Truth Magazine

By Bob Waldron

After Jesus was baptized, He was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. The account of the temptation of Jesus offers some of the richest lessons in scripture. In studying the temptation, many have sought to explain why Jesus did not follow Satan’s suggestions by various, sometimes ingenious, ideas. These ideas may be true, and are definitely worthy of thought. Jesus, however, knew best why He could not do the things Satan wished Him to do. We shall be guided in this study, therefore, solely by the replies Jesus Himself made.

Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days during which time ; He fasted. Both Matthew and Luke indicate that Jesus’ felt no hunger until after the forty days. “And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He afterward hungered” (Matt. 4:2). “And He did eat nothing in those days: and when they were completed, He hungered” (Luke 4:2). Hunger fell upon Jesus more as a blow than as something to which He had slowly grown accustomed. Mark indicates that Satan had been tempting Jesus already. “And He was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan” (Mark 1:12). Now Satan comes again.

“If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread” (Matt. 4:3). Now we know that Jesus had the power to change one substance into another (see John 2 where Jesus changed water to wine). We also know that several times Jesus used His power to provide food (Matt. 14; 15; John 21). Why not this time? Satan seemed to be tempting Jesus to prove His Sonship, but Jesus’ reply was not, “Satan, I do not have to prove my Sonship. Both you and I know who I am.” The temptation was more subtle than that. Jesus replied, “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”‘ (Matt. 4:4). If we are to understand what Satan’s temptation was, we will do so only by understanding Jesus’ response.

When Israel was encamped in the plains of Moab, poised to invade Canaan, Moses preached to them. He said, “All the commandment which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah sware unto your fathers. And thou shalt remember all the way which Jehovah thy God hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that He might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or not. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man live” (Deut. 8:1-3).

If the Israelites had been asked to list their necessities, they would have said food and water. We cannot be critical of them without some self-examination. If someone were chosen at random and asked to list the necessities of life he would list: (1) food, (2) water, (3) shelter. The Israelites had to learn that God was more important to their survival than bread. They had to learn that the first necessity is to obey the words that proceed out of the mouth of Jehovah. Oh, how we today need to learn to include that necessity at the top of our list.

How, though, does this .point tie in with Jesus’ refusal to turn stones into bread? Satan was telling Jesus to use the power He had for His sole benefit. It was not the Father’s will that Jesus’ power be used in that manner. Though Jesus knew He needed food He also knew one thing He needed more – to do the Father’s will. God did not give Jesus His great power so that if He had a headache He could merely wish it away, .or if He became thirsty He could cause a glass of water to pop into His hand. He always used His power for the sake of others to produce faith in them. Thus it would have been contrary to the “word that proceeded out of the mouth of God” for Jesus to use His power for His benefit. Therefore He would not and told Satan why. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 31, pp. 504-505
August 9, 1979

By Johnie Edwards

I. Most communities have had a visit from young men calling themselves `Mormon Elders’. They teach that the Mormon Church is the only, true church. We believe that the doctrine they teach is false and needs to be exposed.

II. This material contains brief rejoinders to Mormon doctrine and would be good to give Mormons in exchange for their study with you.

Discussion:

Continuous Revelation

The Mormon Church was established and exists today mainly because of their belief in continuous revelation. If men believed all the truth from God is contained in the Bible, then the Book of Mormon, as well as other modern revelations, would have to be rejected as being from God. One of the early Mormon `apostles’ expressed it best:

If it could be proved from scripture that God had revealed all that He ever intended to reveal, then a professed revelation would not require investigation; for it would be known at once, that everything of the kind was an imposition. It would be folly in the extreme to inquire whether a professed new revelation were true or false; for if God had declared in His word that no more was to be given, all writings or books purporting to be a new revelation could not be otherwise than false” (Orson Pratt’s Works, p. 70). (D. & C. 124:129 – Pratt an apostle)

(1) The Mormons teach that the Bible is not complete. If they thought the Bible was complete they would not have such books as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Mormon teaches that a person is a fool if he believes that the Bible is complete. “Thou fool, that shall say; `A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible . . . (2 Nephi. 29:6). Again, “Wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words: neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written” (2 Nephi 29:10). Ask the Mormons to give you one thing essential to salvation which is not contained in the New Testament.

