Truth Magazine

By David McClister

The apostle Peter tells us that Jesus left us an example which we are to follow (1 Pet. 2:21). It is the job of every follower of Christ – anyone who takes it upon himself to be called by Christ’s name “Christian” – to copy that example as best he can, regardless of whatever else he may do. It is really senseless to call oneself a Christian if he is not going to follow the example and teachings of Christ. “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 12:46) Thus as we live from day to day we must constantly keep the example of Christ before us. We must discipline ourselves to think of Him and His example all the time.

If we are to do this successfully, it will require that we turn the example of Christ into the habit of our lives. We must form the habit of asking, in every situation, “Would Jesus do this if He were in my place now?” Others have said that this is the “acid test” of what it means on the practical level to follow Christ’s example, and they are correct. It is a matter of living as He lived.

Please consider three kinds of forms of behavior which are popular among some, and let us ask “Would Jesus do this?”

Would Jesus Do Anything, The Morality of Which Was Questionable?

In God’s law there are some things which are always right and some things which are always wrong. For example, it is always wrong to steal, and it is always right to pray. But there are some things which are neither right nor wrong in themselves; they are morally neutral or indifferent. Eating meats is an example of this kind of activity (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12-13). However, just because an activity is itself morally neutral, does not at all mean that it may never have a moral effect upon the one who practices it. A thing may be lawful but not always profitable (expedient) for the one who does it (1 Cor.6:12a). If doing it will be unprofitable or harmful spiritually, then the Christian ought not to engage himself in it (even though the act itself is morally neutral). Furthermore, a thing may be lawful but addictive in some way, leading to a measure of control over the Christian’s life. If this happens, then that morally neutral activity should be abandoned (1 Cor. 6:12b).

We all know that Jesus never sinned, but it is just as true that He never engaged Himself in any morally neutral activity which, even though not sinful in itself gave a doubtful impression. In every situation we find Jesus doing that which was above question. This is remarkable in light of the fact that we are specifically told by the gospel writers that Jesus’ enemies watched Him carefully, hoping to find something in which to accuse Him (see Mk. 3:2; Jn. 8:4-6; Lk. 11:53f). They looked for anything and found nothing. Throughout His life He remained sinless and above question.

But did not the Pharisees question Jesus’ eating with the sinners and publicans? Did not that activity give a questionable impression to others? The truth of the matter is that it was questionable only to those who thought that they were perfect or that they were better than others. The scribes and Pharisees were generally arrogant, conceited hypocrites. Only this kind of person saw Jesus’ activities in a questionable light, not the common man. Furthermore, Jesus never once worried about how He appeared to the self-righteous. Thus the charges of the Pharisees were not valid.

Now as we attempt to imitate Christ, we must never engage ourselves in anything that may be deemed questionable behavior. Sure, the arrogant and the self-righteous of the world will question nearly everything we do, but their opinions are not the ones we should value. We should try our best to make sure that, in the eyes of those who think rationally, we are not doing things which, even though not wrong in themselves, may leave a questionable impression because of the circumstances or nature of the activity itself.

For example, playing golf is a morally neutral activity. God neither condones nor condemns it (actually He permits it, but does not bind it). But playing golf may leave a questionable impression to the world if it means that one must necessarily engage with drunkards or liars in order to do it. In that case, the activity itself is not wrong, but the circumstances in which it is practiced leave a morally questionable impression. If playing golf means that you must be identified with liars, drunkards, etc., then you should not play. Nor should you play if golf becomes an obsession with you, one that controls you (instead of you controlling it).

Playing golf is a fairly innocent example to use. But let us consider some popular practices which are not so innocent.

Smoking: Would Jesus Do That?

