Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

On November 11, 1978, we were invited to hear a group of men speak on “Inspiration and Authority of the Bible,” “The Creation Account of Genesis 1 and 2,” “The Virgin Birth of Christ,” “Mechanical Music in N.T. Worship,” and “Fellowship with Denominations.” David Bobo commented on each speech and questioned each speaker.

As I sat along with Bob Buchanon, Harry Lewis, John McCort and L.A. Stauffer and listened to the speeches, a number of things ran through my mind.

(1) Sowing the Wind. Israel of long ago was told by the prophet Hosea, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind . . .” (Hos. 8:7). The very seeds of the modernistic views told the Bible as held by David Bobo were sown by many of our liberal-minded brethren. Through the years, they have said there is no pattern for the work of the church. The seeds of apostasy were sown when men taught that we can pool church funds into a centralized organization to do the work of the church. Sometimes the centralization was done with an eldership who had a sponsoring work greater than they could pay for. Some have taught the church can turn its funds over to a benevolent society, like an orphan home to do their work of relieving the needy. There is no more scriptural authority for these kind of things as for the views held by David Bobo.

(2) The Social Gospel Concept. Making the church a playhouse with recreation and entertainment centers, the bus ministry with reward motivations and the like, have caused some to travel further down the road to apostasy than others. You see, if we can go beyond the Bible teaching in one or two areas, what will stop one from going as far as David Bobo? There is really no stopping place. It is like the apostle Paul said, “. . . for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7).

(3) Why Not Instrumental Music? Evidently David Bobo sees nothing unscriptural with using instrumental music in worship. We heard a good speech on how unscriptural it is to use instrumental music in worship. Instrumental music in worship is wrong because there is no pattern for it in the Word of God. If brethren would apply the same principles to other areas of Bible teaching as they have on instrumental music it would do away with many of the things which divide brethren today. There is no scriptural authority for instrumental music in worship, therefore, it is sinful. Neither is there any scriptural authority for the Herald of Truth arrangement, church support of orphan homes, schools in the budget and church fellowship halls.

If we do not want to have problems in getting people to accept what the Bible teaches in regards to Inspiration, The Creation, Instrumental Music in Worship, and Fellowship with Denominations, we must declare the whole council of God on every subject.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 19, p. 315
May 10, 1979

By Jeffrey Kingry

The first step in finding the rich life, is finding out what it is not! Many view a rich life as one of indulgence, cessation of conflict, wealth, power, or esteem from men. The rich life has nothing to do with what the world considers worthy.

The call of the Christian is not to create a “Christian Society” – a world adhering to the principles of Christ. God has informed us that this will never come to pass anyway (Matt. 7:13; Jas. 4:4). Neither is it the Christian’s duty or responsibility to solve the world’s problems. This world, and more specifically, our society, has many tragic inequities and injustices that are totally beyond solution by the Christian. Rather, the Christian is called upon to live a new life. That he can and must do.

The Good Life Is Not Success

We live in a technological civilization that socially judges “success” by materialistic standards. This is not a political or an economic article, but unfortunately, many brethren have a view of themselves and other’s living as “successful” based upon humanistic, political reasoning and standards.

For instance, following World War II, the United States’ success in mass production, transportation, and communication won a global war. Our wealth and abundance of material resources developed a mind in many that centralization of oversight, pooling of wealth, and massive application of material resources would solve any problem. It did not work, of course, politically or militarily, but it kept a lot of people busy. Applied to religion, it was disastrous.

Even following the debacle of the past twenty-five years, we are still told by those ambitious men of purpose, “If a thing works, it is good; If it does not work, it is not good.” Big is better than little. More is better than less. We have developed an institution and instrumental view of values and people. Accomplishing an end is more important than the effect it may have on the people or the quality of their life. Whether it be a war in Korea, or Viet Nam or the Herald of Truth – the results of the thinking are the same. We even see it among those who oppose the abuses of the past in varying degrees: specialty churches, brotherhood preachers and lines of teaching, etc. The rich life is not the “success ethic.”

