Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

If one spends all of his time in his study reading the doctrines circulated by journals across the nation, he is inclined to become somewhat pessimistic regarding the prospects for the future for the Lord’s church. In any given month, I received periodicals promulgating the grace-unity heresy in the form of the following: Ensign Fair, Restoration Review, Mission, and Integrity. Then, I receive some periodicals which circulate the idea of the sponsoring church, church sponsored recreation, church contributions to human institutions in the form of the following: Gospel Advocate, Firm Foundation, Gospel Truths, Spiritual Sword, etc. Other periodicals cross my desk designed to teach peculiar views about marriage,, divorce, and remarriage (such as Bible Forum), the one cup arrangement (Old Paths Advocate), “the church-isthe-only-collectivity-authorized-to-preach-the-gospel” (Gospel Anchor), and other peculiar doctrines.

Sometimes I become rather discouraged when reading these periodicals. I tend to think that we are destined to fragment and divide ourselves to death. One man said, “When I was young, I was determined to save the world. Later, I saw the problems in the church and I was determined to save the church. Now, I am just working to save myself.” That is, indeed, a rather pessimistic view of our work. Is there any cause for optimism?

I think that there is. I have been impressed during the recent months that I have added the “Quips and Quotes” section to the paper at the number of reports which I have received indicating the growth of the Lord’s cause in a number of places. We are constantly receiving reports of new works being started, elders being appointed, and growth in hundreds of local churches. Yes, there is cause for optimism among the Lord’s people.

I was privileged to be with the Lyon’s Chapel church in Tompkinsville, Kentucky for a gospel meeting last week (August 28-September 3). On the last day of the meeting, we baptized a young couple into Christ. While returning from baptizing this couple, Brother Earl Robertson remarked that he sees the same thing happening everywhere he is going. He stated that the liberals are baptizing large numbers of children through their work with the bus ministry but that in the churches with which he is working he is witnessing the slow, steady growth of the local congregations through the conversion of young married couples who are won to Christ.

Churches all over this country are experiencing steady growth through their evangelization programs. Their growth does not draw the attention of the world or of the brotherhood but they are, nevertheless, steadily reaping the Lord’s harvest.

Where Are The Lord’s People?

Actually, we need to remember just where the Lord’s people are. Sometimes, we tend to think that the Lord’s people must be doing big things in a big way. Men are impressed when churches have a $2,000,000 contribution on one Sunday; men are impressed when churches report the baptism of 15-20 in one gospel meeting; men are impressed when a congregation reports that it has tripled its Sunday morning attendance through the bus ministry. But, that does not necessarily say that the Lord is equally impressed.

More frequently than not, these types of reactions are caused by worldly promotionalism. A congregation will get someone skilled in PMA (Positive Mental Attitude) who can motivate people to give large sums of money. When the contribution is high, they state that their members are devoted to the Lord; more likely than not, they were simply emotionally stirred in the same fashion as the denominationals stir people up. Or, a group will brag about its numerical growth through the bus ministry. They fail to relate that in order to have this growth that they have bribed young people to ride the “Joy Bus.” Furthermore, they do not relate that they are feeding the children soft drinks and cookies, having to conduct a “Kiddie Church,” and still face problems of destruction of church property and disorder in worship.

My brethren, this is not where the Lord’s people are. I have seen the Lord’s people. They are the handful of brethren who have tried to stop the denominationalism in congregations without success who, in desperation, were forced for conscience’s sake to begin a new work. They located a residence which they converted into a meeting house in which they met for several years until they could afford land. Then, all of the members pitched in and helped to erect a nice meeting house. During this time, they have grown from 30-40 to about 100. In the years immediately following, they soon grow up to 200 members. Their growth has come through dedicated and consecrated Christians winning their neighbors to Jesus Christ. This is where the Lord’s people are.

