Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

In about the year 612 B.C., Nabopolassar, king of Babylon assisted by his son, Nebuchadnezzar, broke the power of Assyria by destroying Nineveh. Out of the ruins of the Assyrian empire emerged the Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar launched a series of three major thrusts against Judah, a weak and wicked nation, between 606 and 586 B.C.

The last three kings of Judah were Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin (Coniah), and Zedekiah. It was in the reign of Jehoiakim that Nebuchadnezzar brought Judah under Babylonian rule and succeeded Nabopolassar as Babylon’s king. Nebuchadnezzar carried some of the nobles of Judah into captivity, including the rebellious Jehoiakim. During the reign of Coniah, the city of Jerusalem was besieged, the temple stripped of its valuables, and about 11,000 captives were taken by the Babylonians, and among the captives were the king and his house. In the time of Zedekiah, the temple was burned, Jerusalem destroyed, and most of the remainder of the people taken captive.

Jeremiah the prophet lived during all these historic events. He stayed in Judah with some of the very poor people who were allowed to remain. He saw the once proud city of Jerusalem reduced to ashes. He witnessed the downfall of a nation that forgot God.

In the book of Lamentations, Jeremiah shows deep emotions as he describes the desolation of Jerusalem. “How doth the city sit solitary!” is his opening remark. He compares the city to a widow. “She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks.” He acknowledges that “Jerusalem hath grievously sinned . . . Her filthiness is in her skirts.”

Depicting the sad and empty condition of what had beers Judah’s capital, the prophet laments the total indifference shown by passers-by. The merchants who came near the ruins showed no sympathy. The shepherds whose tents were pitched in that vicinity were calloused toward the barrenness of the site. Jerusalem had fallen because its own inhabitants had been indifferent toward their sins. It is highly probable that many of the Jews did not care that God had brought Judah to its knees.

“Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?” (1:12). The prophet is grieved that others do not share his grief. Sorrow craves sympathy. Is there no concern that Jerusalem is desolate? Is there no warning for others who ignore God’s will? Is there no feeling of emptiness that a once thriving city has been completely emptied?

The Application

Jeremiah’s question can be applied appropriately to many things today.

1. The death of Jesus. Our Lord suffered terrible agony on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. He bled and died that we might be reconciled to God. Is this nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

2. The wickedness of the world. Sin abounds. Our modern cities are getting more and more like ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. The moral climate of America is steadily worsening. Immoral people are pushing their filth into the open like someone who dumps his garbage on his neighbor’s lawn. Is this wickedness nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

3. The lost condition of people out of Christ. We are promised no redemption from our sins apart from Jesus Christ. Multiplied thousands of people, old and young alike, have not obeyed the gospel. Many who are Christians make little or no effort to reach the lost with the gospel. Is this wretched condition of the lost nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

4. Digression in the church. Many congregations are no longer walking in the old paths. Brethren are following the denominations rather than the Lord of glory. Liberalism, worldliness, and lack of respect for the authority of the New Testament should make the God-fearing weep. Is all this digression nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

5. Divisions and factions. Some churches of Christ are hindered by schisms and splits. In many cases, preachers are at fault. Sometimes preachers set themselves above all others in the church, including the elders. They will force their way on the brethren or force a division. Is this spirit of factionalism nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

6. Broken homes. We live in an age when the sanctity of marriage is violated. Even among members of the body of Christ, divorces are becoming frequent. Husbands desert their wives; wives cheat on their husbands. Out of these broken homes come frustrated, emotionally disturbed, and confused children Is this breaking up of families nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

7. Indifference among God’s people. Many who say they are Christians are pleased to give the Lord no more than one hour per week of their time. Some are unconcerned about saving their own sons and daughters from worldly influences. Many will not really study the Bible. Some act as if they do not care whether the cause of Christ lives or dies. Is this indifference nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

Let us soberly reflect on the question of Lam. 1:12 and ask ourselves if we may not be rather like the people in Jeremiah’s time. Does this line of thought mean nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 219
March 27, 1980

By Bobby Witherington

The purpose of this article is not to point out at what age one becomes accountable and thus a fit subject for gospel obedience. With reference to this question, it is my conviction that the “age of accountability” is an intellectual age, and is not based upon a person’s previous calendar years per se’. Children, like adults, manifest great variation in their ability to grasp facts and to make intelligent decisions based upon a proper evaluation of those facts. So it is really impossible for one to sit in an editorial chair and issue a definite, no-mistake statement that a child becomes accountable to God and thus guilty of sin at such and such age.

