Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

(Editor’s Note: No little has been heard lately about the value of lessons taught by satire. Following is an article in satirical form written in response to Edward Fudge’s widely circulated booklet and article, AAnswers to Questions@).

Brethren, it is actually reported that some among you say sin consigns one to hell, and I partly believe it. Some have become so unyielding that once they acknowledge a thing is “sinful”-in the biblical meaning of the term-they are single minded in preaching that said action will cause one to be lost. They will turn neither to the right hand nor to the left in this declaration. Brother “Walk The Tightrope” has brought this appalling news to our attention and we are greatly indebted to him for warning against such fanatical hewing to the line. In preaching on sin, we need to leave room for “yea, yea” and “nay, nay” lest we make it appear God’s Word consigns to hell without further ado all who continue in sinful activity.

Here is the report as it came from the press recently:

I believe that it (instrumental music) is (sin), in the accepted definition of “sin” as “missing the mark.” My previous answer clearly shows that. Some, however, have apparently wanted to play judge and jury, and assign to hell without further ado all who use instrumental music in worship. This I have refused to do, and, when it has been clear that this was the meaning being given to “sin” I have refused to use that word. I have always believed, however, that instrumental music “misses the mark” of God’s will, and that-in that biblical meaning of the term-it is sinful. (Edward Fudge, “Answers to Questions,” Gospel Guardian May 16, 1974, p. 8)

Judging from this report, it appears some brethren have lost that all-important distinction clearly made in (?) (Book), (?) (Chapter), (?) (Verse) (the exact reference slips my mind at the moment) between continued sin which consigns to hell without further ado and continued sin which does not so condemn. Likely brethren have overlooked the distinction because they reason as follows:

1. Major Premise: “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

2. Minor Premise: Instrumental music in worship is sinful (in the “biblical meaning of the term”).

3. Conclusion: The wages of worshipping with instrumental music is death. Brother W. T. Tightrope has called us back to that scriptural proclamation of the gospel which affirms the major and minor premises but denies the conclusion. In some cases, of course it is “yea, yea;” but in some cases there is “further ado” resulting in “nay, nay.” In other words, to state it simply, the conclusion is yea and nay, yes and no! But, as reported, weaker logicians persist in thinking it must be “yea, yea” or “nay, nay” and that each answer excludes the other.

Now that this startling report has been brought right out into the open, the light that once escaped us is now dawning in our heart. (1) There really are some brotherhood watchdogs and regulators troubling Israel; look what a cry is raised just because some teach the principle of the old Jerusalem gospel which distinguishes between sins which condemn and sins which do not. (2) Those who accept the above stated conclusion without further ado are playing “judge and jury”-they must think they are God. These single-eyed, simple-minded brethren do not yet have the humility to admit that the major and minor premises can be “yea, yea” but the conclusion still be yea and nay. (3) When the conclusion is “yea, yea” or nay, nay” exclusively, opposing groups develop; the circle of fellowship can be enlarged if those who insist on “yea” wil permit “nay” (in some cases) and if those who insist on “nay” will permit “yea” (in some cases)-i.e., let both groups unite under this conclusion: “yea and “nay”.

(4) Love demands the conclusion “yea” and “nay;” therefore, those who resist that conclusion are almost surely motivated by bad motives such as prejudice, financial gain, increased paper circulation, ambition for. Power, (5) Those who resist the obvious “yea-and-nay conclusion cannot prove the certainty of their invariable “yea-yea” conclusion (never mind that the premises are admitted). Therefore, it seems certain that their continued outcry is abusive, political, dealing in mere personalities, bestial, and cannibalistic. That is the most charitable thing that could be said about it.

Brethren, if the full impact of Brother W.T. Tightrope’s report has not hit you yet, consider this. That one should turn neither to the right nor the left in declaring that sin consigns one to hell is a fault “not so much as named among the Gentiles.” Neither Catholics nor Protestants are guilty of such; is it fitting that the people of God alone should be guilty of such deeds?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 12-13
August 29, 1974

By Peter McPherson

The words “pervert,” “subvert” and “convert” sound alike, but they have different meanings. Let’s study each of these terms.

APervert@

“Pervert” means “to turn away… to distort, twist… to transform into something of an opposite character” (W.E. Vine). Jesus was charged with “perverting” the nation, and forbidding to give “tribute to Caesar” (Lk. 23:2,14). Such a charge was manufactured and thus false. Elymas, on the other hand, was a true perverter. Paul interrogated him thus: “wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:8-11).