(2)The Bible claims to be inspired and complete:

A. Jesus promised to give alt truth to the apostles (Jn. 14:26; Jn. 16:13).

B. Paul said that he had declared all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

C. All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:21).

D. We have all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3).

E. The faith, which is the gospel of Christ, was once delivered (Jude 3). Once a thing has been delivered, it does not need to be re-delivered. The faith was once for all delivered and that, long before Joseph Smith came along.

F. New Testament writings had already become a formulated body of doctrine delivered orally in the days of the Apostles. The New Testament writings were not introducing new truths, but simply bringing to the people’s remembrance what they had already been taught (2 Pet. 1:12-15; 1 Cor. 15:1-6; 1 Jn. 1:1-4; Rom. 6:17; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Jn. 2:21-17).

G. Because the Scriptures are complete, there is a need to guard against change, addition, subtraction or going beyond them (Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-19).

H. God promised that His revelation of Truth would not be corrupted or lost (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23, 25).

I. The criterion given for recognizing true prophets and teaching is that one accept that which had already been given as being true (1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Jn. 2:21-27).

Since the apostles of Christ were never promised the Book of Mormon, never received the Book of Mormon, and never delivered the Book of Mormon, we must conclude that the Book of Mormon is not from God. It is the product of man’s own thinking.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 31, pp. 503-504
August 9, 1979

By Donnie V. Rader

In writing to the Christians at Philipi, Paul urged them to “Be careful for nothing” (Phil. 4:6, KJV). Other versions render that phrase as follows: “In nothing tire anxious” (American Standard Version); “Have no anxiety about anything” (Revised Standard Version). Today’s English Version translates it, “Don’t worry about anything” and Phillips Modern Version, “Don’t worry about anything whatever.” The New International Version says; “Do not be anxious about anything.”

The word translated “be careful” (Merimanao) means “to be anxious; to be troubled with cares . . .” (Thayer p. 400). It is also translated “take thought” in Matt. 6:25-34. So Paul is talking about worrying, not forethought, but anxious thought.

The apostle here is not forbidding a thought-out life. Rather, in other passages he emphasized this (Gal. 6:7-9; 2 Cor. 6:2). Neither is Paul urging us to be a happy-go-lucky people. He was far from being one that made a joke of life. The seriousness with which he looked on life is seen in his statement to Timothy, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7). Furthermore, we are not being told to be unconcerned about ourselves and others. Paul told the Ephesians that they would naturally be concerned about themselves (Eph. 5:28-29). Also, Jesus set forth the principle of being concerned for others in the story of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37; cf. Phil. 2:4). And neither are these words of inspiration prohibiting one being upset at times. Christ Himself wept when He beheld the city of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). Paul also said, “Be ye angry, and sin not . . .” (Eph. 4:26).

But what is Paul saying? He is warning Christians against a fretful and feverish attitude toward life. Do not engage in anxious thought; do not worry is simply what the apostle is saying.

Jesus also taught on this important subject in Matt. 6:25-34. Here He emphasized that we ought to “Take no thought for your life.” Other versions (which are not always acceptable translations on many other texts) say, “be not anxious for your life” (ASV), and “do not worry about your life” (NIV). One example of the things we should not worry about is food (vs. 25-26). It is pointed out that fowls, which neither sow, or reap, nor gather, are fed by the heavenly Father. So why should we constantly worry about our eatables since we are obviously better than the fowls? Yet another example that Jesus gives is our raiment (vs. 28-30). We are urged to consider the lilies of the field, which neither toil nor spin, yet even Solomon in all of his glory was not arrayed like one of these. So why should we be anxious and worry about our clothing since we are much better than the grass of the field?

The Need For This

An exhortation of this nature is needed by all. Worry is so common to man. The young and old, the rich and poor, the learned and unlearned, the saints and sinners, and the faithful and unfaithful all have worries. And it seems that we worry about everything beneath the shining stars of heaven. We worry about our money, how we are going to get it, keep it, and spend it. We worry about other’s troubles as well as our own. The thought of some calamity is constantly plaguing our mind, with 75% to 90% of these calamities never taking place. It makes us wonder if some are not setting up at night to plan out their worries for the next day.

