Truth Magazine

By Donald Willis

I am a child of God, born again through the blood of Jesus Christ because of the glorious teachings of the gospel of salvation. My heart is filled with hope, and I daily rejoice due to the wonderful assurances that are afforded the children of God. What do you mean, “working for Satan”?

Satan is alive, he is our adversary, and as a roaring lion seeks to ensnare Christians (1 Pet. 5:8). He works upon Christians in a very subtle manner, we must not be ignorant of his devices (2 Cor. 2:11; 11:3). One may permit himself to play into the hand of Satan, and become an instrument of unrighteousness instead of righteousness. How?

By refusing to give the cause of Christ our potential strength for good. The Scriptures teach that one is to love God with all the heart, soul and mind (Matt. 22:37). Christians must seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. The cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches garnish our strength. Our eyes are filled with the pleasures of mammon. We find no time in our busy schedules for God and truth. We have played right into the hand of Satan. Jesus affirmed, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30). Truly, Satan ensnares!

By evil influence. Christians are epistles (2 Cor. 3:2), people of influence (Rom. 14:7). Either we are good epistles and influences or we are evil! Jesus called his people salt and light. But, if the salt loses its saltiness, it is good for nothing. How do people see us? Does Jesus rule in our lives, or do we permit Satan to control? “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). The New International Version reads, “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.”‘ Do we warm our hands around the fires of the enemy, or are we seeking the fellowship of the saints?

By openly opposing truth. Jesus said the truth will make men free (Jn. 8:32). Elymas would “pervert the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10). One might oppose truth by teaching error, upholding the hands of the false teacher, sending money to causes that are wrong; or, simply ignoring truth, failing to live proper examples, failing to instill truth in our children. Paul proclaimed that many religious individuals walked, yet often improperly. “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:17-20). John warns, “He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 11). Stand up for God and truth; and against Satan and error.

By perverting the Scriptures. Religion is not a joke! The Scriptures not only stand as God’s pattern for leadership and direction as we go through life; but, at the judgment these Scriptures are that embodiment of teachings by which all shall be judged (Jn. 12:48). James cautioned teachers (either public or private; by word of mouth or by example) that they would receive the greater condemnation. We are responsible for what we believe, stand for and teach to others. Satan will attempt to get one to compromise on this issue or that one. Satan will convince one that it does not really make any difference what one believes, and will lead in the writing of religious creeds and rules. However, when one leaves the teachings of Christ, he no longer has God (2 Jn. 9). That is the problem with error. We have just cut ourselves off from the only hope of salvation. How about it? Is it worth the price?

I refuse to permit Satan to control me. “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that clay” (2 Tim. 1:12). Stand up for God! Quit play acting at religion! Seek the lost!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 242
April 21, 1988

By James W. Adams

Some weeks past (November 1620, 1987), it was my pleasure and privilege to attend a religious discussion between Keith Sharp of Lakeland, Florida and Lewis G. Hale of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The debate was conducted in Russellville, Arkansas, a beautiful, small city at the foot of the Ozark Mountains. Nature was resplendent in her coat of many colors and the weather cold but invigorating and delightful. The discussion was conducted in public facilities – an auditorium at the County Fair Grounds. Crowds were only average in number, but consistent, orderly, and respectful. The conduct of both disputants was impeccable, and the gravity and the importance of the occasion recognized and respected by all. Each disputant pressed his points of view with vigor, yet with courtesy and proper regard for the other. Nothing occurred that was beneath the dignity of the church, the gospel, or the high standard of ethical conduct to be expected of Christians. This was a debate between brethren in the Lord, members of the body of Christ, and the entire affair was in keeping with this fact.

The subjects of discussion concerned what have come to be known as “The Issues.” To be more exact, they were concerned with: Church support of human institutions in benevolence; the cooperation of churches in benevolence and evangelism through a “sponsoring church”; and the scope of the responsibility of churches in benevolence (general or limited to “saints”).

The “conservative” congregation in Russellville which sponsored brother Sharp in the discussion did not begin as a result of a division in one of the churches of the city. A group of brethren who lived in and near Russellville and who could not conscientiously worship with any of the then existing congregations in the city decided to form a congregation in which they could so worship. Brother A.W. Goff moved to Russellville to work with them as a preacher of the gospel. His and their labors have succeeded splendidly. The Eastside Church of which they are a part is an active and growing congregation with a nice brick meeting house in a good location. Brother Goff has militantly pressed what he conceives to be the truth (and what I believe to be the truth) both in the pulpit of the Eastside congregation and on the radio. Some have consequently left churches of the area which, for want of a better term, we call “liberal” to have fellowship with the Eastside brethren. Such brought about a challenge from a congregation in Ola, Arkansas (a nearby town) for a public discussion of differences. Eastside chose Keith Sharp to represent them, and Ola chose Lewis G. Hale. Propositions were agreed upon and the debate occurred.

