Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

By the first century, religious thinking among the Jews had come to be characterized by several different outlooks. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Essenes each had their spheres of influence. Having staked out their doctrinal turf, they sought adherents to their particular party. Added to this mix were the distinctly political viewpoints of the Herodians and the Zealots. Thus, the marketplace of religious ideas was not merely a melting pot, it was a simmering container of confusion and counterfeit truth. Judaism of the first century had become fragmented, ritualistic, and tradition-bound. Therefore, when Jesus stepped forward and began expounding the simple gospel message, people took notice. The common people, those longing for better spiritual instruction, heard him gladly (Mark 12:35-37). He taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes (Matt. 7:28-29).

At the conclusion of the fifth chapter of Luke, Jesus makes several statements that indicate the radically different nature of Christianity (Luke 5:27-39). The newness of the gospel message stands in stark contrast with the worn out thinking of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. Some things are so flawed, so worn out, that the only thing one can do is start fresh.

To illustrate this fact, Jesus spoke the following parable: “No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old” (Luke 5:36). No one in his right mind would rip a square from new dress slacks in order to patch an old, worn-out pair of trousers. Not only would the new garment be ruined, but also the patch would not hold on the old garment. When the unshrunk patch becomes wet and shrinks, the new piece will pull away from the old, and the tear will be made worse. The lesson is clear: Some things cannot be mixed together. Specifically, truth and error are incompatible. Human traditions and the commandments of God cannot co-exist.

In the same context, the Lord spoke of new wine and old wineskins. He said, “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins” (Luke 5:37-38). Old wineskins are no match for new, still fermenting, wine. Such wine would burst the skins, resulting in the loss of both skins and wine. Again, the lesson is the same: Some things cannot be recycled and reused. Some things are beyond repair. The only thing to do is throw it away and start over. This had specific application to the sectarian thinking of the first century. It has equal application to the denominational mentality of our day.

What Was Wrong With the Thinking of the Pharisees? 

It de-emphasized love. The scribes and Pharisees were unloving. They cared not about lost humanity. Observing the feast that Levi gave in Jesus’ honor, they grumbled, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax-collectors and sinners?” (Luke 5:30). On a later occasion, while Jesus was dining in the home of Simon the Pharisee, a sinful woman entered the room. As she stood behind Jesus’ feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and she kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing his feet and anointing them with the perfume. Beholding this, Simon sniffed, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner” (Luke 7:36-39). Note the absence of love, compassion, and concern for the plight of a fellow human-being.

It de-emphasized sincerity. The scribes and Pharisees were insincere (Matt. 23:28). They performed deeds of righteousness merely to be seen of men (Matt. 23:5, 14, 28). This was particularly evident with regards to fasting (Matt. 6:16-18). In this context, they criticized Jesus by saying, “The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink.” (Luke 5:33). At times, their self-righteous insincerity was breathtaking (Luke 18:9-14).

It de-emphasized obedience. The scribes and Pharisees were disobedient. They had bound where God had loosed, and loosed where God had bound (Mark 7:1-13). In binding their human traditions of hand-washing, they were guilty of adding to God’s law. In other areas, they subtracted from the same by refusing to obey the revealed word of God (Luke 7:29-30). Thus obedience became an optional matter: They obeyed God’s word when they felt like it. They changed God’s law with impunity. They applied it to others but not to themselves (Matt. 23:4; Luke 11:46).

What Was Right About the Thinking of Jesus?

It emphasized love. Jesus genuinely cared about people. In responding to the criticism that he ate with tax collectors and sinners, Jesus answered, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31-32). Tax collectors like Levi and his companions were social outcasts, despised by “respectable” members of society, classed with harlots and the like. Jesus ate with them, not to condone their base and dishonorable conduct, but to show them a better way and to save them from their sins. The redemptive nature of his ministry is clearly seen in Jesus’ encounter with another tax collector named Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). The Son of Man came into this world of sin and sorrow to save that which was lost (Matt. 18:11-14). What an expression of divine love and compassion (John 3:16)!

