Truth Magazine

By Ken Thomas

I claim no special understanding or ability which causes me to write a few things on this subject, but I believe we must try and “call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways.” We have expressed this sentiment for years as Christians and preachers of the gospel in sermons and in Bible classes in the congregations where we have labored.

It seems to me that we are not being careful enough (in some cases at least) in our writing and preaching and even in our singing to “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Take for example the common misuse of the name “Christian. ” Everything from the country in which we live to the family car or the pet poodle is called “Christian” by some of my brethren. The New Testament treats this “worthy name” with much more respect and dignity than do some among us and it seems to me this cheapens and makes common a name that should be respected more than that. The Holy Spirit only uses the name three times in the New Testament and each time it refers to a disciple (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).

Another Example

Another area of concern to me is the common mistake of speaking about the church universal and applying our conclusions to the local congregation. This is a common mistake in my estimation and needs more study and consideration. Perhaps one of the reasons why some of our friends and neighbors have such a hard time accepting the truth about Christ and His church is that, as we teach them the necessity of membership in Christ’s church, we leave the impression, perhaps, that we are speaking of the congregation where we meet and worship instead of the universal body, that relationship of the family of God, the kingdom of Christ.

Any congregation of the Lord’s people (if all things are according to the New Testament pattern) is a church of Christ, but it is not the church of Christ. The church of Christ is made up, not of congregations, but of saved individuals redeemed by the blood of Jesus when obedient to the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 12:20).

When we say that Christ is the founder of the church of Christ (Matt. 16:18); that it had its beginning on the first Jewish Pentecost following the resurrection, ascension and coronation of Christ at God’s right hand on David’s throne (Acts 2:22-38, 41,47); that its beginning place was Jerusalem, Palestine, as prophesied (Isa. 2:2-3; Lk. 24:44-53); that the time of its beginning was “in the last days” and, according to our calendars, was about 30 A.D.; that membership is reserved only for those who as believers repent and are immersed in water for the forgiveness of past sins (Acts 2:38, 41,47), we sometimes leave the impression that we are speaking of the local congregation of which we are a member.

But all of the above is spoken of and applies not to any local congregation, but to the church universal, a relationship not an organization. A local congregation is not established by Christ except in an abstract sense. It is set up by the judgment and desire of a group of men and women who are already members of the church of Christ. One is not baptized into any local congregation, but rather into Christ and thereby one comes into a relationship with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-29; 2 Jn. 9; Jn. 14:23; Mt. 28:18-20).

One Final Point

There is a statement which characterizes somewhat how I feel about seeking to express what I am now about to attempt to say. It says, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. ” I am not rushing in but I pray not to be misunderstood and ask each who reads this to consider carefully and, if I err in this, please assist me in a better understanding and way of expressing this principle under consideration.

I have heard for years, brethren speaking and writing of the division between “the Christian Church and the church of Christ.” The very expression above leaves much to be desired in my estimation. I do not think it is a scriptural expression. Books of history on the “restoration movement” frequently say something like this: “In 1906 the church was divided into two groups, the Christian church and the church of Christ.” To be fair, some writers do, and some did, say, “They were divided into two groups, the Christian churches and the churches of Christ.” Usually, however, then and now when speaking of the problem, members of the body of Christ will say “the Christian church and the church of Christ” as if the several congregations of brethren form the church. Brethren, that’s not only institutional, it is denominational.

The fact is, if those who identify with some local Christian church or some “liberal” church of Christ for that matter, are still our brethren even though in error; the church of our Lord has not been divided and so far as I can understand, fellowship is on an individual level, not between bodies or congregations though we may endorse or not endorse a particular group (congregation). Those who no longer walk in the light are out of fellowship with Christ and hence with his faithful brethren. Still the church of our Lord, the kingdom of Christ, is not divided.

Am I making myself clear in this? I pray I am. Will some of you brethren respond with some constructive thinking and writing that will make this clear if I haven’t or correct me if I am wrong in my conclusions?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 17
January 3, 1985

By Johnny Stringer

Under Jesus’ law, marriage is to be permanent. He plainly declared, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6), thus prohibiting divorce. He proceeded to condemn as adulterous the second marriages of divorced people (Matt. 19:9). The New Testament teaches that those who marry are bound to each other for as long as they both live (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). Jesus made only one exception to that rule.

