Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

Any reputable doctor will tell you that the only safe way to lose weight and control it is through diet. Control your appetite. But people like to eat. Especially fat people. So they take reducing pills, ride bicycles, go to health clubs that provide strenuous exercises, and they stuff themselves with fattening foods. If a man wants to waddle along through his short life looking like a bunch of bulldogs fighting in a cotton sack, that’s his business. But he should not kid himself that he really wants to lose weight until he is willing to control his eating. So much for the health lecture.

The head of the FBI, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover has told us over and over for years and years that the greatest deterrent to juvenile delinquency and crime is the influence of religion and religious life. Statistics show that the percentage of people in our penal institutions that have attended church regularly is very low. If my memory serves me right, less than five per cent. But the parents are not impressed it seems. Only fifty-one per cent of the people in the United States are even “church related” as they say. And, of course, only a small percent of that fifty-one per cent attend regularly. Take the churches of Christ for example. You can find about as many people who claim church membership who do not attend, as you can find that do. And our people would likely run a little higher than the general average. It is pretty safe to say that less than twenty-five per cent of young people in this country attend church with anything like regularity. The one thing that nearly everyone knows would exert the greatest influence for good in the lives of the young people and be most likely to keep them from crime, the parents refuse to give them.

They give them money to spend, provide country clubs, parks, dance halls, gymnasiums and just nearly everything that appeals to the flesh. And this to keep them out of trouble. But they will not do the one thing that has proven most effective. They will not take them to church, every Sunday.

There are likely many reasons for this. One is the utter spiritual bankruptcy of these parents. They don’t care about God. To worship him is bore some. So they have conjured up a vision of God as a sort of benign, over-indulgent, heavenly Grandfather who will let them do as they please. And it doesn’t please them to go to church and worship. Or maybe they think they will hear something at church that will make them uncomfortable, and they don’t want to be tormented before their time.

So, they play their poker and canasta, for a little money to make it interesting; they drink their cocktails or their beer; they lounge around all day on the Lord’s day in a bathing suit, or they cut the grass and wash the car, or they catch up on the sleep they lost at the party on Saturday night, while their children roam the neighborhood with the rest of the neglected children whose parents don’t care about their souls. And then they have the unmitigated egotism to assume that their children will never get into trouble because they have “raised them right.”

But more and more of their children are showing them year after year that they are wrong. Juvenile delinquency and crime are constantly on the increase. But let us not be too hard on the young people. They didn’t ask for the kind of parents they have.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 16
April 1962

By Foy W. Vinson

I suppose that the subject of baptism is the most highly controverted of all the themes mentioned in the New Testament. Often discussions on this theme are attended with great passion or emotion and from the seemingly endless and fruitless arguments arising therefrom it would appear, at least to the casual observer, that a solution is unobtainable. And yet the teaching of the New Testament on baptism is so simple and clear that it is much more a matter of accepting rather than understanding what is taught. Since there has been such a smokescreen of confusion raised over baptism, and since there have been many false statements made concerning what baptism will do or not do, it seems in order to “search the scriptures” to ascertain the truth. In this article we consider some things baptism won’t do, and in a later article we will discuss what it will do. Now however, let us notice some things according to the New Testament which baptism will not do.

First, baptism will not change one’s heart. There are those who believe and others who are misrepresented as believing that the act of baptism within itself possesses some mystical power capable of effecting a complete change in one’s convictions, affections and purposes. This is commonly referred to as “baptisimal regeneration.” But the Bible teaches no such thing. The heart of man must change before baptism, not at it! The heart of man is composed of (1) his intellect, which believes, reasons and thinks; (2) his emotions, which love, trust and desire; and (3) his will, which intends, purposes and obeys. But before a person can be scripturally baptized his intellect must undergo a change from unbelief to belief; his emotions must change from indifference to love and trust; and his will must cease to be rebellious or insubordinate and become submissive. These changes are all accomplished by faith and repentance. That is why Christ made faith a prerequisite of baptism. (Mk. 16:16.)

This is the reason the inspired apostle on Pentecost required repentance prior to baptism. (Acts 2:38.) So baptism does not change one’s heart. This must precede baptism.

Second, baptism won’t remove temptation. One is playing right into Satan’s hands who thinks that because he’s been baptized there is no danger of temptation. Remember, baptism takes care of the past, but it does’s guarantee the future. In fact the New Testament makes it clear that Christians will be tempted. Paul wrote the following to the brethren at Corinth: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (I Cor. 10:12-13.) So Christians are tempted, though they are promised a way of escape. Furthermore, we find the following language addressed to baptized believers: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith–” (1 Pet. 5:8-9.) So baptism does not remove temptation.

Third, baptism will not guarantee a sinless life. This point is closely related to the former one. Since temptations occur even after one is baptized, it necessarily follows that the baptized are not immune to sin. In fact, the scriptures teach just the opposite. There was a false doctrine extant a few centuries after the establishment of the church to the effect that there was no forgiveness after baptism and hence many were discouraged from being baptized until the’ had reached an older age where they felt they could live sinlessly. If this doctrine were true, then all would be hopelessly doomed. The apostle John says to Christians, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 Jno. 1:8-10.) So baptism does not guarantee a sinless life.