It emphasized sincerity. Jesus emphasized the importance of genuine devotion. In responding to the implied criticism regarding the failure of his disciples to fast, Jesus said, “You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? But the days will come; and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days” (Luke 5:34-35). Jesus repeatedly stressed the need for sincerity. Fasting, a private act of religious devotion, is appropriate for times of sadness and sorrow (Ps. 35:13-14), remorse and contrition (Job 2:12-13), commitment and consecration (Acts 13:1-2; 14:23). However, fasting is not suitable for times of joyful delight. Fasting certainly is not something that is done to be seen of men. Any religious service or act of devotion that is offered for the purpose of impressing men is counted as worthless in the eyes of God (Matt. 6:1-6, 16-18).

It emphasized obedience. Jesus emphasized the importance of full and complete obedience (Matt. 5:17-20). In our day and time, loose thinkers would call this legalism. Significantly, Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for their attention to divinely authorized details; rather he denounced them for their presumptuous additions and glaring omissions from the law (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42). To the extent that the scribes and Pharisees accurately taught God’s precepts, they performed a valuable service. When the scribes and Pharisees were seated in Moses’ chair, Jesus said, “All that they tell you, do and observe.” Unfortunately, they were not content with being mere mouthpieces, they wanted to exercise their creativity in the area of divine legislation (Matt. 23:1-4).

Conclusion

As we consider the issues of love, sincerity and obedience, one final point comes to mind. Ours is an age of moral and doctrinal accommodation. Many brethren argue that we have the right to fellowship those who teach and practice error. In such an atmosphere of compromise, brethren who tolerate false teaching often harshly criticize those who stand for the truth, accusing them of being unloving, insincere, and fanatically obsessed with strict obedience. In a word, they are accused of being Pharisaical. However, let us recognize the speciousness of such charges. Love demands that we expose error, even though such an approach is unpopular. Sincerity demands that we stand up for our convictions, regardless of the cost. Obedience demands that we oppose all forms of moral and doctrinal error, even if they are widely practiced. How is it that faithful brethren are so easily criticized as being devoid of love, sincerity and true obedience, while false teachers, or those who condone the same, are supposedly the paragons of these virtues? As Lewis Carroll once said in Alice of Wonderland, things are becoming “Curiouser and curiouser!”

In this context, Jesus says that we must learn to think differently. However, this does not imply a total repudiation of the past. We must not throw out things just because they are old. Our Lord concluded this discussion by saying, “And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough’” (Luke 5:39). Impurities in old wine may cause it to become bitter. However, if it remains pure, it is considered better. So it is regarding religious truth. Impurities can corrupt it. However, the old paths of God are good, time-tested and true (Jer. 6:16; 18:15; Isa. 8:19-20). Therefore, as we enter a new millennium, let us lay aside all human traditions, doctrines and dogmas that are inconsistent with the word of God. Let us remain true to the old paths of God (Col. 3:16-17; 1 Pet. 4:11).

1305 Bayou Dr., Alvin, Texas 77511

By Norman E. Fultz

That was the headline of an article in the Kansas City Star, Sunday February 13, 2000, [A10]. Written about a conference called “God at 2000” and datelined Corvallis, Ore. the Associated Press article by-line stated, “Theologians study how religions view the Supreme Being.”

Frankly, a meeting of theologians isn’t going to greatly impact how God fulfills his role (unless their foolishness should prove that there’s not enough salt and light left to allow the world to continue). The problem is that their “learned postulations” may influence others to pick up their hue and cry, and thus lose sight of what God’s role really is in the world and what it should be in their lives.

The article stated, “Two of the world’s most prominent theologians say God’s image is going to have to change for all faiths if religion is to survive.”

And a professor of comparative religion at Harvard, Diana Eck, was quoted as saying, “We can’t enter the 21st century with the idea of God we learned in Sunday school.” Marcus Borg, raised Lutheran — turned Episcopalian, a best selling religious author and teacher at Oregon State University, said, “The God he grew up with had an image of a stern lawgiver and judge who required obedience within a system of rewards and punishments — a ‘monarchical model’ of God that has turned many people away from the Christian faith.” The article quoted Borg as saying, “I find it literally incredible that the God of the whole universe has chosen to be known by one religious tradition.”

