Truth Magazine

By H.L. Bruce

According to the scriptures, hearing is very important. The apostle Paul wrote, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Faith depends on the message of God penetrating the heart, or mind, of the receiver. The significance of faith can be seen in that without it it is impossible to please God (see Heb. 11:6). Dr. Jesse S. Nirenberg, in his book, Getting Through To People, points out that there are three levels on which people listen: non-hearing, hearing without absorbing, and thinking on what they hear.” Let us notice each of these and how they relate to spiritual service.

The non-hearing: These are the ones who will sit in an audience and can neither agree nor disagree with what is said. They are either voluntarily or involuntarily inattentive. They do not know what is being said. They are not worshiping even though they are present. They are among those who laugh to themselves, play with babies, sleep, stare, day-dream, write notes and/or talk etc. They need to discipline themselves into a proper disposition to worship God (Jn. 4:24).

Hearing without absorbing: The ones in this category do not reason with the speaker. At times they even have their minds on distant things. However, were you to ask them a sudden question, they could repeat your last few words. These listen with divided attention.

The thinking listener: The one who will think on the subject as the speaker presents it is the one who is being taught. He listens with interest and wants to learn and know the truth.

Christ taught that men should take heed “how” and “what” they hear (Mark 4:24; Lk. 8:18). Upon which level do you listen? Are you among the “non-hearing,” the “hearing without absorbing,” or, “the thinking”?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, p. 92
February 1, 1979

By Steve Hudgins

Have you given or do you give any thought or plan for your funeral service? It is becoming more and more common for some prearrangements to be made. Insurance salesmen have long stressed the concern a husband and father should have for the well being of his wife and children after he is gone and how he ought to have a good insurance program to assist them. Cemetery salesmen remind us that a resting place selected and purchased beforehand will remove a burden from those we love so that at the time of such sadness a hasty decision will not have to be made, then too this expense will have already been taken care of. Booklets are printed and given out by funeral homes, banks, insurance companies, etc. to help make matters easier for the widow and children. Information is furnished as to wills, insurance policies, properties, the wishes of the deceased pertaining to the final arrangements, etc.

There is good reasoning in all of this but one of the most important matters is frequently ignored, overlooked or forgotten. What thought, what preparation has been made so that true words of comfort can be spoken at the funeral service to the family, loved ones and friends? More importantly what arrangements have been made to assure appearance at the right hand of the Lord in judgment? (Matt. 25:34). Would it be a great help and of real comfort to the sorrowing if a gospel preacher could speak true words of hope for a better life for this individual? For this to happen some prearrangements must be made. A faithful servant of God cannot give hope to the bereaved when the deceased has neglected or refused his opportunities to obey the gospel or to live in harmony with it (2 Thess. 1:7-9; Phil. 1:27; 2 Pet. 2:20-22).

Death changes many things. Frequently it tends to make people forget all the bad and remember only the good about one. Death does not change a sinner into a saint nor the unfaithful and wayward into acceptable servants of God. A preacher must not allow his sentiments, friendship nor sympathy to cause him to give hope when there is no hope. This should not be expected of him. Such would undo what good is done in pulpit preaching. To preach the necessity of gospel obedience and faithfulness to the Lord on the Lord’s day and then to leave the impression at a funeral service that there is hope for one who hay, not obeyed or has not been faithful is a contradiction. This was impressed on me while a student of brother N. B. Hardeman. In class one day, he told of being called to conduct a funeral service for a man he knew and had preached to a number of times. This man who had a wife and children who were Christians had passed up opportunities to be one himself. At that service in Finger, Tennessee, brother Hardeman spoke of his acquaintance with the man and the fact that he had preached to him a number of times. He said the man was a good man, but that good was a relative term. He illustrated his point by saying that his Tennessee walking horse was a good horse-for show but not good for plowing. This man he said was good to his wife and family, a good husband, a good father, a good neighbor and a good citizen, but he was not good to himself as he did not obey the gospel. It is not the preacher’s responsibility to condemn nor justify but it is his responsibility to preach the truth. Funeral services cannot help the dead but they should help the living. Such help is not given by allowing people to go away with wrong ideas. Many no doubt have gone away with false feelings of security for themselves as they compare themselves with what they know of the dead in view of the preacher’s remarks about them.