Jesus was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and well acquainted with grief. He was a man from whom others hid their faces in shame and embarrassment. He was looked down on by many in contempt, and even His closest friends did not honor or esteem Him (Isa. 53:3). Jesus warned His followers to beware of success that brought the good favor of all men, and their plaudits. Only the false prophets received the glory of men (Luke 6:26). He established a standard for the disciple, that whoever would be the greatest must be the menial: the servant, the waiter, the minister, the foot-washer, boot-black, door holder, the waiter while others go ahead, the quiet while others get the glory, the humble while others bow and smile, the silent while others laugh to scorn. “Who is greater,” Jesus asked, “He that sits at meat, or he that serveth? His disciples answered him, He that sits. But, Jesus said, I am among you as one that serveth . . . .”

Success is not part of the good life, the rich life. The good is not always successful, and the successful are not always good. The Christian, if he is to find the rich life, must change his attitude towards what is indeed “success.” Rather than placing values on status, power, pride, wealth, fame, position, and strength, we need to place our value on humility, service, simplicity, integrity, sacrifice, and sharing. Divine success is just the opposite of what society admires (1 Cor. i:18-31). We need this lesson applied today more than any other. We have only to look about and see where many lay their true values. Proverbs reminds us, somewhat cynically, “Wealth maketh many friends . . . many entreat the favor of the prince: and every man is a friend of him that giveth gifts” (Prov. 19:4, 6). The Christian would do well to steer clear of the wealthy and his life-style. “When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is put before thee: and put a knife to thy throat if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties, for they are deceitful meat. Labor not to be rich: cease not from thine own wisdom” (Prow. 23:1ff).

The Good Life Is Not Status

The scriptures teach abundantly that men are of equal worth before God, each soul precious beyond compare. The parable of the lost sheep depicts God’s concern for the one in need, regardless of “success” with the ninety-nine (Luke 15:3-7). The parable of the loving father and the prodigal son further illustrates that there is no class structure or status before God, only the love of the Father for all in His family. God’s love extends even to the least worthy (Luke 15:11-32). The New Testament epistles exhort us over and over to regard one another as brethren in love and sacrifice. To live in the Kingdom does not mean that we must tear down the world’s class distinctions. There are masters and servants. Rather we are not to recognize them socially or spiritually. A man’s worth is determined by what he is, not what his status is. Equality does not mean that everyone is equal in every area, and this is not inferred in scripture. The popular myth in America is that all men have equal opportunity to climb to the top of the economic pile (we do not have that now – either in the church or out of it). Equality means that everyone should be able to participate meaningfully in life.

Equality has many implications. One is that in the church we are to eliminate hierarchial and bureaucratic relationships in which some do “significant” and more desirable work, and others do menial tasks. Too often we structure our relationships and work the same way the world does. Undue deference is given to the rich, the scholar, the executive, the popular athlete or entertainer, whose only abilities are physical or intellectual, hardly a basis for a foundation of trust and experience in matters of the spirit and quality of life. In too many relationships, some are viewed as more important than others. This is not the case in the rich life.

Some see that education is the basis for determining worth. The educated are worth more than the uneducated. They are paid more money, therefore they are worth more as people. Some even think they ought to make more money than the uneducated and be given greater deference. Who says? Certainly not God. There is no moral reason to support it. It is based upon sheer class prejudice, selfishness, pride, and snobbery. It is arrogant for some to consider themselves worth more than others.

The Good Life Is Not Wealth

Everyone should have an income that is sufficient to meet his needs. It has always been a puzzle to me why some in the church should receive (not earn) a million dollars a year and another only two thousand. Paul noted, that in the church it was not a question of some being burdened, while others live a life of wealth, but rather that each man’s basic needs be met. When the man with a million and the man with $2,000 are both Christians there should be “an equality, that your abundance might supply their want, and so that their abundance might supply your want. As it is written, He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he that had gathered little had no lack” (2 Cor. 8:13-15).

Wealth demands sharing, not out of duty, but because wealth is a stewardship. It is not ours, but has been entrusted to us by God to be used. To indulge, merely because we have abundance denies our very reason for existence. We do not exist to indulge, but to love, give, and share. Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). It is more enjoyable to share than to accumulate. Again, sharing is not done out of duty, or even because others have need (paternalism). We share that we might commune and have fellowship with our brethren and that our unselfishness might impress the unbeliever who sees the good work and glorifes God (Heb. 13:16; Acts 2:44-46; Phil. 4:10-18).