Borg “suggested that God was an encompassing spirit who is part of everyday life.” And what would any good conference of modern day theologians be without someone to lend a feminist view? In this case it was given by a Benedictine nun, Sister Joan Chittister, who “drew a standing ovation at the end of her talk about God as a genderless concept. She said that science and the globalization of culture, environmentalism and feminism took her away from traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and made her realize that God is an innate part of everything.”

Realizing that some of their definitions of God bordered on pantheism (which denies God’s personality and tends to identify God with nature), Borg “described this not as pantheism but as ‘panentheism,’ which suggest that God is not only transcendent and beyond human experience, but also immanent, or dwelling within all of us.” Has he, or someone, invented a new word to avoid being called pantheists? My dictionaries (I’ll admit they’re not the latest editions) didn’t have “panentheism” in them, and my computer’s speller didn’t recognize it. But if you dissect the term you have “pan” (a prefix meaning “all”), “en” (a prefix meaning “in” or “into”) and “theism” (the belief in God). Sure doesn’t miss pantheism very much.

According to the article, the gist of these theologians’ findings seemed to be, “None of us owns the universe of faith,” said Eck. “I’m convinced it’s time for all of our theisms to be recognized.” She was referring to Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, and perhaps others, and said Christians, in particular, had isolated themselves from other religions. Couple this with Borg’s statement of incredibility (noted above). The tenor of it all is to reject the God of the Bible and make God in the image of their own imaginings. As to God’s role changing in the 21st century, I’m persuaded his role will continue to be what it has been. As to the role theologians want to assign him, that’s a different matter. And to that matter I would ask, ‘Would they instruct or correct the Almighty?” (cf. Job 40:1-2). So, what is God’s role in the 21st century?

• He’s still the Creator (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 136-5; Prov. 3:19-20; Acts 14:15; 17:24; Heb. 1:10-12).
• Through his Son, partner with him in the Creation, he’s still upholding all things by the word of his power (John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:3; 2 Pet. 3:7).
• He who stretched out the heavens as a curtain, spreading them out as a tent to dwell in, yet sits upon the circle of the earth (Isa. 40:22).
• He still rules in the kingdoms of men giving them to whomsoever he will, working his will among the armies of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth (Dan. 4:17, 32, 35).
• He is still working his will according to his good pleasure, purposed in himself in eternity and realized in this “dispensation of the fullness of times” in which he gathers “together in one all things in Christ”; and this in spite of theologians who “find it literally incredible that the God of the whole universe has chosen to be known by one religious tradition” (Eph. 1:9-10; cf. Gal. 4:4; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:10).
• He is still accomplishing man’s reconciliation to himself in Christ Jesus through “the word of reconciliation,” the gospel, the power he uses to draw and call men to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 2:14; John 6:44-45).
• He, along with his beloved Son, is still taking up his abode in those who love him and keep his word (John 14:23); thus not necessarily “immanent, or dwelling within all of us” as per the theologians.
• He is still being longsuffering to a sinful world “not desiring that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” for according to his holy principle it is a matter of repent or perish (2 Pet. 3:9; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 17:30). 
•  He is still adding to the church, the realm of the saved, those who become believers in the Christ and who repent and are baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:36-38, 47; Eph. 5:23).
• He is still holding in readiness a prepared place for a prepared people to be enjoyed in that “heavenly country” (Matt. 25:34; John 14:1-3; Heb. 11:16).

I think I prefer to go with the role Scripture assigns to God rather than relying upon the postulations of liberal theologians. 

Aside from all the above, there was a very interesting bit of information in the article about believers in God in America compared with England and other European countries. A Gallup Poll “found that 95 percent of all Americans said they believed in God, compared with 35 percent of the population in England and lower numbers in other European countries.” Of course one wonders what “role” these believers have assigned to God, for it is rather evident even by casual observation that the concept of the masses differs widely from that which we read in Holy Writ. A tree is known by its fruits (Matt. 7:20). Very importantly, What role have you given God in your life?

13018 N. Oakland Ave., Kansas City, Missousi 64167 nfultz@juno.com

By Bruce James

Going to hell? — not far fetched! Many are headed to hell; ask Jesus! “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13). Likely many reading this — some sitting on church pews saying “amen” are going to hell! Even you! Hell is real; the threat is not imaginary.