Perverters On The Prowl

“Error does not just float around up there in the air disassociated from its propagators” was a solid and sound bit of advice that was penned to me in a personal letter from Cecil Willis a number of years ago when I questioned the “spirit” of Truth Magazine. This is not to say that 1 agree with “the way everything has been said,” or to be so naive as to think that perhaps “someone else couldn’t have said it better.” But now it is questionable to me that the policy of generalities “as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25) is more effective than the policy of being specific as was Nathan when he said “thou art the man” (2 Samuel 12:7). That perverters of the gospel do so intentionally or unintentionally is not the real issue, but the real issue is that they are teaching error. When false theologies are advanced and advocated, when they are set forth as a system of religion and attract a following, when they are made a plank in the platforms of the Unity, then both the error and the errorists must be reproved and rebuked (Eph. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Perverting the Purpose of Baptism

Most all denominations of men teach that baptism is nonessential to salvation. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). But since many of these denominations do immerse people in water for various reasons, some of our brethren want to extend to them “fellowship.” To be specific Carl Ketcherside is one such advocator. To do so plainly rejects the purpose of Bible baptism as of any importance, and thus “the right ways of the Lord” are “perverted.”

Perverting the Plan of Grace

Though it will be denied by many of those so charged, there are still those who teach that God’s grace is unconditional. When it is admitted that a child of God can go to heaven, even with one sin on his soul, it then is admitted that God’s grace is unconditional. Yet His grace is conditional (Titus 2:11-14; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Cor. 6:1; I Cor. 15:10; Gal. 5:4). I have heard it said that since we are members of the body of Christ, then we have the automatic cleansing blood of Christ flowing through the spiritual body cleansing and carrying off impurities. That position is based upon the human body comparison in 1 Cor. 12 to the bodv of Christ, but it is taking the figures used past their intended projection, and thus cannot be said by “faith” for “faith comes… by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Any position on God’s forgiving grace that does not take into consideration His conditions of that forgiveness is obviously false. Conditions for forgiveness of a Christian’s sins are acknowledgment of them, repentance concerning them, confession to God on behalf of them, and prayer for forgiveness (Matt. 6:12; Acts 8:22-24; 1 John 1:7-9; 1 Thess. 1:7). Known and unknown sins are acknowledged by asking God to “forgive us our trespasses” (Matt. 6:12). The church at Galatia had its “grace perverters” (Gal. 1:6-10; 5:1-4), and they have appeared in the church again and again. We have “some” today. The error is “abounding”!

Perverting the Plain Organization

In the place of local church autonomy revealed in the Bible (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-2), brethren have set up inter-church relations and activities such as the Sponsoring church concept, wherein one church becomes a brotherhood receiving station. They build and maintain human organizations by contributions from the local treasuries of the Lord. All such arrangements are sheer perversions of the plain and simple plan. Many give in to the big promotional brethren to avoid “the offence of the cross” (Gal. 5:11). They cannot tolerate the pressures that come to bear upon one standing firm with a “thus saith the Lord.” It is sad to see some who “suffered so many things” (Gal. 3:4), such as being labeled trouble-makers, anti’s, orphan haters, church splitters etc., now giving in, switching rather than fighting, to avoid “resist(ing) unto blood, striving against sin.” (Heb. 12:4).

“Subvert“

“Subvert” means “to pack up baggage. . hence, from a military point of view, to dismantle a town, to plunder; is used metaphorically in Acts 15:24 of unsettling or subverting the souls of believers” (Vine). The following passages mention subverters and their tactics (Acts 15:24; 2 Tim. 2:14; Titus 1:11; 3:11).

Subverters “Unsettle” Souls

Subverters tear down what others hold to without giving them a sure foundation to build upon. That is what some brethren are doing when they give a long list of the divisions among “all segments of the Restoration Movement.” They offer no alternative, except “every man do that which is right in his own eyes”. . nothing but anarchy.

