Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

In this segment of our series we are shooting down a Hawk. Dove season is closed. We have no foul intentions. Brother Ray Hawk recently wrote a brother and asked several questions to which we wish to respond. Where did we get the letter? Let us just say that a little bird brought it to our attention – hope that we will not ruffle any feathers.

Brother Hawk’s Questions

“Since you now stand where you do because you may read it in the scriptures, I wonder if you would do something for me? Would you give me details with scripture showing how the church can oversee, provide, and arrange for the benevolent needs of a 10 year old Christian that is the church’s responsibility? I would like to know who the father and mother of that child would be if the church is responsible. Please supply book, chapter, and verse. Could the church arrange, provide, and oversee the home life and rearing of that child? If yes, book, chapter, and verse. If not, what organization rears the child? Again, book, chapter, and verse. If the child is overseen, provided for by the church, and all arrangements are made by the elders, book, chapter, and verse for the child’s birthday parties, gifts, and recreational needs. I keep finding brethren who say the church may help Christian orphans, but no one who wants to show how it may be done. Will you?

“I wonder if you will show me book, chapter, and verse where a church ever paid a preacher from the treasury of the local congregation to be located with them? I can find where Paul robbed other churches, but this was in mission work at Corinth to preach and baptize people to start a congregation. If Gal. 6:10 is individual, wouldn’t Gal. 6:6 also be individual with reference to paying the local/located preacher? If not, why not? 1 have heard brethren say there is one way of giving but two ways of dispersing funds from the treasury: in evangelism the church sends to the preacher and in benevolence one church may send to another church. Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to another church in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it? If you can help me with these matters I would appreciate it since I dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

A Parallel Paragraph

Let us construct a parallel to Brother Hawk’s opening paragraph: Since you now stand where you do because you may read it in the scriptures, I wonder if you would do something for me? Would you give me details with scripture showing how a benevolent society can oversee, provide and arrange for the benevolent needs of a 70 year old Christian, a woman, that is the church’s responsibility? I would like to know who the husband of that woman would be if the church is responsible. Please supply book, chapter, and verse. Could the benevolent society provide the headship and the domestic duties for the care of that woman? If yes, book, chapter, and verse. If not, what organization cares for that woman? Again, book, chapter, and verse. If the woman is overseen, provided headship by the benevolent society, and all arrangements are made by the board of directors, book, chapter and verse for the woman’s birthday parties, gifts, and recreational needs. I keep finding brethren who say the benevolent society may help Christian widows, but no one who wants to show how it may be done. Will you?

Hawk’s Dislocated Comments On Located Preacher Support

Brother Hawk asks about support of a located preacher. Surely, he believes all things require scriptural authority; he doubtless accepts wages from a local church to be located with them; so, we probably use the same passage he uses.

If Galatians 6:10 is to the church, would not Gal. 6:7-9 also be to the church with respect to sowing, reaping and judgment? Would that exclude individual accountability? Further, if Gal. 6:6 eliminates the church’s right to support the preacher and puts it all on individuals, as Brother Hawk seems to intimate, then if Gal. 6:10 is to the church, that eliminates the individual from doing good to all men and to the household of faith. “If not, why not?” When Brother Hawk explains that, he will have his answer. But whatever the outcome about the individual or the church in Gal. 6:10, there is still no place for a human organization to do the work God assigned to the church.

“Clear Cut” Passages

Speaking of “clear cut” passages, perhaps there are some that will answer the following questions: “Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to another church in matters of evangelism? If so, where is it?” And another: “Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to a benevolent society in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it?” Remember, we need some “clear cut” passages.

