Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8)

As Paul wrote on the subject of tongue-speaking, he emphasized the need for speaking in an understandable manner. In this, he compared speaking in a language unknown to the hearer to a trumpet which gave an uncertain sound. In that generation, the sound for alarm was given, not by a siren, but by a trumpet. One trumpet sound communicated one message and a different sound communicated another message. One sound called an assembly together (Num. 10:2), one called the princes together (Num. 10:3), one sound commanded the tribes on the east side of the camp to move forward (Num. 10:4), and another blast indicated that the enemy approached for battle (Num. 10:9). A trumpet which did not give a definite sound was worse than no trumpet; it left the people confused and alarmed, not knowing what to do.

The preaching of the gospel is like the blowing of a trumpet. Gospel preaching has a distinctive sound and ring to it. When men cease preaching a distinctive message, the gospel loses its distinctiveness; it ceases to call men to repentance and to salvation. Instead, it soothes the conscience and provides less-threatening platitudes which effect no change in the hearer’s personal life and does not bring him salvation.

Gospel Preaching Is Distinctive And Clear

Gospel preaching is definite and clear in its presentation. The gospel is an inspired revelation from God which announces God’s will (2 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Pet. 1:21). It is not wise man’s thoughts about God! Instead, it is a divine revelation to man-a revelation which can and should be understood, respected, and acted upon.

When men lose confidence in that revelation, the gospel is reduced to man’s groping for God’s will.

Nothing hinders evangelism more today than the widespread loss of confidence in the truth, relevance, and power of the Gospel. When this ceases to be good news from God, and becomes instead “rumors of God,” we can hardly expect to exhibit much evangelistic enthusiasm (John Stott as quoted in Growth and Decline In The Episcopal Church by Wayne B. Williamson, p. 54).

When men lose confidence in the revelation, they no longer know what the truth is and cannot speak with authority on many issues concerning which God has spoken in the Bible. They cannot speak with certainty regarding homosexuality because many learned men consider it a sickness or malformation of genes. They cannot speak with certainty regarding woman’s role in the church because they believe Paul spoke under the influence of his culture rather than under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such attitudes reduce the New Testament from a divine revelation to man’s “guesses” about God.

I am concerned that the distinctive message of the gospel is being lost. In place of the clarion ring of the gospel, we are hearing disconcerting ambiguous preaching which has nothing definite to announce about standards for living. Men will be left with the guilt of their sin if they do not hear and obey the gospel. How sad will be their eternal plight if they hear only a changed, diluted, or perverted gospel.

The Gospel Loses Its Distinctive Sound

Here are some occasions when the gospel loses its distinctive sound.

1. When The Pulpit Is Used For Thinking Out Loud. To some men, the pulpit is a place to think, instead of a place to announce a revelation from God. Preachers raise questions which they do not answer. They raise the question of whether or not women can be ordained as deacons and then leave it unanswered. They question whether or not the Bible allows a contribution to be taken on some day other than the first day of the week and leave it unanswered. They assert that there is no authority for a church building or church treasury. They wonder if the Lord’s supper must be observed on the first day of every week.

The result of this kind of preaching is that members are confused. All kinds of questions are raised, but no answers are given to these questions. Why? Because man’s opinions and not the Bible are used as the standards for decision making.

The pulpit should not be used as a place for the preacher to “think out loud.” The pulpit is to be used to announce the revelation from God. When it is used as a place for the preacher to think out loud, the gospel is changed from a distinctive message with a clarion ring to a trumpet blowing an uncertain sound. Such preaching confuses the church and leaves it unsettled. Brethren come to church to be taught, encouraged, given direction, and edified by the gospel. They leave services bewildered and confused by a preacher who used the pulpit to think out loud instead of using it to proclaim the message of God’s saving grace.

