Truth Magazine

By Bryan Vinson, Sr.

A proper distinction, action, is necessary in both in thought and all matters wherein truth and error are in combat, between the persons involved and the principles being defended and opposed. Unhappily, the easy and, therefore, the frequently selected course of many is to decide where to stand solely out of regard for who occupies that position, rather than make the necessary effort to examine the principles involved and exercise a righteous decision as determined thereby. This is a fruitful source of parties and sects which has cursed the church through its long and eventful history. Today we see the spirit of partyism running rampant in the church and feelings rather than well defined and clearly established conceptions of truth controlling the actions of many brethren. Too, in an apparent effort to escape the necessity of taking a stand, some are endeavoring to say that no principle of truth is involved in these current matters in dispute, but rather that it is just a personality conflict, a preacher’s fight.” If this be true, then all who are involved therein, regardless of which side they may be on, are in error–grievous error. Consequently, those who so view and appraise the situation are obligated to oppose both sides as touching every one who has taken any side or said or done anything relative thereto. But such is not the case–they are identifying themselves, so far as we have observed, wholly with one side. This inevitably results in self-condemnation by those so contending.

The apostle Paul raised the question as touching the relative position and importance of persons in the remedial system by asking, “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth, neither he that watereth; but God gave the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one; and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are laborers together with God; ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building” (Cor. 3: 5-9 )

This passage certainly relegates to a far inferior position that of persons as distinguished from the truth espoused by those persons. Paul very definitely and purposely sought to so preach, both in respect to style, content and manner as to preclude the formation of faith in human wisdom rather than in the power of God (I Cor. 2:1-5). He knew that what he preached was designed to create faith in the hearts of his hearers, but he sought to so speak and deport himself in the presentation of the gospel as to deprecate himself as learned and eloquent, lest they be led to found their faith in him rather than the gospel, the power of God unto salvation.

There were those who came after him who sought to gain their ends by defaming him and only out of regard for the truth as he preached it, and its preservation in their hearts and lives, did he resort to a defense of himself against their calumnies. He knew that should the enemies of the truth succeed in destroying the confidence of the Corinthians in his Divine Legation as an apostle, then would the gospel he preached be replaced with the pretensions of these false teachers. Hence, the justifiable defense he made of himself, and in so doing apologized for what had the appearance of glorying in himself. As evidence of his complete altruism, we have only to note a statement made to the Philippians. “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some of good will: the one preach Christ of contention; not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds. But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel. What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether in presence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Phil. 1:15-18).

This passage decidedly reflects awareness that the principles of Divine Truth are to be appraised independent of the character and motives of those who proclaim it; that even though just censure of the motives may be charged against the person or persons, that such does not impeach the truth proclaimed. Conversely, the very best of motives and purity of character does not establish the truth of that which is taught by such persons. Therefore, the proper distinction and discrimination between persons and truth, or personalities and principles is herein evinced. Every effort, therefore, which has and is being made to prejudice people against a given position by slandering those identified with this position, is but a resort to the same tactics of those false teachers who in Corinth inveighed against Paul. And for people to be influenced thereby is to yield to a spirit the very opposite of that expressed by Paul in this statement cited from the Phillipian letter.

When Paul withstood Peter to his face, was this a personality conflict? Now, if rather than withstanding him to his face, he had stabbed him in the back, we would be justified in believing it to be. a personal one rather than a conflict in principle. Paul said Peter was to be blamed for the dissimulation practiced, a case of duplicity; he portrayed himself as believing it fit to eat with Gentiles when the Jews were absent, whereas when the latter were present he desisted there from out of fear of those of the circumcision. In other words, Peter was surrendering a principle out of deference to the feelings and sensibilities of a Judaizing element who were seeking to impose unauthorized requisitions upon the Gentile Christians. Human nature being what it is and always has been, it isn’t unlikely that some were suspicious of Paul’s action as possibly prompted by jealousy of Peter. We are confident this was not true, and, furthermore, that Peter did not regard his upbraiding him as a personal affront. This is indicated by the fraternal, reference made by Peter to Paul in the closing section of his second and last epistle.

