Truth Magazine

By George T. Eldridge

The sixties and seventies shocked America as she learned who used, for example, narcotics, barbiturates, amphetamines, psychedelic drugs, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or LSD. The use of those drugs is still being discussed in our legislative halls, newspapers, magazines, radio programs, television programs, books, and pulpits. All of those afore named drugs and others peculiar to the present generation have never been our nation’s number 1 drug problem!! That statement is a heavy blow in the opinions of too many people, but truth is truth. The previously named are not as damaging to an individual and society as the sin engaged in by Noah (Gen. 10:20-24). Our nation’s number I drug is as old as ‘ Noah and is sold in supermarkets, drug stores, and convenience stores.

“The nation’s no. 1 >drug problem,’ the Department of Health, Education and Welfare asserted last week, continues to be alcohol” (“The No. 1 Drug Problem,” Newsweek, February 28, 1972, page 54).

Alcohol is Valuable

Alcohol has great usages. It performs service as an industrial solvent, chemical intermediate, and is regarded as one of the most important accessory chemicals. The medicine and the pharmaceutical industry make wide use of ethyl alcohol as a chemical intermediate, therapeutic agent, and general solvent. Alcohol’s solvent power is particularly useful for the extraction of medicinals from plant and animal tissues and, for example, compounding tonics, elixirs, cough syrups, tinctures, liniments, antiseptics, or medicinal soaps. With those uses, alcohol is not branded as “the nation’s No. I drug problem.” Alcohol is the No. 1 drug problem when used as a beverage or used in beverages!

Alcohol Is a Drug

“Taken internally, alcohol acts as a narcotic and is the principal active ‘ ingredient present in all spirituous liquors~’ (“Alcohol,” Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 1, Chicago, 1952, p. 540). The word “spirits” is most frequently used as a designation for alcoholic beverages, more particularly of the ardent type which owe their strength to distillation. The ardent type is strong alcoholic liquor, such as whiskey or gin. Spiritous liquors are usually classified as (1) distilled, including whiskey, gin, and brandy, (2) malt, including beer and ale, (3) vinous, or wines. All of them contain ethyl alcohol, which is habit-forming, a narcotic drug, poison, and harmful to every form of life. Distilled beverages are usually 45% to 50% alcohol. Malt beverages are of lower alcohol content: beer usually 4% to 6% and ale about 10%. Wine is usually from 10% to 14% alcohol, but fortified wine may run 20% or more by reason of the addition of more alcohol.

Defenders of Alcoholic Beverages

The spokesmen for spirituous liquors are naturally the manufacturers, sellers, and drinkers. A few churches or church-owned societies are even among the manufacturers, too. Isn’t that a shame? Churches are supposedly trying to influence people to go to Heaven, yet they will produce Hell-sending and society-damaging booze. They aid the drinkers on their road to the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:15). The Roman Catholic Church is the best known church which makes liquor. One example is the Christian Brothers, a teaching order of the Roman Catholic Church. This order is located in Napa, California (P.O. Box 420). The Christian Brothers began their wine making operations in 1879, and they are now one of the largest wine producers in the United States. Profits from this operation help to carry on the order’s expanding educational work and to support 13 institutions of learning in California and Oregon. Also, the Christian Brothers are the largest manufacturers of commercial brandy in America. Because of a House Subcommittee on Internal Revenue Taxation meeting held in 1956, and the decision handed down by Federal Judge Sherrill Halbert in Sacramento in July, 1961, the Christian Brothers Winery meets all state and federal tax commitments like any other business. Another example of the Roman Catholic Church being in the alcohol business is the Novitiate of Los Gatos of Ukiah, California (Route 1, Box 572).

