Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

There are few examples in the Scriptures when the Lord displayed anger while on this earth, but it is interesting when we note the occasions he did show displeasure.

(1) “And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he said to the man which had the withered hand, >Stand forth!’ And he said unto them, >Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life or to kill?’ But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them in anger, being grieved for their hardness of heart, he saith to the man, `Stretch forth thy hand.’ And he stretched forth his hand and it was restored whole as the other” (Mark 3:1-5).

(2) “And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them `Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God'” (Mark 10:13,14).

(3) “Jesus went up to the temple and found those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of the money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changer’s money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, `Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise!’ And his disciples remembered that it was written: `The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up'” (Jno. 2:12-17).

Man Or The Sabbath?

Jesus was able to deal with most injustice and ignorance with patience and longsuffering. What is it that so moved the Lord to anger in these three instances? Do they all have something in common?

In the healing of the cripple Jesus was angered at the Jews for putting observance of ritual over real service to a fellow man. The learned Rabbis held the “common people” in great contempt. Jesus saw each soul, regardless of his ability, education, or background as a person worth more than all the riches of the world (Matt. 16:26). Jesus came to “heal those who are sick,” and ate with publicans and sinners. When he preached, he invited such to draw near unto him. To the pious Pharisee and scribe, this kind of behaviour drew contempt that later changed to malice.

But beyond their contempt for the humility of Jesus, they held him guilty for presuming to lay aside their orthodoxy for the petty needs of one of these “common people.” On the Sabbath day all work was forbidden (Ex. 20:8-11). But the Jews had determined that healing was work. According to Barclay, “Medical attention could be given only if a life was in danger. To take some examples – a woman in childbirth might be helped on the Sabbath. An affection of the throat might be treated. But, a fracture could not be attended to. Cold water could not be poured on a sprain. A cut finger might be bandaged, but no ointment could be put on it” (Mark, D.S.B., p. 62).

The Jews did not see the Sabbath as a servant of man, but man as a servant of the Sabbath. Jesus had previously shown that the needs of man came before any ritual law (Mk. 2:2428). Jesus was angry because of the rigid way in which these Jews sought to please God by putting a system above the needs of people. He openly defied their insular code by healing the withered arm, and knowingly brought down the enmity of these religious leaders upon his head.

Bother Or Blessing?

In the event within the coasts of Judea, Jesus was angered at his disciples because they rebuked the parents who had brought their children for Jesus to touch. It is difficult to think of the disciples as being boorish, unloving men. They were probably trying to shield Jesus from the bother of a crowd of little children and their doting parents. They were trying to “protect” Jesus from the crush of the masses by eliminating those who would only “waste” his time.

But, here again, we see the indignation of the Lord blaze out against those who would put form or convenience above people. In every one, whether cripple or young, Jesus saw an immortal, God-given nature capable of fellowship with the Creator, and always of infinite worth. Jesus felt very strongly that his disciples were misrepresenting him by sending anyone away, and inflicting great wrong upon those who sought to come to him. We can see the true character of the living Word, in that it was with affection and compassion he took them up in his arms, and laid his hands upon them. He blessed them and gave them his gracious care and protection. “Of such” he said of these infants, “are the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Profit Or Piety?

When Jesus’ wrath was brought down on those who bought and sold in the outer Temple courts, he was emotionally moved at the exploitation of the hearts of men in their service to God. Here, within the precincts of the building set aside for the worship of God, men made money from the religious service of pious people. In a place where there should have been prayer and communion with God, there was the noise and hubbub of the market place. In a place where there should only have been sacrifice, there was the selling of birds and animals for a profit. In a place where men should have been giving their offerings to God, there was the rattle and scraping of the money changers. To the religious leaders of the Jews, the hard earned coins the pilgrims brought from home were “unclean” and unfit to offer to Jehovah. So they offered “clean” coins at a considerable profit. Likewise, home grown sacrifices were not acceptable. One must buy the “special” doves, sheep, and oxen that the Priests would readily make available-at a definite profit.

The service men sought to give to God was seized upon by those who saw a way to make money from it. Men and their worship had become merely objects to be manipulated for profit. Jesus was so moved by such behavior that he used violent means to purge his Father’s house of that “den of “thieves.”

What Do They Hold In Common?