There is, indeed, a cause for optimism among us. We see these churches all over the country. They are struggling at the present but they are growing. Let the liberals announce the burial ceremony as often as they like, the Lord’s people will not be defeated. In the years to come, we are likely to witness the “anti” churches become more numerous than the “liberals,” even as happened when the split occurred over instrumental music. The “Liberals” and “Progressives” in each instance took the greater number of churches. In time, however, the ones who took their stand with the Lord began to outnumber the “liberals” who forsook the Lord. Brethren were at first attracted by the innovations but soon the new wore off. Then, the thing which attracted the crowd was replaced by something else which attracted the crowd. Each new innovation was further removed from Christ than the one before. Digression curs with rapid speed.

On the other hand, those who are converted by the simple message of Christ continue to be drawn by the simple preaching of the gospel. So long as God’s word is expounded they will continue to support the work and try to win others to Christ. There will continue to be cause for optimism so long as the gospel is preached. God has promised that His word will accomplish the purpose for which He sent it (Isa. 55:8-11); it will not return to Him void. Let us trust His promise and continue to be dedicated the preaching of the word.

Truth Magazine XXII: 47, pp. 755-756
November 30, 1978

By Herman Mason

The Bible is a great book. In fact it is The Great Book. It came from God and contains the very things God wants us to know so that man can prepare himself for heaven. This alone ought to be reason enough to cause man to study the Bible. However, let us consider a few other reasons:

1. Ignorance (Lack of Knowledge) Leads to Error. God said to His people through the prophet Hosea many years ago, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). Jesus said to the Sadducees, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). There are two reasons why people do not do God’s will. (a) They do not know, or (b) They do not have the proper respect for what God says in His word. We need to accept His word as the word of God, and not as the word of man (1 Thess. 2:13). Since it is necessary to do the will of God in order to get to heaven (Matt. 7:21; Rev. 22:14) our desire to know what God’s will is ought to cause each one of us to diligently search the word of God so that we might know. We cannot do until we know. Any substitute for God’s word is error and will not be acceptable to God.

2. One Must Know Before He Can Teach Others. What is taught must be what the apostles and other inspired men taught (2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Peter 4:11). In fact, he who teaches otherwise will “be accursed” (Gal. 1:8, 9). All Christians ought to be teachers. The writer of Hebrews rebuked those to whom he wrote for not. being able to teach others (Hebrews 5:12-14). This, I am afraid, is the sad spectacle of too many professed followers of Christ today. Peter says we are to give answer for the “reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). The only way this can be done is by having a knowledge of God’s word. This comes by study.

3. Because God’s Word Is Eternal (1 Peter 1:23-25). Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). God’s word is the only reliable source to which man can go for information concerning spiritual matters. Our faith needs to be not “in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5). The statement by Solomon, “Fear God, and keep his commandments” is just as true today as when Solomon penned the statement (see Acts 10:34, 35). We hear David saying “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:104, 105).

4. We Shall Be Judged by God’s Word. Jesus said, “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). This happens to be one of my “pet” verses. I emphasize it at all times in my preaching. We know exactly what the standard of judgment will be. We therefore, should have a desire to know what it is. Paul also informs us that the gospel of Christ will be the standard of judgment (Romans 2:16). Since he taught “the commandments of the Lord” he taught what the Lord had spoken. We know then exactly what the Lord will hold us responsible for. It will be the word of God as contained in the New Testament scriptures. This ought to be reason enough for anyone to study God’s word. It will be indeed a poor excuse for you or me to say on the day of judgment, “I didn’t know” with so many Bibles in this land.

Let us then take advantage of the privilege we have now to do as Paul told Timothy, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15). This is the way we come to know God’s word.

Truth Magazine XXII: 47, p. 754
November 30, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

For The Truth’s Sake,” the Holy Spirit through the Word of God convicts men of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:7-13). All men are is sin until they believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). Not only do the excesses of drunken debauchery condemn us in sin and unbelief, but also the very common practice of reveling. Reveling is not a drunken stupor in which one is unable to coordinate his muscles. The reveler may sing and shout and dance until late at night, and frequently he adds the stimulation of an intoxicant-wine, beer, or whiskey. In short, reveling may be defined as party making under the influence of intoxicants.

