Truth Magazine

By Donald Willis

One of the most severe commands that has issued from the mouth of God is the command to repent. This is the most difficult of all the instruction that God has given … due to the arrogance of man. It is extremely hard to admit error, especially when it denotes the secret actions of the heart. Man possesses pride in the moral stature attained. Man is able to completely hide many of the wrong actions of past behavior until forgotten by man. Thinking God to be like man, he wrongly reasons that God has forgotten these actions too.

Man attempts to live down a former wrong. Man reasons that it is possible for moral credits (good deeds performed) to nullify moral deficiencies (past wrongs). Such cannot be done! Sin is a violation of the will of God (I Jno. 3:4). Sin separates a being from God (Isa. 59:1-2). One cannot undo this separation, saving through the medium that the Lord has authorized. In this, God requires that a man repent of the past actions of life.

Christ said that “. . . repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” (Lk. 24:47). Repentance means to change one’s mind or purpose, always, in the N.T., involving a change for the better…” (Vine) Thayer adds, “. . . to change one’s mind for the better; heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins.” Repentance is not merely a change of mind, but is also the hating of the errors of the past, and a resolution to live better (fruits meet for repentance). One, after repentance, would not long for the former actions of life.

Christ taught that repentance is to be preached under the new dispensation. Peter told believers to “… repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins. . . .” (Acts 2:38) This is positive preaching of the commission as given to the apostles. Paul told idolaters God had “winked at” their sin, but “… now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

It takes gallantry to admit past wrongs and current conviction in Christ. Obeying the laws of Christ leads to the remission of sins (Heb. 5:9). How courageous are you, neighbor? Will you repent of your sins that life might be given to you (Acts 11:18)?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 28, p. 13
May 18, 1972

By Mike Willis

Inasmuch as several periodicals have recently reported some cases of Pentecostalism in the church, each of us who preach need to begin a series of sermons grounding our members on the subject of spiritual gifts.

Most Pentecostals believe that hyper-emotionalism and ecstatic utterances are signs of the work of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere do the scriptures indicate that these actions are indicative of God’s work through the Holy Spirit.

However, the scriptures do indicate that actions similar to Pentecostalism were current in heathen religions in the first century. Paul and Silas, for instance, healed a girl having a spirit of divination while preaching in Philippi. The girl had brought her masters large profits from her “soothsaying” or “fortune-telling” prior to the time when she was miraculously healed.

The word translated “soothsaying” is manteuomene. The word is never applied to anything practiced by Christians. Rather, it is applied exclusively to heathen religious practices. In Synonyms of the New Testament (pp. 21-22), Trench said with regard to this word, “It will follow from this, that it contains a reference to the tumult of the mind, the fury, the temporary madness, under which those were, who were supposed to be possessed by the god, during the time that they delivered their oracles; this mantic fury of theirs displaying itself in the eyes rolling, the lips foaming, the hair flying, as in other tokens of a more than natural agitation.”

Although the word was never applied to Christian activities involving miraculous spiritual gifts, manteuomene would be a very accurate word to be used in describing modern Pentecostalism.

Several references in classical Greek writings such as Plato’s Phaedrus and Virgil’s Aenid are reported to contain references to ecstatic, unintelligible utterances among those practicing heathen religions (The Modern Tongues Movement, Robert G. Gromacki, pp. 6-7).

Whatever might be the source of the actions of Pentecostalism, it is more nearly described by the Greek word manteuomene than charismata (the Greek word used for spiritual gifts in I Cor. 12:4).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 27, p. 13
May 11, 1972

By Lynn Trapp

In 1963 in two landmark cases the Supreme Court ruled against devotionals and prayer meetings in public schools which were organized, supported, or supervised by public officials. Since that time a majority of the “devout” (see article by Leo Rogol, Feb. 3, 1972 in Truth Magazine) persons in America have been using their energies to get “God back in the schools.” As a result of this, Representative Chalmers P. Wylie has sponsored House Joint Resolution 191 which says, “Nothing contained in this Constitution shall abridge the right of persons lawfully assembled, in any, public building which is supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds, to participate in nondenominational prayer.”

On the face of it this Resolution seems entirely harmless. However, a close examination will reveal some very dangerous fallacies within it.

The first fallacy is that it is impossible to put something back in the schools which is already there. The federal government has never in any instance forbidden voluntary, personal prayer. All the courts ruled against were those which were sponsored by public officials. Such a position is perfectly in line with scripture and freedom. To require prayers of a “nondenominational” nature of people is a violation of the persons freedom and conscience, something which no man or group of men have the right to do.

The second fallacy is that this amendment does not solely concern itself with public schools. The amendment does, not mention public schools or schools of any kind. Rather, it mentions all public buildings throughout the nation. The eventual effect of the amendment is that it establishes a secularized (“nondenominational”), state-approved religion which is not only accepted, but required, in public buildings. Try to imagine a greater entanglement of state and church than the one just described.