2. Preaching Which Leaves Sin Unrebuked. Some of the change which is occurring in the pulpit is not so much in the area of what is being said as it is in the area of what is not being said. An emphasis is given to positive preaching to such a degree that things which might alienate the white upper middle-class American are left unsaid. Things which were preached when Christians were meeting in a rented building on the other side of the tracks sometimes are not welcome in the expensive structures in white upper middle class suburbia. Affluency should not change the content of the gospel.

Sermons on the oneness of the church are becoming rather rare. One might preach that “the church of Christ practices congregational singing” but never get around to exposing the sinfulness of the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship. Sermons on the identifying marks of the New Testament church are as rare as hen’s teeth in many pulpits. Sermons exposing the errors of the denominations in town are rarely ever preached. In some congregations, a person could attend months at a time and only hear sermons that could have been preached in any denomination in town. “Issues” among the brethren should never be mentioned in the pulpit of the church, according to some brethren’s thinking.

Such preaching leaves a congregation untaught and an easy prey to any false doctrine which comes. Our concern to prevent this from happening demands that we say this.

Among subjects pertaining to immorality, that which is left unsaid is also very revealing. Sermons on love, joy and peace are commonplace. Though no one would deny that sermons should be preached on these subjects, I become amazed when the pulpit is never used to condemn social drinking, unscriptural divorce and remarriage, immodest dress, mixed swimming, and other works of the flesh. One can preach against drunkenness, but he dare not preach against social drinking for fear that he might offend some influential member. He can preach about modest apparel, but he dare not suggest that mixed swimming is a violation of God’s revealed will on the subject for fear that some of the members who are involved will become upset.

By systematically eliminating strong doctrinal and moral preaching because it might offend some visitor or brother, the pulpit is robbed of its power. Denominational folks can attend worship services and leave without ever knowing that they are lost; erring brethren can worship without learning that their practice is sinful. Though no one is in favor of offensive, rude, and abusive preaching, every Christian needs to demand that the pulpit contain a plain and clear statement of the truth in no uncertain language. Those sinners who are present need to be shaken by the truth of the gospel, not made comfortable and lulled further into spiritual stupor. These brethren need to hear the distinctive sound of the gospel in order to know how to respond to it.

3. Preaching Which Attacks The Faithful. The pulpit is further abused when it is used to attack faithful Christians. In some cases, the preacher has used the pulpit as a place to attack those in the local congregation who have crossed him in some way. He calls them by name or paints their picture in such a manner that no one has any doubt about whom he is speaking; then, he proceeds to lambast them. The distinctive sound of gospel preaching has been replaced by personal and vindictive attacks on brethren in such cases.

Sometimes the pulpit is used to assail those faithful brethren who have fought the enemies of the church. Men who were in the foreground of the battle against institutionalism are criticized and condemned by men who were still in grade school when those battles were fought. They seem to know more about how to fight the battle from the historical perspective of twenty years removed than those men knew who lived at the time, saw the error, and did what they could to save the church from it. Standing in the quiet pulpits of churches which were salvaged by brave spiritual warriors, these preachers condemn the necessary judgment decisions which were made in the heat of the battle, like the arm-chair quarterback who knows more about how to win a football game than the trained athletes who devote their entire lives to the sport. Aside from the arrogance manifested by such criticisms, one cannot avoid stating that using the pulpit to attack and assault these faithful brethren is a misuse of the pulpit. One cannot learn the truth and be delivered from sin by hearing such tirades. Those who hear this kind of preaching have doubts raised in their minds regarding the issues which were fought at that time and are not helped spiritually by such preaching. The distinctive message of the gospel is obscured by such attacks.

4. Preaching Which Teaches False Doctrine. The distinctive message of the gospel is also robbed of its power by false teaching. When men start preaching that man has a sinful nature, that men can be saved who have never obeyed the gospel, and that there are Christians in all denominations, then the pulpit has been robbed of its power and a gospel invented by man has been substituted for the real “good news” of Christ.

