Truth Magazine

By Richard A. Kruse

It is important to consider the love of God for man It is important to consider the love of man for God. But it is also important to consider the love man should have for man.

Many fine things are said in the Bible about love. It is called the first commandment (Matt. 22:36-40); it is called the second commandment; it is the great commandment; it is the last commandment (1 Tim. 1:5). All the law is fulfilled in this commandment (Gal. 5:14). It sums up all the commandments (Rom. 13:8-10). He that practices it fulfills the law. It is the royal law (Jas. 2:8): God said above all things be fervent in love (1 Pet. 4:8) . It is the last of the Christian graces (2 Pet. 1: 7) . It is the first of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It not only covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8), but it also covers all sins (Prov. 10:12). It is greater than faith or hope (1 Cor. 13:13).

God is called love (1 John 4:8,16). If God is love then the amount of love that one has in him is the measure of God that is in him. Too many have more of the devil in them than they have of God. Love must be without hypocrisy ( Rom. 12 :9) . In love of the brethren, be tenderly affectionate one towards another (Rom. 12:10). Love worketh no ill to his neighbor (Rom. 13:10). Because of love one would not eat meat if thereby his brother is grieved (Rom. 14: 15). Knowledge puffeth up but love edifies (1 Cor. 8: 1). Let all that you do be done in love (1 Cor. 16:14).

We should confirm our love to the weak and fallen (2 Cor. 2:8) . Through love we are to be servants one to another (Gal. 5: 13) . Love caused Jacob to work seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him as but a few days (Gen. 29:20). It makes the unpleasant sweet and the dread easy. It changes one’s outlook on life and makes one like the Master who prayed in death for His murderers (Lk. 23:34). It caused Stephen to pray for those who stoned him to death (Acts. 7:60).

We are to follow after love (1 Cor. 14:1). We are to walk in love (Eph. 5:2). We are to bear one another in love (Eph. 4: 12); Speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Thus the body edifies itself in love (Eph. 4:16). No wonder that God will see to it that love never faileth (1 Cor. 13:8).

Jesus says that we should love one another, even as He loved us (John 13:34; 15: 12). How much did Christ love us? Did you know that the Bible not only says that Christ laid down His life for us, but that we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16)? Is that too hard for us to practice? Then it is too hard for us to be Christians. Love your neighbor as yourself is the second commandment. That leaves no room for less love for our brethren, all the brethren–even the ones we disagree with or ones of a different race. How far from the Bible many are, and yet they wonder if they will go to heaven (Rev. 22: 14-15).

“Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?” (Lk.5:56). Love will cause us to obey God. It will eliminate gossip, lies, slander and division. Love will cause us to preach the message of love to save the souls of the lost (John 3:16; Rom. 6:3-6; 1 Cor. 15: 1-4).

Truth Magazine VI: 3, p.060
December 1961

By F. Maurice Ethridge

When Paul said for women to “adorn themselves in modest apparel,” he surely did not imply that there is only one way for women to dress. Women today, obviously do not dress as women dressed fifty years ago, and women do not dress as they did in Paul’s day. Customs are constantly changing. Today, they seem to be changing faster than ever, because of an alert psychology employed by the garment industries. But, the point is that there is change in custom of dress. People simply do not adorn themselves the same in different ages and in different cultures.

Furthermore, they look back at the clothes people wore in other ages and say, “my, how foolish they look; why did they ever wear that thing?” Or, they might say, “How immodest people used to dress.” If the women of Paul’s day could see the women of today they might think that they were very immodest, or we might think the same thing of them. So, when the styles of clothes change, the judgment of their value also changes. What is “immodest” in one generation may be “modest” in another, and vice versa. And we may say the same thing of different cultures of the world today. What is “modest” in the U.S. may be “immodest” in India. Therefore, two women may be considered modestly dressed in their own cultures and yet each would think that the other is immodestly dressed. Now, the odd thing about all this is that both would be obeying Paul’s command to adorn themselves in “modest apparel.”

