Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind. How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), pp. 75-77.

Allan Bloom, currently a professor at the University of Chicago, has had a distinguished academic career, teaching also at Yale, the universities of Paris, Tel Aviv, and Toronto. During the 1960’s he was a professor at Cornell, resigning in protest over the capitulation of that school’s administration to campus radicals.

His Closing of the American Mind became an unexpected bestseller, indeed, something of a cultural phenomenon, during 1987. While we do not endorse everything in the book, several pages are well worth reflecting upon.

This phenomenon [the addiction of youth to rock music – SWI is both astounding and indigestible, and is hardly noticed, routine and habitual. But it is of historic proportions that a society’s best young and their best energies should be so occupied. People of future civilizations will wonder at this and find it as incomprehensible as we do the caste system, witch burning, harems, cannibalism and gladiatorial combats. It may well be that a society’s greatest madness seems normal to itself. The child I described has parents who have sacrificed to provide him with a good life and who have a great stake in his future happiness. They cannot believe that the musical vocation will contribute very much to that happiness. But there is nothing they can do about it. The family spiritual void has left the field open to rock music, and they cannot possibly forbid their children to listen to it. It is everywhere; all children listen to it; forbidding it would simply cause them to lose their children’s affection and obedience. When they turn on the television, they will see President Reagan warmly grasping the daintily proffered gloved hand of Michael Jackson and praising him enthusiastically. Better to set the faculty of denial in motion – avoid noticing what the words say, assume the kid will get over it. If he has early sex, that won’t get in the way of his having stable relationships later. His drug use will certainly stop at pot. School is providing real values. . . .

TV, which compared to music plays a comparatively small role in the formation of young people’s character and taste, is a consensus monster – the Right monitors its content for sex, the Left for violence, and many other interested sects for many other things. But the music has hardly been touched, and what efforts have been made are both ineffectual and misguided about the nature and extent of the problem.

The result is nothing less than parents’ loss of control over their children’s moral education at a time when no one else is seriously concerned with it. This has been achieved by an alliance between the strange young males who have the gift of divining the mob’s emergent wishes – our versions of Thrasymachus, Socrates’ rhetorical adversary – and the record-company executives, the new robber barons, who mind gold out of rock. They discovered a few years back that children are one of the few groups in the country with considerable disposable income, in the form of allowances. Their parents spend all they have providing for the kids. Appealing to them over their parents’ heads, creating a world of delight for them, constitutes one of the richest markets in the postwar world. The rock business is perfect capitalism, supplying to demand and helping to create it. It has all the moral dignity of drug trafficking, but it was so totally new and unexpected that nobody thought to control it, and now it is too late. Progress may be made against cigarette smoking because our absence of standards of our relativism does not extend to matters of bodily health. In all other things the market determines the value. (Yoko Ono is among America’s small group of billionaires, along with oil and computer magnates, her late husband having produced and sold a commodity of worth comparable to theirs.) Rock is very big business, bigger than the movies, bigger than professional sports, bigger than television, and this accounts for much of the respectability of the music business. It is difficult to adjust our vision to the changes in the economy and to see what is really important. McDonald’s now has more employees than U.S. Steel, and likewise the purveyors of junk food for the soul have supplanted what still seem to be more basic callings.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 366
June 16, 1988

By Larry Ray Hafley

Dr. Compton’s article is full of personal speculation and human imagination, but it is devoid of divine revelation. The Bible says nothing about the rapture as defined by Dr. Compton. It says even less about the day after. Note that Dr. Compton prescribed no passages of Scripture which tell us what will happen the day after his alleged rapture. We only have his word for it, but that is not good enough (1 Pet. 4:11). Dr. Compton, please cite just one verse that deals with the day after the rapture. Can you do it? Will you do it?

The Chief Text

Since most of Dr. Compton’s article hinges on his misunderstanding of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, that text must be examined. Contrary to the Doctor’s opinion, the text says nothing about some “remaining in the graves,” nor does it state that “The wicked dead will not be raised at that time.” Simply read the passage.

