Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Rubel Shelly reopened the debate about whether there are good Christians in all the sects with his 1983 tract Christians Only, which is reprinted in his more recent book I Just Want to be a Christian, both published by 20th Century Christian in Nashville, TN. Says Shelly, “There are sincere, knowledgeable, and devout Christians scattered among the different denominations. ” Their “creedal formulations, human names, and cumbersome organizational structures” unknown to the Bible do not separate these good Christians from God’s grace unless embraced “in conscious and deliberate error” (pp. 18, 11). They became Christians when they were immersed in spite of certain “imperfections” in understanding about the purpose of baptism and they continue to serve God in spite of “imperfections” in regard to the work, worship and organization of the church.

How long will it take Shelly to decide that some more people became good Christians when they were “baptized” in spite of their “imperfections” in understanding the action of baptism-those who had water sprinkled or poured on them-the pious unimmersed? And what about good Christians among the Quakers in spite of their “imperfections” in understanding the need for any kind of baptism at any time for any purpose (they don’t bother with it at all)?

Shelly says we should go back and read what some of the old time preachers taught, but he is rather selective in what he reprints in his book. We suggest the article “Talking Back at God” by Cled E. Wallace (1892-1962) be included in the second edition. It appeared in the Bible Banner 11, 3 (Oct. 1939):3.

Talking Back at God

Cled E. Wallace

In his brilliant speech that rushed him to his death, Stephen charged that the Jews had “received the law as it was ordained by angels and kept it not.” Paul charged that although they had “a zeal for God” it was “not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God,” They formulated a theory speculative and complicated. They judged and changed the law by the demands of this theory. Jesus charged that they made the law of God void by their tradition. It caused them to reject Christ because his measurements were wrong, by their theory, and later when the gospel was preached to them their objections to it grew out of idolatrous homage to a theory. Paul rebuked them with this question: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” All objections to the gospel and its righteous demands grow out of an egotistic veneration for human theories. All such idle chatters is silly blather because it is a presumptuous talking back at God.

Nebuchadnezzar felt mighty and important when he walked upon the broad walls of Babylon and swelled with pride as he surveyed the works of his hands. God pulled him from his throne, gave him the heart of a beast and after the haughty king walked on all-fours awhile, ate grass as an ox, bathed in dew, with hair grown like eagles’ feathers and nails as birds’ claws, he accumulated a vast respect for God. “And at the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored him that liveth forever; for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom from generation to generation; and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his own will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? “

Men who chide God today with theories subversive of his truth, should learn a lesson from this humbled monarch of the East. “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven; for all his works are truth, and his ways justice; and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.” There is no more debasing pride today than the pride of party and no tenacity more stubborn than that which clings to unscriptural notions in religion. False doctrine is sugar-coated with pious phrases, pays lip service to God, while “in fact and in act” it dethrones him and sets up human, traditional authority. The rank and file following blind guides stumble along traditional paths ready to mouth cut and dried objections to the gospel when it is preached to them. A case in point is a question handed me by a college graduate which reveals an amazing lack of Bible information and a state of mind requiring a thorough overhauling that it may be subject to Christ.

Do you think that members of other churches are going to hell? (No matter if these people are good Christians.) Do you think a God with good common sense will condemn a good Christian just because he doesn’t belong to the Church of Christ?

This querist, whom I know to be a fine and talented character in many respects, is more interested in what “you think” than in what the Bible teaches. It is a common ailment and a very disquieting symptom. It indicates a deep seated trouble. It sets up a theory based on what somebody thinks and if it is found that God does not endorse it, then the victim of human thought is ready to suggest that God does not have “good common sense.” It is a refined form of blasphemy. In the light of the Scriptures, which right do men have to judge God by a standard of “good common sense”? Such judgment would have kept Abel from offering his sacrifice, would have kept Noah from building the ark, would have kept Abraham from offering up Isaac, would have kept Naaman from dipping in the Jordan, and would have kept the Israelites from marching around Jericho.