The real problem here is this, “Does Custom Define Morals?” Or, we may say it another way, “Is the Christian Moral Standard Relative to the Environment of the Individual Christian?” What would be your answer to that question? One’s cultural environment does come into consideration of what is right and what is wrong for each individual. Probably no one today would say that a woman who wears make-up is “immodest.” Yet, such a woman would have been kicked out of almost any church seventy years ago. Well, which one is right? Neither is right and neither is wrong, depending on the definition of the culture. For example, the covering of the head of the woman in 1 Cor. 11. They would consider the modern woman very immodest, but we do not think they are immodest just because they do not have a veil over their heads.

So, we may say that Custom Does Define Morals–But only to a very limited degree. The Eskimos used to put their old people on icebergs and let them drift out into the warm sea. The fathers are customarily murdered by their oldest son in a native sub-culture of India. This is the custom. The father expects it, the mother expects it, and everybody expects it. The oldest son has sinned if he fails to carry out this custom. If he should become a Christian, could he do this? Customs define morals, but only to a very limited degree.

The limitation is the law of liberty, the New Testament. It commands us not to murder not to commit adultery, not to steal, etc. In some cultures, however, it is customary to do these things. But the Bible says that we are “immoral” if we do them. When there is a conflict between the custom and the Bible, the custom is always wrong. Sometimes SIN IS THE CUSTOM.

It has become a custom today, for women and girls to wear shorts and other articles of clothing, which are designed to give almost full view to every shape and contour of the female form. Fifty years ago it would have been “immodest”, but in our time “its all right.” The standards of modesty are defined by the culture, BUT ONLY TO A VERY LIMITED DEGREE. Are shorts, etc. modest?

Some people may point to some of the tribes of Africa, South America, or the South Pacific, and say, “They wear much less and nobody thinks anything about it.” Native women are only half-dressed by our standards but their cultural environment says that they are modestly dressed. No one in their village may think that they are immodest, because they wear nothing above the waist, but they would be immodest if they should paint their toenails. Does this mean that a grass skirt can be “modest apparel” for some people. We may go a little farther with this logic and say that modest apparel for some may be no apparel at all.

This ought to show that there is a limit to the cultural determination of morals. But, where is that limit? SIN. When you find the dress customarily scanty you also find their morals customarily scanty. You find many forms of plural marriages, as well as customary pre-marital and extra-marital relations. SIN COMES TO BE THE CUSTOM. So “short shorts”, bikinis, etc. are becoming the custom; so is fornication. The only way to check this tendency is by the public records on divorce, rape, illegitimacy, prostitution, etc. How much adultery is not recorded? How many “shot-gun” weddings are there? In our modern American culture, sexual promiscuity is becoming more customary. THERE IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS TREND AND THE WAY WOMEN DRESS TODAY.

Jesus said, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Everywhere we look today, man sees the partially dressed female. Most females want most males to see what they have to show off, and their shorts, etc. are a big help. In the summer-time men may revel in a free burlesque just by going to the lake. Next summer most men will commit adultery (at least in their hearts), thanks to the omnipresent temptation presented by the young American female. Those who do not are either Christians, blind, or to old. Few will be able to resist the temptation, and few women will give them much help. These sweet, innocent little teen-age girls in “short-shorts,” are contributing a major part to the destruction of the morals of our country and the Church in America, because they are helping to lower our standards of morality. If the trend of less and less on more and more continues, we will reach a point when there is nothing on everything. What kind of moral standard will we have fifty years from now? Will sin become the custom? Parents, and young women, this question is yours. You and your children will determine the moral standards of our country and the Church of tomorrow.

Custom defines morals to a limited degree, and that degree is sin. Shorts, etc. are becoming customary, and so is sin. These two things are related.

(Via The Defender; St. Louis, Mo.)

Truth Magazine VI: 3, pp. 4-6
December 1961

By 

There are many things people seek in religion today. Some look for the church with the most parking spaces or the most elegant building. Some look for a place to display their clothing, or for a place where the preacher will not preach very long or hard. Some think the elders and preachers give the congregation a hard time by being anti-modernistic a n d trying to teach the word of God as it should he taught. (Of course, such faithful brethren will not be very popular with the younger generation).

