Truth Magazine

By Fred A. Shewmaker

Have you ever considered why certain religious publications are not appreciated? After a religious publication begins to arrive in my mail box and I have considered its content for a few issues, it may become plain to me that I lack an appreciation for that publication. Until recently I never gave any consideration to why I fail to appreciate those publications. The usual procedure was to glance through it and then pitch it in the nearest wastebasket. Some one may ask, “Why not send the editor a cancellation notice?” My answer is: I would not care to have it published, along with the editor’s abusive comments, for others to read in the next issue.

Recently I have given my reason for failing to appreciate certain publications some serious thought. My lack of appreciation does not arise out of my disagreement with the content. I read many things with which I do not agree, without losing appreciation for the publications in which they appear. What then is the reason for almost automatically discarding certain religious publications?

There may be various answers given to this question by others. My answer is that I am turned off by derogatory or inflammatory descriptives of persons the author of an article is attempting to chastise. The editors of the publications, which I almost automatically toss in the wastebasket, have a penchant for selecting such articles for their publication.

Examples of the type of descriptives that turn me off: (1) professional ministers; (2) elite servant; (3) pew warmers; (4) a congregation of onlookers; (5) the corporate assembly; (6) local pulpiteer; (7) professional priests; (8) visiting “evangelists”; (9) special minister; (10) party’s papers; (11) special clergyman; (12) professional go-betweens; (13) Church of Christ ministers; (14) “celestial aristocrats.”

These belittling descriptives were found in one article. Although the article is one that indicates the author might go farther than I am willing to go in opposition to public confessions of faults, I am very sympathetic to the basic point of it. I too believe that public confessions in some places are over emphasized and over done. It also may be true that some preachers, who emphasize the need for public confession, are motivated by a desire to make a good show.

The author of the article and editor of the publication may recognize the examples as being from his work. If so, please let him understand that I am not faulting his opposition to public rededication and confession of fault every time an improper thought enters one’s mind. Numerous articles, which I have written, express opposition to one thing or another. Every false doctrine, unscriptural practice and unauthorized organization should be opposed. No one ever should oppose another for opposing something. If what the other opposes is approved by the word of God, an effective way to show that it should not be opposed is to show how it is authorized by the Bible. Our effort should be expended attempting to persuade those who are wrong to repent, rather than trying to ignite their resentment.

Allow me also to state that false teachers should be charged with the crime which they are committing against the law of Christ. However, in most cases, articles refuting false teaching should not attack the person teaching error. I am not objecting to identifying a false teacher. I am saying, attacking his error does not necessitate belittling him.

In the early days of the twentieth century name calling both in political and religious debates was normal. Audiences not only expected it, they also accepted it as proper. In those days W. W. Otey participated in a debate at Portland, Indiana. My wife’s grandfather not only was present at that debate, he also was a close friend of Otey. He told me that in the debate Otey’s opponent called him many unflattering names, but brother Otey’s only response was, “I came loaded for bear, but have had to step aside for an animal of a lower order.” Such restraint by brother Otey at a time when a much stronger response was expected by an audience which would have accepted and approved it, might serve us well as an example for our day, when such is not usually approved by the general public.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 21, p. 658
November 3, 1988

By Richard Boone

It is by not means uncommon to hear people speak of various times when God has supposedly spoken to them directly. In fact, if you were to listen to just about any preacher today, he would probably say, “Allow me to tell you what the Lord has laid on my heart” or at least words to that effect. You may hear an honest and sincere person mention that the Lord directed him to do or say this or that. Even hardened criminals who are serving prison sentences for the crimes they committed may claim that God directed them to do whatever crimes they committed. Many religious groups are founded upon the idea that God revealed teachings to an individual that were not written in the Bible. Based upon these “revelations, ” groups are formed and practices begin. On the surface that all seems fine, because, after all, a person is free in this country to practice what he chooses to practice in religion. However, there is one verse in the New Testament that presents a roadblock to the idea that God speaks to people directly today. That verse is Jude 3 which reads “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” “What does Jude 3 have to do with God speaking to people now?” you may ask. That is what we will find out as we study this subject.

