Truth Magazine

By Victorio R. Tibayan

It is with great exuberance that I write this short article to express the overwhelming gratitude in the Lord of the Filipino saints and churches for the yearly preaching and teaching visits made by our faithful American preachers, to the Philippines. These trips across borders attest to. the magnitude of their zeal for the glory of God and the expansion of the borders of His kingdom. Under a most exacting and perverse condition, they freely gave themselves to share with us their wonderful knowledge of the word of God; meanwhile, adorning the doctrine of Christ through their Christian deportment among us. Our appreciation for these things becomes exceedingly great as we consider that they went through their spiritual mission, having left behind other responsibilities, constrained by their love for the souls of men wherever they may be.

Each time a pair or a group came to visit with us, reports about their accomplishments and the situation obtaining here were promptly published. The brethren are encouraged and God is blessed. Faithful churches and dedicated Christians there with whom we have fellowship and who shared of their means to send these worthy preachers of the gospel, even at enormous sacrifices, are fully encouraged to do more good for the sake of Christ. In this context, I would like to express to each of them (to whom I am not in a position now to write in particular) the heartfelt thanks of the Filipino Christians in the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

As a reminder, the following were those who came to the Philippines for the above-mentioned purposes since 1970:

1970-Roy E. Cogdill and Cecil Willis

1971-Connie W. Adams and J.T. Smith

1972-Dudley Ross Spears and James P. Needham

1973-Wallace H. Little, Frank D. Butler and Jady Copeland

1974-Earl E. Robertson and Larry Ray Hafley

To each of these good people, this article is made to show our deep appreciation for all the good things they did for us. Not only were we edified and sinners converted to Christ but their efforts also brought us nearer and dearer to the hearts of the American faithful saints, which paved the way for more closer contacts and fellowship among us, according to the pattern set by God. Witnesses to these are the numerous and spontaneous succors afforded to us during times of distresses and emergencies (Acts 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25, 26; 2 Cor. 8,9). But best of all, is the enthusiastic desire created in the hearts of Christians there to have scriptural fellowship with’ us in the propagation and defense of “the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Phil. 1:5; 4:15, 16: Jude 3).

Rest assured that these communications of love for us, performed in self-sacrifices, are not in vain. Before the starting visit of brethren Cogdill and Willis, there were only a handful of churches here, at least on Luzon. There were three or four struggling preachers here in the Manila Area and who had only a vague idea of the first principles concerning the unchangeable pattern of God in the work of the church and the duties of individual Christians. Thanks be to them and through our correspondence with many of the saints there, plus the numerous books and reading materials . . . we were made firmer to the extent that we are able to wield the “sword of the spirit” against foes and erring brethren alike with grace and power. Churches have been established in many regions and we are able to edify them more in the Lord.

But as we are guided towards the heavenly horizon, we, more than ever, still need (as the church in Antioch and other primitive churches needed) similar visits from worthy and capable preachers from there. Since early last year, brethren here have corresponded with a number of American gospel preachers for the purpose of arriving at a consensus as to who may be available for the coming years and who we thought would best serve the cause of Christ here in the Philippines. At the same time, we have made provisions and scrupulous plans for these. And the following schedule of visits have come to the fore:

1975-Cecil Willis and Connie W. Adams

1976-Frank D. Butler, Ron Mosby and Bill Battles

1977-Wallace H. Little, Jady Copeland and Paul J. Casebolt

1978-Earl E. Robertson and Larry Ray Hafley

Most of them have been assured, even now, of support by churches and individuals for this schedule of visits to the Philippines. At least, one of them was assured by one congregation of sound believers for all his expenses, but, he wrote that AI may not allow them to furnish all of it, as others may desire to communicate with me also, but it is good to know that brethren are so willing.” May I add to this thought that surely the Father is exalted to see His children walking hand-in-hand according to His divine will.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 8
September 26, 1974

By Cecil Willis

We often hear one advised, in religious matters, just to follow his conscience and he will be all right. Since so much emphasis is placed upon the conscience by our contemporaries, and since there is quite a lot in the Bible about the conscience, a discussion of what the Bible says about the conscience seems appropriate.

