Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

The sports world was shocked recently by the death of Lyn Bias, the University of Maryland basketball star who had been drafted number one by the Boston Celtics. He had taken cocaine, and though he was in good health and according to the autopsy, the amount of cocaine in his system was “average,” he is dead!

One sports writer asked several questions that I think are worthy of our consideration. (1) Why would Bias want to take the drug in the first place? Here is a guy fixing to make a living with his body, so (2) Why endanger that body with a mind-altering drug that has been proven to erode physical performance? (3) Why “celebrate” with a life-threatening drug? He surely had heard of the risks associated with that drug.

The wise writer of Ecclesiastes asked a similar question -many years ago. He said: “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?” (Eccl. 7:17) He is not saying that a little wickedness is all right, but is condemning the idea that man can continue in wickedness without suffering the consequences. Because God is longsuffering, some think “God hath forgotten: he hideth his face; he will never see it” (Psa. 10:11). Wickedness often leads to men dying before their time. Lyn Bias is just one example of this. The state of Maryland has come into special scrutiny because of his death. It has been revealed that in the last three years at least sixteen have died from the same drug. How many others have “died before their time,” by the use of cocaine, or other such drugs, no one knows.

The question that I continually ask is: Why will those who know the possible consequences of drug experimentation “try it” anyway? Why will even those who are children of God endanger their lives and their souls just to see if there is a thrill in it? Not everyone who “tries it once,” will suffer the same consequence as Lyn Bias, but what could they possibly gain from the experiment?

We may ask the same question about many other sins. Why would a person who knows right from wrong and the possible consequences of fornication engage in that practice? Is it the same reason that Lyn Bias took cocaine? In describing the ways of a harlot, the writer of Proverbs said: “He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks (punishment devices); . . . Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded; yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death” (Prov. 7:22-27). Many young people have forfeited their purity and the profound privilege of giving themselves totally to the one they marry because they wanted to “try it once.” Many married men and women have forfeited the life of happiness and trust that they may have had because they wanted to be like Lyn Bias – “try it once.” Sins can be forgiven, but their consequences are inevitable. They may not be as drastic as death, but there are always consequences of sin.

Why will people who know the truth try alcoholic drinks? Is their life enriched in some mysterious way by saying “I’ve tried it”? When those who have tried it tell us the consequences, must we say, “Well I am going to try it myself”? Will those who heard of the death of Lyn Bias say, “I don’t know whether a normal dose of cocaine will kill me”? Can we not learn from the experiences of others, or must we make all the mistakes ourselves?

Solomon has been called “the human guinea pig.” He gave his “heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven” (Eccl. 1:13). After he had tried it all, he said: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). “The fear of the Lord prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened” (Prov. 10:27).

The service of sin is always vain because of the loss of happiness both here and hereafter. You do not have to “try it once” to know this!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, p. 594
October 2, 1986

By Johnie Edwards

A magnet has drawing power. The Bible mentions some things which have drawing power like a magnet. Divine magnets do not draw against the will of man but as man’s will becomes submissive to God’s will the work is accomplished.

God Draws Men

Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn. 6:44). God draws men. We need to know how it is that God draws men to Him. Please observe: “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me” (Jn. 6:45). Men are drawn to God as they are aught. Men hear, learn and then come to God. This process involves not only God’s will but man’s as well. The fact that man cannot resist God’s grace, just isn’t so!

Jesus Draws By The Cross

Jesus said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14). Jesus was lifted up from the earth as He died on the cross. Again Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12:32). The death of Jesus on the cross is like a magnet to draw men in becoming Christians. For it is “by the cross” that men are reconciled “unto God in one body. . . ” (Eph. 2:16). No wonder Paul told the Corinthians, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:17).