Today, in the church, the quickest and surest way to make an enemy of a brother is to suggest that he is, or may be, wrong! Concrete instances could be cited where brethren refuse to eat with or even speak to other brethren. Why? Solely because present brotherhood wide operations are questioned. Verily, the brethren who sit in seats of authority, influence and power, can do no wrong or commit any error! Who has the right to question what the brethren may do? Apparently no one. It may still be all right to suggest that the denominations are wrong because unauthorized in the Word of God, but when the brethren decide to do what they are doing, which is equally destitute of authority, and usually borrowed from the denominations, then it is impious to question it. Through the years gospel preachers have been inviting–even urging–their audiences to point out one item of faith or practice for which they were unable to produce a “thus said the Lord,” with the assurance that failing to do so they would cease to so hold and practice. Now if it even be suggested that some things are being practiced that lack the authority of the scriptures, those so suggesting are maligned and misrepresented. We recently heard a scholar, on a discussion panel, define a bigot as one who resents his position being questioned. Thus the present course of many of the Lord’s people has become one of bigotry.

We can understand how one who realizes the weakness of his position, and yet devoted to it, would rather it be not called in question; but how one supremely devoted to the truth and confident he has it can ever become a bigot is an anomaly, if not an impossibility.

Principles are enduring and truth is imperishable. Men are to be controlled and thereby changed immeasurably for the better by principles, and never principles changed by men. The Principles of Divine Truth are to be inculcated and reverenced by those who benefit thereby, and never subverted or perverted for personal ends and purposes. These present issues, as are all others involving the Will of God and the Salvation of Man, are issues of principles rather than personal differences between the contenders. There is involved the principle of authority in religion. This is the basic principle in all religious issues. “By what authority doest thou these things?” is a timely question, and ever so. All authority is presently possessed by Christ, both in heaven and earth. Hence, in the absence of any authorization from Him there is but one other source to which one can go for what he does as service to God. The principle of truth–“What is Truth?” is pertinent to these present matters of dispute. Does our position rest on the opinions of men or the revealed truth of the gospel? The principle of peace and unity as existing and being preserved among the children of God is also at stake here. Shall we press our self-confessed opinions and acknowledged expedients to the rupturing of the body of Christ, or shall we subordinate all such to the peace and oneness of God’s people?

These principles are all too clearly defined and magnified in the importance attaching to them in the scriptures to be trampled underfoot, and the whole matter be passed off as a mere “preacher’s fuss” or personality conflict.

Truth Magazine VI: 4, pp. 10-12
January 1961

By Mel Myers

In the midst of a great growth of the churches of Christ, we must be doubly cautious. We can lose all the ground we have gained, if we relax our vigilance. There are some fundamentals we must not forget:

(1) We must not forget that the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1: 16). We must continue to preach the gospel without fear or favor, clinging faithfully to the principles that made us what we are. We are not to think that since we are making international headlines we can afford to “cater” a little. Remember that “A LITTLE LEAVEN LEAVENETH THE WHOLE LUMP.” Our continued pleas must be for all men to “speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent.” We must exhort men to “call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways.” This is a plea that we cannot afford to outgrow.

(2) We must not lose sight of the fact that in our fast growth, we will make mistakes, and many will be made in judgment. When we make them, let us talk them over fairly, squarely, and with the spirit of our Master directing. When we find wherein we have erred, let us cut loose from such errors. No real and lasting good can come by teaching or practicing false doctrine. Let us discuss our problems with a resolve in our hearts to solve them. Let us be fair enough that in our fights we can sincerely believe that we are fighting for principles, not for someone’s “hide” nor to enhance our own reputations.

(3) Let us know assuredly that strength is not always found in large numbers. And may we not be fooled into believing that we are over one million five hundred thousand “strong.” We must continue to labor for quality first of all, and let the quantity take care of itself. We must continue to realize that five truly converted disciples are worth more than twenty-five drones who will never be fully converted. So let us properly evaluate things and give them their rightful place in the Master’s plan.

(4) Lastly, let our motto in all of our success be, “TO HIM BE ALL THE GLORY.” When we leave Him out, our house will fail. “The Maker of all things is God.” He is the Author of “life, and breath, and all things.” In Him we “live, and move, and have our being.” In a moment He can suspend our breathing, reclaim our energies, and leave us hopeless in the whirling pool of our own egotism. No, we cannot leave Him out of our plans. It is His work, and to Him we must look for success. The glory is His, not ours. As long as we recognize our dependence upon the Father, we will continue in the right way. When we forget Him and talk about our own successes, we will become as weak as Samson shorn of his hair.

