Truth Magazine

By Bill Robinson, Jr.

I remember as a kid that being “whipped” by the sandlot bully was humiliating. However, a bloody nose or a black eye or a fat lip could be rationalized among friends as a badge of courage. But let’s face it, there was no rationalizing the epitome of humiliation when the bully made you “say, ‘Uncle.”‘ There was something about that which hurt worse than any fat lip or black eye or bloody nose, or any combination thereof.

Unfortunately, some brethren are not satisfied when an erring brother demonstrates true repentance. They insist on making the penitent one “say, ‘Uncle,”‘ rather than rejoicing that his faith has not failed in bringing about “a change of will resulting in a reformation of life” (true repentance).

When Jesus foretold Peter’s denial, He admonished Peter, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not,, and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren” (Lk. 22:31-32). We are familiar with the rest of the account regarding Peter’s penitent attitude which followed his denial of the Lord. There is nothing in the text which lends itself to the attitude of a bully. To the contrary, there is evidence of Jesus’ hope (desire with an expectation) for Peter’s “turning again” (repentance) based on his unfailing faith. Why do some expect more from an erring brother, in the matter of true repentance, than our Lord?

A truly penitent brother who has sinned has already been “whipped” and humiliated by his sin. Shall overzealous brethren play the part of a bully demanding more? If so, on what basis? We would do well to consider the warning, “Consider thyself also lest thou be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). We need to rejoice that a penitent brother’s faith has not failed. We need to rejoice that one has come home and that if I should err somewhere, sometime in the future, there is a brother, like me, who will make supplication that my faith fail not and will encourage me to turn again.

Now, there is another side to this point I am trying to make. Some brethren would like to be more pious than God by not demanding true repentance on the part of an erring brother. They would like to ignore sin and dismiss repentance altogether. Just let someone stand up against one who has sinned and demand repentance and you will hear the more pious-than-God cry, “You are trying to make him ‘say ‘Uncle’!” When the truth of the matter is that Jesus demanded true repentance of Peter. The teaching of Jesus is quite clear, “Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him” (Lk. 17:3). Can there by any doubt about the fact we are to rebuke those who sin? Again, the Bible teaches, “. . . forgiving each other, even as God… forgave you” (Eph. 4:32). Can there be any doubt about the matter? We are to forgive even as God forgave us in Christ. God forgives us in Christ when we repent. Shall overzealous brethren feign piety above God attempting to forgive another without repentance?

Let us not play the bully demanding more of an individual than our Lord. Neither let us attempt to be more pious than God by forgiving without repentance. True repentance, which stems from an unfailing faith is enough. The cry of “say, ‘Uncle,” is too much from whatever side.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, p. 260
May 1, 1986

By S. Leonard Tyler

We certainly do have religious freedom in these United States of America! This is one of the greatest (to me the greatest) freedoms granted to each of us by the constitution of the USA. Let each one of us work and pray that this freedom shall be enjoyed by our posterity.

It is up to us to preserve and give to our young the liberties and freedoms that our fathers won and gave to us. Our nation has always had to keep watch over and defend her liberties. If the time ever comes when ease, pleasure, selfishness, and prosperity lull us to sleep, liberty and freedom will be destroyed. A sad awakening may suddenly come by force and tyranny. It will thunder in our ears and rob us and ours of all the liberties which inalienably belong to all mankind. Therefore, may God help us to appreciate and use our liberties for the good of all both now and forever.

The Constitution gives us civil rights and liberties but it is not – neither does it claim to be – the standard of measurement in religion. Regardless of what a person is religiously, he is right constitutionally. But this does not mean that he is right with God.

The Bible is the rule by which God judges a person. Hence, we contend for our constitutional right of religious freedom while, at the same time, we earnestly contend for “the faith once delivered to the saints” in the Bible. The constitution is to govern our civil affairs. The Bible is to govern our religious life. One cannot judge or regulate his religious life by the constitution. He must go to God through the Bible.

The Bible teaches one to respect “the powers that be” because they are “ordained of God.” These powers are for the good of man, I ‘For rulers are not a terror to good works. . . Render therefore to all their duties: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Rom. 13:3,7).

Each Christian has an obligation to respect and be under subjection to the government so long as the government is according to God’s ordained purpose. This is the more reason that each person living and enjoying the great privileges afforded under our Constitution should work for, cooperate with, and keep a vigilant eye open for anything that might undermine it.