The Folly Of Worrying

(1) It is useless. This is the very point that Jesus was making in Matt. 6:27, “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” Jesus is saying that if a man does not like his height, his worrying about it will not help. Worrying is not going to make him grow. Then in the parallel account Jesus said, “If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?” (Luke 12:26). So if our worrying will not accomplish an increase in our stature, why should we think our worrying will do any good elsewhere? Worrying never lifted a single burden; it never dried a single teary it never solved a single problem. There are two classes of things we should never worry about; the things we can help, and the things we cannot help.

If there is a problem or situation that we can do something about, let us do what we can and quit worrying. For example if one were to wake up at night just freezing to death, it would be silly just to lay there and worry about it. The only sensible thing to do would be to do something about it – get more cover. And so it is with many of life’s problems. Worry does not help but action does.

Neither should we worry with the things which we can do nothing about. What good would our worrying do? We cannot do anything about growing older, the weather, death, and many other things which must simply take their course. Our worrying about our age will not make us younger. Neither will worrying change the weather, nor keep us from dying. Therefore, seeing that we cannot do anything to help and that our worrying will not relieve any burden, we ought to forget such matters and not worry about them.

Many times we find ourselves worrying about close friends, relatives or neighbors as they travel from place to place. But again this is silt,. Can we do anything to help in the matter to make their travels safer? If so let us do it and quit worrying. However if we cannot assist or do anything to better their safety, what will our worrying do? Obviously nothing, so it is just plain useless whatever the occasion may be.

(2) It is hurtful. Though this is not generally recognized by Christians, anxiety is hurtful in many ways. There is no disease that worry does not aggravate. Dr. Charles Mayo, of the famed Mayo Clinic, once said, “Worry affects the circulation – the heart, the glands, the Introduction: whole nervous system. I have never known a man who died from overwork, but many who died from doubt.” Worry wears one out mentally and physically. Worry is the grime and grit that once inside the “wheel bearings” of our minds puts our steering out of control and sends us off at the next curve.

It is not only hurtful to ourselves but to others about us. Worry makes one hard to live with because they have always got a worry to share with you. Thinking of only the worst that could happen, the worry-wart will nag one half crazy.

(3) It is faithless. Worry indicates a weakness in our faith. Jesus describes one that worries by saying, “O ye of little faith” (Matt. 6:30). Do we not have faith that God will be with us and those whom we worry about? We need not become of doubtful mind and worry about what may happen, for whatever did happen it may be for our good. The apostle Paul said, “All things work together for good to them that love God” (Rom. 8:28). Could it be, brethren, that we really do not have true faith in God?

The Cure

Anxiety is not cured by laughing it off, drinking away our problems, or finding some ideal situation. However Paul suggested in the same context the answer.

The apostle commanded that we should (1) pray. “But in everything by prayer . . . let your request be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). If we are worried about ourselves or someone else, we should pray for God’s help in the situation. Another command given is that we should Q redirect our thinking. We might illustrate this with a house that has only two windows. One window has an unbelievably beautiful view of a lawn with flowers and trees. The other has the most awful sight of garbage and trash you have ever seen. Now which window would you look out of the most? Obviously, the one with the beautiful view. So it should be in the house of life. We should spend our time thinking on things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report (Phil. 4:8). We also should (3) put our faith err God. We ought to trust him, that he will be with us. The apostle Peter tells us to put our cares upon God (1 Peter 5:7).

Conclusion

The results of our prayers, redirection of thought, and faith in God will be obvious. The peace of God will keep our hearts (Phil. 4:7). We will be better both mentally and physically, being better able to get along with others. Let us not be a Martha in Luke 10:40-41 who was troubled with cares. But we need to strive to be as Mary who chose Jesus.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 31, pp. 502-503
August 9, 1979

By Mike Willis

In the last issue of the paper, I cited several instances in which brethren have capitulated to denominationalism. Their acceptance of denominationalism has not occurred through departing from the Lord’s church to join hands with an already existing denomination (although several have done this, such as Athens Clay Pullias, former head of David Lipscomb College, the instances cited were not of this nature); rather, these persons have accepted denominationalism as an acceptable method of working to serve God without leaving the church of Christ. They have simply admitted that the Lord’s church is no different from human denominations.