They set forth nothing positive and concrete. Only they subvert and unsettle babes in Christ and weaken the faith of precious souls (Matt. 13:12; Matt. 18:6). Advertising such accumulative teeny-weenie or biggy-wiggie problems solves nothing; it only adds one more to the list. That list is for the subverting of souls and for the making ready of the Ketcherside “fellowship everyone and everything” doctrine, or else it will have that result anyway! It will have the same effect ‘upon the weak as would the atheist’s compilation of freak storms, of damaging earthquakes and of levelling hurricanes have on the doubting, the ignorant and the unlearned (2 Pet. 3:15).

Such tactics as publishing a human compilation of divisions, real or imagined, and parading them before the churches of Christ is thoughtless subverting. What if someone in the New Testament days got together a long list of the Corinthian church problems and divisions and placed them in the public square with the question: “Are you generally conservative or liberal?” (cf. Article by Wm. Wallace, Gospel Guardian Vol. 26, No. 1, May 2, 1974, pp. 6-7). Now the New Testament does give the error manifested not only at Corinth but in the other localities as well. But more than that those churches are told in no uncertain terms to clear up their messes. They are instructed to “repent… or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place.” (Rev. 2:5; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Cor. 14:37). God apparently gave those churches and individuals in error a time limit in which to get right!

Stop Subverting

What impression is left by the itemized list? For us to giveup the restoration idea? To accept every position and doctrine that comes along and that anyone wants to advance? What possible good could that list accomplish? Whatever problems and divisions that do exist today among the churches of Christ need not be braggingly or disgustingly highly heralded but diligently discussed. We are to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). We must always look to the pattern and remember that there is the ideal for us to reach for, both as an individual child of God (Phil. 8-9; 1 Cor. 11:1) and as a congregation (Rev. 3:7-13; Philippians). Anything other than this is to fall far short of the truth. Many of the so-called differences are matters of personal conscience and are in the province of human judgment which God allows. (Rom. 14) And Wallace knows this too. Then why did he not make this clear and greatly shorten that list? Again I say, he is unsettling souls. Others are matters of disciple growth and development (Matt. 25:15; 1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 5:12-14); many do not affect the congregation as such (the collective resources) and thus can be tolerated without cleavage, and some are false theological views that will damn both the blind leaders and their followers (Matt. 13:14; Acts 3:17; Lk. 12:47,48; 2 Thess. 1:8).

“Convert“

“Convert” simply means “to turn” (Vine). It does not always denote the actual total process of regeneration. In Matthew 18:3 where the King James Version has “unless ye be converted,” the idea is not unless ye be regenerated or born again as per gospel obedience. In that text the disciples had a false notion about the coming kingdom and positions in it (Mk. 9:33-37; 10:35-45). Jesus told them that they had better get the idea of who is “the greatest” out of their heads. They had “to turn”! If they were going to be in the kingdom and be a part of His plan, they had to change their attitudes a whole lot.

Converted Christians

Whenever we learn new Bible truths and come to maturity concerning various spiritual topics, we have to change our attitudes and practices to conform to these new truths. We have “to turn.” The Christian that is not studying the Bible is not learning and thus cannot grow. He will not change very often. He will not have fresh convictions from the word and thus he will not be changed too much. Among other things the Bible has been given to us “for correction” (2 Tim. 3:16). When we are corrected on “this” or “that” and then we change our course of action, we have turned… have been converted. This is a sign of spiritual maturity, not weakness, when we learn and turn.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 9-10
August 29, 1974

By Joe Neil Clayton

After King Saul’s illicit sacrifice, Samuel solemnly told him, “But now your kingdom shall not continue: Jehovah has sought him a man after his own heart, and Jehovah has appointed him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept that which Jehovah commanded you.” (1 Sam. 13:14). In the New Testament, it is said that when God had removed Saul, “He raised up David to be their king: to whom also he bare witness and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who shall do all my will” (Acts 13:22). God counts a man to be moulded after His own heart, therefore, when that man shows that his will runs parallel with God’s.

When we examine the life of David, we discover several ways in which David submitted to the will of God. He was a man who was “ahead of his time” in morality: and spirituality. Even though sin marred the perfection of his life, he still stands out as a prime example of faithfulness to the will of God. Good kings after him were extolled for their similarity to David (2 Chron. 17:3-4), and bad kings were exposed in contrast to him (1 Kings 15:3). Thus, his obedience set a standard by which to judge his heirs.

