Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

John wrote, “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him who athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). Many of the creeds of men limit, in scope, the salvation from sin which Christ offers through the gospel. This erroneous position is assumed because of a misunderstanding of the nature of man and the nature of God’s dealings with man. In spite of what the creeds say, however, the Lord makes the same offer to all without any respect of persons. God’s love for man manifested at Calvary included the whole world – “he tasted death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). His death was not only for the people who live under the New Testament, but it was “for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament” (Heb. 9:15). This is why John could write “whosoever” in our text. Jesus said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). All were away in sin, but all by the Lord are invited to come to Him. Anyone who wants to be saved can be. The Lord is not in the business of saving some while refusing to save others the same way.

As surely as salvation is offered to all in the great commission (Mk. 16; Matt. 28), it is offered conditionally. As John wrote the will of Christ in Rev. 22, he included, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14). The blessed city of God is entered when the gospel of Jesus Christ is obeyed. The “doing” of His commandments to enter the city makes the entering conditional! Men constantly tell us there is not anything we can do “to take the water of life” but the Lord says there is something that must be done. Men tell us it was the Lord’s doing and dying that saves us from sin – that there is not anything we can do. His death – His blood – makes possible our salvation, but its benefits are not received and enjoyed by man until man appropriates the benefits of Jesus’ death in gospel obedience. Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). “He that doeth” is conditional!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 9, p. 155
February 28, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

All other books are of value only as they lead back to “the Book. ” Our commentaries and our libraries are merely efforts to grasp the breadth and depth of the revelation of the Book. It is the authority to which church, reason, religious experience, and tradition must submit. He who does not abide in the teaching has not God (2 Jn. 9).

Jack P. Lewis made these excellent remarks in a lesson on We may as well add one more which brother Lewis did not the “Inspiration and Authority of the Bible” (Harding mention. College Lectures 1972, pp. 90-122).

He further explained that such “matters of worship and service” as “instrumental music in worship, incense in worship, dedicating babies, and missionary societies” are excluded from God’s will because not authorized by “a direct command, an approved example, or ground for a necessary inference.” But such matters as “the doctrine of `Guardian Angels,’ of the rapture, of how orphan children should be cared for, of the type of materials out of which people can study in Bible classes” fall “in the area of opinion” dependent upon “inference and deduction” rather than upon “the explicit statement of Scripture.” Of course, the reference to “how orphan children should be cared for” means whether the church may build and maintain human institutions separate from the church for various phases of its benevolent work. Whatever the benevolent scope of the church may be, how suggests incidental methods and is misleading. The question is who: the church or another organization?

Suppose we add to his latter list “how musical worship may be offered (with or without mechanical instruments), how reverence and meditation may be expedited (incense), how families may demonstrate their dedication to the ideal of raising godly children (dedicating babies), and how churches may spread the gospel (missionary societies).” Brother Lewis would object that these are not mere methods of doing the thing commanded, but are violations of and intrusions upon the thing actually commanded. The command to “sing” excludes another kind of music that of playing mechanical instruments. The chart illustrates this principle:

The Command	Excludes
To Sing	Playing Instruments
To Baptize Believers	Baptizing Babies
For the Church to Propagate Truth	Church Support of Human Institutions (Missionary Society)
For the Church to Care for Its Needy	Church Support of Human Institutions (Benevolent Organizations – Clinics, Hospitals, Orphanages, Etc.)
We may as well add one more letter which brother Lewis did not mention.
For the Church to Edify the Saints	Church Support of Human Institutions (Edification Organizations – Colleges)

Harding Graduate School, in which Lewis teaches, seeks and accepts church donations to edify young people and to to prepare preachers. In addition, Harding College functions as a missionary society by taking church funds and sending out preachers to convert the lost and build up churches! (For details, see ad on back page of Gospel Advocate, 24 June 1976) As illustrated on chart below.*