Denominational preachers make some absurd statements about the dead. How many have you ever heard express any doubt about the eternal welfare of the dead? I heard a Methodist preacher once give, as a reason for a woman’s hope, a statement made by a man who had known her since he was a boy. He said she made the best cookies he had ever tasted and he knew she could not be lost. A daughter of this woman said that if her mother had attended that church since she had lived in that small town she did not know it. The same preacher was overheard comforting a woman whose husband had just dropped dead and who was concerned because he had never professed anything religiously. He asked if she thought he was gall right. Is it any wonder that many have no more interest than they do in preparing for death?

A funeral affords a gospel preacher an opportunity to preach to some who would not hear him under other circumstances. Is it not a good time to point out God’s great and wonderful love for mankind and the ample provisions He has made through His Son Jesus Christ for mankind’s eternal well being and just how one can obtain real hope in the hereafter? To say of one who has never obeyed the Gospel or who had not been faithful to the Lord, “He is in the hands of a just God,” might be misunderstood. It seems that many are confused over the terms “justice” and “mercy.” Such people may be left with the idea that in spite of what the individual did or failed to do there is still hope that God through His great mercy will save him anyway, and if another, “Why not me?” The Psalmist said, “Justice and judgment are the habitation of Thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before Thy face” (Psa. 89:14). It is through God’s mercy that we have the truth and the opportunity to obey it and thus be prepared for judgment (John 1:17). Justice will be rendered in judgment. The story is told of a man who about to be tried for a charge against him was told not to worry that he would get justice His reply was that was what he was afraid of-he did not want justice but mercy. He knew the difference.

Being a faithful Christian a man can make his funeral service less difficult for the preacher, his death more bearable for his family, and, most importantly, facing the judgment easier for himself. Are we making our prearrangements?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, pp. 90-91
February 1, 1979

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

The horrifying mass suicide of hundreds of men, women and children led by the charismatic, but demoniac self-styled prophet, Jim Jones, staggers the imagination. Why did the nightmare at Jonestown take place? How can so many be so vulnerable? What causes the entrapment of otherwise intelligent youth into surrendering their ability to think clearly and independently? Why is cultism on the rise? Many are searching for answers: Anthropologists, Sociologists, Psychiatrists, are all responding. Can they give us the answers? Knight News Services have pointed out that “our psychological theories are inadequate to cope with the cult phenomenon.” They may be right. As Joan Beck says, “that inexplicable tragedy in the Guyana jungle can’t simply be written off as an isolated aberration” (“aberration” means an act of wandering from the right way; deviation from truth, Jt., Quote from News and Courier, Charleston, S.C.). As the Associated Press points out, Foreign Press, Nov. 22, 1978, sees its roots in the 1960s, “the era that spawned both the `flower children’ and the evil of Charles Manson.”

More and more, as I look back at Guyana, I am convinced that the answer lies in the word “aberration,” departure from truth. Certainly, to some degree at least, social, political and religious factors have their part in contributing to the phenomenon of cultism. However, I do not believe that cultism results from collective irresponsibility. I am tired of hearing people blame society for the lawlessness of individuals. This “passing the buck” is not a thing in the world but a failure to recognize that the real problem is a loss of individualism. People no longer afford the luxury of a conscience so they avoid personal responsibility. It is like the Bay of Piegs invasion, when afterwards President Kennedy asked, “How could we have been so stupid?” What Kennedy failed to see was that group thinking can produce prodigious blunders that any individual can avoid (Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? p. 112). Perhaps Anna Russell’s sardonic jab is appropriate here: “At three I had a feeling of ambivalence toward my brothers, and so it follows naturally I poisoned all my lovers. But now I’m happy; I have learned the lesson this has taught; that everything I do that’s wrong is someone else’s fault” (The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion, O. Hobart Mowrer, p. 49). It is sad that sin and the notions of guilt which once served as restraint have been eroded by the presumption that the individual has less to do with his actions than assumed. What this writer is trying to say is that the dilemmas of cultism are more and more the expression of internal personal moral problems instead of external social, or environmental complexities. Sure, there is always some environmental determination (1 Jn. 2:15-17; Rom. 12:1-2), but what right have we to exclude individual determination (2 Cor. 5:10, etc.)? Guyana: do we blame Jim Jones or the threat of a neutron holocaust? No, it is the failure of the individual as a creature of choice to make the right decision at the right time. There would never had been a tragedy at Jonestown if individuals had not let the blind lead the blind!