As we begin this article, we first need to understand what we mean by conscience. We may, for the purpose of this lesson, think of the human mind as being compartmentalized. One part of the mind chooses a standard by which every action of one is to be governed. All of us have a standard by which we think one ought to be governed. This standard is not always correct, but we have a standard. The conscience is that part of the mind which either approves or disapproves one’s actions, on the basis of their being either in or out of harmony with the standard one has chosen, by which every action of one is to be governed. All of us have a whether or not he has acted as the standard he has chosen to guide him tells him to. The conscience is not a standard itself. It simply tells one whether he has violated his standard of action or not. In the Bible, several different kinds of consciences are mentioned. The outline of our article will consist of a review of these different kinds of consciences that one may have.

A Good Conscience

First of all, the Bible speaks of a good conscience. In Acts 23:1, we read: “‘And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day.” One may have a conscience like Paul had – a good one. The apostle Peter also mentions a good conscience and says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). So one may have a good conscience. But what does it mean to have a good conscience?

It simply means for one to have conducted himself in accordance with the standard he has chosen. It does not say that the standard is correct. It just says that the standard has not been broken. A good conscience is an unviolated conscience. However, most people today think it would be impossible for one with a good conscience to be lost. But even though one might do what he thinks is right, if he is wrong as to what he thinks he ought: to do, his actions may be wrong, and consequently, one with a good conscience may be lost. Paul is a perfect example of this. Before the council, he could say “I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day” (Acts 23:1). What did Paul mean? Does he mean that he had always done rightly? Not at all. It simply meant he had followed his conscience. In Acts 26:9, he tells us what his standard told him to do. He says “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Paul felt that Christ was an imposter, that He was not the Son of God as He claimed. So he fought against the Lord with all his might. He held the coat of those who stoned Stephen; entered into every house, and dragging men and women, committed them to prison; when they came to be put to death, he gave his word against them; at the time when he met the Lord, he was then on his way to Damascus that he might bind and punish all that he found there following Christ. Paul did not violate his conscience. That is why he could say he had a good conscience. But a good conscience was not all that Paul needed. He had been taught wrong. He had rejected Christ when he should have accepted him. Even though Paul had a “good conscience,” he says he was yet “chief of sinners.” In 1 Tim. 1:15, he says “Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” So having a good conscience does not guarantee that one is right. Paul as a chief of sinners, even though he had a good conscience, an unviolated one, could have died as a chief sinner and gone to hell.

If all one has to do is follow his conscience, then truth is a variable. It is not uniform. This leads to every person becoming a standard of truth. If this be true, then whether you are following the truth or a lie matters not. It is only important that you follow it carefully. But we do not believe this. The atheist might conscientiously believe there is no God. If he follows the dictates of his conscience, God would be obligated to save him in his unbelief, if all one has to do to be saved is follow one’s conscience. If one’s conscience should tell him to worship many gods instead of Jehovah alone, this theory would say he could be saved in so doing, while the Bible denies that he can. If an unviolated conscience will save one, then the Mohammedan who follows the Koran, trusts in Mohammad, worships Allah, and prays toward Mecca would be saved, for he has a “good conscience” in so doing. The Hindu is governed by the Vedas, worships Brahama, and many other gods, offers human sacrifices, but in so doing he has a good conscience, and if this is all that is necessary, his salvation is guaranteed. If a “good conscience” alone would save, then one could follow the Old Testament, deny that Christ is the son of God, offer animal sacrifices with a good conscience and be saved. I suppose even the murderers of Christ were doing what they thought they should do, for afterward some of them repented in obedience to the gospel. But’ if all one has to do to be: saved is have a good conscience, then these murderers would have nothing to repent of, for they had done precisely what they thought they ought to do. All a good conscience means is that one has lived within the bounds of one’s chosen standard. It does not guarantee that the standard chosen is the correct one.