Historians find references in ancient classical writers to the “rousing drinking parties, with magnificent goblets,” enjoyed by Persians kings (Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 38, Nos. 3 & 4. pp. 69-70). Lavish entertainment was also provided. An example of this is found in Esther 1. At a great celebration, the king “gave them drink in vessels of gold,” became “merry with wine,” and then commanded his queen to make a display of her personal beauty before the crowds. When she refused, he flew into a rage, and eventually deposed her. This occurred in the 6th century B.C. Earlier in that century, Belshazzar drank wine in a feast and was moved to drink it from “the golden and silver vessels” which had come from the temple of God in Jerusalem. God condemned the king to death (Daniel 5). Respect for truth and moral convictions are loosened by intoxicated party making.

Some people say they oppose drunken debauchery, but they will defend reveling. Churches sometimes give parties with singing, dancing, and drinking into the late night and early morning hours! To raise money for “the Lord’s Work”! The Bible calls such activities “the works of the flesh . . . drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Sin cannot be chaperoned or condoned. To compromise with such sins as “revellings” is to leave “the will of God” to live “in the flesh to the lusts of men” (1 Pet. 4:1-3).

Reveling is sinful. Like any sin persisted in, it leads a person further and further from the cross of Jesus Christ. Lives become tangled more and more in sin and unbelief, hearts so hardened that the call of the gospel will be forever unheeded. Christians need to confess and turn away from such wrongs, praying God’s forgiveness. All men need to become conscious of their sins-such sins as reveling-and obey the gospel before it is too late. By faith in Christ, be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:1-16).

Truth Magazine XXII: 46, p. 745
November 23, 1978

By Bill Reeves

As far back as 1962, brother Carl Ketcherside was teaching that a believer in the divinity of Christ (faith only) was thereby “begotten of God” and, therefore, should be recognized as a “child of God in prospect.” Following English expressions and concepts of the process of physical birth (conception, begettal; delivery, birth; the begettal on the part of the father, the birth on the part of the mother), he began to apply such to the problem of unity and fellowship. Coming to New Testament texts, written not in English, but in Greek, he made application of his English expressions and concepts. 1 John 5:1 was one of these texts: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God.” Using his English definitions and concepts, he concluded that a believer in Christ (believer in the facts of the divinity and death of Jesus Christ on the cross) is a child of God in prospect, because he was spiritually conceived, or begotten, by God! If in some sense he is a child of God, should we refuse him fellowship, at least in some degree? If we have the same father, are. we not brothers?

Brother Ketcherside was not only making arguments based on English terminology, and therefore of no import in matters of a text originally written in Greek, but was at the same time using New Testament texts out of context; all this in an effort to extend the basis of fellowship.

Recently I was reminded that Brother T. W. Brents, in his widely read book, The Gospel Plan of Salvation (1874), in the chapter entitled “The New Birth,” made the same distinction between “begettal” and “birth,” referring to believers (believe only) as being begotten, but not yet born, and to baptized believers as “born again” ones. So, it appeared to this person that Brents was teaching in the last century what some are teaching today, in making the begettal-birth distinction.

Did Brother Brents argue the same position as Brother Ketcherside and some present-day brethren? Yes and no! He did make the same distinction between beget and give birth to, using the same fallacious arguments that some today make, but he certainly was not making the same use of these arguments. Brents was trying to answer the “faith only” advocates, who claimed to be born again children of God (without having been baptized), by “proving” that they were only begotten by their faith (only), but that they were not yet “born again” of water and of the Spirit! He certainly was not advocating any kind of recognition of the “faith only” denominationalists as children of God in prospect and, therefore, as being in the family of God in some sense!

