Truth Magazine

By Tom Roberts

Why not? Reason with me a moment.

My name is Tom Roberts and I don’t mind people calling me by my name. I belong to the church of Christ. I don’t mind people referring to me as a member of the church, publicly or otherwise. If a person is a member of the Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or some other denomination and they are identified as such, why should such a person take offense?

Of course, there is more to it than name-calling. My name is Tom Roberts and I am a husband, father, citizen, neighbor, etc. So long as one describes me as what I am, I take no offense. However, if I should be called a fornicator, an abuser, child beater, etc., I would highly resent being so misrepresented. As a member of the church of Christ, I take no offense if anyone accurately represents what I believe and practice. If someone says of me that I belong to a church that teaches baptism in water for remission of sins, uses no instrumental music in worship and partakes of the Lord’s supper each first day of the week, they have not misrepresented me, and I am glad that people know these things. They can tell these things from the rooftops and not offend me in the least. However, if that same person said that I belong to a church that believes in water salvation, does not believe in music and accepts transubstantiation, I would quickly raise an objection.

In the same fashion, when I refer to a Baptist by those distinctive doctrines and practices that make one particularly a Baptist (as distinct from, let’s say, a Methodist), why should a Baptist be offended? A Baptist believes in salvation by faith alone, instrumental music in worship, and the preacher/pastor system. If a Baptist is accurately represented in these matters, he should be as proud of these things as I am of the items of my faith. It is only when misrepresentations occur that a possible basis for irritation exists with reference to name-calling. True identification of a person can never be an insult unless that person is ashamed of who and what he is.

Scriptural Precedent

As reasonable as all this is, a basis other than human reasoning exists for calling names and identifying people and their beliefs. Nothing can be more public than the Bible and, moved by the Holy Spirit, writers of the Scriptures identified people and their beliefs and/or errors. Some examples are:

Speaker/Writer	Person Identified	Scripture	Charge
Samuel	David	2 Sam. 12:7	Murder, adultery
John	Diotrephes	3 John 9	Opposer of truth
Paul	Chloe	1 Cor. 1:11	Informer
Jesus	Jews	Gospels	Hypocrisy, lying
Paul	Brother	1 Cor. 5:1	Fornication
Apostles	Jews	Acts 2:36	Murderers of Jesus
Paul	Peter	Gal. 2:11	Hypocrisy
Paul	Phygellus/Hermogenes	2 Tim. 1:15	Turn-coats
John the Baptist	Herod	Matt. 14:4	Adultery
Paul	Corinthians	Epistle	Many sins
Peter	Simon	Acts 8:20	Buying gift of HS
Jesus	Samaritan	John 4:18	Adultery
John the Baptist	Pharisees	Mt. 3:7ff	Vipers, sons of vipers
Stephen	Jews	Acts 7:51	Murderers
Paul	Philosophers	Acts 17:23	Ignorant idolatry
Jesus	Samaritans	John 4:22	Vain worship

Brethren, let us not be more “polite” than the inspired Scriptures! Regardless of the etiquette involved (certain segments both in and out of the church consider it uncouth), New Testament writers and evangelists called names, sometimes under extremely adverse circumstances. They suffered for it and, in some cases, died because of it. John the Baptist lost his head, but he did what God wanted him to do. There is an inherent boldness in gospel preaching that says to the lost, the sectarian, the sinner, the wayward man what he needs to hear, even when he does not want to hear it. Paul told Timothy to “preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). When the Jews “beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). May we not infer from this that such sermons as recorded in Acts 2 are the type of sermons we need to preach today? Yet, Peter and the apostles in Acts 2 branded their listeners as crucifiers of the Son of God. Yes, bold preaching is confrontational. But the confrontation between truth and error is the only way for sinners to become penitent as they learn of their sins. What might have been the outcome if Peter had preached some of Norman Vincent Peale’s “Positive Thinking” concepts on Pentecost? The Jews would have gone home feeling good about themselves, but lost!

Let us not forget that the purpose of gospel preaching is that of saving souls (Rom. 1:16). Since only truth will save, the truth must be preached to people who need it. To be sure, some will not accept truth and will howl when exposed to it, but those of a “good and honest heart” (Luke 8) will respond in penitence and be saved. Motivational lessons, in and of themselves, will not do this. The sinner must be identified; sin must be rooted out; error must be confronted. Brother, if you don’t have a heart for that, you have no business preaching the gospel! Don’t apologize for preaching what is scripturally sound and biblically correct.

