Truth Magazine

By Kenneth E. Thomas

Recently on a radio call-in program supported by a local church of Christ, the movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ,” was discussed. If the movie does indeed portray our Savior as only a man who was guilty of fornication (or any sin for that matter) as it is reported to do, I certainly want to raise my voice against such a portrayal of the Son of God as much as any other Christian who believes in the sinless perfection of Jesus (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15; etc.). One caller asked the host of the program if he did not agree that those who did not write letters of protest to the theaters who were showing the film were guilty before God of bidding God speed to their error? Neither of the hosts disagreed with the caller and one agreed that those who do not are guilty of sin. They based their conclusions on Ephesians 5:11 and 2 John 9-11.

Not By Carnal Warfare

I suggest that these brethren are as wrong as they can be! If they are correct then Jesus did indeed sin because, if we are duty bound before God to lead protest marches and letter writing campaigns and other economic means of forcing such people to give up said practices, Jesus had the responsibility to lead protests and letter writing campaigns against the many immoral places such as the brothels and other ungodly places in the Roman Empire which were operating during his time here on earth. Yet, you never read in Scripture nor in secular history that he ever so conducted himself, nor required such of his disciples, but rather said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would My servants right” (Jn. 18: 36). When Peter was defending Jesus against his captors in Gethsemane with carnal means, drawing Ins sword and cutting off the ear of Malcus, a servant of the Jewish high priest, Jesus said to Peter, “Put up your sword” (Matt. 26:52; Jn. 18:11).

One of the greatest Christians ever, Paul, an apostle of Christ writing by divine inspiration stated, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-5). When brethren attempt to reform the world by economic boycotts or use other pressure tactics and carnal weapons, they become guilty themselves of violating the scriptural way of advancing the cause of Christ, the proclamation of his word to a sin-sick world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). Men and women must first be converted to Christ then taught how to live for him. To try to force the world to live by the will of Christ through whatever the means, is to be guilty of “casting your pearls before the swine (unconverted, ket) . . . they will only turn and rend you” (Matt. 7:6).

The Social Gospel

We (who call ourselves “conservative”) stand opposed to the “social gospel” approach of attempting to convert folks to Christ as unscripturally trying to change society using physical, rather than spiritual, means to that desired end, the preaching of the truth of the gospel, God’s drawing, saving, and transforming power (2 Thess. 2:13-14; Rom. 1:16-17; Col. 3:14; Rom. 12:1-2). Then some turn around and attempt to force society into conforming to the will of Christ by using all manner of pressure tactics. Brethren, this is practicing the social gospel just as surely as are the folks who offer all manner of physical enticements to get people to become Christians! My brethren who oppose the social gospel should know better than this!

Change The World By Changing The Man

You’ve probably heard the story of the man trying to put a jigsaw puzzle of the world together without success. His young son, knowing that on the back side of the puzzle was the picture of a man; turned the pieces over and put together the picture of a man. Then he turned the puzzle over and the world was also intact. “See, Dad, when you get the man straight the world’s alright too, exclaimed the lad.” How true! We need to be busy teaching the truth. We should refuse to view obscene movies and read pornographic literature or listen to filthy lyrics of any music, whether country, pop, or rock and roll so far as our own habits are concerned. We must instill in our offspring the same principles since we are responsible to train them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).

Get Into Their Homes

If only more Christians were in the homes of our friends, relatives, and associates engaged in Bible study classes telling them of the Savior of all mankind, we could have a much greater impact on society than we are at present, and we would not have time to picket the smut peddlers. We would convert them to Christ if possible and then they would not buy, view, or sell such garbage.

They Get Free Advertisement

Recently on TV someone connected with the controversial film under discussion, said, “All of this opposition by Christians will assure us of a box office boom.” We should work as leavening in flour in society, gently and quietly affecting those whom our lives touch; we should preach against the film certainly. We should reprove, rebuke and exhort every kind of error, but force unbelievers? No!

If as an advocated in the radio program under consideration we must get involved in trying to. force people not to show this film, we must do the same wherever alcohol is sold or where gambling is practiced, etc. Consistency would demand us to use the same measures against all ungodliness. But as already pointed out, our roll should be to preach the powerful word of Jesus to a lost and sin-cursed world and leave the results up to the Lord (1 Cor. 3:6; Acts 8:4; 1 Thess. 1:8-10).

It is possible that a kind well-written letter to the proper ones who could control the production and distribution of things which any thinking person must know can have a detrimental effect on society, could do some good and I am not opposed to such. I do not however believe that one must write such a letter or be guilty of sin. Certainly if we try to run people out of business by getting to their pocketbooks rather than their hearts, more harm than good will result.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 79, 87
February 2, 1989

By P.J. Casebolt

When I began preaching in the late 40’s, divorce was not as prevalent in society and in the church as it is today. Among preachers of my acquaintance in the Ohio Valley, most held that Matthew 19:9 set forth the only exception for divorce/remarriage, i.e., fornication.

