Truth Magazine

By Jady W. Copeland

In this the last of these articles on the subject, we want to discuss the condition of the fallen, actually what has happened, and what he must do to be saved. We have noted the symptoms, causes and prevention of failing away from God, and it must be noted that there are two who have a responsibility in restoring the erring: (1) the fallen brother, and (2) the faithful brother who knows it. I am afraid that we have too often neglected our responsibility in restoring “such a one” in the proper spirit, taking the attitude that we didn’t push him into the ditch and have no responsibility in saving him. Such was not the attitude of Christ.

Stop and think of the amount of space the Bible gives in the Old Testament to the prophets who were trying to warn the people of apostasy. Note for example the pleading of Jeremiah in his prophecy (Jer. 2:19ff; 3:12; etc.). In the New Testament we take particular note of Hebrews 3. The admonition is addressed to “holy brethren’! (v. 1). They were partakers of his “heavenly calling” and were to consider the High Priest, Jesus Christ. In verse 12 he says, “Take heed, brethren lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God: but exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called To-day; lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” Losing our faith is a major problem among God’s people, and the “faithful” have a grave responsibility.

A Sad Condition

In noticing the prodigal (Lk. 15) we note that he made a foolish mistake in leaving home too early, and the mistakes that followed. Too often, we get ourselves into trouble because of stupid mistakes. Yet these mistakes don’t keep the Father from accepting us back when we repent. In this story, there was the son of Abraham who found himself in the pig pen of a pagan. As someone said, we have “Abraham’s son feeding Caesar’s hogs.” What a plight; what a humiliating situation! Some one has said, “The man who yields himself to the power of sin loses all joy in God, all relish for spiritual enjoyments . . . all capacity for appreciating the fellowship of the good and great, all sense of sacredness and spiritual worth of life.” This pretty well expresses the plight of a Christian who finds himself falling away from the fellowship of God, after once having known the way of righteousness. And the “faithful” brother need not feel good about a brother who has decided to turn his back on God. Neglect of this fallen brother is sin.

What Has Happened To Him?

He has “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4; Rev. 2:5). Can you think of anything as bad as having known and been in the grace of God and now to fall away from Him? Besides that, he has lost his power to save others (Matt. 5:13). Furthermore he presents himself as a servant of the devil (Rom. 6:16). He fails to grow in the grace of God (2 Pet. 3:18). Like the “non-Christian,” he often relies on his moral goodness for salvation, when in reality he knows it will not work. In short he has chosen to serve the devil rather than to serve God. He has erred from the truth (Jas. 5:19) and it makes no difference if he has been baptized into Christ, he is still a sinner. Before he obeyed the gospel he was a sinner, and sin condemns; and after becoming a Christian if he sins, he is a sinner, and stands condemned. We need not talk of an “erring child of God” because he is still a sinner. And the only way he can come back to God is by repentance and praying for forgiveness. If I understand Peter, he has become entangled again in the “defilements” of the world, and is in worse condition than before (2 Pet. 2:20). No, he does not need to be baptized again, but he must turn to God, just as he did before he became a Christian. The reason we stress this point is because we have used the figure of the family so much (making the wrong application perhaps) in speaking of the “child of God” and when we say this person is an “erring child of God” we may just leave the impression that this condition is not so serious. Indeed it is more serious, since he has once “known the way of righteousness. “

What Must He Do To Be Saved?

First it would do well for him to remember his former life in Christ (Rev. 2:4-5). Remembering the blessings in that blessed relationship with Christ and the saints can have a strong influence and power in his life. It seems that the memory of the father’s house was one factor in bringing back the prodigal. Like the sinner before baptism, he must realize he is lost. The prodigal certainly realized his grave mistakes. I have an idea that the memory of a good home has been instrumental in bringing many a boy or girl back to their senses and returning to God. Sure, underlying all that is the power of the word, but the prodigal remembered “back home in his father’s house.”