Of course, let us not confuse “boldness” with “skinning the brethren and the sectarians.” Some preachers seem to have a bitter spirit and use the pulpit as a means of taking advantage of a captive audience. Week after week, they seem to make a career out of attacking, skinning, berating and castigating. I fear that many hungry souls have been driven away from the truth by the type of preaching that fails to consider the full range of truth. We need to understand that parts of the truth are, indeed, confrontation, but other parts are intended to edify. We haven’t preached the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20) if we neglect “building up the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12) while we oppose error.

Many have laughed about an incident that occurred during a “gospel” meeting in south Texas many years ago. The guest preacher noted many visiting preachers were in the audience that evening. He, therefore, chose as his subject, “The Valley of Nuts.” Each “nut” in the lesson was identified as one of the visiting preachers in the audience and his “nutty” ideas were exposed in the sermon. Naturally, one of the preachers in the audience that was identified took exception to being called a “nut,” so he rose to his feet and challenged the speaker as being of the same species. A lot of brethren got skinned that night, but I wonder how many were edified? If non-Christians were present, did they hear what they needed to hear about the plan of salvation? Was this boldness of speech (in the biblical sense) or malice aforethought? Name-calling? Yes. From the pulpit? Yes. But compare it to Acts 2 or other examples and one might be hard-pressed to find even remote similarities.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we could remember that we are not inspired today and should use some restraint when judging motives such as hypocrisy, lying, etc. Jesus could read hearts and we cannot. The pulpit should never become a sanctuary where an embittered spirit hides behind a facade of religious zeal and spiteful anger and ascribes impure motives to all who disagree.

A Case In Point

Does name-calling from the pulpit do any good? Mighten we drive away those so identified? Won’t we do more harm than good? Won’t we insult our friends? I am sure that specific cases can be recalled where a preacher insulted “Aunt Susie” by referring to the Baptists when she visited the worship services. However, for the sake of comparison, let us recall the life and work of J.D. Tant, the pioneer preacher. How many did he convert? How many were taught under his preaching? I dare say that few, if any, preachers living today can match his record. I never met brother Tant, but I understand from those who knew him well that his preaching was of the name-calling variety. Some might say it even bordered on the caustic. But he baptized people! He started churches in places where no church of the Lord had existed before. He debated with teachers of error and led many out of sectarianism. Are we, in civilized times under more genteel circumstances, doing a better job? When J.D. Tant left town, people knew they had heard the gospel and there was usually a band of disciples left behind whom he had converted. Who is more like the apostle Paul: J.D. Tant or the preacher who won’t call names? It has been said of Paul that he either started a riot or a church when he came to town, and often both. Have we found a better way than Paul knew? Are we baptizing more than J.D. Tant?

Conclusion

Calling names will never be popular. This fact alone should neither encourage or discourage us. Nor should the reaction of the public be the total criterion. While some human judgment must determine our practice, the most important factor must be that of a boldness in declaring Jesus that reflects a New Testament spirit. Such preaching will arouse and convict; it will irritate and confound; it win cause extreme reactions and deepest opposition . . . among those in sin. But of those in sin will be some who can be led into paths of righteousness and salvation by this same bold preaching. It must have been this type of preaching that Jesus had in mind when he told Paul: “Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm thee: for I have much people in this city” (Acts 18:9,10). How were the people of God identified in the first century? By fearless preaching. How will the people of God be identified today? By this same fearless preaching. Let us be about our Father’s business.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 9, pp. 272, 274
May 2, 1985

By Lewis Willis

Meanwhile, In Catholic Country. . .

Some interesting things are happening, A campaign has been started for the canonization to sainthood of New York’s Cardinal Terence Cooke who died of leukemia on October 6, 1983. The campaign is said to be “a spirited public relations campaign.” The Akron Beacon Journal (12/25/84) quoted David O’Brien, a church historian, as saying, “Most people . . . think (saint-hood) just emerges, . . . but it has a lot to do with politics and who has the energy and staff to keep things moving along.” Realizing this, the Cardinal Cooke Guild, under the direction of his successor, Archbishop John J. O’Connor, was formed to promote his sainthood.

In Catholic terminology, a “saint” is one who was “a living example of outstanding holiness and heroic Christian virtue. The key word is heroic, because the world is full of “good people.” Cardinal Cooke’s heroism was manifested, according to his supporters, in the last painful days before his death. To qualify, a candidate for sainthood must have been credited with at least three miracles. A medical miracle “must be a spontaneous, unexplainable, complete, instant recovery from a severe physical pathology. ” The Guild reports, “we have a couple, of cases we’re keeping our eye on, one involving the remission of cancer in a very well-known woman in the Catholic community.” Each day the Guild receives letters from people who have prayed to Cooke. These letters report favors such as recovery from illness or that he has helped them find a new job.