As an example of the attitude toward denominations which is becoming more widespread among the liberals, notice the following quotation because it depicts the attitude which is becoming acceptable.

When I say this (i.e., Athen Clay Pullias having left the churches of Christ to become a member of the Presbyterian Church – mw) is no problem to me, I simply mean that I do not conclude that a brother necessarily rejects Christ when he leaves what we call the “Church of Christ.” Going to the Presbyterians might be a matter of conscience, not a lack of it, an act of faith and not faithlessness. Even though I went through the same course of study as their ministers (a classmate of mine at Princeton is now the Stated Clerk!), I could never become a Presbyterian. I prize my heritage as a “Christian Only,” and I cannot be run off, and certainly not bought off. (Note: Garret admits that he stays with the Churches of Christ because of historical heritage; it has nothing to do with the Scriptures as to why he is a member of the Church of Christ rather than a denomination. mw) So I choose to remain among Churches of Christ, where I am not fully accepted, than to go to the Presbyterians, where I would be accepted. But some of my sisters and brothers differ with me, and so some of them become Presbyterians or something else, having had it with the Churches of Christ . . . .

I do not believe, of course, that the United Presbyterian Church is the church of Jesus Christ, but neither do I believe that what we call the Church of Christ is the church of Jesus Christ . . . .

An honest confession might be good for the soul and for the party. Some of our folk, even our leaders might be better off among the Presbyterians. They might actually be closer to Christ than when they are with us, as impossible as that may appear (Leroy Garrett, “What Do You Do When Your Leader Goes To The Presbyterians?”, Restoration Review, Vol. XXI, No. 4, pp. 76-78).

This attitude toward denominationalism is growing. Truly it is sweeping through the ranks of the liberals, but one would be naive to believe that there were none among us with the same attitudes.

What Acceptance of This Attitude Means

There are some logical consequences that follow when one accepts the attitude mentioned above. I would like to enumerate several of those consequences, although this list makes no pretensions at being exhaustive. You will, no doubt, think of many other items which could be added to this list.

1. It means that the wearing of human names is no longer considered sinful. For one to openly accept denominationalists into his fellowship, he must have reached one of the following conclusions: (a) that the wearing of human names is not sinful or (b) that God will go ahead and save the one who is sinning while wearing these names through some gift of His grace over and above that revealed in the gospel. The denominationalists have held this second position for years because many of them believed in “once saved, always saved.” Because God’s grace was somehow going to automatically be applied to the believer, what doctrinal differences they had were unimportant so far as salvation was concerned.

Yet, the Scriptures still condemn the wearing of human names. Paul wrote,

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10-13).

So long as that Scripture remains a part of the New Testament, the Christian is obligated to oppose the wearing of human names. However, those who are willing to accept denominationalists as acceptable children of God must reach the conclusion that the wearing of these names does not separate a person from God’s grace. Hence, he can no longer preach against the wearing of human names. By the way, how long has it been since you read an article in Restoration Review, Mission, Integrity, Ensign Fair, and Outreach on such a subject? For people so interested in unity, they seem so little interested in ridding the world of these sectarian names which divide the religious world.

2. It means that one is no longer opposed to human creeds. When one is willing to accept denominationalists as people standing in an acceptable relationship to Christ, he has reached a position which demands that he believe that allegiance to a human creed does not separate one from God. Let Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside, R.L. Kilpatrick, and others rant and rave all they want to about the unwritten creeds of the churches of Christ; so long as they accept denominationalists as brethren acceptable to God, they are logically compelled to accept the position that allegiance to a human creed, whether written or unwritten, is not wrong in and of itself. Hence, those who are willing to accept denominationalism as acceptable to God must give up their opposition to human creeds.