Searching For Roots

Misfits from scattered backgrounds are flocking to the cults. They have already shown disrespect for God, parents, seniority and authority, even the Bible itself. We are going through an antinomian revolution! Having rejected God’s Word as archaic and obsolete as far as modern man is concerned, mankind is adrift on the sea of uncertainty. Biblical morals are outdated and outworn. Ethics? Who cares any more? “We live in the here and now, and we are living it up! Experience (more on this later) and effectiveness, these are the watch words today. We want a new morality. Old-fashioned sin is out.” Listen friend, whether you accept it or not, sin haunts our age. There is nowhere to go but to the Lord (Jn. 1:29; Eph. 1:3, 7; Gal. 2:12-13). Sin may be a weary word to you, but as Bernard Murchland says, “the reality it signifies is energetic and destructive” (Whatever Became of Sin?, p. 209). Rob your soul of Biblical convictions if you wish, but something will take its place. Yes, you will find something new, a new life-style perhaps. Leave God and what He says out of your life, and as surely as I type this article, you ultimately will be disappointed in life itself. Man left to himself is altogether vanity (Psa. 39:5). He cannot be established by wickedness (Prov. 12:3). It is not in man to direct his steps (Jer. 10:23). Mankind need roots and the search goes on, but the roots you need are behind you, in God and His Word (Prov. 12:3b). All else is vanity (Prov. 12:14-15; Eccl. 1:2). So it is: a rootless youngster migrating in Winter may drift by Spring into any one of a dozen cults.

Experience Over Knowledge

This writer sees something else as he looks at modern cultism (Thanks to Earl Radmacher’s “Relational Theology-or Theology That Relates?” Ministry, November, 1978). But first observe that God’s Word furnishes man completely in every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Only Truth will free and give roots (Jn. 8:31-32; 1:17; 14:6). It is adapted to man whose disposition and general makeup is as it has been since Adam (I am not advocating inborn sin). Apostolic teaching applied to the first century man, but it also applies to us. For nineteen hundred years, mankind’s spiritual needs have been the same. That is why the New Testament is relative today. External circumstances, have changed, but sin is still sin (call it crime or sickness if you wish). Morality is not something you discover based upon the situation. It is taught (Tit. 2:11-14), it does not come by external circumstances. It must be learned! Christianity is a teaching religion. It involves the mind (1 Cor. 1:21; Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 10:13-17).

Instead of objective reasoning regarding Truth, the religious today are relying more and more on personal experiences as authority. “I would not exchange the way I feel for all the Bibles in the world” is a thread-bare argument demonstrating pure subjectivism. Experience is not authority even though subjective emotionalism has replaced the proper role of objective Truth. Calvinism’s faith as a gift (irresistible grace in the form of the direct operation of the Holy spirit on the heart apart from the Word), the charismatic movement, no patternism among brethren and modernism’s distrust of our plea for restoration New Testament Christianity as “let’s-go-back defeatism” have all contributed to subjective emotional authority. Disturbing results of what we are talking about are seen in “churches of the Lord” whose numbers are speaking the language of Ashdod. We now hear brethren talking about “giving my testimony” and “witnessing.” We see churches like the Cross Roads in Gainsville, Florida with their unstructured emotionalism in the form of candle-light services, chain prayers, circled hand-holding exercises, etc. It is all heading in the same direction: experience as authority. No wonder young people cannot find a “theology” that relates. Some of our brethren are, indeed, practicing the philosophy of Howard Ervin, popular Baptist charismatic leader, who says, “experience, not logic, lets us know who Christ is.” Can you imagine trying to convince someone of the historical Christ by saying, “I know Christ exists because I talked to Him this morning”? Here is the secret of Jim Jones’ mind control: pressure of experimentalism. Our society is driven more and more by the authority of experience than the experience of authority.