Conclusion

We need preaching which will save the lost and encourage the saved. We need preaching which win “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted.” We need preaching which produces results-sinners turning from their sins and living according to the word of God. In an effort to address the issue of the kind of preaching which is needed today, this special issue has been prepared. I think that it is a balanced presentation of the kind of preaching which will help keep the church strong.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 9, pp. 257, 280-281
May 2, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Is an individual cleansed of all sins at the time of his baptism, or only the sins of which he is aware and has repented?

Reply: When a person repents and is baptized for the remission of his sins, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses him of all his sins. Forgiveness is complete. One who comes to God with a humble and sincere heart, repenting of all sins of which he is aware and is baptized for the remission of his sins, is assured of forgiveness. The people on the day on Pentecost were baptized for the remission of their sins (plural, Acts 2:38). We are not to believe that their sin of having put the Savior to death by the hands of the Romans was the only sin of which they were forgiven. Nor is it true today, that the only sin that one is to repent of when he is baptized, is the sin of not having obeyed the gospel. We are to repent of each and every sin of which we are aware when we are baptized. When we as Christians pray, we petition our Heavenly Father to forgive us of all of our sins (plural). Whatever God does, He does thoroughly. God completely removes sin when He forgives.

The question arises about one who has been in error on some particular point before he is baptized. An example would be the person who has taught premillennialism and does not yet know that it is a false doctrine, therefore has not repented of believing it or teaching it. Frequently people are baptized who have been in error on some matter of doctrine, and then later learn of their error and repent of it. No one fully understands everything when he becomes a Christian. Even at the time of Christ’s ascension, although the apostles had been taught and carefully trained at the feet of Jesus, they had a misconception of the kingdom. In fact, they had the premillennial concept of it. They, like the modern premillennialists were looking for an earthly kingdom. This is why they asked Jesus, “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?” (Acts 1:6). We cannot believe that the multitude on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) understood all matters of teaching. As a matter of fact, no one before becoming a Christian, knows everything pertaining to the kingdom or the church. No one who is a Christian has a perfect knowledge of God’s word, much less can it be expected that one has it before he is baptized. Honesty demands of every child of God that he acknowledge that he has changed his belief or position on Scripture teaching. God accepts us as far as we have come in our belief and practice. The whole life of a Christian is a learning process. Accountable children know comparatively little before they are baptized. Like all of us, they continue to learn after they become Christians. We can only do what is right upon the basis of what we know.

Truth is absolute, but our understanding of it is relative. This is the reason that Peter admonished his readers: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). By the very fact that all of us have learned more by continuing to study and meditate upon the word of God after we became Christians is prima facie evidence that we were imperfect in our knowledge before we became Christians.

The attitude or disposition of the heart is most important, as we learn of God’s will. Is one willing to repent of his error when he is made aware of it, or will he persist in it? If he learns of his error, but persists in teaching or practicing it, there is no repentance upon his part. Let us observe that the apostle Peter who preached that great gospel sermon on the day of Pentecost was in error. He was not in error on what he preached that day. He preached the truth, and nothing but the truth. But Peter lacked some knowledge and understanding upon another matter. He believed that the gospel was only for the Jews, and that he could not even enter the house of a Gentile, because Gentiles were regarded as unclean. It took a miracle on the housetop to convince Peter of his error. When the Lord taught him the truth, he accepted it. Upon entering the house where Cornelius and those with him had gathered, he said to them, “. . . unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28).

Apollos was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24). He came to Ephesus knowing only the baptism of John. He thought that John’s baptism was still valid. Priscilla and Aquilla “expounded unto him the way of the Lord more accurately” (v. 26). Apollos had believed and taught error, but when he learned the truth, it is evident that he changed his position. The brethren encouraged him, writing to the brethren in Achaia to receive him. He became a great influence for good (vv. 27, 28).

Later, Peter was wrong again. At Antioch, he dissembled and Paul rebuked him. In his own words Paul related the incident, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but. when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:11, 12).