Paul shows that the dead in Christ are not to be sorrowed after like those who have no hope. Some believed that one who died before Christ came would miss the blessings and benefits of his coming. Paul lays that fear to rest. Indeed, the righteous dead will rise first, before the righteous living, to meet the Lord. Paul was not contrasting the righteous dead and the wicked dead.

Men divided the Bible into chapters and verses, so we often separate areas that are related to one another. Continue reading into 1 Thessalonians 5. Obviously, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:4 is contextually united. Compare the comforting conclusions of 4:18, “Wherefore comfort one another with these words,” and 1 Thessalonians 5:11, “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” So, when the Lord comes and the righteous are “caught up,” at the same time the wicked will be overtaken and destroyed. This is also the teaching of 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. See that text.

God is going to repay tribulation to the troublers. He is going to repay rest (a noun, not a verb) to the troubled. But when? (1) “When the Lord shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them (the sinners)” and (2) “when he shall be glorified in his saints … in that day.” (3) “When Christ who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory” (Col. 3:4). But what about the wicked? They are not in Colossians 3:4. Yes, but they are in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. (4) Both the righteous and the wicked are in Matthew 16:27. “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.”

So, when the Lord comes with the angels, then (not later) he shall reward every man (not part, not some), but “then,” “every man.” There is no sequential, sectional coming, hence, no rapture.

“No General Resurrection”

Dr. Compton says, “There is no such thing as a general resurrection.” Well, another Doctor, Dr. Luke (Col.4:14), quoted the apostle Paul who said, “there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” (Acts 24:15). Note, “a resurrection,” singular, “of the dead” no “just the righteous,” but Dr. Luke’s word to that of Dr. Compton. If you are following Dr. Compton, you ought to change Doctors.

Dr. Compton, in his treatment of Matthew 25:31-46, says it “refers to the judgement of the nations, and has nothing to do with the rapture or a general resurrection, but refers to a judgment of the nations as to their treatment of the Jewish nation.”

Where did Dr. Compton learn this? His word is not our authority. Look at the text of Matthew 25:31-46. “All nations” will be there. When the Lord said, “Go teach all nations,” he referred to all nations of men, to “every creature” individually (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15; Acts 10:35,43). So, all nations will be there, i.e., “every creature” will be present.

Further, the division of the sheep and the goats is not national, but individual. Those being judged are persons, not nations. There are no “sheep nations” versus “goat nations” in the text. Judgment is rendered to individuals on the basis of their treatment of one another (vv. 40, 45). The Lord did not say to a nation, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my nations, ye have done it unto me.” Absolute ly nothing is said about the nations as to their treatment of the Jewish nation.

Are the “cursed” of verse 41 nations or individuals? Are the “righteous” of verse 46 nations or individuals? Individuals are judged by how they have treated their fellow man (vv. 34-35). Neither blessing or cursing is based on how the Jewish nation was treated. Read the text.

Finally, the judgment of Matthew 25:31 is that of Matthew 16:27. Both involve the “Son of man.” Both include his coming in “glory.” Both incorporate his coming “with his angels.” Both encompass the judgment of “every man (not nation) according to his works.”

Both the righteous and the wicked will be raised on the last day in the same hour (Jn. 5:28,29). Observe that -A “all that are in graves shall hear his voice and come forth.” The believer will be raised “up at the last day” (Jn. 6:39,44, 54; 11:24). Also, those who do not believe, those who reject Christ and his word, will be judged “in the last day” (Jn. 12:48; cf. 5:29; 2 Cor. 5:10).

“Not Just Any Time”

The second coming of Christ, Dr. Compton contemplates, “could not happen just anytime,” nor could it “happen just any moment.” See Matthew 24:36-39. The wicked will be taken and punished; the righteous will be taken and blessed. As with Noah, there is no “day after” for the wicked. “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh” (Matt. 25:13). Sounds like to me, Dr. Compton, the second coming could happen “just anytime.”

