Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Waters thinks my “YO-YO Syndrome” article was all wet. Perhaps, though, a few remarks will put a bridge over troubled waters.

(1) The YO-YO reference was not mine. I borrowed it from brother Cargile who lamented the fact that some preachers make Christians into yo-yos by telling them that sin separates them from God. See the June 7, 1984, issue of Guardian Of Truth.

Before we disparage and discard the yo-yo imagery, brother Waters may wish to examine the examples I used to illustrate and demonstrate the yo-yo concept. (A) Was Simon the sorcerer saved as per Acts 8:12,13? Yes, Mark 16:16. After his sin which put him in the “gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity,” was he still saved? No, Matthew 7:23. After repentance, confession and prayer, would he have been restored to a saved state? Yes, I John 1:9. So, Simon was lost, saved, lost, saved. (B) Was the brother in 1 Corinthians 5 lost because of his sin of fornication? Yes, Galatians 5:19-21. When he repented, was he returned to a saved condition? Yes, 1 John 1:9. So, he was lost; he obeyed the gospel and was saved; he committed sin; he was lost; he was restored. If that is not like a yo-yo, in the figurative sense of brother Cargile’s initial article, than I am unable to make an analogy or manufacture a metaphor. (C) Not to worry, though, for brother Waters himself says,

“I believe children of God can and do fall Fall from what and to where? From the light into darkness? See the Galatians (Gal. 1:6-8; 5:1-7). When he says children of God can and do fall, he is treading on the ups and downs of yo-yo ground, for they, too, rise and fall.

(2) In the Garden of Eden, both Adam and Eve sinned. Eve was deceived. Adam was not (1 Tim.2:14). Eve was not presumptuous; Adam was. Yet, both suffered spiritual death. Both fell from God’s grace and favor. Both were driven from the garden. There was no distinction of penalty, except in certain physical ways, though the nature of the sin differed.

Remember this – 1 John 1:6-9 makes no distinction between sins of ignorance and presumption, between being deceived and highhanded rebellion. Both types of sins must meet the terms of pardon. Old Testament sins of ignorance still had to be atoned by blood before they were forgiven. Nothing states that continued ignorance and sin were blessed if no offering was made (Heb.2:2).

The apostle Peter cursed and denied the Lord, not as an act of high-handed rebellion, but in the weakness of the flesh. Later, he played the hypocrite regarding association with the Gentiles (Gal.2:11-14). As such, he “stood condemned,” and “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Was Peter forgiven and cleansed of hypocrisy without confession and prayer? Did the blood cleanse him even as he sinned and walked not uprightly? No, it did not, for Peter needed to be “converted” (cf. Lk,22:32; Jas.5:19,20).

The weak brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 is a classic example of a brother who sins in ignorance. He is misled and caused to error by the strong brother. What is his state? Does the blood of Christ cleanse him of his sin of eating with offence because he is sincerely, conscientiously mistaken in the matter (Rom. 14:15, 21-23; 1 Cor.8:11-13)? Do “destroyed,” “dammed,” and “perish” in these passages indicate salvation?

(3) Perhaps our readers would like to know what sins they can commit that do not lead to death. Brother Waters says there are such sins. I would like to know what standard or guideline that I may use to determine which sins condemn and which sins do not. What sins may we commit without fear of divine judgment and what should be our attitude or disposition when we commit them? Brother Waters, if he is a “veteran Bible student,” had better re-study 1 John 5:17. If he does not, he may become a disabled veteran. The sin “not unto death” is the sin one confesses and forsakes.

(4) That Baptist preacher I debated said that a child of God while walking in the light could commit every sin from adultery to murder and the blood of Christ would automatically cleanse him. He cited 1 John 1:7. He said that if a Christian got drunk through weakness of the flesh and committed adultery and murder and died in that condition he would be saved because “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Well, if brother Waters can convert such men to the truth, without becoming an up and down yo-yo, he is a better man than I am, and I will call him the next time I need help on the apostasy issue.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 519
September 6, 1984

By Roy E. Cogdill

A long time ago there was a play written and given the same title of this article. About it I have often wondered, and frequently the thought has come to me that people in general are pretty much disposed to make much ado about things of little consequence, while neglecting and overlooking things of paramount value.

We see this demonstrated in general life, but nowhere is it more clearly evidenced than in religious activity. Denominationalists at large have the pharisaical fault of placing the emphasis on trifles and neglecting “the weightier matters of the law.” Sometimes even some of us become guilty of such misconduct. This is being particularly demonstrated in a certain religious body just now, and it has caught the attention and recognition of some who have refused to yield certain other points which are, it seems to me, no more incontrovertible than this one.

