Truth Magazine

By Luther Bolenbarker

It was late one evening as I worked; a deadline to meet was fast approaching and we were having problems with our computer. It was malfunctioning because improper information (we learned later) was being fed in. It seemed that every few minutes my supervisors were breathing down my neck. 1, in turn, was demanding more speed and accuracy from those in my charge. The deadline came and went right on by and I, out of frustration, “kicked that dumb computer. ” The computer still did not function and was unaware of the “kick” but I, rather, my foot was aware of the computer.

The most obvious difference in the mind of man and the computers’ which man creates is that man has emotions or what we call feelings. Computers have none, man does, especially in the toes.

The apostle Paul writes about feelings, “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering, forbearing one another and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye, and above all things, put on charity which is the bond of perfectness” (Col. 3:12-14). Notice, everyone of the qualities we are to put on as Christians mentioned in this verse relates to feelings.

Some over zealous religious people allow their feelings to become extreme and also authoritarian that they fail to realize that feelings have limits. Some have reacted to this by subduing and denying their feelings to the opposite extreme.

Many Christians equate quietness with reverence, or outward polish as inward praise. The old joke about the man who was saying “Praise the Lord, Hallelujah and Amen” during the sermon was told by the preacher, “Look fellow, this is the church of Christ and we don’t praise the Lord here,” may apply too well to the average assembly of the saints. In our doing away with all the “shouts of joy” and verbal “hallelujahs” and “Amens” because they are associated with the “Pentecostals,” our silence may become an obvious counterbalance to their extreme noise. However, both extremes when artificial are vain.

Feeling good does not make us good. Feeling right does not make us right. Truth is of God and He revealed it, not through our feelings but by His revelation (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Yet, on the other hand, there is no or very little virtue in not feeling anything.

Feelings do not make truth, or confirm it. A good conscience is often misleading (Acts 23:1), as many who are still lost “feel right.” Feelings do not lead, they follow. They do not act, they react! So when truth is known through evidence, feelings should surround, embrace and accept the truth. “And they went on their way rejoicing,” is recorded or implied again and again as a result of conversion (Acts 8:39; 16:34). The reaction of almost every person I’ve baptized; has been that of joy and thanksgiving and a feeling of relief as they are raised out of the waters of baptism. It is “by grace through faith” in Christ that we can “praise God.” We often have them in the right order but somewhere along the way we sometimes neglect to praise God.

When the eunuch from Ethiopia went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:39), it was because he had reason to rejoice. He had believed and had been baptized therefore, his rejoicing followed his obedience of faith that led him through the waters of baptism. None of us rejoices in dying, and the house of death is hardly the place for “shouts of joy,” but, the resurrection (figuratively in our baptism, and for real when Jesus does come), the beginning of life, that is where the rejoicing begins and continues.

Our knowing the truth, believing the truth, obeying the truth brings out within each of us that “gut feeling” (bowels of mercies) and knows no other way of expressing itself other than to “praise God” in our every waking moment.

Remember, saying, “Praise God, Praise Jesus, or Praise the Lord,” does not necessarily constitute true praise to God. Sometimes they are just empty words without feelings. We can praise God by being quiet, too. It is a matter of attitude and truth, just as Jesus told the woman at the well, “Worship of God must be in Spirit and Truth” (John 4:24).

We cannot worship God and it be acceptable to Him without our feelings being involved. I am afraid that some may be like the computer: no spiritual or physical feelings. How do you feel as you worship and serve God? Are you just going through the motions without any real emotions or feelings?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, p. 589
October 3, 1985

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the Lord nor the work which He had done for Israel (Judg. 2:10).

While introducing a sermon, I apologized to the audience for preaching on something that I knew they had heard time and time again. A young preacher friend came to me after the services and kindly rebuked me for being apologetic for preaching on that subject. He said, “You forget that many of those other times you preached on this subject, that my generation was not old enough to get it. It is all fresh material to us.” He made an important point that I hope I never forget: it just takes one generation of failing to teach and you have a generation that knows not the ways and works of God.

It is a thrill to read all that God accomplished for Israel through Moses and Joshua. It is an inspiration to read of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the working of God to bring them into the promised land, against all odds from the human point of view. It is wonderful to read of how this people, with little military power or training, were able to stand against all enemies-because God fought for them. But, alas, they can no longer stand before their enemies (Judg. 2:14). Why? A generation arose “who did not know the Lord nor the work which He had done for Israel.” A generation arose that had more in common with its enemies than it had in common with the Lord (Judg. 2:12,13).