What is it that these three examples hold in common? Just this: Jesus was driven- to outrage by the total selfishness and callous indifference demonstrated by “religious” men to human need. Jesus reacted to this attitude in men consistently with passionate anger. He left all to come to this world to take men’s sins away on the cross of Golgotha. In the face of the cross, he was confronted with men who were so wrapped up in the physical or the ritualistic that they ignored the needs of those for whom he was willing to die. No hotter contempt is found anywhere than Jesus’ words to the self-centered scribes and pharisees (Matt. 23; “Woe unto you. . . .”). Nowhere else in the scriptures do we find more cutting portrayals of the hypocrisy of the “religiously pious” Jews than in the parables of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), the Unmerciful Servant (Matt. 18:23-35), the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14), or in the Marriage of the King’s Son (Matt. 22:1-14).

But, Am I Guilty?

Today we have men who will use brethren and churches to advance their own causes. Whether for prestige or pocketbook, they make merchandise of the simple people who seek to please God. We have our modern money changers who see the church only as a vast resource to be tapped for their own schemes. This attitude can be seen in those preachers who use the pulpit as a means to push everything from soap to their latest scheme in personal work. On a larger scale, we see it in all the “projects” thought up by brethren around the world-that all ultimately bring glory or income to the one pushing his “godly” product.

We see this attitude in those self-serving preachers who move from one place to another motivated only by a desire for more. We see it in churches who hoard their resources while the needs of the Gospel go wanting. They “hang on” for a day that will never come. We see this attitude in those brethren who have never converted one, nor made an effort. These brethren believe that their “faithful” attendance and paltry contribution weekly will assure them of God’s approval. We see this attitude in the discrimination and snobbery practiced against those who have nothing to offer in the way of prestige, power, or glory.

Yes. It is easy to understand why the Lord was angry. We must wonder what his words will be to us when we meet him in the Judgment. Will they be, “Come ye blessed of my Father. . .”? or will they be “Depart from me, ye cursed . . .”? The answer lies in how we treated men while we were on this earth (Matt. 25:31-46).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 6-7
September 19, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

From Missouri: A sister in Christ has written asking several questions. We shall take up each one and comment separately. Actually, her first question is the heart of her queries.

1. ADo you believe it is a sin to drink a glass of wine?” If the wine is what is presently known as an alcoholic beverage, then, yes for me to drink it would be a sin. And it would be a sin for our inquirer since she stated that her husband’s “drinking a glass or two of wine. . . really bothered me for a while and still does to a certain extent.” “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). This does not mean that a thing is right just so we believe it is right; rather, it shows an act that is right in itself becomes sin if we do it while thinking it is wrong. Do not violate your scruples, your conscience. It is the last vestige of restraint between morality and those “who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness to work all uncleanness with greediness” and eagerness.

Further, it is a sin for our querist because she wonders and worries over “what kind of influence it might have on the children.” My dear sister, you tell me “what kind of good influence” it could have on the children. Will it lead them to greater trust and faith in God? Will it induce them to study the Bible? Will it prompt them to eschew evil? Will it cause them to rise up and call their mother “blessed?” Will it direct them into “the way of sinners” or “the paths of righteousness” which? Will it deter them from lusts, base behavior, and alcoholism? You tell me. You ponder “what kind of influence it might have on the children,” and then tell me if you find anything in drinking that will be for their ultimate and eternal good.

2. “Why did Jesus turn the water into wine at the marriage feast if he didn’t mean for them to drink any of it?” No one argues that Jesus “didn’t mean for them to drink any of it.” Jesus transformed the water into wine so they could drink of it. However, our questioner reasons from a false premise.

She assumes and presumes that “wine” always contemplates an intoxicating beverage. “. . the contention of some of my correspondents that the Greek oinos, always meant fermented and intoxicating liquor is totally inaccurate, and only. arises from ignorance, or prejudice” (Don DeWelt, Paul’s Letters To Timothy and Titus, p. 304). “The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine; nor drugged wine; nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land.

The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country-always fermented, and always containing a considerable portion of alcohol-not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures… An argument cannot be drawn from this instance in favour of intemperate drinking… Nor can an argument be drawn from this case in favour even of drinking wine such as we have. The common wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol, and was harmless. It was the common drink of the people, and did not tend to produce intoxication” (Barnes Notes On The N. T., p. 272).

(1) Sometimes the word for wine, oinos, refers to a non-intoxicating beverage. (2) It may refer to a fermented beverage that could only become harmful if consumed in great and immediate quantities. (3) Admittedly, oinos (Hebrew, yayin) may have reference to “strong drink.” In Genesis 9:21 it produced a state of drunkenness in Noah. The context must determine the nature of the wine. In Isaiah 16:10, Jeremiah 40:10, and in Revelation 19:15, “wine” is used to describe the juice of the grape. The same word is used to designate liquor, but even here we observe that “The liquors of this land in the strength of their intoxicating properties differ so widely from the light wines of Palestine that even the most moderate use of them seems immoderate in comparison” (J.W. McGarvey, Fourfold Gospel, p. 118).