Let us examine Brents reasoning and arguments, inasmuch as they are virtually the same presented by Ketcherside and others today (although, as we have seen, for a different purpose or view in mind). After quoting 1 Jn. 5:1, 18, he says, “In keeping with the Bible Union and Anderson’s translations, we have exchanged the word born and begotten, in each of the verses quoted, and we venture to state further that there is not a place in the New Testament where the words `born of God’ occurs, that a faithful translation would not render `begotten of God.’ In no place will the Spirit’s teaching, faithfully translated, represent us as born of God-born of our Father. Such a thought is absurd in the very nature of things; and no one who understands the new birth, or the natural birth, from which the figure was drawn, will entertain such a thought or use such language.”

Many faithful translations use “born” in these two verses, instead of “begotten,” among them being the NASV and the NIV, because both of these words “faithfully” translate the Greek word in the text. In John 1:13, “born of God” is the translation of many versions (NIV, ASV, NASV, KJV, etc.). Brother Brents is simply wrong in his assertion concerning what “faithful translations” will or will not do. The Greek word under consideration for translation is gennao, which on p. 113 of Thayer is translated both “to be begotten” and “to be born.” The Greek does not make the distinction which the English does. This very word, found in 1 Jn. 5:1, 18, also appears in Lk. 1:13, 57 and 23:29. In these passages the word is used in reference to women giving birth. The Greek does not have one word for “beget” and another one for “give birth to.” Such a distinction is a characteristic_ of the English, not of the Greek. When one makes an argument based on this distinction, he is arguing from the English, and not from the Greek New Testament text!

Brents then quotes 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 Cor. 4:15 and Jas. 1:18, rightly showing that one is begotten of God by the Word preached. But before continuing, we might note that in the Greek texts referred to, gennao appears in the first two, and another word, apokueo, appears in the last one. According to p. 64 of Thayer, the word means “to be pregnant, to bring forth from the womb, to give birth to, to produce.” Brents quotes Jas. 1:18 to insist that “beget” is what the Word does.

He then proceeds to argue that believing the facts of the gospel “begets” one, but that he is still not “born again.” Noting Jas. 2:19 and Mark 3:11, he argues that demons believe and acknowledge Jesus’ deity. “Were they born again?” he asks, to which we answer, No, and neither were they begotten of God! Brother Ketcherside, are these demons children of God in prospect?

One of the chief fallacies of Brother Brents argumentation is that he uses “believe” in the sense of faith only (such as denominationalists have, in that they have mentally accepted as true certain facts) in those passages where it is used comprehensively of man’s part in obeying the gospel. He quotes Jn. 12:42, 43, and says, “There are now many such as these, chief rulers were then; are they born again?” No, neither are they begotten of God! “If a man be born again when he first believes the gospel, when is he begotten, and where are the elements of birth-water and spirit-of which Jesus said he should be born?” Here Brents uses “first believes” in the sense of “first only believes” (faith only), and a man is neither born nor begotten of God when he “first only believes” some proclaimed facts. (Remember, however, that Brents was battling with denominationalists who claimed to be born again by faith only. He was not arguing that when one is “begotten” by believing facts of a proclaimed, inspired, message, although he is not yet “born again,” still he is already a part of God’s family as a prospective child of God, waiting to be “born”!).

Brents next quotes Jn. l:ll, 12, and misuses it like so many of my brethren through the years have done (I am included). “Jesus came to his own prepared people, and many of them did not receive Him, or believe on Him; but to as many of them as did receive Him by believing on his name, He gave the power or privilege of becoming sons of God. Believing on His name, then, did not make them sons, but prepared them to become sons. When a man believes the gospel, and with meekness receives it into a good and honest heart, he is then begotten of God, and is prepared to be born. The vital principle is then implanted in the heart; but he is no more born again at that time than he was physically born the moment he was conceived.”

Brethren have used this passage in debate with Baptists, and with others, to “prove” that faith alone does not make one a child of God, but only gives him the right to become one! This is not what John is saying! Although this affirmation is true, in the main, this passage does not prove it. John is saying that although God was not obligated to give the power or right or even privilege to anyone to be His child, He did give it, and still gives it, to those who receive Christ; that is, to believers (in the comprehensive sense of the word “believe”). One cannot claim sonship with God on the basis of being a Jew (Jesus’ own), but only on the basis of receiving Christ. John is not using “believe” in the sense of “faith only,” and so is not making the point that Brents, and many brethren today, makes in answer to sectarian doctrine.

