Truth Magazine

By Bill Echols

Archaeology is constantly adding to our knowledge of one of the most remarkable people of antiquity, the Hittites. We now have available a great deal of information that reveals much of the Hittite history, but I more must be uncovered before the complete story of these people will be known. At one time the only knowledge the world had of the Hittites was that found in the Old Testament. This led many to doubt or deny the existence of such a people. Some charged the Bible with error because it mentioned a people of which the historians had no known record.

As more and more is revealed of the Hittites, we can see that the Bible picture of them is accurate. This is just another example of how archaeology is shedding light on God’s Word. Such evidence is strengthening to our faith in the revelation of God. This is especially true when we remember that many archaeologists do not look upon the Bible as source material for historical information.

We want to observe some Bible references to the Hittites and compare them with present knowledge from the archaeologist. Since there are gaps and uncertainties in the history of the Hittites in the archaeological field, we cannot always make definite connections. The earliest Biblical references to the Hittites are in Genesis. There they are referred to as only one among a number of distinctive tribes. This picture is accurate, as we know that the earliest history of the Hittites was that of city-states. The dates assigned to this period of their history corresponds with that of the Bible. The great Hittite empire was subsequent to these Bible references. Numbers 13:29 speaks of the Hittites as dwelling in the hill country. This also harmonizes with what archaeology has shown us. The Hittites greatest power was in modern Turkey but extended down to the hill country north of Canaan.

Studies at Hattusas, the ancient capital of the Hittite empire, has revealed that the Hittites were a mighty nation. Their greatness lay in the military and political fields. There is one Bible reference that makes it clear that they were feared as a military power. In II Kings 7:6 the Syrians that had been besieging Samaria were made to hear the noise of chariots. They said, “Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.” Here the Hittites are joined with the most powerful rulers of ancient times, the Egyptians. They are mentioned first. This indicates that the Hittites were feared as warriors, and that they were considered a great power.

Discoveries now reveal that the Hittites built an empire that challenged Egypt. This empire was built by King Suppiluliumas who extended his kingdom as far as Lebanon. He seemed so powerful that the Egyptian queen, a widow, asked that one of his sons become her husband. This union, however, never materialized. The rise of Suppiluliumas and the Hittites tended to neutralize Egyptian influence over Canaan soon after Israel’s entrance under Joshua.

A few years later in 1288 B. C., the Hittites and Egyptians met in the battle of Kadesh where the Pharaoh was defeated and barely escaped with his life. The battle was followed by one of the world’s first peace treaties. It appears that the peace following this treaty is the same as that mentioned in Judges 3:12-30. The first accounts of the battle of Kadesh that were discovered were Egyptian, and were written in terms to imply that Egypt had been victorious. Many older histories of that period record an Egyptian victory. A study of the peace treaty and other historical accounts show that the Hittite were the victors although the victory was not complete. The Bible reference in II Kings which ranks the Hittites with the Egyptians is clear.

What we know today of the Hittites’ warring ability easily explains why the Syrians fled in fear. The period of real Hittite power had passed, but their reputation for fighting still lived. The Hittites either invented or perfected the light war chariot. It was so new in its day that there was little or no defense against it. Its great advantage lay in its speed and mobility. Each war chariot carried three men, a driver and two warriors. Since other nations fought primarily with foot soldiers, the charge of a mass of chariots was enough to frighten even the bravest of men. If the infantry should withstand the first charge, they would soon be surrounded and smashed. It was just such tactics that enabled the Hittites to defeat Egypt and to build an empire.

II Chronicles 8:7 tells us that Solomon levied a tribute on “the people that were left of the Hittites.” By Solomon’s time the great empire was a thing of the past. Only small Hittite kingdoms continued to exist, some of which were in north Syria and over which Solomon had some economic control. By 700 B. C. the Hittites had disappeared from history and remained lost until modern times.