Some brethren have not really grasped the Lord’s teaching on the subject. They understand that one who divorces his spouse cannot remarry (unless it is a case in which the one exception applies); but they have the notion that divorce is perfectly permissible as long as there is no remarriage. They think the only sin is in remarrying. Such thinking is of the devil.

In the first place, the marriage partners made vows to each other; they entered into a covenant to be true and faithful to each other. When a divorce occurs, those vows are not kept. The same is true if one deserts his spouse or if they agree to separate indefinitely, even if no divorce occurs. It might be observed that if an abusive mate forced his mate to flee for safety, he has no right to complain that this mate is failing to keep the vows; for he is to blame for his mate’s being in a position that makes it impossible to keep the vows.

In the second place, Jesus quite clearly commanded, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). Divorce, therefore, is contrary to Jesus’ clear order, whether remarriage occurs or not; and whoever is responsible for the divorce is guilty of sin. Remarriage only adds further sin to the already existing sin of divorce.

Thirdly, in Matthew 5:32 it is not said that the one who put away his spouse remarried; nevertheless, he is not considered to be innocent. Jesus said that he is guilty of causing his spouse to commit adultery. He causes her to commit adultery by putting her into a position in which she would be more strongly tempted. One cannot put his spouse into that position and be free of guilt.

Finally, Paul explicitly condemned leaving one’s spouse in 1 Corinthians 7. In verses 2-4, he taught the obligation of husband and wife to satisfy each other’s physical needs, affirming that each has the right to the body of the other. One who leaves his mate is sinfully failing this obligation and depriving that mate of that to which the mate has a God-given right. Paul therefore instructed husbands and wives not to separate except it be by mutual consent, and then for only a short time (v. 5). Then in verse 10, he issued the explicit pronouncement: “Let not the wife depart from her husband.” What could be plainer? Anyone who can understand Acts 2:38 can understand that. Then the last part of verse 11 says, “Let not the husband put away his wife”; this would be sinful, whether remarriage occurred or not.

After ordering the woman not to depart from her husband, Paul gives the proper course to take if one does commit that sin, giving her the option of either remaining unmarried or being reconciled to her husband. Some think that when Paul prescribed the proper course for those who violate the command, he thereby nullified the command. Of course not. Departing violates the clear command of verse 10, hence is sinful; but those who disobey this command, and then decide they want to straighten up their lives, need to know what to do; so Paul gave them their options. A parallel can be seen in 1 John 2:1. John said, “These things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father.” The words “if she depart” in 1 Corinthians 7 do not give her the right to depart, any more than the words “if any man sin” in 1 John 2 give a man the right to sin.

I do not contend that the departing which Paul forbids has reference to fleeing for safety from an abusive mate. When Paul spoke of departing, it is doubtful that he had reference to being driven out. I do contend that the severance of a marriage is wrong and the party or parties responsible will be held accountable. An abusive mate who drives his spouse away is surely guilty of producing the breakup of the marriage.

Marriage is a serious matter. God intends it to be permanent, and anyone who is responsible for severing the marriage relationship is guilty of sin. Moreover, once a person marries, even if a divorce occurs, he will never be free to marry anyone else as long as his first mate lives. There is only one exception to this rule. The exception will be discussed in a future article.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 16
January 3, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Much has been written on the person of Christ, but surprisingly, little has been expounded on the person of God the Father. This may be due in part to the fact that theologians are generally agreed upon the person of God the Father. More controversy exists with regard to the person of Christ. A study of the person of God the Father deserves our careful attention, not only because we need to be informed as to His person, but that we may be able to serve Him more acceptably.

God is more than an immovable force. In contrast to paganism and modern pantheism, God is a personality. He is not a mere inanimate object, nor an abstract idea. He is the one in whom we live, move and have our being (Acts 17:28). Several considerations support the proposition that God is a personal being.