The movement among the Disciples of Christ, or the “Christian Churches,” sometimes called our “digressive brethren,” to celebrate Pentecost, is the current demonstration of which I am speaking.

Since their digression from the “old paths,” they have gone farther and farther from those things which were preached on the first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection. One departure has truly called for another until today they have become a denomination among denominations. They are observing the Lord’s Supper on week days; they are accepting sprinkling for baptism; they are fellowshipping “theologians” among them who do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ; they are becoming so entwined in denominational organizations that their own members will agree that the church makes no difference, anyhow; they are doing anything that other denominations are doing, and think it is all right.

I know that a few of them still preach faith, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins as the primary conditions of salvation, but very few will refuse to compromise even that at the expense of popularity. They do it by going into “union meetings,” holding them, and inviting, urging, and praying for people to join other churches. In all of these respects and many more they have departed from Pentecost and now differ from the true church of God.

Instead of patting them on the back for what little truth they do preach, I believe they should have their hearts pricked about much truth that they are willing to either compromise or will not preach at all. For one, I have never been able to win a man to the truth by showing him where he was right instead of pointing out his error. In spite of these many practices that make them more like a denomination and less like the church of the New Testament, they are constantly preaching that there is no difference between the two bodies. They can better hold their own members by doing this, and at the same time sidetrack many of the weak-willed members of the body of Christ into digression. Many honest people in sectarian bodies have heard that there is no difference, and, when disposed to seek the truth, can sometimes easily be persuaded to accept a substitute. Instead of emphasizing the points of agreement and similarity between the digression and the New Testament teaching, it is my earnest conviction that we should emphasize to them and everybody else the points of difference. I believe it will mean a more successful effort toward winning them from their digression and preventing others from getting mixed up in the deception; that is, if those who oppose digression are sure of their ground in believing that they have the truth, otherwise it might pay them to investigate their own position.

Their movement is an “on-to-Pentecost” movement, when what they need to inaugurate is a “back-to-Pentecost” movement. I should be glad to join with them in helping them get back to Pentecost and the truth they deserted, as well as to lay aside the error they have adopted; but to cooperate with them in anything as long as they hold these errors and compromise these truths would, to me, be wrong. I cannot even take a favorable attitude toward them without being afraid of encouraging them in their error (2 John 9-11). Much less could I join with them in another departure from the truth, and this I believe their Pentecostal movement to be. I am of the opinion that it would be wrong to attach any significance whatever to Pentecost today. I could have no part in urging a single Christian to be present on that day at the assembly of the saints any more than any other Lord’s day. Pentecost as a day of religious significance has the same authority as Christmas and Easter-Catholic. They have observed it for years as “Whitsunday.” I think we will do well to “hands off.”

I will know that anything granted will be capitalized by the “digressives.” On a recent Lord’s day, in our city, the pastor of the Central Christian Church preached on this movement, and he announced in his sermon that the editor of a certain religious weekly among the churches of Christ had appeared before the evangelistic conference of his church in Dallas and that the churches of Christ were joining with the Christian Churches in this Pentecostal movement. In his own words: “The two religious bodies have set as their goal on Pentecost, June 8, 1930, two million communicants at the Lord’s table.” That this is untrue, and that the editor of the paper mentioned intended to leave no such impression either by his attendance at the meeting or by what he said, is all unquestionable. But I am wondering if it would not be wiser and safer to stay out of anything where we are likely to leave such an impression.

But for fear that I be guilty of making “much ado about nothing, ” I am through. At any rate, I would like to hear from others on this question. What attitude shall we take? (This article originally appeared in the Gospel Advocate, LXII [20 Feb. 1930]:171.)

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 517
September 6, 1984

By Anonymous

“I thought that referred to the Lord’s supper.”

“Well, you just thought wrong!”

That to which reference was being made is John 6:48-56. The brother, who thought those verses referred to the Lord’s supper, and I had discussed the point time and again in private. I also had preached a sermon based upon John 6, showing the significance of the verses in question. At the time the quoted “change took place, I was conducting a Sunday morning Bible class and had just finished making another application of those verses. I did not want the class sidetracked onto a discussion of the Lord’s supper and, therefore, after replying loudly, as quoted above, I continued directing the class in the direction I had been going, before he made his comment.

In a few moments it occurred to me that visitors were present and if an explanation was not given, there was no way they were going to understand why I had spoken so loudly to our elderly brother and had cut him off so shortly. I then stopped the discussion and said, “For the benefit of our visitors I need to explain about the exchange which took place a while ago. My brother and I had discussed that point numerous times in private. We do not agree, but we are not angry with one another. He is very hard of hearing and I am in the habit of raising my voice, when I speak directly to him. I did not say any thing to him this morning that I have not told him plainly in the past. I meant no offense and he did not take offense. ” Of course, I do not know how much of that explanation my brother understood, as he sat there with his hand cupped around one ear listening intently, but when I finished, he was shaking his head in agreement.