Conclusion

Remember the title of Dr. Compton’s article. He cited not one single verse that deals with the day after his rapture, no, not one. His surmising and theorizing is all of his own devising. We want the Scriptures that tell us about “the day after the rapture.” Surely, he knows of one. We promise to pass it along if he surrenders it.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 369, 374
June 16, 1988

 

By Joe Polk

In brother Hoyt Houchen’s recent article answering a question regarding 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, I saw some things that bothered me. A reader wanted to know if it is wrong to take legal action against brethren who have defrauded them.

In his response, brother Houchen first looked at the original wording of the text. He noted that the expression “go to law” was translated from the Greek word krinesthai, a word that originates from krino, meaning “to judge.” This was supposed to support his premise that we are not sure that the text even refers to legal action.

That really is incidental to me. The jist of the matter is that the Corinthians should not let the unbelievers “judge” their disputes – court or no court!

Brother Houchen went on to supply another argument. He noted that our court system, being a product of our government, is a blessing of God (Rom. 13:1-7). The institution is not unrighteous; therefore, he goes on to say that the issue is “who” judges, not “what. ” In other words he is saying that courts are not under consideration.

Brother Houchen, back up and look carefully at what you said. You said that the judicial institution is not “unrighteous.” That is neither here, nor there. First of all, people are righteous and unrighteous, not institutions. That is evident to both of us. No one can affirm that just because the institution is under the domain of God that it is then made up of the righteous! It is safe to say that the vast majority of those who make up the legal system of this country are unrighteous in God’s eyes. Yea, how many Christians do we know who are judges? I’d guess that one hand will suffice that count.

It seems evident to me that when there are unbelievers doing the judging, we had better settle matters ourselves. Anyone who would affirm that because God set up our government then it is righteous and those within it cannot be considered in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 is stretching the Scriptures into more than God intended.

Another argument that brother Houchen brought up dealt with the duties of the church and judicial system. It was contended that the church wasn’t to meddle in judicial affairs and that the judicial system wasn’t designed to handle church affairs. Are you saying, brother Houchen, that brethren who defraud brethren are no longer under church jurisdiction because they violate the “law of the land”? I urge you to note that if brethren cheating brethren were not under consideration in chapter 6, then Paul didn’t know it. He mentions that they were involved in cheating!

I have respect for brother Houchen and feel that he is a knowledgeable man. I’m afraid that there is, however, a trend among preachers today. This trend is calling us to “read” between the lines” to find truth, because the Word of God alone isn’t clear.” I urge all brethren to look to the Scriptures and read them objectively. I have nothing against word studies, contextual studies, and the like; but I feel that they are to clarify the letter, not change it.

Paul knew that the Corinthians were defrauding one another. Regardless of whether they went to “court” or not is incidental. They went before unbelievers’ That was the wrong! Whether we go to court before unbelievers or next door, the point is the same. Paul is giving them instruction on where to settle their problems! Are we to come along and say, “I wonder where they went before unbelievers?” The point is that they should have stayed within themselves!

If they were to settle disputes regarding cheating and the like, why aren’t we? I’m afraid that brother Houchen has gone the wrong way with this passage. Paul exhorted them where they should’ve taken the matters. Is he not telling us the same?

I exhort brother Houchen to consider these things carefully. I’m certain that he wishes to mislead no one. I trust that he will consider objectively and make a change if convinced from Scripture that he should. Should his understanding convince him that he is right, we are still brothers. Neither he nor I would divide or slander on such a matter. I can still rejoice in his work of love in the love of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 367
June 16, 1988

By Aude McKee

Note: Every quotation from Catholic writers is made from a book bearing the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church.

Introduction:

I. Thus far in our study we have traced the origin and early growth of the Lord’s church. We have also given attention to the warnings about apostasy sounded by the Holy Spirit.

II. Last week we traced the rise of the Catholic System.

A. Departures came in teaching, worship, work, and religious practices.

B. The rise of Catholicism can most vividly be traced in the departures from God’s pattern in organization.

1. Organization of the New Testament church.

a. Christ – head of the church universal.

b. Each local congregation overseen by elders (bishops).

2. Three fundamental points were made regarding elders:

a. Each local church had a plurality.

b. Elders in each local church were equal in authority.

c. The elders had authority only in and over the local church that appointed them.

