Truth Magazine

By O.C. Birdwell

A sermon was preached in which sin, repentance, and forgiveness were discussed. The subject was the Corinthians, their sins, Paul’s rebuke of them, and their repentance. Some of the sins of these people were listed as follows: The “sins committed were numerous.” There was “factionalism,” “carnality,” and “unnecessary lawsuits.” They were “harboring an incestuous man.” They were “either deliberately or ignorantly violating the consciences of others. ” They were “not partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but conducting their own with over indulgences and excesses.” There was “failure to properly exercise spiritual gifts,” and “error regarding the resurrection” was taught.

The Corinthians “became arrogant” and “had not mourned.” It was affirmed that Paul’s letter “produced godly sorrow in them.” The letter was designed “to change their thinking.” They then “approved themselves to be pure.” Quite clearly this was after their sin, Paul’s first letter, and their repentance (2 Cor. 7: 11). It was shown that this case illustrates “genuine repentance.” It was also stated that “repentance is not genuine until the offense is stopped” and “there can be no forgiveness without repentance.”

This all sounds good and is scriptural, but the sermon was not over. The preacher went on to affirm that Paul’s letter was designed to change their thinking and keep them in the way of “being saved, ” and that “the lesson we must learn from this is what the Corinthians did in order to stay in the way that leads to ultimate salvation.” It was clearly inferred that while they were committing all the sins listed, at the same time, they stood before God in a saved relationship. It was affirmed that “true repentance removes any regrets and causes one to say, ‘I stopped it because it is, wrong and would eventually result in my eternal misery.”‘

I have no problem with the statement, “We are all in the process of being saved,’ 1 if by that it is meant that we are in the process of trying to go to heaven. The question I insist on being answered is, “Were those people, who were guilty of the above sins, standing before God in a saved relationship before their repentance? If they had died before their repentance, would they go to heaven?”

My Bible indicates that the guilty Corinthians, who were children of God, stood before God in a lost condition because of their sins. Those who were guilty of “factionalism” and “carnality” committed the sins of “envy, strife, and division” (1 Cor. 3:3) – sins listed by Paul in the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 which keep a Christian out of the kingdom of heaven. To those who were defiling the temple of God by division, Paul said, “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy” (1 Cor. 3:16). To those involved in lawsuits, Paul said, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Those who cause a weak brother to stumble, “sin” against their brethren and “sin against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). The misuse of one’s liberties was still under discussion when Paul said, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27) and “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10: 12).

Regarding those who denied the resurrection, Paul had considerable to say. He identified the resurrection as fundamental to the doctrine of Christ (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Those who deny the bodily resurrection, also denied Christ’s resurrection by implication. Their false doctrines were dangerous, even to those who followed them with a good conscience. Paul warned, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). Those who did not keep the resurrection as part of their faith did not stay saved (1 Cor. 15:1-3). This is not a problem peculiar to the first century. There are brethren today who deny that there is a future second coming of Jesus and bodily resurrection. Are these false teachers in the “process of being saved”? Surely a gospel preacher could not describe those who deny the resurrection as being in the “process of being saved”!

Our Baptist friends have argued “once in grace, always in grace” for years. When one asks them about a person who was saved becoming involved in a sin, they sometimes reply, “He never was saved to start with.” Some of our brethren are not much different. They argue that a child of God who becomes involved in sin remains in the “process of being saved” in spite of his sins. If one raises the question of what would happen to this man if he is confronted with his sin and chooses to remain in it, these preachers begin to answer like our Baptist friends. If this man in the “process of being saved” commits a sin, they say he remains in a saved relationship with God. When you confront him and he decides to continue in his sin, he becomes lost. Hence, why should I tell him about his sin? My confronting him with his sin might cause him to become lost! There response is this: “If he chooses to stay in his sin, he never was saved to start with” (i.e., he never was good, honest, and sincere). The differences in these two positions are too small for me to distinguish.

If one will tell us plainly where the child of God stands before God, after he sins and before he repents, I believe the discussion on this subject will be over. Gospel preachers have fallen on hard times when they can’t tell a person who is guilty of carnality, factionalism, harboring an incestuous man, denying the resurrection of the body, and going to law with a brother whether or not they stand justified before God!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 166-167
March 21, 1985

By Mike Willis

Each of the synoptic gospels relates the miracle which Jesus performed when He calmed the sea of Galilee (Matt. 8:23-28; Mk. 4:35-41; Lk. 8:22-25). This is one of the most impressive miracles which Jesus performed.