Desire Of Man To Worship

The desire upon the part of man to worship is innate. A universal longing of magi to render homage to a higher being than himself is evident. When the ancient Egyptians worshiped the sun, they were expressing their desire for a superior object. When the mother throws her infant into the “sacred” Ganges river, she is reaching out for something to worship. When the Indian speaks of “happy hunting grounds,” he is expressing his desire for something higher. It has been said that there were more gods and goddesses in Athens, Greece than there were men.

Paul addressed the Athenians: “Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you” (Acts 17:22,23). The altar “to an unknown God” expressed their searching for an object of worship. There is within man that desire to worship something or someone higher than himself.

The Visible More Plausible To Man

Man is prone to worship the visible rather than the invisible. The visible being more tangible than the invisible, this inclination is clearly illustrated by the idols of paganism which depict resemblances of human beings as animals.

But the idea of an impersonal god is not confined to paganism. Organic evolution rules out the existence of a personal God. The god of organic evolution is not a personal being, but rather an impersonal force to which mind and matter respond. The creation of mind and matter by an omniscient and omnipotent person is denied and is substituted by the idea of a slow, evolutionary process involving millions of years. But no evidence for this view has been found in the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, zoology or in any other field of science. There is far more evidence to support the first fact stated in the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), than the hypotheses of organic evolution.

Even ancient Israel occasionally expressed a desire to worship the visible. Shortly after her departure from Egypt, she demanded of Aaron, “Up, make us gods” and he made a golden calf (perhaps the image of a bull). The people worshiped it and sacrificed to it (Ex. 32:1-8). Later Israel wanted a human king, not the invisible divine King (1 Sam. 8:4-8). Still later, Jeroboam I (c. 930-909 B.C.) led a revolt against Rehoboam, king of Judah, taking ten tribes with him to the north. He made two calves of gold and said to the people: “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other in Dan” (1 Kgs. 12:28,29). Other examples of Israel’s idolatry are mentioned in the Old Testament (2 Kgs. 17:9-12; Ezek. 6:6; 20:31; etc.). Israel’s idolatry, and other sins were the reasons for her being led into captivity.

The Testimony Of The Universe

The magnitude, scope and orderly arrangement of the universe testifies to a superior intellect. The precision which makes possible the accurate movements of our universe demands by reason that only intelligence can account for its origin and existence. As there are laws which govern life upon the earth, so there are laws which govern the universe. The astronomer, for instance, is able with mathematical precision to predict the exact time when there will be an eclipse of the moon or some other planetary object. Men are able with the same accuracy to determine the times for the low and high tides of the ocean. When there is a law there must be a lawgiver. There must be a supreme intelligence and the Bible declares it to be God, an intelligent personal being (Gen. 1:1; Psa. 19:1).

The Make-Up Of Man Testifies

The very make-up of man is staggering to the human imagination. The Psalmist declared: “I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14). The functions of the human being, the composite system of intelligence and a biological organism is sufficient within itself to reflect the wondrous hands of the most proficient designer. The workings and potentials of the human mind are probably less known than what has been learned about space. The multiple colors and the intricate design of the beautiful butterfly reflect the astounding art of the master artist. Only a superior personal creator, an intelligent being, can be the plausible explanation for the origin of life, mind and matter.

Man is more than a biological organism with an intellect. The Bible teaches that man was made in the image or likeness of God (Gen. 1:26,27). This nature of man was created (Heb. bara). The other nature was formed (Heb. yatsar) of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7). God is spirit (Jn. 4:24) and since man was made in the likeness of God, it is this aspect in which man is like God – he is a spiritual being. He was created in the spiritual image of God. It is to the spiritual nature of man that God appeals in His divine revelation (Jn. 3:5,6; Rom. 12:1; etc.). Our physical bodies result from the natural laws of procreation; they are born of parents; God is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9). As a result of the new birth (a spiritual birth), man “is renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col. 3:10). The physical body is that feature that is peculiar to man. Jesus was “made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7) when He became incarnate, became flesh (Jn. 1:14). Man, then is not only physical, that which characterizes him as man; but he is also spiritual, that which is like God. The spirit of man departs from the body at death (Jas. 2:26). It is the part of man that is immortal as God his Creator is immortal. God is eternal, He has no beginning or end. Man’s spirit began its existence at birth and is eternal; it will always exist somewhere. As the spirit of man is more than an abstract idea or an inanimate object, God the giver of man’s spirit must by a reasonable faith be accepted as a person.