Truth Magazine VI: 4, p. 1a
January 1962

By James R. Cope

Communists Are Atheists

The Bible declares, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 14:1) but the Communist does not stop with his heart. From the housetops he shouts, “There is no God” and builds his tyranny upon it! Ignoring the arguments (the “dialectics”) of those who make unanswerable “dialectics” for the existence and reality of God, he ploughs straight ahead with his nefarious frauds, frightening, and incessant plans for what he calls an “inevitable rendezvous with destiny” which, he claims, will see Communism cover the earth and all class struggles and conflicts will cease, war will be no more, and every living creature will live on the fat of the land. Peace, he insists, will be the end result of war–“hot” war or “cold” war–and this “new world” will be a society “final” and “perfect.” It will be a godless, classless, stateless affair wherein all productive property will be held in common and wherein mankind’s activities will conform to the concept: “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” This he says (all Communists from Karl Marx down repeat it) will occur when the “proletariat” (the working class) has successfully overthrown by war–“hot” and “cold”–capitalism currently exemplified before the myriads of earth in the United State3 of America and its government.

This “Utopia” of tomorrow is identified as “pure communism.” It is the goal toward which every Communistic lie is told and then justified by “dialectical materialism.” It is this “fatalistic determinism of history” which, Communists say, makes right everything which the God of the Bible declares sinful and contrary to His holy image. If murder promotes Communism it is right to murder; if rape promotes Communism it is right to defile your own mother or daughter; if theft works for Communism it is morally right to steal–so say the Communists! Utter disregard for the God of the Bible and creation as the Bible reveals it makes it right because Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and V. I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin and V. M. Krushchev say it is right and they .say it is right because “there is no God” to declare these immoral activities “immoral” and therefore wrong.

Furthermore, immorality from Jehovah’s viewpoint is never immoral from the Communist’s viewpoint unless it in some way slows down the world march of Communism. Likewise morality from Jehovah’s viewpoint is never moral from the Communist’s viewpoint unless it in some way expedites and emphasizes the world conquest by Communism. Thus it is morally right to lie, steal and murder if you are a Communist and doing it to advance Communism and it is morally wrong to tell the truth, deal honestly with all men, and to respect and preserve the dignity of human life if these things do not advance Communism! From a Communist’s viewpoint there is no moral taught by the God of the Bible which is good for the Communist’s cause and there is, no moral evil taught by the God of the Bible which is evil to the Communist’s cause. What God calls evil the Communist calls good and what God calls good the Communist calls evil when viewed with a Communistic eye in the light of Communistic aims– world conquest by incessant war, cold war and hot war, but always war–ceaseless war, eternal war! And I ask: if there is no God, and man is merely matter in motion, why should anybody be concerned about morality in any Biblical sense? If man is just like “little dog Rover–when dead he’s dead all over,” why be any more concerned about what will happen to your children than Rover is concerned about his grand puppies?

Again I inquire: do you accept this rot-any of it? Are you aware that many people do accept it? What are you doing to arm yourself to meet it? Are you doing anything to help your children understand the situation and the desperate condition of this nation and the world? What are you reading? What are your children reading? Are they getting the facts or are they getting fiction? How do you know what they are getting? And how do you know that you know? Are you sure? What are you doing where you live–at home, in your business, in your community? Anything7 If so, what? If not, why aren’t you? Do you want some good books to read? Do you want them enough to write me about how to get them? Do you want to do something in your community about this international menace, this master of deceit? Do you want me to tell you how to do something constructive? Would you like to know what people in other parts of America who are awakening in order to survive are doing individually and collectively? If you are interested in helping yourself and your children I am interested in helping you. If you are not interested in helping your children I want to help them anyway, but I can’t do it without you.