Jesus had taught the people by parables (Mk. 4:35). He planned to cross the Sea of Galilee to go the country of the Gadarene demoniac, whom He healed later that day. Luke’s account reads as follows:

Now it came to pass on a certain day, that he went into a ship with his disciples: and he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake. And they launched forth. But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy. And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm. And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this? For he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.

Lessons From the Miracle

1. The nature of Jesus. Both the humanity and the deity of Jesus are observed in this incident. The humanity of Jesus is seen in the reference to Him sleeping, for of God it is said, “Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” The deity of Jesus is manifested by His ability to calm the stormy sea.

2. Jesus was calm in the midst of the storm. While the storm beat down upon the lake, Jesus lay in the back of the boat asleep. He was at peace with Himself and His Father. “In Him we behold here the exact reverse of Jonah (Jon. i. 5, 6); the fugitive prophet asleep in the midst of a like danger out of a dead conscience, the Savior out of a pure conscience – Jonah by his presence making the danger, Jesus yielding a pledge and assurance of deliverance from it” (R.C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord, p. 89).

In contrast to His calmness and peace, we see the agitation in the hearts of the disciples. After calming the storm, Jesus asked, “Where is your faith?” His question demonstrates that their agitation was an evidence of an absence of faith.

None of the disciples of Christ are exempt from trials and life threatening circumstances. God has never promised us that our lives would be without storms and troubles. In these troubles, sometimes the disciples of Christ die. Jesus never promised us that the troubles of life would not cause some of us to die. Nevertheless, He expressed that their agitation and turmoil were a result of an absence or deficiency in faith.

This kind of agitation is similar to that mentioned in Matthew 6 in which a man worries about food, clothing, and shelter. Both cases manifest a man who is not trusting the providence of God and His provisions for us. If, in the providence of God, I must face the storm and even if that storm causes my death, my God is stiff providing for me and taking care of me. I must learn to trust God amid the storms of life. Job manifested this kind of trust when he said, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job. 13:15).

3. The fisherman turned to the Carpenter. Peter, James, and John were in the boat with Jesus. These men were fishermen by trade, experienced in handling a boat. If one were going to experience bad weather in a boat on the Sea of Galilee, Peter, James and John would be the kind of men who would be best prepared to handle a boat in the storm. Nevertheless, when the storm hit and their boating experience was unable to cope with the storm, these experienced boaters turned to Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth for help. Why would fishermen turn to a carpenter for help in managing a boat in the midst of a storm?

Obviously, the disciples recognized that Jesus was able to do something to help them which they could not do for themselves. Although they were surprised by what He did, their turning in desperation to Jesus for help manifested a degree of faith in Jesus.

4. Jesus controlled the winds and the waves. Jesus was able to speak a word and calm the elements of nature. The omnipotence of God enables Him to control the seas. “Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them” (Psa. 89:9). An ordinary man cannot control the waves of the sea. This miracle by Jesus demonstrates His omnipotence and control over nature. The deity of Christ is proven by miracles such as this.

There has never been a modern miracle worker attempt to do what Jesus did. He may try to heal a man who is partially blind so that he can see better, to enable a man partially deaf to hear better, to have someone cough up a tumor, and some other “miracle” which one can never verify. However, there is no modem miracle worker who could dare stand before tho blowing winds and raging sea and demonstrate his ability to perform a miracle by saying, “Peace, be still.”

Conclusion

May this miracle of Jesus impress us once more with His divine care for us, His ability to help us in any desperate circumstance, and our need to trust in God. Him whom we serve is indeed able to come to our help and meet our most desperate need. In closing, I quote the words of the familiar hymn “Master, The Tempest Is Raging.”

Master, the tempest is raging!
The billows are tossing high!
The sky is o’er-shadowed with blackness,
No shelter or help is nigh,
Carest Thou not that we perish?
How canst Thou lie asleep,
When each moment so madly is threatening
A grave in the angry deep?

