Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

There are many passages that teach that brethren in the Lord should love one another. Let us all read carefully the following scriptures. “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if you have love one to another (Jno. 13:34, 35). Paul added, “Let love be without hypocrisy…. In love of the brethren be tenderly affectionate one to another” (Rom. 12:9, 10). Peter enjoined love also: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently” (I Pet. 1:22). Of course, the apostle of love had much to say on this subject. “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (I Jno. 4:7, 8). John also said, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for be that loveth not his brother whom he bath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also” (I Jno. 4:20, 21). The Hebrew writer used the words from which the title of this article is taken, “Let love of the brethren continue” (Heb. 13:1).

The tensions and conflicts among brethren the past two decades or so have severely tested our love one for another. Of course, some brethren think that the mere fact that we have any disagreements at all is evidence that we do not love one another. Others think that when a person mentions the name of a brother with whom he differs that brotherly love is absent. Actually, the brother who believes his brethren are in error and that their souls are jeopardized must seek to correct them. God loves us, and thus He corrects us and chastens us by His word.

But we have now for many years been engaged in heated conflict with many of our brethren. We all should have waged our battle on the basis of principles rather than merely against personalities, if we have not. There is no justification for character assassination of brother against brother. There is a manly and an honorable way in which to differ with a brother.

Unfortunately, not every person who has participated in the controversies, both past and present, has conducted himself as he should have. Neither has all the wrong been on one side. Possibly nearly all of us have, on some occasion, said or done something that is somewhat beneath the standard of acceptable conduct.

Every person who has been knowledgeable to the controversy could recite the occurrence of untoward incidents. I have known of occasions when brethren became so heated in their disagreements that they actually engaged in physical combat. How ridiculous can brethren get? Imagine, sinfully engaging in physical combat over a Bible subject. In a number of other instances, brethren have become so worked up and lost control of themselves so that they have shouted at one another, and in other instances pushed and shoved one another around. One preaching brother wrote me from the Philippines that a liberal brother had gotten after him “with a long barreled gun.” But again I state, all the sinful anger and reproachable conduct have not been on one side.

Sometimes brethren are downright childish in their reaction to another brother. At other times, perhaps the word asinine would better describe the dishonorable conduct. When I lived in Kansas City several years ago, we had a peculiar incident to occur. The congregation for which I was preaching had built and paid for a large highway sign. When the sign was put up, differences between brethren had not become so intense, so the names and addresses of another nearby congregation or two had also been given on the highway sign as a courtesy to the other congregations. After severe differences developed between congregations, you know what action someone took? Rather than asking us to remove the names and addresses of the other congregations from our sign, someone went out, and painted out the name of our congregation on our sign. That was an audacious and childish deed.

Another incident, about equally childish, just came to my attention. Last fall the Lennon Road church in Flint, Michigan conducted a ladies lectureship, whatever that implies. The small conservative church in Flint was also invited to attend, as I imagine were all the other congregations in the city of Flint. Sometime later, after someone had discovered that the invitation had been sent to the “Anti” church, Brother Andrew Ashlock, one of the Elders at Lennon Road church, wrote the following letter to the Ladies of the faithful 12th Street church in Flint: “Dear Ladies: You were mistakenly included on our mailing list for the Christian Ladies Lectureship. We did not intend to extend the invitation to you and we hope you understand that you would not be welcome at this event. We are sorrowfully and prayerfully yours.” Then the letter is signed “For the Elders” by Andrew Ashlock.

This is the kind of reproachable and childish action that we could so well do without. If I were one of the 5 Elders and twelve Deacons whose names appear on the letterhead, or “Minister” Kenneth Jarrett or “Missionary” E. Ray COX” I think I would want to apologize to the 12th Street church and to let them know that I was not a party to, nor in sympathy with, the childish letter signed by Elder Andrew Ashlock.

Disagreements among brethren are bad enough. Division in the Body of Christ is deplored by every right thinking person. But even in our sincere disagreements, and even when division becomes necessary in order to practice what one believes to be acceptable worship to God, at least we can be manly, honorable, and brotherly in our dealings with one another. Indeed, “let brotherly love continue.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 37, pp. 3-5
July 27, 1972

By C. D. Plum

“Faith is that which comes by hearing the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

“Opinion is what men think when the Word of God has not spoken.”

That God appeared to Moses in a burning bush is a matter of faith. It is written. (Ex. 3: 12). Why God appeared to Moses in a burning bush is a matter of opinion. Because the reason is not written. That Nicodemus came to Jesus by night is a matter of faith. It is written (Jno. 3:1-2). Why Nicodemus came to Jesus by night is a matter of opinion. Because the reason is not written.