One Way Of Giving; Two Ways Of Dispersing

“I have heard brethren say there is one way of giving but two ways of dispersing funds from the treasury: in evangelism the church may not send to a missionary society, but in benevolence a church may send to a benevolent society. Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to a benevolent society in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it? If you can help me with these matters I would appreciate it since I dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

Conclusion

Most of Brother Hawk’s confusion is centered in two areas. First, he evidences a lack of understanding of generic and specific authority. Second, he fails to see that the controversy is primarily over who, the church or a benevolent society, is to do the work of caring for certain needy ones. It is not a matter of “how.” Therefore, a discussion involving these two vital points is in order. Truth Magazine will be happy to publish such a study provided that a magazine published by Brother Hawk’s persuasion will also publish the same study. Finally, I am sure that someone could be found to come to Jackson, Tennessee, where Brother Hawk preaches, and have an oral debate on these issues. But do not hold your breath. There is no church in Jackson, Tennessee that will endorse Brother Hawk in such a study as I have proposed. What a pity, especially since both Brother Hawk and myself “dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, pp. 437-438
July 12, 1979

By Mike Willis

In our previous articles, we have shown (1) man’s need for salvation because of his sinful condition (he is dead in trespasses and sins), and (2) God’s grace in sending His Son Jesus Christ to die for the sins of mankind. Let us move forward in our study of salvation by grace through faith by noticing the conditional nature of man’s salvation.

Conditions Do Not Nullify Grace

The Calvinists teach that salvation is not of grace if there is so much as one condition which must be performed by man in order to receive that salvation. Hence, they teach that man is saved by God unconditionally. We are charged with teaching “salvation by works” when we teach that man is saved conditionally.

However, “conditional salvation” is not “salvation by works.” Salvation by works is a biblical phrase used to refer to a type of salvation which comes through perfect obedience to God’s law. When one perfectly obeys the law of God (this can only be discussed hypothetically since only Jesus Christ ever perfectly obeyed the law of God), his salvation is earned; he has whereof to boast. In the event that salvation is earned, God grants salvation because of the perfect character of the persons who worked to earn his salvation.

“Conditional salvation” is not of this nature. Conditional salvation is salvation by grace. The man who receives his salvation conditionally, confesses that there is nothing which he can do to save himself. Furthermore, he confesses that he is a sinner doomed to hell because of his violations of God’s divine law. Hence, such a man has no room to boast in himself; there is no virtue in him meeting the conditions to obtain his salvation. His salvation is grounded, not in the conditions which he performs, but in the blood of Jesus Christ.

I think that we can establish these points more clearly by noticing some examples from the Old Testament of conditional grace.

a. Naaman being healed of leprosy. The record of Naaman being healed of leprosy is found in 2 Kings 5. The divine conditions for his cleansing were given by Elisha, the prophet of God; he said, “Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shah be clean” (v. 10). Finally, Naaman met the conditions and his leprosy was removed. Who would dare to imply that dipping seven times in the muddy Jordan River earned God’s gift of removal of his leprosy? Everyone knows that Naaman did -not earn his cleansing by dipping in the river; rather, these were merely the conditions for receiving God’s gift of grace.

b. The conquest of Jericho (Josh. 6). When the children of Israel approached Jericho, God said, “See, I have given into throe hand Jericho” (v. 2). Yet, the gift was not given unconditionally; the divine conditions were given as follows: “And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him” (vs. 3-5). Were the walls of Jericho caused to fall by works? Certainly not, for we read elsewhere of the kinds of deeds done by men to tear down the walls of a city. The walls of Jericho fell because God had given Jericho into the hands of Israel; however, this gift of God’s grace was given conditionally.

We could illustrate this same principle by a study of several other conditional gifts of God. However, these suffice to demonstrate that conditional salvation is not salvation by works!

The point which I am making with reference to the remission of the sins of the alien sinner needs to also be stated with reference to the remission of sins of the child of God who has fallen from grace. Some are stating that God’s grace is extended to the fallen child of God automatically (i.e., unconditionally). Because he is in Christ, they say, his sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh are automatically covered. Some state that this occurs through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believers’ account; others state that the blood is somehow automatically applied to the believer before and without his meeting any conditions for obtaining that remission (such as repentance, confession, and prayer). Furthermore, those who advocate this view charge that one teaches salvation by works if he teaches that a believer must repent, confess, and pray in order to have his sins forgiven.