One preacher, brother Ross Swindler of Parkersburg, West Virigina, held the position that ‘ Matthew 19:9 was under the law of Moses, and that there was no cause for divorce/remarriage. But, his position was not generally known, advocated, or held by other brethren.

In the winter of 1950-5 1, brother Kenneth Adams, of the Lynn Street congregation in Parkersburg, preached in a meeting for the old South Side congregation where brother Swindler was located. During that meeting, brother Adams preached one night on the subject of divorce/remarriage, espoused the position held by brother Swindler, and brother Swindler publicly endorsed the sermon.

This account is brief, and not intended to reflect upon brethren Adams or Swindler. Both were good friends of mine, and both were held in high esteem by brethren in general. I’m simply trying to chronicle the evolution of the divorce/remarriage problem as it pertained to that geographical area of the brotherhood.

The very next day I went to brother Adams’ study at the Lynn Street church building and talked with him at length concerning his new position. I did not go with the intention of converting him, but I could see some inconsistencies in his position, and wanted to clarify them for my own benefit. And,,though I do not believe my visit had anything to do with it, within a relatively short time, brother Adams reversed his position, reverting to Matthew 19:9 as the only exception for divorce/remarriage.

Shortly after brother Adams preached his “no cause” sermon, brother L.J. Keffer of Paden City, WV, came to Williamstown (where I was located), for a meeting. He announced that he would preach one night on divorce/remarriage, and many of the same brethren who had heard brother Adams attended the meeting, including brother Adams himself.

Brother Keffer not only took exception to the “no cause for divorce” position advocated by brother Adams, but added a second cause for divorce/remarriage based on the “unbeliever” clause in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

About this time brethren learned that brother Keffer was involved in a marriage relationship which corresponded to his position on 1 Corinthians 7:15. A few of us had also heard of the “Fuqua position” via the Vindicator, but Texas seemed a long way off, and our geographical area had not been influenced to a great extent by brother Fuqua’s position.

During this skirmish in 1950-51, one old preacher safely remarked that the divorce problem reared its head about every twenty years, but when it blew over, most brethren settled back to the position which hinged on Matthew 19:9 as the only cause for divorce/remarriage.

It has since occurred to me that a new generation enters the. marriage relationship about every twenty years, and maybe the old preacher had a point, though he may not have known why. Or, maybe he did.

The Hinge

When the enemies of Jesus requested a watch to guard his tomb they knew that his cause hinged on a resurrection of the dead. If they could prevent even an apparent resurrection (a body whisked away by his disciples), then the death and burial of Jesus would mean nothing without a resurrection to go with those two events. All hinged on the resurrection.

When Martin Luther encountered James 2:24, he knew that his doctrine of “faith only” hinged on this passage. One or the other had to go. Luther decided to reject not only James 2:24, but the entire epistle of James as “spurious.”

When the advocates of the sponsoring church concept of cooperation came face to face with Philippians 4:15,16, they knew that either their system or the passage in Philippians had to go. All hinged on whether or not an approved apostolic example was binding. They decided to keep their sponsoring church concept, and reject the apostolic example principle.

With the same swipe of Jehoiakim’s penknife, these brethren cut out Acts 20:7 as the exclusive time for observing the Lord’s supper, because this passage contains only an approved apostolic example. It didn’t seem to matter that the apostle Paul commands us to observe an approved apostolic example (Phil. 4:9).

In my judgment, the entire matter of divorce/remarriage hinges on Matthew 19:9. Others must think so too, given the efforts to either neutralize or eliminate it altogether.

Even as Jesus said to Satan, “It is written again. . . ” (Matt. 4:7), so must we hear all that is said on any subject. Marriage is not even the primary subject under discussion in Romans 7:1-4, much less divorce. Neither is divorce/remarriage the theme of the passage in 1 Corinthians 7.

Given the epidemic of divorce/remarriage and its effect upon the church, it is tempting to take a position that would rule out divorce for any reason. It is also tempting to find a cause to keep people from marrying in the first place, if that would solve the divorce problem. But, it is never right to “do evil that good may come” (Rom. 3:8).

Personally, I’m not willing to pay the high cost of trying to escape the force of even one verse of Scripture (e.g., Matt. 19:9), much less face the consequences of eliminating the first four epistles of the New Testament. Some claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not a part of the new covenant (in order to eliminate Matt. 19:9), while others stop short of that position, claiming that Matthew 19:9 applies only to God’s people, and not to the alien sinner.

Too much hinges on Matthew 19:9, and when you break this hinge, the whole gate falls. When the gate falls, you may as well remove the entire fence.

Even if we do not go so far as to remove the whole fence, someone else in the next generation will, either post by post, strand by strand, or by a stampede. The epidemic of sundry and conflicting positions on divorce/remarriage within the past two decades is evidence that the gate is off the hinges, and the whole fence is in danger of being trampled down.