The Hittite religions were many. They had a thousand gods. Among the many women Solomon loved were women of the Hittites. These helped in turning his mind to other Gods (1 Kings 11:1-8).

Although there are other Bible references to the Hittites, these will suffice to show that as history, the Bible is accurate. More information will be coming forth as studies in Turkey are continued. Few have yet to write a history of this empire, and a complete bibliography about it is unavailable. A people once mentioned only in the Bible is giving the world a whole new branch of archaeological science–Hittitology.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp. 11-12
December 1961

By Foy W. Vinson

Countless are the sermons which have been preached and the articles which have been written on this theme. However, it is clearly evident that too much has not been said on this subject in view of the fact that so little is being done about it. When I speak of “our” responsibility I mean the obligation which has imposed upon every disciple of Christ to inform others of divine truth (Heb. 5:12; 2 Tim. 2:2). By “responsibility” I mean that for which one will be held accountable. This word has been used so often that perhaps we have lost sight of the gravity, which is attached to it. Yes, that for which I am responsible I will have to account for at the judgment bar of Christ! By the “lost” I mean those who are alienated from God because of sin, and who, should they die in their present condition, would have to suffer the pangs and torments of an interminable hell. Let us notice that the lost fall into the following three categories.

 

Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel

 

By far the majority of the lost fall into this first category–those who have never heard the unsearchable riches of Christ. When we consider this class of alien our minds often go immediately to some remote place far removed from our own land. We think of Africa, Asia, South America or some such place, but never of our own nation. Perhaps we convince ourselves that if we lived amid the millions of Africans and Asians who have never heard the truth we would busy ourselves in teaching them. But brethren, I fear this is but the practice of self-deceit! Why the majority of folks right in our own country, in our own state and even in our own community have never heard the gospel of Christ! Oh many of them have been exposed to counterfeit gospels, but I’m speaking of the truth. Paul said to the Galatians, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed– unto another gospel: Which is not another.” Hence error often parades itself under the guise of truth, but it is not the truth.

Now our subject concerns itself with our responsibility to the lost. Since those who have never heard the gospel are lost, then what obligation do we have to such? When Jesus commissioned his apostles directly and every disciple indirectly (Matt. 28: 19-20; Mk. 16: 15-16) he had in mind that great host of people who have never been informed of the truth. Jesus therefore lays upon our shoulders the duty of teaching the uninformed. We have an approved example which enforces this obligation in Acts 8:4 where we read that “they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.”

The seriousness of this responsibility is seen in the fact that one must first hear or learn before he can obey to the saving of his soul. We know that faith and obedience are essential to salvation, but neither is possible apart from the hearing of the word (Rom. 10:13-17). This means that the salvation of others is in part dependent upon me. This has always been so. Ezekiel was told, “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity–” (Ezek. 3:18). So a soul may be eternally lost through my failure to disclose to him the truth. Yet the tragedy does not end there, for Jehovah continues in the above verse by saying: “…but his blood will I require at shine hand.” Therefore, to prevent not only the damnation of others, but my own self as well, I must meet this responsibility.

 

Those Who Have Heard the Gospel But Haven’t Obeyed

 

The second category into which the lost fall covers those who have heard the preaching of the gospel but who have not become obedient thereto. These might be called the second class of alien. Not everyone who hears and even learns the truth immediately obeys it. And though this group does not compare in numbers with the one first mentioned, yet there are multitudes of people who must be thus classified.

It is true that individuals should obey the gospel once they hear it. I fear, however, that since this is so we often “write off” so to speak those who do not immediately respond to the truth. This we ought not to do. I’m sure the majority of those presently Christians did not obey the very instant they learned the truth. It seems to me altogether possible if not probable that the apostle Paul heard the gospel proclaimed at least once if not more quite some time before he submitted himself to Christ. I conclude this from the fact that he was present at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 1: 58; 8:1) which occurred as a result of the preaching Stephen had just done. Also Paul resided in Jerusalem during the period of time when the apostles and other saints were quite active in sounding out the word to those round about (Acts 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:33; 5:2542).

