Truth Magazine

By Jarrod Jacobs

Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were in the doctor’s office to hear our baby’s heart beat for the first time. What an exciting time, it was great! A few minutes later, as the doctor discussed how strong the heart was, she began talking about our next visit. She said that during that visit it would be possible to take a blood test and determine what, if any, birth defects or tendencies were prevalent. Understand, she said the test was not 100% accurate. She said that if we wanted, we could discuss termination.

Termination? Yes, she was talking about the termination of this baby whose heart beat we had just heard. Can you imagine such? When we said “no” to the very idea of killing our child, the doctor said, “Well, you won’t need that test, then.”

What a crazy world we live in where in one breath we discuss how exciting it is to hear an unborn child’s heart beat, and in the next breath discuss the termination (killing) of this same baby. It hurts just to think about it.

As I thought about the conversation at the doctor’s office, I couldn’t help but think about what an “easy” society we live in. What do I mean? I mean that if we don’t like something, we get rid of it. We have every-thing handed to us almost instantly, and if it is not to our satisfaction, then we dispose of it. Now this may be fine when dealing with something inanimate, or things of that nature, but I wonder how many young couples before us made the decision after hearing the heart beat, that if they found the tendency for problems they would go ahead and dispose of the human life they had made.

Please understand, I didn’t have to hear my unborn child’s heartbeat to make my decision. I just can’t under-stand how after hearing that strong, sound, steady heartbeat, that people could turn around and say, “kill it.”

Though some say that the Bible doesn’t address such a modem topic as abortion, and whether or not an unborn baby is a human life, I am here to tell you, that it does!

And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels (body, NKJV, NASB); and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb (Gen. 25:21-24).

I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonder-fully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them (Ps. 139:14-16, NASB).

Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations (Jer. 1:4-5).

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy (Luke 1:39-44).

These four short readings should be enough to convince the honest and true heart that abortion is the unlawful taking of another human life! There are other passages we could offer as well that would solidify the point we are making, but in conclusion, let us ask ourselves a few questions.

Questions:

1. Seeing that these men were inspired of God to write what they did (2 Pet. 1:20-21), doesn’t it make sense that God is showing us that babies are live, human children though they are not yet born?

2. Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Luke (Col. 4:14) chose “babe” to describe John rather than “unviable tissue mass,” or “fetus,” or “embryo”? A study of history tells us that these people knew all about abortion procedures and the like. In fact, they were more consistent than we are, for they considered a baby “aborted” if they left him to die and be eaten by wolves in his infancy. At least today, those who are pro-abortion will balk if a newborn dies due to the parents’ neglect.

3. Before ultrasound, God knew Jeremiah and had set him apart (“sanctified,” Jer. 1:4-5). What if God has such plans for those yet unborn today, and we “opt” for “termination”?

4. What if Eve and Mary, the mother of Jesus were pro-abortion?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 16-17
August 21, 1997

By Donnie V. Rader

Brother Harry Lewis, moderator for John Welch in the O’Neal-Welch Debate, has objected to a statement I made about him in my recent article reviewing the book form of this debate. I wrote,

On the third night when Tom gave a quote from Herman Black on how to identify a modernist, John’s moderator called a point of order, went to the platform, called for charts and proceeded to answer Tom O’Neal (pp. 55-56). Few, if any, had seen that happen in debate.

Brother Lewis has two objections: (1) He did not call for charts, but a chart. (2) He was not answering Tom O’Neal, but merely raising a point of order. I concede to his first objection and apologize to brother Lewis. He did only call for one chart. I did not intentionally misrepresent the case. To the second objection, I fail to see that I have misrepresented the case. I grant that brother Lewis was making a point of order. However, to many of us there, it seemed that he went beyond his role as a moderator to respond to what he thought was a misrepresentation Tom had made of John. For any reader who desires to see for himself, I suggest getting the video or audio tapes or either of the printed books (Tom and John both have published the debate in book form). I have not tried to misrepresent brother Lewis in any fashion.

(Editor’s Note: I have had two or three conversations with brother Lewis with respect to his feeling that he has been misrepresented. He states that what he was trying to object to was the continued use of a quotation from brother Welch in which he said that Jesus was just a man. Included in brother Lewis’ point of order were the following words: “I’m objecting to the use of the word just. We had an apology made, a retraction made. It was passed out today in the open forum.” Later in commenting on brother Welch’s statement, he said, “Here’s the ‘J’ word that we’ve been talking about. I have acknowledged from the very beginning of this controversy that my statement that Jesus was just (there’s the word) just a man was poorly worded at best.” Obviously men were disagreed about the point of order, but we have no desire to intentionally misrepresent anyone.)

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 25
August 21, 1997

By Larry Ray Hafley

In the New Testament, the faith of Christ was called “the sect of the Nazarenes” and was “every where spoken against” (Acts 24:5; 28:22). The apostles were labeled and libeled as “pestilent” fellows, “babblers,” and treasonous seditionists (Acts 17:7, 18). But they were not surprised. Jesus told them that since they reviled him they would also ridicule them (John 15:20).

Ironically, enemies of the cross accuse Christians of being “name callers,” while they spew their vile epithets all over us. Listen to the names that those who “don’t believe in name calling” call us!

“`Our religion’….has sometimes been named ‘Fundamentalism,’ `Mossbackism, Phariseeism, Sectarianism,’ `Non-Progressive-ism,’ `Literalism,’ ‘Legalism, Anti-ism,’ ‘A Book Religion.’

