Truth Magazine

By Don R. Hastings

In the Beatitudes, Jesus told us the characteristics which we must possess to be truly happy. The beautiful disposition of meekness is essential to be happy. The “poor in spirit” are, also, meek.

The disposition of meekness is greatly misunderstood. Many think that a meek person is one who is spineless, weak and cowardly (one who is so timid that he is too afraid to speak out and take a stand for anything). He is devoid of strength and courage. Such a concept of meekness is completely in error as we shall see.

“Blessed Are The Meek”

Let us define the word “meek,” which is translated from the Greek word praus. Thayer defines this Greek word as “gentle, mild, meek.” Webster defines the word “meek” as follows: “mild of temper; not easily provoked or irritated; patient under injuries; not vain, or haughty, or resentful; characterized by mildness of temper or patience.” David Lipscomb stated, “Meekness is a quiet and forbearing spirit that suffers wrong without resentfulness but firmness and unyielding devotion to right.” W. E. Vine states, “described negatively meekness is the opposite to self-assertiveness and self-interest . . . it is not occupied with self at all” (Expository Dictionary for New Testament Words, p. 56).

William Barclay writes, “. . . used of animals which have been tamed, and which have learned to accept discipline and control …. A horse obedient to the reigns, a dog trained to obey the word of command . . .” (Flesh and Spirit, pp. 113, 114). It is not the absence of strength, but strength brought under control! It is strength and gentleness perfectly combined for it takes strength to be angry at sin and yet treat the sinner with gentleness! It is being aggressive in defense of God’s word, but reluctant to retaliate for injuries brought upon self!

Meekness toward God is shown by our submissiveness to Him (Gal. 2:20). A meek person has brought himself under God’s control and is, therefore, “meet for the master’s use” (2 Tim. 2:21). “The meek Christian accepts God’s dealings with him as always for his good” (The Beatitudes, by James Tolle, p. 39). (See Job 1:21; 1 Sam. 3:18; Lk. 1:38; 2 Cor. 12:7-10.) It causes us to sincerely say, “Thy will be done.” Meekness is the disposition which causes us to humbly admit our ignorance and seek understanding from the word which is able to save our souls (James 1:21; Psa. 25:9).

We are to show “all meekness toward all men”(Tit. 3:1, 2). We must show meekness in answering those who question our hope for eternal life in Christ (1 Pet. 3:15). A gentle answer will do the questioner more good than trying to ram our faith down his throat. Our answer should never be accompanied with scorn and contempt.

We must show meekness in reproving those who have gone astray (Gal. 6:1 KJV). “Correction can be given in a way which entirely discourages a man and which drives him to depression and despair; and correction can be given in a way which sets a man upon his feet with the determination to do better and with the hope of doing better” (Flesh and Spirit, by Win. Barclay, p. 117). “Meekness is the spirit which makes correction a stimulant and not a depressant, a means to hope and not a cause of despair” (Ibid).

We must show meekness in correcting those who teach error for such a disposition is far more effective than harshness. It is far more effective than an argumentative disposition” (2 Tim. 2:24, 25).

We must show meekness by refusing to avenge ourselves of the suffering and injuries which others have brought upon us (Rom. 12:19, 21). If we can learn to suffer wrong without becoming filled with hatred and bitterness, we will be a lot happier. Meekness produces peace for it will cause one to let another have his coat instead of fighting for it. He does not let trivial things upset him (Matt. 5:38-42). It takes far more strength to refuse to retaliate than to go ahead and strike back.

Two great examples of meekness in the Scriptures are Moses and Jesus. “Now the man Moses was very meek . .” (Numbers 12:3). The context of this verse proves the meekness of Moses for he was patient with those who opposed him (Numbers 12:1-15). Moses was not a spineless person, but a man of great strength and courage.

Jesus was “meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29; 21:5; 2 Cor. 10:1). Meekness is one of the ways in which Christ was like Moses (Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22). In His meekness, Christ was both the “lamb of God” and the “lion of the tribe of Judah” (John 1:29; Rev. 5:5). As a lamb, Christ was submissive to God’s will (Mt. 26:39; Jn. 5:30). As a lamb, Christ was gentle and forgiving to those who treated Him cruelly (Lk. 23:34; 1 Pet. 2:23; Isa. 53:7). As a lion, Christ rebuked sharply the Pharisees and scribes for they were “blind guides” (Mt. 23). As a lion, Christ drove out those who were making His “Father’s house a house of merchandise” (John 2:13-17).

