Truth Magazine

By Keith Ward

Dale Carnegie was not a gospel preacher. Dale Carnegie promotes the very “persuasive words of wisdom” that Paul disdained. Dale Carnegie’s purpose is to teach one to effectively package and sell himself and/or a product. The gospel is not a product but a way of life. Dale Carnegie’s methods are the age-old techniques taught by the sophist rhetoricians of Paul’s day and rejected by Paul as improper tools for grounding men’s faith in God.

The Results

One problem with churches today is members who have been “Dale Carnegied” into the church or to some preacher. These members steadily influence the church into becoming a social club which gives offense to none.

The gospel is power, and conversion is violent – born anew, crucified, put to death, transformed. Many will be offended and turned away by the sword that circumcises the hearts of some. When a preacher or church stops offending, he has ceased to follow the Master who came “not to send peace but a sword,” and often offended men. In fact, when the disciples told Jesus that the Pharisees were offended, instead of apologizing or smoothing ruffled feathers, Jesus called them blind guides (Mt. 15:12). Lest we deceive ourselves into thinking that Jesus used some divine insight which we cannot exercise and, consequently, have no right to imitate Him in this, let us note that this is the very content that led Jesus to teach that evil comes from the heart (Mt. 15:19). Or perhaps the parallel thought of Matthew 7:18, 20 is clearer, “By their fruits ye shall know them,” and “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.” People “won and influenced” into the church have not even seen the cross much less taken it up, and they will be the death of the church.

All that brother Whiteside said against preachers who are “good mixers” applies to the current desire for preachers who will sell and smile “prospects” into the baptistry then “follow-up” the sale by flattering them into attendance (see Doctrinal Discourses, “Anvil Sparks”).

God save us, many such “clients” (a prospect who has been sold is a client) have reached leadership positions in the churches. That they have is in itself a comment on preachers and members who would rather avoid offending others than to demand adherence to the qualifications. Business acumen and social position often count more than piety when these are selected. I will not dignify them with the title of elder or deacon, nor demean the name Christian by applying it to these unconverted men. Truly, “the night is far spent” and it is time for soldiers of Christ to “put on the armor of light.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, p. 241
April 21, 1983

By James Bond

Often times we are told that the Bible cannot be understood alike. Many excuse religious division on the premises that the Bible cannot be understood. I am a firm believer that, if it is understood at all, it will be understood alike. Christians in the first century understood God’s word. They were united in name, organization, worship, doctrine, faith, and practice (Acts 2:42). The apostle Paul commanded, “Now I beseech you brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no division among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement” (1 Cor. 1:10). Again Paul said, “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). Biblical history attests the fact that man has never had a problem understanding God’s word. Adam and Eve understood what God had said (Gen. 3:1-3). Naaman understood the command to “dip seven times in the Jordan River” (2 Kings 5:10-12). God’s command is just as easy and simple to understand today as it was then.

People Are Divided Over What The Bible Does Not Say

All agree that singing is authorized and it is right to sing in our worship service (Eph. 5:29; Heb. 2:12; Col. 3:16). But division exists today over the using of instrumental music in worship. The Bible does not say anything about using instrumental music in New Testament worship. There is not a single command or example that authorizes the practice. The apostles set the order of the first century churches and they never used instrumental music. If God had commanded them to use it, they would have obeyed Him. Since they did not use instrumental music, it is evident that God did not authorize it. We are divided over something the Bible says nothing about! The controversy would immediately end if everyone would accept only what the Bible teaches.

When we come to the subject of baptism, all agree that it is scriptural to baptize penitent believers. But we disagree on infant baptism and sprinkling. Why? There is not one case of infant baptism in the word of God, nor is there one case of someone being sprinkled and calling it baptism. Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). You cannot baptize a person until you first teach that person and infants cannot be taught the word of God. What is boils down to is that division exists over something the Bible says nothing about! If all would accept only what the Bible says concerning baptism, unity would prevail.

