Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Mr. Wayne Camp, President of the Illinois Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, was asked the following question in his weekly newspaper article (Feb. 10, 1971), “What is your opinion of one giving an account of his experience when he is trying to win someone to the Lord?” His answer:

“The Bible has several accounts of people who tell their experience of salvation. When Paul was being prosecuted for preaching the gospel of Christ he gave his personal experience (Acts 22). When he was before Agrippa, he also told him about his experience. He was so convincing that Agrippa declared: ‘Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.’ See Acts 26. When Paul wrote to 77mothy and to the church at Philippi he gave them an account of his conversion (I 77m. 1: 12-14; Phil. 3: 7-10). David seems to be giving his experience and that in a wonderful way, in the first three verses of Psalm 40:1-3.”

Mr. Camp attempts to justify the giving of personal experience accounts by the Scriptures. In that, he is to be commended. He cited divine testimony written and inscribed by the Spirit of God, but this does not justify our use of our personal experiences. The “experiences” to which he referred in the Book of God are the ones we are to use. We can be agreed on the experiences selected by the Holy Spirit, but when each of us begins to give his own view, we confront confusion and contradiction.

We must “learn not to go beyond the things which are written” (I Cor. 4:6). “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (I Pet. 4:11). Use the “experiences” stamped with the unerring veracity and infallible authenticity of the Holy Spirit.

Note the result of relying upon our personal experiences instead of upon the accounts in the word of God.

“Sir, how do I become a child of God?”

First Answer: “Well, if your parents had sprinkled water on you when you were an infant, you would already be one. That was my experience. “

Second Answer: “I went to a certain church, and they told me to pray and beg God until I felt I was ‘taken over’ by the Holy Spirit. Finally, after several nights of trying to get ‘under conviction’, I felt an inner glow, and I just knew I was saved. That was my experience.”

Third Answer: “I got real sick one time and was afraid I was going to die, bat one night Jesus just came into my heart. I told a preacher and they voted on me and I was accepted into their church. That was my experience.”

Each of these accounts represents the experiences of individuals. Which one may we depend upon to know if we are saved or not? Feelings, personal experiences, may be deceitful, but the word of God is sure and settled. To convert one to Christ, plant the seed of salvation, for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10: 17). My personal experience will not save. Christ and His word can (Jno. 8:32; 17:17)!

Let us study the “personal experiences” selected by the Holy Spirit. Let these be our guide in leading people to the Lord.

(1) Acts 2: The word was preached (v. 41. They were convicted by the word (v. 37). They repented and were baptized “for the remission of sins” (v. 38).

(2) Acts 8:5-12: The word was preached, and the people believed it and were baptized (v. 12). They were saved, for Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

(3) Acts 8:26-39: The Eunuch heard the word; he believed and was baptized, and then rejoiced.

(4) Acts 16:30-34: The jailer heard the word; he also believed and was baptized and then rejoiced.

These are “personal experiences” upon which we can rely! Why not accept the Bible standard as the pattern for our lives? Paul said that his “experience” is the one we should use. It was given “for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting” (I Tim. 1: 16). Let us use Paul’s experience and not our own.

Mr. Camp cited Acts 22, but he will not accept Paul’s experience as there recorded. Paul was told to “arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Baptist doctrine says, “arise, wash away thy sins, and then be baptized.”

Paul was saved by God’s own “purpose and grace” (2 Tim. 1:9). He was “justified by faith” (Rom. 5: 1). He was “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If he was saved before he was baptized, he was saved before he was IN CHRIST, for he was “baptized into Christ.” Paul received “redemption through his blood” IN CHRIST (Eph. 1: 7). So, he was not redeemed by the blood of Christ until he was “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). Paul’s experience included obedience to the words of Ananias, “arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

We should be satisfied by the “personal experiences” which were recorded by the Author of the Bible. They are our pattern (2 Jno. 9; Phil. 4:9).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 9-10
March 30, 1972

By Joe Nell Clayton

The Shadow of Christ

When the children of Israel had dwelt in the land of Egypt for that period of time predicted by God to Abraham, God raised up a leader to bring them out to the land he had promised to their fathers. Moses thus became to the Israelites an everlasting symbol of the care of God for His people. Every word that has dropped from his lips, and every line written has been respected, rightly so, as the word of God. His reputation as a leader of Israel causes even Christ to speak of the Old Testament as “Moses’ law.” (John 7:23). Yet, Moses was only important in the fact that he served as a “shadow” of Christ. He functioned in regard to the Old Law in a way similar to that of Christ for the New.

Some would say that we can compare Moses and Christ, but it is probably better to say that they appear in contrast. The writer of Hebrews calls Moses “the house,” while speaking of Christ as “he that built the house.” (Heb. 3:1-16). This figurative use of terms draws a definite contrast between the two.

In three ways, we may see a contrast between Moses and Christ. First, they were both prophets. Moses must be considered the great prophet of the Old Testament, superceding all others, for he speaks only of one other prophet to come, and says that He will be “like unto me.” (Deut~ 18:15). Now, all prophets have the same function, in that they “speak for God.” However, Moses was confining his prediction of the coming of another prophet to only one. This was understood by men of Jesus day to refer to Christ. (see John 1:45). And, men were conditioned by Moses’ words to look for “the” prophet. (John 1:21). The Apostles were moved by the Holy Spirit to make application of Moses’ prophecy to Christ, and to warn their hearers of the consequences of rejecting Him. (Acts 3:19-23).