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all our love and appreciation for the Constitution, it is not a religious standard of measurement but their inalienable right to choose their own religion. This leaves the matter of religion completely and wholly to the individual. The Constitution is a civil document designed, and it should be executed, for the good of the country and her citizens. We must and should gladly pay tribute, customs, fear, and honor to our great government and pray for those in places of responsibility that our government may stand.

God has not left it to man to govern himself in matters of religion. Paul makes this plain when he wrote to the Corinthians, “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Cor. 10: 12). The reason is simple. Man is not capable of directing his own affairs spiritually. Jeremiah 10:23 says, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Isaiah 55:8-9 tells us that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are God’s ways our ways. This means that man must forsake his thoughts and ways and accept God’s (Isa. 55:6-7). Proverbs 14:12 proves that man must depend upon God to direct his way. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

Does God force man to serve Him? No. God reveals His will to man with all the blessings promised to man on the condition that man will obey Him (Matt. 7:21). But He leaves man to choose. “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.” Or as Jesus said, “Come unto me.” Yes, it is an individual matter. However, God has a part in man’s salvation and He will execute His part well.

God’s part is to provide salvation. This He has done. It cost the death of His only begotten Son (Jn. 3:16) but He gave Him freely.

God must reveal His thoughts and ways to man. This He has done (1 Cor. 2:8-13). Man didn’t even know God through his (man’s) wisdom so “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). Man has a choice to hear the word of God, believe, obey, and be saved, or to reject it and be lost. It is up to man. Yes, you must choose whom you will serve – God or Satan.

The Bible is God’s revealed will to man. Jesus commissioned His disciples to go into all the world and teach all nations (Matt. 28:19-20). This is the means through which one can know the thoughts and mind of God. Jesus said, “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). Again, the same writer tells us that this is the reason the Bible is written (Jn. 20:30-31).

Christ is the only lawgiver (James 4:12). He has all authority (Matt. 28:18). He is the “only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15). Therefore, we must hear Him (Matt. 17:5).

Christ’s teaching is revealed in the Bible, and we must abide in it if we are to have God as our Father and Christ as our Savior (2 Jn. 9). May God help us to understand, believe, and obey.

Our only liberty with God is to choose whether or not we will obey Him (Acts 5:29). Our freedom in Christ is our own choosing to abide in His doctrine (2 Jn. 9); “love Him with all our heart” (Jn. 14:15; 15:9-10); obey His every command (Jn. 8:31-36; Heb. 5:8-9; Luke 6:46); and enjoy every blessing in Christ (Eph. 1:3; Rom. 8:1). Like Elijah said to those following Baal, “How long will you halt between two opinions: If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). Which do you choose?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 8, p. 244
April 17, 1986

By Jady W. Copeland

There are some subjects that need constant repetition and this is one of them. The need for such basic lessons is seen as we look about us at the religious division that is evident, while we remember Jesus’ prayer for unity (Jn. 17). Prejudice keeps many from coming to the Christ. Nathanael said, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Prejudice toward the city and its reputation nearly kept this good man from believing the Christ. Republicans take “with a grain of salt” anything the Democrats say, and vice versa. In a book by a brother written many years ago, I noted that one reason for his faith was that he wanted to believe. At first, I wondered about this argument, but on further consideration, I realized that if one does not want to believe, he would never believe in God, regardless of the evidences presented. It is true that merely wanting to believe a thing doesn’t make it so, but a failure to desire faith would stand in the way of weighing the evidences with an unprejudiced mind. Why do lawyers screen so many prospective jurors before a case is tried? They want the men and women to be completely unprejudiced in this case. God desires that we look at His word with a mind ready to accept the testimony. “What is truth?” it was asked. The wise man said, “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). The Guardian of Truth came out with a special early in 1983 on the word of God, but we need constant reminders of such important matters. We shall not attempt here to enumerate the claims of the Bible itself relative to its inspiration more than to affirm that it does claim to be from Deity, and not from man. If we are to receive from God’s word that which is intended, we truly must have the proper attitudes toward it.