The Gospel of Christ Has Drawing Power

Paul told the Romans, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:16-17). The gospel which contains God’s righteousness has saving power. This is the reason that Paul told the Thessalonians, “Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:14). No wonder Jesus said to the apostles, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, p. 591
October 2, 1986

By Johnny Stringer

This debate occurred largely because of the desire of Kent Bailey, preacher for the institutional church in Lenoir City, Tennessee. Brother Bailey recognizes the need for scriptural authority and recognizes that he is much closer to us than he is to many in the institutional churches. In fact, many institutional churches consider Kent to be an “anti.”

Through Kent’s efforts, the elders in the Lenior City church decided to permit a four-night debate to be held in their building. They are to be commended. They chose Glenn B. Ramsay, vice-president of Tennessee Bible College, Cookeville, Tennessee, to represent their position. The elders of the West Knoxville church asked L.A. Stauffer, preacher for the Kirkwood church in the St. Louis area, to represent their conservative position. Kent Bailey moderated for brother Ramsay; Greg Gwin, preacher for the West Knoxville church, moderated for brother Stauffer.

Propositions For The First Two Nights

On Monday night L.A. Stauffer affirmed and Glenn Ramsay denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, when supporting an evangelist out of its treasury, may only send wages directly to the evangelist.”

On Tuesday night, Glenn Ramsay affirmed and L.A. Stauffer denied: “The Scriptures teach that one New Testament church may financially assist (with money from its treasury) another New Testament church in the preaching of the gospel.”

The point at issue in these propositions is whether one church may oversee a work for many churches. A church which receives funds from other churches so that it can oversee the use of those funds in doing evangelistic work is normally called a “sponsoring church.” Brother Ramsay, however, refused to accept that designation and vigorously protested that he was not defending a sponsoring church.

All of brother Ramsay’s protestations notwithstanding, a church doing what brother Ramsay’s proposition says it may do is what brethren generally call a sponsoring church. Rejecting that designation does not make the arrangement any more scriptural.

Ramsay’s Two Main Arguments

Brother Ramsay used the old argument that the Philippian church was a sponsoring church. He took the untenable position that 2 Corinthians 11:8-9 and Philippians 4:15 refer to the same occasion, and that the churches mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11 (Berea and Thessalonica, he said) sent money to the church at Philippi, which then sent the money to Paul in Corinth.

Brother Stauffer ably showed that these were two different times and situations. He stressed that it would not even make good geographical sense for churches in Berea and Thessalonica, which were closer to Corinth than Philippi was, to send money over a hundred miles up to Philippi, so the church there could send it back down to Corinth. And how ungracious it would have been for Paul to give credit only to the Philippians (Phil. 4) when other churches had actually given the money.

Brother Ramsay’s other main argument was that churches in the New Testament sent benevolence to other churches. He believes that if a church could send benevolence to another church, it could send money for evangelism to another church.

Brother Stauffer pointed out the difference. When churches sent to the church in Jerusalem, it was for “their want” (2 Cor. 8:14); it was to satisfy the particular need of the Jerusalem church. It was not so that the Jerusalem church could oversee a work for the sending churches.

When churches send to another church for evangelism, however, it is not to meet the particular need of that church; rather, that church is overseeing a work which all the sending churches have an obligation to perform. It is, therefore, overseeing a work for all the church.

Propositions for the Last Two Nights

On Thursday night Ulerm Ramsay affirmed and L.A. Stauffer denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, in its benevolent work, may use money from its treasury to support both saints and non-saints.”

On Friday night L.A. Stauffer affirmed and Glenn Ramsay denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, in its benevolent work, may use money from its treasury to support only needy saints.”

Both men agreed that the issue is not what the individual may do, but what the local church may do. Both recognized that there is a distinction.

James 1:27

Brother Ramsay’s discussion of this passage was amazing. Those of us who hold to the position that brother Stauffer does have always pointed out that James 1:27 is discussing individual activity. James is talking to brethren about responsibilities we have as individuals – things we do distributively rather than collectively.