When any one of us learns that he has been in error, he should be willing to abandon that error and accept the truth. We could never grow intellectually or spiritually (2 Pet. 3:18) if we did not continually re-examine our earlier views and attitudes. When we find we are wrong, we should change. All of us as Christians should have a penitent attitude, continually asking God to forgive us of all of our sins. As we learn of any specific sin, which heretofore we were unaware of, it is our responsibility to immediately repent of it and ask God to forgive us. We are thankful for His grace, love and provisions of pardon whereby He makes forgiveness possible.

Some seem to think that they have a “pat” answer for all cases. But circumstances differ, making it impossible to consider every case alike. God is the judge – He is the one who actually decides upon these matters. He is very much interested in our motive and attitude. If we strive to do His will, we will repent of every sin (belief and teaching of error, and practice of error in fife, work and worship) of which we are aware. This means we will cease to commit those errors. To persist in sin when we learn of it, is another matter.

The Lord judges the heart, and may all of us keep our hearts right that we may ever learn the truth and live by it. We do not have all the answers but the principles set forth in this reply, we believe to be right. May they help to serve as guidelines in our efforts to please our Heavenly Father.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 8, pp. 229, 245
April 18, 1985

By Mike Willis

One of the beliefs which is becoming more widespread is “agnosticism.” An agnostic is one “who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God or a future life, or anything beyond material phenomena.” The word is derived from the Greek verb ginosko which means “to know.” With the privative alpha, the word denotes that one cannot know.

Agnosticism begins with the idea that one cannot know for sure whether or not there is a God. However, by the elimination of God and divine revelation, agnosticism leads to the conclusion that one cannot know anything certainly; one can only reach close approximations of what is or is not truth. Furthermore, what is truth for one person may not be the truth for others, according to agnosticism.

Divine Revelation Enables Us To Know The Truth

The Christian believes in the existence of God based on the evidence which exists (his conclusion is not a blind leap in the dark). Furthermore, the Bible claims to be a divine revelation from God (2 Pet. 1:19-2 1; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; etc.). The Bible’s claim is supported by the evidence of prophecy, internal unity, the testimony of Jesus, historical accuracy, and scientific accuracy. The only logical explanation of the Bible is that it is a revelation from God to man.

The Lord Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). This statement affirms that (1) there is an objective truth; (2) this truth can be known; (3) knowledge of this truth is essential in order to receive deliverance from sin.

Because God has revealed His will to us, we can know the truth and know it certainly. Each of us needs to manifest the humility to recognize that he might not have considered part of God’s word on any subject or might have misunderstood some part of the revelation. Hence, when anyone presents biblical evidence, the open-minded Christian will consider what the Bible says and alter his beliefs to bring them into harmony with the Bible. However, once one’s understanding is in harmony with what the Bible says, he can know and speak that truth with certainty. This is not true because the individual is so learned; it is true because God revealed it! When his understanding is what God revealed, He has the truth of God and can speak it with certainty.

The attainment of that understanding is not impossible. We have preached and believed for years that man can understand the Bible and can understand it alike. I know what God said about murder and have no reluctance to speak with certainty in saying that murder is sinful. I know what God spoke about stealing and have no hesitancy in stating that God condemns stealing.

In recent years, some have been influenced so greatly by infidelity that they act as if one cannot know anything with certainty. We see certain areas affected by this “agnosticism.”

We Can Know For Sure

1. In Morality. With the popular acceptance of situation ethics, men have concluded that man cannot be certain about whether or not some things are wrong. Our society has begun to conclude that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable alternative, that no-fault divorce and subsequent remarriage should be readily available, that pre-marital and extramarital sexual relationships should not be considered sinful, that abortion is an acceptable means of birth control, that drunkenness is a disease, and many other things contrary to sound doctrine. Some brethren have been affected. They find themselves unable to determine what is right regarding divorce and remarriage, they do not know God’s will about social drinking, some have a hard time speaking very certainly about abortion, and some treat drunkenness as a disease to such an extent that the drunk is somehow not responsible for his conduct. This is the influence which agnosticism is having in the church.