“For They Shall Inherit the Earth”

The premillennialists believe this will be fulfilled when Christ comes again. They are wrong (2 Pet. 3:10). The word “inherit” implies that the earth is not bought, stolen, or earned, but given to the meek by God (Psa. 37:9-11, 22, 29, 34). The meek may not be actual title holders of the land, but they realize that the earth’s is Jehovah’s and all its beauty and riches are theirs to enjoy (Psa. 24:1; 1 Cor. 3:21-23). Who is richer, the man who owns ten houses, or the one who can knock on a hundred doors and be received with joy (Mark 10:29, 30)?

Meekness is essential if we are going to behave ourselves as true children of God (Col. 3:12; Eph. 4:1, 2; 1 Pet. 3:3, 4). The world would encourage you to develop an aggressive, domineering disposition which places itself above others. This attitude may help you obtain your worldly goals, but it will not make you really happy! The meek are happy because they are submissive to God. They are under His control. They are contented and at peace with God, their fellow man and themselves. Will you meekly obey the Lord?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 2, pp. 26-27
January 8, 1981

By Dennis G. Allan

Since baptism is mentioned about a hundred times in the pages of the New Testament, it is understandably the subject of constant discussion. A huge portion of current religious division is the result of misunderstandings and perversions concerning the action of baptism.

To fairly present the evidence concerning the action of baptism, the historical proofs will be mentioned first, followed by a brief look at the meaning of the language found in the Bible to describe baptism. Finally, consideration will be given to the final authority – the examples of baptism in the Bible.

The Voice Of History: Immersion

A study of historical proofs shows very clearly that baptism in the early church was performed by immersion. J.W. Shepherd(1) and T.W. Brents(2) both present rather extensive documentation to show that history establishes immersion as the action of baptism in the early church. The really interesting evidence, however, is that provided by writers who defend the current practices of sprinkling and pouring for baptism. Several religious groups have embraced this error, the most notable being the Roman Catholic church.

Notice these statements by Catholic writers in books declared by Catholic officials to be “free of doctrinal or moral error.”(3)

To “baptize” means to wash with, to immerse in water. The water is ordinarily poured on the person’s forehead, but baptism car. also be given by immersing the person in water while saying the words – the ordinary way it was done in the early centuries – or by sprinkling water on the forehead while saying the words (emphasis mine – DGA).(4)

In discussing incorporation into the Catholic church, John A. Hardon, S.J. explains in The Catholic Catechism:

They begin by entering what the councils call “the door of the Church,” whose name was derived from the fact that the more common manner of administration was by immersion (Greek baptizein, to dip in water) (emphasis mine – DGA).(5)

Even these proponents of other modes of baptism readily admit that the original meaning and the early practice of baptism was immersion. Their understanding is correct though their practice and teaching is faulty.

The Voice Of The Original Language: Immersion

A necessity in understanding any form of communication is to understand the symbols used. In comprehending the original language of the New Testament, we must understand the symbols, or words, used. The word “baptize” is not a truly English word, but simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo.

Omitting his references and parenthetical remarks, one finds Thayer’s basic definition of baptizo to be:

1. Properly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge.

2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water.

3. Metaphorically, to overwhelm.(6)

Professor Moses Stuart, as quoted by T.W. Brents, is very emphatic in his statement that “Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any thing liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.”(7)

Some theologians, in their attempts to stretch the language to justify sprinkling, have argued that baptizo takes on a secondary meaning from its root, bapto, so that it could mean to “sprinkle.” Rather than becoming involved in tracing the origin and definitions of the root and derivatives involved, it will suffice to notice this response penned more than a century ago:

Language has no law that is better established than that derivative words inherit the radical form and primary meaning of the words from which they are derived.(8)

Applying this principle to baptism, one must recognize that baptizo (I baptize) is a derivative of bapto, which has a primary meaning of “to dip, plunge, or immerse.”

A comprehension of the Greek language is not, however, essential to understanding the proper action of baptism, as shall be seen in the next section.

The Voice Of Scripture: Immersion

On any matter of this nature, questions should always be answered with the teaching of scripture. In 1893, J.W. McGarvey observed:

It is a mistake to suppose that it requires scholarship in any dead language to determine what baptism is. And I am inclined to believe – I do believe, that every man who has ordinary common sense can take his own English Testament, and learn from the careful study of it, what God requires of him in order that he may live a life well pleasing in the sight of his Maker.(9)

Noticing a few passages with this intention will be profitable. Quotations are from the ASV.