The real issue is, Has the Lord made His church adequate to its mission? In assigning the church its mission, did He provide the church with its own organization or leave the church to devise organizations? Shall the-church oversee and control its own work, or make donations to human organizations which oversee and control the work to be done? Whether in spreading the gospel, edifying the saints, or caring for the church’s needy, the issue is not how in terms of specific methods but who in terms of organization. The constant proliferation of organizations as appendages to the church in every field of its endeavor is an insult to God’s revealed plan in the Bible and a disgrace to the people proposing to follow it to the exclusion of all else. These human institutions drawing their financial life’s blood from the churches are idolatrous impositions upon the authority and all-sufficiency of the New Testament plan for the church of God. Such organizations have no place among a people claiming to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent; to call Bible things by Bible names; to do Bible things in Bible ways; to plea for unity on the basis of the revealed truth of God; to proclaim Christ as the only head with the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice; and to speak as the oracles of God by giving Book, Chapter, and Verse for every religious practice.

Will someone object, “But where does the Bible say not to – Look how much good we are doing – I don’t see anything wrong with it – Some of our best preachers approve . . . .”? As brother Lewis himself so well said: The Bible is “the authority to which church, reason, religious experience, and tradition must submit. He who does not abide in the teaching has not God (2 Jn. 9).” How heartbreaking that Ephraim is joined to idols! Oh that they might be put away and God’s people stand together as a mighty army for the truth – for the Divine Authority of One Book.

Advanced Bible Class Lessons

Brother Roy C. Cogdill’s Book by Book through the New Testament is being widely used. It is especially suitable for classes ranging from high school level to adult levels. Special issues of Truth Magazine have been adapted and reprinted in workbook form. Good interest has been shown by requests for this material in advance of its actual printing and there has been a good response after the printing as well. I have enjoyed teaching the one on Romans. The new one on Worldliness fills a pressing need and a number of brethren have expressed their enthusiasm about this important material. Billy Moore’s workbooks on Authority and Unity are excellent choices. Use Truth Magazine Bookstore’s toll-free phone number to obtain any of these and to find out what else is available in advanced Bible class materials.

* Harding College receives church donations and functions to (1) supply preachers to churches, (2) arrange for student preacher’s programs of work under elderships of churches, (3) locate unevangelized areas for churches, and (4) send preachers to such areas for churches.

 

 

Truth Magazine XXIV: 9, pp. 153-155
February 28, 1980

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Wrong attitudes toward the truth, while not specifically named, are nevertheless sometimes implied in the conduct of certain Bible characters, as revealed by inspired writers. Such is true concerning some, of whom Paul said that

They Walked Not Uprightly According To The Truth

In recalling an incident that occurred in the church at Antioch, Paul wrote,

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

So then, it is possible for one who preaches the truth, to act the hypocrite and conduct himself in a way that is inconsistent with the truth that he preaches. That has ever been one of the weaknesses of man. It was the sin that Paul charged against the Jews of his day. They regarded themselves as being more righteous than the Gentiles who had been guilty of most vicious crimes against humanity (Rom. 1:26-32). Paul showed, however, that in condemning the Gentiles the Jews condemned themselves in that they practiced the same things (Rom. 2:1). “Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorest idols, dost thou rob temples?” (Rom. 2:21-23).

Peter, The Offender

But let us get back to the scene at Antioch and the language of Paul in Gal. 2:11-14. Ironically, the chief offender in this case was none other than the apostle Peter.

They say that Peter was the rock of which Jesus spoke when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Passing over, for the time being, arguments to the contrary, we make this observation that if indeed the church was built on Peter it rests on a shaky foundation. For if there was one human weakness that Peter had, it was that of impulsiveness coupled with instability. A few hours before Jesus’ betrayal and arrest Peter had assured his Lord that though all others would forsake him, the Lord could depend upon him. Yet it was just a few hours later that Peter denied Christ three times.

It will be remembered that God chose Peter to preach the first gospel sermon to the Gentiles. Some time afterward, Peter, recalling the event, said, “God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7).