Consider also the nature of the words “lawfully assembled.” Such a statement in an amendment of this nature is at the least redundant and certainly carries certain ominous overtones. How else would anyone assemble in order to worship? Has anyone ever seen or even heard of a group assembling in a manner which is usually considered unlawful (riots, looting, etc.) opening their assembly with a prayer and closing it with a devotional song service? Just think, the men who wrote this amendment are actually the men who make our laws. I think the American public needs to take more notice as to what is going on Capitol Hill.

Just what is a public building? HJR 191 defines it as any building “which is supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds.” Are church buildings “public buildings” Why not? Churches are exempt from paying taxes and yet they receive the full gamut of public police and fire protection. Not only that, but there is a concerted effort -at the highest level of government to change the meaning of public to include parochial schools in order that they may become, by simple redefinition of terms, “public schools.” The OEO is currently proposing a tuition voucher proposal for all education. One of its fundamental objectives is the redefining of the term .,public school” to embrace all schools which are nondiscriminitory in enrollment and which make financial reports available. If a church school and a church school building can be labeled “public,” then why not the church building itself? The ultimate end is that the government will be telling us what we can and cannot pray in our own church buildings. We will eventually be living under Communism or Catholicism if this amendment is not completely destroyed.

The third fallacy is that the amendment will not stop at the kind of worship which may be offered in public places. It will affect much more than that. If worship of a state approved “non-denominational” type can be offered in public buildings, cannot religious teachings of a state-approved “nondenominational” type be carried on there? Gaston D. Gogdell, Director of Organization f or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, asks an important question, “if the public schools are now to become houses of worship and agencies for teaching ii sort of newly established , nondenominational state religion, can tax support justly be withheld any longer from parochial schools?” Can it indeed?

Finally, the amendment really has nothing to do at all with true worship to God. The supporters of this amendment certainly are not concerned with such. If they are, why havent we heard any of them concern themselves with the question, “Will the King of the universe be pleased with the nondenominational prayer which will be offered up to him in the temples of secular religion which our schools and public buildings will become as a result of this proposed change in our constitution?”

This amendment came up for vote in the House on November8, 1971 and was defeated by only 28 votes. That does not mean that it is entirely dead. The supporting forces are already rallying again. Concerned Christians and Americans need to get busy writing letters to their Congressmen right now. Your freedom depends on it.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 27, pp. 10-11
May 11, 1972

By James P. Neddham

QUESTION:

What is the difference between a church’s receiving funds for evangelism from a trust or a foundation, and its receiving money for evangelism from another church as is practiced in the Herald of Truth? -Tenn.

ANSWER:

The difference is very basic: a foundation or trust fund is the carrying out of an individual’s wishes in reference to his personal money, while church funds are regulated by God’s law in reference to its use. Thus, the difference is between what an individual may do and what a church may do. A failure to distinguish between the church and the individual has caused much confusion and led to much error. It is obvious that some brethren are not yet settled on the question.

There are quite a few trusts or foundations around today. Most of them were set up during the lifetime of some wealthy brother who wanted to regulate the disposition of his fortune after his death. So, he employed some attorney to draw up a trust. The trust maker can regulate the trust as he pleases. He makes the rules by which his wealth shall be expended. He can form them any way he chooses. He might specify that his money shall go for the support of evangelism anywhere in the world, or he may limit it to a given area. He may allow the money to be paid to individual preachers, or he may specify that it must be paid to a church. But in either case, he is making provisions for the disposition of his own funds, the same right he had during his own life time. Now if we grant him said right during his life time, how can we deprive him of it because of his death?

For instance, I am acquainted with various kinds of trusts. I know of one from which funds can be given to any preacher the trustees judge is qualified under the trust agreement. I know others where the funds must be paid into the treasury of a local church. I know yet others from which loans may be made for the purchase or construction of church buildings. We would all agree that the men who set up these trusts could so use their money, if they were living. Now, what principle of scripture is violated when their money is used after their death just as they could use it, if they were living? I know of none, and do not believe anyone else knows of one.

In the Herald of Truth we have direct violation of scriptural law. God regulates how church funds are to be expended, and there is no authorization for expending them as practiced in the Herald of Truth. In the New Testament no funds were ever passed from one church to another for evangelism. Acts 11:28-30 records the passing of funds from one church to another, but it was for benevolence, and it occurred became the receiving churches had more needy members than they could care for. Thus when one church sent to another, the receiving church was always in physical need. This is not the case in the Herald of Truth. The Highland church in Abilene, Texas which sponsors the Herald of Truth is anything but a needy church! They receive and disburse funds from hundreds of churches in producing the Herald of Truth radio and television program. This is unscriptural, because there is no authority for passing of funds between and among churches for evangelism.

Thus, a church’s receiving funds from a foundation, which is but a means of carrying out a dead brother’s will, has no kinship with centralized control and oversight of church funds. He who thinks it does is not thinking logically or scripturally. Sometime when brethren are prejudiced, and cannot defend their position, they try to sway others by saying, “That is like the liberals.” Let us never be guilty of such unfairness.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 27, p. 9
May 11, 1972