God Reveals Himself

The gods of men have been conceived of as persons, represented by material images; but persons cannot be known unless they reveal themselves. God our Creator has revealed Himself through His word, thus we are able to learn about God. God speaks. He spoke to Abraham directly while he was living in Ur, beyond the Euphrates. God commanded Abraham to leave his home and go into a land which God would show him. Abraham believed God and obeyed. Through God’s word and Abraham’s faithful response to it, Abraham began to know God. God spoke to him on subsequent occasions, and Abraham became known as “the friend of God” (Jas. 2:23). God addressed Moses directly. Moses learned His name, something about His character and nature. God spoke through prophets, on one occasion through a dumb ass, and on another occasion by handwriting on the wall. He now speaks to us through His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1,2). God authenticates that He is a person by addressing man through His written word. He does not speak directly to men today as He did in times past. We learn of God through divine revelation. It should be noted that when men seek to find God solely through the avenues of nature, they inevitably become idolaters. Nature only testifies in behalf of the one true God whom His word has revealed. Observation of nature results in a recognition of a supreme intelligence as to its cause. The Bible reveals who that intelligence is – GOD.

Through the avenue of prayer we address God. The expressions of praise, gratitude and petitions are evidences that the God whom we worship and serve is a personal being.

God Contrasted With Idols

A marked contrast is drawn between God and men’s idols. This distinction is seen and described in such Scriptures as Isaiah 44:9-17. Idolaters pray to a god that cannot hear, that cannot see, that cannot speak. The foolishness and futility of worshiping a dumb idol is obvious.

Conclusion

In order that man may be more able to visualize God as the invisible person that He is, the Bible abounds in anthropomorphisms (characteristics of man attributed to God). This is seen in such passages as Isaiah 59:1,2 and 1 Peter 3:12 where God is said to have a hand, ears, eyes and a face. Anthropopathisms (human feelings ascribed to God) are also found in the Bible – such as rejoicing, sorrow and anger (Lk. 15:7; Deut. 9:19; Hos. 11:9; etc.). Though invisible, these attributes attest to His personality. God is omniscient. He knows all that man thinks (Heb. 4:13).

In contrast to polytheism, there is but one God. “I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God” (Isa. 45:5). The one God who reveals Himself in the Bible is the first person in the Godhead, God the Father. He is an invisible, immortal personality. We rejoice that we, His children can praise Him, extol His matchless name, petition Him, and serve Him from the heart.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 2, pp. 33, 57
January 17, 1985

By Jim Venturino

The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary defines “Secular Humanism” as, “A type of humanitarianism which is devoted to the cause of humanity as a substitute for religion.” However, an examination of Catholic teaching regarding the seriousness of sin reveals that the Catholic Church and secular humanism are actually united. Both are devoting themselves to situation ethics as a substitute, for God and the Bible, as absolute authority.

As a foundation for this study we need to understand the Catholic position pertaining to the degrees of sin. The New Parish Catechism, by William G. Martin, addresses this subject on pp. 24-26 (lesson 8):

2. There are two kinds of sins, serious (sometimes called mortal) and less serious (called venial sins).

3. Serious sin is a moral offense that destroys the life of grace in the soul and separates the sinner from God.

4. The following serious sins are committed too frequently in the world and are to be avoided by Christians: such hatred of a person or group that brings serious harm to the group, such as racial or religious discrimination causing serious harm; disregard of the poor, the sick, the underprivileged; serious neglect of work of family or other duty; refusal to worship God; seriously injuring the reputation of another; serious violations of chastity; grave misuse of alcohol or narcotics.

9. A venial sin is a less serious rejection of God’s love and God’s law. Venial sins are not something to be disregarded. They weaken love of God and neighbor, and can even prepare one for serious sin. Examples of venial sins are disobedience, gossiping, uncharitableness that does not cause serious harm.