The question, “when does one become guilty of sin,” insofar as this article is concerned, pertains to an intelligent, accountable individual. Some say “ignorance is bliss,” and contend that a person is guilty of sin only if he is aware of his transgressions. The logical conclusion to this would be to believe that man would be universally saved if he remained Universally ignorant of the existence of God and the requirements of His will. Others, however, contend that a person becomes guilty of sin when he transgresses the law of God (cf. 1 John 3:4). Obviously both divergent positions can not possibly be right – regardless of how strongly one may believe that it does not make any difference what a person sincerely believes.

In the 4th chapter of Leviticus there are four references to sins committed “through ignorance.” Herein the inspired writer mentioned four different people and/or groups of people and their sins committed “through ignorance.” “If a SOUL shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord . . .” (v. 2). “And if the WHOLE CONGREGATION of Israel sin through ignorance . . .: (v. 13). “When a RULER hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance . . .” (v. 22). “And if any of the COMMON PEOPLE (note: the marginal reference says, “people of the land,” b.w.) sin through ignorance . . .” (v. 27). Hence, it is evident that ignorance of God’s law did not prevent a violation of that law from being classified as SIN. Moreover, in three of these instances (vs. 13, 22, 27), the word “GUILTY” is used to describe the person or persons who sinned “through ignorance.” And in each instance God specified the offerings He required of those who became “guilty” because of having sinned “through ignorance” -offerings that were to be made when such sins became “known” (cf. v. 14) to those thus “guilty.” These facts necessitate that we draw two necessary conclusions: (1) A person can sin “through ignorance.” (2) When a person sins, whether, “through ignorance,” or presumptuously, he is “guilty” of sin, and must suffer the penalty that sin imposes (cf. Rom. 6:23) unless he, through compliance with God’s law, receives forgiveness.

With reference to WHEN one becomes guilty of sin, it is the same in the New Testament; namely, “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). The fact that the sinner may not know the “law” does not remove the guilt; it only lessens the likelihood of his seeking and obtaining forgiveness through compliance with the terms of the gospel of the grace of God. This sad fact is borne out in Matthew 25:41-45. Herein we note that certain ones, placed as “goats” on the Lord’s “left hand,” were condemned because of having committed sins (of omission), but of which they were ignorant – but that does not change the fact that the Lord said of such persons, “these shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46).

Bear in mind that a person is not guilty of sin because he is ignorant; he is guilty because he transgressed God’s law (I John 3:4). His ignorance is not that which separates him from God; rather this separation takes place because of his sin (cf. Isa. 59:1, 2). This is why the ignorant should not remain ignorant – and why those who know the will of God should TEACH others. A person, lost in the forest, does not rejoice because he does not know how to get out, nor does a person, trapped in a burning building, rejoice because he does not know an escape route. A person in sin is guilty; he is lost – his ignorance is not bliss; instead it serves to keep him lost and trapped in a state of guilt and doomed to eternal perdition.

In view of the fact that an accountable person’s guilt is determined by his transgression of God’s law, and is not nullified by his ignorance of the law; we exclaim, HOW IGNORANT IT IS FOR THE IGNORANT TO BRAG ABOUT THEIR IGNORANCE!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 218
March 27, 1980

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Among my dearly beloved brethren in Christ, the New Testament doctrine of salvation by grace needs a defense today just as baptism for remission of sins needs defense among the people of the denominational world. Yet, though most gospel preachers with whom I talk agree completely with the things I shall write in this series of articles, seldom do we hear a sermon on these matters and almost never do we read essays in the papers about it.

Now it is true that we read a great deal about grace, but 98% of it is intended to show the abuses of Bible teaching and to expose certain Calvinistic doctrines. Those of us who believe strongly the things I am about to write may have been hesitant to write – to “go public” – lest we be falsely branded as Calvinists and also lest what we write be misused by those who do indeed advocate false concepts about grace.