Christians can know for certain that homosexuality is a sin (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Rom. 1:26-27), that fornication and adultery are sinful (Gal. 5:19-21), that remarriage after a divorce for any cause other than fornication is adultery (Matt. 19:9), that the taking of human life is murder, and that drunkenness is sinful (1 Pet. 4:3). When Christians speak as if one cannot know for sure whether or not things such as these are wrong, their uncertainty manifests a lack of confidence in the revealed word of God.

2. The Number of Churches. In recent years, some brethren have begun to doubt what the Bible says about the number of churches which Jesus built. Jesus said, ‘ ‘I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18); Paul said that there is only “one body” (Eph. 4:4), which he had previously identified as the church (Eph. 1:22-23). Hence, the Bible is clear in stating that there is only one church.

Some brethren are writing that our insistence upon one church is sectarian and narrow-minded. They act like one cannot know for sure how many churches are acceptable to God. We can know for sure. We do not have to be agnostic about how many churches there are. God has spoken! Men no longer believe in the oneness of the church because they have lost confidence in God’s word.

3. The Worship Which God Accepts. We can know for sure what kind of worship God accepts and what kind He rejects (Matt. 15:8-9). We can know that God accepts the observing of the Lord’s supper on the first day of every week (Acts 20:7); we can know that He accepts prayer offered in Jesus’ name (Jn. 16:23-24); we can know that He expects us to give of our means on the first day of every week (1 Cor. 16:1-2); we can know that we should preach apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:42); and we can know that congregational singing is acceptable to Him (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15).

We can also know that those who pervert and change the worship are under condemnation (Matt. 15:8-9). Hence, we can know that failure to observe the Lord’s supper on the first day of every week does not please God, that prayer in the name of Mary is sinful, that taking a collection on some day other than the first day of the week violates God’s word, that preaching something other than apostolic doctrine is displeasing to God, and that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is a transgression of the word of God.

When someone says that we cannot know for sure what kind of worship pleases God, he manifests a lack of confidence in God’s word. We are not in an agnostic stance in reference to worship. We need not think that we can only offer the kind of worship we think to be pleasing to God and keep our fingers crossed that He will accept it. We can know because God has revealed His will in the matter.

4. What A Man’s Spiritual Condition Is. In recent years, some brethren have lost the ability to determine whether a sinner is saved or lost. They write as if it is impossible to know for sure. Those who speak confidently on the subject are judged to be guilty of judging others. The men who teach that one cannot know the condition of the man who uses mechanical instruments of music in worship seem to have no trouble in judging to be lost those of us who confidently teach that those involved in this perversion of worship are lost.

You can ask some brethren, “Are those who use instruments of music in their worship saved or lost?” They respond that they do not know. You ask them, “What is the condition of a Christian who preaches that church support of human institutions is not wrong, who participates in it, and who encourages others to join in this sin?” They respond, “I do not know.”

I do not pretend to know the hearts of men. However, I do know that God has revealed that those who distort the worship of God through their human traditions render their worship vain (Matt. 15:8-9). 1 do know that God promised to root them up (Matt. 15:13). 1 do know that those blind followers of these blind leaders will fall into a ditch (Matt. 15:14), which I understand to mean that they will die and go to hell.

The reason why I am working to get men out of these apostate religious organizations is because of the conviction that they are lost., However, some brethren cannot tell whether or not they are lost. They preach that we cannot know the condition of those who are involved in the sins mentioned before. To this degree, they are agnostics! Their agnosticism is extinguishing their evangelistic fires.

Conclusion

Brethren, we need to be preaching what the Bible says with confidence that it is the truth. This is not the time for uncertainty and unclear sounds coming from the pulpit. This is the time to speak boldly what God has revealed.