In order to understand Jude 3, we need to understand the purpose of the book of Jude. Jude was written primarily as a warning to first-century Christians. False teachers were secretly corrupting Christians, both individually and congregationally. Because of that, Jude writes to exhort them of examples that you and I can read about in the Old Testament of those who were not faithful to God and, as a result, were punished. It is ‘in this context that he writes about the faith that they were to contend for.

By inspiration, Jude tells the Christians to contend for the faith which was “once delivered unto the saints.” This phrase is of particular interest as we consider it in light of the fact that many today are saying that God still speaks to them directly. The word “once” in this passage means “once for all, of what is of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 3, p. 137). Therefore, when Jude writes that the faith has been “once delivered,” he means that it is final. There will be no more revelation given by God. Other translations also confirm the same idea. In the American Standard Version, this part of Jude 3 reads, “. . the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (emphasis mine – rb). The New Kings James Version says, “. . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (emphasis mine – rb). It does not take a genius to understand from Jude 3 that when God, through agency of the Holy Spirit, completely revealed the Scriptures, that revelation was final! There would be no more revelation after the close of the book of Revelation. To further show the use of the word “once,” let us look at some other passages where it is used.

Hebrews 9:27-28 says, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” The word “once” in each of these verses is the same as is found in Jude 3. In the original language, Koine Greek, the word is hapax in each of these verses. Now, two logical questions: How many times will we die? How many times was Christ offered for the sins of the world? The answer – once! And each of these times was final! Likewise, Jude 3 teaches that when God’s Word was revealed, it was complete and final. God does not reveal his Word to people today because he already has!

1 Peter 3:8 says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened (made alive – rb) by the Spirit.” Again, how many times was Christ offered – the just for the unjust? Once! And that sacrifice was final. Jude 3 uses the same word. How many times did God reveal his Word to man? Once! And it was his final revelation!

Finally, one commentator makes an interesting observation on Jude 3: “‘The meaning is that the truth is delivered for all time; it is a permanent deposit, it will never be superseded, amended, or modified. As it now stands it is a perfect, adequate, complete, and inviolable deposit of truth, providing the means with which to confute the gainsayer, and resist the advocate of false doctrine. This deposit of truth was infallibly delivered, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 1:11; 2 Pet. 1:21), and no part of it is superfluous or unnecessary” (A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, by Guy N. Woods, p. 385). Since this is the meaning of this passage, we all need to understand that the idea of God speaking to people directly today is one that is foreign to the Scriptures. When a clear passage like Jude 3 teaches that God has already delivered his Word, how can you or I accept the teaching that God directs each individual directly? I can not and if you are, you should not. The Word is the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17). It is the revealed Word of God that is “quick (living) and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, p. 677
November 17, 1988

By Mike Willis

Justice demands that judgments be made impartially, treating or affecting all men equally. What is expected of one man is expected of all men. One does not look upon the outward circumstances of a person (for example, the race, religion, or sex) in determining whether or not he has violated the law, should be allowed to cat in a restaurant, should be qualified to run for office, etc. Black Americans were given equal standing before the law only by protest, court decisions, federal interventions, and other influences. Social attitudes gradually have been adjusted to accept equal housing, non-discrimination with reference to jobs, equal access to public facilities, and other matters in which respect of persons was being shown. I am grateful for the improvements which have been made, although I was not always in agreement with the methods used to bring about those improvements.

We are grateful to live in a country which tries to administer justice and provides services for all men without respect of persons. We can be more thankful that our God is-a God who does not accept a man’s person based on his outward circumstances in life. Our God is an impartial God. He is not the God of Calvinism who gives preferential treatment to the “elect.”

God Is No Respecter Of Persons

The early church had to learn that God is no respecter of persons. They had to learn the lesson that both Jew and Gentile stand on an equality before God. Peter discovered this lesson and spoke to the Gentile Cornelius, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35). Paul wrote, “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him” (Rom. 10:12).