An appeal to common sense today is a pretext that keeps many from obeying the command of God to be baptized and keeps them out of the church. This same “common sense” rule keeps in operation churches and systems in religion the New Testament knows nothing about at all. A rule that operates that way is wrong. “We walk by faith, not by sight.” Faith must be capable of obeying God, even if it apparently outrages all common sense. “O, Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” “Let no man deceive himself. If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise.” When a man becomes this kind of “a fool” for Christ’s sake, he will not be found cancelling out the commands of God on the ground of “good common sense.”

My information about the church and who will be saved comes mainly from the New Testament. It says nothing at all about “members of other churches” who are “good Christians.” All I ‘good Christians” in New Testament times were “members” of the body of Christ, the only church we read about in the New Testament. There were no Christians outside of it. In the light of the sacred volume it is absurd to talk about God condemning good Christians just because they do not belong to the church of Christ. It is tantamount to saying that God can condemn a good member of the church because he is not a member of the church. The church is the family of God and includes all the people of God. The sectarian idea of this “other churches” business made up of only a part of the people of God is all wrong or else even the apostles as well as God were lacking in this highly valued commodity “of good common sense.”

So-called fundamentalists first began to rule out part of the divine scheme on the ground of “good common sense” and the modernists are finishing the job for them. Between these schools of common sense doctors, faith and Scripture do not stand much show. The commands of God have been so much doctored by common sense that multitudes worship mon sense I and pay very little attention to anything the Bible says.

It is a terrible thing to think of anybody “going to hell.” A theory of common sense says that nobody will. How do we know that anybody will? The Bible says so. What does it say about it? Those who obey the gospel will be saved, those who reject it are in the way of “going to hell.” Man’s thinking cannot change what God says and talking about what “good Christians” people are who refuse to obey the gospel is plainly dodging the issue. God does not consider anybody a good Christian who prefers a sectarian setup to the church that Christ built.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 646-647
November 7, 1985

By David McClister

Every one who has ever lived, or who ever will live, must deal with the problem of suffering some time in his life. It is the universal experience of the human race. Either directly or indirectly, we all come into contact with suffering or pain many times during the course of our brief lives. Suffering can be very difficult to handle at times. It leaves us perplexed and confused, often wondering why it had to be or even why God could allow such misery to touch us or anyone else. The question of why man suffers in life is certainly not a new one. People have been asking that question from the beginning of human record. Furthermore, the answer to that question can be so difficult that it has led more than one person to abandon belief in a loving God.

In this article, I shall propose no absolute answer. But I do believe that we can understand a little concerning the nature of human suffering, and if we can understand it better, we can handle it better. I offer these thoughts in the attempt to provide some hope, based upon the Scriptures.

The first thing to consider is not the nature of suffering, but he nature of human existence itself. Fact number one is that life does not come with a guarantee of constant happiness. Nowhere do the Scriptures tell us that God, even though He loves us greatly, has promised to anyone a life free from pain. As a matter of fact, we may confidently say that the Bible assumes that suffering is a part of living, and we must simply resign ourselves to accept this fact. 1 Timothy 6:7 further confirms that we are not born with any innate hope or guarantee in life. We are simply brought into the world the way it is.

The realization of this fact is not, however, a very satisfying answer to the problem of pain. Saying that pain is part of life really offers no comfort. On the other hand, no one said that the answer we seek would necessarily be wonderful and pleasant. The truth is that any discussion of pain and suffering must necessarily involve itself with life’s unpleasant side. Both the problem and its answer are unpleasant. Yet I believe that there is more of an answer than this.

The second fact we must learn to accept is that much of our suffering is caused by ourselves, not God. The Bible affirms that God made a good world in the beginning. The phrase “. . . it was good” is repeated seven times in the first chapter of Genesis in connection with the creation. Verse 31 emphatically states: “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Man, however, became the inventor of evil things. “Behold, this only have I found: that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). In other words, much of our suffering is accounted for by our sin. It is part of God’s law that sin results in suffering and death (cf. Rom. 5:12; 6:23). We cannot expect to violate God’s will and be treated as innocent. Sin brings suffering with it! There is a plethora of examples in the Bible to this effect-the flood, the tower of Babel, the plight of Lot’s family, and so on.