The word “become,” in English, has a future ring to it. “What do you plan to become when you grow up?” we say to the small child. So, here in John 1:12, the English rendering, “to become children of God” lends itself to the idea that reference is to something yet future. But, actually the Greek texts employs an aorist infinitive, the aorist tense indicating simple past tense. John is saying that Jesus came to the Jews, but the Jews, His own people, as a people did not receive Him as the Messiah and, therefore, did not become children of God. On the other hand, those that did receive Him, that is, did believe on Him (not faith only, but comprehensive faith) became children of God! They became children of God when they received Christ, because God gives such a right to believers. This is all that John is saying.

This is made evident also from the use of the word “receive.” This is not mere mental reception (faith only)! The same Greek word is used in John 13:20 and Matt. 13:20. Will preachers use these passages in the sense of “faith only”? In Acts 2:41, although the Greek word translated “receive” is a different one from that used in the texts mentioned above, one can plainly see that “receive” is used in the sense of obedience! People who do not do what Christ commands, do not receive Him (in the Bible sense of the word).

Brents quotes Acts 9:1-5, and rightly affirms that Saul’s faith was changed from believing that Jesus was an impostor, to the belief of the truth that He was the Son of God. “He was then begotten of God; but was he born again?” No, Brother Brents, he was not then begotten of God, nor born of God, which is the same thing. Neither! One who is begotten or born of God is one who is continually doing righteousness (1 Jn. 2:29) and not sin (3:9). He is a child of God (3:10). John does not say, “in prospect,” Brother Ketcherside, and Brother Brents, you will agree that every “child of God” has been “born again.” So, both brethren, and others today, are misapplying 1 Jn. 5:1. They might as well quote 1 Jn. 4:7 and conclude that every lover is a child of God in prospect! Let us read 5:18 again, “We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself, and the evil one toucheth him not.” Now, if “begotten of God” does not mean the same as “born of God,” tell me what the “begotten of God” lacks by not being “Born again?” According to this passage he does not go on sinning and the evil one does not touch him! Sounds like he is in good shape! Or, consider the happy condition of the “begotten” one, as described in 1 Pet. 1:3, 4: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.” Not a bad situation for a person who has been “begotten,” but not “born again” (because he has not yet been baptized)!

The apostle John is telling the Gnostic that he is not a child of God because he is not a believer in Jesus Christ. John is not using “believe” in 5:1 in the sense of “faith only.” Both Brents and Ketcherside ignore this simple fact and, taking the passage completely out of context, make “begotten” ones different from “born again” ones, Brents for one purpose and Ketcherside for another. Brents had the truth on his contention that “faith only” did not make one a child of God, but he used fallacious arguments to prove it. Ketcherside has the wrong contention, trying to get “begotten” ones somehow and in some sense into God’s family, before they are baptized (“born again”). Both his contention and his arguments are fallacious!

To judge it idiomatic English to use “beget” in reference to the implantation of seed, as is the role of the father, and “give birth to” (be born) in reference to bringing forth, as is the role of the mother, I have no objection. On the other hand, to affirm that gennao cannot rightly be translated “be born” (or some similar expression), in reference to seed and fathers and that it must be translated “beget,” is to affirm something that simply is not true. The New Testament scriptures use that word in reference to the role of both men and women. There is no distinction. Fabricated distinctions are the product of human sophistry, designed to support unscriptural concepts. If brethren want to extend some fellowship, or in some sense recognize as children of God, those who have not been baptized into Christ, they will have to find authority for it somewhere else than in their contrived distinction between the terms “beget” and “be born,” as used in the New Testament as translations of gennao. Brethren, beware of the subtleties of human wisdom!

Truth Magazine XXII: 46, pp. 746-748
November 23, 1978