The Great Commission was sent to every creature of every nation of the whole world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:47). This was a revolutionary concept to the Jew who considered Samaritans and Gentiles to be “dogs.” Most of us do not appreciate how revolutionary Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 was to the first century Jew; he wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither mate nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

God Forbade Respect of Persons In Civil Judgments

In the Old Testament law of Moses, God specifically forbade judges showing respect of persons in the administration of the law. Moses wrote, “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s” (Deut. 1:17). Showing respect of persons perverted justice, which the law forbade. “Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous” (Deut. 16:19; cf. Prov. 24:23; 28:21; Lev. 19:15; Job 13:10).

The Lord Forbade Respect Of Persons In The Church

The church functions in a society which has racial, social, and other differences. The church cannot create disruption in that society by political revolution. However, within the church, all such distinctions must be laid aside. James condemned showing partiality to the rich over the poor.

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves and are become judges of evil thoughts? (Jas. 2:14)

What is described by James I have witnessed, not on the basis of money, but on the basis of race. When white brethren used to attend black brethren’s meetings, the black brethren invited us to sit in their best pews; when the black brethren visited the white brethren’s meetings, they were given the back pews. We were more influenced by the world than by the word in our treatment of black brethren. We rejoice that these days are behind us.

Nevertheless, not all respect of persons has disappeared among us. We tend to think that more has been accomplished when a doctor, lawyer, or other prominent business man has been converted than when an assembly line worker at some plant has been baptized. Some churches have tended to select prominent business men (who may not be spiritual leaders) to serve as elders, emphasizing the business aspects of the church affairs over spiritual leadership.

Respect of Persons Should Not Be Shown In Exercising Discipline

Paul emphasized that church discipline should be administered without respect of persons. Writing regarding the elders in the local church, he said, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality” (1 Tim. 5:19-21).

An elder must have won the respect and esteem of the congregation before he can be appointed to serve. Now this elder,,has been found guilty of sin. What,,should be done? The apostle commanded that he be treated just like any other member who is guilty of sin.

Unfortunately, church discipline is sometimes not administered even handedly. The sins of one man may be overlooked because he is the son of a prominent member, while those of another are quickly dealt with. Parents sometimes show respect of persons toward their own children, especially in the realm of church discipline. If you doubt this is true, volunteer to go with those who rebuke a wayward child and watch the reaction of the parents. Parents who can see clearly to support church discipline toward other members sometimes lose their vision with reference to their own children. If these parents are allowed to dominate church affairs, church discipline will be administered poorly, without impartiality.

False Teachers Must Be Rebuked Without Showing Respect of Persons

False teaching must be rebuked without respect of persons. This was demonstrated in Galatians 2 with reference to whether or not circumcision was essential for salvation. Jewish brethren were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved. Those holding this position were “of reputation” (2:2); they “seemed to be somewhat” (2:6). The “truth of the gospel” was at stake (2:5). Paul’s attitude was this: “whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepted no man’s person” (2:6). Therefore, he contended for the truth of the gospel, even though he had to oppose those who were highly esteemed in the church.

The issue came to a showdown at Antioch. Peter was preaching in Antioch, participating in table fellowship with Gentiles, until certain Jews from Jerusalem arrived in Antioch. When they came, Peter withdrew from the Gentile Christians and even Barnabas was influenced by Peter’s hypocrisy. There was probably no man in the early church more influential than Peter when this occurred. Read of Paul’s conduct toward him on this occasion:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal. 2:11-14)

Paul was not influenced by the stature of Peter to ignore his false teaching and hypocritical conduct. Criticism from faithful brethren (such as, “Paul is just trying to make a name for himself”) did not stop him from confronting Peter. He saw the impact of Peter’s teaching and example upon other Christians. The very fact that Peter was the one guilty of the false teaching and sin made the situation that much more critical. He would influence others much more than some lesser known and respected brother would influence them.

From Paul’s example, we learn that false teaching much be opposed without respect of persons. If the most influential man of our day is teaching something which is false, he must be opposed. Our allegiance is to Christ and the truth of the gospel, not to some man, paper, or school. The very fact that the man teaching the false doctrine is highly respected and influential necessitates that he be opposed to stop the spread of the false doctrine in order “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

One of the most refreshing attributes of my brethren is their allegiance to the truth. My assessment of my brethren is that they are committed to the truth, not to this paper, a school, or some man. If my brethren can be shown that some man is teaching a false doctrine, they will oppose that man and his false doctrine regardless of what his stature may be. They will oppose that false doctrine regardless of whom they may be standing against. If they must stand alone in defense of the truth, they will stand because their commitment is to the truth, not the man.