Master, with anguish of spirit
I bow in my grief today,
The depths of my sad heart are troubled –
O waken and save, I pray;
Torrents of sin and of anguish
Sweep o’er my sinking soul;
And I perish! I perish! dear Master
O hasten and take control;

Master, the terror is over,
The elements sweetly rest,
Earth’s sun in the calm lake is mirrored,
And heaven’s within my breast,
Linger, O blessed Redeemer!
Leave me alone no more,
And with joy I shall make the best harbor,
And rest on the blissful shore.

The winds and the waves shall obey Thy will,
Peace, be still! Peace, be still!
Whether the wrath of the storm tossed sea,
Or demons or men, or whatever it be,
No waters can swallow the ship where lies
The Master of ocean, and earth, and skies,
They all shall sweetly obey thy will,
Peace, be still! Peace, be still!
They all shall sweetly obey Thy will
Peace, peace, be still!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 162, 181
March 21, 1985

By Mike Wilson

The general consumption of intoxicating beverages and consequent drunkenness is not met with divine approval in the Bible. God’s attitude toward “strong drink” is expressed in terms of condemnation. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; and whosoever erreth thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1). “And even these reel with wine, and stagger with strong drink; they are swallowed up of wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment” (Isa. 28:7). “Be not among winebibbers . . .” (Prov. 23:20). “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, When it sparkleth in the cup, When it goeth down smoothly; At the last it biteth like a serpent, And stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange things, And thy heart shall utter perverse things” (Prov. 23:31-33).

Part of the confusion arises by the translation of “wine” of some words in both the Old and New Testaments which can refer to fresh juice from the vineyard, with no measurable alcoholic content. The common word for “wine” in the New Testament, oinos, can bean either fermented wine or fresh grape juice. The context must determine the meaning.

A second factor involves the potency of the alcoholic content. “Wine was the most intoxicating drink known in ancient times. All the wine was light wine, i.e. not fortified with extra alcohol. Concentrated alcohol was only known in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation (‘alcohol’ is an Arabic word) so what is now called liquor or strong drink (i.e., whiskey, gin, etc.) and the twenty percent fortified wines were unknown in Bible times. Beer was brewed by various methods, but its alcoholic content was light. The strength of natural wines is limited by two factors. The percentage of alcohol will be half the sugar in the juice. And if the alcoholic content is much above 10 or 11 percent, the yeast cells are killed and fermentation ceases. Probably ancient wines were 7-10 percent” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 376). The same Wordbook defines “strong drink” thus: “strong drink, beer. Most likely not ‘liquor’ for there is no evidence of distilled liquor in ancient times. It denotes not just barley beer but any alcoholic beverage prepared from either grain or fruit” (Vol. II, p. 927).

When we read the word “wine” in the Bible, we should not immediately equate it with the beverages sold in the modern bars, supermarkets, and liquor stores. Whiskey, gin, brandy, vodka, and even fortified wines are all more potent than the “strong drink” which the Bible condemns.

A third factor which must be considered when comparing modern beverages to ancient ones is the manner in which wine was used as a common table drink. Notice the following quotes from Everett Ferguson, “Wine as a Table-Drink int eh Ancient World,” Restoration Quarterly (Vol. 13):

– The ordinary table beverage of the Mediterranean world in Roman time was wine mixed with water (p. 141).

– At Greek formal banquets the guests elected a president who determined the proportions of water and wine (p. 141).

– The ratio of wine to wine varied considerably. One of the earliest references gives the most diluted mixtures – twenty parts water to one part wine (was the wine really that strong?). Other references tend to stay within less extreme proportions, but nearly always the quantity of water predominated” (p. 142).

– Plutarch himself says, “We call a mixture ‘wine’, although the larger of the components is water” (p. 144).

– But to drink wine unmixed was regarded by the Greeks of the classical age as a Barbarian (Scythian) custom. It is to be noted how in ordinary usage, even as “wine” meant “wine mixed with water,” so if one wanted to say straight or neat wine, it was necessary to add the adjective “unmixed” (p. 145).

– One might even call the ancients “water drinkers” in view of the preponderance of water in the drink. In most cases, however, it was safer and more hygienic to drink wine. Somehow the ancients had discovered that mixing wine with water had a purifying effect on the water so that it became safe to drink (p. 146).

Writing on the same theme, professor Robert Stein of Bethel College says, “To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine, one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts of water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.”

