Truth Magazine

By Steve Willis

The Apostle Paul is believed to have written several of his epistles and letters from prison. Among the Pauline prison epistles and letters are: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon. The fact that these may have been penned in the “pen” makes them no more (or less) inspired, but it is of interest if we seek to know the situation of the writer.

Some are proposing that we accept another prison epistle. It- was not written by Paul, Peter or one of the apostles, but by Martin Luther King. The Today Newspaper (Cocoa, Florida) reported this item August 20, 1979. “A group of black ministers from across the country aims to add a new book to the Bible – a letter by the late . . . Martin Luther King.” Muhammad Kenyatta, a Baptist minister said, “We believe that God worked through Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr.) in that jail in Birmingham in 1963 to reveal his holy word.” The article explains that while in jail, King penned the letter in response to a group of “eight white Alabama clergymen who criticized him as an outside agitator and termed his actions as `unwise and untimely.’ ” They hope to make this addition available later this year.

Though not a racial issue, this issue is certainly black and white; the Bible is plain about this matter. To add to the word, “which was once for all delivered to the saints,” is wrong (Jude 3; 2 John 9; cf. Dt. 4:2; Rev. 22:18, 19). Joseph Smith (Mormon), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientist), Ellen White (Adventist), Judge Rutherford (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the Pope (Roman Catholic) have done the same thing that these men propose to do with Martin Luther King’s writings: add them to the Bible under the guise of “new” revelations from God. Occasionally the “new revelations from God” is in harmony with the Bible. More often than not, it contradicts the scriptures.

Let us not add any man’s word to the scriptures that God has delivered to us. And, let us expose those who would seek to make additions, or deletions, in the scriptures.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, p. 664
October 18, 1979

By Bob Waldron

In an article by George Cornell, AP religion writer, we learn that a Presbyterian scholar, Dr. Arthur F. Glasser, has discovered that religious tolerance indicates a spiritual vacuum. Sounds good! Let me quote. “We’ve become so mushy-headed and tolerant in America that people say any religion is okay, but the fact is that they can be demonic. Such relativism is the curse of Biblical faith.” Several of his statements are worthy of circulation. “Many people are so jaded that they uncritically accept any idea that comes down the pike.”

Much of what the dean of Fuller Theological Seminary had to say was addressed to the mass suicide in Guyana. “In all this tide of relativism, the flood of eastern cults and the assumptions that any religion is okay as long as it’s sincere, we’ve tried to face the situation and say plainly that there is truth and there is error.”

In my experience it is such a novel thing to hear such statements from denominational leaders that I would like to encourage this thinking among them. Therefore, I want to avoid the temptation of sarcasm and yet point out a few problems for denominational preachers and leaders who would reason in the manner of Mr. Glasser.

Let me quote once more: “Tolerance, in its best sense, is a virtue” and “we must allow for a measure of differences, listening to one another, and learning, a principle of the ecumenical movement.” Frankly, this last statement, in the ecumenical context, means that whereas we should not be mushy-headed enough to tolerate the far-out cults, we should be mushy-headed enough to continue tolerating enormous differences on everything from organization to what is necessary for salvation.

Tolerance and ecumenism are like father and son. The grandfather is a lack of respect for the authority of the Bible. The existence of ecumenism demands tolerance. The movement the ecumenical unity has involved the discounting of more and more that might be important enough to differ over. In other words, when there are vast differences between two or more parties, they can achieve togetherness in three ways. (1) One side can be converted to the other side. (2) Both sides can give up their positions. (3) Both sides can be converted to the truth. The ecumenical movement has been accomplished primarily by the second method. Such a course, however, creates more and more tolerance for different ideas and directly fosters as “anything goes” attitude. When this attitude boils over in the acceptance of such cock-eyed cults as the Peoples’ Temples, we are shocked. Trying to keep ecumenism alive while not tolerating cults is like trying to have a mild fatal illness.

Those denominational leaders who have taught that “one religion is as good as another” and “it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere” are going to have to count the cost. If they say it does matter whether one is sprinkled or immersed, whether one is “once saved always saved” or not, and whether one is born totally depraved or not. If, on the other hand, it does not matter which one of these positions one holds, then they will need to decide which of the possible following answers is the reason why. (1) Everything is true. There is no false doctrine. Two plus two is one, two, three, four, or whatever. One is saved by faith only as well as not by faith only. It is all true. (2) Everything is false. There is no truth. Anything one believes is false, so it does not matter.

If it does not matter what one believes, these are the only two valid possibilities why not. If we once grant that both truth and error exist, then they differ, men can tell the difference, and we cannot blithely ignore the difference.

What a dilemma: on the one hand to see the proliferation of personality cults or to give up the beauties of ecumenism. There is an alternative. Reject denominationalism and make the Bible the sole rule in faith and practice.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, p. 663
October 18, 1979

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Some who are discovered talking to themselves may be seized by men in white jackets and taken to, a mental hospital. But a proper talking to oneself is healthy.

