Truth Magazine

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

By Mackey W. Harden

It seems that every time I pick up a religious journal or bulletin anymore, I see an article dealing with some “opinions” from our liberal brother in Madison, Tennessee, Ira North, concerning the “conservative” churches of Christ. He believes that we are “drying up and withering away.” Of course we know that such is not really the case.

I have been corresponding with brother Diosdado L. Anelle for over a year now. He is a faithful gospel preacher who lives in Pagadian City, Philippines. Evidently brother Anelle has been reading the same things many of the rest of us have, and he doesn’t agree either. I am going to quote a segment of a recent letter from him. You judge for yourself and see if we are “drying up and withering away.” I wonder what brother North would thing about these statistics?

“The gospel is fast spreading in all directions in our country. New congregations are being established in cities, towns, and villages. Far from “drying up and withering away” as editor Ira North of the Liberal camp has wrongly concluded, we, the so-called “Antis” are growing and multiplying on. Ira North needs only to come to our province of a million people and discover for himself that the opposite of what he said is true. He would be lucky if he could find more than 5 congregations of his own kind against 55 congregations of those whom he brands as “Antis.” Actually the ratio is 11 to 1 in favor of the conservatives. Right here in Pagadian City there are 3 conservative congregations against none or 0 for the Liberals. It’s them who are “drying up and withering away.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 7, p. 123
February 14, 1980

By Leonard Tyler

Prayer is the avenue through which one approaches the Almighty. It should be accepted with thanksgiving and reverence. Christians should live in the atmosphere of prayer. If we are to appreciate and properly appropriate the blessing of prayer, we must understand God’s teaching on it. Who can pray acceptably and on what conditions can acceptable prayer be offered to God Almighty? Since we are taught to pray, it is the more important that we learn how to pray. Do you use the opportunity to pray? As often as you should? In harmony with God’s will? Do you regard prayer as one of the great privileges afforded to God’s people? Do you feel as James gives it, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16b)?

Who Is To Pray?

The Old Testament affirms that sin will separate between God and man. Isaiah 59:1-2 warns, “Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that is cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear; But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (see Psa. 34:15; 66:18; Prov. 15:29; 28:9).

This was also understood during the days Christ lived upon the earth. The blind man of John 9:31 stated it thusly: “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshiper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.” This statement was not challenged by even the enemies of Jesus. They accepted the truthfulness of the conclusion – even though it was reached by the man whom they were trying to entangle. It must have been true.

Jesus prayed, “. . . not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). He taught His apostles to pray, “Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Peter quotes Psalms 34:15-16):

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

John gives us confidence in prayer “because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (1 John 3:22). In these texts, whom has God promised to hear? I conclude, God hears the person who believes and obeys His will. The erring child of God is told to repent and pray (Acts 8:22).

The best way I know to answer, “Does God hear (to answer) the sinner’s prayer?” is to simply say, “Let the sinner turn from his unrighteousness and do God’s will, become a child of His, and He will hear.” There is no question about God’s hearing the righteous man’s prayer. There has always been and will always be a challenging question, “Will God hear the sinner’s prayer?” Why not erase the question by becoming a child of God?

Prayer must be offered by faith. James said, “Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord” (Jas. 1:6-7). “Without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Heb. 11:6). Could one with faith, such as this text includes, refuse to do God’s will and yet expect God to hear him? Surely not. If one did not believe strongly enough to forsake sin and do God’s will, would he have sufficient faith to even expectantly and sincerely pray? Could he pray in faith while he refused to live by faith (2 Cor. 5:7)?

Prayer must be in reverence and awe (Heb. 12:28), in resignation to God (Luke 22:42), in penitence (Acts 8:22), in humility (Luke 18:9-14), in the spirit of forgiveness (Matt. 6:12-24), and in accordance with God’s will. “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us” (1 Jn. 5:14).

This was certainly so in the Old Testament. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear” (Psa. 66:18). “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination” (Prov. 28:9).