Instead of assuming the attitude of “they know the truth and if they don’t choose to obey it that’s their tough luck” I should rather consider the possibility that I might be one reason such have not obeyed! What about my example before others? (Matt. 5:16; Phil. 2:15.) I’m confident that often the dim-lighted, half converted, lukewarm child of God is the primary consideration in the failure of another to obey the truth. Peter realized the impact of a godly life on others when he penned these words in 1 Peter 3:1, “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.”

Above all, let us not be hasty in forsaking our efforts to lead another to Christ. In Paul’s charge to Timothy to “preach the word” he also admonished him to “exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” On Pentecost Peter after declaring Jesus to be both Lord and Christ and after setting forth the divine conditions for pardon still did “with many other words testify and exhort” (Acts 2: 40). Remember, many have been converted years after they first heard the gospel and many such have become faithful gospel preachers themselves or elders in the Lord’s church.

 

Those Who Have Obeyed and Have Become Unfaithful

 

Finally, in categorizing the lost we must include those who have become Christians and then have been overcome in one way or another by the prince of this world. Some say that such individuals are not to be classified among the lost. They say that once one is saved he is forever saved. They further claim that though such a person has lost the joy of his salvation he still possesses salvation itself. This is inconceivable, however, since it is the fact and knowledge of salvation which produces joy in the first place. It was the realization that he had been saved from all sin that caused the Ethiopian eunuch to go “on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:39). The same was true in the case of the Philippian jailor who “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house” (Acts 16:34). It was the loss of this salvation on the part of Simon the sorcerer, a child of God, that caused the inspired apostle to describe him as being “in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:23). Peter describes the tragic condition of such persons in the following language:

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire” (2 Pet. 2:20-22).

Brethren, we have the obligation of restoring the fallen before they become irreclaimable. James says, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (Jas. 5:19-20). Paul also points out this duty in Galatians 6: 1: “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”

In spite of these passages, how often do members fall by the wayside without ever being approached! It appears that the average member feels that the work of restoring the fallen is the duty of the preacher and elders exclusively. I sometimes feel that our efforts at restoring the unfaithful are largely ineffective due to the fact that often the only one who calls on the wayward is the preacher and his visit is commonly regarded as a mere “professional call.” Paul taught that “the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Cor. 12:25). Many times this “care” is conspicuously absent.

May we have a greater realization of and appreciation for our responsibility to the lost, whether they be those who have never heard the truth, or those who have heard it and not obeyed, or those who have obeyed and then erred from the truth. Let us recognize the value of a man’s soul and what it means to be LOST! Then let us look on the fields which are white unto harvest and “go forth bearing precious seed” knowing that we shall “doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing our sheaves with us” (Psa. 12:6).

Truth Magazine VI: 3, pp. 2-4
December 1961

By James D. Bales

How does Communism express its antagonism to religion? It must be kept in mind that Communists do not believe that they must act in the same way at all times and under all circumstances. As Lenin said: “It is necessary to combine the strictest loyalty to the ideas of communism with the ability to make all necessary practical compromises, to ‘tack,’ to make arrangements, zigzags, retreats and so on…” “…the revolutionary class, in other words in order to fulfill its task, must be able to master all forms or sides of social activity without exception… second, that the revolutionary class must be ready to pass from one to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.” “…revolutionaries who are unable to combine illegal forms of struggle with every form of legal struggle are very bad revolutionaries. ” (“Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder. New York: International Publishers, 1940, pp. 74,77).

In August 1935 Georgi Dimitroff put it this way: “We are enemies of all cut-and-dried schemes. We want to take into account the concrete situation at each moment, in each place, and not act according to a fixed, stereotyped form anywhere and everywhere; not to forget that in varying circumstances the position of the Communists cannot be identical.” (The United Front, p. 91.)