Faith In Its Divinity

By this I mean that we must believe that it came from God; that Diety is responsible for its contents. Paul was thankful that the Thessalonians “received from us the word of the message, even the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). He was thankful that they did not take it to be the word of men, but the word from God. Paul said, “Every scripture is inspired of God. . . ” (2 Tim. 3:16). That which has been “breathed” of God – that which Diety gave us – is profitable for all spiritual goals and activities. We talk about plenary (full) inspiration in contrast to “thought inspiration. ” We speak of verbal (having to do with words) inspiration. By this we mean that God guarded the words used by the inspired men so that none would be used that did not convey the message intended. Words are expressions of ideas. God makes Himself known to His creatures by intelligent thoughts, expressed in words, rather than by subjective authority (inner feelings of men). In other words, we do not believe in God because we “feel something” in our self; we believe God because He has revealed Himself to us in words understandable to us and received in an intelligent way. That such is true is seen in a close study of such passages as 1 Corinthians 2:6-13 and Ephesians 3:3-4. In other words, Paul says that the “words” he used (as an inspired man) expressed what God wanted him to say. Since words have changed meanings, more accurate translations are needed sometimes to express to us what the original text actually said. English words in some few cases have changed meanings since the King James translation was done, in 1611, and thus more exact translations are helpful in telling us what the original Greek words really mean.

For us to have the proper appreciation and respect for the Bible, we must believe it came from God and not man, since man could not know what is best for us and man could not give us a guide in matters pertaining to our relationship to our Maker.

Faith In Its Completeness

One is ready to say that surely, if an all-wise God gave us the word, then He gave us the complete word; and that’s a good argument. But let us go a bit farther. First we ask I “Is all the information there that God intended us to have?” Since the Bible came from God, and therefore we have no doubt about is source, listen to 2 Peter 1:3: “seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue.” If He gave us all things that pertain unto our life and godliness, then who could doubt its completeness? By that which He gave to the apostles we have the privilege of participating in His divine nature. The word must be complete to do this.

But another question is, “Can I understand it?” What kind of a god would it be that would give us the benefit of his mind, but in such words that could not be understood? “If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples” (Jn. 8:31). It would be ridiculous to think God would give us His word in such language we could not understand, and yet condemn us for not obeying it (2 Thess. 1:9-11). This was the reason it was written in the common man’s language.

“Does it supply man’s needs?” This also deals with completeness. It will save the soul (Rom. 1:16; Jas. 1:21). It will give light to show us the way (Psa. 119:105). It will convert the soul (Psa. 19:7). It is the seed of the kingdom (Lk. 8:11). It will give all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). It will thoroughly furnish a man unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17). What more is needed? God knows our needs, and to deny His ability to supply these needs is to question His power. If we deny His knowledge as to what we need, we impugn His wisdom. If we say that He knows our needs and is able to supply the needs yet refuses to do so, we impugn His mercy and loving kindness. “And my God shall supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:19).

Faith In Its Authority

We assume the reader believes in the unlimited power and wisdom of God. He is our Creator and, therefore, has the right to command. Any authority must have been attained by legitimate means if it is going to rule properly. A governor gets his authority in a properly-designated way. He did not assume his authority. He has certain rights given him by the people of the state. God has authority by right of creation. Since He created the world, and all things therein, He has the right and the power to command. Jesus had power over the sea, the wind and mountains. He was Creator (Heb. 1:2).

The One who made the world (by creation) gave us the word of God and has the right to command. The Father has given into the hands of the Son authority in the spiritual realm as well. Paul said, “and he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell.” Note that it was the pleasure of God that in Christ should all the fullness of the Godhead dwell. His authority didn’t come by mistake or usurpation (Matt. 28:18).

While on earth, Jesus prepared the apostles to carry the gospel once He ascended to heaven. He told them He would send another comforter (Jn. 14:16), “even the Spirit of truth” (Jn. 14:17). He must go back to the Father, but the Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn. 16:13). God made provisions for the apostles to speak as they were directed by the Holy Spirit. When He left, they were to wait in Jerusalem for the coming of the Spirit, which came on the first Pentecost after the resurrection (Acts 2:14). As Jesus spake from His Father, so the apostles spake as directed by the Spirit. Jesus said, “I have given them thy word. . . ” (John 17:14). Jesus received authority from the Father (Matt. 16:18) and He gave the apostles direction to speak the words of God as they were given them of the Spirit. When these inspired men spake it was the Father, the Son and the Spirit speaking.