A Weak Conscience

One may have another kind of conscience, a weak conscience. A weak conscience is one that does not speak out loudly and discriminately for it has not been properly taught. Paul says, “For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to an idol’?” (1 Cor. 8:10). This man who is described by Paul as “weak” was one who did not know enough to decide properly between right and wrong. The other person, we might say, he who was strong, was one whom Paul described as one “who hast knowledge.” This question discussed in 1 Cor. 8 and 10 was whether a Christian ought to eat meat that had been used in a sacrificial service to an idol. Paul said that those who had knowledge to know that the idol was nothing but a piece of stone or wood, could eat the meat, for the meat had not been defiled. But there were some who could not differentiate between eating of the meat and worshiping the idol. So they could not eat the meat. They were described as “weak.” Their conscience had not been taught adequately. There are many today who cannot clearly distinguish between right and wrong, because they have not been taught properly. Their conscience is weak.

A Defiled Conscience

Paul speaks of certain people whose conscience was defiled. He says “To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled” (Titus 1:15). Since these people had a defiled conscience, it is likewise possible that we might have a defiled conscience. What kind of conscience is one that is defiled? Defiled means contaminated. One with a defiled conscience is one who is so polluted that he cannot ascertain good from evil, because his standard is corrupt. Paul is a perfect example of this. He could, not recognize right from wrong, because his chosen norm was incorrect. Denominationalists are unable to determine right from wrong, because they are committed to a false premise. They depend on their feelings to guide them in the right way. One will say he knows he is right because he just feels deep inside of him that he is. But one may feel that he is right in a certain matter, when actually he is in error. Remember Paul did just this. Many consciences are unviolated, and yet defiled, and therefore the person is in error.

A Seared Conscience

There are others who are in such a condition that it led Paul to speak of their conscience as being seared. He speaks of them in 1 Tim. 4:1, 2. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” To sear something means to make it insensitive. In the West, cattle are branded with a hot iron. This branding removes the sensitivity from the seared portion of skin. There are some consciences that have been seared.

The way a conscience becomes seared is by it repeatedly being run over. When one does something that the conscience, drawing from the dictates of the chosen authority, forbids, it cries out to the offender. To illustrate how one’s conscience may become seared, let us speak of this instance. Suppose one has been taught from his youth, from the Scriptures, that it is his duty to worship God on the Lord’s Day. When he fails to do this, his conscience cries out, reprimanding him. One time he misses, and he is pricked in his heart by his offended conscience. But again and again he violates that which he knows to be right. Again and again he tramples under foot his conscience, until finally he can miss services with no feeling of having done evil at all. His conscience no longer cries out against his unrighteousness.He has so frequently walked over his protesting conscience until it cries out no longer. It is no longer sensitive to his transgression. This is what is meant by a seared conscience.The most precious and valuable restraining influence that a man has is his conscience, and there is but little hope for a man when his conscience no longer pricks him when he does evil. If he has no conscience to cry out against his unrighteousness, he has nothing to condemn him in anything that he does.

An Evil Conscience

Paul speaks of another kind of conscience, too. He says, “let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). These people had their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience. What kind of conscience is an evil conscience? It is one that has not yet been seared, but that has been violated and cries out because of one’s guilt. This is a healthy sign. It notifies a man that he has not done what he should do. It tells him that he has transgressed the law fat he has chosen for himself. It should make a man want to correct his waywardness. When a person has an evil conscience, and when he is sincere, he is then ready to repent of his snis, and make amends for them. There are many, I am sure, who do not have good consciences. There are many that know how to act better than they have.

A person cannot have a good conscience so long as there is a single commandment of which he is aware that he has not obeyed. One cannot have a good conscience in the sight of God if God said believe, and if he has not done it. One’s conscience must be evil (violated) if God said repent and if he has not done so. Knowing that God said for one to confess his faith with his mouth, he who has not done so must have an evil conscience. Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Peter said “which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). One who has not been baptized cannot have a good conscience toward God. One’s conscience must be evil who has not been baptized, for God commands it.