The common idea held by a number of people today is to place religion with any product or action. This will then make everything acceptable to God and, especially, to society. That is one factor as to why Christian Brothers Liquor is on the market. It is disgusting and sickening to see religion tied to any product as harmful as alcoholic beverages. God does not sanction spirituous liquors today nor did Jesus in His day. God’s Son and our Savior never used any semblance to current alcoholic beverages. Any individual appealing to the Bible as his basis of approval for his “social drinking” proclaims to everyone his total lack of knowledge concerning the Word of God. Such a person will be “destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Everyone knows drinkers of spirits are found in churches. It is revolting to find a few in Churches of Christ. Why are some drinkers accepted in Churches of Christ and even permitted to participate in services? Please consider these six reasons:

1. The drinker has fair speech, a pious appearance, or financial wealth.

2. The brethren do not know that our brother or sister drinks.

3. The brethren do not believe drinking is sinful.

 4. A few men and women are cowards and traitors to the cause of Christ when the time arrives to call the drinker to repentance.

 5. The good people in the church cannot combat the strong influence the drinker has in the church.

6. A significant portion of the baptized believers will not believe that person is a drinker.

Most defenders of drinking will not be fair and honorable toward those who differ with them. In fact, they will not defend their belief publically. When “social drinkers” are men of influence in the church, the preacher might be fired for opposing this sin and asking brethren “Who is on the Lord’s side?” Defenders of alcoholic beverages are not speaking as the oracles of God and are blind leaders (I Peter 4:11; Matt. 15:14).

Conclusion

“Abhor that which is evil” (Rom. 12:9). Alcoholic beverages are evil; therefore, you must “dislike, have a horror of” our nation’s number I drug problem, which is alcohol.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 11-12
June 13, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

Fleshly Israel longed and looked for a. glorious, exalted earthly King and civil Kingdom (Lk. 24:21; in. 6:15; Acts 1:6). They read the grand, -prophetic. utterances which foretold of the Mighty Messiah who would be involved in a universal labor of liberation and domination, so they “inquired and searched diligently” for a royal, regal Ruler who would banish the Babylon of their day and in the generalship of David restore the splendor of the kingship of Solomon. A casual, unstudied reading of the Scriptures of the prophets might render such a conclusion possible, but the life of the Nazarene was a living identification and interpretation of the essence and substance of the King and His Kingdom.

When the expectant Jews saw a humble teacher rather than a triumphant conqueror, they were disappointed, disillusioned and incensed with frustration. The very features and facets of the Lord7s demeanor that should have and in truth did stamp Him as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy caused them to cull and condemn Jesus as an unfit stone. The truth personified before them was a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.

Reading alone such passages as Psa. 2-6-9, one can conceive a government of God for men on earth. But Psalm 2, is not the only statement of the matter. Beside every segment of Scripture telling of might and majesty, one can lay those revealing weakness and humility. That is not to say that the Kingdom is only to be viewed as weak and humble, far from it, but collectively compiled and considered, the prophets assert the Messiah’s majesty while dispelling and defeating a carnal conception with a meek and lowly servant. Matthew cites and quotes Isaiah and Zechariah to this effect (Mt. 12:17-21; 21:4, 5).

Instead of presenting an armed warrior, Isaiah spoke of a retiring character and Christ. “He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.” He is not going to rally men with the ostentatious display of a summoning soldier, still, he shall “send forth victory.” That passage contradicts and corrects carnal notions. In similar and familiar language, Isaiah said, “For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is ,despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised and we esteemed him not” (Isa. 53:2, 3).

Zechariah’s prophecy was also one the Lord interpreted in act and in fact before the people (Mt. 21:2-11). It achieved in its fulfillment at least three purposes. (1) It publicly proclaimed Jesus as the King of Old Testament prophecies. (2) It revealed that His Kingship was not temporal in that he did not seek opportunity to use the peoples’ popular favor to seize the government. (3) It gave the people an avenue of expression through which could flow their conviction that He was the Christ, the Son of David. (In seeing Him as King but not as a civil office seeker, they should have perceived the true nature of the Kingdom.) That we are not forcing a subdued, subservient view of the prophets’ King and Kingdom and thereby dulling their resplendence can be seen in the results of New Testament teaching.