In Lk. 8:43-48, we have an account of a woman who touched Jesus. This woman was ailing with an issue of blood which had plagued her for twelve years, and having spent all her living upon physicians, none of whom were able to heal her, she came to Jesus. This poor woman was suffering from a hemorrhage, which up to this point, was incurable. Ceremonially, she was unclean according to the law of Moses (Lev. 15:25). Her case was aggravated by the fact that she was also burdened with poverty. Although some ancient authorities omit the phrase, our text states that she “had spent all her living upon physicians.” Coming behind Jesus, she touched the border of His garment and immediately the blood was stanched (dried up, Mk. 5:29). The woman was immediately healed. Jesus then asked, “Who is it that touched me?” All denied, and Peter together with those with him said, “Master, the multitudes press thee and crush thee.” This time Jesus stated that someone had touched Him for He perceived that power had gone from Him. The woman came trembling, falling down before Him and declaring publicly why she had touched Him, affirming that she was healed immediately. Jesus said to her, “Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.”

This is indeed a touching story spun not intended). Picture this poor, hapless, desperate woman who was seeking Jesus “the great Physician.” She found Him and touched Him. That it was her implicit trust and confidence in the Lord that healed her, there can be no doubt. Jesus said that it was her faith that made her whole. The most dreaded and terrible disease in the world is sin. But the good news is that any morally responsible individual can be cured. It can be done by exhibiting a childlike obedient faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God, the kind of faith manifested by the woman in our text. The faith that led this remarkable woman to touch Jesus is the same kind that will lead one to turn from sin, confess Jesus as the Son of God and be buried with Him in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:4). This woman who touched Jesus was not made whole by a mere intellectual belief; neither can one today be cured of the disease of sin by a mere intellectual belief.

However there is something else in the account under consideration which we wish to notice. It has been suggested to this writer, and he in turn would like to pass it on to you. Mark’s record of this incident reveals that this woman first talked to herself. She said, “If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.” It is good that we talk to ourselves, provided we say the right thing, for what a person says to himself could be a detriment to him. For instance, the rich farmer in Lk. 12:16-21 did not have the proper attitude toward his wealth to begin with, and so his words to himself were untrue and proved to be futile. In his soliloquy, he reflected, “What shall I do, because I have not where to bestow my fruits? . . . This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry.” He, like all Epicureans, had no thought of God or his soul. He was absorbed by the material, a typical worldling. But God intervened and said to him, “Thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?” Though we have massed a fortune and worldly fame but have left God out and have not put Him first, then what? This man performed poorly in talking to himself.

We can successfully talk to ourselves as did the prodical son in Lk. 15. He was anxious to leave home with his substance, but went into a far country and wasted it in riotous living. Then he reached the bottom. In want, he joined himself to a citizen of the country who sent him into his fields to feed swine. He would have satisfied his hunger with the husks which swine ate (the pods of the carob tree, Gr.), but he came to himself. And, not only did he come to himself, but he talked to himself and it was very profitable. “How many hired servants of my father’s have bread and to spare, and I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say unto his Father I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants” (Lk. 15:17-19). What a talking job that was, but it worked. The young man returned to his father and the compassionate reception of the son by the father you well know. The penitent boy blamed no one but himself; it was he who had made the mess and there was only one thing to do go back to his father and made things right. Would that all of us would have the same kind of determination and make the same kind of resolution to ourselves when we sin. As expressed in the words of the exhortation song which we often sing, each one needs to say to himself: “I am resolved no longer to linger, charmed by the world’s delight; Things that are higher, things that are nobler, These have allured my sight. I will hasten to Him – Hasten so glad and free, Jesus, greatest, highest, I will come to thee.”

We often need to give ourselves a “pep” talk. When facing difficulty, I need to say to myself, “With the help of God I can overcome it;” when facing my responsibility I must say to myself, “With the help of God I can meet it;” when faced with a command of duty I must say, “I will do it.” Whatever the task may be, I must say to myself, “With the help of God I can perform it.”

As I pen these closing lines I am saying to myself, “I hope and pray that this article will serve as an instrument of good and that it will give all of us more assurance and determination to always do what is right.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, p. 662
October 18, 1979

By Wallace H. Little

Much of the best writing done by brethren today appears in bulletins. Because of this, I am on the mailing list of a number of them, and read them with both pleasure and profit to myself. I am appreciative. Having edited several over the years, I am somewhat familiar with the problems of maintaining a mailing list. One of the biggest is caused by the comebacks which now cost $.25 each. Many, if not most are due to the fact when brethren move, they don’t send in the change of address, or if they do, they don’t send them early enough. It takes very few of these to be expensive, both in the time and money. Again, having I edited from time to time, I am aware of the difficulties involved.

But there is another side of the coin. Having sent in changes of address cards in plenty of time (six weeks to three months before moving), I could reasonably expect those publishing papers to make the adjustments in their address lists. Yet for some from whom I receive bulletins I greatly appreciate, I continue to receive the paper, forwarded from my last address (this costs me) some five months after moving and six or more months after sending the first of several changes of address cards in some instances.

Brethren, I appreciate your writing, and consider it useful and edifying. But please, let’s eliminate the “postage due” on both ends. I will promise to send the change of address cards in plenty of time if you will promise to pull my old address plate and put in a new one. That way I can continue to appreciate your writing.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, p. 661
October 18, 1979