Truth Magazine – Page 1669 – Taking His hand, helping each other home.

“Children”

By Randy Blackaby

Life begins with minute seed planted in the union of two persons. That life develops by amazing natural processes we are tempted to call miraculous. For nine months, that life lies within a- mother’s body,. changing from a particle that could not be seen with the naked eye were it before us, to a full-fledged human being with signal characteristics of its parents.

At birth comes disengagement from the mother’s body and a continued growth process that allows more and more physical and mental independence as time passes.

The tiny body is full of innocence, pliable as clay both physically and mentally, ready to be shaped and molded by those with whom the new creature will find contact.

Babies, in the purely aesthetic sense, are not pretty at birth. But the absolute perfection of the creature, unhampered by the pressures of life, the guilt of sin or even the knowledge thereof, makes the beauty we always sigh about when a new one arrives.

Birth is something we are all acquainted with and the development of a child is a series of events watched with much attention and concern. We find great pleasure and mirth in watching the innocent play of our children, the unwitting mistakes they make and the tenacity of their progress. Through our children, we can often find relief from the pressures of adulthood and the scars life experiences have brought to us. We can, through them, relive, to a degree, our own years of innocence and freedom. It may well be that freedom is to be found in its truest form in the bodies and souls of little children.

This fact is acknowledged in the Bible, where we find innumerable references to children, their characteristics and development. Being a common part of our lives, an actual extension of ourselves, children serve in the Bible to teach us valuable spiritual lessons. Our relationship to our Creator is expressed in terms of Father and children. God has always considered “His people” in that perspective. And the analogy is easy to follow.

The only way we can fully understand the love of God for us is to understand the love a parent has for his child. God’s endurance in the face of continued rejection over thousands of years is explainable only in the parental experience. The harshness of God’s discipline is appreciated only when the task is ours as a parent.

The sinless qualities of a baby are to be emulated, the Scriptures tell us. Yet, on the other hand, we are told to avoid the childish behavior that may present itself in the form,, of selfishness or other immaturity. The entire development: of a Christian is patterned from a child’s development. A ,Christian’s beginning is termed “a new birth” or “being born again” because innocence is regained, a.. new life begun and the growing process rekindled.

Much of the, New Testament is our Father’s parental guidance, leading us to maturity as one of His children. As in the natural sense, that maturing continues until death.

Parents work hard to provide for their ‘children sustenance and an inheritance of both knowledge and material things: So it is with God. He provides through the Holy Spirit knowledge and holds out to us an inheritance which our parents cannot – eternal life with him. Whereas parent and child must part with tears at death, God offers both eternal union with Himself as a spiritual parent and reunion of faithful ;physical parents and children in that greater family called “God’s children.”

There is much to be learned in the birth of a child. More than maybe you have considered.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 49, p. 786
December 13, 1979

If The Name of The Savior Is Precious To You

By Bill Imrisek

There was no preacher pounding on the pulpit to impress upon his hearers their God-given responsibility to go out and tell others about Jesus. But for some reason they did it anyway.

The shepherds who tended their flocks in the fields about Bethlehem were told by angels sent from God that “there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is .Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). Determined to see it for themselves, “they came with haste, and found both Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger. And when they saw it, they made known concerning the saying which was spoken to them about this child” (Luke 2:16-17). No one told them to do it. They just did it. They made it known.

A man named Andrew listened to the prophet John, the one who baptized in the Jordon, tell about “He that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose” (John 1:27). One day Jesus appeared in public, and John “looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:35). Andrew was interested. He followed Jesus and spent the day with Him. But what he found was too good to keep to himself. “He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted Christ). He brought him unto Jesus” (John 1:41-42). No one told him to do it. But the truth about Jesus was such that he felt compelled to tell others.

Shortly after this Jesus spoke to a man named Philip, and said to him, “Follow me.” Philip learned enough about Jesus during this brief encounter that he went out, and “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth” (John 1:45). Philip could not contain himself. This was good news. He had to tell Nathanael. And so, he related to Nathanael the conclusions that he had come to about Jesus, inviting him to “Come and see” (John 1:46).