It usually takes fifty years after the death of a person for sainthood to be bestowed. However, in this case, the Guild hopes for a papal exemption. To accomplish this, the Guild is raising funds and will wage an effort which “in some ways resembles the campaigns carried out by college sports departments or film studios.” I rather suspect that Cardinal Cooke will become the Heisman Trophy winner of Catholic sainthood! He will join the ranks of their other dead saints.

A saint, by New Testament definition, was a person who was very much alive (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1: 1). These were people who had been sanctified or set apart as children of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). This blessing was realized as these people lived, and not fifty years after their death. They made up the church in the city of Corinth so, there is a remarkable difference between New Testament sainthood and that of the Roman Catholic variety. I was just thinkin’, that Cardinal Cooke was -not a-New Testament-type saint while he was living and this campaign will not make him a New Testament-type saint now that he is dead. I will, however, encourage all who read this to obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ and become one of those Gospel-made saints that you read about in the New Testament.

Catholics Want To Re-Write The Bible

The Akron Beacon Journal (11/14/84), reported the action of American Catholic bishops regarding a new translation by The Graff publishing house of London. The company has recently translated the Psalms. The translators had hoped their efforts “would send a positive message to women who complain the church is too male-oriented. ” Its design was to settle the ruffled feathers of Catholic women who are frustrated by the church’s refusal to grant them greater roles such as the right to become priests.

The newspaper said, “In typical changes designed to show inclusion of both sexes, where various psalms referred to ‘him’ or to ‘brothers,’ the new version might have said ‘them’ or ‘brothers and sisters’ or ‘family.’ Where the original asked, ‘What is man?’ the new asked, ‘What are we?'”

When the vote was taken, the adoption of the new translation failed by a count of 154 to 117. The debate on the translation was lengthy, but the arguments of several bishops were summed up in a few words: “The goal was great but the translation wasn’t.” Several of those bishops who voted against the translation recommended “detailed study” of it “by Scriptural scholars.” What a truly outstanding idea! Let the Scriptural scholars in Catholicism study the efforts of this feminist translation and its harm to the original text. And, I was just thinkin’, while those Scriptural scholars are assembled, why not have them study the Scriptures to determine if the Catholic church even has a right to exist, or if the New Testament makes any provision for a Pope? This could keep those “fellas” busy for years.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 8, pp. 245-247
April 18, 1985

By Raymond E. Harris

About 700 years before Jesus was born, Judah was ruled by King Hezekiah. In 2 Kings 18:3, we are told that, “He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. . . .” And in the same chapter, verses 5-6, we are informed that “. . . after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah . . . for he clave to the Lord and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments.”

As w6, read from 2 Kings 18-20, we learn that God blessed Hezekiah because of his goodness and faithfulness. At one point when the King was “sick unto death,” God extended his life and let him live an additional fifteen years. In 2 Chronicles 30-3 1, we learn that Hezekiah was a great reformer as he called all “from Dan to Beersheba” to assemble in Jerusalem to keep the Passover unto the Lord God of Israel.

We also find Hezekiah to be a man of prayer as time after, time he called upon, God for deliverance, forgiveness and. even life itself. But finally the end came, as it does with every young person. At the relatively young age of 54, ” . . Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the highest, of the Sepulchers . . . and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honor at his death.”

Yes, Hezekiah was a remarkable man in many ways. He was his own man! He chose a life of obedience and service to God. Hestood as an island in a sea of wickedness. You see, the Bible reveals that both his father Ahaz and his son Manasseh “did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.”

Hence I even today, everyone needs to realize that he is, in large of his own spiritual destiny. God has given each of us a mind with which to think reason, and decide. The son will not bear the sin of the father and the father will not bear the sin of the son (Ezek. 18:20). Therefore in Acts 2:40, Peter could cry out, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”

The remedy for sins is still available for you and me. In Acts 2:38, Peter said, “‘Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins And in v. 41 we learn that “they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls . . . and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47).

What of your soul? While there is time and opportunity we urge you to follow the example of Hezekiah and do that which is “right in the sight of the Lord.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 8, p. 249
April 18, 1985

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

No, I am not talking about a population explosion. I am not even talking about long lost cousins that surface when someone starts a rumor that we have come into some money.