“It has sometimes been described as static, antiquated, fossilized, crystallized, hidebound, ossified, narrow, and individualistic. Some have said that it was begotten by egotism, conceived in bibliolatry, brought forth in ignorance, propagated in bigotry and its progeny the narrowest and bitterest of all sectarians.

“Outsiders have sometimes described us as preachers of union, but practitioners of division; holding the form of godliness, but not having the power; sticklers for the letter, but ignorant of the spirit; tithers of mint, anise and cummin, but neglecters of justice, mercy and faith, wranglers over non-essentials, but careless about fundamentals; loving ourselves, but despising others; professing Christianity, (but) practicing Phariseeism; anxious to proselyte, careless to convert; skillful theorists but bungling practitioners; great debaters, but little doers.”

The description above was made by H.L. Calhoun in February, 1929. After nearly seventy years, not much has changed! Is it too much to expect that those today who libel us with their labels could be a little more creative and inventive with their invective? They are using the same terms and expressions, which does not show much originality. As their fathers did, so do they. How about it, ye that loathe the Lord, if you are going to continue to make faces and call us names, why not come up with something we have not heard before? Since you cannot answer the arguments of truth, it will make you feel better, and, besides, I could use a good laugh.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 19
August 21, 1997

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:9-11).

When Paul tells us that “such were some of you,” he tells us something about several people. He tells something about some of the Christians at Corinth  their past and their present. He tells something about those who converted these people. He tells something about the brethren who were willing to receive these people.

Someone had made pro-found changes. When Paul said, “such were some of you,” he means that they were no longer “fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners.” They had been cleaned up. They had been forgiven and no longer practiced their former sins. The adulterers (married or unmarried) who had been committing adultery no longer did. The homosexual was no longer a homosexual because he no longer practiced homosexuality. The drunkard was no longer such because he did not still get drunk. The fornicator had quit his fornication. One apparently did not quit his fornication or else he took it up after becoming a Christian. Paul told the Corinthians what they needed to do about him (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

Someone had convened these people. Some one was willing to reach out to these people with the gospel. It is one thing to boldly preach against the fornication, adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness and such like, warning that such “will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” It is another thing to be willing to take the time and expend the effort to teach a fornicator, a homosexual, a thief, or a drunkard. Could our problem be that really, deep down in our hearts, we would prefer not to have people with such unsavory backgrounds as members of the church where we attend? We had rather reach those folks across the street who are well-respected people in the community or that nice couple who would not really have to make too many changes in their life-style. But that woman down the street who entertains men regularly, would not make “us a good member.” Nor would that man we see staggering home almost every week-end. Nor would that fellow that everybody in town knows to be “gay.” Nor would that woman who has been married five times and presently living with a man who is not her husband (cf. John 4:17, 18). No, they would not be “good members” without changes in their hearts and life styles, but, should we assume that the gospel will not touch their hearts and change their lives without even trying to approach them with it?

If someone had not been willing to reach out to these people at Corinth, Paul would have had to say “such are” instead of “such were.” The gospel is not just for those good neighbors who only need some minor doctrinal or moral adjustments  it is also for those who are steeped in the vilest of sins.

Someone had received these people. They were part of the local “church of God which is at Corinth.” Not only had someone reached out to convert these people, after they were converted the brethren at Corinth had received them into their fellowship. Notice Paul said, “such were some of you.” This means that not all the brethren had such vile backgrounds. Yet, they were willing to receive those who had been of such unsavory character. Today, if we are not careful, those of us who have been given a proper Christian upbringing may become rather smug and self-righteous, finding it hard to accept with open arms those who were formally of such “low character.” Oh, we give lip service to the power of the gospel to save sinners  all sinners  but still find it hard to unconditionally accept those with backgrounds described by Paul in our text  even after it can be said “such were some of you.” This writer has known preachers to get in trouble with congregations for their efforts to study with and convert such “low life.” After the studies produced results, these brethren let it be known that they had rather not have people with such backgrounds as members. No matter that the gospel had reached them, changed their hearts and lives and lifted them to a higher plane  the fine cultured (?) brethren with good backgrounds (at least in their own eyes) could not bring themselves to fully accept them as members of the congregation. They are often allowed to be members but not really “received” because their every move is watched for any signs of their former life that might be used to discredit them and those who were willing to reach out to convert them.

Brethren, we all need to remember that “while we were still sinners” that Christ died for us. He died for every man  regardless of his previous record. When any person will hear and obey the gospel of Christ the Lord will save him.

Let us not forget that we were ourselves sinners  some guilty of the same sins listed in the text, while some did things not considered as vile by good people but all guilty! The same grace that saved us will save any sinner. The Lord accepted us when we turned from our sins and obeyed his terms of pardon. The Lord will accept the fornicator, the homosexual, or the drunk when he turns from his sin and obeys. We need to reach out and try to convert them. When they are converted, we had best not only accept them, but accept them with the joy that befits rejoicing over one who was lost and is found. (Read Luke 15.) Our Lord said for us to preach the gospel to “every creature” (Mark 16:15). Let us not pick and choose our creatures, let us try to reach every creature possible regardless of his background. Who is wise enough to know, in advance, who will or will not be changed by the gospel?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 12-13
August 21, 1997