This generation was far enough removed from the events that brought them out of Egypt, making them a separate and distinct nation, that it did not mean as much to them as it had to Joshua and his generation. After Joshua and “the elders who outlived Joshua, who had known all the works of the Lord which He had done for Israel,” had passed away, things changed. It was a new day-a new generation. This generation was unable to appreciate the hardships, the sacrifices, the battles and the reasons for loyalty that the other generation had experienced in order to establish Israel as God’s great nation. They could not have known them by experience and somehow Joshua and the elders who outlived him were unable to sufficiently impress them upon their minds. Surely, they must have known they were a distinct nation-the Lord’s nation. But, they did not appreciate what made them so, or the background struggle that brought them to this point. So, it became much easier for them to reach some accommodations with the people around them and adopt their ways of worship. And I suspect it would have been hard to make them understand why the older generation was so hide bound in their opposition to at least some worship of other gods and at least some of the more pleasant aspects of idolatry. And why must they maintain their fathers’ hardline stance, if there could be a way found to lessen the friction with their neighbors by accepting as much of their ways as possible?

God’s people, His church, has had to fight many a battle, endure great hardship, and engage in much labor in order to establish and maintain their distinction in the world. They have had to be delivered from many “Egypts” since the establishment of the church in the New Testament. After almost every case of deliverance there arises a generation that does not know the sacrifices, the toil, and the reasons behind the positions taken by the preceding generation. The new generation becomes all too willing to reach an accommodation with the very people with whom their fathers struggled, not only for their own good, but to see that this new generation would be God’s distinct people and enjoy His blessings and favor.

The new generation knows that there are differences between “us” and “them,” but they know not the reasons behind the differences. The new generation knows that “our position” on certain issues are different from their neighbors, but they know not the reasons behind the positions. The new generation knows the result of the past struggle has been to isolate and separate us from “other churches,” but know little about the issues that produced the struggle in the first place. So, reaching some sort of working accommodation with those of good religious people around us and those brethren who have gone out from us may not be a big deal with the new generation.

It is not altogether the new generation’s fault. It is easy for the generation that fought the battles, endured the hardships, and worked their way out of error by hard study and much discussion to simply forget to pass the appreciation of it on the next generation. It is easier to hand them the end results of it all than it is to impress upon them the importance of the background behind the results. It is easy to let them grow by taking for granted that they know what we know about “Egypt” and its slavery and the importance to maintaining our freedom in Christ from the enslaving influences of the religious world around us. So, seeing what they consider to be unpleasant conditions (conditions that are a necessary part of being God’s distinct people and conditions created by our past struggles and toil), they see them as a tragic result and set about to remedy things in a way that would not please the Lord. They see the separateness without appreciating the reasons behind it. Knowing how pleasant unity is, they set about to establish the unity without regard to what caused the division in the first place.

In the early 1800s a movement back to New Testament Christianity, commonly called the “Restoration Movement,” took place in this country. Its aim was Christianity without denominationalism. Great strides were made. Debates were conducted. Great men, at great personal sacrifice, came out of ‘denominationalism and established congregations in many communities that had no denominational ties. But, there arose another generation and many of those congregations became a part of what is known today as the “Christian Church” or “Disciples of Christ” denomination with neither reservation nor apology for being a mainstream Protestant denomination. The sacrifices of the past and the scriptural arguments against denominational practices had little significance to the new generation.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a great struggle to free churches of Christ from and to keep others from being involved in institutional and/or centralized arrangements for church work. Much discussion took place in papers and from pulpits on the issue. The results were that some congregations were saved, others spared and still others established that were free of these things. But by the middle of this century, a generation arose that seemed not to appreciate that struggle, and many of these very congregations became involved with human institutions and centralized arrangements. The battle had to be fought all over again.

Brethren, we can take nothing for granted. We must do all that we can to pass on to the next generation all the reasons, knowledge of the toil and struggle, and good Bible knowledge behind our distinct position in the world. This generation needs to try to know and understand these things.

We still need to teach regularly on the first principles that many of us have heard over and over again without growing weary of them. We need to teach over and over the principles involved in institutionalism, instrumental music, and all else pertaining to church work and worship. We need to continually teach on God’s marriage law, worldliness, modesty, lasciviousness (as it applies to most mixed swimming, most dancing, most movies, much TV, etc.), etc., or not be too shocked if the new generation accepts them as a matter of course.

It just takes one untaught generation for the church to become denominational and worldly in its thinking. A young man, who had spent two years as a student in the very “Christian college” that I attended, recently asked me if I had ever “pastored a church” in Tennessee.