Keith Sharp is a comparatively young man in the early years of middle life. He is well educated, a careful Bible student, an excellent speaker, and a forceful personality. He came well prepared for the discussion and acquitted himself with dignity, ability, and effectiveness. Not only was he strong in the affirmation of his propositions, but acutely perceptive in recognizing the weaknesses and inconsistencies of his opponent’s argumentation and clear and definite in his responses. In a word, Keith is an excellent debater. I have known and loved him from his boyhood; his recently deceased father and his mother have long been among my dearest friends; hence I took a great deal of personal pride and satisfaction in Keith’s excellent handling of this debate.

The first debate on these issues in which I was involved was the now famous Cogdill-Woods Debate in Birmingham, Alabama. It occurred thirty years ago almost to the day. I was brother Cogdill’s moderator in that discussion. Though a generation of time has passed and many subsequent debates have occurred, nothing seems to have changed. So-called “Conservative” and “Liberal” churches yet pursue widely divergent paths and the differences grow greater and the cleavage wider. Brother Hale produced nothing new in his argumentation. In fact, one can reasonably well get everything he presented in the debate by reading the book he published more than thirty years ago entitled, “How Churches Can Cooperate, God’s Work in God’s Way.”

Brother Hale seemed more concerned about confusing his audience than convincing them of the absolute truth of his propositions. I was amazed and disappointed to hear him construct arguments the major and minor premises of which involved incidents widely separated from one another by years of time while the validity of his argument depended upon their having occurred or the situation to have existed at the same time, which he stated to be the case. I do not wish to impugn brother Hale’s honesty, but he is too good a Bible student not to have known better. As evidence of brother Hale’s effort to confuse rather than convince was the fact that, in his last speech, he made an appeal to the audience for a decision in his favor on the basis of “reasonable doubt.” It seems to me that this was a tacit admission of defeat. Besides, it was his practice that was the occasion of the controversy, hence if reasonable doubt were a proper basis for a religious decision affecting the destiny of man’s immortal soul, it would be employed to decide the matter in favor of the positions occupied by brother Sharp. Never in more than fifty-five years of gospel preaching and attending and participating in debates have I heard a disputant plead for a favorable decision from an audience on the basis of 4treasonable doubt.” I confess: this was brand new. As far as I am concerned, brother Sharp clearly exposed the lack of validity of all arguments adduced by brother Hale, hence I came home completely satisfied with the results.

Another thing surprised and disappointed me relative to brother Hale’s defense of his position. He was asked repeatedly about certain avant garde practices of brethren with whom he is more or less aligned. I have yet to hear him repudiate any of th m, however “far-out” they are, with the exception of “the Crossroads and Boston movements.” He even stumbled and was evasive relative to Alvin Jennings and his “urban church” concept and practice. In all other cases, he would say, “Yes, I would endorse that under proper circumstances” or something to that effect. He always failed, however, to tell us what those circumstances are. I have always considered brother Hale to be one of the more conservative of the so-called “liberal” brethren, but I have had to revise my thinking. I really do not know anything the brethren are doing that he would actively oppose.

In my judgment, Keith Sharp answered every argument and every quibble and inconsistency in brother Hale’s presentations. The only disappointing thing from the conservative standpoint about the debate was the attendance by preachers and brethren outside of Russellville. Only a few years ago, preachers and brethren by the scores would have been present in support of the truth. Does this signify diminished concern with reference to the relevancy of a discussion of these issues, and/or a growing aversion to a public negation of religious error and a conversion to detente and sweet-spirited tolerance? May this not be true. If it is, it is indeed “later than we think!”

In conclusion, may I say to brethren everywhere: If your situation calls for a debate with proponents of error “within or without,” you may call upon Keith Sharp to represent you and the truth with complete confidence. The truth will not suffer in his hands.

(Note: If anyone is interested in obtaining tapes of this discussion, they may be obtained from: Stephen Saunders, P.O. Box 221, Fordyce, A R 71742. The 8 tapes will be $16. 00 plus postage and handling. Also tapes of the Sharp-West Debate and the Sharp-Polk Debate may be had for the some price. These debates were on: Cooperation of Churches in Evangelism and Benevolence, Limited Benevolence, and Church-sponsored Recreation and Entertainment [Social meals].)