Assuming that smoking is a nonmoral practice (which assumption is very questionable), sit down with your Bible, read the life of Christ and then see if you could honestly ever picture Jesus with a cigarette. Can you see Jesus rebuking the Pharisees, saying “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” with a cigarette hanging from His lips? I cannot. Can you imagine our Lord talking with the Samaritan woman at the well about living water, and pausing ever so often in the conversation to “take a drag”? Is our picture of Him delivering the Sermon on the Mount one which includes flicking the ashes off of a burning cigarette stuck between two fingers? I think not. Such a portrait of Jesus is completely contradictory to everything we see of Him in the Bible. Furthermore, smoking is addictive (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12).

Dancing: Would Jesus Do That?

It is sometimes heard that there is really nothing wrong with dancing. It is, according to the thinking of some, simply a harmless social activity, good exercise, etc. In other words, the attempt is made to identify dancing as a morally neutral activity. I do not believe that dancing is morally neutral, but let us just grant that much for the sake of argument and ask, “Would Jesus do it?” Dancing is ordinarily synonymous with lust and indecent actions. That is exactly why it is so popular (and it is naive to think otherwise). Jesus never engaged Himself in such an activity so as to let others think that He condoned the lust that goes along with it. And if Jesus did not, neither should His followers.

Wearing Immodest Clothing: Would Jesus Do That?

“But! say unto you, that everyone that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Would Jesus have uttered these words if He Himself wore immodest and revealing clothes? Is the picture we have of Jesus one of wearing short shorts, no shirt, and sandals simply because the weather was hot? The fact is that Jesus’ influence was always pure, and nothing less than pure. He never did anything that was even questionable morally. Clearly, Jesus did not regard the matter of clothing simply as something which was only a concern to society. That is, it was not a morally neutral matter in His eyes. Even if it were, the New Testament cannot allow us to hold to a view of Jesus which would allow His clothing to cast suspicion upon His moral stance or character. Even if it were not wrong, Jesus would not have done it.

There are many things which some claim are morally neutral but in fact are not. Even if we could grant those assertions, we still could not picture Jesus engaging Himself in them. We must examine everything we do in the light of the example of Jesus. We must prove our own selves, whether we be in faith (2 Cor. 13:5).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, pp. 108-109
February 20, 1986

By Keith Pruitt

In the book, Set Forth Your Case, Clark H. Pinnock states, “Man is in the process of self destruction in the twentieth century” (1967, Craig Press, p. 48). Clark’s assessment is based upon the rapid move of man from romanticism to nihilism. Several examples are given including the works of Nietzsche and the various artistic endeavors of the absurd. The rise of suicide is merely an indication, he explains, of man’s frustration. As people continue to refuse God a place in their lives, they are faced with the bitter reality of their unrealistic dreams. Try as hard as he will, man is a creature who needs God.

Every facet of one’s life is touched by God and His revelation to man. Without God, life is as absurd as leaves upon an October ground with no trees to explain their existence. Indeed, life without God has no purpose, stability or order. Human life and the rights of freedom fade into meaningless jargon without the solid foundation of biblical morality.

Humanism seeks to fulfill the desires of the beast while causing standards, especially of morality, to become non-functional. Rationalism, the propagating of intellectual reasoning as the basis of any belief, has garnered little hope as man seeks to explain, or explain away, past beliefs or experiences in the light of better “knowledge.” Evolution has done little but add to the misery of human indignities as men and nations struggle for survival in a world seeking to find who is the fittest. So one is given a mixture of all of the above as he is educated in secular schools and is bombarded with these philosophies in music, art, television, magazines, etc. The result can be but absurdism. Truly Solomon has said, “All is vanity and a striving after the wind.”

But our concern just here is different from an examination of how secular society has been influenced by the tenets of humanistic philosophies. The influence of secular humanism can readily be seen in the religious fields as well. Theologians of the sixties declared God to be dead. Many leading teachers in denominational circles followed swiftly to discard the Bible declaring it as mere literature to be placed on the shelf beside Plato. They suggested that the Bible failed to address modern needs or that its teachings were old fashioned.