3. These fundamental principles were ignored. Elders extended their authority until finally in 606 A.D., Boniface III, Patriarch of Rome, declared himself the Universal Bishop. It took hundreds of years for the church to go into apostasy, but eventually the process was completed.

III. Today we study some of the basic things that make Catholicism what it is.

Discussion:

I. Attitude Toward the Bible.

A. The Catholic Church makes the claim that the Bible is a Catholic Book.

1. Following are quotations from an advertisement placed in the newspaper by the Supreme Council of Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, St. Louis, MO.:

a. “Yes, the Bible is truly a Catholic book. They were members of the Catholic Church who, under God’s inspiration, wrote the New Testament in its entirety.”

b. “It was the Catholic Church which treasured it and gave it to the world in its original and unaltered form.”

2. In the light of this claim, the following questions need to be answered: (If the Bible is a Catholic book, then . . . . )

a. Why is it not accepted as their authority in religion?

b. Why does the name “Catholic” or “Catholic Church” not appear therein?

c. Why is there no mention made in the Bible of the “Pope,” or of his exalted position in the church?

d. Why is there no reference to Peter as the Vicar of Christ on earth or of his being the head of the church?

e. Why does the Bible say that Peter was a married man (1 Cor. 9:5)?

f. Why is praying to Mary not mentioned in the Bible?

g. Why is the Bible so silent about the doctrines of “Purgatory,” “Limbo,” “The Rosary, ” “The Mass,” “Auricular Confession,” or “Indulgences”?

h. Why does the Bible expressly forbid the making or bowing down to images (Ex. 20:4-5), and the calling of a “priest” by the name of “Father” (Matt. 23:5-12)?

3. The fact of the matter is, the Bible was written between 1500 B.C. and 96 A.D., hundreds of years before the Catholic Church was born. The Catholic Church is too young to be the mother of the Bible – a mother must be older than her offspring! The Bible is not a Catholic book!

B. The Scriptures are not inspired and are not infallible.

1 . “Is the Bible the Infallible Word of God? . . . The Catholic’s answer is a decisive ‘No!’ Indeed, it is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the Scripture is the Word of God and what books certainly belong to the Bible. The Bible is not its own witness. It is like a will without a signature or probate. It is infallible only because of and to the extent of the Church’s infallible witness. Deny the Church’s infallible witness, and the Bible is at once reduced to the level of mere Oriental literature and utterly devoid of divine inspiration. The Catholic Church alone guarantees infallibly the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate, the contents of the Canon, and the inspiration of all the 72 books of Holy Writ. As St. Augustine could rightly say in the 5th century, ‘I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the authority of the Church.’ The Bible, therefore, is the infallible Word of God only inasmuch as the interpretation of the infallible Church makes it so” (The Catholic’s Question Box [Herbst), p. 653).

2. See 1 Cor. 2:1-13; Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Thess. 2:13.

C. The Scriptures are not sufficient.

1. “The New Testament does not bear the marks of having been drawn up to serve as a code of Christian belief. Neither does it anywhere direct us to take Scripture as our sole Rule of Faith, or free us from the obligation of believing more than is clearly taught in its pages. Therefore, to assume that the Bible is the sole and adequate rule of Christian Faith may perhaps be the only alternative left after rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church; but neither Scripture nor history seems to afford any warrant for such an assumption” (E.R. Hull, What the Catholic Church is and What She Teaches, p. 2).

2. See 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3.

D. Traditions are authority.

1. “The unwritten traditions which we receive from the mouth of Christ himself by the apostles or from the apostles themselves, have come down to us as if delivered from hand to hand on an equality with the books of the Old and New Testament” (Council of Trent, 16th century).

2. “It would be well to remember that the Bible was never intended to take the place of the living, infallible teacher, the Church, but was written to explain or insist upon a teaching, already preached. . . . The Catholic Church a divine, living, infallible voice, guarantees to every one not merely the written word, but also the unwritten teaching of divine tradition” (Catholic Box, pp. 653-654).