Before we blame or accuse God of being cruel in allowing suffering, we should understand that much of our misery is our own doing, and we should not expect God to save us from ourselves in spite of ourselves. God has given man the responsibility to obey Him. If any man rebels against God, by an act of his own free will, then he has chosen the path of conduct that leads to suffering. This is not God’s fault. God is not to blame for the choices we make which lead us to suffering the penalty of sin.

Now there are two ways in which we suffer as the result of sin: directly and indirectly. When we suffer directly from sin, it is because of our own sins. Take, for illustration, the prodigal son (Lk. 15). He was hungry and in misery as a result of his own decision to leave his father’s home. The fault was his own. As the parable applies to us, we learn that even though we may be forgiven of the guilt of sin, this does not remove the consequence(s) of that sin, and that consequence often involves suffering.

When we suffer indirectly from sin, it is either because some one sins against us, or simply because we live in a sinful world. For example, the sin of the murderer almost always brings suffering to others who were quite uninvolved in his evil. In this case, one man’s sin causes suffering for several others. Another case in point is the persecutions directed against the early Christians. The Christians suffered not as evil-doers, but because of the plans of ungodly men who rejected God and Christ (cf. 1 Pet. 4:15f; 2 Tim. 3:12). Here again another’s evil caused suffering for many. The point is that suffering comes with living in a sinful world.

Suffering also comes with living in a temporary world. The Bible teaches that this world and all it holds is not meant to be a permanent residence for man (2 Pet. 3:10). It is our experience that a temporary world “falls apart” from time to time, thus causing a certain amount of suffering. Whether it be by natural disaster or the death of the human body, the things of a temporary existence must necessarily be connected with suffering. It is for this reason that the Bible exhorts us to set our affections on the permanent things of heaven (Col. 3:2).

But is this fair? Why is it that seemingly innocent people must suffer because of the sins of others? A third fact we must learn to accept is that we are really not innocent. Romans 3:23 painfully reveals to us that “all have sinned.” I have sinned, and so have you. Thus we cannot say to God that we do not deserve any suffering at all. After all, we all have sinned at some time, and remember that sin brings suffering with it. To sin is to share in the ways of the world, and we cannot sin — not even once — and avoid the pain which sin brings and which is found in the world.

Yet we are compelled to ask why God had to make His law so that sin had to result in suffering. Could not God, being all-powerful, have designed things so that sin could be dealt with in a way that does not involve pain?

I believe that God designed His law on sin the way He did because that law is simply the reflection and statement of God’s attitude towards sin. God hates sin, and He wants everyone to know that. Now in order to be fair, God must punish sin. It is completely just that God deals with sin the way He does: in terms of suffering. In fact, it would be very unjust and very unfair if God did not punish sin, because that would take the virtue out of obedience. Furthermore, what use would God’s law have if God was not strict in His enforcement of it? There is no value in law unless there is a strong deterrent to violations of it, and God has decreed that His method of enforcing His law is to provide the deterrent of suffering. This is why, then, God’s law says that sin must result in suffering.

As we speak about God’s law, it is important that we correctly understand what sin is. 1 John 3:4 plainly tells us that sin is the transgression of God’s law. Any violation of any of God’s laws is a sin. Consider the following facts. Law is necessary to order in life. Without laws there would be no continuity, and we simply could not live in a world where nothing was constant. We depend upon God’s natural and moral laws to provide continuity in life. Now if one of God’s laws is broken, then the continuity that law provides is lost, and disorder, and the suffering disorder brings, results. For example, when man breaks the natural laws that hold the atom together, the destructive force of the atomic bomb results. A law is broken, and the resulting disorder brings suffering. So it is also with God’s moral laws. If we break one of God’s commandments, then we introduce moral disorder, and thus bring suffering upon ourselves or others.