Belief in the miracles of the Bible was ridiculed as superstition. Evolution rapidly became championed by religious leaders as they endeavored to step into the mainstream of philosophical thought. Religious institutions became little more than social clubs even being fully equipped with the latest recreational equipment. Doctrines that were traditional 1 with denominations such as total depravity and the punishment of the wicked in hell were de-emphasized. Man became exalted even in the strictest Calvinistic groups. Campaigns against hunger, poverty, mental anguish and other social ills became the emphasis of the religious community. Debates on doctrinal issues, which had occurred frequently in the 1800s, became rare as few thought these issues to be of any significance.

Movements toward unity within denominationalism were frequent. The United Church of Christ and United Methodist Churches were products of such movements. Doctrinal issues were easily overcome (or avoided) in order to bring about these mergers. The goal of these groups was to be found in the secularization of religious thought. The social gospel (nothing more than humanism in religion) had gone to seed. The plants were springing up everywhere. God had not died, but theology had.

This has described the plight of mainstream denominationalism. One might wonder why such would be of any importance. But I now invite the reader to go back and retrace there thoughts taking denominationalism out of the pictures and replacing it with our own brethren. Brethren, the drift has ended; the separation is sure!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 116
February 20, 1986

By Bill Robinson, Jr.

(Bill Robinson, Jr. is a younger preacher who has labored with brethren in Bakersfield, Cal. during 1975-79, at Huachuca City, Ariz. during 1979-80, and at the Floral Heights church of Christ in Wichita Falls, Tex. during 198&85. 1 July 1985 marked his move to 508 Club Oak Dr., Fort Worth, Tx. 76114, and the beginning of his work with the Castleberry church. Glen Seaton followed him at Floral Heights. At my request Bill graciously granted permission for the Guardian of Truth to reprint several of his articles from Sound Doctrine, the Floral Heights bulletin which has only local distribution. The articles are timely, well-balanced, and scriptural. When we hear of young men making shipwreck of their faith in the faith, we need to remember others like Bill who are growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Ron Halbrook, 1011 Dyson Rd., West Columbia, TX 77486.)

An observation of the Ecclesiastes writer concerning God as Creator, and man as His creation, is worthy of our consideration. “He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end” (Eccl. 3: 11). Everything in our created world bears a relationship to time, with one exception, that being the eternal soul of man. In other words, everything in this world has a beginning and an ending. Beauty, as mentioned by the writer, bears a relation to time. Consider the beauty of a flower “in its time. ” It begins with a bud and as it blooms its beauty is unfurled and when it reaches maturity its pedals began to drop and wither away until it is no more.

Man, however, has been created with an eternal soul that is not satisfied with things of this world. Riches, fame, power, and great fortunes do not satisfy those who have been so blessed (for many these are a curse). Man wants something else besides what this world has to offer because God “hath set eternity in their heart. ” God has created man with spiritual needs as well as physical needs. The unfortunate thing is that men reject the simple solution to their spiritual needs, thinking the physical will take care of it all. On the other hand, those who do realize a spiritual need often times reject the simple solution as well, by trying to make something difficult out of their spiritual need.

The purposes of God, necessary for us to know, are revealed in the Bible (1 Cor. 2:6-13). Sufficient truth for us to know how to go to Heaven is contained in the Bible (2 Pet. 1:3-5). The fact is the Bible teaches us that there is a doctrine so essential to our eternal well-being that without it we can have neither the Father nor the Son (2 John 9). The point is clear: without the Father and the Son, man cannot be satisfied here below or have the hope of heaven in eternity (Jn. 14:6; Eph. 2:11-18).

Jesus is the key to all of God’s purpose for men. Men are, thus, obligated to learn of Jesus to find rest for their “heavy laden” souls (Mt. 11:28-30; Jn. 8:32). Considering all the provisions God made through His Son, which things are set forth in the New Testament, it behooves each of us to study the revealed word, for it alone answers the spiritual needs of every man (Col. 1:24-29, esp. v. 28).

