Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward mother, and toward all men, even a we do toward you: to the end be may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints (1 Thess. 3:12-13).

Each of us wants to be found “unblameable” at the second coming of Jesus. How is this possible? None of us can stand unblameable (sinless) in the absolute sense. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). In whatever sense we stand unblameable, our stand will not be merited by perfect obedience; instead it will be grounded in the grace of God as manifested to us in Jesus Christ. How does one become unblameable?

Increase And Abound In Love

Writing to those who had obeyed the gospel of Christ, Paul instructed the Thessalonians that they could become unblameable in holiness through love (1 Thess. 3:12-13). How does love lead one to become unblameable in holiness?

Some have the idea that love is an emotion, instead of an act of the will. It is equated with a warm feeling toward one another and is thought is to be affection. Love is an act of the will instead of the emotion. Jesus said, “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:43-44). Sinful emotional responses toward enemies are hatred, bitterness, revenge, anger, wrath, etc. Yet, Jesus said we should love our enemies – love those with reference to whom we have only negative emotions, for whom we have no affection, and perhaps toward whom we even harbor ill feelings. The command to love your enemies demonstrates that love is an act of the will which controls the emotions.

When we understand what love does, we can see how increasing and abounding in love will make one unblameable in holiness.

What Love Prohibits

Displaying love as a fruit of the Spirit will prevent men from doing some of the things which destroy holiness. John said, “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes” (1 Jn. 2:9-11). Love will keep me from displaying sinful dispositions and. actions toward my brother. Here are some things it will stop:

1. Revenge. Paul commanded, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head” (Rom. 12:19-21). A man who loves his brother will not seek revenge when he is sinned against.

2. Blasphemy. Blasphemy means to “speak against.” Some men blaspheme their brethren, seeking to destroy another’s honorable reputation through slander, innuendo, whispering, backbiting, and other sins of the tongue. One who loves his enemy will not blaspheme him; how much more should this be true of one’s brother!

3. Bitterness and hatefulness. These two sins of the heart can consume one’s soul like a cancer consumes one’s body. These dispositions of the heart make one see every action which another does with jaundiced eye, resulting in evil surmising, seeing offences where none exist, and suspicion. Love will keep me from doing many sinful things because I am commanded to manifest the right attitude and act the proper way toward my brethren.

Have you noticed that some who preach so much on love act in a manner which demonstrates an absence of love? They preach so much on love that one would think sugar could not melt in their mouth. However, these very men slander, backbite, gossip, and do many other things which demonstrate an absence of love.

The Obligations Of Love

Love is not a merely negative force. It obligates man to act with concern for another’s best interests. Jesus said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the ‘ prophets” (Matt. 7:12). The “Golden Rule,” as this verse has been called, does not say, “Whatsoever ye would that men should not do to you, do not ye even so to them.” Instead, it instructs me to look for what I wish others would do for me and then do that for my brother. If I wanted my brother to invite me over for lunch, I should invite him over; if I wanted my brother to visit me when I am sick, I should visit him when he is sick. Hence, love obligates me to do what is best for my brother.

In thinking of my brother, I should put his needs above my own. John wrote,

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our fives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world’s goods and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? (1 Jn. 3:16-17)

For a man to lay down his life in behalf of his brother, he must put the needs of his brother above his own needs.

Love obligates me to be concerned for the eternal destiny of my brother. Hence, love obligates me to reprove, rebuke, and exhort my brother. Sometimes brethren act as if one does not love his brother when he rebukes him. While it is true that a person can rebuke his brother with an absence of love (e.g., “I really told him off”), true love issues its rebuke from the concern that the brother’s soul not be lost in hell.

Love demands kindness (1 Cor. 13:4), prohibits unseemly behavior (aschemoneo: behave disgracefully, rude, unmannerly – 1 Cor. 13:5), and commands thoughtfulness and concern for the other person. The graces and virtues which become part of the Christian’s character stem from love.

