgetting where you got it.” One of the reasons why I have not published any of those manuscripts before was because I did not document some quotations used in them, and knew that a few times I had used entirely another man’s sermon. Brother G. K. Wallace said he was once accused of having preached one of N. B. Hardeman’s sermons, and Wallace replied: “I did no such thing. That was my sermon; I bought it in a book, and paid $3.00 for the book.” And of some of those N. B. Hardeman Tabernacle sermons, one could add, “And Hardeman borrowed them from J. W. McGarvey’s book of sermons.”

There is likely very little that is really original about any of us. There are some men’s material which I can use nearly as prepared, and there are other men whose material just leaves me cold, and from which I can get little or nothing of use to me. However, honesty demands that we give credit where credit is due, and when we know that the material was prepared by another. All of us have preached borrowed sermon outlines. But to borrow and to attribute to oneself something written by another is theft. Had I ever thought back then of using any of that material in other ways later on, I would have documented it better, and certainly would never have published it under my own name, as though I authored it. But these manuscripts were prepared for radio usage. I really thought I had deleted the ones I did not write myself. If you find that “Homer” (that’s my first name!) nods again, please write me about it.

Brother Roy E. Stephens of Brownwood, Texas sent me the following article, written, it would appear, for just such an occasion as this.

“Plagiarism”

“Brother Willis had some interesting remarks recently on the `kidnapping,’ or literary theft of the writings of others: that is, plagiarism. When Kipling was accused of literary theft, he once wrote:

When ‘Omer smote his blooming lyre

‘ed ‘eard men sing by land and sea

And what he thought he might require

‘e went and took, the same as me.

The market girls, the fishermen

The shepherds and the sailors too

They ‘eard old songs turn up again

But kept it quiet, same as you.

They knew ‘e stole. ‘e knew they knowed.

They didn’t tell nor make a fuss.

But winked at ‘Omer down the road

And ‘e winked back, the same as us.

“In preaching and writing, I often suggest that all work and no plagiarism, makes a dull speech, and if plagiarism is a sin, then many a sermon is sinful. Have you noticed that modern music is usually played so fast it is hard to tell what classical composer it was stolen from? And certainly honesty requires that we give credit to a person from whom we received an idea or a sermon, but then if we did, the person he got it from might be in the audience. If Luther’s definition of originality is right, that it is the art of forgetting where you got it, I am most certainly original. Everything above was, one time in the past, taken from the writings of others.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, pp. 204-205
February 6, 1975

By Luther Blackmon

“And Jacob vowed a vow saying, If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God; and this stone which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: And all that thou shall give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.”

This statement is found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Genesis, and it sort of sums up the character of Jacob. He was a shrewd bargainer. He practically cheated his brother out of his birthright and worked all sorts of chicanery on his father-in-law in the partnership they shared in the cattle business. It is no wonder that he would try to bargain with God.

But you know Jacob was not the last one to try this or to manifest such an attitude. We meet them all along the way. The modern version goes something like this: “Lord, IF you will give me a husband (or a wife) who will go to worship with me, and IF you will give me a job where I don’t have to work shift work, and IF you will perform a miracle and turn my small children into angels so that they will not drive me crazy with their squirming and fretting during the services, and IF you will give me perfect health, and IF you will give the elders sense enough to keep a preacher who will not preach long sermons nor criticize my short-comings, and IF you will keep my friends and relatives away from my house on Sunday mornings, and IF you will see that the weather is pretty on Sunday, and IF you will keep me in prosperity so that I may not have to trust you for too much, and IF you will not ask rile to take an active part in any of the work of the church, and IF the members of the church will stand ready to help me in time of trouble and will not expect me to do much in return, THEN will I come to the house of worship most every Sunday morning, but I don’t know about this giving of my earnings. I have to work for that money. However; when I get my house and car and deep-freeze and automatic shotgun and television set and a few things like that cleared, then will I think about it.

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, p. 203
February 6, 1975