When Jesus was baptized, he “went up straightway from the water” (Mt. 3:16), or as Mark presents it, “up out of the water” (Mk. 1:10). The implication is that he went down into the water before he came up out of it. This fits with John’s statement of the reason John the Baptist was baptizing in Aenon: “because there was much water there.” (Jn. 3:23).

Luke leaves no room for reasonable doubt in the narrative of Acts 8:38-39. There Philip and the eunuch “went down into the water” and “came up out of the water.” What possible reason could all these men have for soaking themselves in water if merely sprinkling would have been satisfactory to God? Surely one of these men would have understood that sprinkling was sufficient! The very fact that all of them, including Jesus Christ, chose baptism (immersion) instead of sprinkling should be sufficient evidence for the open-minded reader.

In Paul’s comments concerning baptism, he. assures it to be understood that it was immersion. In Colossians 2:12, he speaks of being “buried with him in baptism” and “raised with him through faith.” The same illustration appears in Romans 6:3-6. Men do not even entertain the thought of burying a body by throwing a shovel-full of dirt on it, yet millions of well-meaning people are content to try to bury the old man of sin by pouring a few ounces of water on one’s head. Before such people can truly walk with Christ, they must obey God by completely burying that old man of sin. Better understanding the meaning of the command to be baptized will better equip one to convince those who are still living in sin.

Endnotes

1. J.W. Shepherd, Handbook on Baptism, Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company, 1950, pp. 39-65, 183-216.

2. T.W. Brents, The Gospel Plan of Salvation, Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1874, pp. 302-313.

3. See the explanation of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in the front of nearly any Catholic book.

4. Anthony J. Wilhelm, C.S.P., Christ Among Us: A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith, New York: Paulist Press, 1973, p. 191.

5. John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, New York: Double day and Company, Inc., 1975, p. 446.

6. Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978, p. 94.

7. Brents, p. 223.

8. Brents, p. 211.

9. J.W. McGarvey, McGarvey’s Sermons, Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1975, p. 110.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 2, pp. 25-26
January 8, 1981

By Tom M. Roberts

(During the first week of November, 1979, the Crescent Park church in Odessa, Texas, conducted their annual lectureship. On this occasion, the theme chosen was “Cultism.” Consideration was given to the various cults in the world and, in some instances, their influence in the church of our Lord. The subject of study assigned to me was “Astrology” and while there is a distinction to be made between “cults” and “the occult” (of which astrology is a part), there is enough similarity to justify an inclusion of astrology in such a study. A note of gratitude should be given to brethren of various churches (Crescent Park and other places) who plan and conduct efforts such as this lectureship which permit concentrated study of different topical and timely subjects. Enough requests were received by different ones for this material that it suggested the merit of putting it into print for general consumption.)

Astrology: Cult of the Occult

Some clarification is needed lest we improperly lump astrology with cults in general without a necessary distinction being made. It is readily seen that there is a similarity between cults and sects. The Jews of the first century considered the New Testament church a sect or, by modern definition, a cult. A cult is “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also a minority religious group holding beliefs regarded as unorthodox or spurious” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). In this definition, emphasis must be placed upon the “orthodox or spurious” as regarding the mainline denominations from which most cults arise. Cultism is a religious difference accepted by theologians to distinguish between the major denominations and the “fringe groups” which spring from them. Anthony Hoekema (The Four Major Cults) says that “the cults are the unpaid bills of the church.” By this statement, he implies that a cult comes into existence because some within a denomination feel that there is something lacking in that fellowship. For example, the modern emphasis by many cults upon charismatic ecstasy is a reaction by them to the absence of such in the cold, formalistic churches from which they come. Since the main-line denomination of which they have been a part refuses to embrace the charismatic movement, a “fringe group” (cult) establishes a minority faction outside that church in which they emphasize this aspect of their belief. Notable cults of today which emphasize different things in their escape from a particular denomination include: Worldwide church of God (the Armstrongs) with their own brand of premillennialism; Seventh Day Adventists who elevate the Sabbath to a position denied by most denominations; Latter Day Saints who form a cult around the writings of Joseph Smith (denied as valid by other religious groups) and many others. Cults have proliferated so rapidly in this century in America alone that it is difficult, if not impossible, to adequately define all things which compose a cult. There are many aspects of cultism not considered in this definition, but this will suffice to make our comparison between them and “the occult.”

