Truth Magazine

By Harry L. Lewis

Sometimes it is difficult to determine just who is making the trouble for God’s people. In 1 Kings 18:17-18, we find this statement, “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” In this instance, it would be almost impossible to tell just who was the real trouble maker if we did not know more about the situation than is stated here in these two verses. If you had been an ordinary soldier in Ahab’s army, just who would you have thought the troubler of Israel was that day? Many times the people of God have been accused of causing trouble when, in reality, Satan’s helpers were the real culprits. Sometimes it is even those who do not want to take sides, but just want to stand and do nothing who cause trouble.

Let us take the case of David and Goliath to illustrate how someone might be taken for a trouble maker when in reality he is just doing what must be done (1 Sam. 17). When David came upon the scene, there was peace and quiet on the battle front. Two armies were peering at each other across the valley, but there was no open war – all was quiet. It was kind of like the spiritual battle that God’s people wage day after day with Satan and his helpers. There is an open battle once in a while, but most of the time there are two armies just glowering at each other. Some sort of like it that way. Everybody knows which side that they are on. Everybody knows there is a war, but there doesn’t have to be any open fights so long as some hothead does not show up. Enter David! “Is there not a cause? ‘ ” David said in 1 Samuel 17:29. His brother, Eliab, who we learn in 1 Samuel 16:7 was a fine specimen of a man, talks down to David for butting into this war. Some are happy with an armed truce when winning the battle may cost them personally. Eliab knew that he was not going to risk all to fight an all-out war with the giant, but he felt badly when someone came along who would. He accused David of coming out to see the battle. What battle? There will be no battle so long as Eliab or King Saul, who also was head and shoulders above all in Israel, are depended upon to meet Goliath. Eliab and King Saul try to discourage David in every way they know how, but to no avail. David is a troublemaker and he sees a chance to stir something up. He saw a chance to make a name for himself. He wanted to be known as the brotherhood gunslinger. David became a disturber of the peace, it was all his fault! Eliab was a great peacemaker. He paints a dark picture of David with his few sheep and his foolhardy notions of fighting the giant.

You know, my brethren like the idea of drawing up battle lines against Satan and sin, but they sometimes, like Eliab, get hostile at those who engage the battle. It seems to me anger at the fighter is getting worse instead of better. It seems some of our champions of truth would rather stare at the enemy from a safe distance than go down with sling in hand and look him in the eye. The giant can come out forty days in a row and curse God and His Son, but when some gospel preacher goes out to do battle, the sideline saints have nothing but good things to say for the poor giant who got his head cut off after getting hit with a rock.

I remember some of the debates I have been to: the Hafley-Parnell debate, the Welch-Bayer debate, the ChappelearWelch debate. There were others which I have heard about; the Grider-Totty debate, the Porter-Bogard debate, etc. I have heard backhanded remarks about each of these debates. “Hafley, Welch, Porter and Grider, as well as others, were too harsh,” some are heard to say. If some of these folks had reported what happened to Goliath that day I wonder if they would have said, “That bully with the sling-shot hit the poor man with a big rock, and then wasn’t satisfied, so he went up and actually cut the poor man’s head off while he lay unconscious! ” Yes, I get the impression that some of our champions of right and justice would be in favor of starting a fund for poor defeated giants and take the money out of the church funds to keep it going.

Shame on you David! You trouble maker! You came upon the scene and all was peace. The battle was drawn, and all the champions of Israel were standing tall, but then you came along and made it very plain what the problem was. Some would rather talk about fighting against sin than to do any of the fighting. Not only that, they don’t want anyone else to do it, lest some other might get the reputation of being a real giant killer.

One of the deacons at Plainfield, Indiana made me an elephant chaser when I was located there in 1968. That thing worked very well for I have never had one bit of trouble with elephants since. Some of our giant killers do the same thing. They do fine so long as there are no Goliaths around!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 8, pp. 227-228
April 18, 1985

By Donald Willis

Contentment is one of the greatest possessions one may have. It is within itself a goal toward which one needs to strive. A truly contented person possesses a balance; the daily pressures and setbacks do not disconcert. One is able to go with the flow of daily activities realizing a Great Hand is directing; therefore, all is well!