To my astonishment, Glenn Ramsay stood and labored at length proving that very point I He stressed that brethren are addressed (v. 19), showing that the instructions were to the group. Then he forcefully argued that in this passage, the action of the group is distributed to the individual. He talked much about the “distributive principle,” thereby arguing brother Stauffer’s case for him.

An Unscriptural Rule

The brethren represented by brother Ramsay do not believe that the church can do anything an individual can do. Yet, they want the local church to fulfill some responsibilities that the Scriptures have given the individual. This means they must have some way of determining which passages regarding individuals are applicable to the church.

Here is their rule: If an individual has a responsibility which is based on the peculiar grounds that he is a Christian, then that responsibility can be fulfilled by the local church.

I do not know who made up that rule. I do not believe it was the Lord, because I have His Book and it’s not in there. Brother Ramsay did not explain how one decides whether or not a particular individual responsibility is based on the peculiar grounds that one is a Christian. One could be rather arbitrary in that decision. To my surprise, brother Ramsay said that the responsibility to do good to all men (Gal. 6:10) is not based on the peculiar grounds that one is a Christian. Hence, Galatians 6:10 was eliminated as a text to sustain his position.

Conclusion

All involved in this debate are to be commended for their willingness to discuss issues over which we disagree. I believe brother Stauffer ably defended the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 589, 598
October 2, 1986

By Mike Willis

Most people think that being a Christian is difficult. One must admit that the way to salvation is strait and narrow (Matt. 7:13-14), sometimes attended with persecution (2 Tim. 3:12), and requires abstinence from the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). Nevertheless, the yoke of Christ is “easy” and His burden is “light” (Matt. 11:30).

Sometimes Christians see the world enjoying the “pleasures of sin” for their season and envy them. The wise man wrote, “Let not thine heart envy sinners” (Prov. 23:17; cf. 24:1,19). If one envies the sinners of the joy they get from their sin, before long he will be joining them in participating in sin.

Rather than the way of the Christian being hard, the Scriptures teach that “the way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:15). His life is more difficult while on earth than is the life lived in obedience to the Lord.

Obedience Is Best For Man

Most of us quickly admit that obedience is best for man in view of eternity. However, some believe that it is best for man only in view of eternity. This idea needs to be corrected before one will allow the law of the Lord to be written on the tables of his heart (Heb. 8:10).

God gave His commandments to man for his own good. “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always. . . ” (Deut. 6:24; cf. 10:13). The man who obeys the word of God preserves himself from evil (Prov. 16:17; 19:16). Those who disobey the Lord love death. “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate me love death” (Prov. 8:36).

Sin Has Consequences

Sin has its temporal consequences. One cannot sow to the flesh without reaping its harvest of sorrow and woe (cf. Prov. 11:3,5; 13:13; 15:32). For example, the wise man taught that the man who is cruel brings trouble to himself (Prov. 11:17). Sin has its temporal results.

Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner (Prov. 11:31).

He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail (Prov. 22:8).

In Proverbs 1:25-31, Solomon taught that the temporal consequences of sin cannot be averted by godly sorrow that leads to repentance.

Sin includes among its consequences (depending upon the circumstances) the following: (a) civil punishment (Prov. 10:13; 21:7; 29:24). When one violates the law, the judicial system is obligated to administer punishment (cf. Prov. 1:18-19). (b) Shortens life. “The fear of the Lord prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened” (Prov. 10:27). Sin’s temporal consequences have shortened the life of many a man (e.g., a drunkard in an automobile accident, a fornicator contacting a terminal illness, etc.). (c) Creates enslaving habits. “His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins” (Prov. 5:22). Peter described some wicked men who “while they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption” (2 Pet. 2:19). Sin entangles its victim, making him a slave of his own lusts. The man who chooses a life of sin, brings these temporal consequences on his own head.

