Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

And he said onto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which be possesseth. And be spoke a parable unto them, saying, the ground of certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou bast much goods laid up for many years; take thine emu, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be which thou bag provided? So Is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God (Lk. 12:1521).

The word “beware” is an intensive term. Because it is inherently emphatic, it is rarely followed by an exclamation mark. We would not expect to see a sign, “Beware of wet paint,” or “Beware, new grass sown,” because the word is too strong for the occasion. But we have all seen signs saying, “Beware bad dog,” or “Beware bridge out.” Thus, when Jesus used the word “beware,” He was indicating great danger (cf. Matt. 7:15; Lk. 12:1; 2 Pet. 3:17).

The Lord also treats us to the essential, fundamental evil and error of covetousness; that is, covetousness makes one think that the life is comprised and composed “of the things which he possesseth. ” And do we not judge it so? If we have material goods, we are “better off” or even just plain “better” than those who do not have them. This is what the Lord was attacking when He asked the rhetorical question in the sermon on the mount, “Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?” (Matt. 6:25) Your life’s value, your soul’s worth, is not measured by what you own. “For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mk. 8:36) That question could never have been posed if covetousness’ theme (my life does consist in what I possess) were true. It is not what you own, it is what owns you that really matters.

The Rich Fool

The parable of the rich fool is given to illustrate and demonstrate the truthfulness of Jesus’ opening statement.

It is not wrong to be rich. Abraham, Solomon and Job were not simply rich; they were “very rich” (cf. Gen. 13:2). The rich man of our text is not criticized or condemned because he was wealthy. Wealth itself does not damn. Poverty does not save. Wealth is not a vice. Poverty is not a virtue. Many will go to hell over riches who never had money in the bank. At least, Paul intimates as much when he says, “they that will be (not, “they that are”) rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition” (1 Tim. 6:9). It is not riches but the “trust” in riches that dooms men (Mk. 10:23-35).

It is this trust, this belief in material substance, that condemned the rich man. Five times he used the personal pronoun “my.” He referred to “my fruits, my barns, my fruits, my goods, my soul. ” That is not evil, either, for there is a sense in which things do belong to us; we “own” them (Acts 5:4; Matt. 20:15). However, it was the absorbing, consuming thought of his life, and that is wrong. He acted wisely in building greater barns for his surplus lest it rot or be devoured by scavengers. He acted foolishly in allowing his goods to secure, as he thought they did, his soul.

He imagined “many years” of solace, succor and security. “Take thine (another possessive pronoun) ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” How does the rest of it go? “For tomorrow we die” is how it ends, but the rich man did not consider death. He stopped with “merry.” He forgot, “for tomorrow we die.” But even if he had said it, he would still have been in error. It was not, “tomorrow, ” but “this night thy soul shall be required of thee.”

“Then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?” Neither the devil nor this world can give you one itern that will not be snatched and taken from you the moment you die. We go into bankruptcy at death. We leave and lose it all (Eccl. 5:15). The wise man of Ecclesiastes wondered whether his riches might not go to a fool who would throw it all away (Eccl. 2:18,19). “He heapeth up riches and knoweth not who shall gather them” (Psa. 39:6). The rich man did not foresee this eventuality. He was oblivious to eternity. “They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him . . . that he should still live for ever, and not see corruption” (Psa. 49:6-9).

Being “rich toward God” is the antidote to covetousness. It is the man who has his priorities in order who sees to the wealth and prosperity of his soul. “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17). Do not ever forget who the real beggar turned out to be in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31). Ironic, is it not, that the rich man of our narrative will also be the impoverished beggar in spiritual rags in the day of Judgment?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 18, p. 549
September 18, 1986

By Kenneth E. Thomas

Of all Bible subjects, perhaps none has been debated more than has the subject of Baptism. Who should be baptized? When should one be baptized? How does one go about obeying this command? What is the design or purpose in Bible baptism? Into what does baptism place one? I suggest that the New Testament answers very simply each of the above.

Who Should Be Baptized?

There is a common practice among various denominations of “baptizing” infants. This practice was not engaged in by the first century disciples of Christ. It is without scriptural authority. Children have no sins and the gospel plan of salvation given in the “great commission” excludes them because it says, “. .. . go teach . . . baptize and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). In Mark’s account of this commission he says, “. . he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Again we see the prerequisites cannot be met by one not old enough to be taught and incapable of believing! Peter told believers to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). So, in this passage, we see repentance must precede baptism in Christ’s scheme of redemption and again an infant or one mentally incapable of meeting the requirements prior to baptism is not a fit subject for baptism. When the treasurer of Queen Candace of Ethiopia was taught Jesus, he requested baptism at the hands of Philip the evangelist to which Philip replied, “If you believe you may.” To which he answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Upon this confession made with the mouth, they both went down into the water and he baptized him (Acts 8:26-39). An infant cannot make the confession required (Rom. 10:10; Acts 8:37; 1 Tim. 6:13). Some say they believe that a “saved person” is who should be baptized, but Scriptures say that the alien sinner is the one commanded to be baptized (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:20-21).