Then there was the Samaritan woman who came to Jacob’s well to draw water. Upon arriving she not only located Jacob’s well, but also found “a well of water springing up unto eternal life” (John 4:14). There at the well, she found a wearied traveler named Jesus who was savoring a few moments of rest. They began to converse. Shortly the conversation turned to spiritual matters. The woman was amazed at Jesus’ knowledge, and said, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet” (John 4:19). She had discovered something important, but she was to learn more, much more. She continued to speak, saying to Jesus, “I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” (John 4:25-26). Could this be true? Jesus was certainly unlike any other. “The woman left her waterpot, and went away into the city, and saith to the people, Come, see a man who told me all things that ever I did: can this be the Christ?” (John 4:28-29). This woman, in her urgency to tell others, left behind her vessel of water. It could wait. She had to tell others about Jesus.

And let us not forget about the two Galilean fishermen, Peter and John, who left their trades and took to the streets of the big city to tell the thousands of Jerusalem about Jesus, whom the people of the city had crucified, but whom God raised from the dead. These men were looked upon as being “unlearned and ignorant” (Acts 4:13). But this did not stop them. They even received the disapproval of the city rulers. In fact, they were imprisoned and then called upon to give an account of their actions before the council. After hearing them out, the men of the council commanded Peter and John “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18). But this did not dampen their spirits or squelch their enthusiasm. They responded respectfully but forthrightly, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). They had to tell it. Public disapproval could not hold them back. What they knew about Jesus had to be made known. Their love for God and concern for the souls of mankind compelled them to tell others about Jesus.

What all of these people who were acquainted with Jesus knew, that many are closing their eyes to today, is that Christ is one’s only hope of salvation (Acts 4:12). The implication of this is well stated by John in his first epistle, “He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son hath not the life” (1 John 5:12). To put it another way, Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). We owe it to the world to give them the opportunity to believe and obey. But how can they believe unless they first hear the gospel from us (Rom. 10:17)? The one who has the saving knowledge about Jesus, but keeps it to himself, is guilty of criminal negligence. He stands watching his neighbors in the world step over the brink and plunge to an eternity of sorrow and punishment, when he could have warned them and given them the opportunity to obey the gospel and travel the road that leads to eternal bliss.

James asked in his epistle, “What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say that he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet he give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?” (James 2:14-16). I think James stated His case well. We make a mockery of the needs of another if we merely give them our well-wishes, but withhold from them the assistance they desperately need. In the same way, what good is it if we greet our acquaintances on the street and wish them the best if we do not give them What they need the most for their soul, a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ and direction on how to be saved from the eternal fires of hell? Will your “best wishes” save them’?

The shepherds near Bethlehem, along with Andrew, Philip, the woman of Samaria, Peter and John, all knew how precious Jesus is. They knew how much the world needed to know about him. And they knew what they had to do. They had to tell others what they knew about Jesus.

Are there those whose company you enjoy, whose friendship you cherish, whose love you share, but to whom you have never spoken about your Savior, His church, and His salvation? Then be a friend to them. Show them how much you really love them. Contemplate where they will spend eternity if they do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8-9). Think about what you know that can help them. Then go tell them about our Lord. In the words of the song by Jesse pounds and J.H. Filmore,

If the name of the Savior is precious to you,

If His care has been constant and tender and true,

If the light of His presence has brightened your way,

O will you not tell of your gladness today?

If your faith in the Savior has bro’t its reward,

If a strength you have found in the strength of your Lord,

If the hope of a rest in His palace is sweet,

O will you not, brother, the story repeat?

If the souls all around you are living in sin,

If the Master has told you to bid them come in,

If the sweet invitation they never have heard,

O will you not tell them the cheer-bringing word?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, pp. 780-781
December 6, 1979

Bible Basics: Take Heed Lest Ye Fall

By Earl Robertson

“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 10:12). However, the authors of the creeds of men either know nothing of this passage or care nothing for it as their writings testify. This verse plainly says one can fall. Human theology has made such an effort to make man’s salvation wholly God’s action that no allowance is made for any action on man’s part to the saving of his soul. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints stems from this religious concept. They allow that God saved man from his sins without any doing on man’s part and that God will keep him saved without any doing as a child of God. The old Philadelphia Confession of Faith, adopted by the Baptist Association in Philadelphia, September 25, 1742, says, “God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure; and, in that condition, they have not usually the light of his countenance restored unto them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.”