Another modern catechism is Christ Among Us, by Anthony J. Wilhelm C.S.P. In chapter 18, discussing judging the seriousness of sin, we find these statements:

Not all serious wrongs are mortal sins. Many people do serious wrong things without fully realizing they are such, e.g. millions many nominal Catholics who do not sufficiently know their religion, or some converts before studying Catholicism. Some do seriously wrong things, but do not fully want to do them; people often act under pressing mental strain, or from deeply-rooted bad habits. Most would rarely, if ever, make a fundamental and lasting choice of their way over God’s.

Mortal sin, then, is a fundamental choice of ourself over God that engages us to the depths of our being. Rather than thinking of mortal sin as a particular action, we should see it as a fundamental option, an attitude, a state of living, contrary to God, that we knowingly and deliberately choose.

The vast majority Of Sins are less serious rejections of God’s love, called venial (“easily forgiven”) sins. The offense is not serious, or the person does not fully know or fully want to do a serious wrong.

To complete our picture of the differences between mortal and venial sin, let’s look at their respective punishments from pp. 37-38 of the New Baltimore Catechism and Mass, by Michael A. McGuire:

Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, mortal sin makes the soul an enemy of God, takes away the merit of all its good actions, deprives it of the right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in Hell.

Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and can be pardoned even without sacramental confession. Venial sin harms us by making us less fervent in the service of God, by weakening our power to resist mortal sin, and by making us deserving of God’s punishment in this life or in purgatory.

If we examine the above examples of mortal and venial sin, we discover many direct contradictions of the Bible. According to the Catholic Church, a person guilty of hating someone is not guilty of a serious sin unless such hatred caused serious harm. Compare this with the words of Christ, “But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the hell. of fire” (Mt. 5:22). Supposedly, disobedience and gossiping are only venial sins, and as such do not separate one from God, are not worthy of death, do not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace and can only be punished either in this life or in purgatory. But once again God says something different:

“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6).

“He who believes in the Son has eternal fife; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (Jn. 3:36).

“Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest (our eternal rest in heaven, JRV), lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience” (Heb. 4:11).

“And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being fiRed with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:28-32).

“The Bible teaches that “all unrighteousness is sin,” and, unless repented of, is punishable by death (1 Jn. 5:16-17; Rom. 6:23). Ignorance, contrary to Catholic doctrine, is no excuse for sin. In Acts 17:30 Paul informs us that God no longer accepts ignorance as justification for sin, but rather requires all men to repent. The reason given is that all will stand before the Judgment seat of Christ. At that time, our judgment will be based on the Scriptures, our actions and our ,thoughts (Jn. 12:48; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Heb. 4:12). For this reason we are commanded to “be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 15:7-17). God says that all righteousness, even disobeying our parents and gossiping, can endanger the soul, cause us to be “rejected as regards ‘the faith,” and keep us out of heaven (2 Tim. 3:1-9; Rom. 1:28-32; 2 Pet. 3:13). Catholicism has truly embraced secular humanism’s situation ethics through “their definitions of mortal and venial sins. For example, racial prejudice is not a mortal sin unless serious harm is caused. Likewise, the amount of knowledge, intent and a variety of other circumstances determine ,the seriousness of sin. Acknowledging the difficulty of this position, Catholic writers make a valiant attempt to explain it away:

Some might conclude that it is impossible to choose to live in mortal sin, to fully and deliberately reject God’s will for us – so that even serious sins need not be taken too seriously. But mortal sin is an attitude of rejecting God that is built up by continual sinning. Each sinful act turns us farther from God, hardens us in our basic attitude which is becoming one of rejection. So each must be taken seriously. One might become so hardened, bit by bit, that he does recognize the point of ultimate rejection (Christ Among Us, p. 284).

They have tried unsuccessfully to dodge the bullet. A still remains nearly impossible to commit a mortal sin. What happens to the person who never recognizes that he has become hardened to the point of ultimate rejection of God? The Catholic Church emphatically teaches that such a soul is free from mortal sin.

In part two of this study we shall examine Catholic answers to a question asked in The New Parish Catechism: “In an individual instance what tells a person whether the action, thought, or omission is a serious sin?” Will Catholicism and Humanism go their separate ways? Or will Catholic doctrine self destruct upon the “stone of stumbling and rock of offense” (1 Pet. 2:8)? Tune in next time for the answer.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 14-15
January 3, 1985