I am talking about relatives as opposed to absolutes. It is near blasphemy to some brethren to confidently affirm a position to be the truth in the absolute sense of the word. Things considered settled in heaven (Psa. 119:89) are becoming fewer and fewer with many brethren. Why? Because someone has discovered new scriptural evidence that forces them to question or abandon long accepted positions of the past? No! But, because the positions do not seem to be “working” in this present age. I am afraid that some preachers, teachers and elders may be spending more time trying to adapt what the Bible says to situations they find rather than conform the situations they find to what the Bible says. Let me tell you it is a whole lot easier to become unsure of one’s position and/or change it than it is to change brethren and society. Maybe if we spent more time studying the Book and less time trying to “relate,” it would help.

So often, what do we find ourselves doing? We study the Bible and its message seems to be reasonably clear – until we go out into the “real world” influenced by Satan, trying to apply what we have learned, and it causes problems. Intelligent people present us with difficult questions relating to its application. (Brother John T. Lewis used to say, “The Bible was not designed to answer every fool question somebody might think up.”) Hence, the wisest course seems to be either modify the position or at least relegate it to the realm of “unsettled questions over which smart men and good brethren differ.” My brethren, it is just old-fashioned philosophical relativism that has found a new home.

The Bible was written that we might be sure about more things not less. Luke wrote of “things which are most surely believed among us” (Luke 1:1). He even spoke of “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). On Pentecost, Peter said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Paul warned Timothy that “evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you learned them” (2 Tim. 3:13, 14). No matter what men might think or do, there was the absolute truth of the Scriptures that Timothy could depend on (vv. 15- 11). He was even to charge others to teach no other doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3).

The Scriptures came from the Absolute God and the truth in them is absolutely true for all time (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:16-21). That truth neither depends upon nor does it change with the individual, time, and circumstance. Any adjustments must be made to fit the Scriptures and not the Scriptures to fit the circumstances. While I have known few who would admit that they have altered their view of truth to fit circumstance, I am just as confident that the evidence is overwhelming that they have indeed done so. There is that ever present danger with all of us. We cannot allow the fact that some brethren have dogmatically affirmed positions that were not so and caused trouble over them to keep us from confidently affirming what we believe the Bible teaches on any subject; and refuse to modify it to fit the changing whims of society or brethren.

It is all too easy to allow some unpleasantness or difficulty with applying something that the Scriptures teach, something been held to be so by us for a long time – to cause us to ‘ ‘restudy” the matter and alter our views. Not that we have found any new evidence from God’s revelation that causes us to revise our thinking, but because our altered view will be easier to apply in the day-to-day world. Or that it answers more of the questions that people raise about the matter. Or that we find the consequences easier to live with. So, if a position has difficulties unacceptable to us, or raises questions too difficult for us to answer, or presents problems too unpleasant for us to accept; we reason that our view of the matter must not be right – no matter what the obvious and fair meaning of the words used by inspiration. It is not that some difficult passage seems to be in conflict with other Scripture and thus must be reexamined with the faith that truth does not conflict with itself, but it is a re-examination and consequent reshaping of views to better fit the circumstance. Bible truth is not of that nature. There are difficulties and questions associated with applying every Bible subject that I know. People can raise questions that I frankly do not know the answers to -but I still must not allow these difficulties and questions to cause me to abandon what the Bible says.

For years good people have presented cases (real and imagined) that make it difficult to apply what the Bible teaches about baptism. Questions about an honest and sincere boy who is killed in battle without having opportunity to be baptized. Or, some beloved and seemingly godly relative that never knew about Mark 16:16. And on and on. One may not know the answers to all those difficulties – but the Bible still says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” and one can still so affirm with confidence. Dare we try to change it to make it easier to answer those questions? If someone presents a scriptural evidence that the point of the passage has been missed then one must admit his misunderstanding and adjust his view and practice to fit the Scriptures – but not to ease the difficulty in applying it to some cases.

There are a lot of problems associated with consistently applying what the Bible teaches about church benevolence (saints only), whom to fellowship, local autonomy, withdrawing from every brother who walks disorderly, etc. If one changes his position on any of these things, he needs to be sure that this change is dictated by what the Bible says about them and not by a desire to find a way to make application less painful.

Sometimes brethren, in their sincere zeal to win more souls and to see the church grow, see that the narrowness of “our position” on certain subjects is a hindrance to their efforts; so they, just as sincerely look for some way to interpret the Scriptures so that the basis for fellowship can be broadened to include the nice people that they are interested in bringing into or keeping in the fold. It is not the purpose of these brethren to corrupt the church, but to see it grow and prosper. Nothing that the Scriptures say has altered the matter, but it is assumed that a position must not have been right because it excludes some of the nicest people in town.