When?

One’s attitude toward this command of Christ may be seen by the urgency or lack of the same in people’s minds relative to baptism. Some claim one is saved before and without obedience to this command and they later set a date for the baptizing ceremony. These folks believe that if they never get around to baptizing one, he is still heaven bound having “accepted Christ as his personal Savior.” Don’t they know that since these same people also claim that one is baptized into a local congregation of that particular denominational fellowship, that they are thereby not only missing the scriptural boat on baptism, but admitting that one is saved before membership in “their denomination,” thereby admitting that it can’t possibly be the New Testament church? You see, the same thing that saves one (the blood of Christ) in gospel obedience also places him in the church which Christ’s blood purchased (Acts 2:38,41,47). One is not baptized into the local church, not even into a local church of Christ. One is baptized into the one body which is the church universal, and must later “join” himself to a local congregation (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:13-16; Acts 9:19-20,26-28).

The fact that the examples we have of people obeying this command illustrate that they did it as soon as was possible shows the importance placed on baptism. On Pentecost for example, “they therefore that gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:41). In the case of the queen’s treasurer they stopped the chariot and both went down into the water and he baptized him there on the Gaza Strip (Acts 8:38-39). The jailor in Acts 16 and his entire household were baptized after having been taught and that past midnight (Acts 16:30-33). One other example is that of Saul of Tarsus who was told, ” . . . why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins – – . ” (Acts 22:16). I just wonder why all the rush to be baptized if, like we are so often told by religionists of varying stripes, it is just an “outward sign of an inward grace” or “a way we show (confess) to the world we have accepted Christ.” You see, sectarians believe you can be saved and never be baptized as we have said. Proof is their doctrinal creedal statements and their running to the thief on the cross when this subject is under discussion. See Hebrews 9:15-17.

How?

Our next question comes over the diversity in the “how to” concerning baptism? Really, there is no such thing as a “mode” of baptism. Baptism is only one action. The meaning of the word translated baptize is to immerse. Baptize is a verb denoting only that action of immersion. To say that one may be baptized by sprinkling or pouring of water over the candidate is about as silly as saying that one may walk by flying. But again we apply the wording of Scripture and see the truth of this. Philip and the treasurer went down “both” into the water and came “up out of” the water. Paul in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 refers to baptism as a burial and a resurrection. Such terms cannot be properly applied to other actions called baptism. I should add that the Spirit through Paul also said that there is only “one baptism” valid today (Eph. 4:5).

Baptism’s Purpose?

Paul reminded the Romans how the blood of Christ was connected to their conversion and how they had been obedient to a form of Christ’s death, His burial and His resurrection in obeying Him in baptism as taught in the Scriptures (Rom. 6:1-6,16-18). If we had no other Scripture to study, we would be forced to conclude that baptism was to reach the benefits of Christ’s blood and that it is “into Christ.” Since all spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3), and one as a penitent believer is to be immersed into Christ where these blessings are located it shouldn’t take much to see that baptism is essential to one’s salvation from alien sins!

Scriptural Baptism Is Into The Name of Christ

That’s correct, “scriptural baptism” is into the name of Christ. Really every baptism practiced is into some name. Example: if one is baptized into the Baptist church, he then wears the name Baptist. If one is baptized by a Methodist preacher into the Methodist church, he then begins wearing the name Methodist. Each of the above says one is saved before submitting to “their baptism.” This proves that since one according to them is saved outside of “their church” and without taking on “their name,” “their church,” as well as “their name,” are unnecessary to one’s salvation. Of course those who understand God’s plan of salvation know that salvation is “in Christ” and “in the one body” and “in the name of Christ” (Rom. 6:34; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 4:11-12; 1 Cor. 1:10-12; Eph. 1:3).

Scriptural Baptism Unites; Others Divide

CATHOLIC: Baptism = Salvation + Belief. Wear name Roman Catholic.

BAPTIST: Belief = Salvation + Baptism. Wear the name Baptist.

The Bible Position: Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess Christ, Baptism= Salvation (Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 10:9-17; Acts 2:36-38,41,47; Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26-29; 1 Cor. 1:10-12; 1 Pet. 3:20-21). Then wear the name Christian (Acts 4:11-12; 1 Pet. 4:16; Acts 26:28; 11:26; 1 Cor. 1:10- 12).