Conclusion

I am thankful that I have brethren who are even handed in their rebuke of sin and error. Their even handedness is one of the things that God uses to keep me in the pathway of righteousness. If and when I stumble into sin and/or teach false doctrine, these brethren will call me back to the way of truth and righteousness that my soul may be saved from damnation (Jas. 5:19-20). They are not of the number who are so afraid of hurting my feelings that they pat me on the back, tell me what a great man I am, and sit in silence while my sin leads me to damnation. I am grateful for the spiritual brethren who care enough for my soul to rebuke my sin (Gal. 6:1). These spiritual, godly brethren are willing to withstand criticism from my “friends” in order to save my soul. May God increase their number and strengthen their hands.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, pp. 674, 693-694
November 17, 1988

By Lewis Willis

I guess most Americans have been as frustrated as I over hijacking of aircraft. The mentality of the modern terrorist is difficult to understand. It seems apparent to me, at least, that the difficulty in dealing with this matter is the traditional difficulty that comes when civilized people try to deal with those who are uncivilized. There have been many examples of the uncivilized behavior of these Shiite terrorists, as well as the other terrorists the world has recently encountered.

To illustrate what I mean, one morning one of the hostage crewman aboard a TWA plane became ill. They contacted the control tower from the plane and told the tower they needed a doctor. However, all of the major news networks said they gave instructions to the doctor to “keep his mouth shut” and not talk to the press about the matter or they would “cut out his tongue or make his wife a widow.” I was appalled at the mentality of such people. I can scarcely imagine a more brutal act than to cut out someone’s tongue. This demonstrates the barbarian nature of those terrorists. I think most people in the world, because of such words and deeds, realize how difficult it is for our government to deal with such people.

However, as I thought about this, I realized that I had heard of the removal of a person’s tongue in quite a different context. It is as barbaric in this context as it is with those hijackers.

Here is where the brutal, monstrous, horrid, shocking thought was first introduced to me. It is found in the rules of the masonic temples all over the country! As a person enters Masonry he passes through three Degrees. Each of these degrees symbolize achievement and understanding of the principles and ideals of Masonry. Some of this information is secretly given to the initiate. When those secrets are given to the person, he takes a vow that he will not divulge those secrets and it is here that there is a comparison between Masonry and the terrorist hijackers of that TWA plane.

The first degree for the Mason is the Entered Apprentice at, Degree. He solemnly swears that he will in no way reveal any of the secrets and then he swears, “All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution, to keep and perform the same without any equivocation, mental reservation or secret evasion of mind whatever, binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots and buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly violate this my solemn obligation of an Entered Apprentice Mason. So help me God, and keep me in the due performance of the same” (Handbook of Freemasonry, by Edmond Ronayne, p. 70).

In the next degree, the Fellow Craft Degree, he swears to keep the secrets, “. . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my breast torn open, my heart plucked out and given as a prey to the wild beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air” (Handbook of Freemasonry, by Edmond Ronayne,.p. 123).

The vow of the last degree, the Master Mason’s Degree, he says, ” . . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in twain, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, and the ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven, that no trace or remembrance may be had of so vile and perjured a wretch as I, should I ever knowingly violate this my solemn obligation as a Master Mason. So help me God and keep me in the due performance of the same” (Handbook of Freemasonry, by Edmond Ronayne, p. 173).

I was just thinkin, isn’t it strange that some Christians will get all worked up over some terrorists threatening to cut somebody’s tongue out but he turns around and, in order to become a Mason, he vows that he will let his be torn out if he ever reveals the secrets of the Lodge. Why wouldn’t the deeds by Masons be as barbaric as those by terrorists? And, how in the world can a Christian involve himself in such nonsense?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 21, p. 659
November 3, 1988