What, then, are some of the ways in which communism has expressed its opposition to religion ?

Anti-religious propaganda is carried on by communists both before and after they come to power. In 1905 Lenin wrote: “Our propaganda necessarily includes the propagation of atheism” (Socialism and Religion. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955, p. 10). Some were accepted into the Party while they retained vestiges of their old religious beliefs, but the Party’s educational program was such that it tried to destroy these vestiges of religious faith. Stalin stressed the necessity for anti-religious propaganda and said that there was no room in the Party for any “Communists” who would oppose its program of anti-religious propaganda (Leninism, Vol. 1, p. 387). When the Communist control a country atheistic materialism is taught in the schools, by radio, by newspapers and by other publications.

Physical persecution is also utilized by the Communists in their drive against religion. In Russia after the revolution thousands of clergymen were killed, or imprisoned or exiled to Siberia. In North Korea in some areas 60 to 80 percent of the religious leaders were killed. In Red China public “trials” and executions were used as a means of “educating” the masses. Dr. Thomas Dooley recorded a number of cases of religious persecution of people in North Viet-nam in 1954-55 (Deliver Us From Evil. New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, Inc., 1956).

The Communists, however, do not imprison, persecute or kill a person with the public charge that he is a religious leader. Instead, their public accusations contain charges of political disloyalty. Thus they endeavor to deceive people and to deny that they persecute on the grounds that a person is religious.

When the Communists take over a country they harass religious organizations in various ways. Lands, institutions, education and social services are nationalized. The churches are often not allowed to carry on benevolent work. Church activities are restricted to worship services inside the church building. Spies invade religious organizations. Communists infiltrate the clergy. An effort is made to turn the people against religious leaders who will not “cooperate” with the Communists. Ties that the churches may have with religious bodies in other lands, are severed until the Communists have infiltrated the churches to such an extent that they have a group of religious leaders who will do the will of the Communist government.

Communists in countries of the free world try to use religion’s people for the accomplishment of some particular objective which the Communists have in mind. In America, for example, especially between 1928 and 1935, the Communists were able to get religious people to enter into what the Communists called the United Front wherein people consciously worked with the communists for some supposedly common objective. At the present, the Communists are trying to revive the United Front tactic. (Dimitry Monin, “Time to Act in Common,” News: A Soviet Review of World Events. May, 1956, pp. 12-14).

Communists have deceived and used religious people in Communist Front Organizations. These are organizations, which on the surface seem to have no connection with Communists but which have either been established, or in rare cases organizations, which were infiltrated, by hidden Communists or fellow travelers. This was the Trojan-Horse tactic which was launched by Georgi Dimitroff in August 1935. (The United Front. New York: International Publishers, 1938, pp. 52-53). By means of (Communist front organizations the Communists endeavor to realize several objectives: (1) To raise money, (2) Spread some point of Communist propaganda, (3) Form contact with some individuals who later were led into the Party, (4) Provide jobs and experience for some Party members, (5) Create divisions within a country, (6) Create a psychological atmosphere which was unfavorable to the militant anti-communists.

Communists have also endeavored to infiltrate religious organizations within the free world. Stalin seems to have been the one who conceived the idea of invading what the Communists regard as the ideological fortress of their enemies. This was not only done in Russia after the Communists took over, but it has also been done in some countries of the free world. In 1936 Earl Browder, then National Chairman of the Communist Party in America, said: “You may be interested in knowing that we have preachers, preachers active in churches who are members of the Communists Party.” (Communism in the United States. New York: International Publishers, 1935, p. 335). Reinhold Neibuhr, a non-communist theologian, said that there are a few communists in the churches in America (“Communism and the Clergy” The Christian Century, August 19, 1935, pp. 936-937. See also J. Edgar Hoover, “The Communists Are After Our Minds” The American Magazine, October, 1954). What do the Communists hope to accomplish with such infiltration? First, to use the names of religious leaders to give prestige to Communist front organizations. Secondly, to circulate the idea that non-collectivistic systems are immoral. Third, to give their opposition to anti-communists the influence of their religious office.