One can learn contentment! God even commanded His people too be content. “. . . Be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (Heb. 13:5-6). An evidence of repentance, John the Baptist taught, was “…be content with your wages” (Lk. 3:14). Paul instructed, “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy…” (I Tim. 6:17). Trust God, He will never forsake!

Fulton J. Sheen, in his book, Way To Happiness, states four basic causes of discontentment. The principle cause is egotism or selfishness, which sets the self up as the primary plant around which everyone else must resolve. The second cause is envy, which makes us regard the possessions and talents of others as if they were stolen from us. The third cause is covetousness, or an inordinate desire to have more, in order to compensate for the emptiness of our heart. The fourth cause of discontentment is jealousy and hatred of those who have what we wish for ourselves.

One of the greatest mistakes is to think that contentment comes from something outside us rather than from a quality of the soul. Jesus, in the greatest of all sermons, the Sermon on the Mount, taught that happiness comes from character, and not from things! Anyone can learn that contentment is a human circumstance of life, if the heart is centered in God.

Trying to make a discontented person happy is like trying to fill a sieve with water. However much you pour into it,. it runs out too rapidly for you to catch up. Trust in the Lord!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, p. 210
April 4, 1985

By Vernon Love

“Rev. Moon” is in jail, but the Moonies are not! “Rev. Moon” was found guilty of not paying taxes on interest he received on a bank account in his name. Now he is in jail. The Moonies are still spreading their false doctrine through “love” and are as active as they have ever been, but they have a new way of getting their message to the people.

They claim that when Moon received millions to put in his own personal account to use for his work, and though he received interest on this money, that this was his own religious right and the government should not say a word. Two Moonies admitted to me that if “Rev. Moon” would have put the money in the bank in the name of The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, or the Unification Church, as it is commonly referred to, and wrote checks on the account, even allowed the account to draw interest, that he would not be in jail. Surely, “Rev. Moon” and all his accountants knew this, as this information is available to all. So, since his disciples knew this, it appears to me that “Rev. Moon” is in jail for a cause. It appears that he does not know the difference between the church and the individual, but I think he went to jail to further his cause.

So, they cry “denial of religious freedom!” Guess who comes to the rescue? Yep, denominational preachers by the thousands! They have formed the “Ad Hoc Committee For Religious Freedom.” This group has been meeting all over the U.S. telling the tale that Uncle Sara is infringing upon religious freedom, and they have brought in others who have gotten into trouble with the government. They met in Tampa and some of us went to hear all the speeches of how religion is doomed here in the U.S. This group is not sparing any expenses, as they go first class. We met in one of Tampa’s finest hotels, and then were fed a very nice lunch. All of this was free; paid for by “Rev. Moon” and his denominational cronies.

Then I received a letter from the “Interdenominational Conferences for Clergy,” which is another one of “Rev. Moon’s” groups. They are inviting the clergy to different resorts to hear what “Rev. Moon” teaches so you can get more insight into the Unification movement. Then they say all non-Unificationists will be allowed to reply. They took 200 clergy to the Bahamas; then they have plans to go to the Hilton Head Island Beach, later to Gatlinburg, Tennessee, then to Mobile, Alabama. They will pay your air fare or travel by car, put you in a very nice room, and let you stay three days with one guest. All free of course; you have to pay for your own liquor, and any other charges you might have. This is costing them a bundle, but they are not showing any signs of slowing down even though “Rev. Moon” is in jail.