In at least three different ways, David serves as an, excellent example to us. First, he had confidence in the promises and the’ care of God. In the Law of Moses, God promised his obedient people “rains in their season” and “bread to the full.” There would be “peace in the land,. . . and none shall make you afraid.” Again, “You shall chase your enemies… five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall chase ten thousand.” (Lev. 26:3-8), David had no doubt but that this applied to him personally, for when he prepared himself to confront the giant Goliath, he could trustfully say, “Jehovah that delivered me out of the paw of the lion,. . will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine!” The giant boasted of personal single-combat victory over David. But, David boldly replied, “I will smite you, and take your head… and I will give the dead bodies of the Host of the Philistines this day unto the birds of the heavens” (1 Sam. 17:36-37, 45-47). Such confidence: was not born of ignorance of God’s power.

In a second instance, David showed a godly heart by counting no one his enemy among his brethren. He knew the Law said, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart:… You shall not take vengeance against the children of your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Lev. 19:17-18). Consequently, when King Saul malignantly hunted him down, uttering murderous threats, David did not fall into the temptation to return this hate. Instead, he professed his righteous and merciful attitude toward his enemy, because he was of the children of Israel, and God’s anointed. (1 Sam. 24:1-19).

David’s adherence to the Law, in the third example, sees him fulfilling his vows. The Law of God was clear. “When you shall vow a vow unto Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack: to pay it. . .” (Dent. 23:21-23). When David was a fugitive, Jonathan,’ the heir-apparent to the throne of Saul, would not interpret the set-backs of David in the obvious light. He steadfastly professed the belief that David was destined to displace the rule of Saul, and occupy the throne. Therefore, he made David promise to show kindness to his descendants. David vowed to honor Jonathan’s request.

Years of hiding, exile and civil war followed. Yet, when peace at last came to the nation, one of David’s first actions was to seek out Mephibosheth, the crippled son of Jonathan, the sole survivor of that famous father, and restore him to the honor that his vow required. (1 Sam. 20:13-17, 2 Sam. 9:1-8). We should observe that God never deviates from his promises, and he expects his servants to have the same attitude.

Children of God who serve under the New Testament are likewise to look to the character of God for a pattern of their own. They are to “put on the new man, that after God has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth” (Eph. 4′:22-24). By the way, they are also “created in Christ Jesus for good works.” (Eph. 2:10). Peter urged them, “…like as he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, You shall be holy; for I am’ holy.” (1 Pet. 1:13-15). In a similar fashion, Christ teaches them, “Be, merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36); Dozens of such references could be cited, but these should be sufficient to make us realize that God, would have all Christians to be “filled unto all the fullness of God.” (Eph. 3:14-1-9).

God still seeks men who are fashioned “after his own heart, who will do all of his will.” Therefore greater blessings in reserve for such men today than were given to King David. Who will seize, them and husband them till eternity? Then, use God as a pattern, and fashion yourselves in his character!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 8
August 29, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

In Bible discussion involving the place of baptism with respect to forgiveness of sins, sectarian preachers, especially Baptists, often ask, “If baptism is for the remission of sins, must a Christian be baptized every time he sins?” Often Protestant preachers project this query to provoke and promote prejudice. It is an attempt to ridicule the truth. Of course, a ludicrous baptismal scene is painted in the minds of people. Every saint sins, therefore, baptism must be repeated daily by every Christian. That is absurd, thus, baptism for the remission of sins is equally absurd. That is the idea the. false teacher hopes to arouse.

There is no “if” about baptism being “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). There is the responsibility to show the plan -of forgiveness for the Christian (Acts 8:12-24; 1 Jn. 1:9). This must be done for the benefit of the honest hearted hearer. It must not be overlooked when dealing with facetious men.

But the “baptism again and again” idea proves to be a boomerang. The Baptist reasons that if you believe baptism is for remission of sins, then you must be baptized every time you need to be forgiven. The Baptist, however, says one is baptized “because of” the remission of sins. So we may ask him, “Since you say baptism is ‘because of the remission of sins, must every saved person who sins and is forgiven be baptized ‘because of that forgiveness?” It is fair then to paint the same baptismal scene for the Baptists. The Baptist preacher pictured all the members of the church of Christ being baptized every time they sin, so we will just picture all the Baptists being baptized every time they are forgiven of sins. If baptism for the remission of sins was excluded because it was made to appear ridiculous, then Baptist baptism is also excluded for the very same reason. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 7
August 29, 1974