All agree that the Lord’s church can scripturally engage in the following works: preaching the gospel, providing for poor saints, edification (1 Thess. 1:8; Acts 4:34-35; 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 5:16; Eph. 4:11-16). The division exists in the Lord’s church today, not over what the Bible teaches, but over things not even mentioned in the word of God – namely, church sponsored recreation and entertainment, churches engaging in secular business, and sponsoring church type of cooperation. There are no Scriptures that authorizes the church to engage in such things. We agree on what the Bible teaches, but we disagree and, consequently, are divided over things that are not taught in the word of God. Where in the Bible can one read about the Lord’s church sponsoring entertainment, recreation, engaging in secular business, etc.?

We can understand what the Bible says if we study it carefully with an open mind and a readiness to obey. We must learn to respect God’s silence. We must also be willing to be guided by what the Bible says and not by what it does not say (Deut. 29:29). The Bible will judge us in the last day (Jn. 12:48).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, p. 240
April 21, 1983

By Jady W. Copeland

If the Bible does not contradict itself (and I believe it doesn’t), then two passages need harmonizing, for in James 2:24 we find we are justified by works and in Ephesians 2:8-9 Paul says we are not saved by works. On the surface these would seem to conflict one to the other but it is not necessarily so. In the first place, neither says we are saved by one of these only. Interestingly enough, one says we are not saved by faith only, the very thing that many say we are saved by. Seems that James and the religious world are in conflict. Could it not be that both faith and works play a part in salvation? I had faith and works both in evidence this morning when I came to my office. I had faith in God that I had the health and strength to make it, but it took work (not much but a little). Had I had no faith in God, and some other related things, I would not have begun. In this article, we want to concentrate on whether or not we are saved by works.

Not Saved By Works

We are obviously not saved by some kinds of works the Bible mentions. For example, there are the works of Satan. Are we saved by those? (Read 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10.) We can break down the works of Satan into several groupings.

The works of the flesh. Paul says in Galatians 5:19 that there are works of flesh. Those who do such shall not enter heaven. Not saved by those works are we? Now these are the doings (desires) of Satan as opposed to Christ (see verse 22). These works are in obedience to Satan, not to Christ. Let us keep this rule in mind. We are the servants of the one we obey (Rom. 6:16). Therefore if we obey Satan, we are his children. This is in opposition to God.

The works of men. I believe we can also put man’s works in this catalogue too as some follow their own works instead of the works of God. When I substitute my will for the will of God, I have renounced His authority for mine. When I do my own biddings, then I fail to follow Him. Isaiah says that such is as “filthy rags” and that doesn’t sound like faithful obedience to God (Isa. 64:6). Remember Paul says we are the servant of the one we obey (Rom. 6:16). Obey yourself and you cannot be the servant of God. Salvation does not come through our own wisdom (1 Cor. 1:18-25). If I obey self, I am not serving God.

Works of which one may boast. Here is another work by which we cannot be saved. Is there any “boasting” when I obey God? Is there any “glorying” when I do that which God authorizes? We can take pleasure in the hope He gives us, but there is no room for boasting, for it is His works, His commands, His will that we are observing (read Rom. 4:1-4). Here Paul uses Abraham as an example of this principle. As carefully as he obeyed God, there was no room for boasting (merit) on Abraham’s part. Why? Because he only did what God said. He did nothing of his own will. But Paul calls that faith. But isn’t it interesting that James uses the same man and the same passage (Gen. 15:1-6) to prove that justification comes by works? Now that should tell us something. More about that later. Do you suppose Abraham would be called the father of the faithful if his faith had not led him to obey God?

Now let us look at Ephesians 2:1-10, a passage often used to disprove the necessity of obedience to Christ. God’s mercy is the subject here (v. 4). Man was dead in sin, and the mercy and loving kindness of God is manifested that man might have a remedy for sin. God (in view of His nature) simply could not stand by and let man be lost in sin without a way of salvation. So from the depths of His love, He sent the Christ to save man so (“by grace have ye been saved”). Grace or mercy was God’s part and faith (v. 8) is man’s part in salvation. The whole of God’s plan to redeem man is expressed in one word – grace. The whole of man’s part in redemption is expressed in one word faith. Details in either case are here given. But with regard to the plan and person (Christ) of our redemption, it is “not of work” on the part of man; it was totally God’s plan. And as Paul says in Romans 5:1-2 it is accepted by faith as the means into God’s loving kindness. We are not saved by works of which we can boast.