Peter’s going to preach to the household of Cornelius required that he do something of which all Jews even those that were believers disapproved. It involved his going in and eating with Gentiles who were still considered as unclean by the Jews. But by means of the vision recorded in Acts 10:9-16), God had taught Peter that the old social barrier between Jew and Gentile had been done away. And it is obvious that Peter had understood that the purpose of the vision to be that he “should not call any man common or unclean (Acts 10:28).

But now we find him at Antioch, the man who had boldly gone in and eaten with the Gentiles, and later defended himself for so doing, retreating from that position because of the criticism of some Jews that had come down from Jerusalem. Paul said, “He drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:12). In such conduct, Paul said that Peter and others had not walked uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.

Peter’s Counterpart

The manner in which Peter conducted himself on the above occasion has found a counterpart many times since. Too often we find men who preach one thing, but practice something else. Sometimes we find preachers who are strong on what we call doctrinal matters, giants in defending the truth and exposing the false theories of man, but weak in their own morals. More than one preacher has been ruined by a scandal in his own life. Sometimes preachers will preach about equality of men and of brotherly love, yet refuse to associate with a brother because of the color of his skin. Sometimes preachers will preach about honesty but when they move they leave unpaid bills behind them. Such, like those of whom Paul write, are not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.

Fear Of Criticism

There is yet another aspect of this matter to be considered. It reveals the disposition to take the popular course, a course dictated by policy. Paul said, “Before that certain came from James, he (Peter) ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.” So Peter ate with the Gentiles until it brought him criticism, and made him unpopular among his old associates. In this instance, Peter proved to be a policy man. He took the popular course, he wanted to be with the majority.

Peter is not the only guilty man. There have always been those who wanted to be with the majority when controversial issues arise. Their attitude toward disputed practices is not characterized by the question “Is it scriptural?” Contrariwise they are more concerned with whether or not it is popular, and if it will bring them criticism if they practice it.

Displayed In Current Issues

Too many times has such vaccilating conduct been found in the church of our Lord. When issues arise, I have seen men take a strong stand for the truth until they found that it brought them criticism and made them unpopular. Then, like Peter, they drew back and disavowed positions once held and now practice things that they once condemned as unscriptural. As I write, I have before me the first volume of the Gospel Guardian, published in 1949. It contains a list of names of impressive writers, none perhaps better known that that of Foy E. Wallace, Jr. In the issue of May 5, 1949 and in an article entitled, “The Issues Before Us,” under a paragraph entitled “Institutionalism,” Brother Wallace said of human institutions, “. . . No one denies that they are secular and human; yet their proponents want to bed them up in the treasuries of the churches and thereby subordinate the divine church of the Lord to the human organizations of men.” In another paragraph on “Brotherhood Elderships,” he wrote, “History is repeating on ecclesiastical organization. It comes now in the form of the little church working through the big church – which is centralization. It amounts to little elders turning the responsibility of their work over to big elders . . . .”

Can anyone read these, and other similar statements from the pen of Brother Wallace, and come to any other conclusion but that he opposed human institutions being supported by the church to do the work of the church, and also opposed the concept of the sponsoring church? Yet, today, we find Brother Wallace lending his support to those who are building up the things that he once sought to destroy.

Another prominent writer of past years, Guy N. Woods, wrote in 1939 in an article entitled, “The Tendency Toward Institutionalism”:

The ship of Zion had floundered more than once on the sandbar on institutionalism. The tendency to organize is characteristic of the age. On the theory that the end justifies the means, brethren have not scrupled to form institutions in the chruch to do the work the church was designed to do. All such institutions usurp the work of the church, and are unnecessary and sinful . . . . Of course it is right for the church to care for the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, but this work should be done by and through the church, with the elders having the oversight thereof, and not through boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament.

Can anyone read the above and come to any conclusion other than that Brother Woods strongly opposed human institutions doing the work that God gave the church to do? Yet in 1956, when he debated W. Curtis Porter, he affirmed a proposition that reads, “It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy . . . .” Thus, in 1956 Brother Woods affirmed as having the scriptural right to exist, boards and conclaves which he said in 1939 were unknown to the New Testament and therefore sinful. If Peter were living today, he would have a lot of company!