Human creeds are unable to be defended. The word of God is sufficient to furnish the man of God unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17); it contains all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4); it is understandable (Eph. 3:3-4). Hence; there is nothing needed in addition to the Bible to lead one to salvation. The human creed which contains more than the Bible is unacceptable because it contains too much; the human creed which contains less than the Bible is unacceptable because it does not contain enough; the human creed which contains the same thing as the Bible is not needed so long as we have the Bible. Surely no man can write better than God! Yet, those who accept denominationalism must be willing to admit that human creeds are acceptable with God; allegiance to human creeds does not separate one from God.

3. It means that one is not opposed to perversions in the organization of the church. If one is going to accept denominationalists as people in fellowship with God and, therefore, with all others who are considered Christians, he must be willing to accept the denominational organizations invented by men. That the denominationalists do not follow the Bible pattern for the organization of the church each of us would admit. Indeed, the denominationalists themselves make no claim to being organized like the New Testament church, Yet, if one is going to accept denominationalists as men acceptable to God, he is going to be forced to admit that being involved in the perversion of the government of the church does not separate a person from God. Hence, he can no longer preach about the perversion of church government as practiced by Catholics, Protestants, or our liberal brethren who have accepted the sponsoring church arrangement.

4. It means that one must consider it possible for a person to be saved in a multitude of fashions. Those who are willing to extend fellowship to Presbyterians, Baptists, and other denominationalists (including Catholics), must be willing to admit that one can be saved without faith, repentance and baptism. Some of these denominations teach that one can be saved through infant sprinkling; hence, a person is saved without faith, repentance, or immersion in water. Others teach that the penitent believer is saved without baptism. The Catholics truly teach a system of salvation by works. Yet, those who teach that good people in all denominations are going to be saved must be willing to admit that there are a multitude of methods of being saved. They cannot teach that faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are essential for salvation so long as they admit that some are going to be saved without having done these things. They can speak of “brethren in prospect” all they please; the truth of the matter is that they believe that there are people saved in all denominations who have not submitted to obedience to the gospel plan of salvation. Hence, they cannot preach on the plan of salvation anymore.

By the way, how long has it been since you read a good lesson in Integrity, Restoration Review, Mission, Ensign Fair, and Outreach which taught the gospel plan of salvation? Do the writers for these journals believe that men can be saved in a multitude of different ways?

5. It means that one must accept the conclusion that perversions of the worship of the church will not separate a person from God. When a man accepts the conclusion that there are saved people worshiping in human-denominations, he is forced to conclude that the perversions in worship practiced by these denominations do not separate that person from God. Hence, any and every item of worship can be perverted and one can still die and go to heaven. The Lord’s Supper can be observed any day of the week and perverted so that it is not observed each Lord’s day, the items on the Table can be changed, and its purpose can be perverted without separating the ones who participate in it from God. The prayers can be offered through the name of Mary without separating the ones who offer them from God. The singing can be taken away from t-he congregation and performed by a choir or special singing group, mechanical instruments of music can be added, and other distortions occur without these changing separating a person from God. Free-will giving ‘can be perverted to tithing without it separating a person from God. Yes, all of these denominational distortions can occur without a person being separated from God if one accepts the conclusion that there are saved people in all denominations.

Conclusion

The conclusion to this is that one gives up the Bible as his objective standard for determining right and wrong when he decides to deviate from the Bible pattern in one point. Those who are presently willing to accept denominationalism as acceptable in the sight of God have departed from the Scriptures. They are a people who are associated with the church of our Lord Jesus Christ only in a historical way; they do not believe the truths taught from the Bible and reached from the pulpits; rather, they are members of the Church of Christ because they were brought up there and they are “proud of their heritage.”

The acceptance of denominationalism is fatal to the, restoration of the New Testament church. Those who are committed to going back to the Bible, practicing the things revealed in the Bible, believing the promises made in the Bible, and obeying the commandments of the Bible have nothing in common doctrinally with those who are willing to accept denominationalism of any form. I hold no animosity toward those with whom I disagree in this -regard; I only recognize that we are walking in different directions. The times in which our paths cross, they cross accidentally. We cannot share those times because we are not going the same direction or crossing the same ground for the same reason. Hence, I see no means of extending fellowship to those who have accepted denominationalism.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 31, pp. 499-501
August 9, 1979