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 234-235
April 21, 1988

By Aude McKee

Introduction:

I. Review of the origin of the Lord’s church.

A. Through the “seed” all nations were to be blessed. The church is that which the “seed” accomplished (Gen. 3:15; 22:18; Acts 2:47).

B. The kingdom was prophesied – Jesus’ reign began on Pentecost.

C. The church is composed of called out people. This calling is done by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14) and man responds to the gospel by obeying it (Rom. 6:17-18). The gospel was first preached and people first obeyed on Pentecost Day, in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 2.

D. The church was purchased by the blood of Christ. That blood was shed on the cross, after Jesus died, and the obedience necessary to contact that blood first made known on Pentecost day (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; John 19:31-37; Acts 2:37-38).

II. In this lesson we notice the growth of that divine body and then the apostasy that came in later years.

Discussion:

I. The book of Acts beginning at chapter 2 is a history of the church – divine church history.

A. From a small beginning it grew to be a mighty force in the world (Matt. 13:31-32).

1. 3000 added the first day (Acts 2:41).

2. Soon the number of men was about 5000.

3. Multitudes both of men and women were added to the Lord (Acts 5:14).

4. In those days the number of disciples was multiplied (Acts 6:1).

5. Within 30 years Paul could say that the gospel had come to all the world and that every creature under heaven had been preached to (Col. 1:5-6, 23).

B. The book of Acts is a record of the work of Peter, Philip, Stephen, Paul, Silas, Barnabas and others. But the rapid growth of the church could not have been accomplished by the work of these men alone. All the members of the church were proclaimers of the Word – the seed of the kingdom (Acts 8:4). They planted and watered; God gave the increase (1 Cor. 3:6).

C. The book of Acts records the beginning of the church in many different cities: Jerusalem, Acts 2; Samaria, 8:5-12; Caesarea, 10; Antioch, 11:19-21; Paphos and Antioch of Pisidia, 13:6-49; Iconium and Lystra, 14:1-23; Philippi, 16:12-40; Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, 17:1-34; Corinth, 18:1-11.

II. The seed that produces the church is that which determines every characteristic of it.

A. The seed (Word of God, the gospel) saves (makes people members of the called-out).

1. 2 Thess. 2:14; Rom. 1:16; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:23.

2. That Word has to be respected deeply enough to render obedience (1 Pet. 1:22; Rom. 6:17-18).

B. Continued respect and obedience must characterize the church.

1. Jude 3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 John 9.

2. The church is the one body; that one body is ruled by one head (Eph. 4:4; Col. 1:18; Matt. 28:18; Eph. 5:23-24).

C. Respect for divine authority will produce many distinctive and identifying features of thee Lord’s church. Among them:

1. Doctrine or teaching, name, worship, work, organization, purity of life.

2. A lack of respect for divine authority will produce corruptions in doctrine, name, worship, work, organization, and purity of life.

III. The departures from God’s order and way should have come as no surprise. Christians had been warned!

A. Paul’s inspired predictions:

1. Acts 20:28-32.

2. 1 Tim. 4:1-5.

3. 2 Tim. 4:1-4.

4. 2 Thess. 2:1-12.

B. They could have looked about them for evidence that man is prone to depart.

1. In history:

a. Adam and Eve were not satisfied with God’s perfect order of things.

b. Adam’s descendants departed so far that God found the flood necessary.

c. The history of the Jewish people is a history of their departures from God’s law.

2. Early in the church’s history there were departures from the divine order.

a. False teaching concerning circumcision and keeping the law (Acts 15; book of Galatians; Col. 2; Heb. 7,8,9).

b. Bad conditions existed in the Corinthian church.

(1) Sectarianism – too high regard for men (1 Cor. 1-3).

(2) Fornication (1 Cor. 5).

(3) Going to law with brethren (1 Cor. 6).

(4) Corruption of the Lord’s supper (1Cor. 11).

(5) Denying the resurrection (1 Cor. 15).

c. There were those who were set on “one-man-rule” (3 John 9-10).

d. Five of the seven Asian churches were not faultless.

(1) Ephesus had left her first love (Rev. 2:4).

(2) Some at Pergamos held to the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitanes (2:14-15).