So you can plainly see from the above that if folks would be content to just follow the Bible’s teaching, the alien sinner, upon confession of faith in Christ, would submit to immersion into Christ for the forgiveness of past sin and error. The Lord will add him to the one body, the church, and he will be united with all others of like precious faith as the Lord Himself prayed we should be (John 17:17-20,21). See? Isn’t it simple? Only the baptism of the New Testament has the ability to unite; denominational so-called baptisms can only divide and cannot be scriptural (2 John 9-11; Gal, 1:6-10; Rev. 22:18-19; John 12:48; Matt. 7:21-23).

Where Are You?

In the light of the preceding, “where are you?” to use the words of God to Adam in the long ago. What about your baptism? Was it in keeping with the principles set forth in this article from God’s word or was it like the sectarian baptisms! Your eternal destiny is at stake! You cannot afford to be mistaken or to take any chances! Why not humbly submit to what you know is true and cannot possibly be wrong and with thankfulness stand upon the solid ground of eternal truth a free man or woman under Christ?

Where are you spiritually right now? Where will you be in eternity?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 18, pp. 547-548
September 18, 1986

By Webb Harris, Jr.

Are you disgusted with modern religion?

In recent years, multitudes of men and women have turned their backs on the religious world and the shameful “divine” charades that have invaded the airwaves and the printed page. On the one hand we are faced with the cults which glorify some spaced-out guru or a wild-eyed radical and call upon us to migrate to a communal paradise established for our perpetual pleasure. On the other hand we are confronted by the “mainstream” religionists who, too often, are nothing more than money-beggars or shysters pan-handling cassette tapes or posters. Psychiatry has replaced prayer; the Bible has been discarded for self-help books; and the all-too-familiar clarion-call of the T.V. evangelist is, “more money, please!”

Though many religious publications report to us that more people than ever before are espousing religious convictions and boasting church membership, it is obvious that increased numbers are disenchanted with today’s style of religion and are growing weary of the endless spectacle. They view every Bible-toter as a hypocrite and respond to all preaching with suspicion. And these disgruntled people are not to be blamed. The religious world is reaping what it has sown.

What has been described above is very sad. In a nut-shell, people are turning away from Christianity, when true Christianity is not at fault. Today’s philanderers, cultists, pretenders and dollar-chasers are not true Christians at all! They are counterfeits. They are frauds. Today’s monstrous religious organizations and conventions are not representative of the true church of Jesus Christ! People are disgusted with a sham and are blaming Jesus of Nazareth. But Jesus said, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.” The very founder of Christianity taught emphatically that religion was never to be a show or a put-on. It was to be heart-felt and personal. Jesus also said “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth . . . you cannot serve God and mammon (wealth).” The Christ spoke zealously against the covetousness and greed that has infected the hearts of too many “preachers.” Please be aware that when men turn their backs on all religion, because of the nauseous antics of the phonies, they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Jesus Christ and His church stand separate and apart from the gross debacle that 20th century “Christendom” has become.

The New Testament presents a portrait of Jesus Christ and His people. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (commonly referred to as the Gospels) reveal to us important events in the earthly lifetime of the Saviour. They also tell of His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The book of Acts tells of the establishment of Christ’s church and the first preaching of the gospel. The remaining twentytwo books are actually letters, or epistles, that give us insight into the beliefs, practices and teachings of the first century saints. A reading of the New Testament is very revealing.

For instance, did you know that the church of the New Testament met its financial needs by free-will offerings on the part of its own members? (See Acts 4:32-37; 1 Cor. 16:1,2.) No bake-sales, cake-walks, car washes or covereddish galas were ever a part of the church’s function. The first Christians never dreamed of begging the uncoverted community to support their work financially!

Did you know that Christ’s church had no ecclesiastical hierarchies; no denominational super-structures; no nationwide, or even state-wide, organizational schemes? There was a congregation of brothers and sisters in a given community. And each congregation had its own elders and deacons. (See Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3.) The head of the true church is Jesus Christ, not some board of directors.

Are you disgusted with modern religion? Maybe so. But don’t confuse modern religion with the religion of Jesus of Nazareth. Do not confuse today’s counterfeit churches, preachers and doctrines with the real things.

The message of the church was a simple one: “Jesus is Lord” (Matt. 28:18-20). Their mission was clear-cut: To win souls for Jesus by their plain teaching and godly examples. Their lives and their work were filled with joy, humility and gracious deeds. Real Christianity was, and is, a beautiful and wondrous thing.