Even still, the ideal for early Christians was abstinence. In relation to intoxicating beverages, excessive drinking and drunkenness are not the only vices the New Testament condemns. “Carousings” (or, “drinking parties,” from potos) in 1 Peter 4:3 is a general word for “drinking.” R.C. Trench, in Synonyms of the New Testament, says the term is “not of necessity excessive,” But is related to words of excess in that it gives “opportunity for excess” (p[. 211). Elders (1 Tim. 3:2), women of influence (1 Tim. 3:11), and older men (Tit. 3:2) are commanded to be “temperate” (nephalios), a word implying freedom from all wine (see Thayer, p. 425). “This word shows strongly that the New Testament ideal is total abstinence” (Joseph Free, Archeology And Bible History, p. 355).

Considering God’s attitude toward intoxication and strong drink, the comparative potency of ancient wine to modern liquor, the ideal of abstinence from the weaker beverages of the time practiced by early Christians, and the danger of ungodly influence in a world full of alcoholism, can there be any justification of modern “drinking”? We think not. After denouncing the partying sins of reveling and drunkenness, the apostle Paul commands, “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:14).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 145, 148
March 7, 1985

By Billy Ashworth

All informed, sober-minded, God-fearing people today are alarmed by the national disgrace that is blighting this once-great land of ours, causing her to lose the place of moral leadership in the world. It is one of many evidences that this once great country is now in decline and will become just another former great civilization in history books. I am speaking of the heinous crime of abortion”legalized abortion.” The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a woman has the (constitutional) right, by and with the consent of her doctor, to abort an unwanted “fetus” (baby). The word “fetus” is a “medical term of our own devising, which may serve a legitimate purpose, but has a way of depersonalizing in many minds, the baby before birth.”

The modem population explosion, sexual revolution, and humanistic philosophy have brought many problems to our beloved country, but no solutions to the problems of the most essential areas of life. Many of these problems (including abortion) are called by worldly people “social issues,” but they are in reality moral issues. The world attempts to investigate and solve such problems by human wisdom, including civil government, thereby showing contempt for the moral law clearly defined in the Bible. The humanistic philosophy, Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics, is just plain rationalism; it has been in full sway concerning the enormous problems we face, with no appreciable effect. In fact, the loose, liberal philosophy of these various codes has only compounded the problems, since none of them has any moral standard by which to deal with them.

But God-fearing, Bible-believing people know that the apostle Peter wrote,: “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as his divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to glory and virtue. . .” (2 Pet.1:2,3). Therefore, we who are faithful children of God can deal more effectively with such problems as abortion and related ones, because we have the revelation of the God who made us in His image and knows what is best for us. Therefore, as a loving Father, He has given as all things that concern life and godliness. We can know what is right and good by what the Lord has revealed to us.

However, not all specific acts or problems are cited specifically by name in the Bible. Consequently, an intelligent searching of Scripture to apply to our problems is an absolute necessity to, our approach to a solution of these things. What are the principles that apply to the various problems?

The Bible does not mention specifically abortion. The word is not found in the Bible. And, as far as I can determine, the act of abortion as used herein is not mentioned in the Bible. So what is the issue as far as we who abhor abortion are concerned? Obviously, abortion involves the termination of life-human life! The act that terminates human life is called murder in the Bible. The command “Thou shalt not kill” (lit., “do no murder”) is found in Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17. In the early history of the human race, we find God’s condemnation of murder: “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). This passage, incidentally, is the first mention of capital punishment in the Bible.

The issue that we must deal with in the matter of abortion is life and death, murder! When is the “fetus” a person? When does it possess a soul? (Of course, a majority of the militant pro-abortionists deny that anyone has a soul.) When can abortion be performed and not be murder, if it can? Is it safe to assume that the fetus has no life, no soul, until the baby breathes at birth?

Before I deal with the matters above, I call your attention to the magnitude of the problem of abortion. The Agency for International Development (AID) is an organization authorized by the Congress of the U.S. to administer U.S. Aid abroad. it is “pushing world-wide population control programs, including the use of abortion and sterilization. ” This world-wide society produced at least 34 million abortions in 1971, according to statistics of the United Nations. Dr. Gallon believes the world-wide total of abortions is closer to 100 million. Exact figures are not possible since many abortions are “legal” and many more “illegal.” In the United States in 1972, there were 700,000 known abortions, 310,000 of these in New York. The Nashville Tennessean (November 24, 1980) had the following stats concerning abortion in Tennessee: During the first six months of 1980, doctors performed 12,174 “known” abortions. In Nashville, there were 7,020 abortions during 1980 (Nashville Tennessean, Feb. 23, 1982).