3. See 1 Cor. 4:5; John 20:30-31; Eph. 3:3-4; Rev. 22:18-19; Deut. 4:1-2; 2 John 9-11; Jude 3.

E. The Common Man is Unable to Interpret the Scriptures.

1. “That in matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one confiding in his own judgment shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures contrary to that which has been held and still is held by the Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred writ; or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers; even though such interpretations should never be published” (Council of Trent, 16th century).

2. See Luke 10:21; Isa. 35:8; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 4:11.

II. Papal Infallibility.

A. “We the sacred council approving, teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed; that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when discharging the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal church, he by the divine assistance promised to him in the Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed the church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one – which may God avert – presume to contradict our definition, let him be anathema” (Declaration of Papal Infallibility made by Pope Pius IX, and adopted by the Vatican Council of 1870).

B. There have been numerous contradictions between popes

1. In 1088, Pope Paschall II (and in 1145 Pope Eugenius III) authorized duelling. In 1509, Julius II (and in 1560, Pius IV) forbade it.

2. In 867, Pope Hadrian declared civil marriages to be valid. In 1800, Pius VII condemned them.

3. In 1585, Pope Sixtus V published an edition of the Bible and by a bull recommended it to be read. Pius

VII condemned the reading of it.

4. In 1520, Pope Urban Vill excommunicated the famous Italian Galileo and put him in jail because he taught that the earth was round and revolves around the sun. Popes today state that Urban was wrong in condemning the teachings of Galileo.

C. For about 40 years in the 14th century, three men claimed the papacy.

D. Prior to 1870, Catholics denied Papal Infallibility. After 1870, they had to believe it or be guilty of heresy.

E. There have been many wicked popes. Archbishop Purcell, who debated Alexander Campbell, said: “Without doubt some popes are in hell.”

III. Primacy of Peter.

A. “Sitting in that chair in which Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, sat to the close of life, the Catholic Church recognizes in his person the most exalted degree of dignity, and the full jurisdiction not based on constitutions, but emanating from no less authority than from God Himself. As the Successor of St. Peter and the true and legitimate Vicar of Jesus Christ, he therefore, presides over the Universal Church, the Father and Governor of all the faithful, of Bishops, also, and of all other prelates, be their station, rank, or power, what they may be” (Council of Trent, 16th Cent.).

B. Catholic position can be summed up in three points.

1. Peter was appointed by Christ to be his chief representative and successor and head of the church.

2. Peter went to Rome and established the “diocese.”

3. Peter’s successors (popes) succeeded to his authority.

C. Papal claim based in part on Matthew 16.18-19.

1. “Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.”

a. Petros is masculine gender – Peter’s name. b. Petra is feminine gender and means “a rock, ledge, cliff.”

2. Jesus had just asked, “Whom do men say I . . . am?” Then he asked, “Whom do you say I am?” Peter replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then the Lord said, “Upon this rock, I will build my church.”

3. The church was built on Jesus Christ.

a. Isa. 28:16.

b. Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 3:11.

D. There is no such office as “pope” in the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:29-31; Eph. 4:11-12).

E. Peter never claimed or assumed authority and superiority (Luke 22:24-27; Gal. 2:11; Acts 10:25-26; 1 Pet. 5:1).

1. All the apostles were given the same authority Peter had (Matt. 18:18).

2. Ability to remit and retain sins (by being allowed to reveal the gospel terms of pardon) was given to all the apostles (John 20:23).

3. Paul was not behind the chiefest apostles (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11).

F. Peter was a married man (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

G. It cannot be proved that Peter was ever in the city of Rome.

1. Paul wrote the letter to the Roman Christians. In it he saluted 27 people but not Peter. In the Roman letter he did not mention the pope.

2. Paul wrote four books from Rome but never mentioned Peter or the papacy.

3. Peter wrote two books of the New Testament. He did not mention Rome or the pope.

4. No other writer of the New Testament ever mentions Peter and Rome together.

Conclusion:

1. As we close this lesson, we need to be reminded of these basic principles:

a. John 8:32.

b. John 17:17.

c. 2 John 9-11.

d. John 12:48.

2. There is not a commodity more precious than truth. May we search for it, believe it, and obey it.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 360-362
June 16, 1988