Do our brethren really know that true experience grows out of sound doctrine? Have we allowed reason and logic to become dirty words? Do you not see that in theological circles the rational is presumed to be shallow and the irrational interesting, often profound and usually true? Who was it that said, “The man who has an experience is never at the mercy of the man who has an argument”? The weakness of experience over knowledge is obvious: it is the same reasoning used by those who claim they have found the answer in transcendental meditation, ESP, Hare Krishna, the People’s Temple Group and other bizarre cults.

Conclusion

It is the same plea: Back To The Bible! Book, chapter and verse precede experience. Call it what you wish: “legalism,” “propositional theology,” whatever. One thing is certain. We cannot sacrifice Truth on the altar of interpersonal relationships. The early church did not turn the world up-side down by telling people about their personal experiences or how to discover the ecstasy of the Spirit-filled life (better-felt-than-told experience). They preached the Word (Acts 8:4), Christ (Acts 8:5), and people like the Samaritans “believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,” and “they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). Evangelism is not centered on what happened to the individual, but on the proclamation of the gospel. No, we are not overlooking the principle of a “new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17), “joy” (Phil. 2:18; Acts 8:39) or “fruits of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22-26). I know that in many of our assemblies our worship has become stereotyped and formal, but spontaneous unstructured emotionalism is not spirituality.

Experience that is not founded upon truth (how many times must we say it?) lacks proper moorings and sets us adrift on the hopeless sea of subjectivity. “I am sure no new theology can really be theology, whatever its novelty, unless it expresses and develops the old faith which made those theologies that are now old the mightiest things of the age when they were new” (Peter Taylor Forsyth, Positive Preaching and The Modern Mind, p. 6). Experience must remain the effect, not the cause.

How sad that hundreds involved in the People’s Temple Group allowed themselves in the jungle of Guyana to be led blindly into an untimely death in this life and hell hereafter. They, because of subjective experience, looked for a theology that relates. Instead, they let the blind lead the blind. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, pp. 87-89
February 1, 1979

By Bill Imrisek

In man’s quest for truth he must always recognize the usefulness of Paul’s maxim, “Test all things; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). Truth has nothing to fear from investigation. And a man has nothing to lose by putting his faith to a test. If his faith is built upon truth, he can only strengthen his faith as he sees it withstand the challenge. It will endure; he cannot lose it. And if, perchance, his faith proves to be false, he still comes out the winner, for the exposure of error manifests truth, and he has truth to gain.

But truth must be measured by some yardstick. For the Christian, that yardstick is God’s word (John 17:17). To test all things and hold fast to what is good, as Paul commands, we must look to the depository of truth, the Holy Scriptures, which will equip us “for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If the Scriptures can lead us to identify “every” good work, whatever is “good” will be authorized in its pages. Likewise, whatever cannot be found authorized in the Scriptures must be discarded as false, and cannot be considered “good” from the viewpoint of the Author of truth, God Himself. By this yardstick we must measure our faith. This is a test that no man should fear to make, for he has nothing to lose and only truth to gain.

The belief that will come under our investigation in this study is the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it is the one church that Jesus founded. Let us notice this claim as it is presented by one of its own writers.

Jesus Christ founded one Church and defined and described it so plainly that it can be recognized at any time, at any place in the whole world, That Church is the Catholic Church (What Every Catholic Should Know, by Hugh J. O’Connell, p. 7).

That Christ founded one Church – and that the Catholic Church – is simply proved by matching the description which Christ gave of the Church He was founding with the Catholic Church as it has stood for more than nineteen hundred years. Here, again, the least talented and least educated human being can find the proofs and be convinced by them, provided he be of good will and open mind (O’Connell, p. 8).

This is the claim as presented by the Catholic Church, and as such we wish to examine it and to see if it is true. We feel fully qualified to meet this task, believing that none will class us below the “least talented and least educated,” and seeing that we have no desire but to examine this claim with “good will and open mind.”

Allowing the Scriptures to be our guide, we will not deny the assertion that Jesus founded only one church. This is a true statement (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4-6). And since Jesus is the Savior of that church (Eph. 5:23), we must determine which church is the church that Jesus built. Is it the Roman Catholic Church? Or is it another?