The amazing thing to me is that until “Rev. Moon” got into tax trouble, most of the clergy of the U.S. would not be found dead near “Rev. Moon.” Now that they see the U.S. is investigating churches for non-religious activities, they are crying that this a violation of their religious freedom! There were forty different groups which filed briefs in behalf of Moon. The list is made up of the National Council of Churches, American Baptist Churches, Presbyterian Churches of U.S.A., African Methodist Episcopal Churches, Mormons, Catholics, and many non-religious groups and individuals. “Rev. Moon” was able to do with one c rime more than he was able to do as a free man, and his group keeps on growing. Would you believe that there was a black preacher from Texas, who said he was a member of the Church of Christ, who openly supported “Rev. Moon” at the “Ad Hoc Committee For Religious Freedom Rally” in Washington, D.C. held in May, 1984?

Where do they get all their money? They sell flowers, candy, pictures, and anything else they can on street comers all over the U.S. They own property worth millions, and they use their assets to make a profit so they can spread their “false doctrine.” Many of the Moonies are out on the street comers selling so they can make their own living and have time to teach that “Rev. Moon” has been sent to finish the work that Jesus Christ did not accomplish. These Moonies have the will, zeal, and money to go anywhere in the U.S., and no town is off limits. The next time you drive by a vendor on a street comer, you had better ask who he is, because chances are the vendor will be a Moonie. Remember, “Rev. Moon” is in jail, but the Moonies are not!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, p. 213
April 4, 1985

By Wayne S. Walker

A false concept that is very prevalent in the religious world today is that we are in some way still amenable to the Old Testament law. Many people believe that all one has to do to be saved is to keep the Ten Commandments, or that we can use instrumental music in worship because David did. These folks have never learned that there is a distinct and vital difference between the Old and New Testaments. During the period when men were beginning to restore the first century church in this country, one of Alexander Campbell’s early discourses, his “Sermon on the Law” in 1816, caused a great deal of controversy when he sought to delineate the proper division of the Bible, whereas most other groups insisted upon equal authority for both covenants in the life of the Christian. One passage which deals with the subject is Romans 7:1-25 where Paul says we are discharged from the law.

In verses 1-6, Paul draws an analogy from the husband-wife relationship. Speaking to those who know the concept of law, he says that a man is under the principles and precepts of a law as long as that man lives (verse 1). He then illustrates the idea by stating that if a woman is married to a man and the man dies, she is free from the law of her husband to marry another. However, if her husband is still alive and she marries another she is an adulteress (with the exception of a divorce for fornication, Matt. 19:9). Yet, if her first husband is dead, she is not an adulteress if she remarries because she is loosed from the law of that husband (vv. 2-3).

This analogy may help some who are confused and wonder why we “keep parts of the Old Testament” but not other parts (when in fact we keep none of it). The law of the first husband, to which the woman agreed, might have been to darn his underwear, fix gravy with rice, and starch his socks. After his death and her remarriage, the law of the second husband might have been to dam his underwear, fix gravy with potatoes, and no starching socks. She does not continue to starch socks as her first husband wanted, because she has been loosed completely from that law, even though she still does things in it as her second husband wants. She darns his underwear, not because it was the law of the first husband but because it is the law of the second. In like manner, we obey certain principles found in the Old Testament, not because they are in the Old Testament but because they are in the New.

Therefore, Paul concludes that we are dead to the law (vv. 4-6). To what law is he referring? He specifies the law that contained the commandment, “Thou shalt not covet” (see Ex. 20:17). How are we dead to the law? It is by the body of Christ when He hung at Calvary, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:14). Why are we dead to the law? In order that we might be joined to another, to Christ and His law, and bring forth fruit unto God, thus serving in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6-11).

In verse 7, an imaginary question is raised about the nature of the law. Is the law then sinful? Did God cause us to sin by giving the law? Paul says certainly not. The purpose of the law was to define sin and condemn it. “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” The law contained “the commandment, which was ordained to life” (v. 10). The design of the law was to teach the Jews how to live so as to please God and receive His favor. “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:5).