Opinions Divide Brethren

It is some brethrens opinion that the church treasury may be used to support any good work. They say the college is a good work, so the money in the church treasury may be used to support such. This is an opinion. This is what men think when the Word of God does not speak. They lack scripture that would make such a statement a matter of faith. They may give you a reference to Galatians 6: 10, but they know when they do it that this scripture is describing individual action, and not church action. They give their opinion that what the individual can do, the church can do. It would be a matter of faith for me to support a widowed mother, but it would not be a matter of faith for the church to support my widowed mother. Here is individual action on my part that is right, but the same action on the churchs part would be sin. It is written, “Let not the church be charged” (I Tim. 5:16).

And some brethren will allow opinions to tear the church to pieces. No one that I know of denies brethren the right to have and to hold an opinion, to keep it to themselves. But when they go to teaching this publicly, or from person to person, that is a horse of a different color, and such will stir up a lot of balking and kicking. And the fellow that gets hurt is not always the opinion peddler, but the fellow who wants to “walk by faith” (2 Co. 5:7) and not by opinion. Persecution came to Jesus, and to the apostles, but they continued to walk by faith, and not by sight, or by opinion. I am not so good, or so little, that I shall accept error in order to get somebody off my back. I can still “fight the good fight of Faith.” And I am not ready or intending to surrender to error.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, p. 13
July 20, 1972

By Joe Neil Clayton

When God saved Israel from bondage in Egypt, He led them in the wilderness, and provided for them there. By miracles he protected them from enemies and gave them food to sustain their lives. He spoke laws to them directly and through Moses, and commanded them to heed these laws. Jude tells us, however, that “the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” (Jude 5). When Paul issues a similar warning to Christians, and illustrates it with a description of the sins of Israel, the accusations suggest monstrous sins, such as lust, idolatry, fornication, etc. However, we can be profitably enlightened, if we go back to the accounts of the actual events. We think that we do not need warnings against such terrible sins, but we may learn that we can easily imitate the Israelites, and receive the same condemnation.

For example, Paul says, “We should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” (I Co. 10:6). Without knowing the details of the actual sin, we might picture in our minds all sorts of morbid and sensual sins that could have been called lust. Yet, in fact, all they were guilty of was a desire for a change of diet! In Numbers 11:4-6, Moses records that the children of Israel “lusted exceedingly” for flesh to eat (mentioned is fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic). All they had to eat was the manna God sent each day. Later, they were to say, “Our soul loaths this light bread.” (Num. 21:5). Remember that these people began this trek into the desert on a 7-day diet of unleavened bread (Ex. 12:15). Ever since, die diet had been manna. For months, or even years, they had eaten nothing else, apparently. If we had been confined to such a diet, would we have “lusted” for a change? Certainly! We cannot condemn them, yet God charged them with sin, and “smote the people with a very great plague.” (Num. 11:33). So, the enormity (i the sin is not so apparent, when we view the circumstances. Our own lack of contentment and our restlessness could easily supply fertile ground to be tempted, as they were.

Again, Paul says, “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them.” (I Co. 10: 7). The same verse identifies the incident Paul had in mind. It was the making of the Golden Calf. But, when we think of Idolatry, we identify it with heathen worship of dumb images. We protest, then, to God that we are not like the heathen. Yet, we can be guilty of the idolatrous worship of God. It is revealing to notice that the worship of the Golden Calf was in the form of a “feast to Jehovah” (Ex. 32:5). The Israelites were not worshipping false gods. Rather, they worshipped Jehovah God by their own method. It must be an easy thing to do this, since so many religious people do it. The first time we worship God in some way other than His prescribed plan, we become idolaters.

The pattern of this warning runs true in the other faults of Israel. They were guilty of fornication, Paul says. Yet, what they actually did seems to relate more closely to our concept of idolatry. We abhor the thought of Christians defiling their bodies in sensual fornication, but Moses says that the fornication of Israel was spiritual; “. . . the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab: for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their Gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods” (Num. 25:1-2). This quotation from the American Standard Version casts a different light on the action. Their fornication was like that idolatrous worship described in Lev. 20:1-5. The man today who would shrink from joining his body with a harlot might make light of the sin of “exchanging the truth of God for a lie.” (Rom. 1:25).