So, the justified in Christ Jesus can never fall from the state of justification! The creed admits that they have sins but declares such will not interfere with the salvation of their souls. It seems to me if these sins do not affect the soul, the ones committed earlier would not affect it either. If forgiveness of sins is essential for salvation, then how is it possible for the child of God to live with sins on his soul without falling from the state of justification? Paul wrote to the Galatian Christians telling those who were making an effort to go back to the law of Moses for a way of life “ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). The grace of God revealed through Christ was of no benefit to them in such an effort. Those addressed were “all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). Yes, they were children of God in Christ Jesus, but they had fallen from grace.

It is obvious that both the New Testament and the Confession of Faith cannot be right. They both are not teaching the truth. No person can be right before God and accept both. The two documents are diametrically opposed. The New Testament is right. It came from. God and is dedicated with the blood of Christ. The creed is a lie. Reject it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, p. 780
December 6, 1979

Reviewing Lewis G. Hale: Except For Fornication(1)

By Ronald D. Howes

Circulating among some of my brethren is a booklet entitled Except For Fornication.(1) Having run into it three times in the last year, I feel compelled to respond. To his credit, Brother Hale has produced a well written, readable and believable document defending the thesis that the guilty party of Matthew 19 has a scriptural right to remarry. However, his book has one serious flaw, his thesis is wrong. This alone would be enough cause of a review that his book is enjoying some circulation among conservative brethren (Brother Hale is of the liberal camp) makes its review in this journal all the more desirable.

We will not take Brother Hale to task for every argument he makes. We shall attempt, however, to handle his material consecutively for ease of comparison and review by the reader. We will use endnotes.

Introduction

In setting up the proposition for his book, Brother Hale indulges in some literary shotgunning while setting the tone of his approach and revealing his motives for authoring the book.

We have a great number of devout people who are divorced and remarried, but who at best enjoy a second rate citizenship in the kingdom . . . . some would not be received at all but for fear of causing trouble in the church . . . . the men may be called upon to serve at the Lord’s table . . . but may not be allowed to teach a class, or preach, or serve in any official capacity . . . . We will not take strong enough action . . . they never feel secure . . . ours is mostly an irritation attack . . . . Is it just wrong? Or is it going to Hell wrong?(2)

Yes brother, it is “going to Hell wrong.” The fact that some brethren equivocate on it, or extend half-fellowship to adulterers is not justification for a loosening up of our attitude toward sin; it is rather a commentary on what your doctrine has done to our concept of sin. The argument that “some brethren do it,” or “some brethren don’t do it,” is not a sound basis for determining right and wrong. As you well know, “some brethren” do and believe just about anything they want to.

On page 7, our author makes a classical argument on this problem. There is according to him . . .

No Clear Answer

Let us be honest. Can you go to the Bible and put your finger on an exact verse of scripture that offers such a clear answer as `remain unmarried’ or ‘be reconciled’? . . . You say repentance involves . . . We are talking about clear and direct statements, not what you may reason and conclude.(3)

A favorite tactic of many trying to avoid a clear implication of scripture is just to say: “Well, because God didn’t come out and say ‘thou shalt not’ we can’t demand it of brethren. I am surprised at my conservative brethren passing this tract – even though they may agree with the thesis. Let me jog your conscience – What about a necessary inference? Brother Hale and his tribe have largely discarded this form of establishing Bible authority, but we have not. When you endorse and hand out a tract like we are reviewing, you are in danger of telling other people that you do not believe what we know you do.

Being in receipt of a legitimate passage of scripture which says “Whosoever marries her who is put away committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9), we are prepared to defend the premise that .we do have a clear answer. We do know what the sin is. We do know how to handle the sinner. 1 Cor. 5 commands us to “deliver such a one to Satan.”

Posing A Question

From page 12 through 19 of his tract, Lewis Hale engages in a meandering commentary of Matthew 19 in defense of the proposition, “The guilty party may remarry.”