Current trends among brethren, which are not new, indicate their seeming dissatisfaction with the revealed word of God. I say this in view of many brethren’s preoccupation and predisposition to wrangle over matters which God has not revealed. There is little difference in hypothetical cases presented by some brethren and our denominational neighbors. The hypothetical case of that proverbial man who gets hit in the head with a tree limb and dies on the way to the creek to be baptized has no bearing on my responsibility. However, “our” brethren, who have invented the proverbial Christian, who has lived a faithful life for many years but in a moment of weakness sins and dies, think that has some bearing on us.

Quite frankly, both arguments are “dead” arguments in every sense. Everyone who presents these hypothetical cases wants to know what we are going to tell their dead man. Well, I am not going to tell that dead man anything because if he could hear me he would not be dead. The writer of the book of Ecclesiastes said concerning the dead, “. . . neither have they any more portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun” (Eccl. 9:6). That doctrine which is so essential to our eternal well being is revealed for the living (namely, those “under the sun”).

Our obligation in teaching the word of God is two-fold. We are to preach to the living and we are to preach only what has been revealed (1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:1-2). We are not to play God. Those who present hypothetical cases of dead men are wanting us to do just that. The hows, whys, wherefores, etc. of God’s working have not been revealed. I remind you that the writer’s point in Eccelesiastes 3:11 is that even if a man could live “under the sun” for thousands of years he would still not be able to “find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.” All that a man can know about the mind of God is what has been revealed. However, let me say, that is enough!

Jesus told the rich man, after he had died and wanted to go back and tell his brothers about what awaits them, “If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise from the dead” (Lk. 16:31). The revelation of God, contained in the Bible, is sufficient to satisfy any honest man.

The fellow who is alive must be baptized to have the Father and the Son (Gal. 3:26-29). The fellow who is baptized, a Christian, when he commits sin must repent and confess it before God to have both the Father and the Son (1 John 1:7-9). Beloved, that is all that a man has a privilege to teach, with respect to that essential doctrine, which has been completely revealed in the Word of God. Man can only discuss the workings of God to the extent that God has revealed Himself. The grace of God has been revealed in the word of God for all living men (Tit. 2:11ff). So far as I know, or anyone else may want to know, such grace cannot exceed the boundaries of its revelation. That revelation is enough to satisfy us here below. Therefore let us heed the admonition, “wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 107
February 20, 1986

By Larry Ray Hafley

Kenneth Hagin, Jr. is a Pentecostal preacher. In the January, 1986, issue of The Word of Faith, published by Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Mr. Hagin said:

Churches today (even charismatic churches) have many ordinances and rituals that are traditions. They are not divinely appointed, but because they come in line with God’s Word, they’re good, and there’s nothing wrong with them.

In view of the above quotation, certain thoughts come to mind.

(1) If “ordinances and rituals that are traditions. . . are not divinely appointed,” are they not, then, humanly appointed? They are, therefore, human traditions. What did the Son of God say about human traditions, those that “are not divinely appointed”? He said, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. . . . Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:8,9,13). Thus, if a tradition is “not divinely appointed,” it is one of the commandments of men which our Lord said makes one’s worship “in vain,” void, empty.

(2) How can a tradition be “not divinely appointed,” yet “come in line with God’s Word”? I suppose Mr. Hagin would say that Christmas, Easter and infant baptism are traditions that “are not divinely appointed,” but, “they come in line with God’s Word.” Catholics claim the same for Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday and All Saints Day. Would Mr. Hagin say these are all “good and there’s nothing wrong with them”?

(3) What standard should we use to determine whether or not a human tradition is “in line with God’s Word”? The Bible? Pentecostal preachers? Catholics Councils? The Pope? If there is even one human tradition which Mr. Hagin rejects, what criteria or what rule does he use to determine that it does not “come in line with God’s Word”?