Jesus lives today. He reigns at the right hand of God. And His church exists on the Earth. It is easy to recognize, for it is described in detail in your New Testament. Seek it out. The Lord awaits you and His people are searching for you. They are interested not in your pocket-book, but in your soul.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 18, p. 560
September 18, 1986

By Dr., D.L. Cuddy

There has been a great deal of controversy in the press lately regarding whether secular humanism is in our nation’s schools, with Barbara Parker of People for the American Way indicating that trying to define secular humanism was like “trying to nail Jello to a tree.”

On the contrary, historically, Karl Marx in his economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 wrote that “Communism begins from the outset with atheism. . . Communism as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism.”

Today, Webster’s New International Dictionary defines humanism as “a contemporary cult or belief calling itself religious but substituting faith in man for faith in God . . . (or) faith in the supreme value and self-perfectibility of human personality.”

And in his first press conference (Feb. 11, 1985), Secretary of Education William Bennett said in answer to a query on the subject that “there is something called secular humanism – it’s not mysterious, it’s not something that one has to wonder about its meaning . . . read the Humanist Manifesto.”

NOT ONLY DID John Dewey, “the father of progressive education,” sign the manifesto, but so did C.F. Potter, who wrote Humanism, A New Religion (1930), in which he wrote that “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

The title of Potter’s book is appropriate, because in Torcaso vs. Watkins the Supreme Court listed secular humanism as a non-theistic religion. Furthermore, the American Humanist Association’s (AHA) own description in the Encyclopedia of Associations says the AHA “certifies Humanist counselors, who enjoy the legal status of ordained pastors, priests and rabbis.”

Is there a battle occurring in the public schools between the religion of secular humanism and the Judeo-Christian ethic? In the AHA magazine The Humanist (Jan.-Feb. 1983) is an essay (which won a third place in their North American Essay Contest) by John Dunphy, in which he proclaims that “the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom . . . between the rotting corpse of Christianity . . . and the new faith of humanism . . . (and) humanism will emerge triumphant.” (The Humanist tried to distance itself from the essay after Phyllis Schlafy criticized it.)

Likewise, in The Humanist (Mar .Apr. 1976), leading secular humanist Paul Blanshard pronounced: “I think the most important factor leading us to a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”

We often hear that there are only a few secular humanists, but the International Humanist and Ethical Union has at least 4 million members; and a founder of the organization, H.J. Blackham, stated in The Humanist (Sept.-Oct. 1981) that if schools teach dependence on one’s self, “they are more revolutionary than any conspiracy to overthrow the government.”

We also hem that there are not many secular humanists in our schools, but the director of the ARA from 1975 to 1980, Morris Storer, declared in his book, Humanist Ethics (1980), that “a large majority of the educators of American colleges and universities are predominantly humanists, and a majority of the teachers who go out from their studies in colleges to responsibilities in primary and secondary schools are basically humanists, no matter that many maintain a nominal. attachment to church or synagogue for good personal, social or practical reasons.”

At this point, you are probably wondering where secular humanism is in our schools, and the fact of the matter is that it appears in many subject areas. Concerning sex education, not too long ago, for example, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction “Sex Education Policy Statement” stated: “At one time, sex education was based . . . on innocence, ideals and moral codes . . . but . . . we are now moving toward a more humanistic approach.”

And regarding the adolescent literature movement (including themes of homosexuality, rebellion, etc.) in secondary schools, Prof. Sheila Schwartz in The Humanist (Jan.-Feb. 1976) expressed her thankfulness “the crazies” (e.g., fundamentalists) “don’t do all that much reading. If they did, they’d find that they have already been defeated.”

HOWEVER, IF you want to see for yourself whether secular humanism is in your own local schools, there is one very simple thing you might do. Since renowned secular humanist Sir Julian Huxley said humanism’s “keynote, the central concept to which all its details are related, is evolution,” go to your own local scoot and ask to look at the textbooks dealing with life’s origins. See if both the scientific evidence for and against evolution is presented. In a new book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler Publishers, Inc.), molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton details in scholarly form numerous scientific evidences against evolution (e.g., evolution violates the required immediate functionality of specialized organs – the eye could not have simply “evolved,” since it has no survival value in its initial developmental stages).

You will probably find that the scientific evidence against evolution has been covered up or censored out of your school textbooks, and this will objectively demonstrate that secular humanism is being promoted in the schools of this nation.

Dr. D.L. Cuddy is a senior associate with the National Council on Educational Research. The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the NCER. (Reprinted from The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, p. A-7, 5 Aug. 1986).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 18, pp. 550, 567
September 18, 1986