Multiple marriages becomes a bigger and bigger problem everyday. The more we study the Bible with people, the more second, third, fourth, etc. marriages we find. People are constantly presenting us with cases that it would take a Solomon to unravel. The church is not getting and even sometimes losing some “good people” who cannot bring themselves to dissolve such marriages. But, we had better be careful that we do not begin to re-examine d4our position” about such marriages – and the churches’ obligation to not fellowship those in adultery – in light of the present circumstances. In fact, I am convinced that some are already doing so. Men who had no problem with teaching that only a person who has divorced another for the cause of fornication has the right to marry another, are being heard from that now take a broader view of the matter. What brought about their change? New scriptural evidence that shows that their old position is unscriptural? Hardly. Is it more likely that the price of insisting on the old position became more than they were willing to pay. To stay with that position would cause hardship for them or someone that they were concerned about. Or someone raised some “what if’s” of application that seemed too difficult to overcome. I am not saying these men are dishonest, but that it is just so easy to be deceived by the desire to apply the Bible in a way that would cause the least problems for themselves and the church.

Brethren, this is no minor problem. It cannot be placed over in that category of “things over which brethren have differed for years without causing problems.” It is more fundamental than that. If one who marries again, without having put his first partner away for the cause of fornication, is committing adultery – and he is, if we can depend on language at all to convey the truth (Matt. 19:9) – then he is placing himself among those (adulterers) that the Bible specifically says cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9, 10). He is in the class of the one singled out case of church discipline that we have in the New Testament (1 Cor. 5). John the Baptist’s refusal to look the other way, while Herod had a wife that it was not lawful for him to have, caused him to lose his life (Matt. 14). False teaching on fornication was the thing specifically mentioned as being allowed by the church at Thyatira that caused the Lord to condemn that church (Rev. 2:20, 2 1). No, it should not be considered another one of those things of “individual application” over which brethren may differ and still maintain full fellowship. It is a matter of fornication or adultery – a matter that the Bible specifically says left alone would leaven the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6) and in the class with those with whom we are specifically forbidden to keep company (1 Cor. 5:11).

I do not want to sound like an alarmist, but I am afraid that this thing is much bigger than we might like to think. It is not something off out in some distant state, it is next door to all of us. Unless brethren who still believe what the Bible teaches on the matter maintain enough courage to stand up now and be counted and stop the mouths of those who would revise God’s marriage law (no matter how sincere their motives), they may find themselves in churches that will either be fellowshipping those the Bible specifically forbids and/or find themselves with a battle royal on their hands just to keep the church from being torn asunder, because those who present such loose views are often among the more popular and pleasing personalities among brethren. So, it is not easy to get brethren to deal as firmly with them as they should.

Brethren, if you do not know where the men of influence in the congregation where you worship stand on this matter, then you would do well to find out. If you can get no clear cut answers from then, then beware. Their position is probably relative to the circumstances. If they do stand for what the Bible teaches then hold up their hands in the matter. If they do not, then make every effort to expose them. It is not enough that they may not teach it from the pulpit or the church’s Bible classes. Such men do more harm in their private counseling than they ever do by public proclamation of their position. This may sound a bit hard and dogmatic to some, but until someone produces evidence that Matthew 19:9 does not mean just what it seems to say, then that is where we must take our stand. Judging from some things that I have heard lately, I predict that you will be hearing of more and more re-examining their positions on abortion, modesty and even the assembling of ourselves together. As the world becomes more humanistic and hedonistic in its outlook, brethren will find ways to relate the old Bible truth to the new circumstances. I have in recent months heard preachers publicly talk about what they used to think about some of these things, and that they now are not as certain as they once were about them. What precipitated their doubts and changes of views? Did someone present them with hard evidence that they had misread the passages that deal with such subjects? No sir! They found circumstances that made it hard for them to consistently apply the principles they had been teaching, so there must be something wrong with what they had taught for years!

Brethren, this is a real danger to us all. Let us not be so rigid that we will not review and/or revise any view that we might hold in the light of scriptural evidence. But let us make sure that the basis for our readjustment is the absolute truth of God and not relating our positions to the individual, time and circumstance.

Let us not be so dogmatic that we cannot be swayed by scriptural evidence, but let us not fall into the trap of leaving nearly everything open-ended and being able to affirm hardly anything with certainty. Yes sir, I am afraid my brethren are getting far too many relatives and not nearly enough absolutes.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 8, pp. 240-241, 247
April 18, 1985