For generations faithful preachers have defended the necessity of baptism because we loved lost souls and we knew such souls continue in a lost condition until they surrender in full obedience. Today I also defend the importance of grace in God’s scheme of redemption because I fear some of my brethren may be putting too much trust in human merit and may, therefore, fall short of God’s grace.

First Century Grace

Within twenty-five years after the crucifixion, Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit to make a defense of grace even among “the saints . . . and to the faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1, 2). In that letter, Paul urged the brethren to remember that they had been dead in sin, that Gad loved them even then, that God had quickened them – made them alive in Christ, and that all of this was of grace (Eph. 2:1-5). Paul even warned them not to trust in works of human merit – works that would allow them to boast and he urged them to recognize that it was altogether of grace that God had admitted them, as Gentiles, into the fold of the redeemed (Eph. 2:8, 9; 3:1-6).

Likewise we, as American Christians, must be constant ly urged to remember that we are not God’s people because we are better than others, but rather that, being as totally lost as the most wretched heathen, we may be saved by grace just as he may be. The moment that we assume our need of grace is less than the need of the pagan, we may be endangering our souls in some reliance upon merit. There endangering not a single condition of salvation that is applicable to the heathen that does not also apply with equal strength to us. The pagan and we are all unworthy – and we are as unworthy as he (Rom. 3:23). And grace is the cure. Let us be unafraid to say that “only by grace are we saved.”

Only By Grace

No doubt many brethren will be shocked when they read the title of this section. Some may immediately say, “Leslie has joined the Calvinists.” But I assure you that my purpose is not to be sensational nor to create criticism. Rather, I just want to get my point across so that it will be remembered. What is the point I want to impress? I want all of us to clearly see that there is no way we can have salvation from sins now and eternal salvation in heaven except by God’s amazing grace!

But lest some misunderstand, please notice that I do not say we are saved by “grace alone” or “grace only.” There is a great difference between “only by grace” and “by grace only.” To illustrate: we may certainly say that we only live by breathing. When we fail to breathe, we die. However, one certainly does not live by breathing only. He must eat and drink. And if we can understand the illustration, then we can surely understand that we may only be saved by God’s unmerited favor – that without that grace we would all be forever hopelessly lost.

No Other Means

When we have sinned, we have left ourselves in a condition of absolute helplessness as far as human merit is concerned. We cannot run away from our guilt: “Be sure, your sins will find you out” (Num. 32:23). Likewise, and for sure, we cannot work our way out of the problem (Rom. 3:20 – “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.”). And we cannot wash away our sins through human means. “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

No other human being can wash us for they have no cleanser that is sufficient. All the powers that be are incapable in our behalf. Governments, armies and even religious systems lack any cleansing power. We are totally dependent upon God’s grace (Eph. 2:8).

Why do I write these things to my brethren? I will tell you why: (1) I do not want to be lost and I do not want others to be lost. Yet, if we fail to recognize our helplessness, we may certainly fail to avail ourselves of saving grace. (2) I fear that many children of God may be lost eternally because they tried to work their way out of sinful guilt. It is indeed necessary to turn from sinfulness in repentance, but forgiveness comes to the Christian who acknowledges his sins to God (1 Jn. 1:7-9). (3) Some may become discouraged and quit trying because they see that they are failing in perfection. But when we really understand grace, we can be of good courage “and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Col. 1:23).

If God would have Oven Abraham, Noah, David and Daniel, all of them thus sacrificed would not have purchased redemption for even one sinner. And if God would have demanded that we give ourselves as a burnt offering, we would still be unforgiven. If God would have demanded that we work ourselves to death or that we pay every cent we ever have or that we bathe ourselves every hour of every day, and though we would have been obligated to do what God said, all of this would not have been a sufficient sacrifice for our salvation. “For by grace are ye saved” (Eph. 2:5). Next: “Unconditional Grace.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 216-217
March 27, 1980

By Irven Lee

An instrument of music was introduced into the worship at Midway, Kentucky about 1858. This innovation moved slowly among churches in the North and finally came to the South about 1900. Of course, the church support of the missionary society and other central collecting and disbursing organizations came with the instrument. The intra church organizations also came along about the same time, as well as church sponsored entertainment and fraternization with the Protestant denominations who taught that one is saved at the point of faith before obedience.

