Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

In debate, atheists are prone to use as an argument against belief in God the fact of suffering. “If God is good and merciful,” they say, “where does all the evil in the world come from and why does man have to suffer?” If atheists could sustain their contention that there is no God, all they would have proved is that pain and suffering is in the world without reason, purpose or solution! Terrible thought – man is alone in this life with nothing better to look forward to but a cessation of suffering in non-existence. If atheists have nothing better to offer me than what I have, they might as well keep quiet. Let me keep my hope (vain as they assert it to be), for it does keep me going. I doubt seriously that I could face life and its troubles without this hope. If one can’t replace hope with something as good, no purpose is served in taking away what I have. Atheism, a bankrupt philosophy, has no hope to offer and its thrust is totally negative: it takes away what you have and offers nothing in return. Belief in atheism is like belief in an empty pocket (with a hole in itl).

However, the fact of suffering does not disprove the existence of God or argue against His benevolent nature. Properly understood, suffering indicts man as a wayward creature and God is seen as using suffering to bring man back to a right relationship with Himself. What man has brought upon himself through poor choice of free will in sin should not cause us to charge God with cruelty. It does not logically in S, follow that we deny the existence of God because we fan to use wisdom in our actions. Technically, such reasoning is a non sequitur. “it does not follow. ” Do we kick the cat because the dog bites us? Do we deny the existence of Jack Nicklaus because we double bogey a hole in golf ?. Do we blame the U.S. Treasury Dept. because we lose a ten-dollar bill? Then why blame God for problems brought on us by our own sins? Man did not suffer in Eden before sin. Man did not die before he sinned. There were no thorns or thistles before the punishment for sin. What does logically follow is that there was no pain or suffering before Adam sinned; there is afterward. Man has polluted his environment, not God. We need to be clear in our facts lest we draw hasty conclusions.

God Is Good

The beauty and goodness of God is seen in many things. The original creation declares “the glory of God” (Psa. 19:1). When Jehovah created, it was said to be “good” (Gen. 1:10); the finished creation was said to be “very good” (1:31). “Good” is known by its fruits ~nd the fruits of creation prepared a home for man that was beneficial in every aspect. The Garden of Eden supplied every need of man (physical and spiritual); there was no ugliness nor illness, a place of pristine purity, peace and tranquility. Yes, man was made a free will creature, knowing right from wrong (moral). In this, man is unique and distinctly different from trees, animals, planets, etc. But note: there is nothing inherently sinful in free will. God could have made man a creature without it, but he would have been indeed only a “naked ape.” By creating man with choice, God established the possibility of sin along with the possibility of doing right. One cannot have free choice without these alternatives. But it nowhere decreed that man must sin. In fact, God provided man with every reason and provision so that he had no need to sin. Whether or not a free-will creature win freely choose to do right, reflecting the image of his Maker, is the theme of Job 1:6-12. Personally, I feel that the test Job experienced, the charge of Satan against Job (Job only serves God because he is “paid” to do so), and the consequent suffering is an embryonic picture of man’s creation and test. Will Job (i.e., man) choose to do right because it is right? Is it possible for man to properly exercise free will? Will man reflect the beauty of God in his actions or will he always choose evil? Job vindicates the beauty and goodness of God in that he loves and practices righteousness. We also vindicate God’s trust in man when we make the same good choice. God is good and His creation reflects it.

The Fact of Suffering

That pain and suffering exist in the world only a fool would deny. This same fool would charge God with creating pain and suffering. Once again, however, let us press the point that if it could be proved that God did not exist, one must face a world of suffering alone, having no help nor hope from the Lord. Denying God does not change the facts of our environment. But is there no reason, purpose or solution to suffering? Are these things that afflict us only the random results of chemical interactions (as the evolutionists claim for all of life)? Why does man suffer?

The Reason For Suffering

The reason for all suffering is sin, originally. Man did not suffer before the fall in the Garden. When Adam introduced sin, he introduced death (Rom. 5:12). Whatever else we might say, this basically says it all. We suffer because of sin. Did you ever pierce your skin with a thorn? There were no thorns before sin. Are there storms, earthquakes and various rampages of nature? These did not exist before Adam and Eve chose the evil instead of the good. Whatever punishment and consequences for sin that have occurred, we have brought on ourselves. The Pandora’s Box of mythology is no exaggeration of the truth. Man lived in a Garden and he turned it into a wilderness; he snatched defeat from the jaws of success. That we are still doing it after all these millennia is a testimony to our arrogant refusal to follow God’s way.