The things prophesied by Moses and Christ help to establish the contrast more keenly. The Father demonstrated this in the mount of transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8), and the Apostles said that this event caused them to have “the word of prophecy made more sure.” The consequence to us is the warning, “Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place.” (2 Peter 1: 16-19).

The second contrast is seen in the fact that they were both “lawgivers.” No one questions the idea that Mows was yoked with a. law, but many religious people will read passages such as John 1: 17, Romans 6:14, or Galatians 5: 18, and conclude that there is no manner of law connected with Christ. To come to this conclusion would deny the truth of other passages which speak of the word of Christ as “law”, such as Romans 8:1-2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, and Galatians 6:21 Because the Law of Christ has a larger importance than that of Moses, the apostles adorn it with terms such as “grace … truth,” “faith.”

The Law of Christ is contrasted to Moses’ by the term “perfect.” The writer of Hebrews says, “There is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of it weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God.” (Hebrews 7:18-19). Yet, of the word of Christ, James says, “But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty,” continuing to “hear” and “do,” will be blessed.

 

The third contrast must be seen in the roles of Christ and Moses as “saviors.” When

Israel was in bondage in Egypt, God sent Moses to them, and saved them. (Exodus 14:30-31). This “salvation” was from physical oppression and slavery of the body. Ever since that day the Jews celebrate the Passover to remember the deliverance of their ancestors. But this limited salvation, involving only one small nation, and surpassed in physical magnitude by other more modem liberations has one unique feature to make it stand out. God was the final deliverer!

Now God has concern, not for one nation, but for all nations, and has sent His son to be savior of the whole world! (I John 4:14). At the same time the deliverance is from a greater and more deadly bondage, the bondage of sin (John 8:34-36). No wonder, then, that the Holy Spirit caused it to be spoken of as “so great a salvation” (Hebrews 2:3). It is so great, as not to be compared in force, scope, or purpose to that of Israel from Egypt. Anyone sharing in the salvation wrought by God in Christ has no need to honor Moses, for the prophetic, legal, and saving services of that early servant of God have been supplanted and surpassed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Let every Christian hold his Master in such esteem that all men, especially Jews, may see these contrasting virtues of the Lord, and be brought to give Him comparable praise.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 8-9
March 30, 1972

By Connie W. Adams

Get Out Your Money

At least two of the colleges are now all out after contributions from churches. Last summer Batsell Barrett Baxter of David Lipscomb College wrote to churches all over the country soliciting contributions to that school. Along with his letter he sent a copy of an ad in a Nashville newspaper in which he had reported that Charlotte Avenue in Nashville had contributed to David Lipscomb College for over 50 years. In a letter dated November 29, 1971, Baxter made a second appeal to churches. First he thanked churches which had already responded. He said:

“We deeply appreciate the way in which many congregations across the Land are concerned that this program of teaching the Bible – the most extensive program undertaken anywhere in the world so far as we are able to determine – may continue. We are grateful for the number of contributions received since this request, and we are hopeful that, as you make your financial plans for 1972, you will include this effort in your budget.”

Later he said “Many congregations are presently helping to pay the cost of this teaching of the Bible.”

Now comes Freed-Hardeman College with the same plea. In November, 1971 they also mailed out a letter with this statement:

“As one of a thousand churches being asked to contribute $100.00 between now and January 1, 1972, you will be joining forces with other interested congregations in furthering the great cause of Christian education at Freed-Hardeman.”

For years we have been trying to tell some brethren that institutionalism was a “package deal.” The same principle which allows church contributions to benevolent institutions will allow church support of the schools. We also tried to point out that the orphan home in the budget was not the real issue, but a softening up campaign to get the schools in the budget. My question is this: What are those brethren now going to do who vehemently said they would leave if the congregation where they worshipped ever put the colleges in the budget? I predict that most of them will just gag a little and then swallow. Baxter was right when he said “they stand or fall together.” The trouble is that both of them “fall” for want of scriptural authority. But, let the liberal churches get out their money. It would not do to be called an “anti” on this question. It will also be very interesting to see what Reuel Lemmons of the Firm Foundation will have to say since he is on record as saying there is no difference in a church supported college and a missionary society. In fact Baxter said in his letter of November 29, 1971, “In a very real sense, this is one of the most extensive mission efforts being undertaken anywhere.”

Speak, Brother Lemmons, we are anxious to hear what you have to say.

Sex at Sunday School

The December 27, 1971 Newsweek magazine reports that the Unitarian Universalist Association is now showing in Sunday School some very explicit sex education films depicting intercourse between adults as well as scenes of various kinds of perversion. These are said to be “franker” than any of the materials ever used in the public school sex education courses. The children are urged to make their own, decisions and “not to impose their own views.” It is reported that Unitarians hope this course of study will be adopted by the public schools. This extreme case but illustrates why some people in various denominations are greatly upset and honestly wanting to find something that makes sense in religion. Brethren, are you listening? The radical changes in denominationalism provide many good opportunities for alert soul winners to find receptive prospects.