There are men who will not take a position on any matter until they know where the marjority stands. Their attitude obviously is that truth is determined by counting noses. Others take what they call “the middle of the road” position on controversial issues, which means that they can be found on either side.

One thing we need to learn and never forget is that, so far as truth is concerned, it does not matter where the majority stands, for truth is never determined by majority vote. Truth is truth regardless of how few stand for it, or how many stand opposed to it. History has testified more than once that the majority was wrong, and those who stood for the truth, sadly in the minority.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 9, pp. 151-152
February 28, 1980

By Leonard Tyler

Prayer is one of the great privileges granted to the children of God. I know of none greater so far as this life is concerned – we can talk to God through Jesus, our Mediator, in prayer. Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you.” Paul wrote, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men . . . . I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting . . . . Pray without ceasing” (Matt. 7:7; 1 Tim. 2:1, 8; 1 Thess. 5:17). There can be no question rightfully given to reflect upon the duty or privilege of prayer to the believer. Paul’s instructions are applicable today.

Jesus not only taught His disciples to pray, He prayed much: at his baptism (Luke 3:21); in the deserts (Luke 6:16); in the mountain just before selecting His apostles (Luke 9:18); at His transfiguration (Luke 9:27-28). These are a few occasions mentioned by Luke. The apostles of Jesus prayed much and taught all to pray. Surely this impresses each Christian with the importance of prayer. It should also cause each of us to appreciate the privilege of prayer and build within us the incentive to pray.

“Lord, Teach Us To Pray”

Luke gives another occasion of Jesus praying and one of His “disciples, when he ceased, said to Him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples” (Luke 11:1-13).

Prayer, to me, is a much neglected subject – and especially their request, “Teach us to pray.” We have asked to be taught so many different things, but how many have asked how to pray? Is it because we feel that prayer is automatic or spontaneous? Or could it be that we just do not feel any compulsion or desire to pray? Or, maybe, it is that we accept prayer but have no appreciation for the importance of praying properly, scripturally and acceptably to God. It appears, by observation, that some of us have fallen into the denominational way of thinking regarding prayer: Just so one is honest and sincere, however and for whatever he prays, his prayer will be heard and answered. Search your own heart for the reason we never ask or request – “Teach us how to pray.”

There Are Some Nots To Prayer

(1) Not to be seen and heard of men. The hypocrites liked to pray standing in the synagogues and on street corners to be seen of men. Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, they have their reward” (Matt. 6:5).

(2) Not for fleshly lust. James said, “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (Jas. 4:3).

(3) Not much speaking (multitude of words). “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking” (Matt. 6:7). This seems to be a weakness among us. It also hinders some from leading in prayer. They say, “I cannot pray as well as some others.” This means, “I do not have the proper and dignified words.” Remember, one is not heard for his “much speaking.” This suggests that we need to be taught how to pray.

(4) Not self-exaltation. “And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (Luke 18:9). This attitude leads one to trust himself. This self-righteous person flatteringly induces himself to set aside God’s commandments for his own. He then looks contemptuously upon anyone who refuses to accept his “self-willed religion.” Is there any greater sin than the sin of presumptuously forming our own will in matters of religion and binding that “human will” upon others?

Humble obedience to God is very fundamental to being a Christian. This requires submission, committing oneself to God for guidance. “Speak, Lord, thy- servant heareth. Command and I will obey.” Samuel told Saul, “Hath the Lord so great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king” (1 Sam. 15:22-23).

David said, “Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins: let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression” (Psa. 19:13). Self-exaltation, self-righteousness has no place in the plan of God for man’s salvation. James said, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble” (Jas. 4:6). Self-exaltation is opposed to what Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit . . . they that mourn . . . the meek” (Matt. 5:3, 4, 5). The proud, self centered and self-righteous man must be taught humility, faith and obedience (Jas. 4:6-10), 13-17; Col. 2:23).