But if you go to hell, it is no accident. It is your choice. I know you do not want hell’s miseries; you do not deliberately pick that “lake that burns with fire and brimstone.” Yet, when you choose the road, you also — necessarily include its destination. Choose booze, choose fornication, choose the “pleasures of this world,” choose to “just live as you please,” and you choose hell! — at the end of that road. Your choice — plain and simple! In the words of Joshua, “Choose for yourselves this day . . .”

If you go to hell, it will be in spite of God. Do not blame God! “The Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). God never forces you, overwhelms you, or makes you a robot. Yet he “works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12). He tries to get you to do right — to listen — to choose the road to heaven. To go to hell, you must reject all God’s efforts to the contrary.

If you go to hell, it will be in spite of God’s love for you. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16). To go to hell you have to refuse such love; you must “despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering.” Otherwise, the “goodness of God leads you to repentance” (Rom. 2:4) — and eventually to heaven.

If you go to hell, it will be in spite of Jesus. You, as a sinner, have no sacrifice for sin. There is nothing you can do to free yourself from the guilt and consequence of your sin. It is a hopeless case! Hell looms on the horizon inescapably. Until — until Jesus enters the picture! He volunteers to be that sacrifice for sins. He volunteers to accept your punishment deserved as a sinner. For you, Jesus was scourged as a criminal. For you, Jesus died on the cross as a criminal. For you, his blood was poured out as a sin sacrifice. He changed your prospects from hopeless despair — from inevitable hell — to an open door into God’s favor, blessings, and heaven. To go to hell, you have to ignore such a sacrifice on your behalf.

If you go to hell, it will be in spite of Christians. They are the ones who pester you trying to persuade you to change your life and turn to God. They just will not leave you alone to go quietly off to hell. To go to hell you have to turn a deaf ear to all their warnings and all their appeals.

Christians are the ones who will not give up on you even when you try and fail miserably. They are there to pick you up and encourage you to try again. To go to hell you have to ignore people who care that much about you — or you may have to get angry with them and then refuse their help and concern.

Christians are the ones who pray for you — even when you quit praying. They pray about your difficulties and your trials in life. They pray about your spiritual weaknesses and your sins. To go to hell, you must fight their prayers to God for you.

Christians are the ones who know what you can be — a child of God reflecting his image. They are not satisfied for you to fail to become all that God can make of you. Christians are patient because they were once where you are — and still have problems with spiritual weaknesses. To go to hell, you will have to close the door on these people who love you — who love your soul.

Are you not finding it hard to keep on going to hell with such obstacles in your way? In Jesus’ words to Saul, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads”(Acts 9:5). Why not just quit trying to go to hell — quit lashing out against those who try to help you — quit turning your back on God who wants to forgive you? Serving God and going to heaven is a tremendous alternative!

156 Co. Rd. 492, Carthage, Texas 75633

By Carl A. Allen

“And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me” (John 6:44-45). This gives the manner in which God appeals to the mind of man. It is worthy of our consideration.

Taught of God — God has always appealed to man through revelation. Sometimes it is oral and sometimes it is written; but he has always made known his will and has expected men to listen to what he has to say. In the New Testament we have the Lord’s will to man (Heb. 9:16-17). Christ died that his Testament might be binding.

He That Hath Heard —  “Faith cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ”           (Rom. 10:17). Truth taught in the Bible causes faith. If it is not taught in the Bible, it can never be of faith. Faith can only come from hearing and hearing from the word of God. We must let the Bible speak to us.

He That Hath Learned — How can one act upon a truth that he, or she, does not know? That is impossible. All of the passages in the Bible that teach us to read and learn, are for the purpose of encouraging us to study and know God’s will. Read (Eph. 3:4), study (2 Tim. 2:15),  understand (Eph. 5:17) because it is the Bible that “furnishes us to every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If it is taught in the book, believe it; it is truth.

Cometh Unto Me — We come by doing the will of the Father: “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 who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21, Rom. 6:17; Prov. 14:12. This, my friends, is the truth of how God appeals to the mind, and heart of man, today. You need to listen to what the books says; for, it is truth.

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 12  p4  June 15, 2000