Paul says that the Israelites “made trial of the Lord” (I Co. 10:9). We think that we would never deliberately “make trial” of the Lord, but we might if we had suffered the same discouragement they did. Moses says, “. . . the soul of the people was much discouraged, because of the way.” (Num. 21:4). They complained to the Lord because they were footsore, perhaps. We would have to walk over the same rough wilderness ground to test our own ability to resist the temptation to complain, probably, but it is likely that if we were honest, we would admit that we are made of the same fabric.

The “murmuring” mentioned by Paul (I Co. 10: 10) refers to the reaction of the people to the report of the spies sent to Canaan (Num. 13:25-14:2). The fears confronting them exceeded those left behind. Their faith to follow the Lord was weak. Can we be guilty of this? Of course, many Christians figuratively “return to Egypt” in their hearts after beginning the journey to heaven.

We see then that the warnings of Paul were not “far-fetched.” On the contrary, they touch on sins that we are capable of doing. “Wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” (I Co. 10: 12). Our security rests on our endurance quotient. Can we survive the wilderness of mortality, so as to enter into the Canaan land of blissful immortality? We must, because the alternative is unthinkable.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, pp. 12-13
July 20, 1972

By Robert Hines

Peter said to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” This positive defense, the strong, reasoned “yes ” to the question of the truth of Christianity also has a negative side; this is the equally strong “no” to false teaching concerning God and His revelation to man. Such an opportunity came recently when two young Mormon “missionaries” came by the house and left a list of questions titled “The Testimony of Two Nations.” These questions were to be an introduction to their beliefs as well as an opener for discussions we might possibly have later. Let us look at their questions and reply with Bible-based answers

Q. “Do you believe in the teachings of the Bible?”

A. Yes; the Bibles message is the message of God, written 4″not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit.” (I Cor. 2:13). And these words make up “the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:15). The Bible has what I need!

Q. “In your opinion is the Bible understood today, as the Jewish Prophets intended it to be?”

A. Yes, by those who would study it; no, by those with “itching ears.” But this situation faults no one but man, and in no way makes an additional revelation necessary to explain or clarify the Bible, whether it be “The Book of Mormon,” “The Doctrine and Covenants” or “The Pearl of Great Price.” The Bible interprets itself. “Obscure” or “thorny” passages are clarified by other more easily understood passages on the same subject. Many troublesome problems would be solved problems if men would only follow this basic principle in Bible study. Let the Bible explain itself; and being Gods all-sufficient word, it can do this. In the Bible “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness.” (2 Pet. 1:3).

Q. “Have you ever considered why the record of God speaking to men came from only one people?”

A. Because of the way the next question is phrased, the answer wanted here is that “God only spoke to one group of people.” To the Mormons, “one group of people” seems to mean a group of people in one area as is suggested by the title of their questions. But the Bibles “one group of people” includes all men throughout the world: “And opening his mouth Peter said, I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34, 35). As to why then the record of God came from only a group of people in one area: the one record was and is enough, for it shows the way of salvation to all mankind.

Q. “Now, God being a just God, would He speak to one group of people, or would He speak to more than one?”

A. Now, you Latter Day Saints, claiming to be a people obedient to Gods will, would you put yourselves above God and call Him wrong or unjust because He does not meet your standards of justice? “Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.” (Rom. 3:4). Secondly, and again, God speaks through the one revelation not only to “more than one” people, but to all people. Jesus told His apostles, “but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Their testimony has gone to the remotest part of the earth. The Bible is enough for every man who would save his soul through obedience to the will of God.

Q. “If He had spoken to another group of people, would He make it known to us?”

A. Yes: in the Bible! If this is not the case then Paul would have said something other than “learn not to exceed what is written.” (I Cor. 4:6). The Bible is Gods final revelation to man until the Day of Judgment, and it is not to be tampered with. Its words are the words of God and “if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18).

Q. “Would the witness of two nations be more valuable than one?”

A. No, if the one is sufficient and the reliability of the second is doubtful.

Q. “Another people have left us their witness that God spoke to them, as recorded in the Book of Mormon. May we invite you to examine their testimony?”

A. Yes; may I invite you to examine the testimony of Gods commentary on the Book of Mormon? You tell me that Galatians 1: 8-9 does not apply to you as your gospel is that of Christ, yet you deny this by your church organization, your ideas of man and of God, your distorted plan of salvation … in short, your refusal to adhere solely to the will of God as fully revealed in His holy word, the Bible. So again I quote: “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you have received, let him be accursed.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, pp. 9-10
July 20, 1972