Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

As we continue our study of attitudes toward the truth as revealed by New Testament writers, we observe that another unfavorable attitude, while not specifically named, is nevertheless implied in Paul’s description of the apostate condition of the Gentiles, as recorded in Romans 1:24-25.

Wherefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Here we have an attitude of presumptuousness that dares to elevate the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God in that they

Exchanged The Truth Of God For A Lie

The keynote of the epistle to the Romans is sounded by Paul in verse sixteen! “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Paul then proceeded to show man’s need of salvation, tracing his course from a state of belief in God to a state of unbelief, from whence he descended to the lowest depths of moral depravity. That is obvious from the words of verses nineteen to twenty-three.

Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

It was in that context that Paul said that they had exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

A Recurring Phenomenon

Many times since, men have exchanged God’s truth for the philosophies of men. That disposition is manifested in those who turn away from the Bible account of creation to a theory that would account for the origin of things on a non-miraculous basis. Just as the existence of the universe, with its harmony and order, bore witness to the ancients that God is, so also it bears witness to us today that “the hand that made them is divine.” So, if those of whom Paul wrote were without excuse in failing to recognize God as the Creator, then it is certain that with our tremendous increase in knowledge in the various branches of science today, man has even less excuse than they when he turns from God as the Creator to the speculations of human philosophy.

It is the simplest of logic to conclude that the universe, with its evidence of design, harmony, and order, is the product of not only a Creator, but also of one possessed of a high degree of intelligence. That is obvious from the following illustration.

I drive an automobile. Of course every one will agree that at some point in time it came into existence. Moreover every one will agree that it is not the result of mere chance, produced by some spontaneous action that threw a lot of disassociated debris together and, thus, formed an automobile. Nor would anyone suggest that it was the result of along evolutionary process that began with a tiny piece of metal that grew in size and in complexity, resembling at one time a wheel-barrow, later a two-wheeled chariot, and still later a stage coach of frontier days, and finally, after having acquired a two cylinder motor, it evolved on up through the model T Ford stage to emerge as the high powered V-8 of today, and all this, bear in mind, untouched by human hands and aided only by forces resident in itself.

Of course, no one who had their head on straight would suggest either accident or evolution as the explanation for the existence of an automobile. Reason tells us that some one with intelligence made it. But that is as far as reason can take us. Who made the automobile is a matter of revelation. Under the hood of my car I see a name-plate that identifies its manufacturer, General Motors of Canada. In the light of so reasonable an explanation, would it not be sheer folly to suggest that the automobile was the result of spontaneous generation, or of a long evolutionary process?

That the universe exists is an indisputable fact. That it bears strong evidence of design, harmony, and order cannot be denied. Reason tells us that behind it all is a maker of infinite intelligence and wisdom. But that is as far as reason can go. For the answer to the question of who made the universe, we are dependent on some form of revelation. That revelation is provided for us in the Bible account of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. There we have an explanation that meets all the demands of reason. For it ascribes the existence of the universe with its harmony and order to an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful being who “spake and it was done; . . . commanded and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9). Therefore, when men turn away from the Bible account of creation to a theory that ascribes the existence of the universe to unintelligent forces acting on dead matter, they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Human Creeds

The attitude of presumptuousness that tends to elevate the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God rears its head within religion when men adopt human creeds. The writing of the human creed is an admission on the part of its author(s) that they do believe in the all-sufficiency of the Bible. Yet the Bible claims to be all-sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

Moreover, human creeds teach error on various subjects. The Methodist Discipline, in one of its articles states,” . . . that we are saved by faith alone is a very wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” Obviously, there is something wrong with the attitude that finds comfort in a doctrine that so obviously contradicts the Bible. James said, “Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (James 2:24). Twice in the book of Romans, Paul wrote about “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Assuming, as we must, that Paul and James wrote the truth, we must conclude that when men turn from the Bible to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Some human creeds teach the doctrine of inherited total depravity of the newly-born child. In the Larger Catechism of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, we find this statement: “Original sin is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity by natural generation, so that all that proceed from them in that way, are conceived and born in sin.” This is a vastly different picture of little children from that portrayed by Jesus who taught that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3). Moreover the Bible teaches that sin is an act of transgression (1 John 3:4). It is therefore not transmissible from parents to children (Ezek. 18:20). The doctrine of inherited depravity therefore replaces the truth of God with a lie.