After the Communists take over a country they infiltrate the religious organizations to the extent that they finally use them as tools of their domestic and foreign policies. This is well illustrated in Red Russia by speeches delivered at a “religious” conference, May 9-12, 1952. These communist speeches attacked the free world. (Conference in Defense of Peace of All Churches and Religious Associations in the U. S. S. R. Moscow: published by the Moscow Patriarchate.)

The Communists believe that the final destruction of religion will come with the change of social systems. All social systems which are not socialistic or communistic, and under the control of the Communists, are viewed as irrational.

Thus religion as an irrational worldview, according to them, is reflected in the minds of the people. Change the social system and you cut the roots of religion. As Marx put it: “The religious world which is but the reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of everyday life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowman and nature.” (Capital, Vol. I, pp. 91-92).

The Communists claim to have already built socialism in Russia, and that they are now building communism (N. S. Khruschev, Report of the Central Committee, CPSU to the XXth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. New York: New Century Publishers, 1956, p. 97). And yet, they admit that among the young people in Russia who have been brought up on Marxism one finds some who have faith in religion. To explain this, they say that the ideological consciousness of the people lags behind the social and economical development. How can this be if man’s mind but reflects the social system, as Marx maintained? How could their consciousness reflect a social system that has ceased to exist and which these young people never experienced? Can it be because of capitalistic society which they do not see or experience, and about which they hear only the distortions of Communist propaganda? As a matter of fact, man by his very nature has religious aspirations and a change of social system does not bring about a removal of man’s religious aspirations. Men will be searching after God long after the Communist philosophy of life has vanished from the earth.

This brief presentation of the antagonism of Communism to religion and of the various ways in which it expresses this antagonism, can be easily verified by anyone who will take the time to read the literature on the subject which has been published by Communists and to study their history.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp. 6-8
December 1961

By Melvin Curry

This is a report on the debate between brother Aubrey Belue, who preaches in Griffith, Indiana, and Mr. J. D. Childress, from Pensacola, Florida, who preaches for the United Pentecostal Church. The debate was held September the fifth through the eighth. The first two nights of the discussion were held in Griffith, Indiana, in the building now owned by the brethren there. The last two nights were in Portage, Indiana, in the United Pentecostal Church building. The question of the Holy Spirit and miraculous divine healing was discussed the first two nights; the Godhead question came under consideration the last two nights.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

The First Night. –Brother Belue affirmed the following proposition:

The Scriptures teach that Holy Ghost baptism, as administered on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, together with the signs and miracles done by the apostles and disciples, as recorded in the New Testament, ceased on or before the beginning of the second century.

The affirmative speech was mimeographed and handed out to the audience before the discussion began. This made it impossible for Mr. Childress to lead the audience away from the main issue. Brother Belue’s definitions of the terms of the proposition were clearly and concisely formulated. For instance:

WHAT IS NOT THE ISSUE:

1. Holy Ghost baptism–I believe in the fact of it as much as he does.

2. Speaking in tongues–I believe it has been done, as he does.

3. The existence of miracles–I believe in them.

4. Divine healing–I believe that all healing is divine; it is a question of miraculous divine healing in our DAY!

5. Whether or not God has power–I believe he can do anything.

Thus, we are not disagreed over whether these things existed, but whether they continue til now. It is not a question of whether God heals, but whether he does it by natural means–or by means of miracle.

Mr. Childress, on the other hand, either deliberately or ignorantly charged that brother Belue forfeited the debate by agreeing with what he taught. But, when a point of order was called in order to correct the false charge, Mr. Childress admitted that he was misrepresenting brother Belue (This point of order held him tight throughout the discussion!). What he would have given for the affirmative not to be mimeographed and in the hands of the audience! All that was left for him to do was either to follow it point by point or else completely ignore it. He chose to do the latter!

