Truth Magazine

By J. David Lawrence

Competent psychiatrists should be lauded. However, not infrequently we hear of a psychiatrist leveling an attack against Christianity on the grounds that it is a contributing factor to mental illness. This is an unfair accusation, and reveals the doctor’s ignorance of the gospel; but often he may influence an individual to forsake the Lord.

The anti-religious psychiatrist can enumerate several reasons why a person should not be overly religious. He will tell you that a man can be moderate in devotion, but if he is excessively so he becomes susceptible to frustrations. These frustrations arise from a sense of failure as he realizes he cannot be as perfect as the gospel would have him to be. Also, he is frustrated when his family and friends fail to embrace the same religious beliefs as he.

It is true that a large number of Christians, especially gospel preachers, have suffered nervous breakdowns and other forms of mental disturbances. The facts in the various cases will differ. Perhaps some were ignorant of gospel teaching regarding mental health. Perhaps others failed to apply and appropriate the teaching. But one thing is sure: Christ and his gospel are not at fault.

The following scriptural evidence is presented as the basis upon which the conclusion is formed that the gospel of Jesus Christ, when properly applied, is designed to and will produce the soundest condition of mental health possible for man. Further, this condition of sound mental health will occur in the devoutly religious, faithful Christian, and not necessarily in the individual who is “moderately religious.” The reader is urged to test the evidence and see if the conclusion is justified.

First: the gospel teaches that the Christian is not to be concerned about the future, but live the best he can day by day. He is told to seek to serve God first, and promised that God will supply the necessities of life (Read carefully Matthew 6: 24-34). The psychiatrist must admit that the absence of excessive worry and concern about the future, and an acceptance of the present is a sign of mental health. It is a blessed and comforting thought that the Christian will never go hungry or naked!

“Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you” (I Pet. 5:7). Here is what the psychiatrist would prescribe for his patient: someone to share and even assume burdens. Who could be more qualified to do this than the Son of God? This is far from a “frustrating” thought.

Along this line we may notice several other scriptures which will lead us to believe that Christianity is conducive to mental health.

God teaches us to be content with what we have: “…and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5).

“Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7).

“…for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” (Phil. 4:11).

To answer one of the misconceptions of the psychiatrist opposed to Christianity, we might point out that God never requires of his children above their ability or opportunity (See I Pet. 4:11, Gal. 6:10).

Although we are exhorted many places in the gospel to press on toward perfection. God does not expect us to become mature Christians overnight. We are to take our spiritual growth a step at a time (Phil. 3: 16). Surely this is sound psychiatric advice.

Then attention must be called to the great spiritual blessing in Christ of peace. Peace resulting from a knowledge of fellowship with God plays an integral part in the life of the Christian. Peace of mind is indeed the most significant attribute of good mental health. (See John 14:27, Rom. 8:6, 14:17, Gal. 5:22, Col. 3:15, II Thess. 3:16.)

The psychiatrist often tells his patient that he needs to face reality and accept responsibility. So does the gospel tell the Christian (Gal. 6: 5). The Christian knows that some day he must give account for all the deeds done in this life (II Cor. 5:10).

The gospel releases one from the real race of society. The Christian is not concerned about popularity with the world, for he realizes that God and one man make a majority (Rom. 8:31). The tension that accumulates in trying to maintain a position disappears.

The gospel provides significance and value to life. The Christian is not dismayed because physical life is transitory, like a vapor (James 4: 14). Living the Christian life causes every moment to be precious and good. This is the abundant life (John 10:10). The Christian is supplied with everything he needs in order to serve God in the gospel (II Pet. 1:3, Col. 2:10, II Tim. 3: 17).

Finally, the Christian is in possession of the hope of eternal life. This is by far the greatest of his blessings, and the most conducive to mental health. The Christian knows that if “our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (II Cor. 5:1). The Christian can say as did Paul: “…for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (II Tim. 1:12).

It seems to this writer almost incredible that an individual could maintain sound mental health without being a Christian.

Truth Magazine VI: 4, pp. 23-24
January 1962

By Luther W. Martin

We have yet to locate a single Baptist scholar of New Testament Greek, the koine Greek in which the New Testament was originally written, who will turn his back upon his learning and scholarship, in order to wrest the meaning of Acts 2:38. It is not unusual to hear of individual Baptist preachers with a smattering of exposure to the Greek language who will assert that scholars exist who render “eis” in Acts 2:38, “because of.”

However, when these gentlemen are pressed for the New Testament translation that so gives this passage, they have failed every time. In fact, they have even failed to produce a professor or instructor of New Testament Greek, who will scuttle his scholarship in order to render “eis” as “because of.”

 

American Baptist Commentary on Acts

 

In my library, I have a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, authored by Professor H. B. Hacket, D. D., of Newton Theological Institution, and edited by Alvah Hovey, D. D., LL. D., in consultation with Ezra Abbot, LL. D. Concerning Acts 2:38, it states:

37 “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

“IN ORDER TO THE FORG1VENESS OF SINS (Matt. 26:28; Luke 3:3) we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.” (page 53.)

Charles B. William’s Translation (1950 Edition)

38 “Peter said to them, ‘You must repent–and, as an expression of it, let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ–that you may have your sins f orgiven; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Concerning the above translation, Professor J. R. Mantey, of the Department of New Testament Interpretation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, has stated: “We concluded that it (C. B. Williams Translation. L. W. M.) is the best translation of the New Testament in the English language.”

Charles B. Williams has served as Dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. Professor Ray Summers, head of Department of New Testament, at the same institution, has written in reference to the Charles B. Williams Translation, “I commend it most heartily to all who desire to know the real message of the New Testament.”

 

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

 

38 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be immersed each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Letter to L. W. M., 12-2-’42.)

 

University of Chicago Divinity School

 

38 “And Peter (said) to them,’Repent (plural) and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (lit., “to”) the forgiveness (or “remission”) of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'” (Westcott-Hort text). (Letter to L. W. M., 12-2 ’42, and signed by Allen Wikgren.)

 

Northern Baptist Theological Seminary

 

38 “And Peter (said) to them, ‘Repent and be baptized (be immersed) each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'”

“The remission of sins is conditioned by one’s repentance, turning from sin, and by one’s identifying himself completely with Christ, as baptism implied. Thus, the believer turns from sin to Christ and all that Christ wants him to be and do.” (Letter to L. W. M., 12-10’42, signed by Prof. J. R. Mantey.)

H. B. Montgomery Translation (1924)

38 “Repent,” answered Peter, “and 6e baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Mrs. Helen Barrett Montgomery, the translator of the above passage, was president of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1921. She was awarded an honorary LL. D., degree by Wellesley College.

 

Summary and Conclusion

 

In each and every one of the above translations, the Greek word “eis” points forward to the remission of sins; not backwards toward something that supposedly happened prior to repentance and baptism. The words “unto,” “to,” “that you may have,” and “for” were used by these Baptist scholars as properly translating “eis.” No scholar has ever rendered its usage in Acts 2:38 as pointing backward.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp. 9-10
February 1962

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