If, therefore, we were to live without any pain of any kind, it would require either a world in which there was no law at all, or a world in which the breaking of established laws was miraculously prevented from resulting in any kind of painful consequences.(1)

Either situation would be quite impossible in terms of human survival. We could not live in a world without law; we depend upon laws for day-to-day existence. Nor could we live in a world of constant miracles, for we depend upon law to consistently produce its designed effects, even when we break that law. Furthermore, a world of constant miracles would only be a world with a different kind of law, and so the problem of suffering would still exist, although in different forms.

Thus we are left to return to our starting point. If we could not live without pain in a different kind of environment, this still does not answer the question of why those who are truly innocent must be subject to the suffering others have caused. Why is it, for example, that little children, who have done no wrong, must often suffer? Why is it that even a righteous man, whose sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ, must continue to suffer in life?

Much of our suffering is for our benefit, and that suffering is a problem only when we fail to recognize or understand this important fact. For example, Paul was given a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7-9) not because he had sinned greatly against God, but simply in order to keep him humble. In this case, God used suffering to spare Paul from further, more severe suffering that would have resulted if he had become proud and boastful of God’s working in him. Furthermore, God told Paul that it was in Paul’s own human weakness, seen in his physical suffering, that the power of God was most easily seen by others (v. 9). Another example of beneficial suffering is seen in Abraham’s offering of Isaac (Gen. 22). Surely it must have filled Abraham with great sorrow to think that he had to offer his only son in sacrifice in order to please God. Could God be pleased with something that brought pain to his beloved Abraham? But that is the wrong approach to the situation. Abraham dealt with it not by looking at the suffering itself, but by looking to God in faith. Faith took Abraham through that trial, and faith will do the same for us. See James 1:2-4. A proper attitude keeps suffering from seeming like suffering. By looking at the problem correctly, it is possible to take the pain out of suffering.

Now if there is any answer at all to the ultimate question of “why?” we may expect to find it in the book of Job. Job was a righteous man, yet he suffered greatly. Why? We may say that it was partially due to the fact that Job himself had violated God’s law, but Job knew better (Job 6:10). His suffering seemed to be completely out of line with his character and conduct. Unable to find the answer from his friends, Job finds the ultimate answer from God. In chapters 38-41 God shows Job, through a series of very difficult questions, that he is really not in a position to press God for the answer. Man is not God, and thus man should not suppose that he is in the position to demand of God the answer’ as to why He allows unexplained suffering. God alone is omniscient, and in His omniscience He knows what is best for man. What man, who is far from omniscient, must do is simply accept in faith the way God works things. Job finally confesses that even if God told him the ultimate answer, he would not understand it anyway (Job. 42:1-6). What we must do is let God make His decisions and not question or accuse God. Man cannot make God give account.

This, then is what we must do with the problem in its furthest reaches. We must put our faith in Him, and live as He directs; do what He says and not challenge His wisdom in giving the orders. After all, “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts,” says God (Isa. 55:9). God loves us, and we should believe it. Any suffering that we endure must be perceived as being only in our best interests from the hand of a loving and just God.

Endnote

1. See C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1962), pp. 26-36.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 649-650
November 7, 1985

By Raymond E. Harris

A few years ago, I heard a man who had considerable knowledge of sheep reflect on the similarities between mankind and sheep.

He noted that in John 10, Jesus likened Himself to “the good shepherd” and to mankind as sheep who might or might not become the Lord’s sheep.

His description of sheep was not very complimentary.

First he pointed out that when compared to other animals, sheep were rather stupid. He noted that sheep can scarcely be trained at all. They cannot be driven, but have to be lead. And he further suggested that a sheep has no sense of direction. If a sheep becomes lost, he cannot find his way back, like most other animals, but rather has to be sought out and rescued by its keepers.