The conclusion is apparent. A child of God is granted the privilege of prayer. He can pray, “Our Father which art in heaven.” But to be a child of God one must be born again (Jn. 3:3-5; 1 Pet. 1:22-23). Even an erring child of God is instructed to repent and pray (Acts 8:22). It seems clear that faith and obedience precedes acceptable prayer. After one becomes a child of God, he must approach the Mighty Throne of God with reverence and awe. But when this is done according to God’s will, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

Paul said, “Pray without ceasing.” “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Tim. 2:8). Prayer is a privilege and a vital part of a Christian’s life.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 7, pp. 122-123
February 14, 1980

By Morris W. R. Bailey

As we continue our study of attitudes that men have displayed and continue to display toward the truth, I shall point out that there are some who

Withstand The Truth

In his second epistle to Timothy, Paul wrote of grievous times to come when men, holding a form of godliness would deny the power thereof. In further reference to these false teachers, Paul wrote, “And even as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth; men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim. 3:8).

We do not know who Jannes and Jambres were. It has been suggested by some commentators that they were Egyptian magicians hired by Pharaoh to duplicate the miracles worked by Moses and thus detract from their effect upon the Egyptians (Ex. 7:11). Whoever they were, and whatever they did, it was an effort to withstand Moses and to hinder him in his attempt to free the children of Israel from bondage. Paul likened them to certain false teachers of his day who withstood the truth that he preached.

So here we have an attitude of open opposition to the truth that culminated in some withstanding it. It is not the indifferent, apathetic attitude of “live and let live” that some who have no conviction assume toward those who preach the truth. Those who withstand the truth are usually not satisfied with their own rejection of the truth, but they stand in the way of others who may be disposed to receive it. Like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, they “shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for they enter not in themselves, and suffer not those who would enter to enter” (Matt. 23:13).

One incident in the life of Paul demonstrated this active opposition to the truth. On his first preaching tour, on the island of Cyprus, he had been given the opportunity to preach to the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, who sought to hear the word of God. But a certain sorcerer named Elymas withstood Paul, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith. Rejecting the truth himself, he was determined that others should not receive it. This called forth from Paul the burning denunciation, “O full of all guile and all villainy, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10). It was strong language but it was Paul’s estimate of them that withstand the truth.

That was only one of many such incidents of opposition to the truth that Paul encountered during his apostolic career. What was even more sad, and must have given him great anguish of heart was that much of the opposition came from his own people, the Jews, among whom were former associates. Time after time, the Jews not only rejected the gospel themselves, but were the ring-leaders in opposition stirred up when he preached the gospel to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:50, 14:19, 17:13).

That opposition to the truth took on an even more serious aspect when the preaching of the gospel began to make its impact on the heathen world where idolatry and superstition were firmly entrenched. Old traditions and customs die hard, and especially where they have been a source of material gain. Thus it was that when Paul cast an evil spirit out of a maiden in Philippi who had brought her masters much gain by the soothsaying, he and Silas, his companion, were cast into prison by the enraged masters (Acts 16:16-24).

Opposition to the truth almost cost Paul his life in the city of Ephesus, which was the site of the great temple of the goddess Diana whom all Asia and the world worshiped. Then, as now, religion was often commercialized, and many were making their living from the manufacture and sale of silver shrines of their goddess. Realizing that Paul’s preaching was turning many away from idolatry, they were able to see that it was a threat to their livelihood as well as to their religion, and so they incited a riot of such violence that Paul despaired of his life (Acts 19:23-31, 2 Cor. 1:8, 9).