Too often, sharing is viewed as a weakness! Imagine! In our society it is viewed as a failing to be dependent upon anyone. But we are dependent on God and our brethren. We deny our humanity and our Saviour if we do not accept our dependency. To the extent that we are too proud to ask our brethren for help, we have cut ourselves off from them. To the extent that any one of substance or ability looks down on his brother in need, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.

In truth, wealth is too often a detriment to the rich life. Possessions bring with them dependence and addiction. Luxury weakens our ability to abstain, to wait patiently for results, and to sacrifice. People of possessions become slaves to them. One cannot serve God and possessions at the same time. One or the other must go.

Neither does wealth satisfy. Gaining more possessions merely stimulates the lust for more. It is humerous to consider some of the wealthy Christians I have known. These men do not recognize their own affluence. They complain of high taxes, prices, and debts. They explain that there are others who have much more than they do. They are often penny wise and pound foolish. They will mix half and half, shop for bargains, and yet spend thousands of dollars for a car too big for their needs, a home too ostentatious for their family, or clothes, too rich by far. Time recently ran an’ article on the poor affluent. They described “poor” families of only $25,000 or $30,000 a year who could not “get by” on their large salary. There is a limit to what one can consume and still stay healthy. Just as overeating will produce obesity and its attendant problems, so “possessing” has a limit, beyond which one cannot stay healthy. “Having food and raiment, be therewith content. Any more than this proceeds forth of vanity.” Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. Man’s rich life does not consist in the abundance of the things which he possesses.

What Is The Rich Life?

Jesus said, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). The “these things” are all the physical things we will ever need: what to eat, drink, and be clothed with. It has always been those who are humble and live modest and simple lives who most often find peace, satisfaction, and meaning. Those who actively pursue fame, wealth, or glory are the least apt to be happy. The rich life is a simple life. When one sins, and trouble enters his life, his quality of life is cluttered, disordered, hampered, and hectic. Those we read about in scriptures who were closest to God were men like John the Baptist who was unaware of the King’s dainties, or soft clothing. Jesus depended on the care of the brethren for His needs, having not even a place to lay his head He could call His own. The-apostle Paul possessed but a few scraps of writing material, a book or two, and one cloak. Compared to the “successful” preacher of today with a different change of clothing for every night of the meeting, Paul is a shabby embarrassment.

Joy and happiness are not found in things, but in us and in other people. Wealth and richness are in a state of being, rather than in what we might possess. Richness is in what we are or can become, not in things. If richness is in terms of dollars, then dollars can be taken away, and we can lose what we thought we had. The rich put their trust in riches to protect them and provide for them. The Christian puts his trust in God, and rich or poor financially, his richness can never be taken away from him.

Our standard of living should be thought of in terms of quality of life – what brings challenge, fulfillment, happiness, growth, maturity – rather than quantity of things, or our relative success over others. The good life cannot be bought with money. It is a life unencumbered, uncluttered, and disentangled in the things of this life.

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money come ye and buy, and eat; yea come, and buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? And labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness” (Isa. 55:1, 2). The full life, the fat life, is found in the simplicity that is in Christ and His example.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 19, pp. 313-315
May 10, 1979

By Donald P. Ames

For some time the moral trend of this nation has been a genuine source of concern for many. It looks as if that trend is going to get worse before it gets better – at least if the IRS has its way and if trends do not change. The Suburban Observer, published in Cicero, Illinois (Dec. 14, 1978), carried the following article:

Will There Be Quota For Homosexuals In Private Schools?

Under the proposed IRS guidelines to determine if certain tax-exempt private schools are “racially non-discriminatory,” discrimination on the basis of religion, sex and sexual preference (a euphemism for homosexuality) would still be allowed. Why? IRS spokesman Leon Levine says this is so because the “public policy” against racial discrimination is more “distinct” than in these other areas. Does this mean that once “public policy” is distinctly against discrimination on the basis of religion, sex and sexual preference that private schools, including religious schools, will lose or be denied a tax exemption if they indulge in any of these things? Another IRS source, who prefers anonymity, says: “You can count on it, yes.”