We are not saved by the works of the law of Moses. As has been pointed out many times in recent months in the Guardian of Truth we are not saved by perfect law keeping (whether you speak of the law of Moses or any other law). While we do not intend to spend much space here on this point as it needs more space to justify it, suffice it to say that Moses’ law has been done away (Eph. 2:14-15; Gal. 5:1-4; 2 Cor. 3:1-11). Justification comes in two ways: (1) Perfect obedience of faith. (2) Salvation through Christ. Unless you have never sinned, you will have to be saved by the blood of Christ. I know of no other way.

So, if we are not saved by (1) works of Satan, (2) the works of man (merit) or, (3) the works of the law, are we saved by works? Surely James 2:24 has to mean something when he says, “Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith”.

The Works Of God

Perhaps we can get a thought from the words of Christ. Look at John 6:28-29. “What must we do, that we may work the works of God?” This is the same as saying “do the works” of God. What are the works of God? “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he bath sent.” Our work is to believe on Christ. Now the question is, “Does that require obedience or works in any way?” We can get an idea of that when we look at what Jesus did in doing the works of His Father. In verse 38 of this same chapter Jesus said, “For I am come down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me”. Jesus obeyed His Father. What He did He did at His Father’s will; He was obedient to His Father. He brings out this point in John 7:14-18. He came to speak God’s words. He came to do the Father’s will. “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.” Furthermore in verse 18 He said, “He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” Likewise when we do the will of God instead of our own will, we have the approval of God for we are demonstrating faith in Him (as we obey) and not faith in self.

But if it is the work of God to have faith in Christ, does not this mean that faith is all that is essential to salvation? Yes and no. It all depends on the kind of faith. James 2:14-26 talks of more than one kind. One is a dead faith and the question needs no answer which says, “Will this faith save?” If so, the demons will be saved for they had faith (v. 19). The saving faith is the kind that Abraham had. He gives Abraham as the example of the kind he is talking of, and as noted it is the same man, and the same passage that Paul uses to show one is justified by faith. James uses him to prove one must do something. He says, “You see then that by works a man is justified and not by faith only.” What kind of works? It is the same kind that Jesus did (that is doing the will of His father). He cannot be saved who obeys Moses’ law, or the law of his own choosing, or the will of Satan. But did not Abraham do the will of God? He did not do works of which he could boast or glory for they were not of his choosing. Always Abraham’s works were the works of God. Then and only then was faith put to his account for righteousness. As James says, “Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.” So there must be an imperfect faith (faith without works) if there is a perfect faith (faith coupled with works).

When one is baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27) is this the work of man, or of Satan, or of the law of Moses? Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). I take it then that if one does what Jesus said, it is not his own (man’s) works but the works (obedience) of the Lord. When Abraham was about to kill Isaac God stopped him and said, “for now I know that thou fearest God. . .” (Gen. 22:12). When one obeys today (God’s works) then God knows of your faith. Like love, faith can only be known by the action it prompts. Think on these things, the Bible is right.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, pp. 238-239
April 21, 1983

By Irven Lee

Young men, how much is your hair worth? Absalom was much praised for his beauty, and his hair is given a prominent place in reference to his appearance (2 Sam. 14:25, 26). Have you seen a beautiful man? “Handsome” is about the best word we can find to describe a man who is most attractive, but the Bible describes Absalom as being beautiful. He had a remarkable amount of hair which he cut once in the year.

In history books we see pictures of heroes of early America and of noted Englishmen with attractive wigs. In the last twenty years we have again seen many young men with long hair, but I have not seen much beauty. Almost all who have had long hair have looked as if they had come out of a huge swamp where they had been lost for many weeks. They have looked as if they sorely needed a haircut, a bath, and some better clothes.

The long hair fad began among the city burning thieves who fought policemen and firemen during the wild, rebellious decade of the sixties. These young men not only had long hair, they also wore beads and filthy clothes, used perfume, and went without shoes on occasions. They did whatever was considered improper for men. They, by their appearance, vulgar and blasphemous talk, and deeds of violence, were showing their rebellion against the “establishment.” Hate for parents, government, business, and utter disregard for the rights of others made them act like shrewd brute beasts, if we can think of shrewd beasts. Many young women were as uncouth and rude as the young men.