From Pentecost, these men went out preaching the gospel. They were later to write down these gospel truths and later generations can read and learn from the inspired words (Eph. 3:1-4). As we read these words today, we are reading the words from the Spirit, and learning what God wants us to know. How else are we to learn from Him? Can we find out what His will is by looking at a flower? We can learn there is a Maker somewhere, but we can’t learn His will to mankind. To say “I feel like I am saved” is to give testimony of myself, not God. Am I my own authority pertaining to God? I must have the attitude that His word came from an all-wise Creator and that it came from one with properly constituted authority, else why should I believe it? If I believe it came from such a source, why would I not obey it?

The Bible came from God. It is complete and will make us perfect in Christ. It came from one with properly constituted authority, having the stamp of approval of one who made us and gave us all that we need to live with Him eternally.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, pp. 257, 280
May 1, 1986

By David E, Horton, Jr.

Recently I read an article in Contending for the Faith (January/1986, Vol. XVII, No. 1), concerning “Crossroads’ Devastating, Devious, Deceitful Methods of Religious Entrapment Exposed, Renounced By Bronwen (McClish) Gibson.” The message was clear, alarming, and very helpful in understanding the ruinous activities of this movement. In exposing the error of Crossroadism, Mrs. Gibson quoted Jackie Stearsmen, in an article “A Critique of Crossroadism,” asking, “Where in any of these passages is the authority to divide the ‘confessional’ by the sexes? ” She also is quoted as asking, “By what authority do we emphasize that confessing sins to a self-appointed or ‘priest’ will make us more ‘spiritual’ or ‘totally committed’ to the Lord?” (Ibid., p. 4) It appears that the thrust of the article points to the deceitful way people are

being lured into practicing things for which there is no Bible authority. Based upon the message, those who are truly concerned with having Bible authority for the organization and work of the Church must renounce and stand opposed to the Crossroads Movement. The appeal and courage of Mrs. Gibson is much appreciated.

However at the end of Mrs. Gibson’s speech, Ira Y. Rice, Jr., editor of the periodical, took it upon himself to use the emotional impact of the speech to draw a self-incriminating parallel between Crossroadism and the “Anti-Cooperation Movement.” I do not want to misrepresent Mr. Rice so his own statement is included below.

If Birmingham brethren take no more action than they have so far, they have not heard the last of Crossroadism. It was the same way over 30 years ago when some 40 of the congregations in the Birmingham area were lost to the Anti-Cooperation Movement. Brother Gus Nichols tried to warm them but they would not be warned until it was already too late! (Ibid., p. 10, Editorial Note).

I take exception to the parallel drawn by Mr. Rice. It was not the “Anti-Cooperation” brethren who started a “Movement” over 30 years ago. If there is any parallel at all it would have to be with the brethren who began introducing responsibilities into local churches for which they had no Bible authority. The appeal of those “Anti” brethren was, and still is, Anti-Error motivated. Stand for the Truth and against philosophies and vain deceits of men who were, and still are, attempting to spoil the Lord’s Church through unscriptural practices and teaching (Col. 2:8). Those churches who stood against such unscriptural practices were not lost to anything, but were simply manifested in the Truth as approved by God (1 Cor. 11:19). Those who are lost are those who seize the lead of their own spiritual course and “abide not in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9).

Where is the Bible authority for the local church to use its scripturally collected funds to build and support separate benevolent or missionary institutions? Where is the authority for the pooling of resources by several churches and funneling those resources through a “sponsoring church” or separate organization to support a promoted and pre-planned expenditure toward a “brotherhood” program? Where is the scriptural authority for churches to build and support, financially or otherwise, a separate institution focused on the education, spiritual or secular, of its members? Where is the scriptural authority to incorporate social meals and entertainment into the work of the local church?

God’s chosen people, the church, is the only institution authorized by God as the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This principle is true in any locality. These people in the aggregate are the only local institution ordained by God to propagate the gospel, edify the saints, and to minister to the peculiar needs of the saints (Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 1 Tim. 5:16; Phil. 4:14-20). All that has ever been asked, and ever will be asked by the so-called “Anti-cooperation” brethren is: Where is the Bible authority and practice? (Matt. 21:23). Is that not precisely the same ground upon which those in Contending For The Faith have planted their feet in fighting against the Crossroads movement? Let’s be fair and consistent with our actions and affirmations. We must all be “Anti-Cooperation” toward sin. Let us not cooperate with Satan and depart from the doctrine of Christ. Only in Him is there fellowship with the Heavenly Father (2 Cor. 6:16-18; 2 John 9).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 8, p. 245
April 17, 1986