The apostles’ doctrine pronounced repentance and remission of sins in the name of Christ with an “ascended” and “exalted” “Prince of life” who hath been made “Lord and Christ” on the throne of David (Acts,2 & 3). Many thousands then saw the true import of the prophets and felt the full impact of the gospel and by the implanted word were sanctified and justified in Him, who was now glorified (Acts 2:36-41; 3:26; 4:4). If the submissive servant and the suffering Savior were contrary to the word picture of the prophets, why did Peter and the rest of the apostles use them? How could they have been successful? The truth, therefore, is as we have set it forth. Thus, when the scales of prejudice fell from their eyes and the veil over their hearts was lifted, they bowed in faith, repentance and baptism.

Paul preached a suffering Savior, a dying Deliverer, and a resurrected Redeemer as the Son of God (I Cor. 2:2). As minds were then opened, he testified “that this Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ” (Acts 17:2, 3; 18:4, 5). What was the result of reasoning out of the Old Covenant Scriptures? Did the people with one accord reject the spiritual King and Kingdom? Hardly! After an open study of the prophets, “many of them believed” (Acts 17:11, 12).

Paul was charged with wresting, perversion and blasphemy because he preached through Christ the forgiveness of sins. He was accused of not believing the law and the prophets because of his “heresy” that Jesus was somehow the King of the Old Testament prophecies. However, he could answer with complete confidence in the prophets and Moses: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets” (Acts 24:14). “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22, 23). That serves as the Spirit’s exclamation point as to the true nature of the King and His Kingdom.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 10-11
June 13, 1974

By Harry E. Ozment

Definition

It is true that certain physical blessings of the grace of God are given to the believer and unbeliever alike. Jesus said, “For he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” (Matt. 5:45) Paul explained in I Tim. 4: 10 that God “is the Savior of all men,” i.e., God sustains all life upon this earth through the bestowal of certain physical blessings (e.g., sunshine, rain, air, etc.). No one denies this. Notice, however, what Paul next says, “For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those who believe. ” Paul, in the last clause of v. 10, is speaking of the spiritual blessings of God which contribute to the eternal salvation of manthis grace is given to believers.

Calvinism denies that any “speciar, grace is shown to believers as opposed to unbelievers. The doctrine of “irresistible grace” is a branch off the vine of “predestination.” God’s grace to salvation, according to Calvinism, is given only to the elect-whether the elect desire it or not. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith states: “This effectual call is of God’s free and speciat’grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the .Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” (Chapter 10) This doctrine, as you can see, provides for a direct and mysterious indwelling of the Spirit. This doctrine, together with its foundation doctrine (predestination), teaches that an “elected” person is saved at the very beginning in the mind of God, and he is saved “in fact” when God arbitrarily sends His Spirit into the heart of that individual.

Errors of the Doctrine

Because the existence of this doctrine depends to a great extent on the existence of “predestination,” errors of the two doctrines could be interchanged. However, as we specifically consider the Calvinistic concept of “irresistible grace,” many errors are glaringly evident, for this doctrine:

(1) Negates the importance of man’s obedience. This doctrine would have people believe that the grace of God to salvation is given to the obedient and disobedient alikeprovided they have been elected. According to Calvinism, God, in His own time, arbitrarily sends the Spirit upon whomsoever He will, while totally disregarding (a) the kind of lives these people live, and (b) the desire (or lack of it) that these people have for His grace. Such a doctrine can only do one thing: consign obedience to the realm of the “non-essential.” And when Calvinism does this, it is in complete contradition. with the Bible. The Bible teaches that man’s obedience is essential to his salvation. Jesus stated: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21)

When the Bible teaches the essentiality of obedience, it does not imply that man’s obedience earns salvation. On the contrary, our active obedience to God’s will indicates that we cannot save ourselves, and thus makes us openly admit that we must submit to Him to be saved. Of course, this would not be the case if we were to try to be saved by obeying our will. We read in Acts 10:34-35: “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Paul states the case well by contrasting the works of God with the works of man in Eph. 2:8-10 (notice the intensive words emphasis mine, HEO): “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