Above and beyond the realm of the main-line denominations and “fringe groups” that spin off from them, occultism includes an element completely distinct in that it composes the “outer fringe” that delves into the magical, mystical arts of divination, black magic, etc. A line has been crossed from spiritual considerations to those of mysticism. Any session that proposes to study cultism and includes astrology should make this distinction. Otherwise we fail to appreciate a vital difference.

The occult is “of, pertaining to, or designating those mystic arts involving magic, divination, astrology, alchemy, or the like. . .” (Funk and Wagnalls). “Beyond the range of ordinary knowledge; mysterious, secret; disclosed only to the initiated” (Random House Dictionary of English Usage, p. 996). “Belief in hidden and mysterious powers and the possibility of subjecting them to control. In occult terminology it is described as the science of perfected living, which explains the brotherhood of sentient (sense perception, tr) beings and the triumph of natural laws over human mismanagement” (Encyclopedia of Astrology, Nicholas Devore). “Occult science” is, according to Random House Dictionary, “of or pertaining to magic, astrology or other alleged sciences claiming use of knowledge of secret, mysterious or supernatural agencies.”

Thus, it can be clearly seen that “cultism” has a more restricted sense than we need to include in a study of “the occult.” With occultism, we have passed from a study of sectarianism into another, far broader realm. This “outer realm” includes such matters as para-psychology, ouija boards, seances, spiritualists, clairvoyants, witchcraft, demonology, reincarnation, Satanism, palmistry, numerology, Tarot cards, Scientology and Dianetics, Rosicrucians, and much more (to say nothing of the old crystal ball). Astrology falls directly into the category of these latter subjects since it has one thing in common with them all: a claim to be able to “divine” the future. “The desire to penetrate the future and influence its events has shown itself in all lands and ages” (ISBE, “Astrology,” p. 296). “But it is clear that a knowledge of the future does not lie within the scope of man’s natural powers; `divination’ therefore has always been an attempt to gain the help of beings possessing knowledge and power transcending those of men. The answer of the Chaldeans to King Nebuchadnezzar when he demanded that they should tell his dream was a reasonable one: `There is not a man born upon the earth that can show the king’s matter: there is no other that can show it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh’ (Dan. 2:10, 11). `Divination,’ therefore, in all its forms is but an aspect of polytheism” (ibid).

With these definitions before us, we conclude that astrology may be considered a cult, not of the main-line denominations to be sure, but a cult (sect) of the occult. After extensive reading of material in preparation for the lectures and, in describing my assessment of astrology, I feel somewhat like Robert Turner who suggested that he was teaching a class in “psycho-ceramics” – cracked pots! A true believer in astrology must become something of a “lunar-tic” to seriously accept all the claims and abilities it proposes.

Astrology also Distinct from Astronomy

While we are on definitions we should emphasize that one should not be led into false respect for astrology by the claims that astrology is the father of astronomy. Astronomy is a branch of true science (“the science that treats of the heavenly bodies, their motions, magnitudes, distances and physical constitution,” Funk & Wagnalls, p. 90). Astrology is a form of divination of foretelling the future, filled with superstition and unprovable assertions and assumptions. Yet we read, “The history of astronomy is really only the history of astrology from a slightly different viewpoint” (History of Astrology, Zolar, preface, p. vii). One might as well say that the history of the New Testament church is just the history of Roman Catholicism, but “from a slightly different viewpoint.” Astrologists are never over-endowed with humility and do not hesitate to make such unwarranted claims. In reading such statements, one is reminded of the flea that rode an elephant’s back across a swinging bridge and, on reaching the other side, remarked, “We really shook that bridge, didn’t wel” Astrologists would like to achieve a measure of respectability by riding on the prestige properly extended to astronomers. This should be clearly exposed as presumptuous and false.

Man has been interested in the heavens and the movement of the heavenly bodies since recorded history, but man has not always connected such a study of the planets (astronomy) to foretelling the future (astrology). In fact, until men gave up the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18-21) and their hearts were darkened, God’s revelation of Himself took care of questions about the future. Paul asserts (and history will bear him out) that man “became vain in his reasonings,” “changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man,” and failed to realize that the knowledge of “the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made.” The everlasting power and divinity of God may be comprehended by the existence of the planets. David said the “heavens declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1) and that the “heavens praise him” (Ps. 148). But this should never be construed to be the same as the pantheistic view of astrology that the planets are embued intrinsically with a life-force of their own which exerts an influence on the destiny of men born under a certain configuration of these planets. The existence of the universe may well be “Exhibit A” in the evidence that there is a God who created all things and science may well be interested in the motions and magnitudes of these heavenly bodies as a science, whether they believe in God or not. But it does not follow that “Exhibit A” can be allowed into evidence to sustain another proposition, i.e., that one may tell the future by watching the planets.