 

Communist Party Membership Is Restricted

 

Party leaders don’t accept just anybody into the Party. They feel that the masses cannot be trusted to make a revolution. They will have none in the Party who is unwilling to die for the Party and simply and only because the Party tells them to die. From L903 forward Vladimir Lenin insisted that the Party should consist only of “trained revolutionaries.” For seventeen years Lenin worked day and night to perfect revolutionary plans, which found expression in 1917. With the collapse of Russian resistance to German attacks in World War I the Czar’s government fell. This was the signal for disciples of Karl Marx who had been exiled from Petrograd to return. Home came Lenin himself from Switzerland, Leon Trotsky from New York City and Stalin from Siberia. Each was schooled in intrigue and revolutionary tactics, each was devoted to the Marxian doctrine of dialectical materialism (1–everything in the universe is constantly changing and also in conflict; 2–there is no God and man is only matter in motion, merely matter without soul or spirit and having no value within himself except as he may serve the purposes of the State which, currently, Communists identify with the Party), each was brilliant, each was determined to promote Communism not only in Russia but throughout the world, each was unscrupulous and each was ruthless.

Only those who are unreservedly committed to the thinking of Lenin regarding eternal revolution have any place in the Communist Party which claims it will be ruling the United States of America by 1973. It is generally agreed among the Communists that the “take over” of America will result in the “liquidation” of at least one out of every three then-living U. S. citizens. If the population of our country remained static this would mean 60,000,000 Americans — your children and mine –will die at the hands of these ruthless barbarians. Actually, however, the number will be nearer 100,000,000 and they freely admit this possibility even without any kind of nuclear attack.

Are you ready for this to happen to your children? What are you doing to prevent it? Are you informing yourself about the nature and tactics of International Communism? If not, why not? You can never conquer cancer if you refuse to admit you have it and you can never conquer Communism unless you know what you are fighting. Are you merely reading newspapers or are you getting factually documented books and pamphlets, which will present to you the unvarnished truth? Are you doing anything in your community to stir your neighbors and friends to your joint duty in fighting this Godless materialistic monster and master of millions? If so, what? If not, why aren’t you?

I’m scared . . . plenty scared! … And I’m doing my “dead-levelist” to scare you if you’re not already afraid. I don’t want to panic … I don’t intend to panic … I don’t want you to panic. There’s no sense in your becoming panicky . . . but there’s no sense in our losing everything our forefathers have wrought for us and which by God’s help, we have wrought for our children and ourselves. God forbid that we should surrender this heritage upon the altar of unconcern and blind stupidity.

A few days ago one America’s foremost authorities on Communism told me that the current U. S. A. “negotiations” with Moscow is the sixty-first such meeting since the founding of the United Nations. He said that the score now stands 60 to 0 against us–that there is not one instance where our government has gained anything except eventual embarrassment and continued frustration from “negotiating.” We continue “negotiation,” the Kremlin continues “negation” and the free world moves daily toward “prostration.” Communism tactics say, “We negotiate to delay, we infiltrate to betray, we propagandize to stay and we paralyze to slay.” Westerners who best know this process say that the entire plan of Communist conquest would collapse if America would take the initiative, refuse to be frightened by threat of military attack and repudiate intimidation by appeasement whether directed toward America or weaker countries.

No, I don’t see a Communist behind every tree but I’m terribly concerned about keeping the underbrush so completely cut away that all of us can know the difference between trees with the trade mark “made in America by Americans” and trees marked “made in America by Communists! ” What are you doing about that trademark neighbor?

Truth Magazine VI: 4, pp. 4-6
January 1962

By Bryan Vinson, Jr.

Military history will bear out the fact that in the course of many important battles it has been necessary to concentrate a comparatively greater force of power at one point of the enemy line than at other points. This is done only until that point has been destroyed or rendered incapable of doing the great damage it was previously able to inflict. When this is accomplished the concentrated power must again be distributed along the whole of the battle line to avoid an enemy breakthrough at another point.

Our warfare is not carnal. Our weapons are not designed to destroy the flesh. But this principle of carnal warfare has a good deal of merit when applied to our important spiritual warfare. It has been necessary at times to concentrate the forces of righteousness and truth against those points of error which seemed, for the time, to constitute the greatest threat against man’s spiritual welfare. Such strategy was employed nearly a century ago against those who were pushing ahead to establish the use of instrumental music in the worship, and the missionary society in the work, of the Lord’s church. It was a worthwhile effort. A sizeable remnant was saved. Such an effort was again employed against the forces of error on the matter of premillennialism. The result was even more gratifying. We have recently witnessed the application of such strategy against those who would “institutionalize” the Lord’s church. The real success cannot yet be measured, –but it has been significant. For this reason there remain throughout the length and breadth of the land faithful soldiers and churches who have not, and who shall not, be taken into a movement which will lead a segment of God’s people into complete apostasy.