(3) The church in Thyatira allowed Jezebel to seduce the Lord’s servants (2:20).

(4) The church in Sardis was dead (3:1).

(5) Laodicea was lukewarm (3:16).

3. As the years went on, many false teachings and practices were brought in.

a. Penance, 157 A.D.; First church council first creed, 325; Mass introduced, 394; Image worship, 405; Extreme unction, 588; Purgatory, 593; Instrumental music, 670; Celibacy, 1015.

4. The most significant of these departures is that of 325 A.D. It symbolized the removing of the authority from Jesus, the head, and placing it in the hands of men. With this step taken, the hope of turning back was small indeed.

a. About the year 318 a controversy arose in Alexandria respecting the person of Christ: was he eternal and divine just as God the Father, or was he a creature, created by God?

b. Constantine, the Roman Emperor, though not a Christian, was kindly disposed toward the teachings of Christ. He was anxious to have peace and so he called a council of church leaders to be held in Nicea in June, 325. A great number attended and during this meeting the decision was reached that Christ was eternal with the Father. This decision was then written and carried back to the churches and they were expected to accept it.

c. The power to decide truth, then, was removed from Christ and his Word and placed in the hands of delegates from churches! It takes no Solomon to see that the step from this to placing the determination of truth in the hand of one man (the Pope) is not too great!

Conclusion:

1. Apostasy is rooted in a lack of respect for divine authority.

2. The truth of God will produce the church; only the truth of God, faithfully followed, will assure God’s approval here and his welcome words, “Enter thou into the joys of thy Lord.”

3. Every individual who is past the age of accountability has experienced apostasy in his own life.

a. Born free of sin, pure and holy.

b. Apostasy came when God’s will was not followed.

c. The way back is just the reverse of apostasy’s course.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 236-237
April 21, 1988

By Warren E. Berkley

Lately I’ve been hearing the charge made, that when a gospel preacher delivers sermons against abortion, drug and alcohol use, humanism, new age religion and so forth, he is representing “social issues,” preaching a “social gospel,” and not preaching the New Testament gospel.

I believe there certainly is a “social gospel.” It’s a message that doesn’t deal with sin, doesn’t introduce Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, doesn’t call upon people to obey God in all things, and doesn’t prepare people for death, judgment and eternity. In the first gospel meeting I ever held (Odessa, Texas, 1973) 1 preached against the “social gospel,” and I’ve been trying ever since to get people to see the different between the “social gospel” and the New Testament gospel.

The social gospel is “a movement in American Protestant Christianity initiated at the end of the nineteenth century and reaching its zenith in the first part of the 20th century, and dedicated to the purpose of bringing the social order into conformity with the teaching of Jesus Christ” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). Herbert Wallace Schneiber (Religion In The 20th Century, 1952) said: “The central idea of the Social Gospel is that the redemption or salvation of mankind collectively, the regeneration of the social order, is the ultimate goal of religion.” So, the social gospel focuses attention on the whole group or society, not the individual. It seeks to make life here better, instead of getting people ready for life after death. It doesn’t attack sin, it attacks the social problems of poverty, slavery, political oppression and physical illness. The social gospel lobbies for consumer protection, preaches liberation theology, and sees the individual only as a victim of the social environment he is a part of (therefore, not personally accountable).

Gene Frost accurately observes: “The work of the church then, to the social gospeler, is not directed toward the individual, to convict and convince him of personal guilt, to change him and make him anew. Oh, no, the legitimate role of religion is social. It is the work of the churches to build gymnasiums, to organize ball clubs, etc., to ‘prevent juvenile delinquency;’ to build kitchens, and dining halls to enlist the secular-minded who otherwise would not be attracted by spirituality; to build and operate industries to help solve the problem of unemployment; to build and maintain benevolent homes to care for the needy. And so the religious organization substitutes for individual responsibility, leaves its spiritual efforts to achieve temporal and physical goals” (Gospel Anchor, Feb. 1986, p. 3).

When I preach against abortion, drug and alcohol use, humanism and new age religion, does that make me apart of the social gospel movement? When I identify these things as sins, lies and delusions that will keep people out of heaven and send countless souls to hell, am I defecting to the social gospel? I deny that these things are just “social issues”! Certainly these things have impact in our society, but that doesn’t make them 44social issues” and not sins! Every sin ever contemplated and carried out by man has had impact (negatively) in the society in which it was committed. That reality, though, doesn’t remove the thing committed from the sin category and put it in the social issue category!