I think that our readers are able to see that we are fighting doctrinal cousins when we are fighting those who teach initial salvation is given unconditionally and when we are fighting those who teach that the erring child of God is forgiven unconditionally. One notices this point even more clearly when he notices the similarities in the arguments used against conditional salvation by both groups. Here are some of the arguments which are charged by both groups: (1) You teach salvation by works; (2) Works nullify the grace of God; (3) You teach a Pharisaical type of righteousness; and (4) You teach legalism.

Conditional salvation does not nullify grace, whether we are speaking of the conditional forgiveness of sins for the alien sinner or for the erring child of God. Both men stand before God, not upon their own merit of perfect obedience, but upon the basis of forgiveness of sins which is obtained through the precious blood of Christ. Hence, conditional salvation is salvation by grace!

Frankly, I question the honesty of a man who charges that a system of conditional salvation makes salvation dependent upon perfect obedience. Yet, we hear that stated repeatedly. A man who stands before God depending upon the blood of Christ to wash away his sins cannot be honestly charged with teaching a system of perfect obedience. Yet, that charge is hurled at those of us who teach that an erring child of God is forgiven conditionally conditional upon repentance, confession and prayer. They state that you teach perfect obedience. Not true! I teach conditional salvation both for the alien sinner and the erring child of God.

Some try to avert the charge of unconditional grace for the erring child of God by stating that the condition which must be met for the automatic forgiveness to occur is a general disposition of faith. By this, they mean an attitude toward God which causes a man to generally walk in the light. They imply that when a man who generally walks in the light commits sin that he is forgiven of that sin automatically without repentance, confession, and prayer because he is generally manifesting an attitude of faith. My Bible states that the sins of a man such as described above are forgiven conditionally. Regarding such a man, John said, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:6-9). Notice that this salvation is conditional: “If we confess our sins . . . .” John did not say, If you commit sin while walking in the light, do not worry about it because you are already forgiven because you generally are walking in the light.” No, he said, “If we confess our sins . . . .” This, my brethren, is conditional salvation!

Conclusion

In closing, let me remind our readers what “salvation by works” is. Salvation by works, as used in the Bible, is a system of justification whereby a man is justified through perfect obedience to the law of God. This man is saved, not because he has had his sins forgiven, but because he has no sins. His salvation is not of grace because he has earned it through his perfect obedience to the law. No man can be justified by perfect obedience to the law because no one can obey the law perfectly! However, we must be careful not to label something as salvation by works which is simply conditional salvation.

Secondly, let us remember that conditional salvation does not nullify grace. This is true whether we are discussing the conditional salvation of the alien sinner or the conditional salvation of the erring child of God.

Continue with us in this study next week as we consider the conditions which are necessary for a person to be saved by grace through faith.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, pp. 435-436
July 12, 1979

By Johnie Edwards

Many religious groups teach “infant baptism.” The Discipline of the Methodist Church says, “Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring or immersion” (1952 edition, page 519). The Catholic Catechism tells us, “Babies have to be baptized because they have Original Sin on their souls . : .” (page 56).

Actually, there is no such thing as “infant baptism.” The word baptism means to dip or immerse. Babies are not actually baptized! Water is poured or sprinkled on them.

The history of sprinkling reveals that it was accepted first by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Ravenna in 1311. The Catholic Church teaches that, “Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water; it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years” (Adult Catechism, pp. 56-57). Protestant churches have simply borrowed sprinkling for baptism from them.

Let us look at some reasons why infants should not have water poured or sprinkled on them as a religious ceremony:

Bible Baptism Is Not Sprinkling

Bible baptism is not sprinkling in the first place. Bible baptism is a burial. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4).

An Infant Is Not Subject To Bible Baptism

An infant is not a subject of Bible baptism. The teaching of the Bible in regard to baptism eliminates the infant. Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:18-20). Again Christ said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). Peter commanded, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:38). One must also be able to confess his faith in Christ (Matt. 10:32; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10).