Finally, baptism will not guarantee eternal life. Many professing Christians live as if they thought it did. If, however, we succumb to temptations and fall into sin after being baptized, and then fail to repent of such sins and confess them, but rather die in them, then we cannot go where our Lord is. (Acts 8:22-23; Jno. 8:21; 1 Jno. 1:9.) This is the reason Christians are warned to “let no man beguile you of your reward;” (Col. 2:18), and are told not to become “weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9); and finally are admonished to “be faithful unto death” that they might receive the “crown of life.” (Rev. 2:10.) Hence we need to realize the limitations of baptism. These are some things it won’t do, and to trust in baptism to this extent will mean your eternal ruin.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 21-22
April 1962

By Robert H. West

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

The above passage has figured very prominently in the current controversy concerning benevolent institutions. Some brethren contend that this passage is authority for the church to “visit the fatherless and widows,” while others contend this is limited in application to individuals only. Without considering the arguments on either side of this issue, let me raise this question: What essential difference does it make if this passage does refer exclusively to the church or to the individual? If all brethren were to agree that James 1:27 applies to the church or only to the individual, the basic issue in the present controversy would still exist, to wit: Can the church build and maintain another institution through which to do its work? Why enter into an argument as to whom this passage applies when, even if we convince our opponent, we will still be divided on the basic issue?

There are, however, some facts taught in James 1: 2 7 which definitely do affect the basic issue in the present “orphan home” controversy. These arise from seeking out the correct definition of some of the words in this passage.

We are told by some brethren that we send a contribution individually or out of the church treasury to a benevolent institution, we are thereby “visiting the fatherless and widows.” But where do you suppose the idea originated that giving to and visiting mean the same thing? Certainly not from any inherent meaning of the word. Someplace “way back down the line” somebody merely assumed this to be the case and many brethren have been basing their faith on this assumption ever since. But what does the word “visit” actually mean in James 1:27?

The Greek word, here translated “visit,” is episkeptomai, and is closely akin to the noun, episkopos, which is rendered “overseer” in Acts 20:28. Thayer, the great Greek lexicographer, defines the word, “to look upon or after, to inspect, examine with the eyes  to look upon in order to help or benefit.” Vine, another Greek scholar, defines it: “primarily, to inspect (a late form of episkopeo, to look upon, care for, exercise oversight), signifies to visit with help  to visit the sick and afflicted.”

This is the same word that is found in Matthew 25:36, “I was sick, and ye visited me . . .” Did this mean they merely gave some money? Read the context and see that personal contact is the thing under consideration.

From these facts we see that merely sending a contribution, although this might be needed, does not fulfill the demands of the word “visit.” Personal interest, care, and supervision must be present to obey James 1: 2 7, none of which exists when either a church or an individual sends a contribution. As a matter of fact, “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: To visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction.” — M. R. Vincent, Word Studies, Vol. I, p. 736.

A second popular view held concerning James 1:27, is that it is limited in application to destitute “fatherless and widows.” This view has arisen from the assumption that the word “affliction” in this scripture has the exclusive meaning of “physical need.” But both the English and Greek word have a broader application.

The Greek word is thlipsis, which Vine tells us “primarily means a pressing, pressure, anything which burdens the spirit.” Paul’s use of it in 2 Cor. 1:4 (there translated “tribulation” and “trouble”) demonstrates that the meaning of the word is not limited to physical affliction alone.

In our present economic set-up many fatherless and widows are without physical need because of insurance, Social Security and other plans. But there certainly is an affliction that is common to all fatherless and widows whether they be rich or poor. I am speaking of the affliction of heartache and sorrow arising from the loss of father and husband. Long after their physical needs have been met, this affliction of the spirit will remain. If they need money, we should supply it to the extent of our ability. But more often they will need friends more than funds, people more than presents. It is here that all children of God may practice “pure and undefiled religion” by visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction.

Let us, therefore, never think we can discharge the responsibility placed upon us by James 1: 27 merely by the sending of a check.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp.5-6
April 1962

By Leslie Diestelkamp

The purity of the church is a matter of vital concern to every true Christian. Many New Testament passages emphasize the necessity of such purity. The letters to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 2 & 3) are most significant in portraying the Lord’s desires for the churches. Yet, in searching those seven letters for lessons in admonition and in commendation to the churches, we may often miss another important item. Before he closes each letter, Christ puts the final matter on an individual basis.

“To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life”–2: 7.

“He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death”–2:11.

“To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna”–2.17.

“He that overcometh . . . will I give power over the nations”–2:26.

“He that overcometh . . . shall be clothed in white raiment”–3:5.

“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God”–3:12.

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne”–3:21.

There must be a great and a consoling lesson for us here. Surely we must determine that the church shall be kept pure and true, but if this fails, we can still be saved as individuals. There is then a double lesson herein: (1) I shall not be saved at last just because I was a member of an active, faithful church, but only if I am true and faithful myself. (2) Likewise, I shall not be lost at last just because the congregation of which I was a part was not altogether pure and true, but only if I fail in my own duty to the Lord.

Truth Magazine VI: 6, p. 1a
April 1962