And Now, Some Brethren

It is a sad fact that the disposition to exchange the truth of God, once held, for a lie has made its appearance among some of our brethren. This is, perhaps, not surprising when we remember that Paul foretold that there would come a time when some would “turn way their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:4). It has become manifest in that there are some who deny the role of approved example in establishing scriptural authority for faith and practice.

Up until the early 1950’s, it would have been rare to find any of our brethren who would deny the authority of approved example. I realize, of course, that unanimity among even a large majority of brethren is not the deciding factor in determining truth. That can be determined only by an appeal to the scriptures. But it was with sound scriptural reasons that brethren taught the role of example, as the following, scriptures reveal.

1. In giving the great commission to His apostles, Jesus instructed them to teach the baptized disciples “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). If, we are correct in assuming that the apostles were faithful in discharging the responsibility committed to them, it is logical to conclude that anything practiced by the early disciples with apostolic approval would reflect the will of the Lord on that particular matter, and thus would furnish an example for us to follow today.

2. Paul, himself, taught the authority of apostolic example when he wrote, “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do . . .” (Phil. 4:9). Thus Paul ascribed equal authority to what they heard (command) and what they say (example). Other scriptures that may be noted are Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 11:1.

3. More over it is a fact that much of what we know about how people were converted in New Testament times, the early church, and how it functioned in the work ‘of evangelism and benevolence are learned by example. The book of Acts is a book of examples. To deny the role of approved example is thus to deny the utility of one of the most important books of the New Testament. It is by example that we learn that elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). It is by example alone that we know when to eat the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7).

But as the issues concerning institutionalism and sponsoring churches began to intensify, and it was pointed out that the examples of evangelism and benevolent work in the New Testament did not include things that some brethren were promoting, they were faced with the dilema of abandoning their unscriptural projects, or denying the authority of examples. Many of them chose to do the latter. That this is not an unsubstantiated charge is apparent from the following facts.

1. In his book entitled We Be Brethren, J.D. Thomas, after a long and complicated argument on Acts 20:7 said, “This then is the reason why some good brethren have concluded against the establishment of pattern authority by examples alone.”

2. Another writer, Milo R. Hadwin, writing in the Firm Foundation said, “The conclusion of this study is that New Testament examples have no role as related to Bible authority. The actions of individuals or churches recorded in the New Testament have no authority to require imitation today” (emphasis mine, M.W.R.B.).

Other like quotations could be given from other brethren, but these are sufficient to confirm our charge that some brethren are denying the authority of examples. When we consider the plain and emphatic teaching of the Bible on this subject, we can only conclude that they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve the creatures of their own invention rather than the Creator.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 133-135
February 21, 1980

By Mike Willis

The number of eases of suicide continues to increase every year. One can hardly imagine that those who have so much to live with have so little to live for. Yet, the number of Americans who are taking their own lives continues to increase every year.

Not surprisingly, the number of teenage suicides has increased as well. In the last decade the number of incidents of teenage suicide has increased one hundred per cent.(1) Here are the grim statistics of teenage suicide:

The suicide rate among fifteen-to-twenty-four years-olds has risen by almost 300 percent in just twenty years. An average of thirteen teenagers kill themselves every day.

Suicide is the third leading killer of teens (following accidents and homicides). As if these statistics aren’t gruesome enough, some experts argue that suicide may, in fact, be the number one killer.

The basis for this argument? Suicides often go into the record books as accidental deaths. For example: A person killed in a head-on collision, while driving at night on the wrong side of an expressway with no headlights, would probably be pronounced an accident victim – unless there was positive proof of suicide, such as a suicide note.

Though about five thousand teenagers kill themselves each year, the number who attempt to kill themselves is as much as one hundred times as high, or about five hundred thousand teens.(2)

None of these statistics means quite so much to an individual as does a personal telephone call relating that one of his friends has committed suicide. I shall not soon forget my alarm upon hearing that my cousin had murdered his estranged wife and then committed suicide. Just a few weeks ago, I was informed that one of the young men who was baptized in a recent meeting which I conducted had taken his life. The brethren in one northern Ohio city related the suicide death of the brother of one of the members. The mortician who handled this suicide related that this was the eighth case in one month of death through suicide by a teenager.