If a stranger had come to some little town in the early part of this century and had inquired as to the location of the meeting place of the church, some local man might have asked, “Which one?” The stranger might then have asked; “What is the difference?” He would have been told that one used instruments of music and the other did not. Division usually came when the instrument was added. Actually, the social gospel and the church support of manmade institutions also marked the difference, but these facts were not so conspicuous to the neighbors at first. Even the churches themselves gave almost nothing but lip service to the societies with an occasional small token gift of money.

The greatest difference of all was not seen or generally realized. The real difference was in the attitude toward the Bible. Those who brought in the innovations would say that the Bible does not say that we should not have these things. To them the silence of the scriptures meant liberty to add samples of human wisdom. Those who did not approve of the instrument and the societies pointed out that these things were without New Testament authority. They were not commanded, implied, or taught by approved example. To them it was a sin to go beyond that which was written (2 John 9; Rev. 22:18-19; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Pet. 1:3).

Those who approved the changes thought of themselves as progressives. They were bringing in the things that were similar to the practices of the neighboring religious bodies so they would not be so “narrow” (different). In their sight, those who opposed the innovations were non-progressives. Then, as always, the church division was accompanied by bitterness. One group thought that the others were fanatics, hair-splitters, moss backs, antis, and non-progressives even though they were teaching and practicing what their fathers and grandfathers and the Bible taught.

The “progressives” carried most of the members in this movement which was more popular with the religious organizations about them. It was a move in their direction. The progressives wanted to be more acceptable to their neighbors. They were tired of the word “narrow” even though our Lord spoke of the way that leads to life as being narrow (Matt. 7:13, 14). Finer buildings were erected, kitchens were added, and plans were made to have more fun and “fellowship.” There was less emphasis on the fellowship often mentioned in the New Testament. That fellowship was with God and with fellow soldiers in earnestly contending for the faith. The battle with denominational errors in faith and practice gradually came to a halt where the instrument and other innovations came into favor. The progress of the progressives was not in winning the fight against error in the good warfare (1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 4:7; Eph. 6:10-20).

Emotionalism and sensationalism came with the progressive movement. The interest came to be in numbers, prominent members, good buildings, and social recognition in the community. These ideas and practices did not come to every place at the same time or to every member to the same degree. There was a package of things to be accepted, and some would offer resistance at times; but the machine was moving rapidly by the time the instrument was added. Big changes in attitude had already come or it would never have been added. Changes continued to such an extent that those who first added the instrument would be shocked by the “Disciples” today if they could come back to life and walk in among their descendants in religion. It would be hard for them to believe that they were more than distant cousins.

Typical arguments for the instruments of music were: (1) David used them; (2) Others use them; (3) We like them; (4) The Bible does not say that we cannot have them. These arguments are as strong as they could make; they are not indications of their desire to please God in the church that is according to His eternal purpose. They had reorganized the church until they could speak of “our church, our money, and our business.” Their desire was the final and highest law. To speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent was too narrow for them.

The only choice the “non-progressives” had was to go along with the innovations or get out and worship with the few kindred spirits they could find. They might meet in some one’s living room, a store building, a court room, or a school house. In several years, they would reach a point where they could build a meeting house of their own on some little inexpensive lot. These “anti’s” were almost always the members with less money and with less social prestige. There was a sense of responsibility (often too weak) that caused them to start one little church after another in communities all around the good building where the “progressives” met and continued to become more and more progressive. By the late thirties, this growth of the more conservative people became rather amazing.

In the more rapid growth of the forties many came to these conservative churches from the religious groups about them. Some of them were not fully converted, and teaching was inadequate in many places. They were not grounded sufficiently in the basic teachings of the one body and the importance of doing all things according to the pattern. The progressive, social gospel, and institutional spirit started among them. In the last thirty or so years, history has been repeating itself in a very vivid way. It is easy to see that attitude, arguments, bitterness, and the back to denominationalism movement are the same as they were a few decades earlier.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 215-216
March 27, 1980