I preach against abortion, because murder is sin. I simply couldn’t live with myself, or call myself a gospel preacher, if I didn’t put “the sin label” on the modern practice of abortion. Murder, Paul said, is “contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:9-11). How, then, can I claim to be a sound preacher without exposing, condemning and identifying those things that are “contrary to sound doctrine”? Let those who minimize the need to preach against abortion, and those who put this kind of preaching in the “social gospel” basket answer these questions: Is the modern practice of abortion sin? Should a gospel preacher preach against sin? How is it, that preaching against this sin makes one a preacher of the “social gospel”?

I preach against intoxication, because drunkenness is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:21). Thousands of young people (some who have been raised “in the church”) have experimented with or literally ruined their lives through their use of alcohol and drugs; impenitent ones are destined for hell. It’s sin, and every gospel preacher should be willing to expose it for what it is. All of those “works of the flesh” need to be preached against. And I would submit to the reader – when a faithful gospel preacher tells folks what the Bible says about these sins and where they lead – he isn’t preaching the classic social gospel message; indeed, he is preaching against it! The social gospel approach would be, to fund an alcoholic recovery program, call it a disease and blame society. The gospel of Christ approach is to call it a sin, blame the sinner and call upon the drunk to repent. All of this can and must be done in the name of Christ.

I preach against secular humanism and new age religion, because these are false religions, therefore sinful to participate in! I believe there is only one pure and undefiled religion – the religion of hearing, believing and doing the words of Christ (Jas. 1:27; Matt. 7:24-27). I believe there is only one doctrine (Gal. 1:6-12; 1 Tim. 1:3). So, when some other religious system comes on the scene and offers propaganda to pull people away from Christ, I’m committed to speak out against it. I don’t care how long it has existed, how new it is, what it’s called or who subscribes to it – if it is a false religion (i.e., “not according to Christ,” Col. 2:8), I’m going to speak out against it by giving scriptural refutation of its tenets; if its Calvinism, Protestant Denominational Dogma, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the innovations of liberal churches, Premillennialism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, New Age Religion . . . whatever. Does this commitment align me with those who preach a social gospel?

Perhaps the real problem some are disturbed over is that some preachers are concentrating so much on these so-called “social issues,” they are not giving due attention to first principles, the church, and the refutation of the more “traditional,” classic errors. If this is the dark cloud that’s on the horizon, then it needs to be pointed out, with sober clarity. I would confer my sober agreement on the observation – that some preachers are “majoring” in areas and topics more comfortable for them, because of their lack of conviction and knowledge with reference to the more fundamental, traditional subjects; and perhaps their fears are to the consequences of such preaching.

I encountered a situation a few years ago, where a preacher was constantly giving attention to morals, Old Testament passages about the nature of God, marriage and family topics, humanism, etc. But, he simply wouldn’t preach a sermon about the Lord’s church, or what to do to be saved. When confronted with this omission (obvious to most of the members), his reply was: “Well, I’m just not comfortable preaching about the church or the plan of salvation.” I find this appalling, that a man claiming to be a faithful Christian and gospel preacher “isn’t comfortable” telling people what the Bible says about how to be saved; and not willing to tell people about the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his blood. I know this is happening, and it bothers me.

Likewise, there may be (in some places) a dangerous absence of preaching on the issues that relate to human institutions and the work of the church. This concerns me, because if we don’t teach our children these things, our grandchildren may have to drive 200 miles to find a place where they can worship (if they entertain convictions about where they worship)! I believe there is a danger of being “soft on the issues.” But let us show some objectivity, restraint and balance in our reaction to this danger. The sad reality that some are “soft on the issues” will not be remedied by discouraging men from exposing sins that happen also to be “social issues.”

I’m only forty years old, maybe a little early to start making predictions, but I’m probably on safe ground in making this one. If we hold back in exposing anything that’s sinful, false or unscriptural (regardless of what it is), our neglect now will come back to haunt us later! Perhaps a study of history would yield the conclusion that this has already happened!

The responsibility of the gospel preacher is to preach the word (2 Tim. 4:2). I take that to mean: preach all of it! If I give folks a permanent diet of faith, repentance, baptism and the work of the church – without teaching the other things in the Word, I’ve only met part of my obligation. Let us be dedicated to preaching “the whole counsel of God,” that those who hear might be equipped and motivated to put on “the whole armor of God,” that we all might be “fruitful in every good work” (Acts 20:27; Eph. 6:11; Col. 1:10).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 240-241
April 21, 1988