Surely these statistics are alarming. However, they certainly are useless unless they cause us to ask what is causing these increases in suicide and what can be done to prevent others. I speak as no authority, for I have not given myself to a thorough study of this subject. However, I would like to make some suggestions as to causes and preventions.

Causes of Suicide

1. Hopelessness. Almost every document written regarding suicide relates the hopelessness of situations as a leading cause of suicides. “It’s not so much that the person wants to die; he just doesn’t see any alternative,” wrote Reina Gross.(3) Psychiatrists agree that a leading cause of suicide in the young is hopelessness about the future.(4)

Generally this hopelessness is not concerned with life after death; it is pertaining to life on earth. A wife feels trapped in an unhappy marriage; she sees no way out except through death. A teenaged girl becomes pregnant out of wedlock. Rather than face the problem, she commits suicide.

2. Problems in the home. Though these categories are not mutually exclusive, they need to be enumerated separately. “Insecurity in family life is given as one likely cause (of suicide, mw). `Divorce is breaking up families at a great rate,’ says Paula Cantor, an associate professor at Boston University, `and for an adolescent it’s more damaging to lose a parent through divorce than through death.’ “(5)

The increase in divorce affects suicides of both teenagers and adults. Our lack of concern for the solidarity of the family unit causes instability in children as one of its byproducts. Sometimes, this results in teenage suicide. More and more, we can see the wisdom of God in revealing the family structure as one of the stabilizing forces of life.

Added to the problem of divorce as an enemy of the home which contributes to suicide must be the neglect of children. Janet Chase-Marshall wrote,

“There has been a definite weakening of family standards and parental authority,” says Dr. Joseph Teicher, director of child adolescent psychiatry at the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center. “There are more and more divorces. And more children are physically and emotionally abandoned at an early age by parents who are so troubled themselves they cannot give that vital life fluid we call nurturance.”

Related to the breakdown of family ties is the emphasis on “doing your own thing.”

“We have become very egocentric and competitive – even with our own children,” points out Cleveland phsychiatrist Dr. Victor Victoroff. “Our old traditional resources – family, church, schools, government – are seen cynically as untruthful and untrustworthy. So, in a world where mom and dad are both working, and grandparents are off living the `good life’ in some retirement city, who is there to help a troubled teenager?”(6)

The assessment that the problem is the home failing to meet the emotional needs of the teenaged suicide is not some isolated comment of some narrow-minded preacher. “. . . Morris Paulson, the clinical psychologist who conducted the U.C.L.A. study, found a common denominator among these disturbed youngsters: `Every one of them had a home that wasn’t providing the understanding and caring that the child needed.’ “(7)

I am sure that other breakdowns in the home could be enumerated as causes of suicide. However, these should be sufficient to make us aware of the instability of the home as a contributing cause of many suicides, both of the young and old.

3. Financial problems. There has always been an increase in the number of suicides which increase is coincident with the financially troubled times in our economy. When a man gets himself in hopeless financial conditions, he sometimes uses suicide as his way out. In some cultures, suicide is more honorable than bankruptcy.

Materialism and Teenager Suicide

Our emphasis on the accumulation of things in many respects affects our children. However, when our emphasis on things becomes so engrossing that it is a contributing cause in children taking their own lives, it is time for something radical to be done to correct it. Let us consider how materialism and attitudes toward children run together:

With increasing frequency – and plaintiveness – we hear how children endanger the “life-style” of those who must care for them. This protectiveness toward something so seemingly ephemeral as a “life-style” may at first glance seem bizarre – or narcissistic – yet when the term “life-style” is recognized as code, its significance begins to make sense. What the expression refers to is in fact something closer to the bone: standard of living. Lifestyles almost invariably cost money, and the more “imaginative” the life-style, the more “daring,” the more it is likely to cost . . . .

Thus, underlying the degeneration of our romance with childhood is the pervasive idea – half grounded and half hallucinatory – that children can no longer be afforded . . . .