We are told, “Wherefore the law is holy” because it prescribed a commandment that was “holy, and just, and good” (v. 12). Paul continues, “For we know that the law is spiritual” (v. 14) since its purpose was spiritual in nature. It pointed the Israelites to the Messiah. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). Finally he says, “I consent unto the law that it is good” (v. 16) in that it served the purpose for which God instituted it. Thus, the law was not evil in and of itself. Yet, at the same time it was not perfect because it made no provisions for remission of sins (Heb. 10:3-4). Therefore, all under the law were under only condemnation if they disobeyed, for there was no avenue of release. God never gave the old covenant to be a final method of bringing men into perfection. It was given for a specific purpose: to prepare men for the coming of Christ who would bring into existence a complete means for perfecting man.

In verses 8-24, Paul talks about the effect of the law. Because of what has been previously said, the law was one of condemnation and death (vv. 8-14). Sin took advantage or occasion of the law. Since the law required perfect obedience, it gave sin force by subjecting every transgression to the penalty of death. Yet, it supplied neither help nor hope to the transgressor (v. 8). When a man does not know the law, sin is “dead” (i.e., “dormant”) to him; he feels alive. But when he comes in contact with the law, sin comes alive and the commandment which was meant to tell a person how to live becomes a means of death. Paul says sin deceived and slew me. I died, or saw myself as dead through the law and its penalty (vv. 9-11). Did the law cause the death? No, sin caused the death, working through the law (that is, the law prescribed the penalty of death) which was given that sin might appear sinful (vv. 12-14).

There follows a description of one under the law without Christ (vv. 15-24). Paul projects himself into this situation and says that which I do (sin spurred on by rebellion at the command) I allow not (I do not endorse it to be good). What I want to do (keep the command) I do not, and what I hate (breaking the command) I do. But even though I do that which I do not want to do (break the law), I still recognize the law to be good (w. 15-16). In me, my flesh, dwells no good thing. (This is not a statement of total hereditary depravity but of the result of sin through the law). I want to do good, but I do not find the means to do it, either in myself or the law. For the law provided the knowledge of, not the cure for, sin. And in order to do good, we must first be freed from evil (vv. 17-20).

There is a law, Paul goes on, that when I want to do good, evil is there tempting me (vv. 21-24). 1 delight in the law of God in that I want to do what is right. But there is a different kind of law in my members, warring against the law of my mind (the desire to do good) and it brings me into captivity to the law of sin (cf. Gal. 5:16-17). This is the effect of trying to keep the old law, of seeking justification on the basis of law. It is complete dominion and captivity to sin resulting in a wretched state. “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death,” this miserable condition? Not the law!

In verse 25 Paul tells us that the answer to the question is Jesus Christ our Lord who was sent by the grace of God. Jesus promised that, when all was fulfilled, the law would pass away (Matt. 5:17-18). Since Christ is the “end of the law” (its fulfillment, Rom. 10:4), the law has served its purpose and was taken out of the way. Christ came to “redeem them that were under the law” (Gal. 4:4-5). He did this by abolishing “in his flesh and the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:15).

The old covenant itself prophesied its own replacement (Heb. 8:6-13). When Jesus came to do the will of God, He took away the first covenant so that He could establish the second, “by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” ((Heb. 10:7-10). Jesus paid the penalty, thus providing perfect pardon. Having done this, He took that old law, which did not offer perfect pardon but only the penalty of death for sin, out of the way. As a result, Paul concludes in Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.”

This is why we say that we are justified by grace and not the law. That is not to say that we are not under law to Christ

(1 Cor. 9:21) but that the law is not the grounds of our justification (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:11). Even if Christ did come and take our place as an atonement for sin, the law made no provision for such a substitution as long as it was in force. He had to take it out of the way, giving His own law which provided for His sacrifice to be valid (note Heb. 7:11-14). If we are still under that old law, Christ’s death on the cross avails nothing. If we seek justification by that law, Paul warns us, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, pp. 211-212
April 4, 1985