Matthew 16:15-19 marks the first time that Jesus mentions building a church. Here He describes the very foundation upon which this church was to be built. As He converses with Peter, Jesus asks, “But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Then Jesus ansered and said, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Upon this rock I will build my church.” It has been the claim of Catholics that this “rock” was Peter. Others claim that the rock referred to is to be understood as being the subject of Peter’s confession, Jesus Christ. Which is it? In a passage such as this which has produced much controversy, it should not be our intention to force the passage to say that which we wish for it to say, but rather to examine it intelligently in the light of other Scriptures which touch on the same point. Truth will not contradict itself.

The apostle Paul assists us by telling us, “For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 3:11). This passage is explicit and clear, and it leaves no doubt as to the nature of the foundation upon which the church is built. If the church is built upon the “rock” and the foundation upon which the church is built is Jesus Christ, then the necessary conclusion is that Jesus is the “rock” of Matthew 16:18. This excludes Peter from being the foundation of the church.

Again, Paul explains to us that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20). Since Jesus has already been described as constituting the only foundation, Paul is here speaking of the apostles and prophets as being instrumental in laying that foundation (see 1 Cor. 3:10). It is this foundation upon which the church is built.

Rather than Peter being the “rock” upon which the church is built, he is described as the holder of the keys (Matt. 16:19), as were the other apostles (Matt. 18:18). Keys are a symbol of authority and also provide the means of admittance. To the apostles was committed the responsibility of proclaiming the gospel (laying the foundation) and, thus, directing people of the means by which to gain admittance into the Lord’s church.

The manner, therefore, by which we can determine which church is the church that Jesus founded is by determining and recognizing which church is built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets. This foundation of faith has been laid once for all (Jude 3). The curse of God is upon all those who would tamper with it in any way (Gal. 1:6-9). We must determine which church is built upon the apostolic foundation.

In examining the claims of the Catholic Church we do not wish to misrepresent its beliefs and practices in any way. We desire to be honest. The Catholic Church has felt that it has been a subject of misrepresentation many times in the past. To the degree that this is true, the cause of truth has suffered. Truth cannot be arrived at until the whole truth is presented. We should always strive to be as honest as possible with all men, especially when truth is at stake. To guard against misrepresentation we shall accept the suggestion of the Catholic Church that we represent its doctrines by stating them in its own words.

The dogmas and practices of our Church are not hidden things. They may be found clearly set forth in hundreds of easily accessible books-in the elementary catechism and in the popular explanations of Catholic belief as well as in the works of learned theologians. Why is it, then, we wonder, that the literary genius who contributes to our current magazines does not prepare himself for his task by trying to ascertain precisely which the Catholic Church teaches before he attempts to criticize her teachings or to write a description of her rites and ceremonies? Why is it that the great minds that are called upon, as infallible authorities, to explain matter Catholic for certain encyclopedias do not first acquire a definite and accurate idea on their subject. Why is it again, that hardly a minister of religion can be found in the churches of our separated brethren who can give a clear and truthful statement of the Catholic beliefs and practices which he unsparingly condemns in his Sunday sermon? It would seem reasonable to expect that a man who poses as an expert in any particular line would not fall into gross error everytine that he writes or speaks about his speciality (The Externals of the Catholic Church, John F. Sullivan, p. 248).

The criticism of this writer may be justified. But so that we will not fall into this error we will seek to represent the Catholic position by quoting from only Catholic sources to identify its doctrines. These quotations will be made from Catholic publications which bear the “imprimatur” of the Catholic Church. This Latin word means “let it be printed,” and is its official declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error from the viewpoint of Catholic doctrine. Thus, we can be sure that what we read represents their true teaching. Likewise, all Biblical quotations will be from a Catholic Bible (the Confraternity Version), lest anyone charge that a Catholic Bible reads differently. All the books from which I quote are books which I have in my own personal possession.

We therefore ask, “Is the Roman Catholic Church apostolic?” We shall pursue this question at some length in the articles to follow.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, pp. 86-87
February 1, 1979