Neither does the Bible imply that man’s obedience displaces God’s grace. The Bible teaches that God’s grace, coupled with man’s obedience, produces the promised blessing. This Bible principle is illustrated several times in Heb. 11: “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet (grace), moved with fear, prepared an ark (obedience) to the saving of his house (promised blessing)” (v. 7); “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place (grace), which he should after receive for an inheritance (promised blessing), obeyed (obedience)” (v. 8); “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed (grace), and was delivered of a child when she was past age (promised blessing), because she judged him faithful who had promised (obedience).” (v. 11) This same principle is true today, as is shown by the statement found in Heb. 5:9: “He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” “Eternal salvation” is the promised blessing. Through the grace of God, Jesus shed his blood (“became the author”), which purchased the church and put into effect God’s will. Man’s obedience, though, must be coupled to God’s grace, as is shown in the last clause: “unto all them that obey him.” Hence, if obedience is essential to salvation, “irresistible grace” cannot be possible.

(2) Denies the true nature of grace. Paul explains the nature of grace in Eph. 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of’ God.” Grace is a gift. A gift necessarily involves two ideas: (a) the will of the giver to give; and (b) the consent of the receiver to receive. If either of these conditions is missing, the item given is not a gift. The word “irresistible” means “impossible to successfully resist” (Webster). Therefore, to state that God’s grace is “irresistible” is to say that the “consent of the receiver” is not necessarily involved in the giving of grace. Hence, this would deny that the grace of God is a gift. Such is the sad consequence of believing Calvinistic theory!

(3) Destroys the free agency of man. One of the great truths of the Bible is that man is a free moral agent. He has enough intelligence to determine his course of action. God said in Deut. 30:15-18: “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in ..that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shall be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish.” This was true of Adam and Eve in the very beginning. They were given intelligent minds which were capable of making decisions. Two ways were set before them-the way of right and the way of wrong. God coaxed them to go the way of right and warned them against g . oing the way of wrong-but the final decision was made by Adam and Eve. Therefore, when man decided to go the way of wrong, he was held accountable for it. The same is true today. Jesus said, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, he shall ask what ye will and it shall be done unto you.” (Jn. 15:6-7) The vine is provided by the grace of God. But we, as branches, exercise free determination in choosing whether to abide in this vine’. Calvinism denies this. This theory would have us to believe that the elect must receive the grace of God-they have no choice about the matter. God’s grace is irresistible! God certainly could not hold unsaved individuals accountable if their condition was in no way due to their own free choice. Such a theory!-it denies the most, evident truths of the Bible!

It is sad but true that the grace of God can be resisted -many millions resist His grace every day. God’s power to save our souls is His word (Rom. 1: 16; Jas. 1:21). When men spurn this word for their divisive human creeds, they are most surely resisting the grace of the Almighty!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 9-10
June 13, 1974

By Roland Worth, Jr.

God has revealed all that we need in regard to our religion (2 Pet. 1:3). Therefore there is no reason to expect His endorsement when we add things to our religion that He has not authorized. Likewise, it follows that God is antagonized when men omit what He wants done. Yet we see this sin of omission again and again in the collective religious life of the church and of the’ denominations around us. Among brethren, we could list such evils as the refusal to select elders when there are clearly qualified men present and the passing of the responsibility of preaching the gospel to centralized and unauthorized institutions.

Among denominations, the most obvious evil is that of omitting immersion (which they will usually concede is itself a proper act) and substituting sprinkling (which is unauthorized in the scriptures). We could attack this substitution with great vigor but this article is not intended to attack only one evil but to assault the whole concept of substituting our desires for God’s desires. Whenever we substitute our will for the divine will, the end result is not just a substitution but an actual omission of what is right. As an example, take this matter of sprinkling. Those who sprinkle a person do not also immerse the same person. Substitution has resulted in the omission of what God desires!

God strenuously disapproves of handling His will this way, as we will note in the scriptures that follow.

1. The scriptures insist that “all” (not just ‘some’) of God’s law is to be obeyed. Many Old Testament passages point this out. For instance, “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 10:12). In Deut. 27:1, Moses commands the people, “Keep all the commandments which I command you this day.” “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do . . . .” (Deut. 12:32). Christ took the same attitude’ toward His teachings, “Teaching them (the disciples) to observe all that I have commanded you…” (Matt. 28:20).