Preacher, Anyone?

The November 22, 1971 Christian Chronicle carries an ad from a preacher as follows:

“Progressive, born-again preacher seeking congregation where Biblical preaching is appreciated. I refuse to be bound by traditionalism! Excellent references available. Willing to move anywhere the Spirit seems to direct. Ten years experience.”

Hurry, brethren, this fellow must be something on a stick!

Movie Ratings

A reporter for the Jefferson Reporter, a weekly suburban Kentucky paper, interviewed the managers of several drive-in movies about the movie rating system. The manager of the Valley Drive-In in Louisville was asked what was the difference in a movie with a “G” rating and one with a “GP”. He was quoted as saying “Mostly the cussing.” In case you have been thinking that a GP rated movie would be acceptable for the family, just remember that the language gets pretty blue. Have you noticed the increase in profanity on TV programs this year? Maybe the country needs a rating system for TV.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 6-7
March 30, 1972

By James W. Adams

Reaction, rebellion, and revolution are much used words in today’s vocabulary. Those who savor these expressions the most imagine themselves to constitute a sort of “liberation front.” They cast themselves in the role of Twentieth Century “messiahs” whose mission is the deliverance of modern man from the demoralizing and dehumanizing enslavement to “materialism” which he endures under the tyrannical rule of the so-called “authoritarian establishment.”

Many countries of the world in recent times have undergone revolutions instigated by reactionaries. Reacting against the enslavement of dictatorships, they have rebelled and overthrown their oppressive masters in a quest for liberty. Instead, however, of achieving true freedom, they have simply exchanged one dictatorship for another. This is what happens invariably when a revolution is inspired by Communists. Reaction against political enslavement does not necessarily result in enlightened freedom. The revolutionary often becomes enslaved to the demands of reactionism, hence operates under compulsion and coercion rather than as a result of free, enlightened choice.

Sidney I. Harris states the matter tersely and impressively in Last Things First (Houghton Mifflin). He says:

“I know a man who grew up in a stuffy atmosphere of Victorian piety, and who rebelled at an early age. He is now 50 years old and still rebelling.

His old family home was cluttered; so his own home is starkly simple. His parents were fanatically devout; so he is fanatically irreligious. His relatives were dogmatically conservative; so he is dogmatically radical.

This man thinks himself a “free soul.” He thinks he has burst the bonds of his enslavement to the past. But he is wrong-for he is overreacting to the past, and is still chained to it by his hostility.

To do exactly the opposite is a form of bondage. The young man who rebels from

Babbittry to Bohemianism because it is exactly the opposite of what his father tried to cram down his throat is allowing his decisions to be made by somebody else.

To be free, in the fullest sense, does not mean to reject what our fathers believed; it means to discriminate, to -select, to take on the difficult task of separating our principles from our passions.

Each generation, in some measure, rebels against the last. It is normal and natural and healthy. But it is necessary to know that the aim of rebellion is peace within the soul, and not perpetual revolt.”

All of us have known people who were subjected in childhood to mothers who were fanatics about bodily cleanliness and who, as a result, when adults, made a point of being filthy in their personal habits. We have known men who were denied a college education by their parents, hence literally forced upon their children four years of college training when the children neither desired it nor were capable of assimilating and using it profitably. The illustrations of the principle are endless. A reactionary is not of necessity a free man; quite often he is enslaved by that which made him free. His error is that he makes an end of that which should serve only as an instrument.

Reactionism as such is neither good nor bad, praiseworthy nor reprehensible. Its character is determined (1) by the character of that to which it is a response — is that good or is it bad; is it praiseworthy or is it reprehensible? (2) Its character is determined also by its goals or aims — is it aimless and erratic or is it rationally channeled toward worthy ends? To react against error and evil with the view to replacing it with truth and righteousness is everywhere to be praised. To react violently and purposelessly so as to accept, without the sanction either of reason or truth, the exactly opposite point of view or course of action is neither rational nor praiseworthy. Our reaction to “liberality” in religion should not result in obstructionism and gross “legalism.” Our reaction to the institutionalized church of Roman Catholicism and Protestant Denominationalism should not result in a repudiation of all “organized manifestations of religion.” Oar reaction against church support of human institutions would not lead us to reject all institutions utilized for the accomplishment of religious goals simply on the grounds that they are “human” and “institutions.” Reaction against “materialism” should not lead us to repudiate ambition, a reasonable and decent standard of living, honest labor, bodily cleanliness, and an acceptance of a reasonable share of responsibility in the maintenance of an orderly society. Reaction against hate and division produced by religious controversy should not lead us to accept the spurious assumption that the “law of love” transcends all doctrinal considerations — that Bible love (agape) and a dogmatic faith and orthodox practice are mutually exclusive of one another. Those who thus react are not liberated from sin and error thereby; they remain enslaved to it and coerced by it. This is unquestionably what Paul had in mind when he wrote, “Ye are called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Gal. 5:13.)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 5-6
March 30, 1972