The Purpose of Suffering

Is this really such a mystery? Punishment for sin has never been simply for punishment alone with God. Punishment for sin has always had rehabilitation as its goal. God wants us to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9). To that end, He sent His Son who suffered in our place (Isa. 53). The suffering of Jesus was to pay our price for sin (death) so that we might be redeemed. This is substitutionary suffering. The beauty of God is declared by Jesus on the cross – because I should be there and He took my place. Will a man lay down his life for a friend? Will God give His son for His enemies? “Behold then the goodness and severity of God . . . ” (Rom. 11:22). God will punish the evil-doer but provides a way of escape for those who love Him. Sufferings make us aware of our need for repentance. If man, with all his suffering, is as arrogant as he is, what would he be without sufferings? Has any parent who loves his child failed to punish? And what was the purpose of such punishment? Simply to inflict pain? Or was it to cause correction and improvement? Is our Heavenly Father any less aware of the rehabilitative purpose of punishment than we? Surely, to ask it is to answer it. In this world, we cannot escape physical suffering. But Jesus gave His life as a substitute for mine so that I might escape eternal punishment for sin.

The Solution for Suffering

The solution for suffering is to allow it to achieve its purpose in our lives – bring about penitence and the desire to serve God. “Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptations: knowing that the proving of your faith worketh patience. And let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing” (James 1:24). As I become aware of the reason and purpose of suffering, yes, and its cause, I learn to cope with it and use it for a good cause. I learn to endure it with a view to making me humble and penitent. One man suffers and dies cursing God, having learned nothing. Another suffers and dies, committing his life to God’s keeping. Which one has learned from life and its tribulations?

Also, let me point out something significant. The atheist cannot stop us from suffering, nor can he explain it or find a reason for it. He rails at it; he falsely accuses God; he sneers at those of us who suffer along with him, believing in God. But we understand the reason for it; we see its purpose and we turn its anguish into glory. This is only possible through faith in God. Which is the fool: the believer or the unbeliever?

The Beauty of Righteousness

Righteousness is a reflection in us of our righteous God. That righteousness is beautiful may be seen by comparison. Compare the good woman of Proverbs 31 with a drunken whore. Which is beautiful? Compare the godly elder with the “godfather” drug pusher, alcoholic, thief, murderer. Which is beautiful? Compare the teenager who attempts to worship God and live an upright life to the rebellious punk rocker who thumbs his nose at every decent emotion. Which is more beautiful? I tell you that a simple observation of life around us declares the beauty of God even as a view of the heavens declares His glory. Without God, life is horrible beyond description. Would you try to describe life without God? Read Romans 1. These people “gave up the knowledge of God” and God gave them up to a “reprobate mind.” They perverted every emotion and relationship in life into something unholy and dirty. Open your eyes to all that is good and you will see that it has its origin with God. This is true of the home, the church and every right relationship.

Conclusion

Let us never tire of telling people of our great and good God. Let us point disillusioned and disheartened people to God who cares. Tell people who suffer in body and soul that there is a solution. Tell them about Jesus. Tell them the gospel story, for “therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 579-580
October 2, 1986

By Robert L. Love

“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

Satan desires and seeks for every accountable person. Peter admonished, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring Ron, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:7).

The Devil sought for Peter. The Lord said that He would pray for him that his faith would not fail. We might be prone to feel like Peter that we will never forsake the Lord. However, Paul reminds us, “Take heed lest ye fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

Why did the Devil want Peter? Every man is valuable to the Lord. The Lord reminded Peter of this when He said, “What God hath cleansed, call not thou common” (Acts 10:15). No man is common. We may at times undersell ourselves, as may others, but the Lord knows our true value and so does the devil. He also desires you.

Satan knew that if he brought Peter down he would hurt the Lord. On one occasion he tried to win Jesus over to his way but miserably failed (Matt. 4). The next best thing he could do was to win over one of his ardent followers. I could do you more harm by hurting your child or one of your loved ones than any other way. So, Satan knew if he was successful in winning over Peter, he would hurt Jesus.

Today the Devil would like to win over the elders; those who teach, counsel, shepherd, advise, etc. He would like to capture some of us preachers and he has succeeded more than once. Modernism is the order of the day. He has influenced many away from the “Old Paths” into liberalism, softism, institutionalism, humanism, Calvinism (false teaching concerning imputed righteousness and extended grace of God); in denying the organizational structure of the local church; a tendency to level sharp criticism at one who will “contend earnestly for the faith” and to label such a person as negative; and, he has led others into disgraceful acts of immorality.