ERA, and other organizations seeking its promotion, has been moving this nation in the direction of freedom from moral restraint now for several years. Recent efforts to bar teachers in California from teaching and promoting homosexuality failed to pass because of the mass support given those seeking to give the move a bad name. But, if trends do not reverse soon, “public policy” will soon be dictating to private schools how many homosexuals they must accept to remain active. Then what? Churches?

Such activity is getting out of hand and borders on downright stupidity! But, if we do not speak up, we had better look out! God still calls it a sin, and those who practice shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 18, p. 312
May 10, 1979

By Billy C. Williams

Before I answer Weldon Warnock’s last article, it is necessary to explain the role each one plays in this exchange. It is not unlike a jury trial in which there are prosecutor, defendant, jury and judge. In this case, Weldon assumes the stance of prosecutor, I am the defendant and the readers are the jury. The judge? I think Weldon wants that job too. Because I was accused, I am on the defensive and am forced to answer and explain. Always in such cases it is presumed that the accuser is correct in his views and the accused is wrong. The accused must answer yes or no to the charges. And upon that evidence alone he is pronounced guilty. Thus, it was put to me that I will be allowed to “exonerate” myself, meaning I can either plead guilty or recant. Well, you can be sure this defendant has no intention of letting anyone dictate his answers. Too many questions and accusations were made to answer all in this small space. So just the major points will be covered.

Since he hinted that I was “fired” by a church because I taught false doctrine, I must say something, though I had hoped it would not be necessary. Weldon’s flippant remark that I was not fired “because of the way he parted his hair,” is unbecoming. It is still true that no one would say that I taught false doctrine. The only “point of doctrine” brought against me was that I condemned in general the partyism and factious spirit so prevalent in the church today. But if Weldon wants to talk about it we could discuss the out-of-town preachers who interfered and the un-Christlike conduct of a few in and out of the congregation. But I do not think he really wants to talk about that.

He asks three questions wanting to know if I condemn members of the Christian Church for using instrumental music, and premillennial and institutional brethren. Such questions are asked because he believes one must “strictly and faithfully” obey all commandments to be saved. When this type of question is asked, I get the distinct impression that it is feared someone will be saved who does not deserve it. Is it possible that some wretched perverter of truth will rise from the dead, overpower the host of heaven, and walk through the Pearly Gates in defiance of God?

To answer his questions: If one deliberately and wilfully disobeys God’s law or does presumptuous sin (presuming to change or act in defiance of God’s laws), he is surely condemned as long as he continues in that sin (Num. 15:22-30; Heb. 10:26ff). But if he, in ignorance, transgresses God’s law while earnestly desiring to serve Him faithfully, I do not find any passage that allows me to condemn him. He is no more a sinner than I am. And we are both guilty (Rom. 3:10, 23). Many people want to judge others according to their own understanding. But our Lord specifically warned against it (Matt. 7:1-5). For one to demand of others perfect obedience to all of God’s commandments (as he sees it), he commits a twofold error. In the first place, the individual must understand completely all of God’s Word. What man or woman has ever lived, besides Christ, who could claim such knowledge? Is my salvation and yours dependent upon intellectual supremacy? The second error is the assumption that anyone can in fact obey God perfectly. If anyone ever could perfectly obey God in all things, without sin, then why did Christ suffer for us? Let us be careful of our presumptions and demands.

Some have turned the Lord’s church into a business or social club to satisfy their own lusts; some seek to be entertained by their instruments of music and know nothing of worshiping God in song; others dethrone the Christ and say He died because He failed. These all stand self-condemned! But there are faithful brethren who honestly believe they can use institutions in the church, worship with instruments, or that Christ will return and reign over an earthly kingdom. Are they condemned because they do not understand these things as I do? I do not presume to so judge them. The understanding of each one is different and at different levels of growth. Are we all supposed to have the same knowledge? It is impossible!