The Prodigal Son: An Example Of Sin’s Consequences

Luke 15:11-32 contains the parable of the Prodigal Son, one of the Savior’s most hearttouching parables. The young man, not content to await his father’s death before obtaining his inheritance, went to his father and asked for his share of the inheritance. The young man left the father and went into a far country where he wasted his substance on harlots (15:30) and riotous living (15:13). Sin’s temporal pleasures were enjoyed by the young man for a season. Soon his inheritance was gone. His dissolute life brought him poverty (cf. Prov. 21:17). His “friends” forsook him when his money was gone. He was a foreigner in a strange land, broke, hungry, and nearly naked. In his desperate circumstances, he went to work feeding pigs “and he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him” (Lk. 15:16). Here the young man was learning this lesson: “The way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:15). In his desperate circumstances, “he came to himself.” He remembered his condition before leaving his father and decided that kind of life was better than the one he was now living.

Sin’s Consequences

Let us consider some of the consequences which come from a life of sin, using for our examples some of the sins common to our age.

1. Immorality. Many have chosen to commit fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. What consequences follow this life? Many are afflicted with diseases of the body (AIDS, venereal disease, sterility, etc.). If married, their sins frequently lead to divorce and always to family conflict. Emotional problems follow which range from guilt to haunting memories. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

2. Drinking. The majority of Americans indulge in drinking intoxicating beverages. Not a few become drunks (alcoholics), totally addicted and enslaved to the bottle. These people lose their jobs, their family, their self-respect, and become dependent on others for their necessities of life. Even those who do not become alcoholics have problems such as increased strife (from arguments to fights). Read Proverbs 23:29-36 for a description of what occurs when one is drinking. Those who engage in social drinking are frequently the cause of wrecks which destroy property, cause bodily injury and death. Some are serving prison sentences for involuntary manslaughter because they chose to drink. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

3. Drugs. A sizeable portion of the American society has chosen to use drugs. What are the consequences of this sin? Many become addicted to drugs. In order to support their habit, they spend all of their money and soon turn to crime to find enough money for the next fix. Young mothers who use drugs are giving birth to children who have an addiction. The way of drugs is a life of addiction, poverty, and physical maladies. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

4. Greed. The lure of materialism promises a happiness which it cannot deliver. “He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house” (Prov. 15:27). Those who chase after riches frequently become dishonest. One Christian who became involved in an embezzling scheme is now serving time in a federal penitentiary. Those who are not dishonest in their greed frequently value things more than people, leading to problems in their family life (divorce, separation from children). “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

5. Laziness. The industriousness commended in the Proverbs (6:6-10) has been rejected by some who think “the world owes them a living.” They are too lazy to work and too proud to beg; consequently, they have chosen to live off welfare or punch a time clock without doing any work. Laziness leads to poverty and want. The children born to welfare families rarely learn enough industriousness to keep them off welfare in the next generation. Perpetuating a welfare state will bring national bankruptcy and the destruction of the nation. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

6. Sins of the tongue. Many Christians never learn to control their tongues. They are guilty of lying, gossip, whispering, flattery, and other sins. After a while, their friends recognize these sins and shun them. Their word is not believed or trusted. Soon they are isolated and lonely, being without friends. “The way of the transgressor is hard.”

Conclusion

“Thorns and snares are in the way of the froward” (Prov. 22:5). The Lord told wicked Israel, “Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths” (Hos. 2:6). God has ordained that the “way of the transgressor is hard.”

We should give thanks to Him for this. Those who cannot be reached by the instruction of the word, like the prodigal son, sometimes come to themselves while trying to survive in the pig pen of sin and resolve to return to their Father’s house. Because the temporal consequences of sin lead some lost souls to repentance, more will be saved than might have been saved had God not ordained that “the way of the transgressor is hard.”

The wise person will not have to experience the hard ways of the transgressor to know that is not the path in life to choose. He can learn from the sufferings of others and avoid the path of wickedness in his life. Indeed, he will recognize that obedience to God’s commandments is the best life available to him and will devote himself to following in the footsteps of Jesus.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 578, 599
October 2, 1986