I do not understand why young people from better homes followed these styles and demanded their right to look like the rebels. There must have been some of this rejection of authority on their part, too. These sons resented parents’ request for neat, orderly attire. They then had bitter conflicts with school principals who sought decent dress codes. They later went from place to place seeking employment and were bitter because they found that men in the personnel departments could read the message of rebellion in their appearance. They looked like people who could not work under any supervisor. Did they not realize this? Very many of these young rebels married and soon divorced because they did not like responsibility nor did they have any respect for the rights of others. Many did not bother to marry but lived more like a herd of animals.

Dr. Spock and others who rejected discipline for children will have much for which they will give account at the judgment seat of Christ. Children brought up under the influence of these permissive concepts became criminals who advertised their destructive tendencies by their dress and conversation. Some copy cats were actually better than they appeared to be. They seem to have been more stupid. They wanted to look like the law breaking crowd without actually being regarded as arrogant misfits. They paid the price for their rebellion against their parents and the customs of society. Our nation was seriously threatened.

Some who did not learn to obey their parents as children have now learned respect for authority and have opened their hearts to Bible influences. As Christians these can now bring their children into subjection with all gravity. We could wish that all had made this wonderful change.

Some changes of styles have come that indicate a calming of the violent spirit which resented anybody and anything that stood for authority. Many young men now wear longer hair than was the custom thirty years ago, but it is moderate and neatly styled. Cleanliness and courtesy are marks of these law abiding citizens. They are not necessarily rebels. They are conforming to a style which may be harmless.

The unisex fad is not harmless. The boy at the time of my youth would have felt insulted if he were called a “sissy.” He sought to look like a man. The young lady liked to have the feminine touch. Some neat and courteous young men have carefully groomed hair styles that are copies of some beautiful hair styles for women. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (1 Cor. 11:14, 15.) This is from the Bible. Does it register on your mind?

I do not want a beard. Some men do. Each has a right to his own preference in this. It is obvious that a beard is masculine. The man with a beard does not look like a “sissy.” This is not at all the same as long hair for men.

The woman with her hair cut like mine is out of place in that matter if I recognize the expedient and lawful thing in this regard. It is certainly out of place for a woman to copy the vulgarity, blasphemy, smoking, and the use of alcohol which have been common among men. It is not smart to do such foolish things. In the past we have looked to women to help hold the standards of conduct higher. Let us thank God for every worthy woman in this generation.

Let us think with and about young men who have been blessed by having parents who are Christians. Some of these young men realize something of the blessings that they have received and they know the law of God that demands their obedience (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20). Their parents are made happy by this love and obedience and do not begrudge the thousands of dollars they have spent in bringing up their children.

Other of these young men decide to let their hair grow long and are rebuked by their parents. With very ugly stubbornness these boys may insult their parents and cut themselves off from a happy relationship with them. More is involved than a few inches of unslightly hair. There is rebellion within their hearts, and this is one way to show it. Listen, son, the approval of your parents is worth ten times as much as your hair, or is it one hundred times as much? Is there any comparison that would seem sensible when you think of hair and of the good will of parents? Is it fair to them that you should wear their family name in public?

Brethren at the place of worship may not call on these arrogant young people to take public part in the services. The young again show their arrogance by expressing their resentment. They then ignore the Lord’s church and wear their long hair on toward the destruction which awaits those who refuse to walk in the only way to the Father (John 14:6). The soul is worth more than the world and long hair, too. Is one so blind that he cannot see this? Such a price is too great to pay to look like a rebel!

Young man, do you need a haircut? Well, get one! Please do not embarrass your parents. Paul could leave off the eating of meat rather than become a stumbling block to some of the brethren. Their good will is precious. That unsightly hair is not worth two cents. It will, in my judgment, be a more attractive America when barbers are given a chance to do their work more often. There are many faithful brethren who feel as I do.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, pp. 237-238
April 21, 1983