But this memory is not sufficient. The prodigal not only changed his mind, but this led to action; he went! God does not forgive those who refuse to repent. The saints at Ephesus first had to “remember therefore whence thou art fallen” and then “repent and do the first works.” The prodigal saw how foolish his decision was and when he remember his father’s house, he acted. He saw his folly and infatuation with the world and how utterly foolish it was. Then he turned back to his father.

Then John says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins. . . ” (1 Jn. 1:9). Sure God knows our thoughts (or could know them) but how much good confessing sins doesl Like the prodigal we are saying, “I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight.” Does not God want us to fully realize our mistakes – what they are, and what can be done to correct them? He is the only one who can forgive, but we must meet his requirements here as before we were converted to Christ. And then, we pray to God and ask his forgiveness. Simon was told to “repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.” Sins must always be repented of and confessed to the Lord. They do not always have to be confessed to the brethren. I believe that depends on the situation. When I sin without anyone knowing it, what would teach me that I had to “take it to the church”? Surely if one’s sins are of a public nature, the brethren should know that the sinner is repenting of his sins, and making all right with God. And if he directly sins against a brother, then this must be confessed to the brother (Matt. 18:15-17). Thus in turning back to God, as with our initial obedience to the gospel, let us impress on the mind of the sinner that he must realize his sin and remember the One who can, and is anxious, to forgive his sin.

The Responsibility of the Righteous As noted above, the faithful Christian must realize his responsibility toward the erring. God is willing and able to forgive (1 Jn. 1:9; Isa. 1:18) and the faithful brother must be willing and able to help. Surely there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents (Lk. 15:7, 32). We are hearing more and more about children being abducted. Sometimes they are reunited with their parents, and I can think of no happier scene than to watch the cries and laughter of joy, both in the parent and the child when they are again united in the family circle. Such can be a picture of the fallen child who has been “abducted” by Satan, and then claimed again by the Lord. “But it was meet to make merry and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found” (Lk. 15:32).

And what can I do to save the brother? “And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all” (1 Thess. 5:14). It is much better to prevent one’s falling away (see the former article) than it is to reclaim him. This is true for several reasons. First he may never come home, or he may die in that condition before any effort is made to save him. Second of all, he has missed the joys of service while away, and the potential for saving others during that period of time.

Let me close these thoughts with this admonition to the faithful in Christ. I am afraid it is far too common among brethren to think that the restoration of the erring is exclusively the responsibility of the elders. Without trying to say that the elders have no responsibility here they surely do – we want to emphasize that all spiritually-minded brethren can do a good work there. “Ye which are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of gentleness. . . ” (Gal. 6:1). Souls are precious. Satan never sleeps. We have an interest in the welfare and burdens of our fellow-saints. Too long we have hired preachers to do this work, and relied on the elders to do this type of work and have the sectarian idea that our duty is fulfilled when we “warm a pew” and give a little into the Lord’s treasury. It magnifies the dangerous idea that the Lord’s church is becoming just another denomination. May it never be. If we love our brethren, let’s save them and do what we can to reclaim them for the Lord who died for them.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 168-169
March 19, 1987

By Larry Houchen

The father and mother painfully realized that they had made a mistake. Though some “sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow” (Isa. 1:18), there are some sins which carry with them severer consequences than do others. That time in life when the father and mother could have had a great impact for further good upon the lives of their children is now gone; their attempts to now remedy the sad condition will be meager. The father and mother are Christians, they attend services, they instilled within their children a belief in God and godly principles. They had and continue to have a healthy relationship with their children. The father and mother are not alcoholics nor burdened with any other such vice. What, then, is the problem and what caused them to realize their mistake? The problem is recognizing for possibly their lifetime that their once faithful children are no longer faithful to God. Their remembrance that they only attended Sunday morning worship services until their youngest child was eighteen years old is a brutal awakening that they must share much of the blame. What a price to pay!

The aforementioned story is not about any specific parents; it is, however, the story of literally thousands of Christians. Sadly, in just about every congregation of God’s people, there are those members who only attend on Sunday morning. The Sunday morning Bible classes, evening and midweek services are nonexistent insofar as they are concerned. They are oblivious to the fact that their neglect is having a tremendous negative impact upon their children.