It is well to keep in mind and study the context of this passage in Luke 22. How would the Devil go about getting Peter? The Lord sought to teach that it is wrong to seek preeminence and supremacy. “Professional jealousy” (for lack of a better expression) exists among gospel preachers. Satan may have taken the leading part in this matter. Our Lord warned Peter that Satan desired to have him. In the quest for popularity some have lost their souls. This has caused some in our day to engage in smear campaigns leveling charges against their fellow preachers, maligning and patronizing them.

The Devil wanted Peter because he was the spokesman of the group and later became an elder. Also, Peter was a married man. Satan wanted him for that reason. He knew if he could capture Peter, who was a married man, that it would not be long before he would have his wife under his influence and eventually his whole family. He would like you today if you are married. He wants you if you are single. Satan desires you!

Oh, how Satan wants our young people. He will employ every “wile,” trick or cunning procedure to lure, entice and deceive them. He will take advantage of their innocence and youth. Young people, don’t let Satan get a single advantage of you. Remember, the timely advice: “Flee youthful lusts” (1 Tim. 5:22). “Let no man despise thy youth” (1 Tim. 4:12). “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth” (Eccl. 12:1). Again, “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not” (Prov. 1:10).

The Devil wanted Paul – but he was a humble man. He felt his own “littleness.” He desired not to be “exalted over much.” In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 we are told that he was sent “a messenger of Satan to buffet him.” He prayed three times that it might be removed, but God said, “My grace is sufficient for thee.” This “thorn in the flesh” was indeed “a messenger of Satan.” He overcame by the Lord’s help. So, as with Peter, Satan wanted Paul, but Jesus also wanted him.

We may have times when our faith is sorely tried. But, we should remember: as Jesus prayed for Peter “that his faith fail not” so He prays for us during our dark and trying hours. when we know not what tomorrow holds. He prays that our faith may be equal to the task; that we may be converted and in turn may be instrumental in converting others.

May God help us to overcome. Let us honestly stand for the truth, reprove and rebuke, fight the good fight of faith and never compromise because of the desire to be popular or for any other reason.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 18, p. 566
September 18, 1986

By Arthur M. Ogden

In the June 19,1986 issue of the Gospel Advocate, R.C. Walker, Director of the Bible Correspondence Course for the

Madison Church of Christ in Madison, Tennessee, asked, “Where is the preaching that has set forth the basic fundamental truths that makes the churches of Christ truly the New Testament church?” He then laments the fact that he has not heard distinctive preaching on such subjects as baptism, the five steps of worship, singing, the church, and Christian living in a long time. He says, “Oh yes! I have heard faith, repentance, confession and baptism mentioned in the invitation, but when have I heard them emphasized as God has emphasized them? Echo. When?”

In the June 24, 1986 issue of Firm Foundation there appeared an article entitled “Powerless Preaching” by John Waddey. After showing that the apostles and early evangelists, many of whom were “unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts 4:13), “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6) by the power of the gospel (Rom. 1:16), and showing also how “our forefathers in the move to restore original Christianity, found this power and harnessed it in their preaching” said, “In our day a generation has arisen that went to a different school. They have imbibed a different spirit. A new way has been found to preach to modern sinners. We hear them on the radio, presenting a beautifully worded message with no gospel. They quote no Scripture, they make no mention of God’s will for man. Christ and His shed blood are omitted as are His church and His plan of salvation.” He asked, “Is it too much to expect gospel preachers to preach the gospel?. . . Observant brethren know that liberal denominational churches have generally deleted God’s word from their message over the last 40 years. Their faith is dead, their numbers are shrinking. Their missionary forces are drying up, their seminaries are closing. Why should we follow them down the broad road that leads to destruction?”

In the July issue of Contending for the Faith, edited by Ira Y. Rice, Jr., there appears an article by Leon D. Schrei, a recent graduate of Abilene Christian University, under the heading of “Where Have The Sound Churches Gone?” He raises the question, “Have the faithful churches of our Lord all but disappeared? If so, why? It appears there are essentially two reasons. First, elders are not being the faithful guardians of New Testament teaching that God intended. Second, ‘gospel preachers’ no longer are preaching sound words.”