I am mighty afraid that in our efforts to make our preaching and teaching “relevant” that we may be neglecting much of the preaching needed to encourage this generation to maintain our distinctive place in the world. The great moral issues of our day are important themes and must be preached on. But let us not forget the old themes of the plan of salvation, the organization, work and worship of the church; the fundamentals of faith, the identity of the church, and other “old fashioned” principles that make us a distinctive people. Too much of our preaching sounds more like social counseling lectures than they do gospel sermons.

The older generation might do well to get out some of those old sermon outlines and class notes of 25-50 years ago, dust them off, and use them again. The newer generation would do well to borrow some of those outlines and notes, do some research into what produced them, and preach and practice the points in them. Or, we may well produce another generation that does “not know the Lord nor the work which He had done for Israel.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, pp. 609, 630
October 17, 1985

By Paul K. Williams

Brother Thomas N. Thrasher (“Who Are The ‘Saints’ In Jude 14?” Guardian of Truth, May 16, 1985) labors to prove that the “holy ones” of Jude 14 whom Jesus will bring with Him at the judgment are angels. It is true that Jesus will bring the angels with Him to execute judgment. But it is quite possible that Jude was talking about the saints who are with Jesus in heaven right now.

Brother Thrasher confuses the issue when he says hagios is used of the angels. In every reference he gives also (Matt. 25:31; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Acts 20:22; Rev. 14:10) hagios is used together with aggelos (angel). He needs to find a reference where hagios stands alone and means angel.

The construction in Jude 14 is the same as in Philippians 1:1. I see no reason to believe it means anything different from the many other times it is used alone in the New Testament — always to mean “holy ones” (people), as far as I know.

Certainly Jesus will bring the saved with Him. This is clearly stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:14. And that the saints shall sit with Christ in judgment is also true. “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” (1 Cor. 6:2, see also Matt. 19:28; Rev. 3:21).

There is no comfort for the premillennialist in this fact. When Jesus comes He will bring the saints, all will be raised, and all will be judged. In some ways the saints will share in that judging.

Jude 14 uses the common word for “saints.” It seems preferable to let its common meaning stand, especially as no proof was given that hagios is ever used alone to mean “angel.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 565
September 19, 1985

By Robert F. Turner

There seems to be a resurgence of interest in “security”perhaps due to emphasis upon “grace”-and both subjects are worthy of our consideration. Because of earlier battles with Calvinists on grace, faith only, and “once saved, always saved,” certain prejudices adhere to the very words (for example, words in my heading); and these can keep us from fairly dealing with scriptural aspects of the subject. We believe the current desire for “security” and “confidence” has also caused some to attempt detailed explanations which “go beyond that which is written”; and this, in turn, has spawned reactions that also “go beyond.” We do not imagine ourselves to be a brotherhood doctor, but are persuaded all saints should keep calm, and lend whatever influence and knowledge they have to a scriptural solution upon which true unity may be established.

Confidence respecting our salvation and security is objectively determined, according to the Apostle John. That means we must look outside ourselves for the proof: must depend neither on our “feelings” nor upon solutions originating in human reason. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren” (1 Jn. 3:14f). The love of brethren is not the whole story, but he is saying, without the fruit we have no assurance. This continues to be the context. Let us not love in word only, “but in deed and truth” (v. 18). “Hereby (by obeying his commandments) shall we know that we are of the truth. . . ” (v. 19). “Whatsoever we ask, we receive … because we keep his commandments” (v.22). And verse 24 continues this context- “hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he hath given us” — possibly referring to the “spirit” of obedience which we learned from Him. We are out of context to say it is the Holy Spirit, subjectively determined.

The very conscientious saint may tremble in recognition of his unworthiness. So, “If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things” (vv 19-20; see Plain Talk, Sept. ’83, for detailed study). He reassures by reminding that God knows us better than we know ourselves. But he does not say good intentions take the place of obedience, nor change his theme that assurance is via God’s promises and conditions. Can we know we are saved? God knows (2 Tim. 2:19); we rest on God’s promises! There are two avenues for negation: ignorance of His truth (light), and failure to walk in His light. But on the positive side: (1) we have the ever present remedy, the blood of Christ; (2) we are told how to obtain its benefits; and (3) sinful man, seeking to obey God, has a heart-seeing merciful Judge. Assurance is as strong as one’s faith in God.