3. “Why was Timothy told to drink a little wine for his stomach’s sake if it was a sin? Again, one must grant that this wine is comparable to our modern day wine that is intoxicating, but this we are not willing to grant. Paul here prescribed wine for medicinal, not social purposes. Drugs may be taken in medicinal form that would be sinful to imbibe socially. One who uses this passage should cease to drink water and drink very little wine. Ever know of one who gave up water (Drink no longer water. . .) while he tried to justify his drinking by this verse? Neither have I.

But if it be objected that Paul here admonishes “drink no longer water only or exclusively” (Cf. NASB), then the water is to be mixed with the wine. This would further dilute any intoxicating powers it might possess. Be it remembered, though, that this wine is not what we think or conceive as wine today.

4. “I am trying to think of where the passage is that says for the woman not to be given to much wine wherein is excess. (The verse in mind is undoubtedly Titus 2:3-LRH). Doesn’t this indicate she can drink a little?” When Peter said that brethren did not run with “the same excess of riot” with the world, did he thereby imply that they engaged in a little riotous behavior? Right above, he had mentioned “excess of wine.@ If this permits a little wine, why does not Aexcess of riot@ allow a little riotous activity (1 Pet. 4:3, 4)? When Paul said, ALet not the sun go down upon your wrath,@ are we to suppose he permitted wrath from sunrise to sunset? When elders and deacons are shown to be men who must not be Agreedy of filthy lucre,@ does this justify a lust for ill gotten gain just so it is in moderation?

Let us not see how closely we can live like the devil while claiming life in the Son. This disposition seems to motivate those who want to drink Aa little.@ It is contrary to the tone, tint, and tenor of the New Testament. ABe ye holy; for I am holy@ (1 Pet. 1:16). AWine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise@ (Prov. 20:1). ALook not thou upon the wine when it is red . . . at the last it biteth like a serpent@ (Prov. 23: 31, 32).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 4-5
September 19, 1974

By Lindy McDaniel

In the May 23rd issue of Truth Magazine, Brother Cecil Willis featured me in an editorial stating that I teach “pernicious error.” The grounds for the accusation is that I teach that a child of God can constantly stand in the grace of God. Cecil attacks this view as being the equivalent to the Baptist position of “once saved, always saved,” and leading to a loose view of sin and of grace.

Cecil and I agree that Christians sin daily, as the Bible clearly teaches and experience demonstrates (1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 130:3; Ps. 143:2; Isa. 64:6; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:32; and 1 John 1:8). The point of controversy involves sin and separation from God. While I believe that every sin the Christian commits can potentially separate him from God (see James 1:15), Cecil believes that every sin automatically separates the Christian from God. This latter position insists that when the Christian sins (and none of us can say that we do not sin (1 Jno. 1:8), he is “severed from Christ” (Gal. 5:4), or “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4), or in a state of condemnation (see Rom. 8:1), or has his name blotted out of the Lamb’s book of life (see Rev. 20:15), etc. This position logically says that a Christian must constantly be “in” and “out” of a state of condemnation.

If Cecil’s theory is correct, the nature of the Christian life is one of constant fear, an even should the Christian pray hourly for the forgiveness of sins, he would still have no assurance that he would be in a saved condition. This theory must insist that right standing before God at any point in time is based upon sinlessness. Although the Bible clearly teaches that the child of God can fall and be lost (see John 15:1-6; Heb. 6:4-6; Heb. 10:26-27; 2 Pet. 2:20-22, etc.), the nature of the Christian life is one of “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17) as contrasted to fear and bondage (Rom. 8:15).

The Bible teaches that a Christian can abide in a state of grace. Paul wrote: “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1-2). See also John 15:1-6; Rom. 8:1; Rev. 3:4-5; Phil. 4:1; 1 Pet. 5:12, and countless other passages.

Abiding in the grace of God is conditioned on a living faith (see Rom. 5:1-2). Our faith is demonstrated by “walking in the light” (1 Jno. 1:7) bearing fruit (John 15:1-6), keeping God’s commandments (1 John 2:4), continually confessing our sins (1 John 1:9), etc.; but none of these conditions demand sinlessness. When a Christian ceases to possess a living faith, God’s grace through Jesus Christ is no longer appropriated to him (Rom. 3:28 and Eph. 2:8-10). In this connection, the word “faithful” describes one who is “walking by faith,” and such a one, although not sinless, is indeed in favor with God (see 1 Cor. 4:17; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc.).