It’s about time some folks woke up in the institutional camp and asked these questions. Watered down preaching and unsound churches are the result of following liberal denominational churches down the road that leads to destruction. None of this is of recent origin. It all began forty or more years ago when it was imagined in the minds of some that we ought to outdo the denominationals in our good works and our appeal to the world. We were told we needed a “loving” gospel, greater potential to take the gospel into all the world, and greater works of service for humanity. To accomplish this the gospel had to be watered down, God’s ordained organized structure for doing His work bad to be revamped and in many cases ignored, and many unauthorized works had to be implemented.

Once the attempts were made to restructure the church of our Lord, the cries of outrage and opposition began to be heard. The new found philosophy had to be defended but it could not be defended by Scripture. It could only be defended by human reason, emotion and perverted Scripture. Sound gospel preachers and faithful churches called for the Scriptures authorizing benevolent societies such as Boles Home, Tennessee and Potter Orphan Homes, etc., and sponsoring church arrangements such as some orphan homes (Tipton) and the Herald of Truth, etc., but Scripture was not and could not be given. It was reasoned that “we do many things for which we have no authority.” “It is better to do something wrong then do nothing at all.” “Where there is no pattern we have liberty to do as we please.” According to those defending these projects, Scripture was not needed. After all, if the sectarians can do these things, why can’t we?

Emotions won out over the Scriptures and the majority of brethren headed down that road that leads to destruction in an attempt to outdo the denominations. Every kind of scheme imaginable began appearing in the effort to outdo the sects. The churches of men conducted campaigns, crusades and workshops. Brethren who sought to outdo the denominations conducted them, too. The denominations made ministers out of every person who served his congregation in any way, and our brethren followed suit with Pulpit Ministers, Associate Ministers, Youth Ministers, Music Ministers, Bus Ministers, etc. Brethren also followed the sectarians into “Outreach” ministries as they sought to reach the lost with the social gospel. They are reaching out with Fellowship (?) Dinners, Family Life Centers with recreational facilities of all kinds, Family Counseling, and Relief and Rescue missions of all sorts. What Scriptures are given for these works? None! Should one be amazed then when he hears Pulpit and Associate Ministers preach without citing Scripture? If they used Scripture in their sermons someone might ask for the Scriptures that authorize their practices. They no doubt have reasoned that it is not the best practice to get into the habit of using Scripture.

It would appear to me that in the midst of all these unscriptural practices which are upheld by our institutional brethren that no one would dare ask, “Where is the preaching that has set forth the basic fundamental truths that make the churches of Christ truly the New Testament church?” The truth is that distinctive preaching went out from the institutional brethren when their projects came in, just like it did with the Christian Church when they insisted upon Missionary Societies and Instrumental Music.

“Have the faithful churches of our Lord all but disappeared?” No, there are still many faithful churches and gospel preachers who still hold to distinctive Bible teaching and practices, who still ask for a “thus saith the Lord,” who “speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent,” and who insist upon “book, chapter and verse” to substantiate all their teaching and practices. These churches and preachers, though comparatively small in number, refused to follow the denominations down the broad way leading to destruction where faith dies and the faithful number shrinks. Refusing to follow the crowd, we have continued preaching the word “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2) proving by the Scriptures what we believe, teach and practice, and our faith grows stronger and our numbers increase daily. I would to God that our brethren who chose to follow the denominations into apostasy would awake, because their numbers are indeed shrinking, their faith waning, and damnation is awaiting.

Maybe, just maybe, there are a few brethren who have been warming toward a boil in the denominational sauce pan who will become aware of what is happening to them and jump clear of the whole mess before they are consumed by it. There are some evidences of an awakening already. In most cases, however, I fear these brethren will simply stick their heads above water just long enough to croak like the proverbial frog and then continue right where they are until the boiling waters of denominationalism completely destroy them. Perhaps, if we who have refused to walk the denominational way will keep our eyes and ears open, we shall be in the right place at the right time to extend a helping hand to rescue those who are seriously and sincerely concerned about where the ship of Zion is headed. May the numbers of those concerned increase and their determination to correct their course be strengthened by the power of the gospel until all of them have returned to the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 577, 600
October 2, 1986

By Bill Robinson, Jr.

Local church membership is not an end within itself. However, that does not preclude its relevance to the need and goal of every faithful Christian. Extremism often begets extremism. We cannot “throw the baby out with the bath water” when it comes to local church membership because it has been misunderstood or abused. We must strive to understand from the Scriptures its significance in the life of a faithful Christian. We should not make more or less out of it than the Bible does.