No person can honestly claim that ‘he is doing “all” the commandments of God if he has substituted some practice or scheme of his own for what Jehovah has ordained! He can say that he has kept “part” of God’s law and none would dispute the claim, but he can never rightly claim that he is keeping “all” of it. The difference between “part” and “all” is the difference between doing what God wants us to do and doing what we ourselves would rather do.

2. Not only is doing ALL of God’s will encouraged, doing LESS is specifically prohibited. “. . . . Remember all the commandments of the Lord to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly” (Num. 15:39). The prohibition of any deviation from what God has ordained applied even to the rulers of Israel (Deut. 17:18-20).

3. To neither take from God’s law nor add to it is an essential pre-requisite of obeying the Divine will. This is made clear in Deut. 4:2, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.@

4. God considers the Omission of. anything He has commanded as “rebellion.” In Ezek. 5:6 we read of ancient Israel, “And she has wickedly rebelled against my ordinances more than the nations, and against my statutes more than the countries round about her, by rejecting my ordinances and not walking in my statutes.”

5. God was sorry He made Saul king because Saul omitted what was commanded. When we turn to I Sam. 15:11 we find the very plain statement, “I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments. ” Saul had violated, not a prohibition of God’s law, but God’s positive injunction, His instruction to utterly destroy Amalek (v. 3). From this example we find God’s attitude toward those who ignore and decline to obey His commands; it is not just the violation of His prohibitions that gets mankind in trouble with Jehovah!

6. Circumcision was a positive command, yet to decline to circumcise was a violation of God’s law. Gen. 17:14 tells us of the penalty that would befall those who did not follow the circumcision ordinance, “Any uncircumcised male … shall be cut, off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Yes, to refuse to do what God has said to be done is a violation of the Divine will just as much as the violation of a direct prohibition imposed by God. Omission is regarded as nothing short of sin.

7. In His parables, Christ viewed omissions as a just cause for receiving severe punishment. In Luke we read, “And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready, or act according. to His will, shall receive a severe beating, But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a, light beating., Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required: and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more” (12:47-48).

8. Any time we omit what we know to be right we have sinned. “Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17).

9. Christ condemned the Pharisees for the omissions in their religion. Christ’s condemnation was blunt and to the point; “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matt. 23:23-24). The King James Version makes this point even stronger by using the word “omitted” where the Revised Standard Version (quoted above) uses the word “neglected.” In either case the point is the same.

10. God ‘s reaction to Israel’s refusal to enter Palestine reveals His attitude toward those who omit what He has demanded be done. The command to enter Canaan was not a prohibition; it was what we would call a positive commandment (like Christ commanding believer baptism in Mk. 16:16). Yet what did God think of their refusal to carry out the command? Did He look upon it with condolence because it did not violate a prohibition of His will? (After all, there was no scripture that forbade them to refuse to enter the promised land! Just like there is no scripture that forbids us to baptize infants!! In both cases, all we have are positive commands- In one case to enter Canaan; in the other to baptize believers.)

Let us hear the judgment of God (Deut. 1) on the refusal of the Israelites to do that which was commanded:

1. It was rebellion against God (v. 26);

2. It was non-belief (v. 32);

3. It caused God to be angry and to punish the people (vs. 34-37);

 

4. The people admitted that their refusal to obey was sin (v. 41). In Deut. 9:23 this refusal to obey God is again mentioned and is described as rebellion and disbelief.

 

We might also point out that in trying to “make up” for their sin, they fell into yet more sin (vs. 41-46)! Today we find the same problem. Many congregations that did not fulfill their congregational responsibility to preach the gospel fell into just as great an evil when they turned to “sponsoring churches” in their guilt-ridden reaction to their own past apathy. The earthly proverb still rings true, “Two wrongs do not make a right!”

Conclusion

Substitution for what God has ordained may have an appeal to us for we are its inventors; the problem is that God does not s4are our judgment. We have omitted from our religion what He placed in it. So what else can we expect from Him but condemnation?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 7-8
June 13, 1974