Apparently 1 John was written to counter false assurance being taught by the gnostics of that day. Some contend all matter is evil, hence distinction was made in the human Jesus and the divine Christ. The “spirit” was all-the flesh of little or no importance. Those who claimed this superior knowledge (gnosis) said the “enlightened” one’s soul was steeped in light, and he need not worry much about his conduct. But John declares that Christ came in the flesh, which the witnesses saw, handled, and heard (1 Jn. 1:1-2). He passes to us the divine knowledge necessary for fellowship with God, saying, “God is light” (in very essence, v.5); and, there is no compatibility between the life of ungodly conduct advocated by the gnostics (walking in darkness, v.6), and the Christian life (walking in light, v.7). This is the basic thrust and context of 1 John 1.

The gnostics had invented “details” of assurance contrary to the most basic principles of genuine divine knowledge. And I fear some brethren have missed the point of 1 John 1 by inventing details of assurance not in the text; while others have countered with “details” (mechanically interpreted) which ignore the intent and purpose of John’s language. “If we walk in light” (v.7), and “if we confess our sins” (v.9), are indeed present, active subjunctive; and express linear, ongoing, continuous action. Then, “cleanseth” (v.7) is present active indicative: conforming grammatically with the contingencies; and says the “cleansing” takes place to the same extent we “walk,” confessing our sins. When we say the cleansing takes place “even as we sin” we add an element not in the text, and abuse this passage.

But John is not describing the details of a particular event. He is saying that in the course of a Christian’s life we sin, and we repent, acknowledge our sin and need for mercy, and God forgives us. This happens over and over again, the ever available blood of Christ being a promised benefit to Christians, offering “assurance” that is as strong as our faith in God’s promises. The text does not contemplate a single act of darkness or light. It contrasts “walking” in light, with “walking” in darkness: two conflicting and incompatible realms, or spheres of action (see details in previous article, “Much Ado… “). “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17) is not violated should we spend time doing something other than conscious prayer; nor is “rejoice evermore” (v.16) violated should we “weep with those that weep.” We would misuse those passages should we so interpret them. We also abuse 1 John 1:6-7 when we try to break it into a “step” of either light or darkness. It was written in a different vein, for a different purpose, and we should leave it exactly where the Holy Spirit put it.

Some try to “get out” of their first bad exegesis by pleading distinctions in sins. There are legitimate differences in certain aspects of sin, but each is still sin, needing the forgiveness offered upon conditions. But another says “walking” is like a doctor “practicing” medicine. There is some likeness; but the doctor’s past practice will not cure a present patient. He must continue his practice, and we must continue our repenting, confessing, and prayer, to meet today’s needs. We are offered false dilemma: take either “cleansed as we sin” or “sinless perfection,” or “infallible knowledge of sin details,” or “no assurance whatsoever.” These are not true dilemma, for they do not represent the total field. We can scripturally reject all of them, and take 1 John 1 as contrasting two realms-period. And when we do that we also reject “a sin” as removing us from grace, from Christ, His kingdom, etc. Brethren, poor exegesis has begotten poor exegesis; and uncharitable treatment of one another has gotten us into a sorry mess.

A sincere effort is being made to avoid self-justification in this paragraph. The writer knows his terminology is not faultless, and could be or has been ambiguous at times. I have written much on the importance of proper attitude, but never have I said attitude or intention served for obedience. I have written the very opposite. While explaining “walking in light” I have stressed the linear, ongoing, manner of life the phrase depicts. But never have I taught that general direction of life removes the need to actually meet God’s conditions for forgiveness. I have stressed the merciful nature of God, but never dreamed of teaching man could offer comfort on the basis of what he believes God would do in special cases. I have repeatedly stated this was not man’s prerogative. “Whittling on God’s end of the stick” is, so far as I know, my expression which others have copied. When bits and pieces of my Plain Talk articles are offered as proof I espouse “automatic” or “continuous cleansing” “even as one sins,” they are grossly misused.

There are other things to be considered when men are quoted. Even highly respected commentators and exegetes are sometimes wrong. Also, had they been writing at the present time, in the light of current controversy, they may have stated themselves differently. Uninspired writings are not protected by the all-seeing eye of God, so that their principles have universal application. And finally, wide confirmation by men is not equal to proof from God’s word.

Assurance and confidence before God are not to be found in the perfection of our knowledge or doing, per se. This concept led the Jews to ask, “Which is the great commandment?” or “All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?” We must put our trust in God, not in ourselves. But “imputed righteousness,” “difference in sins,” “cleansed even as we sin,” and the like, are also false hopes. They are doctrinal gadgets for assurance, and when carefully compared with the whole of Bible teaching, may leave us in a deeper despair. If we would understand “assurance” and increase confidence in our salvation, we must strengthen our faith in God’s promises and provisions.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 583, 599
October 3, 1985