One of the most, if not the most, overbearing brethren I have ever known was a member of a church with which I became associated. One Sunday morning he disagreed with a conclusion I was drawing. He spoke up and expressed his view. Such exchanges certainly have their place in a Bible class, but after having expressed his view, the brother proceeded to try to take the class and run with it under his direction. When it became apparent that he intended to take over the class from his seat, I said, “Brother _________, will you please read . . . .”

Upon my naming the passage which I wanted him to read and which I considered a death blow to his contention, he responded, “You have it; you read it.” I did read it and then with the class back under my direction continued the lesson for that day.

In one church where I worked there was a faction. Most of those who formed that faction attended the Sunday morning class which I taught. About 50 percent, if not more, of the class were a part of the faction. Nearly every Sunday morning one of the factious brethren would have a question ready to ask me, before I could get started with the lesson of the day. Invariably I would respond, “Let us look at what the Bible has to say about that.” Then I would read or have read a passage or two which would answer the question. With that ritual out of the way, we could proceed with the lesson of the day, without further distractions.

Some time after I moved from there, I saw one of the sisters who had been in that class. We did some reminiscing and then she said, “You never ceased to amaze me in that class. Those brethren laid a trap for you nearly every Sunday morning and that did not seem to bother you at all. You would just go to the Scriptures and let the Bible answer their questions and then go on with the lesson.”

What could I say? Such praise is pretty heady stuff. She was certainly right about those questions not bothering me. I replied, “They were at a disadvantage; I had the Bible on my side.” Now after having had time to think about that response, I have concluded: “I had the Bible” to back me up, would have been a better choice of words.

It is possible, while considering a particular point, to allow a discussion to turn onto a subject which does not pertain to the point. That is the way a ladies class, I was trying to conduct, led me into talking about the “covering question.”

I suspect that very few brethren, who consider themselves experts on that subject, have ever viewed it from the standpoint from which Paul viewed it. In I Corinthians Paul answered some questions he had received from the church at Corinth. We can know that those questions were asked about a Christian’s freedom in Christ, because much of Paul’s letter deals with that freedom.

The moral climate in Corinth was such that no virtuous maiden or chaste and modest matron appeared in public with her face visible. It appears to me that the question Paul answered must have been worded something like this: “If we are free persons in Christ, governed by God’s moral standard, is it wrong for our women’s faces to be visible in our assemblies?” Probably all of us would agree that to the church at Corinth Paul answered, “Yes! That would be wrong.” However, there is disagreement regarding why Paul gave that answer.

It seems to me that the moral climate in Corinth required Paul’s answer. A Christian’s freedom in Christ does not permit Christians to flaunt their freedom in communities where circumstances have resulted in the people setting a higher standard than one’s freedom in Christ would otherwise allow. Thus when Paul wrote, “. . . if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God,” he would have been saying that neither he nor “churches of God” customarily exercised freedom in Christ, when in a community where indulging in that freedom would be considered disgraceful by the populace. Therefore, their women must not uncover their faces in the assemblies of the church at Corinth.

Whether right or wrong about that, I told the women of that class, which I was trying to conduct, that if they were in the habit of wearing something they considered a covering, because to not wear such would be a violation of their consciences, they had better continue to wear it until such time their consciences would no longer require them to wear it. Several of them had been wearing such an item of apparel. Others apparently had been trying to persuade them to quit wearing such an item. I had plainly expressed my view and at the same time had come to the aid and defense of those sisters in the class who held the opposite view.

I did not mention that matter again, the rest of the time I preached there. However, when I moved from there not a single sister in that church continued the habit of wearing such an item of apparel.

When Jesus sent His apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He told them, “Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Mt. 10:16). Is there another description which could more vividly portray their vulnerability? Is any thing more vulnerable than a “sheep in the midst of wolves”?

Survival in a hostile world requires the exercise of much wisdom, but to be an effective and faithful gospel preacher, one must realize that human wisdom is not enough. A gospel preacher must depend upon God to give him wisdom (Prov. 2:6; Jas. 1:5).

Being “harmless as doves” a preacher must avoid using deception, regardless of the reasons which might make it seem the thing to use, and always be completely honest. “The wisdom that is from above is first pure . . . ” (Jas. 3:17). One of the best uninspired statements about honesty that I have come across was, I believe, made by the late Sam Rayburn of Texas and speaker of the House of Representatives: “Honesty is not a policy at all. You either is or you ain’t.”