We can advance beyond “agnosticism.” We do not have to stand in a “I cannot know” position. We can know because God has spoken. Because God has spoken and spoken so clearly that man can understand Him, we can advance beyond agnosticism.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 8, pp. 226, 248-249
April 18, 1985

By Mike Wilson

Our culture thrives on diversity. The author of the recent best selling book, Megatrends, says, “Everything comes in 33 flavors.” Try shopping for a car and you will be overwhelmed with how many brands, sizes, shapes, and colors there are. Unfortunately, this wide diversity of choice has spilled over into the realm of religion. In the context of denominational selection the name “Christian” has been so maligned that it is even worn by some who have no respect for God, the Deity of Christ, and the integrity of the Bible.

To theologians who treat choosing a church like buying a car, the pronouncement of Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14 seems out of place: “Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.” Truth by its very nature imposes limitations and marks out the boundaries.

The path of least resistance, on the other hand, is the path approved by the consensus of popular opinion. People like to remain uncommitted on life’s most crucial questions. It is easy to walk the fence. Any deviation from the middle ground is looked upon as extremism. There would always be those swayed so much by peer pressure that they would not publicly acknowledge their allegiance to Christ for fear of expulsion from the synagogue (cf. John 12:42-43). To such moral cowards, the Lord says, in essence, “Take your stand! ” The prophet Elijah was considered a troublemaker for using similar language. He called the Israelites whose affection was divided between Jehovah and Baal to make such a choice: “How long go ye limping between the two sides?” (1 Kings 18:21).

There would never be a time when a clear, sharp line of distinction would have to be drawn more decisively than in the battle between truth and error. After telling the multitudes gathered on that Galilean hillside about the two ways, Jesus turns His attention to the subject of false prophets (Matt. 7:15-20). The New Testament is replete with similar warnings. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4: 1). We are expressly forbidden to engage in any action which might imply endorsement of a false teacher (2 Jn. 9-11). Such men, having been sternly tested with the gospel, are to be declared “anathema” (Gal. 1:8-9). Paul would not tolerate the Judaizing heresy even for “an hour.” His reason is clear: “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5). False teaching cannot be defeated with compromise!

Perhaps the chief characteristic of false teaching, other than its deviant content, is the deception with which it is propagated. Jesus warned that men would “come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). To penetrate that deceptive outward veneer, we must become expert fruit inspectors.

The fruit reveals the true character of the tree. A man’s conduct, and especially his teaching (cf. Matt. 12:33-37), says much about the man. Paul declared that some “deceitful workers” in Corinth were masquerading as apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 11:13). Many unsuspecting listeners would prove to be vulnerable to their subtle techniques.

If our stand against evil influence is not taken firmly and decisively, that influence will spread like a cancerous growth that goes undetected until it is too late! Jesus called the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees “leaven” (Matt. 16:6, 12). A little leaven does indeed leaven the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6-7). A fornicator maintaining a status of “good standing” with the church would create an ungodly influence that would permeate the entire church. Such was Paul’s argument to the Corinthians. The same apostle likened the “profane babblings” of Hymeneus and Philetus to a deadly “gangrene” that spreads through the tissues of the body (2 Tim. 2:17).

It is sometimes objected that we take stands of conviction that are too firm for too little study. It is true that the cause of truth has not been served well by unqualified men whose poor exegesis suffers from a lack of diligent study. There are others who confuse the fight for truth with the ungodly spirit of selfish ambition and contentious rivalry. Such abuses need to be exposed, but they do not negate the need for conviction in waging the war against error.

False teachers must be attacked on many fronts. Some are emphasizing the enhancement of personal relationships and other social trivialities while failing to denounce the immorality of our decadent society. Others do not respect God’s word, God’s church, and God’s worship – and then they preach unity in diversity on these matters! Still others cheapen the Lord’s plan of salvation with Calvinistic heresy. Consequently, many who do not have a right relationship with God have been given confidently-stated false assurances. The situation in Christendom today causes the lingering memory of false prophets who cried out, “Peace, peace; when there is no peace” (Jer. 8:9).

On the Day of Judgment, there will be preachers whose hands are stained red with the blood of those to whom they refused to tell the truth. Every elder, teacher, preacher, and Christian of any influence should take these things to heart.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 8, pp. 225, 249
April 18, 1985