Love And Holiness Tied Together

As a person looks at the demands which love makes on his actions, he can easily understand how growing in love makes him “unblameable in holiness.” Where revenge, spiteful words and behavior, blasphemy, evil surmising, hatefulness, and bitterness reign, holiness is absent. Where kindness, consideration, rebuke in love, and similar virtues are manifested, holiness exists. Hence, love leads one to be unblameable in holiness.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, pp. 130, 150
March 6, 1986

By Luther W. Martin

During the few years between the publication of the Book of Mormon (1830), and the death of its “Author and Proprietor,” Joseph Smith (1844), much effort was put forth to convince the doubtful world of the truth, accuracy and integrity of the Book of Mormon. In the Journal of Discourses, published by the Utah Mormons (Vol. 11, p. 293), we copy:

Before this was offered to the world, the Lord confirmed it by opening the heavens in broad day light, and sending down an holy angel, who descended in the presence of four individuals, three besides Mr. Smith, and the angel took the plates, and turned them over leaf after leaf, while, at the same time, the voice of the Lord out of the heavens told them it had been translated correctly, commanding them to send forth their testimony to all nations, kingdoms, tongues, and people. They accordingly attached their printed testimony in connection with the Book of Mormon.

At the conclusion of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, we copy the following excerpt:

. . . and we also know that they (the golden plates, LWM) have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety, that the work is true. . . . Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris.

In a work entitled A Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, by Richards & Little (p. 273) also of the Utah Mormons the following appears:

In council with the Twelve Apostles, Joseph Smith said, “I told brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

So, Joseph Smith and his three friends serve as the 41witnesses” and give testimony, that: (1) An angel came down in broad day light. (2) The voice of God from heaven spoke. (3) The Book of Mormon is “the most correct book in the world.” And (4) it will get a man closer to God than any other book!

All three of Smith’s witnesses became apostates by 1838, some eight years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. On page 236 of The Myth of Mormon Inspiration by William Brodie Crouch, we copy as follows:

In 1838, while confined to Liberty Jail in Missouri, Smith wrote of these men, and others:

” . . . ill bred and the ignorant, such as Hinkle, Covill, Phelps, Avard, Reed, Peck, Cleminson, and various others, who are so very ignorant, that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society, and whose eyes are full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin. Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, D. Whitmer, O. Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention, and we had like to have forgotten them ” (Crouch states that this came from photostated papers in the possession of Dr. James D. Bales, Searcy, Arkansas).

Notice that the last three men named were Smith’s “three witnesses” to his Book of Mormon. Whitmer and Cowdery were excommunicated from the Mormon Church, on April 6, 1938. . . . eight years to the day, from the beginning of the first Mormon congregation. Martin Harris had already been “kicked out” earlier.

Some Examples of the First Edition

In his book, Mormonism and Inspiration, Jack Free calls attention to the fact that from the first edition of the Book of Mormon to the present, some 6,593 changes have been made in punctuation, and some 5,256 changes in spelling, wording and phraseology, have occurred. These demonstrate the falsehood of Smith’s statement, that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct book on earth. “

We copy some examples showing the lack of correct grammar.

“And it had came to pass. . . ” (1 Nephi, p. 14).

“And all these things of which I have spoken was done . . .” (p. 23).

” . . . Nephi, did make bellowses wherewith to blow the fire. . . ” (p. 43).

” . . . the law had ought to be done away . . . (2 Nephi, p. 106).

” . . . there is no works of darkness. . . ” (p. 118). the wild branches have grown, and have overran the roots thereof. . . ” (Book of Jacob, p. 134).

“. . . that many of you have began to search for gold. . ” (p. 125).

” . . . and this he done, that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ. . . ” (p. 140).

“. . . according to his judgments, which is just. . .”(Book of Omni, p. 150).

” . . . in all things which is good. . .”(p. 150).

” . . . many things . . . has been fulfilled. . .” (Words of Mormon, p. 152).

“. . A should have wore these bands. (Book of Mosiah, p. 169).

” . . . and this he done. . .” (p. 216).

” . . . that they was expressly repugnant to the commandments of God” (p. 220).

” . . . I have wrote unto you. . .” (Book of Alma, p. 377).

“. . . and the curse of God had fell upon them. . .” (p. 270).