If conscience is not a safe guide in matters of religion, what is? One must choose the word of God to be his standard, and be guided by it alone. As soon as one learns that God requires something of him, without hesitation he should comply with God’s command. Then one can always have a good conscience toward God, a conscience that has chosen the right guide or standard, and has faithfully kept it.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 3-5
September 26, 1974

By Don Potts

One unscriptural practice breeds another and there is no stopping place until one lands in the quagmire of sectarian confusion. This is evident from the emergence of the Christian church to the present efforts of the liberal brethren. Uncertain sounds on the pages of their publications have been a common trait for years. In the April 30, 1974 edition of the Firm Foundation, Steven Clark Goad displays a general attitude of the liberal brethren toward “Bible authority” and the “silence” of the scriptures. Hear him in his article entitled, “A Critical Look At Assembly Singing.”

“When we look to the passages which deal with singing in the New Testament church, we are limited as to how one determines just what kind of singing was offered.” He continues, “members of the church of Christ sing almost exclusively congregationally, not necessarily because we have a definite and exclusive instruction to do so, nor because-we think that is the only way the early church sang (we know better), but rather because we have been doing it like that for so long.” “Some of us, however, demand and expect only congregational singing because we have become opinionated to the extent that we think it might be the only acceptable way to praise God in song. To be sure, congregational singing is not the ‘ only way Christians can sing while maintaining the proper spirit and mental attitudes as 1 Corinithians 14:15 commands.”

Now, first Brother Goad tells us, that “we are limited as to how one determines just what kind of singing was offered.” Then in the next breath, he is telling us that we know better than to think that congregational singing is the only type of singing the early church had. In the lyrics of that old song, “first you say you do, and then you say you don’t; you’re undecided now, what are you going to do?” And to think that Paul said, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33).

Brother Goad then says; “As mentioned above, there are various ways of singing of which the early church apparently took advantage.” (Now remember, Brother Goad said that we are limited as to how one determines just what kind of singing was offered. How then does he know they “apparently took advantage of various ways”?-DP). “Not only might a congregation sing antiphonally and interpretationally, but it might sing and be taught by using duets, quartets, and other groups which have specialized in this particular medium of edification… To be sure, it is not unscriptural.” “If a preacher can preach while an entire congregation remains attentively silent, why cannot a special group or quartet occasionally sing songs while the congregation remains attentive?”

Brother Goad asked why a congregation can sit and listen to preaching but cannot sit and listen to special groups sing. I do not suppose it ever occurred to our good brother that one has Bible authority for it (1 Cor. 14:27-30), and the other does not. It goes with out saying that the absence of Bible authority for duets, quartets and special groups, is quite conspicuous. In Matt. 26:30, after the institution of the Lord’s supper, it says “when they had sung a hymn, they went out.” The singing of this song was on the part of each of them; they sang, they went out. “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praises unto thee” (Heb. 2:12). According to Brother Goad’s thinking, he should have said, “before the brethren, I will sing”! Can you conceive of the early church featuring, for its entertainment, the “Jericho Road Trio,” with Peter, James and John? And entertainment is about all that such ever amounts to.

The only thing wrong with such a practice is that it was neither taught by the apostles nor practiced by the New Testament church. The New Testament is silent in regard to special group singing. The command to sing is not given to a selected “few” but to all alike. Brother Goad says, “To be sure, it is not unscriptural.” If it is not unscriptural; it must then be scriptural, and if it is scriptural, why did he not bother to give book, chapter and verse for the practice? If a quartet can do the singing of a congregation, then why not let a quartet of the best paying members do all the giving for a congregation? That might be one way to starve out some of today’s “hirelings” in the pulpit and put the church back on the road toward Zion.