I do not want to be caught in that stampede, nor do I want to be found anywhere near it when the Lord comes.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 75-76
February 2, 1989

By Andy Alexander

Where did we learn about sin? Where did we learn right from wrong? The most likely answer that one would expect to hear is that we learned about sin and right from wrong from the Bible, the Word of God. And, that’s exactly right. If it were not for the inspired Word, we would not have a standard of right and wrong. Our souls would be stained with sin and we would be separated from God with no hope, if it were not for the Bible which describes sin and vividly depicts the destiny of the sinner (1 Jn. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:8). Upon realizing that we are all sinners and we need the forgiveness of those sins to receive the crown of life that is awaiting those who are faithful, where do we go?

Nature. No, a look at the history of man will reveal that nature only leads to idolatry. Sun worship and moon worship are forms of idolatry that come from only looking to nature. It is true that the heavens declare the glory of God, but only to those who have learned of him from another source (Psa. 19:1).

Human Wisdom. No, the best that human wisdom could do was erect an altar to “The Unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Paul taught the Corinthians that “the world by wisdom knew not God” (1 Cor. 1:21). Earthly wisdom will not lead us to God.

Feelings. This is it some will surely say. “I can feel when I’ve been saved.” But, are feelings an appropriate guide? Jacob was deceived into believing his son Joseph was dead. He had all the hurt, pain, and anguish that accompanies the loss of a loved one. But, did his feelings change the fact that Joseph was alive and well (Gen. 37:29-36)? We have a warning from God against trusting our feelings. “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26). Well, where do we go to find out if we are saved, if our sins are forgiven?

Since we learned about sin from the Word of God and we are the ones who have left God and are in need of reconciliation, then we should go to the Bible to find the answer to our question. From studying the Bible, we learn that belief in Christ and repentance are necessary conditions in our journey back to God. Belief gives us the strength we need to live a faithful life to God and repentance is needed to help us in our future struggle against sin, but what about the sins in our past life? How do we rid ourselves of these stains? That same Word that informed us about sin and gave us the information concerning how to live in the future also declares to us what we must do to have our past sins forgiven.

Paul was a penitent believer when he tarried in Damascus waiting to be told what he must do (Acts 9:1-11). But, his sins still had not been forgiven some three days later. In Acts 22:16, after Paul had seen the risen Savior and been praying for three days, Ananias told him, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Denominational preachers would have Paul saved on the road, still in sin. Now that is an impossibility.

The blood of Christ saves man from sin (Heb. 9:14,22). However, man must appropriate that atoning blood. And this is done when a penitent believer is baptized into Christ. No one could say it as plain as the apostle Paul, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4).

Have you obeyed the gospel of Christ or have you stopped short of complete obedience based on the advice of man. We must take all God says concerning salvation and be willing to obey his every word, because it is by his Word that we will be judged in the last day (Jn. 12:48).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 71
February 2, 1989

By Bill Dodd

About twelve years ago as I was preparing to move from a rural congregation, a lady who owned a grocery store where I had done a good bit of buying asked me this question: “Are you going to be promoted as a result of the move?” Her denominational concept would naturally prompt her to ask such a question. We may tend to sigh at such a question, but I wonder if members of the Lord’s church do not have some carnal notions about climbing the “corporate ladder.”

Some Corporate Steps?

First, there is sometimes the clamoring on the part of some preachers to locate with a congregation that has size and reputation (cf. Rev. 3:1). In other words, some preachers must package themselves pretty much like the man trying to climb the corporate ladder in the business world. He must have the right car, right clothes, the right wife, and an acceptable number of children. He must live in the right neighborhood. The foregoing things listed on the part of some preachers are comparatively innocent when you weigh them against some of the political maneuvers these preachers pull.

There Has To Be Difference Between Using Talents And Using Brethren

Brethren, God’s people are responsible for using their talents (cf. Exod. 4:2; Matt. 25:14-30; Lk. 12:48). According to

these Scriptures, if one has the ability to write, speak, debate, or use any talent that would advance the Kingdom of God, he should not hide those talents under a bushel. Perhaps some talented men have held back for fear of being accused of wanting to become a “big” preacher. What is the answer to the problem of some being too bold to advance self and the problem of some being too timid to use his talents? The answer is that we need to make sure that our motives are proper in using our talents for the cause of Christ, and not for self-aggrandizement (Matt. 23:5-8; Mk. 10:37-45). Let all brethren forget about rank in God’s army. There are no ranking officers. Incidentally, this reminds me of something about an attempt made back in the sixties to arrange a debate between Batsell B. Baxter and James P. Miller. Baxter replied to the young preacher who was trying to arrange the proposed debate: “Why do the generals always have to do the debating; why cannot some of the debating be done by the sergeants?”

Conclusion

There is no corporate structure in God’s kingdom; hence, there is no ladder to climb. Jesus said that we are “all brethren.” He also said, “The greatest shall be your servant.” The truly great are concerned about serving and not about being served.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 73
February 2, 1989