Prayer must be offered in harmony with God’s will. This is understandable, since one must be a doer of God’s commandments to pray acceptably (1 Jn. 3:22; Jas. 5:16; 1 Jn. 3:7, 10; Psa. 119:172). Jesus taught His disciples to pray, “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth” (Matt. 6:10). For one to say this is a quibble to evade God’s failure to answer, seems to reflect upon the very first recognition of God’s own prerogative to act within the realm of His own will. To say that God must respond in agreement to any person’s prayer is to subjugate God to man rather than man to God. When a child requests a favor of this father, he does not demand. His father complies with the request as he deems wise. Cannot we allow our Heavenly Father at least this right? He knows what is best and will give it. Our faith in Him bids us to accept that and desirously pray, “Thy will be done, and not mine.”

(5) Not just a set form nor fixed expression. A study of Matthew’s and Luke’s account of Jesus teaching His disciples to pray will prove this (Matt. 6:9-15; Luke 11:2-4). Jesus did not give a set form but rather taught His disciples the “manner” in which to pray. I repeat, it is an example of prayer. The Lord’s prayer is recorded in John 17. Other occasions of Jesus praying are given, but this prayer is offered for all. It is indeed the prayer that should touch our hearts and move us to strive to become instrumental in bringing about its answer. It should also impress upon us the need of prayer. “Lord, teach us how to pray.”

“After This Manner”

This expression is given in W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary, “Houtos or houto, thus, in this way, is rendered `after this manner’ in Matt. 6:9; 1 Peter 3:5; Rev. 11:5.” this proves that it is not just a set form of exact words. It is a model by which His disciples were to form their prayers. It is indeed a beautiful model by which we can pattern our prayers. Note:

“Our Father which art in heaven,” expresses one’s reverential trust and absolute dependence upon the Father. He is the “I am that I am.”

Then follows seven petitions, three with reference to God and His kingdom. “Hallowed by thy name,” is the exaltation of the Father in our own hearts to His rightful place above all. “Thy kingdom come,” is a pleading for the kingdom or church to be established. It was, when this was spoken, future, though “at hand,” it is yet to be established. The kingdom was established on the first Pentecost after Christ’s ascension (Acts 2; Col. 1:13; Heb. 12:28). Therefore, we cannot properly pray for the kingdom to come. It is already here. We can now pray for the advancement of the church, the kingdom, or for the spread of its borders.

“Thy will be done,” certainly should be upon the lips of every child of God. We should first endeavor to establish God’s will in our own hearts and then work to teach the gospel of Christ to every creature (Mark 16:15). God’s will is to be done in His kingdom or church. This is that which characterizes God’s children.

The remaining part of the model prayer deals with personal needs. “Give us this day our daily bread.” Praying for daily bread implies that we may ask for temporal benefits for our physical needs. It also seems to imply that we should be content with what we need – not for pleasure nor lust, but for a livelihood. Paul learned to be content (Phil. 4:11). He also wrote to Timothy, “Having food and raiment let us be therewith content” (1 Tim. 6:8). Prayer does not take one’s responsibility away from him. It is no substitute for activity. Neither does it offset God’s will. It is God’s will that all should work to have and to give (Eph. 4:28). But, we must understand, that our ability does not and cannot sustain us. We need God’s help in all things. Therefore, Paul said, “In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). “Work and pray,” is the order of the day.

“And forgive us our debts,” certainly teaches that we can pray for forgiveness. But, again remember, we must apply our own faith, “as we forgive our debtors.” Does not that impress the above thought – one must comply with God’s will. We must do our part. Forgiving another is our responsibility. If we fail to forgive others “their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive you” (Matt. 6:15). Yet we must pray, “Forgive us our trespasses.”

“Lead us not into temptation,” does not mean that we can expect God to take all temptation out of our life. It means that we need God’s help to avoid temptation. We must “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22); nevertheless, we need God’s strength to help us. Pray.

“Deliver us from evil.” None other than God has the power to save us from sin. Our complete dependence upon God is evident. We still need to recognize that we are poor, frail human beings in everlasting need for God’s help. When this is our attitude, we can then pray most sincerely, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever, Amen.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 9, pp. 149-151
February 28, 1980