The Second Night.–Mr. Childress affirmed the proposition:

The Scriptures teach that Holy Ghost baptism is administered today to all Christian believers in the same manner as on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and that the signs and miracles done by the apostles and disciples as recorded in the New Testament, are to continue throughout the gospel dispensation or Christian age.

 

Actually, he had no affirmative speech. He used a chart on the measures of the Spirit that brother Belue had introduced previously and labored the first point on the chart regarding the two instances of Holy Ghost baptism in the New Testament–Acts 2 and 10.

A Victory for TruthThe United Pentecostal Church teaches that there are two baptisms in force today– water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost baptism. Two charts answered this contention in such a way that there could be no quibble offered by Mr. Childress. One chart was used to demonstrate that the Bible speaks of many baptisms (Heb. 6:1,2): (1) the baptism in the cloud and sea (1 Cor. 10:1-3); (2) John’s baptism (Mt. 3:10-12; Acts 19:1-5); (3) the baptism of suffering (Mk. 10:38, 39); (4) Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5); (5) the baptism of fire (Mt. 3:10-12); and (6) the baptism of the Great Commission (Mt. 28: 19). Another chart on Ephesians 4:5 showed that only one of these six baptisms could be binding today:

“THERE IS…. ONE BAPTISM” (Eph. 4:5)

WATER  Rem. Of Sins Into Christ Cleanse By Man

DIFFERENT FROM Acts 1:5; 10:47; 11: 15,16

HOLY SPIRIT Comfort Remind Reveal By Christ

 

WHICH IS IT?

Mr. Childress avoided this argument as long as possible, and the only attempt he ever made to answer it was insignificant. It proved to be a great victory for the truth.

Turning an Argument Around

During the course of the debate, Mr. Childress argued that I Corinthians 12:13 teaches Holy Spirit baptism. Brother Belue turned the argument on him effectively. The baptism of I Corinthians 12:13 puts one into the body of Christ. Thus, it is the same baptism as that of Romans 6:3, 4 which puts one into Christ. If one is in the body of Christ, he is in Christ! But the baptism of Romans 6:3,4 involves a burial in and resurrection out of the element mentioned. Of course, this is parallel to the eighth chapter of Acts which teaches that one goes “down into” the water and comes “up out of” the water. But, according to Mr. Childress, the element in which we are buried into Christ is the Holy Spirit. So if he ever had the Spirit he doesn’t have it now; because he was buried in it and raised up out of it. One does not remain in the element in which we are buried into Christ!

An Amusing Incident

While debating the question of the duration of miracles, an interesting thing happened. Mr. Childress could not escape the fact that his proposition affirmed the duration of “the signs and miracles done by the apostles.” Realizing the dilemma imposed by his own proposition, which would affirm his ability to raise the dead, he attempted to limit the miracles in force today to those of Mark 16:17,18. So brother Belue decided to put him to the test! He proposed to bring some poison the second night of the discussion in order to see whether or not Mr. Childress had enough faith to drink it. After all, didn’t Mark record that “if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.”What if Mr. Childress did drink the poison and it killed him? This raised the problem of the legality of such an action. Brother Belue consulted a lawyer about the matter. He said that such would be a criminal offence–“aiding or abetting suicide,” he called it. The maximum sentence could be as high as ten to twenty years in prison!

Funny? Yes, indeed! But there is a sobering thought just here. Remember, if you offer someone a deadly poison and he is ignorant enough to drink it in order to prove his point, twenty years is a long time to serve just because you wanted to win an argument. Needless to say, brother Belue didn’t bring the fuming nitric acid, although he did get the point across to the audience by relating his conversation with the lawyer. Besides, there was a cripple brother in the audience who offered Mr. Childress the opportunity to heal him. So brother Belue’s challenge went begging.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp. 9-10
December 1961