I deny emphatically that I believe in “once saved, always saved” as has been charged. I deny emphatically that I believe that a child of God need not make confession of sins! On the other hand, I freely admit that I believe a child of God can “walk in the light without being sinlessly perfect. Thank God for that fact!

It has been widely reported that Cecil and I are divided over “doctrinal differences.” Many have inquired about the statement to this effect found in the last issue of Pitching For The Master, a paper which I edit and write. Cecil, without my knowledge or consent, changed my original statement by adding the word “doctrinal.” From my point of view, it is not true that Pitching will no longer be published by the Cogdill Foundation because of doctrinal differences. It is much more accurate to say that it is the Cogdill

Foundation Board’s reactions to these differences (as described in this article) that has finally resulted in our not being able to work together.

I am extremely sorry that it has become necessary for me to answer Cecil’s public charges. I am shocked and perplexed as to why they were made, but I cannot stand back and allow the facts to be misrepresented. This is all I intend to say publically about the matter. There is ample work to be done in the kingdom without getting side-tracked into endless arguments over pointless controversies which can only gender division and strife. Let brotherly love continue.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: For about a month I have been away on an extended trip for gospel meetings. Hence, several issues of TRUTH MAGAZINE had to be prepared prior to my leaving. It now is less than two weeks until the debate which Brother Jesse Jenkins and I are to hold. Hence, I cannot at this time spare the time to write the reply that I had intended to write to the above article from Brother Lindy McDaniel. Yet I think it might be unfair to him to permit more time to lapse before he is given opportunity to be heard regarding my previous article. Our basic disagreement lie in the fact that Lindy thinks a Christian who sins as a result of ignorance or from the weakness of the flesh continues to stand in the grace of God, even though he has neither repented of, nor confessed the sin. He applies this point specifically to the usage of instrumental music and institutionalism. Herein lies our basic disagreement. Already I have written about 15 pages, showing Lindy’s vacillation on this question, but to complete the job will take about that many more pages. So I have chosen to print his article now, and perhaps will publish my reply later. I must prepare three issues of the paper, and then be gone for meetings and the debate for a five week period.–Cecil Willis)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 3
September 19, 1974

By John McCort

Many of our religious friends believe in the doctrine of “irresistible grace.” Briefly, this doctrine states, 1.. God predestines or unconditionally selects certain individuals to be saved and certain individuals to be lost. 2. Those chosen unto salvation God calls through the Holy Spirit. 3. The Holy Spirit opens the heart of the chosen sinner so that he can understand the gospel. 4. The direct calling of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted or rejected by the chosen sinner. Advocates of this doctrine quote such passages as Rom. 8:30, “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he called. . .” (KJV). This article will specifically deal with the nature of our divine calling.

Definition of “Called”

There are several Greek words that are translated “call.” The primary word for “call” in the New Testament is the word kaleo. Under kaleo, Vine says,”. . .derived from the root kal-, whence Eng. “call” and “clamour” (See B.C., below), is used with a personal object, to call anyone, invite, summon, e.g., Matt. 20:8; 25:14. . .” (Vines Expository Dictionary, p. 163). Kaleo is also translated “Bidden, Invited, Bade.” Under “bidden” Vine has this to say about the Greek word kaleo, “to call, often means to bid, in the sense of invite, e.g., Matt. 22:3, 4, 8, 9; Luke 17:7, 8, 9, 10, 13, R.V.: Rev. 19,9” (Ibid, p.125).

The Greek word kaleo, translated both “call” and invite,” does not carry with it the idea of an irresistable or unrejectable command. It carries the idea of an invitation. An invitation can either be accepted or rejected. A person receiving an invitation has the option of declining. Interestingly, the Latin Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible) translates the word kaleo as in vitati, which is with word from which we derive our English word “invitation.”

How We Are Called?

The Scriptures teach that we are called to be Christians, not by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, but through the gospel. 2 Thess. 2:14, “Whereunto he called you by our gospel.” An examination of the cases of conversion in the book of Acts never reveals any operation of the Holy Spirit on the sinners’ heart before hearing the gospel.

The Calling Is Universal

The gospel invitation is universally extended. Jesus gave the great commission,” “. . Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mk. 16:15) “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will (not whosoever God wills, JWMc) let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17) God does not wish that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9); “who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:4) God is no respector of persons. (Acts 10:34; 1 Pet. 1:17) The Scriptures nowhere teach that sinners are unconditionally and irrevocably called by God through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on predestined individuals.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 2
September 19, 1974