What are the consequences of abortion? (1) Some prefer an abortion every year to a pill every day, an evil form of “birth control” (2) Promiscuity. Abortion removes one of the greatest deterrents to immorality (3) Doctors who perform abortions violate the Hippocratic oath (4) Psychological effects. Abortion leaves a “time bomb” that is frequently more severe than that which accompanies an unwanted pregnancy. A feeling of guilt rises up to torment the woman who has compounded one serious error with a worse one! (5) Abortion is the murder of an innocent being.

Now, what arguments can be made to condemn abortion as far as the Bible is concerned? Obviously, the issue turns on the point of killing the “fetus.” The question to be determined is whether the “fetus” is a human being. If it is, then abortion is murder! The Bible nowhere refers to the “fetus” or uses the term “abortion.” But, God’s word does refer to the child in the womb as a “babe.” In Luke 1, there is the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth after an angel appeared to her that she would “conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus.” Mary went to visit Elizabeth. “And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb . . .” Here we find the child called “the babe” while in the womb. This does imply personality. Since the babe in the womb is identified as a human being, it must follow that to kill this human being is murder! If a person who professes to believe the Bible denies this conclusion, I would say at the very least, he will always have doubts about having an abortion approved of God. The evidences are too great against such a thing.

But, I have an interesting point to make concerning whether the “fetus” is a person-a human being. Even some atheists have a conscience against abortion, including a medical doctor. Several months ago I heard a program on the Donahue Show in which Dr. Bernard Nathanson appeared in defense of a book he had written, titled, Aborting America, subtitled “A Case Against Abortion.” Opposing Nathanson were two feminists who were promoting “self-help” clinics, asserting “that our abortion rights are being very seriously attacked right now.”

Dr. Nathanson revealed that he had been guilty of aborting several thousand babies. But he also affirmed his complete reversal relative to abortion. He said, “I’m responsible for about 75, 000 (abortions) in my own private life . . . I performed about 5,000 in my own private practice, supervised about 10,000 others with residents doing them, and I ran for about two years the largest abortion clinic in the world . . . We did about 60,000 abortions in two years there.”

Donahue asked Nathanson why he wrote the book, A Case Against Abortion. He replied, “Well, over about four years, during which time I was running a perinatology unit at a major hospital in Manhattan, I was working with the fetus, with the newest technologies that we have, and in day to day intimate contact with that fetus, diagnosing it, treating it, transfusing it, I became absolutely convinced, beyond any question of doubt, that a fetus is a person (emphasis mine, ba), a patient and should be accorded all the rights that any of us have.” Donahue asked, “From the moment of conception or whenever that might be?” Nathanson replied: “From the moment of conception or ___” Donahue: “So you think abortion should be illegal then?” Nathanson: “Absolutely except in the case where the mother’s life is in jeopardy.”

A member of the audience said: “It sounds to me, Dr. Nathanson, that you are trying to get right with God.” He replied: “Let me set the records straight. I am not a believer in God, and I am an atheist . . .” Consequently, Nathanson did not condemn abortion strictly on a moral basis, but he did condemn it on the basis that the “fetus” is a person and “should be accorded all the rights that any of us have.”

So we have an atheist affirming that a fetus is a person and has rights. On the other side, the feminists affirmed the “right” of a woman to abort the innocent little baby, asserting that “a woman has the right to determine what happens to her own body, including the baby in her womb.” I flatly deny that she has that “right” from God or civil authority. I deny that the Constitution gives a woman the right to murder her own baby; this I hold in spite of the fact that “nine old men” on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise. I challenge any person to give answer to that affirmation. It has become painfully obvious that the Supreme Court often rules in accord with what they perceive to be the popular mood of the country. But I resent their playing God and handing down “decisions” that fly into the face of God’s divine revelation. And, I warn any professed Christian that to practice or condone abortion is a crime in the sight of God and all God-fearing people. Lord, help us to be pure in heart and life.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 168-169
March 21, 1985