” . . . I would that ye should adhear to the word of God. (p. 398). (Notice the spelling of adhear.)

” . . . they were exceeding fraid. . . ” (p. 392).

“. . . even back by the same way which they had came. . ” (p. 392)

” . . . declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher had ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their own hands, but that they had ought to be supported by the people. (Book of Alma, p. 221).

“. . . and this he done. . .” (p. 225).

” . . . Alma had came to the city. . . ” (p. 243).

“. . . And after he had eat and was filled. . . ” (p. 244).

“. . . our first parents could have went forth. . . ” (p. 257).

“. . . for he had slew many of them. . .”(p. 273).

” . . . even until they had arriven to the land of Middoni. . .” (p. 282).

“. . . that there might not be no more sorrow. (p. 303).

“. . . the Devil would never have no power. . . ” (p. 359).

Conclusion

There are scores, even hundreds of similar mistakes in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. But the ones given above serve to show the language used “in the most correct book in the world” . . according to Joe Smith.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, pp. 117, 120
February 20, 1986

By Foy E. Wallace, Jr. (1896-1979)

The basic principle of all obedience is understanding. “He that heareth the word and understandeth it” – Matt. 13:23. “Go preach the gospel – he that believeth (the gospel) and is baptized shall be saved” – Mark 16:15-16. Believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is not all that must be understood in rendering obedience in baptism – there are other essential principles of a gospel faith.

Institutions with design carry the necessity of understanding the design. Example: The Lord’s Supper – “in memory” of Christ without knowing it. The preposition “for” in Acts 2:38 is “EIS ” in the original, and the preposition “in” of 1 Cor. 11:23 is the same “EIS” in the original. No man can take the Lord’s Supper in order to, unto or into, the memory of Christ if he does not know it, and for the same reason no man can be baptized in order to, unto or into the remission of sins or salvation, if he does not know it. One cannot accidentally obey God.

If it is not necessary to understand the purpose of baptism, why is it in every case emphasized from the teaching of John to the last verse on the subject in the New Testament? If it is not to be understood, then, that part of the subject is non-essential and when we preach the design of baptism we are preaching something not necessary to be believed, therefore, preaching a nonessential. Why debate with a Baptist preacher on the design of baptism fits design does not have to be believed or understood? Why debate on a non-essential?

Is there a single case in all the New Testament where the person baptized did not understand the purpose of the act?

It is sometimes said that the purpose is not a part of the command. Let us see:

Acts 22:16 – “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.” The subject understood is you – with the triple predicate -and fully rendered with each part supplied it reads: You arise and be baptized and you wash away your sins. Arise is part of the command; be baptized is a part of the command; wash way your sins is part of the command. No man can do that who believes his sins have already been washed away.

It is said that “to obey God” is the main purpose of baptism. Then why is that purpose never stated? Is it not singular that the New Testament failed to mention the main purpose in connection with the command but on the other hand emphasized the non-essential purpose, or the purpose not necessary to be believed? “Remission of sins,” “into Christ,” “shall be saved,” “newness of life,” and all other expressions are just one design stated in different ways. Baptism has only one design. Alexander Campbell established this premise, and lays it down in that very proposition, in his book on “Baptism,” I mention this because so many refer to Campbell on the subject.

We are sometimes asked: If it is necessary to believe that baptism is for the remission of sins then should we not make it a part of the confession and ask every one “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and do you also believe that baptism is for the remission of sins?” This is dodging the issue. Try it on the other contention. If the main purpose is “to obey God,” then, the argument would require that it also be made a part of the confession: “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and are you being baptized to obey God?” It’s a poor rule that will not work both ways. As a matter of fact, all sincere people in religion perform every act of religious service with the general motive to obey God. Baptism has a very specific purpose – just as does the Lord’s Supper – and the general idea that it is a command, but not essential to salvation or that it is a duty but the duty of one already saved is a perversion of Bible teaching. If one can be scripturally baptized with such a belief then all our preaching on the subject is inconsistent.

To say that a man can believe that he is saved before he is baptized, and then be baptized to be saved, is to argue that what a man believes has nothing to do with what he does.