It is said one colored preacher told his congregation that one fifth of them wore out the knees of their trousers praying while the other four-fifths wore out the seat of their trousers backsliding. The same is true today. In many ways, we can deny Christ just as Peter did. Many of us condemn Peter for his action, but we do the same thing in our every day walks of life. We are going to be held responsible for teaching the pure word of God. If we fail in this, then I’m afraid the younger generation and the following one will have plenty of parking spaces, be long on air conditioning and very short on sermons and the practice of a pure religion.

When we surrender to the will of Christ and obey his word, the Lord forgives our sins and purifies our souls like that of a newborn baby. Jesus can’t keep sin out of our lives – we must do this in manifesting the fruits of repentance. He told the sinful woman to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Again we read, “Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands ye sinners; purify your hearts ye double minded” (Jas. 4:8). The responsibility for a change in our conduct and character is ours. We must change. Christ can’t clean up our sinful lives while we continue in evil doing. He has promised to aid, guide and sustain us, but the actual obligation of refusing to sin is ours. Let us here note some things Christ is unable to do for us.

He Can’t Purify Our Bodies While Our Hearts Are Evil

Jesus said, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:21). Sin that is made evident in the actions of the body has actually had its origination in our minds. The intellect of man is responsible for his sins. If we would possess bodies that are clean and pure, we must first clean up the inner man. If we would speak words that are sound and “cannot be condemned,” we must be sure that speech emanates from a clean heart, for “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34). Whoever thinks evil long will soon find himself saying or doing evil. Thus Paul admonishes Christians to think on things that are honest, just, true, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and worthy of praise (Phil. 4:8). Christ can’t control our thoughts, nor can He make our lives to be in contrast with that which we think on.

Christ Can’t live Our Lives for Us

Christianity is a doing religion. Jesus went about doing good to others, and we are commanded to “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only” (Jas. 1:22). Pure religion includes helping those in need and keeping oneself unspotted from the world (Jas. 1:21). The Lord is not going to pay our debts, give our money to the poor, force us to help the feeble and downtrodden. Pure religion does not consist in what He does for us, but what we do for Him and His.

Jesus can’t make us honest, benevolent, helpful, zealous and kindhearted. Yet, those are all attributes He requires of us. He will not perform a miracle on the bank to keep our credit good, nor does the banker investigate the record of Christ to determine our credit rating. Again, Jesus does not remove the food in our pantry and give it to the poor, nor does he reach into our pockets to relieve the beggar. The widow and orphan are not sustained by a miracle from heaven, nor does the Lord make the beds, wash sheets, clean blankets, etc. so we can have a bed to give to the unfortunate. The fevered brow of the sick is not touched with a cool, damp cloth from heaven. The feeble and downtrodden are not sustained and encouraged by a special guardian angel sent to them by some miraculous means. Christ came to do the will of the Father, and did it perfectly, but He can’t do for us what God has given as our own responsibilities.

He Can’t Make a Good Worker Out of the Unwilling

Jesus can’t make a good teacher out of the unprepared, because one must first be a student before he can become a scholar. The Lord can’t make a good personal worker of one who won’t speak to people about the truth, just like he can’t make a good bishop out of one who does not desire to thus serve. He can’t make a preacher out of the unwilling to speak, nor a good song leader of one who just will not sing. Jesus can’t even make a good janitor of one who won’t sweep, or a good deacon of one who is not eager to be a servant of men.

He Can’t Preach the Gospel to the World

The Lord committed the charge of preaching the gospel to us, and if we fail to preach it, it just won’t be preached at all (2 Tim. 2:2). But, just as Christ can’t do the physical job of preaching the gospel to lost souls, neither can he take money from our pockets and put it into the contribution basket to supply the support of those who do get out and preach the word of God. We must supply those funds ourselves if the work of the Lord is to be carried out.

We are preaching daily by how we live and what we do for the cause of Christ. In the day of judgment, the millions who will face the Lord unprepared will not point the accusing finger at Jesus, for He has done everything He could. But, unless we have been faithful in our various duties and efforts to teach the lost, they will accuse us, and justly.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp. 16-17
December 1961

By Rodney Wald

In Exodus 32, we read of a very tragic and insulting sin which the people of. Israel committed against the Lord. Only a year or so before, God had wonderfully delivered the children of Israel out of Egyptian bondage. He divided the Red Sea, enabling over a million people to cross on dry land between the “walls of water.” In a short space of a few months, these people “looked back” and wanted to return to Egypt.