But the dread of children isn’t limited to the rich man’s view of the poor. Even those with rather large sums of discretionary income wonder in all seriousness if they can afford to have children . . .In this sense, parents who say that their children are draining the life out of them are really saying something much less mystical: It is their ability to buy things for themselves that is being drained by the child. And since the accouterments of the single or childless life are the most ephemeral and the most discretional, they must be glamorized and injected with importance. Once you have been removed from the possibility of wasting your money on a lot of self-enhancing junk, you can feel isolated and irrelevant: the familiar voices are no longer speaking to you. Your diminished ability to participate in the market-place is felt unconsciously as life itself passing you by. Those who do not spend and live well are irrelevant, and if the children are responsible, then, in fact, they have ruined your life.(8)

I have witnessed this kind of over-emphasis on the accumulation of things. Couples who are afraid that they will not have as much money to spend on themselves voluntarily decide not to have children; others deprive themselves of the joy of additional children for the same reasons. Frankly, I am not convinced that a new car, stereo, house, curtains, etc. will give one much joy in his old age; certainly the joy which these things can give cannot compare to a hug around the neck from a youngster who calls you “Grandpa.”

This inordinate emphasis on the accumulation of things relates to suicide when children are made to feel guilty because their parents do not have as much money to spend on themselves as do those who have no children. When children are constantly reminded of how much trouble they are, how much they hamper the ability of their parents to go to places of entertainment, and how much they cost, they soon begin to feel as wanted and loved as a deflated spare tire.

What Can Be Done About Suicides?

In recent years, we have witnessed the proliferation of suicide-prevention centers all over this country. These centers operate phones manned by counselors twenty-four hours a day. The counselors (usually volunteers) try to talk the potential suicide victim out of committing suicide. They can send medical help to the person who has already taken an overdose of pills, cut his wrist or shot himself. But, how effective have these things been? According to what reports I have read, they have not been very effective in reducing the number of suicides and attempted suicides. Typical of such reports is the following:

In the United States, a network of suicide-prevention centers based on that approach grew up, with the public expectation that they would reduce the incidence of suicide. Those centers have had no demonstrable effect on the suicide rate in their communities.(9)

Hence, some other solutions are going to have to be found to suicide prevention other than the erection and maintenance of suicide-prevention centers. In my next article, I will suggest some ideas relative to suicide prevention.

Endnotes:

1. Scott Spencer, “Childhood’s End,” Harpers Magazine (May, 1979), p. 17.

2. Carol Greenberg Felsenthal, “Teen Suicide: What To Do When A Friend Is In Trouble,” Seventeen (April, 1979), p. 184.

3. Reina Gross as quoted in “Teen-Age Suicide,” Newsweek (August 28, 1978), p. 76.

4. Spencer, op. cit., p. 18.

5. U.S. News and World Report (July 10, 1978), p. 49.

6. Janet Chase-Marshall, “Teenage Suicides,” Good Housekeeping (May, 1979), p. 98.

7. “Children Who Want To Die,” Time (September 25, 1978), p. 82.

8. Spencer, op. cit., pp. 18-19.

9. Herbert Hendin, Psychology Today (May, 1979), p. 115.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 131-133
February 21, 1980

By Daniel H. King

The word “anti” has been unblushingly used to refer to brethren who, in recent decades, have opposed the machinations and promotions of certain “big churches” and “big-name preachers,” as well as a host of human institutions. Many of the ideas have so little resemblance to anything found in the Bible that few can be found to defend them in public debate or private discussion. Yet the caustic title “anti” has served in many instances as sufficiently derogatory as to need neither argument nor reason in defense of the promotions. It conjures up all sorts of baleful notions, “anti-located preacher,” “anti-Sunday school,” “anti-multiple-containers-in-the-Lord’s-Supper,” etc.

That we do not believe these things any more than they do makes no impression upon the one who has heard the blast. The reason: we seldom have the opportunity to defend ourselves. The use of this ugly word alone is enough to close the investigation. After all, who wants to be labeled “anti”?

Well, I think upon further consideration and reflection we ought to, every one of us,. be downright proud to be called “anti,” especially with the course that we see many presently taking throughout the brotherhood. The term itself simply means “against,” and I am prepared to admit that I am “against” a great many things. For example:

(1) 1 am “against” the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the world and man. Divine revelation says God created the world in six consecutive days, with all of its hosts (Ex. 20:11). 1 am “against” any view that conflicts with this scriptural teaching. Yet some liberal brethren have figured out a way to believe both the Bible and evolution, or so they say. Reminds me of a little boy who told his teacher that two plus two equals three. “No, it equals four,” she replied. “It equals that too!” said he. Here we deal with two mutually exclusive answers to the origin of the universe – and some consider them complimentary!