It is frequently said that if one is satisfied we have no right to question them. Why should we hold an inquest? Paul evidently “held an inquest” over the twelve in Acts 19. True, the same thing may not be wrong in the case before us – but something was wrong there and something else just as vital may be wrong now. Satisfaction is not salvation. Apply the argument to other things people believe and do in religion and where would it lead to? If it can be applied to baptism why not to everything else?

It takes more than the right act to constitute valid baptism. The right act based on the right belief: Error preached, error heard, error believed, is error obeyed. Truth preached, truth heard, truth believed, is truth obeyed.

Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” This cannot be made to mean “You may believe error but if in your error your aim is to obey God, then your error will make you free, anyway.” Such apologizing for denominational error cannot advance the truth. It is much easier to teach people to obey the gospel than to defend them in their error (Bible Banner, May 1948, p. 14).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 105
February 20, 1986

By Daniel H. King

One thing which becomes very obvious after some study of the premillennial theory, is that the theory itself is the hermeneutical principle by which its advocates measure most everything else. The person who believes sincerely that Revelation 20 teaches a literal one thousand year reign of Christ on earth at the end of time has a tendency to interpret all, or most all, prophecy in the light of this conviction. If you expend much energy and time on the prophets then you know it can prove a real frustration to see a passage which has a fairly obvious meaning be given an obviously forced interpretation in order to make it fit into the millennialist’s “master plan” of eschatology. Clearly the text of the Bible is made to serve the needs of the theory instead of the reverse.

Some interpreters are so enamored of this way of viewing the “time of the end” that they write and speak about it and almost nothing else. Instead of getting the richly deserved name of “heretical fanatic” or some such designation, they are given by their admiring public the title of “prophecy expert.” No title could be further from the truth. The messages of the prophets are not proclaimed by these men. They merely use what there is in the prophets that can be forced into the mold of their speculative hypothesis. Simple, candidly figurative language and straight-forward use of simile, hyperbole, metaphor and other similar literary phenomena, come to spell out literal events, persons, and even numbers. It would not be legitimate to read the newspaper this way, but it is considered acceptable when the Word of God is thus read. This approach is taken in spite of the fact that the book of Revelation itself, said to be the theory’s inspiration, claims (in the author’s own words) to be written in signs and symbols (Rev. 1: 3)!

Premillennialism has been around quite some time now, has even threatened the unity of the church and the purity of her doctrine for a number of years. Most brethren are no longer amenable to the pollutions of this error at present, though, for enough preaching, teaching and writing has been done to head off a large-scale threat to the church. Many of our brethren have given credit to Foy Wallace for making preachers and elders cross the country aware that there was danger from a small element of premillennialists and a considerable number of sympathizers in our midst. Brother Wallace did a great deal of writing on the subject, as well as making it a persistent topic in his preaching. Whether he ought to be given credit for heading off a sizeable division or not may be a matter of dispute, but it is certain that he aroused the interest and concern of enough brethren in positions of influence to awaken them from their lethargy.

The result was that Christians across the country closed ranks and shut out those who were set upon spreading these speculative views. Today there is almost no fellowship and little communication between those that hold this view in the church and those who do not.

Some have questioned this state of affairs from time to time. I can recall that in the Bible course at David Lipscomb College, for example, brother Batsell Barrett Baxter expressed his own opinion that brethren should never have divided over an issue which is purely speculative like this one. But the fact is that no denominational headquarters handed down the decree for this to be done. It was carried out by local elders and their congregations out of sincere concern at the spread of an error which they were convinced was both false and dangerous, and moreover, their action proved very effective. Except for those churches which proclaim themselves openly sympathetic to the premillennial cause, premillennialists or even sympathizers to their cause are as scarce as “hen’s teeth” in most churches of the Lord. If any preaching is done on the subject of eschatology (“last things”) at all, it inevitably includes some discussion of the theory and a refutation of its major tenets.