It would be foolish for us to become convinced that these forces no longer constitute a threat to the cause of truth. They do, and they ever shall. But the circumstances which justified an all-out attack against these innovations have changed somewhat. It is still true that many brethren are ignorant of these matters and of their importance, but the number of the ignorant has been greatly reduced. Many of those who do not know the truth on these matters are in a state of ignorance because they simply do not care. There is not much hope for them. Most of those disciples who are deeply concerned with the importance of “walking in truth” have grounded themselves in that truth. They will stand. There is no doubt but what many others can yet be reached and saved. We must make every effort in their behalf. Thus, the teaching that has been done has resulted in maintaining the purity of the faith in the majority of those brethren whose greatest interest is in doing all “in the name of the Lord.” While it is essential that we maintain a sizeable force of spiritual energy at this point of the battle between truth and error, we must now begin to evaluate the circumstances and conditions all along the line. Truly, the battlefield is wide!

It is the feeling of this writer that there has been an inexcusable neglect of other points of danger. Certainly there is now a need to take from this area of concentration a sizeable portion of the army’s striking power and distributing it along the whole of the front. If this is not done, the army of the Lord may well be caught off guard by an enemy breakthrough at some weakened point.

 

“To All the World”

 

Many churches have neglected the responsibility of taking the gospel to the lost. Personal work programs have often found it necessary to take a back seat in order for special classes on institutionalism to be conducted. The usual number of gospel meetings, which attempted to reach the lost of the world with the gospel, has been reduced in order to make room for special series of lectures on current issues. Efforts to reach the lost in foreign fields have been curtailed somewhat in order that more funds might be spent for such works as the publication of special bulletins dealing with “the issues.” These have often been very expensive projects. I am not criticizing such efforts. Most have been worthwhile. What I am suggesting is simply this: It is time for us to lessen the concentration and begin anew in the work of converting the world to Christ. (I think it only fair to point out that some sound churches have been exceptionally active in carrying the gospel to the world.) Maintaining a sound church requires more than keeping it free from modern innovations; it must be actively engaged in its God-given work, to the limit of its ability, in order to be sound. Preaching the gospel to the lost, at home and abroad, is the will of Christ. Churches must support such preaching. Too many are not doing what they could.

 

Opposition to Fleshly Lusts

 

We are ever confronted with the force of immorality. It is regrettable that strong teaching against drinking, dancing and the like has not been as prevalent as in previous times. How pitiful it is to find brethren who know and teach the truth on the institutional matters, and yet find no harm in social dancing, or in the current practice of immodest bodily exposure. One such brother on the West Coast indicated to me that he had never heard anyone question the propriety of mixed bathing! It is not enough that we instill within our young people an appreciation for the organizational purity of the local congregation. We must also prepare them for battle against the forces of immorality.

 

Opposition to Infidelity

 

Infidelity and atheism are growing foes. And we will be exposed to them much more in the future than we have in the past. The faith, which we help to instill within our children, will be ridiculed with increasing fervor. We must arm them with the evidences of Christianity. The arguments for the inspiration of the Bible, the Deity of Christ, and the existence of God must be firmly planted to the end that each disciple of the coming generations will be able to “give an answer” concerning the hope that is within him. The arguments against benevolent and missionary societies are not enough to combat the forces of infidelity.

 

And Many More

 

The list of danger points could be made longer. We know, for the most part, what they are. The important question is this: Are we spread too thin to meet their challenges? Are we giving too much attention to one danger and neglecting others? If so, we need to relocate our forces. If we fail to do this, we will eventually deceive ourselves into thinking that there is only one “issue” which threatens the army of the Lord. When this happens we will be too blind to see the movements of Satan’s army, and unaware of the fact that we have been surrounded, –and overpowered. Let us urge one another to place the “shield of faith” between ourselves and the whole of the enemy front, and be prepared to render ineffective all the “fiery darts” of Satan, regardless from which point in his evil line they are fired. Let us keep a watchful eye on the whole of evil. Let us remember–the battlefield is wide!

Truth Magazine VI: 4, pp. 2-3
January 1962