May preachers who work with small churches courageously meet the challenges of their work and faithfully serve our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 523-524
September 6, 1984

By Raymond Harris

In 2 Peter 3:3, the Apostle wrote: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.” The text indicates that self-willed men, determined to do as they please, will mock, scorn and ridicule the idea of temperance in view of judgment to come. They are so bent on doing as they please, they willfully deceive themselves and dismiss all the Bible has to say regarding the wrath and terror that can come from God when His commandments are despised and rejected.

Today we are witnessing this attitude both in and out of religious circles.

I. The World. The last 40 years have seen an unbelievable slide in morals. We as Israel of old (Jer.6:15) have so digressed that there are few who feel shame or who can blush.

1. Men and women have mouths that spew out vulgarity both privately and in public.

2. Immodest dress has evolved to nudity as streakers and sunbathers are arrested regularly for indecent exposure.

3. Pornography dominates the movies, TV, magazines and the written word.

4. Legislators have legalized adultery as state after state has adopted no fault divorce. And so, divorce and remarriage have swept the nation and “marriage vows” are a mockery.

5. The courts have legalized infant murder by making “abortion on demand” the law of the land. In the last 11 years, 15 million babies have been aborted. We are “legally” aborting a whole generation of our own nation.

6. Homosexuality and lesbianism are being flaunted to the point that a great and proud nation has become a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.

7. Murderers, rapists, alcoholics, etc., are excused as being “sick” and the poor victims of a blundering society that aggravated them with poverty, social injustice and child abuse.

8. Our public school system is being ravaged with Humanism. Discipline, prayer, good manners, respect for the elderly and “school spirit” have given way to sex education, evolution and situation ethics.

9. We have become a nation nearly void of ethics, honesty, integrity and sympathy.

Hence, it is not surprising that influences such as we have mentioned above have left their mark on those professing religion. Just as the evils of the pagan society of the Roman Empire, influenced and tainted many churches of New Testament times, many who profess to be religious today merely “seem to be religious” (James 1:26).

II. The Church Of Christ. Sadly, a large portion of the church of Christ has been infiltrated and over run by modernism, social activities, recreation, the social gospel, materialism and worldliness. Here we give a partial list of some things that have come to our attention lately.

1. Businesses such as skating rinks and even Opryland U.S.A. in Nashville, TN, have picked up on the fun, fun attitude prevailing among many churches of Christ. They now offer special rates for large church groups. Opryland now for the third year in a row has set aside a special day for “Church of Christ” young people. “Church of Christ youths from across the country” will gather at 9:00 A.M. June 23, 1984 in the Opry house for an hour of fellowship. There will be special entertainment and then the rest of the day will be spent enjoying “America’s only musical show park.” I wonder if Jesus would go if He was on earth that day?

2. From another source we learn that religious drama is becoming an important part of their teaching program. No, we are not talking about the “Puppet Ministry.” That’s old hat. Now it’s real stage plays. It seems the high school class dramatized the Bible story of “The Feast.” They acted out the parable before the rest of the Bible classes. After each person in the story gave his reason for not coming; the entire audience was invited to the feast and all the children received popcorn and marshmallows. With such “party time” antics, I wonder if any child there went away understanding that Jesus was in fact teaching, that to come to the feast, is to obey the gospel, be baptized and be a citizen in God’s kingdom?

3. More and more we hear of those who have lost faith in the gospel of Christ to draw people to their services. Hence, their abbreviated 3 or 4 day “Gospel Meetings” are spiced with entertainment by choruses, quartets and “special singers.”

4. And then another church that has gone into the “Social Gospel” clear over its ears has established a “Pregnancy Hotline.” This is another example of churches losing sight of their God-given mission. This church has put “saving souls” on the back burner and has plunged into the misguided theory that the mission of the church is to “serve the community. ” They have organized their women to answer phone calls, show a movie on abortion and arrange for personal counseling with alternatives to abortion. I read of no such thing in the New Testament. However, I do remember Paul dealing with the problem in a very pointed way when he admonished one and all to “flee fornication.”

Despite all the inspired teaching in both the Old and New Testaments stressing the essentiality of obeying God, there will ever be “scoffers, walking after their own lust.”

Our only hope, as a nation, as a church or as an individual, is to repent and turn back to God’s way. Centuries ago God issued an appeal – a warning wherein He said: “Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin . . . turn yourselves and live . . . ” (Ezek. 18:31-32). The way of escape from disaster, here and in eternity, is to turn from sin and turn to God! How sad! The nation, the church or the individual who forgets God – will be turned into hell!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 521
September 6, 1984