In recent years another movement has grown up among us which has many very clear-cut similarities to the premillennial view. This is not to suggest that this theory is the same as the premillennial one – in fact it represents an almost precisely opposite extreme. Whereas premillennialists desire to make just about everything literal that rightly should be seen as figurative and thus interpreted, so this new band of “realized eschatology” fanatics tend to make that which properly deserved to be seen as literal into mere symbolism, with the practical result of robbing the New Testament of any doctrine of last things.

Those who have followed this line of reasoning have generally fallen into the trap of their premillennialist precursors by feeling the need to reinterpret all of Sacred Scripture with this plan in mind. The result is an entirely new and different way of viewing much of the Bible, and in particular, its teaching on the end of time. Many of its preacher-adherents have become full-time apologists for the theory (in times past they would have been referred to as “hobby-riders”).

They are producing books, tracts, and pamphlets at a rapid pace – all with the promotion of this theory as the immediate business at hand. Informed readers will know the name of Max King (no relation to the present writer) in this connection. King has been quite outspoken, engaging several capable men in debate and writing on the subject as well. Studies In Bible Prophecy, a journal now in its eighth volume, is mailed out by the West Avenue Church of Christ in Ashtabula, Ohio. Its editor is Charles Geiser, with staff writers C.D. Beagle, Tim James, and Terry Siverd. The masthead of this paper reveals the creed of these writers: “The holy Scriptures teach that the second coming of Christ, including the establishment of the eternal kingdom, the day of judgment, the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead, occurred with the fall of Judaism in 70 A.D.”

The reader would do well to read and reread the statements contained in this credo. Perhaps it is the epitome of understatement to say that these views are quite far-reaching in their implications. These people are saying that the only return of Christ that there will ever be happened in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70! They are saying that the only last judgment that there will ever be happened in 70! They are also saying that the only resurrection of the dead that there will ever be happened in 70!

Have you gotten the full force of this view now? Surely you can see that this theory represents far more than a different-but-benign position on the second portion of Matthew 24. Like the premillennial doctrine, the views of these people on the 21st chapter of Luke (primarily) pervade all their interpretive efforts. It is the interpretive principle of their system. Every passage in the New Testament having to do with the destruction and judgment of the world suddenly requires to be interpreted in the light of the symbolism of those texts prophetically pointing to the fall and judgment of Jerusalem. They are as wed to this hermeneutical prejudice as are the premillennialists to theirs.

Until recently, conservative brethren have done almost no writing at all on this error. This likely also represents the amount of preaching and teaching that has been done during the same time period. Most conservative Christians consider this false doctrine to be the problem of liberal brethren, and of course, in large measure it still is. But the old saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is surely applicable here. In my own work around the country I have been recently surprised to find that there are those convinced of the validity of these ideas worshiping and working with congregations standing in opposition to liberalism. I am not a prophet or a prophet’s son, but I think the ramifications of this are rather plain to see. We may not currently have a problem on this point, but if the growth of this tumor is not stopped, then we will surely have difficulties on up the road.

Let me encourage all who read this article, especially preachers and elders, to do some serious study of this question. And then some serious teaching and preaching on it. This is no doubt the reason that as little teaching and preaching has been done on it as has been up to now. Like premillennialism it is a doctrine that covers a wide range of Scriptures and requires a good bit of preparation to speak and write about. Over time brethren in places of responsibility have seen the need to become informed about the premillennial error and have read about it, written on it, and generally fitted themselves to deal with this system in a decisive way. We are going to have to do the same with this system of “realized eschatology.” Several printed debates are available on the market and may be obtained from Guardian of Truth bookstore. At present there is a crying need for more literature written in defense of truth and against this new heresy. More of our good writers need to turn some of their attention and at least some of their writing time toward this problem. I do not want to sound like an alarmist, but I genuinely fear that most of those who worship with conservative churches do not even know that this false doctrine exists.

In most places today we can freely and easily preach and teach on this issue without the slightest disturbance. The time to inform our people on this subject is now, while it is a simple matter of teaching them the issues involved. But if we wait, then we may awake one of these days to find ourselves fighting this issue in our own backyards, and with some of the very people whom we could easily have grounded in the truth!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, pp. 114-115
February 20, 1986