An infant is not a subject of Bible baptism for a subject of Bible baptism has to be capable of being: (1) taught, (2) believing, (3) repenting of sins, (4) confessing his faith in Christ and (5) submitting to immersion.

Infants Are Not Sinners

An infant is not a sinner. We are often told that an infant has “original sin” on its soul. The Bible does not teach that! Jesus said concerning little children, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for such is the kingdom of God” (Mk. 10:14). Again Christ said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 18:3). A person has to commit sin in order to become a sinner. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4). There is a period in the life of a child, “before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good . . .” (Isa. 7:16). “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). Ezekiel said, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezek. 18:20).

“Infant Baptism” Not Practiced in The Bible

“Infant baptism” was not practiced by the apostles and the early church: All eleven cases of conversion in the book of Acts show that men heard the gospel preached, believed and were baptized. There is no record in the New Testament of an infant ever being baptized, or having water poured or sprinkled on him!

“Infant Baptism” Robs The Child

It robs the child of freedom of choice. Each is to do his own choosing as to whether he wants to obey God or disobey (Josh. 24:15, Rev. 22:17). It may rob the child of salvation. Many times a child, when he grows older, refuses to be baptized, saying, “My parents had me baptized when I was a baby.” Thus, the child refuses to obey God (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8-9). I would not want to base my salvation on the testimony of another. Obey today.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, p. 434
July 12, 1979

By Jeffery Kingry

Brethren talk about the simplicity of the Gospel, and some do not really realize the full significance of the statement. The simplicity of the Gospel is not that it is easy to understand (witness the confusion of the religious world). Rather, simplicity is singleness. “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto thee” (Matt. 6:33).

In Matt. 6:22 Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” To seek the Kingdom of God first, means we must have a singleness of purpose, rather than a diversion of action in various directions at one time. Or more simply put, the Christian has a singleness of purpose of life, uncluttered by running off in ten directions at once. Divided loyalties, demonstrated by “whom we serve,” destroy the “single eye” set upon a goal, a single goal. I am reminded-of a genius I knew in college who had so many interests he could concentrate on none of them, and so felt frustrated and stymied all the time. The solution to his problem would have been to concentrate on one thing till he had mastered it. As it was, even with great ability, he never accomplished anything.

Jesus showed us the opposite to simplicity of purpose in the same passage. “But if thine eye shall be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness” (6:23). Purity of heart is to seek one thing. When we will the righteousness of God, we will one thing, for only in good is there unity. Evil is a “double mind” – a mind seeking good, yet following after other things. Jesus called such a divided mind “Evil.” It is not difficult to recognize, though it seems to be hard to admit. Jesus disclaimed the hypocrisy of the generation of His day that outwardly appeared like a whitewashed tomb, but inwardly was filled with corruption. The single minded men of Acts 19:18-20 readily destroyed whatever gain may have been theirs, that they might prove the simplicity of purpose they sought. They sacrificed wealth to make a point. What men say and what they do are often, two different things. People can justify any action, and then decry other’s efforts to “judge” them. But, when one profits so readily by his action, he protestations of piety are hard to accept (Jn. 12:6; Acts 16:19; 19:24).

The Christian and Economics

One economic system has become wedded in the eyes of many to the principles of Christianity. “Free Enterprise,” “Capitalism,” and the “Profit Motive” have become very firmly entrenched in many minds with “sound” thinking. It is not our point here to debate one economic system over another, merely to point out that under God’s scheme of things there is a divine economic system in which all Christians are to abide, regardless of what culture they happen to live in. God’s system requires that the Christian “think not on his own things, but on the things of others.” “Regard others more highly than oneself.” “Lend, give again, with no hope of recompense.” “If one ask of you your cloak, give him your vest as well.” Common capitalism is based upon an economic system which is not to provide goods and services for the consumer, but to keep the system going and produce profit. It is a common mistake to believe that the purpose of free enterprise is to provide better goods and services. Quite simply, it exists to produce a profit. And, a truly free enterprise system ultimately produces monopolistic expansion till the resources and capital of the system are controlled by a few holders. This does not require a degree in economics to understand, just an evening playing Monopoly with some friends will illustrate the mechanics of capitalism in a closed system. Our economy survives only by constantly expanding production and markets. Without this expansion and increased consumption the economy will ultimately wind down and crash.