There is a principle of degeneration which states that a weakness in any given generation tends to become more pronounced in the succeeding generations. One of the reasons why there is a law in many states which prohibits the marriage of cousins to each other is because of the high risk of deformity. in the offspring of that marriage. The physical weakness in a family becomes more pronounced when it is added to itself within the same family. Biblically speaking, a weakness passed to the next generation often worsens. In the book of Judges is the revealing statement, “And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers, and there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel” (2:10). The primary generation could not escape from the inevitable conclusion as evident in the degeneration of the secondary generation; they had been neglectful. The apostle Paul writes, “But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness” (2 Tim. 2:16). While the sins mentioned in that verse are not under consideration in this article, the principle that sin leads to further sin is evident. It is further affirmed when Paul says, “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Sin yields further sin.

Our role as parents is a tremendous responsibility. Such admonitions as “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” (Matt. 6:33) which plead for our dedication, affect our children based upon the degree we accept the challenge. The parental responsibility to bring up our children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4), will greatly affect our children depending on how we perceive the passage. The Hebrew writer states, “Not forsaking our own assembling together . . . ” (10:25). Negligence in attendance has always been only a symptom of a more far-reaching problem: attitude. In other words, if our dedication is not as it should be and our parental example of what God means to us is lacking, our children may adopt even lesser degrees of these vital essentials.

The influence which grandparents and other relatives wield is also a major contributing force to the offspring of a marriage. Moses, in exhorting Israel to teach their succeeding generations, said to “make them (the things that they had seen – LRH) known to your sons and grandsons.” Yes, grandparents, uncles and aunts, and other relatives greatly influence their next generation in the family.

The evangelism of the world is often stressed; but what about our own children? What about those with 1whom we have the greatest influence? It is true that many have risen above the lesser example for good of their parents, but many others constitute that sad statistic of degenerating from a weak influence for good. Think about that the next time there is a worship service or scheduled class instruction.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, p. 170
March 17, 1987

By Ron Halbrook

Like anyone else, Martin Luther King Jr. had a right to his own social and political views. This is not a political column and we leave everyone to his own thoughts in that realm. Neither is this an anti-black article. The gospel and the church of Christ invite all men to share in the service and salvation prepared by God (Gal. 3:26-29; Rev. 22:17). But in order for men to share these, spiritual blessings, the gospel must be preached in its original purity. Martin Luther King is hailed as one of the greatest preachers in American history. Churches celebrate his life. He is commemorated as a religious hero in ecumenical services including idolatrous groups like the Buddhists. Do such activities promote or pervert the pure gospel of Christ?

Did Christ and King preach the same gospel? Some things King said about love and non-violence are scriptural, but much that he taught destroys the Bible as the basis of true love for God and our fellow man. His message was a mixture of traditional denominationalism, modernistic infidelity, and human philosophies – not the pure and simple gospel of Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible.