Catholics claim that the adoration and veneration of the “Blessed Virgin Mary” is “in line with God’s Word.” Do the Catholic traditions concerning Mary “come in line with God’s Word”? If not, what rule or standard of authority is used to determine that they are not “good, and there’s something wrong with them”?

(4) Paul, writing as the Holy Spirit directed, said, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Paul said we are to hold the traditions which he preached or wrote. Where did Paul say, “Hold the traditions of men that you believe come in line with God’s Word, though they are not divinely appointed”? Someone needs to find such a passage.

The Spirit said, “Hold fast the form (mold, pattern) of sound words, which thou hast heard of me” (2 Tim. 1:13). Further, we are “not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). A tradition “not divinely appointed” is “above that which is written,” is it not? If a tradition has not been heard from the New Testament, it is not the pattern of sound words. It is not “sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1). It is above and beyond that which is written. It does not “come in line with God’s Word.” It is not (contrary to what Mr. Hagin says) “good.”

(5) Jesus taught that there are only two possible sources of a doctrine or tradition. It is either from heaven (of God), or it is from men. “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?” (Matt. 21:25) How can a tradition be “not divinely appointed,” yet be “of heaven,” i.e., from God? Whether we are speaking of the worship of Mary or the sprinkling of water on little babies, we need to know if it is from heaven or from men.

(7) Mr. Hagin says that traditions that are “not divinely appointed” are “good.” They are not in the Bible, but they, according to Mr. Hagin, “come in line with God’s Word.” 2 Timothy 3:16,17, says that the Scriptures furnish us completely “unto all good works.” If a doctrine or tradition is “not divinely appointed,” it is not in the word of God. If it were in the Bible, it would be divinely appointed. Since all “good” works or traditions are found in the word of God, how can a tradition be declared “good” if it is not divinely appointed?

(8) Mr. Hagin indicates that there are two types of churches, charismatic and non-charismatic – see his quote above. Such a distinction does not “come in line with God’ s Word.” Is Jesus the head of two types or kinds of churches; namely, charismatic and non-charismatic? Is there a charismatic body of Christ and a non-charismatic body of Christ? If there a charismatic Christ who is the head of the charismatic churches and a non-charismatic Christ who is head of the non-charismatic churches? If there are not two types of Christ over the two different types of churches, then which Christ (charismatic or non-charismatic) is head of the charismatic and non-charismatic churches? Confusing, is it? not? Confusion results when men like Mr. Hagin do not speak “as the oracles of God” (I Pet. 4:11). Mr. Hagin, not the Lord, is the author of this confusion of charismata (1 Cor. 14:33). His distinction between charismatic and non-charismatic churches is “not divinely appointed” and does not “come in line with God’s Word.”

(9) Mr. Hagin claims to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit as were the apostles. He believes Holy Spirit baptism, tongues, miraculous divine healing and prophecy are for believers today. With all of this claims and alleged power in the Spirit, he has contradicted the Spirit of God who wrote the Bible (2 Pet. 1:21). Do you really believe a man who says things that do not “come in line with God’s Word” is of God and has been baptized in the Holy Spirit (Isa. 8:20; 2 Jn. 9; Gal. 1:8,9)?

(10) Christians occasionally wonder if denominational preachers really say some of the things they are charged with. Now, what do you think? Should gospel preachers ignore such things and say nothing against human traditions and doctrines (Rom. 16:17)? As Mr. Hagin’s words show, error is still being taught, and if faithful men do not attack it, apostasy is certain. Do you want your children and grandchildren to grow up believing that a thing “not divinely appointed” may still “come in line with God’s Word”? That will justify and authorize everything from infant baptism to Christmas. If you are opposed to such teaching, support those who fight against it. Encourage and uplift those who are standing for truth and righteousness and cease and silence all murmurings against “negative” preaching.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, pp. 106, 116
February 20, 1986