We can at once see the parallel. When it comes to sin, mankind has never seemed too bright. Through the years God has tried to teach man, with precious little success, that obedience leads to blessings and disobedience leads to heartbreak and damnation. Likewise, man is so self-willed he is hard to drive or lead. And, man seems to have little sense of direction and is always straying away from God.

The ex-shepherd further explained that sheep are, by comparison, “tender skinned” animals which are easily devoured by their enemies. Again, we see the comparison. Mankind strays away from God and falls prey to the wolves of this world.

The wolves of greed and lust make short work of the majority who put up little or no defense. Hence, we find ourselves in

a world overcome and devoured by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life (1 Jn. 2:15-17; Jas. 1:14-15).

Man’s only hope (spiritually) is to turn to Jesus, the “Good Shepherd.” If we will come unto Jesus through obedience of His gospel, God has promised to forgive our sins and Jesus will lead us to green pastures and still waters.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, p. 658
November 7, 1985

By Lewis Willis

I have carefully selected the term “warning” in the above title. A danger confronts you and your school age children, and you need to be warned about it so that you can detect it if and when it appears. I see grave consequences if you are indifferent to this warning. Here it is.

The Humanist Magazine (Jan./Feb., 1983, p. 26) published an article by humanist author John Dunphy. I saw a quotation from his article in Torch Magazine, June 1985, and I feel it is important to share with you what he said:

. . . a viable alternative to Christianity must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a New Faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the sparks of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit in conveying humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level. . . . The classrooms must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new. . . (All italics mind, L.W.)

This is a frightening statement of intent on the part of the humanist. It is clearly the objective of these people to overthrow Christianity if possible. They intend to elevate each man to the role of God, allowing him to set his own standards and values as he desires. So set on this objective are they that, they themselves call their mission a “battle” for man’s future. Fortunately, they identify for us the battleground on which they will fight. The public school classroom will be used by humanist teachers to instill the “religion” of humanism. They themselves perceive it to be “a new faith.” (Christians are not permitted to teach or practice their “religion” in the public schools. This admission that humanism is a “religion” which is being taught in the schools presents artillery to Christians in opposing humanism. In the view of the courts, “religion is religion,” whether it is Christianity or Humanism, and the same laws that apply to one should apply to the other. A test case in the courts might well be a future weapon to use in the battle against humanism, though I somehow doubt that the American Civil Liberties Union is going to be terribly interested in representing Christians in such a fight.)

I do not know how it will “play” in the courts, but I suspect you could rattle some cages in some school administration conference rooms if you presented Mr. Dunphy’s admission that humanism is “a new faith” or a “religion.” Administrators are fully aware that the Supreme Court has prohibited the teaching of religion in the classrooms of this nation. It seems to me that it is at least worth a try.

Humanists are dedicated to their cause and they are taught to pursue their purpose “as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers” do. They admit their pulpit will be the nation’s classrooms, and they intend to vigorously wage their battles in that arena on every educational level. This means that no student in the nation’s schools will escape the efforts of these people during the years of his education. We are all well aware of the fact that the most lasting influence upon a person will be his earliest influences. We are also aware that you cannot realize much success in teaching New Testament Christianity to a child once he is 16 years old. The greatest success is realized when parents begin this teaching process as early in the child’s life as possible. Humanism acknowledges this and they are announcing that they intend, if possible, to begin instilling the precepts of humanism in the minds of our children, beginning at the kindergarten level.

Therefore, I was just thinkin’. that those who are fore-warned are fore-armed. I suppose by now that all of our children have returned to classes for the school year. The parent can close his eyes to reality and ignore this danger. Or, he can inquire of his child concerning what he is being taught. If he discovers that this junk is being taught to his child, he can loudly object to it. Paul told Timothy to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12). If the classrooms prove to be that battleground, then let us stand and fight! Keep in mind, it is your child’s life and soul for which you are fighting. Take the time to talk to your kids and learn what is happening.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, p. 627
October 17, 1985