Brother Warnock readily condemns those who use instruments or support institutions. Why does he stop there? What about the covering, one cup, or women’s slacks? Will he also condemn those who disagree with him on those issues? I would really like to know his answer to that one. If he will not condemn them, then just what makes one issue worse than another? If we all accept Christ and trust in Him, why is one ostracized and another fellowshipped?

Now what has all this got to do with the plan of salvation? There is a logical connection. If the “Plan” is BRCB then it is a ritual to be jealously defended. But if the Plan is Christ, the “ritual” becomes our natural and logical response to the Plan, namely Christ’s sacrifice for us. And if Christ is the Plan we will reject sectarianism and become only Christians.

Weldon states that he has never known one Christian who believes we earn salvation, and challenges me to name one. Now pay close attention to the following:

He distinguishes between who and what saves. The who is Christ (bless his heart!), and the “what is several things.” Then he gives “conditions” – grace, gospel, word, work, faith, baptism, and ourselves. Skipping over his misuse of some scriptures, I will say that those things are valid only as they relate to Christ and His work of righteousness (2 Cor. 5:14-21). Then Weldon quotes me as I quoted from Eph. 2 and says “Peter says differently. Listen to an apostle,” – and he quotes Acts 10:35. Dear reader, who wrote Ephesians? Wasn’t it Paul? Wasn’t he an apostle too? He is still having trouble convincing folks of his apostleship. Then Weldon says that teaching BRCB is “telling people what . . . they must obey in order to be saved,” “emphasis is placed on keeping the commandments of God.” He quotes and misquotes some passages in John and 1 John. Then he says, “Jesus saves our souls by obedience to his commands.” Under the new law . . . we have forgiveness by obeying his commandments in order to appropriate his grace . . . . Jesus’s law is a law of grace wherein forgiveness is offered . . . by obedient faith.”

Notice carefully what he has said. He claims that command keeping is our salvation. And the specific commands he has reference to are belief-repentance-confession-baptism. According to Warnock, we are forgiven because we obeyed (BRCB) and thereby appropriated His grace. His use of “appropriate” is interesting. It means to take possession of. Does he mean that one who has done BRCB takes possession of God’s grace and thus owns His favor because of that obedience? Think about it.

Brethren, I think I have found one who believes that BRCB is what saves us and we thereby earn salvation. Furthermore, look at his phrase “law of grace.” If he meant the principle of grace, he would be right. But I think he means a system of legal grace whereby we merit grace through law keeping. Read Gal. 2:16-21; Rom. 3:20-31; 6:14. In these passages and others the original language omits the article “the” with “law;” which means it is talking about the principle of law, and it is not arguing for one law against another law (Christ against Moses).

Weldon quotes from 1 Jn. 3:22, 24 omitting vs. 23. Read it. The command to obey is stated.

I have not said that we do not have to obey God’s commands. We most certainly do. But we are not saved by our command-keeping. We are saved by Christ’s commandkeeping (Heb. 10:7). Because salvation by law-keeping is possible only by perfect obedience and we cannot do it. (Rom. 3:23: 4:4; Gal. 3:10, 11; Jas. 1:10). Christ kept law perfectly and made atonement for sin (Heb. 9:22-28). So we turn to Christ and through Him gain salvation. We begin by responding naturally and logically to His work of love. BRCB is not works of righteousness (Phil. 3:9; Tit. 3:5; Gal. 3:23-29). There is no merit in our doing of those things. Instead those things point to the One who does merit God’s approval (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Heb. l; Rev. 5)

Let us stop preaching salvation by command-keeping and start preaching salvation by Christ. Stop proclaiming a “plan” that we do and start praising God for His glorious work of salvation.

I have stated clearly that BRCB is only our response to Christ. Christ is our Lord and Savior and we must honor him in all that we do, which includes righteous living. We are not created anew in Christ to do evil but righteousness (Rom. 6; 1 Jn. 2:6; 3:1-10). Doing righteousness is the result of our new relationship to Christ. It is not the cause of our salvation.

Why would anyone argue against salvation in Christ?

Who is your Savior? Is it Christ or BRCB?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 19, pp. 311-312
May 10, 1979