One may readily agree that astrology is an ancient practice. Josephus claimed to trace astrology to Seth and claimed to have visited two famous pillars reported to have survived the flood on which the rules of astrology were engraved (History of Astrology, Zolar, p. 110). Some claim Enoch was the founder (ibid., p. 106). The “Book of Enoch” was an early work that fantasized about the historical Enoch and, without basis in fact, attributed to him much superstition about stars, angels, inter-marriage between angels and women and (through their off-spring) access to knowledge of magic and the occult. With such speculation as a foundation for astrology, it is difficult to pinpoint an exact beginning for it. Perhaps it is parallel to pinpointing the origin of the Roman Catholic Church. While one may identify an attitude that existed (with Diotrephes, 3 John 9) that “loved to have the preeminence” which ultimately resulted in the hierarchy system, one cannot point to an actual date or individual who can be said to have originated Roman Catholicism. Likewise, while one may identify an attitude which turned from the knowledge of God to superstition and polytheism (Romans 1); it is impossible to identify any one individual as the originator of astrology. “Man has always wanted to know and understand the world about him. That world affected him in many ways and invariably left strong, emotional, and indelible imprints on his mind – some because they determined his fate or well-being, such as fire, flood, defeat, crop failure, disease, or misfortune; others because they impressed him and he believed they were vital to his life and welfare, as for example, comets, eclipses, or planetary conjunctions. All these aspects of Nature he set out to observe and study and to devise theories for the coordination and interpretation of the date” (ibid.). Surely, none may forbid a natural and innocent interest in the universe and its physical influence on our existence. But when one makes that fatal step from a scientific consideration of influence to one which concludes that nature is pantheistically independent of God and that Nature (note the capital “N” and what it signifies) so rules as to influence the destiny of men, one has passed from the astronomy into astrology, from observation to occultism, from science to superstition. Let us not be so naive as to fail to note that difference and reject the attempt by astrologists to blur the distinction.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 2, pp. 23-24
January 8, 1981

By Earl Robertson

David wrote, “As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him” (Psa. 18:30). This statement points to the perfect characteristics of the God historically revealed. Past history had fully manifested God and His ways with men; they knew His ways to be faultless and blameless. God had taught and made promises to those people and had kept His word. They knew “His word is not slaggy ore, but purified solid gold,” as Delitzch stated it. Later David wrote, “Thy word is true from the beginning” and promised, “I will not forget thy word,” saying he had hidden it in his heart that he might not sin against the Lord (Psa. 119:160, 16, 11). The claims for the accomplishment of right for and within a man are numerously ascribed to the word of God.

The word of God, as spoken through His Son (Heb. 1:1) is His power to enlighten and save sinners (Eph. 1:17, 18; Col. 1:13; Rom. 1:16, 17). Christians develop by this word (1 Pet. 2:2; Acts 20:32) and are kept by it (1 Pet. 1:5; Jude 24). This word cannot be invalidated, but endureth forever (John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:25). The apostles, like the prophets, were divinely commissioned to preach it (Mk. 16:15, 16). Paul told Timothy to “preach the word” and only the word (2 Tim. 4:2; 2:2). Peter, likewise, admonished, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Even the doing of man must be circumscribed by the word of God (Col. 3:17). How careful the Lord has been in faithfully getting His word to us (John 17:8; 1 Pet. 1:12; Acts 2:1-4). As it stands written it is creditable and can be accepted as the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).

Modernists do not accept the word as the absolute standard of right and wrong; they do not appreciate the fact that when one either receives or rejects the spoken word of God, he receives or rejects God (Matt. 10:16-40)! The apostles were God-sent and spoke His words (John 3:34). Our Bible is this written word! It is not a “paper-pope” as some would call it; neither is it a “fictitious and historically unsound blueprint” to completely furnish man with all essentials for godliness (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). They allege “biblicistic absolutisms” give raise to heresy!

The claim parroted today that making the Bible our absolute guide in all morals and spiritual actions is legalism is nothing short of moderism and unbelief. It is a rejection of the word of God. History reveals to us the frightful pathway, beleagured on every hand, by our own brethren who turned away from the counsel of God and led the church of Christ into one apostasy after another. Some of the very preachers who took the lead in turning the church away from the truth in worship did, within twenty years, deny the verbal inspiration of the Bible! They were looking for freedom! However, the “strait-jacket” of God’s truth restrained them; so, to obtain what they desired, they had to deny that the Bible was actually the word of God. L. L. Pinkerton of Midway, Kentucky in the introduction of the mechanical instrument in 1859 and his rejection of inspiration in 1869 is a good example of what we are talking about.