Specific arguments will be dealt with under subsequent headings. We do wish to pose a dilemma to those of Brother Hale’s tribe in this question. Did Jesus seek to relax or restrict the divorce law under the new covenant? Brother Hale says,

Moses suffered a man to put away his wife upon finding any uncleanness.(4)

The intent of Jesus teaching here seems quite clear. Moses law was too lax; Jesus’ new law would be much stricter, and be in conformity with the original design of a one man one woman for life relationship. “But from the beginning it was not so!”

Brother Hale’s entire line of argumentation is contrary to the basic direction of Jesus’ express commands. Lewis Hale would have us believe that both the innocent and guilty party to the divorce of Matthew 19 can remarry without sin. This he teaches in spite of the teaching of Christ that marriage is a life-time contract. Hale “out-laxes” even Moses.

Everyone who has occupied the marriage counselor’s chair while trying to convert the alien knows that this is where nip come to tuck. A couple divorces for “irreconcilable differences.”- Then both go out and remarry. Brother Hale’s theological sun-glasses see two guilty parties ala Matthew 5:32. Since the act of adultery has been committed, the first marriage is now dissolved and the guilty parties are free to remarry. In practical terms Brother Hales position can deny remarriage to no one, no matter what the reason for the divorce.

Jesus said, “From the beginning it has not been so.” Brother Hale’s argumentation circumvents the entire purpose and thrust of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus says no, Hale says yes. Who are you going to believe?

I sympathize with the frustration of those who preach the gospel to an adulterous generation and watch couple after couple “go away sorrowful.” So many say, “I’ve finally found the right woman, and you’re asking me to leave her.” Another almost 2000 years ago “went away sorrowful” over something he could not give up for Christ. We do not seek to make the gospel acceptable to men; we seek to make men acceptable to God! Let the chips fall where they may! In getting down to brass tacks, Brother Hale uses them to nail his theological thumbs to the wall as we see in . . .

A Difficult Scripture(5)

Between pages 19 and 26 of Except For Fornication, Brother Hale takes us on a shopping spree in the theological bargain basement, and assembles no less than 9 scholars to bolster his position. We hear from the likes of Henry Alford, A. Lukyn Williams, A.T. Robertson, J.W. McGarvey, H. Leo Boles, W.M. Foley, R.C.H. Lenski, B.W. Johnson, and last but not least John Murray.

Reading this chapter, I was immediately struck with the similarity of this chapter to Documents On Instrumental Music(6) by Tom Burgess of the conservative Christian Church. Burgess quotes a ton of scholars, almost all of whom flatly disagree with his position that psallo necessitates the use of instrumental accompaniment. The careful reader is left shaking his head. Why quote them if they disagree with you?

In our list Foley, Boles, McGarvey, Johnson, Robertson, Alford, and Williams all disagree with Hale and say the guilty party cannot remarry. If we are to believe that the weight of scholarship proves or disproves a position, then Brother Hale lost by his own count of 8 to 1 in this test vote.

The title of this section of the book is

A Difficult Scripture(7)

To his best efforts we must say that apparently it is a difficult scripture only to Brother Lewis Hale and any he may have confused. Eight of his authorities disagree with him, which evidently struck him after quoting them and too late to revise that part of the book for the printer (pure speculation on my part – rdh) for he spends the next 9 pages of this document explaining away their statements. This should be obvious to anyone who reads the book. The odds are 8 to 1 that Brother Hale is wrong.

John Murray is raised as a scholar in defense of Brother Hale’s position. I invite the reader to purchase Divorce(8) by John Murray, a singular tone of 121 pages put out by the Presbyterians. Mr. Murray is professor of Systematic Theology at Westminister in Philadelphia. His book is all the more remarkable for its lack of similarity to Brother Hale’s attempt.

Those accustomed to reading some of the excellent Presbyterian or Reformed commentaries such as those by Hendriksen will be surprised at Murray. Murry’s entire effort is devoid of any recognized scholarly support (other than his own) for the conclusion that he draws (i.e., the guilty party may remarry when approved by the church). May we surmise that Murray declines to call upon scholarly support for his conclusion because it is non-existent? We may.

Perhaps Brother Hale should have read Murray’s book, and not just his article in Baker’s Theological Dictionary.(9) Murray is in the unenviable position of calling upon himself for scholarly support for his conclusions. Hale calls upon Murray and both fall into the ditch. selah