To maintain and increase consumption, the “product” must continually be marketed to produce profit. Before our present economic system arose, man produced what he needed, and what he could not produce he gained by trading services or products. Value was placed upon the production of quality, utilitarian products which were purchased seldom and maintained frugally. By necessity, a product was worthless if it was disposable. But as this culture moved away from a utilitarian economic system to an industrial capitalistic one, value was placed upon the consumable item. The market grew, profits grew, and the system grew. Today we live in a world that is based upon the disposable and rapidly replaced consumable. There is no value to the producer in making a product which will never be replaced.

This view point of economics also permeates the thinking of people caught up in it towards their values in life and relationships. The commodity culture sees everything, including people as commodities to be bought, sold, manipulated and then thrown away. Even sex is reduced to a means for selling something, an opportunity to exploit another’s body, or just something to do for fun.

The Bible has a great deal to say about the Christian and economics. How we use our money and our possessions, our concepts of value and worth, what and how much we consume, our economic relationships with other people and the church, our frugality, thrift, and concern for other’s rights are all very much a part of God’s revelation. There is such a thing as a Christian economic system. It is not a national system, and cannot be practiced by the world; it is an individual system that can only be practiced by the free-will of the child of God.

Christian Economics?

First of all, the single life, seeking first what the Kingdom of God requires, demands that we do just that. Jesus, as King, is not to be compartmentalized out of reality. a is our President, Chairman, Editor, Leader, Coin ander-in-Chief, and King. We must follow Him in the way that we live. To intellectualize the Lord out of our daily living is to deny His Lordship. Christianity is an attempt to adopt a social life that is conformed to the truth of God’s revelation (cf. Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37; 2 Cor. 9:5-13, et. al). To do this does not require the tearing down of existing economic systems, but living and teaching God’s way. Christians need to be a “counter-culture,” i.e. a body of people who live within a society, yet apart, living by a standard different than those round about them. Artificial enforcement of any economic system is foolish. We can leave it to God to take care of the world, and concentrate our efforts upon our own lives and those we touch. Consider a few aspects of God’s economic system.

The Role of Possessions

The right of personal property is nowhere denied in the scriptures (Acts 5:4 for one). But then on the other hand, it is evident from the Bible that God takes nothing from any man, and never has. It is for man to sacrifice, and God to receive. As David put it, “I will offer nothing in sacrifice which cost me nothing.” Psalms 24 teaches us that all property ultimately belongs to God, and for the Christian all property is a stewardship (Luke 12:35-38, 42). The Christian does not view personal property as an end, but as a means. The Christian as a servant of God cannot say, “this is mine, and mine to use for me.” It is no man’s right to tell another, or to demand of another sacrifice of personal possessions – but God certainly requires such singleness of devotion.

I question the morality of a Christian using wealth to continually acquire more wealth. Wealth, again, is a means to serve God, by the spending of that wealth for the Kingdom of God. Wealth is not to be used for indulgence. “Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they alone might be placed in the midst of the earth” (Isa. 5:8). Affluence is depicted by God as evil when it causes man to put his dependence on wealth, or when it is obtained at the economic expense of others (Deut. 8:l0ff; Mic. 2:lff). Abundance is meant to be enjoyed and used, not hoarded, or invested for further abundance. Illustrative of this principle, the Lord institued the Passover meal, as both a memorial and a remembrance of what God had done for Israel. The meal was of common, and bitter foods to remind the Jew of the terror filled night that they waited upon God’s mercy. The Manna, given freely by God in the wilderness, was not storable. The Jew could only gather enough for himself for one day, to remind him that his life depended upon God, and not on man’s ability to plan for the future. Jesus’ words remind us in our prayers to petition God “for our daily bread.” The man who tears down his barns to build bigger barns to store away his abundance, that he might spend it in indulgence, confident that he has provided for his future is called a “fool.”