In the words of Charles M. Pullias; “How could any practice be apostolic when the apostles neither taught nor practice it? Let some brother who practices quartet singing in the worship try his hand on this. Day by day the brethren are locking their mouths against denominational error by things not taught. It is no less than tragic.” (Life and Work of Charles Pullias, pg. 563). Yes, it is indeed “tragic” that those who claim to be involved in the restoration of New Testament Christianity fail to “continue (n the apostles doctrine” (Acts 2:42), It is but further evidence that the Firm Foundation is but a Faulty foundation!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 2
September 26, 1974

By Irvin Himmel

“I do not subscribe to a religious periodical,” says one, “because there is so much fighting in all the papers.” “Why can’t preachers just preach the gospel and not be fighting all the time?” asks another. Then someone else adds, “I do not believe that different churches should fight each other. After all, no group is perfect, and every denomination is striving for the same goal.” Such expressions as these are quite common in this age of tolerance, passivism, and religious indifference. Anyone who comes out fighting strongly for what he believes is regarded as having a bad spirit. To attack the validity of another’s doctrine is seen as bigotry; to expose a practice which is unscriptural is viewed as biased judgment growing from an unkind feeling.

Jesus A Fighter

Before I say anything more on this subject, let me remind the reader that our Lord Jesus waged a relentless battle against Satan and all the forces of evil during His ministry. Jesus fought sin and error in whatever form it appeared. He called names, not to be ugly, but for clear identification. In fighting against hypocrisy and self-righteousness, Jesus named the Pharisees and scribes. He said plainly, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matt. 23:27-28).

In fighting against false doctrines, Jesus named two leading parties, the Pharisees and Sadducees. He warned, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (Matt. 16:6).

In fighting against impenitence, Jesus named specific cities in which He had preached-Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. He sternly declared, “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell” (Lk. 10:15).

The fight against unbelief prompted Christ to boldly say to some of the Jews, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” (John 8:44).

His constant war on wickedness found expression in our Lord’s saying to some of the religious leaders, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:7-9).

Disciples Expected To Fight

The servant is not above his Lord. If Jesus who is our Lord and Master declared war on false teaching and lawlessness, it is expected that we who are His disciples fight on the side of our Commander.

Paul charged Timothy to be aggressive. He urged him to “war a good warfare” (1 Tim. 1:18) and “endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. 2:3). “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life. . .” (1 Tim. 6:12). Timothy understood that he had to fight to be pleasing to God.

Paul was a fighter. Unlike some who go in circles and fight without purpose, Paul knew how to fight, what to fight, and why to fight. “I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air” (1 Cor. 9:26). He could say with confidence as he neared the end of- life, “I fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7).

Paul fought error in the church and out of it. He knew what it meant to be in “perils among false brethren” (2 Cor. 11:26). He named men who had made shipwreck concerning faith and said he had delivered them unto Satan (1 Tim. 1:19-20). He vigorously opposed Judaism in the churches of Galatia and elsewhere. He disputed daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). He fought heathen philosophy at Athens. He fought idolatry in city after city. He fought indifference toward discipline in the church at Corinth. He taught brotherly love but declared all-out war on such as cause divisions “contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (Rom. 16:17). He insisted that such men be marked and avoided.

No one can be a true Christian and not be a fighter. We must stand up against all that is contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Preparation For Fighting

A soldier who expects to become involved in active combat needs much training. Before being sent into battle, he is shown how to fight and how to defend himself from the enemy.

The Christian’s warfare is spiritual, not carnal. “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)” (2 Cor. 10:3-4). It is still necessary that we prepare for the fight.

“Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. . .” (Eph. 6:11-17).

Truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, salvation-these things are our defense. God’s word, the Spirit’s sword, is our weapon to use on every foe. No one is prepared for the fight if any of these important parts of the armor are left off. And more than all else, we need to be skilled in the correct application of the word of God.

Onward! Forward! Let us press the battle against every enemy of truth and righteousness. The very nature of New Testament Christianity makes it militant!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 13-14
September 19, 1974