Teaching Of Christ	Teaching Of King
Bible as God’s Inspired WordDefines True Love (2 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 22:34-40; 1 Jn. 5:1-3)	Deny God’s Direct Inspiration of Bible – Try to Define Love by Human Wisdom
Gospel Not to Be Changed by Philosophies & Doctrines of Men (Gal. 1:8-9; Col. 2:8)	Changed Gospel Many Ways – Follow Philosophies of Thoreau, Gandhi, Rauschenbusch, etc.
Jesus Christ Born of a Virgin, Fulfills Inspired Prophecy (Matt. 1:18-25)	Deny Virgin Birth & Prophecy – Said It Was All a Myth (King interview, National Observer, 30 Dec. 1963)
Accept Literal Deity of Christ or Be Lost in Hell (Jn. 8:24, 58; 14:1-6)	Deny Literal Deity of Christ – “Divine” Only in Moral Goodness (Ibid.)
Overcome Sin by Converting Each Soul With Pure Gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16; 10:8-10; Acts 2:38)	Overcome Sin by Converting Social Institutions & Governments With Demands, Marches, Boycott, Sit-Down, etc.
Concern for New Jerusalem of Heaven Above All Earthly Goals (Lk. 12:13-21; Rev. 21; 1 Pet. 1:3-5)	“I’m Not Concerned With the New Jerusalem” But With Social Reforms of “the New South” (King, Life, Nov. 1960, p. 134)
Adultery Destroys True Love for God, Our Mate, & Our Fellow Man – No Part in God’s Kingdom (Rom. 13:8-13; Gal. 5:19-21)	While Claiming to Advance God’s Kingdom, Had Many Adulterous Affairs (Time Mag., 19 Jan. 1987, p. 24)
Brethren in Christ Use No Titles to Elevate One Above Another (Matt. 23:8-9; 1 Cor. 3:6-9)	Preach Brotherhood & Equality But Wear Religious Titles Elevating Himself Above His Fellows: “Reverend Doctor”
Men Receive Pardon of Sin by Faith, Repentance, Confession, Immersed in Water (Mk. 16:16; Rom. 10:10; Acts 2:38)	Men Receive Pardon by “Faith Only” Before Baptism

“Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16) Earthly heroes are fine in their place, but look to Christ and not King for all spiritual truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, p. 180
March 19, 1987

By Laffy Ray Hafley

“In sundry times and divers manners,” the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate. Lands, peoples, nations, kings and kingdoms mentioned in the Bible have been challenged by skeptics. Over the past two centuries, discoveries have verified the biblical accounts. The Hittites were thought to be an imaginary people because they were only mentioned in the Bible. Today, one can get a degree in Hittite civilization! Luke, it was alleged, made numerous errors. Sergius Paulus, the prudent proconsul of Paphos, was, the infidel said, a “pro-praetor,” not a “proconsul.” But, alas, proof of Luke’s record has been unearthed. On and on we could go with similar results.

It is amazing how that the Bible is automatically assumed to be wrong when a conflict apparently exists. Unbelievers always assume the worst. What facts they have are accepted because their data is correct, but the Bible can never be accepted if it seems to go against their evidence.

Modern Examples

Though the following facts and examples are not exhaustive, they will show the kind of problems that might develop in the future over facts that we are fully satisfied with.

This first cause is not exactly parallel to the rest of the items we shall use, but perhaps it will be helpful. The news media has said two things about the bombing of Libya by the United States: (A) Khadafy has become more adamant, more determined to oppose the U.S. with terrorism; Khadafy has hardened his heart. (B) Reagan has caused Khadafy to be more deeply set against the U.S. Reagan has hardened Khadafy’s heart. Can both statements be true? Did Khadafy harden his heart, or did Reagan harden his (Khadafy’s) heart? Yes, one can see how both statements are true. Why, then, should one have a problem with the fact that the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 7:13; 8:15; 10:1)? In a sense, it might be argued that Reagan hardened Khadafy’s heart by bombing Libya. It is equally true to say that Khadafy hardened his own heart. There is no contradiction. Yet, when certain men read the Bible, they pounce upon such statements as these and seek to discredit it. Would one be thought a scholar if he challenged the statements regarding Reagan and Khadafy?

The following facts could cause some problems two or three thousands years from now. Yet, they are details with which we are perfectly conversant. There is no reason for attacking the accounts of the matters we shall present. But imagine that some one is trying to piece together these items ten or twenty centuries later. Imagine that the United States is a remote flicker in the history of the world. Imagine that it perished and that its civilization was violently overthrown, its records destroyed. The facts that follow might become troublesome to scholars. One might accuse the other of inaccuracy, of fraud, of writing error, of making up events. Here is how it could occur:

Grover Cleveland served as President in 1885-1889 and 1893-1897. What if the fact of one of his terms of office was lost? What if a history written in the twenty-first century was found to contain a reference to that lost term of office? Would researchers consider it a mistake since it was the only known reference to such a term? After all, no President, save Cleveland, has had two separated terms of office. Can you see how such a thing might be possible? In just such a manner, certain facts of the Bible are questioned by scholars and opponents. The Bible is never given the benefit of the doubt. It is easy to see how that Cleveland’s divided terms of office might become obscured or even lost. Similar things doubtless occurred in history that is ancient to us. So, why immediately charge the Bible with error? If, as in this case, all the facts were known, it can be very easily explained.