Opposition: A Common Occurrence Today

Human nature has not changed since the days of Paul. The spirit of opposition that caused men to withstand the truth preached by Paul has reared its head from time to time and has led men to withstand the truth in various ways today. While it may be a rare occurrence, it is not a thing unheard of for preachers in some foreign countries to be imprisoned and even threatened with death when the preaching of the truth interferes with local customs, or makes inroads on the established religion of that country. This is particularly true in countries where Mohammedanism is the established religion. In a report on a preaching trip to Iran, Brother James P. Needham said concerning the religious situation in that country:

The populace of Iran is almost 100% Mohammedan. To call it a closed society is not far wrong. It is estimated that one in every fifteen citizens is involved in some kind of police work. A secret policeman kept almost daily surveillance of my activities. The Islamatic religion is interwoven in the fabric of Iranian culture, and the culture is a part of the religion. Officially there is almost no tolerance of any other religion . . . . The priests continue to keep local citizens in line religiously, and will intimidate anyone who violates Islamatic tradition, and persecute any who seek to lead them astray. There is a great deal of talk in the country about these priests having murdered such persons, and many feel that they would do it now.

“I have been told that it is illegal for anyone to enter Iran to do religious work among the natives, and that a visa for such a purpose would not be issued. One of the brethren inquired about this at the American consulate and was told that it is not illegal, and that such a visa could probably be obtained, but that such a person would have no standing before the law. If the local priests persecuted him, or even killed him, the government would do nothing . . .” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 30, 229).

Such is the length to which men will go in some parts of the world, even today, in withstanding the truth.

Here, in our western culture, opposition to the truth is not likely to culminate in violence; but it can be carried on, nevertheless, in various subtle ways. Sometimes it is expressed in a polite refusal to hear the truth when it is preached. They have their mind made up as to what they want to believe, and they think that they can ignore the truth into silence.

Other times the opposition to the truth, while active, does its work in the background. I recall an occasion some years ago when I had the opportunity to conduct some Bible studies with a family. They were nominally members of the United Church of Canada. But they had obviously never taken their religion very seriously, and just as obviously had never been taken very seriously in their church. They were just taken for granted. When I suggested the idea of a Bible study to them, they were quite agreeable. After some nights of study it seemed that we were making progress and they gave evidence of being concerned about their salvation, after we had discussed the subject of baptism. But then they decided that they should talk with their preacher, and that ended our studies. They lost interest, and the husband was later given a prominent position in his church where he had formerly been a nobody. No, it was not violent opposition on the part of that preacher, but it was opposition, nevertheless. I do not know what he told those people. But whatever it was, he was withstanding the truth and, thus, prevented some seemingly honest people from obeying the gospel.

Opposition To The Truth Among Brethren

Since the beginning of the 1950’$ when the current issue of institutionalism and sponsoring churches began to surface, opposition to the truth has come from an unexpected quarter. One of its symptoms was a suggested “yellow tag of quarantine,” and various other ways to silence the opposition of sound brethren, who were set for the defense of the truth, to the wave of liberalism that was sweeping over the church of the Lord, and since that time has swept some formerly sound congregations into apostasy. Some of the religious periodicals published by brethren which had been in the forefront in opposing the previous digression of the 1800’$, under new editors reversed their policy of open discussion of issues and closed their pages to writers who opposed the developing trends.

It has even been the disposition of those who, in opposition to the truth, introduce human innovations with their divisive tendencies, to place the blame for such division on the wrong people – those who oppose their innovations. Old King Ahab labelled the prophet Elijah as “the troubler of Israel,” when in fact it was Ahab and his father’s house who were the real cause of Israel’s misfortune in that they had “forsaken the commandments of Jehovah, and followed after Baalim” (1 Kings 18:17, 18).

In the previous century to this, when the introduction of the missionary society and instrumental music in the worship had divided churches, it was those who opposed the innovations that were blamed for the division when, in fact, the responsibility for the division rested on those who, introduced the divisive factors.

Regardless of how loudly and how long innovators of today may shout the epithets, “troublemaker” and “church-splitter,” it is those who, without scriptural authority, and therefore in opposition to the truth, have introduced the things that divide us, who must bear the blame for a divided brotherhood.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 7, pp. 120-122
February 14, 1980