Possessions are not evil. God looked upon His creation and declared it good. But men develop a perverted view of the material and refuse to acknowledge the place such things have in God’s purpose. Hence, people take what is good and use it to their own hurt. That which God gave us for our good is abused to bring about such evils as greed, envy, suspicion, covetousness, exploitation, and alienation. The love of gain is still the root of all evil. Therefore, possessions are only good when they are used, shared, or given away.

In Luke 18:24, 25, Jesus did not say that it would be impossible for the rich man to enter heaven, but that it would be very difficult. It can happen, but the rich man who goes to heaven is the exception rather than the rule. They are about as rare as camels going through needle’s eyes. The rich young ruler was told how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven: divest yourself of your wealth, give it to those who are in need, and follow the Kingdom of Heaven first, and all your physical needs will be cared for by God (Luke 18:22; Matt. 6:33). The rich young master was lost, because his affluence held him so tightly that he could not let it go, and he went away sorrowfully, but still rich and indulgent. Today, I doubt seriously that any of the wealthy brethren will sell their Cadillacs, Mercedes Benzes, and second and third cars. I doubt. they will sell their lands and houses and purchase a modest and utilitarian home. I seriously question whether the rich among us will clean out their assets, stocks, bonds, investments, or savings accounts and give the money to preachers in needy fields, indigent brethren, struggling churches, or any other necessary and needy cause in the Kingdom of God. They will not, for the same reason the rich young ruler did not.

Too often brethren compromise God’s reality by claiming the world’s reality. How many times have we heard, “That is all very well and good, and we would all like to see such sacrifice, but we live in a real world. I can not be expected to live like everyone else just to prove a point. I have a right to my wealth.” “We live in a world of consumption!” they cry, “I can’t be expected to give up all I have worked for and `follow God’!” It is interesting how we negate such plain Bible teaching. What was the reality of Jesus life?’ Did God forsake his needs? What was the reality of John the Baptist’s life? Did God fail him? What kind of life did Paul live, or any of the other New Testament worthies that we are to follow as an example? God does not require us to be ascetics; He calls for something far better: a thoughtful, single-minded, service of all we possess for God! Abundance is only a blessing when it is freely given away.

Singleness of Heart

The single life is one uncontrolled by things. The only way we can sever our being controlled by things is to divest ourselves of them in service to God. This does not mean that the Christian must become poor (though it might: Luke 9:23, 24; 2 Cor. 8:9; Luke 1:53; Matt. 25;31-46). When our wealth is in wealth, then it is not in God (Matt. 6:21). There is no inherent value in poverty, but there is wealth of spirit, treasure in heaven, for the one who gives up what he has to be used for God. Practically speaking that means giving it into the church treasury, direct support of preachers and preaching, helping indigent churches and brethren, doing good socially as we have opportunity, or whatever. There has never been a lack of opportunity to do good with our wealth. The demand of the Kingdom has always far outstripped the supply in my experience. At this moment there are men who are giving their all to preach the gospel in difficult places. They have no money, barely enough for groceries and rent. Their children go without, his wife wears old clothes, and he has not bought a book for months. There are brethren without food, shelter, or clothing, who depend daily upon the benevolence of brethren hardly better than themselves. There are countries where the Gospel has never been preached, and men willing to go, but for lack of money. There are churches struggling to establish their presence in communities who meet in front rooms because they cannot find a place to meet in they can afford. And at the same time there are brethren who spend enough money for an auto they do not need except to gratify their own desires, to feed an indigent family of Christians for a year. The difference in cost between a Cadillac and a more modest-priced car with equal room, and better gas-mileage would support a Gospel preacher at $550 a month for a year. Indeed, “How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the Kingdom of God!”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 26, pp. 428-430
June 28, 1979