We all know of Cape Canaveral, Florida, a space and rocket center. Do you remember that during the 1960’s its name was changed to Cape Kennedy? It was. Do you remember that a few years later its original name was restored? So, it is again known as Cape Canaveral. This name change might be lost to historians several thousand years from now, especially if the United States is lost in antiquity. Next, suppose that someone writes of Cape Canaveral and calls it Cape Kennedy. For a few short years, it was correct to do so, but in a few centuries this name change may be lost and the author charged with error. Do you see how such a thing could occur? Again, such events were as likely to be true in Bible times as in our day. Yet, men automatically charge the Bible with error and attempt to smear its reliability.

Franklin D. Roosevelt is the only President to serve more than two terms. He was elected four times. The Constitution has been amended so that no one can serve longer than two consecutive terms. We all understand how President Roosevelt served those terms. But twenty centuries from now it might seem to be an error to state that someone was President of the United States for four terms. If the Bible contained such facts, it would be immediately labeled with factual error and oversight. It would be called untrustworthy. However, we can well understand how that a thing that is clear to us might seem wrong to later generations.

Then, there is a matter of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. We have no problem distinguishing the two men. But if the first Roosevelt’s term of office is lost to history, and a scholar finds a reference to President Theodore Roosevelt, he might think the writer meant to say “Franklin,” but said “Theodore,” by mistake. At least, if it were in the Bible, that is what unbelievers would conclude! But we can see that there is no real cause for such misunderstanding. A similar thing occurred regarding Lysanias in Luke 3:1.

“Luke 3:1 mentions Lysanias as the tctrarch of Abilene in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Ceasar. A Lysanias is mentioned by Joscphus as having reigned over this province in 36 B.C. and as having been killed by Mark Anthony. It therefore seemed for some time as though Luke had made a mistake here in placing Lysanias nearly sixty years later. However, inscriptions have been discovered which show that Luke was right and that the Lysanias mentioned in the Bible was a descendant of the one Joseph mentions, thus establishing Luke’s accuracy” (Hamilton, The Basis of the Christian Faith, p. 192).

For nearly thirty years, Andrei Gromyko was the Foreign Minister of Russia. In that capacity, he was met by every President from Truman to Reagan. Several months ago, however, his title was changed. He is now the President, not the Foreign Minister. Imagine years and years from now that someone should find an obscure and remote reference to Gromyko as “president of Russia.” History will likely remember his many years as Foreign Minister, but it is possible that his years as President will be lost to history over the next few millennia. During the Presidency of Reagan, Gromyko has been Foreign Minister and President. What if one sees an “apparent discrepancy” between the two references to Gromyko during the Reagan Presidency? We can see no reason for any question in the matter, but if the record of his last few years as President of Russia are lost, one can see how that a difficulty might arise in the eyes of critics. It has happened many times concerning the Bible.

“The title politarch, which Luke here applies to the chief magistrates of Thessalonica, is nowhere else found as an official title in all Greek literature; and it is easy to see what a clamor the enemies of the faith would have made over this use of the term, but for the fact that an ancient triumphal arch of marble until recently spanned the principle street of the city, with an inscription in which this very title is applied, and the names of the seven of the politarchs are preserved. When the arch was torn down, the slabs containing the inscription were secured by the British consul then at Thessalonica, and they are now kept in the British Museum. Three of the names of Sosipater, Secundus and Gaius, the names of three well known fellow laborers of Paul” (McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts, p. 113).

The Bible, the word of God, is reliable and trustworthy. Do not wait until the day of Judgment to find it out.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 176-177
March 19, 1987