This reminds me of recent incidents in “The Old Jerusalem” – Nashville, Tennessee. You see the Old Belmont church in that city has recently adopted the instrument. Writers in the Gospel Advocate sorely lament this fact. But, we ask: Why should they? For years that church was full of teachers from Lipscomb College. The policies and actions charted and pursued by that school, and endorsed by the Advocate continuously, influenced and conditioned Belmont for its present action! Let the present objectors of her action demur and deny this charge if they wish, but the future will corroborate my statement. The liberal brethren who think and say they have “never changed” doctrinally are now only beginning to see sorrow. Their days of sore lamentation are just beginning to come. Church after church will follow Belmont! When brethren started taking liberal positions toward the word of God nearly two generations ago that generation allowed such preaching, but did not practice it; however, the children of that generation are now here and they both believe and will practice the preaching that came not from God’s sacred oracles. Furthermore, there is not one thing the liberal preachers who lament Belmont’s actions can do to stop this movement. They have nothing consistent with their teaching to do so.

As the editor of the Advocate recently wrote lamenting pulpit policies: “But when the pulpit goes (giving an uncertain ring), can the congregation be far behind?” Preaching is serious business and the church that does not realize this fact is doomed to sterilization and death or apostasy and death. The present harvest is sufficient proof to any thinking person that Bible preaching has not characterized many of the churches. Yet, the church is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” How was it possible for the Belmont church to vote (majority rule in the eldership – eight to three) the instrument in if the word had been fully preached in her pulpit? Any Bible believing person knows that a soft, compromising approach had to characterize that pulpit for years to accomplish this apostasy. Furthermore, while this softness and failure to “reprove and rebuke” characterized the pulpit it permeated and saturated the pew. This is history repeating itself. Shades of the 1850’s and 1860’s!

Belmont’s Bulletin recently revealed their endorsement of and participation in the Billy Graham campaign, saying: “Begin to mark your calendar. Many of you will want to be a part of the Graham crusade at Vanderbilt Stadium… If you would be interested in a Leaders Training Course to help in follow-up, please call and leave your names with the church office, or with the crusade office …. May the Lord bless the effort with strength.” Now, why would the Belmont church endorse and participate in the actions of all the denominational churches involved in this crusade? They have not been taught “sound doctrine” and neither have they heard the errors of sectism denounced from the pulpit. “Behold, they say unto me, Where is the word of the Lord? let it come now” (Jer. 17:15).

But, that is not all! Their bulletin again states: “You see, we must be ready to adapt to whatever new instruction the Lord gives, even if it appears to conflict with where he had us walk in the past.” So, they declare the Lord is giving them “new instruction.” This “new” revelation might “appear to conflict” with what God has spoken, but the preaching of the modernist conditions the people to “be ready to adapt to whatever” change in doctrine they might preach! Watch other churches with soft preaching and human philosophy follow.

It is obvious from the stated convictions of many that they do not believe God has already revealed to man all that He will say. They expect God to say something further to them because they want something different than what they already have from Him. The whole problem is men are dissatisfied with what God has spoken. Men with “itching ears” (2 Tim. 4:1-4) will sacrifice day and night, compass land and sea, lower their standards for something “new” from the Lord. But, the truth of the matter is, the Lord is not going to say any thing additionally to what He has already spoken to the human family. It is only when men “turn away their ears from the truth” that they turn to fables. Jude wrote, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The adverb “once delivered” is aorist in tense. It means the faith of Christ (the gospel) is once for all times delivered.” This tense emphasizes the past action stated in “once delivered.” The same term is used of Jesus’ sacrificial death: “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself …. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. . .” (Heb. 9:26, 28a). Peter stated it this way, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18). How many times did Jesus die? How many times did He have to die to put away sin? Is His death for sin good for all men for all time? Is the power of His death sufficient for all men for all time? To answer these questions is to answer whether or not God has for all times spoken to all men.

Let us be glad that we have God’s complete revelation to man and that we have opportunity to both study it and teach it to others. His message will not change – in spite of the denominational Conferences, Synods, Councils. Let us “preach the word” be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” until Jesus comes (2 Tim. 4:2).

Guardian of Truth XXV: 2, pp. 21-22
January 8, 1981