As Moses was up in Mount Sinai receiving the Law from God, the people became impatient. They requested Aaron to “make us gods which shall go before us” (Ex. 32:1). The “golden calf” was the result. Imagine the insult to the God of Heaven and earth when the people said, concerning their golden calf, “These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” They ascribed to an IMPERSONAL IDOL of their own making what only a SUPERNATURAL and- all-powerful God could do.

This is the very same thing that has happened to the blind followers of the devilish “theory of evolution,” which is taught to our young people in high schools and colleges. Only the day of judgment will reveal how many millions of people have lost their right to eternal life by bowing before this “modern golden calf” which tries to “replace God” by a fantastic theory of how life began and developed to its present state. These idolaters (evolutionists) – ascribe to an impersonal force what only a Supernatural, living God could do, namely, give life.

We want to notice the absurdity of a theory, which demands, if true, living things came from non-living materials- and “somehow” something originally came from nothing!

Atheists are most unreasonable when they try to explain the origin of matter and life. Some scientists try to avoid facing the issue by proclaiming that the universe is millions of years old. But do they tell us how the universe began? NO! And for a good reason. They can’t unless they acknowledge a creative force or else that matter or “something” has always existed.

 

When they tell us that our earth is a fragment of another planet, which “cooled off”, making life possible, we ask two questions: (1) Where did the other planet come from? and (2) How did life originate?

It is enough to say that, if they believe that something has always been, they believe in something eternal. Then they have no reason to ridicule believers for believing in an eternal being.

If there ever was a state of complete “nothingness” in which nothing existed, then the moment the first thing appeared, you have the amazing event of something coming from nothing. This is mathematically impossible and utterly unreasonable. Therefore, something must have always been. There must be something eternal because from nothing comes nothing!

Let us suppose, for example, that gases have always been and by some process hardened into a solid piece of matter. Those who believe this readily agree that at one time there was no life on the earth. Will they tell us that life all of a sudden burst forth from non-living material? No scientist who cares anything at all for his reputation will attempt to prove that life came from non-life.

There are many truths about which there can be no mistake. Three which are true in the field of science are: (1) Life can only come from previous, not non-life; (2) every effect must have an adequate cause; (3) like begets like.

The general idea of organic evolution is that life had its beginning with a one-celled Organism. This one tell divided into two cells, then the two cells divided into four, and so on and so on. But there are some weaknesses to this theory.

First of all, where did the one-celled organism come from? Scientists are far from agreed. They only assume where it came from. But the biggest objection to this cell division idea is that cells always divide, they do not multiply from a one-celled to a two-celled organism, but into two one-celled organisms. The theory demands that all life began from a one-celled organism and then from that one cell came the more complex forms of life. If the theory were true, from the one cell would have come a two-celled organism, then a four and so on. But what the scientists do not like to be reminded of is that there are no two-celled organisms or four-celled living beings. So the tiny cell just doesn’t cooperate to make evolution possible.

Evolution, if it were true, is at best, a process, not a power. Thus, like a car out of gas, it cannot start of its own accord. Where did the first thing come from which started this process? Scientists are still wondering. How refreshing and much more reasonable it is to let the Lord tell us how the universe and life began as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 of the Bible.

Evolutionists look to several realms in search for proof of their theory. While we cannot go into all the details, there are some factors that should be noted.

One of the “favorite fields” appealed to by evolutionists seeking to prove this false theory is the study of geology (a study of rock layers which make up the earth’s outer surface). Notice is taken of fossils (rock imprints of various creatures found in the various layers of rock) and the layers in which they appear. The wish being father to the thought, the evolutionists tell us that since evolution is true, the age of the particular layer of rock can be determined by the type of fossils found imprinted on it. But this assumes the thing to be proved, namely, that evolution is true.