(2) I am “against” fellowshipping those as brethren who are not “in Christ,” since they dwell in darkness (Eph. 5:11). I also oppose brethren who believe and practice heresy, for the incredibly simple reason that God said to do just that (Rom. 16:17-18). Nevertheless there are those who consider the unimmersed. as brothers and fellow Christians. They have little practical or theoretical use for verses of scripture like Gal. 3:27 and Rom. 6:3-4. The same people wink at every sort of error and will fail to endorse no one, accept every form of adulterous relationship and spread the umbrella of “open membership” over all that come their way, then make all sorts of boasts and brags about how they have grown and rank among “the great churches of the brother hood.” Disciplinary action, with drawing of fellowship, and marking of false teachers is a thing of the hoary past. I am definitely “anti” that entire hog wallow.

(3) I am “against” the gimmicks and tricks and devious tactics being heralded all across our land as the way to church growth. Puppet ministries, bus ministries with all of their dubious modes of enticement and motivational tricks, carnal rewards, church birthday and anniversary banquets, “children’s church,” church testimonial dinners and the rest, have taken the place of the saving gospel of Jesus (Rom. 1:16) in houses of worship where the thunder of great Bible preaching was once heard – but echoes no more. No question about it, I am “anti” all such nonsense.

(4) I am “against” the watered-down preaching of the bland, neutral, “lovey-dovey,” “soft-soap,” spineless importers who fill a multitude of pulpits in churches of Christ across our broad land and around the world. As far as they are concerned there is no such thing as sin, only many “social problems”; the church is merely a social and recreational club; their major concern is that the church make a good impression in the neighborhood and fulfill all of its social obligations. The only time trey have anything negative to say is when they warn their flocks about the dread “antis,” those dastardly enemies of digression! It would be safe to say that I am “anti” with reference to what these men represent.

In addition to these things I can think of many things I am opposed to: fornication, theft, murder, agnosticism and atheism, Catholicism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, Neo-Pentecostalism, modernism, premillennialism, drinking and gambling, cursing and swearing, and a lot more! Why, all of us who renounce and denounce these things (along with the Herald of Truth and other unscriptural conglomerates and church-supported institutions) deserve a better name than just “anti.” Maybe we should be called “ultra-antis,” “hyper-antis,” or even “super-antis”!

Seriously, though, we have no right to be “against” anything that God is in favor of. But God’s favor is clearly and easily demonstrable. Book, chapter and verse; Bible authority, be it general or specific, command, example or necessary inference drawn from scripture. Any of these will do. But if there is none, then God is not in favor, and we had better be “anti”!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, p. 130
February 21, 1980

By Earl Robertson

The question has long plagued the people of God as to whether it is scriptural and right for churches of Christ to momentarily support human institutions or not. The conservative ones say no, the liberal ones say yes. What makes such a difference? Does the Bible authorize churches to support these human institutions? Or, does it make any difference whether the Bible gives authorization? Do we need’ Bible authority for churches to do such, anyway?

We hold that the Bible does not authorize churches of Christ to give support to David Lipscomb College to teach the Bible; yet, many churches are doing so. We contend they are doing so without Bible authority. Do they offer Bible to support them in such action? We are not aware of any! We are not alone in our contention. Guy N. Woods said in a speech at Abilene, Texas, “On the theory that the end justifies the means, brethren have not scrupled to form organizations in the church to do work the church itself was designed to do. All such organizations usurp the work of the church, and are unnecessary and sinful” (ACC Lectures, 1939, p. 53). He was then talking about organizations like Potter Orphan Home and School and David Lipscomb College. He declared them unnecessary and sinful! Woods further declared, “Religious secular organizations are always trying to encroach on the function of the New Testament church, interfere with its obligations, and attempt to discharge some of its functions. The church is the only organization authorized to discharge the responsibilities of the Lord’s people.When brethren form organizations independently of the church to do the work of the church, however worthy their aims and right their designs, they are engaged in that which is sinful” (Gospel Advocate Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, p. 338).

Twice in those earlier years, the present Associate-Editor of the Gospel Advocate, said exactly what we teach: church support to such human institutions is not only unnecessary but without Bible authority and is therefore, sinful. Will the liberals of our day try to answer and defend their practice? Can they show the position set forth by Woods to now be wrong? Would either the College at Abilene or the Gospel Advocate in Nashville print and support these same writings again? Three to four decades have witnessed much doctrinal change! But the word of God has not changed at all.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 7, p. 124
February 14, 1980