It is understood, at least we hope it is, one is making more out of it if he thinks having his “name on the roll” establishes faithfulness before God.

A local congregation is a relationship among saints who adhere together to do the will of the Lord. When the disciples “were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen ” some of the disciples went to Antioch “. . preaching the Lord Jesus. . . and a great number that believed turned to the Lord” (Acts 11:19-21). Up to this time, there was no record of a local church in Antioch. When the Jerusalem church heard of the progress of the gospel in Antioch, they sent Barnabas (v. 22). When he arrived “and had seen the grace of God … he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (w. 23-24). Barnabas then brought Saul to Antioch “. . . that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people; and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (v. 26).

It should be obvious that the local church is not some affectation of the wisdom of man, or even of God, to harness disciples into a feigned holiness. It is a relationship among those who “gather together” (“assemble”) and out of a “purpose of heart they . . . cleave unto the Lord” (vv. 23-24). Such truths make us wonder why some disregard in their teaching and/or lives the significance and necessity of the local church. It is certainly not out of a “purpose of heart to cleave unto the Lord” because those with such a purpose are “gathered together with the church.”

The Hebrew writer exhorts “. . . not forsaking our own assembling together” (Heb. 10:25). Many things (good and bad) have been written from this passage concerning the word “forsaking.” What is often overlooked, or at least seldom discussed, is the phrase “our own. “The word “our” is a personal plural possessive pronoun. It is personal because it includes me; plural because it involves you and me; possessive because it belongs to us together. What belongs to “us” together? The responsibility of “our own assembling together.”

In the physical realm, as responsible adults, we care for and protect that which is our own. In fact, we are quick to identify with that which belongs to us. Why should we not have the same attitude in the spiritual realm? If the Bible refers to the assembling of saints as “our own, ” shouldn’t we seek to be identified with them? The Bible clearly teaches “. . . so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another” (Rom. 12:5; Eph. 4:25). If I am about to swing a hammer to drive a nail which my fingers are holding in place, those fingers want to be identified with the rest of the body and its purpose not with the nail and its purpose. Perhaps it is an oversimplification but the point can be seen. Collectively, as a congregation, those who do not identify with our purpose are not availing themselves to the care and protection of the rest of the body.

In Acts 9:26 the Bible says, “Paul assayed to join himself to the disciples” in Jerusalem. That is, Paul sought to be identified with the purpose of faithful brethren to cleave unto the Lord. The faithful brethren, exercising care and protection for one another, refused to accept him at first. “They were all qfraid of him, not believing he was a disciple” (v. 26). When evidence was given to show that Paul’s “purpose of heart was to cleave unto the Lord, ” the Bible says, from that point “. . . he was with them going in and going out . . . preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. ” If we note the phrase “with them,” we recognize that it indicates the brethren’s acceptance of him in their purpose. Even more than that, from the account which follows it demonstrates their desire to care for and protect one who is “with them.” Paul made enemies in Jerusalem among the Grecian Jews because of his preaching in the name of the Lord. In fact, the Bible tells us these Jews “were seeking to kill him. And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus” (vv. 29-30). Paul was “with them” after his intentions were known and verified. Paul identifying “with them” (the local church) availed himself to the care and protection of brethren.

A passage of Scripture in 1 John 2, emphasizes the points we have been trying to make regarding this relationship among saints (viz. the local church). “They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be manifest that they are not of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). A careful consideration of this passage shows one’s mere physical presence, or “showing up,” in the assembly does not make one “of us” or “with us.” W.E. Vine notes on the phrase “with us” in this text, “The preposition meta: ‘with,’ implies not merely that they would have company with (sun) the believers, but that they would have actual fellowship with them” (The Epistles of John, p. 36). The local church, then, is a fellowship (with us) stemming from a common origin and likeness in a purpose of heart to cleave to the Lord. Fellowship makes each member of the local congregation “of us,” “from us,” and “with us.” In view of this, can someone tell us how they expect to have such fellowship in the local church if they never identify “with us”?

Like Christians in the First Century, faithful Christians today will seek to identify with other faithful brethren in a local church. For, they recognize its purpose as an integral means of fulfilling their spiritual needs in helping them to reach their blessed and eternal goal of heaven.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 18, pp. 563, 569
September 18, 1986