This may give some idea of the theory they devise regarding fossils and rock layers. They reason ( ? ) thusly: the rock layers which have only fossils of the simplest forms of life are the oldest because life began with the simplest forms and evolved into more complex forms as time (much time!) passed.

Let us try to think of it in this way in order to see what they have devised. Naturally if evolution was true, one would not find any fossils in the oldest layers which we call “layer A.” In the next layer (layer B) which is not quite as far down, we would find only the simplest of fossils (worms, insects, etc.). In “layer C” would be found fossils of fish and the previous simpler forms. In “layer D” more complex fossils of various animals along with other simpler fossils and finally in the most recently formed layers would be found fossils of man. Don’t the evolutionists wish that the layers of rock always contained fossils in this order!

But what do geologists find as they study fossils in the rock layers? First of all, they find fossils hopelessly mixed up in different layers of rock. Some fossils of the most complex forms of life are found in layers that contain mostly the simplest of fossils. Many times layers of rock having complex fossil forms are found below layers containing the simplest fossils. This is found to be true in places where there is no evidence of upheavals or earthquakes. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, there is no place on earth where they can find a complete series of fossil layers in just the right order to conform with the evolutionary charts. In other words, “the very rocks cry out in protest” to the ungodly and false theory of evolution.

We have put the theory of evolution “to the test” in the realm of geology and the matter of “cell division.” Now we wish to subject this false theory to two “blood tests” and see how it fares.

Evolutionists decided to prove evolution by a close study of the chemical composition of the blood found in various species. They felt this test would settle the issue once and for all, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the blood relationship of the various types of life.

Floyd E. Hamilton in his book The Basis of Christian Faith, pp. 62-63, explains as follows what this type of Blood test showed:

For example the blood of a man is injected into the veins of an animal such as a rabbit, with the result that an “antiserum” is formed in the rabbit’s blood. This anti-serum is then added to various kinds of blood with the result that a separation is formed in varying degrees depending supposedly on the degree of relationship to man of the animal whose blood is tested. This has been said to be direct proof of evolutionary relationship between man and the lower animals. As Prof. Morton has pointed out in his book Bankruptcy of Evolution, pages 187… this so called proof proves too much, for according to the results obtained, the femur, belonging to the ape family, is not as closely related to man as the mouse or the porcupine! The quantitative and qualitative tests did not agree in their results, and when examined closely the results obtained by these experiments certainly are far from proof that actual relationship exists between animals whose blood was thus tested, and man. The fact of the matter is, as Morton has pointed out, that these tests only prove what no one questions, that the chemical properties of various kinds of blood are similar. But the fact that the same elements are in the blood of monkeys and men and mice in no way proves that these animals are actually related in descent.

Then Foy E. Wallace, Jr., a gospel preacher tells of this experience:

While visiting the laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington I saw a scientist at work on a man’s coat, making tests to determine whether certain stains on it were human blood. The garment belonged to a man who was wearing it when arrested on a charge of murder. All the evidence available was circumstantial, and it all pointed to this man as the only one who could have committed the crime. The prisoner protested, claiming the bloodstains were those of an animal he had slaughtered a few days before. His fate hung on the finding of that scientist. As our party was leaving the building, one remarked, “Would he be able to know the truth if the animal killed were an ape?” Our escort replied, “That is a fine point; I’ll go back and inquire.” He returned with the answers “Yes, that could be determined for certain for all human blood is distinguishable from animal blood, and the blood of all apes is animal blood.”

Bear in mind that the lives of people are at stake and dependent on findings in the F. B. I. laboratories. There the technicians readily admit that there is an unquestionable difference between animal and human blood and all apes have blood classified as animal blood.

A further interesting fact is that though the blood of a human being is distinctly different from an ape’s blood, yet it is impossible for a laboratory technician to tell the blood of a Negro from the blood of a white man. This should dispel any idea that certain races are more like the “ape family” than others. The blood test says, “NO,” and so does the Bible! Hear God’s word in Acts 17:26, which reads as follows: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Keep in mind that Paul said this hundreds of years before the microscope was invented. How did Paul know this? There can only be one answer. The God who made man revealed it to Paul.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp.20-23
December 1961