Bible Basics: Approved in Christ

By Earl Robertson

What a heart-warming statement! No doubt it is the very thing all lovers of the Lord, want to hear. Paul wrote to the Romans and singled out one brother who obviously had stood the test of faith, saying, “Salute Apelles approved in Christ” (Rom. 16:10). We know not what his trial of faith was to have received so favorable an accolade from Paul, but we do give emphasis to the fact that inspiration says he was “approved in Christ.” Paul further wrote, “For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendth” (2 Cor. 10:18).

“Approved” translates dokimos, and is said to mean, “proved, tried: in the N.T. one who is of tried faith and integrity.” It goes without proving that one can do what the faith of the gospel teaches only as he knows that faith. This is further supported by what Paul wrote to Timothy: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). One’s right actions before God are dependent upon what the Lord teaches; so, He teaches one to study. Out of this study one can “show himself approved unto God.” This means his actions are fruitful, that he is bearing fruit for the Lord (John 15). Jesus said, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. . .” (Matt. 7:24). So, one’s approval before God depends on hearing and doing the will of God!

The opposite condition is exemplified in the coarseness and wickedness of the Gentiles. Paul said they did not approve to have God in their mind, so God gave them up to an unapproving mind (Rom. 1:28). God did not stand proved in the hearts of the Gentiles, they rejected Him; in turn, He gave them over to a mind unapproved to do the things unbefitting. The words “retain” and “reprobate” translate, in its negative form, the same word Paul used about Apelles. These Gentiles, like the sterile soil of Hebrews 6:8 where the word “rejected” translates adokmos, were cursed. Oh, how the Christian needs to prove himself with the beautiful deeds the will of Christ demands in his life (Matt. 5:16). The lukewarm and the sinful so-called Christian is not now approved in Christ, and, without repentance and fruitful living, will be lost in the judgment. Let the example of this ancient believer, Apelles, motivate one and all to a life of faithful service to Christ in spite of all problems.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, p. 565
September 7, 1978

Do Clothes Make the Person?

By William Imrisek

It is not at all uncommon for us to make judgments about a person we are meeting for the first time simply on the basis of his appearance, how he grooms himself and how he dresses himself. And such judgments can often’ be quite near the truth. Our appearance tells a lot about ourself to others. We should be careful that our appearance is casting a true image of the inward man.

Some belittle the importance of how they adorn themselves in public, or even in the assembly of the saints when they gather together to worship God. They express the sentiment that “it’s what’s inside that count’s.” True, but they fail to realize that what is manifested outwardly reveals what is inside (Matt. 12:34-35). Just as our speech reveals what we have treasured up in our hearts, so also the way that we adorn ourselves reveals such things as our emotions, our attitude toward life and toward those that we are associating with, and yes, it may even reveal a lack of godliness.

Note some of the things the Bible tells us that clothing has revealed about a person in times past and may even suggest today.

(1) It may suggest whether one is rich or poor (James 2:2).

(2) It may reveal whether one lives in a king’s palace or a pauper’s shanty (Matt. 11:8).

(3) It may signify that one is filled with sorrow (2 Sam. 3:31; Jonah 3:5ff).

(4) By the modesty and discreetness of the clothing it may tell if one is godly or ungodly (1 Tim. 2:9-10).

(5) It may suggest that one is displaying a false piety (Matt. 23:5; Mark 11:38-40).

(6) It may identify the type of people that one associates with (Zeph. 1:8).

(7) It will suggest whether one is male or female (Deut. 22:5).

(8) At times and in various cultures, it has signified if one is a virgin (2 Sam. 13:18).

(9) Likewise, in some cultures it may identify one as a widow (Gen. 38:14,19).

(10) It may suggest that one is a harlot (Prow. 7:10).

(11) It may identify one as a prisoner (Jer. 52:33).

(12) It may reveal that one has a very special love for another (Gen. 37:3).

(13) It may identify one’s wife or mother as one who provides good care and protection for her family (Prow. 31:21ff).

(14) It may suggest the type of activity that one is engaged in, or the type of function that one is attending (Matt. 22:11-13).

(15) It can reveal the respect (or lack of it) that one has for God when approaching His presence (Ex. 3:5; Matt. 18:20).

What are we telling others about ourselves by our appearance? Are we casting a true image of ourselves? Maybe it is truer than we think.

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, p. 557
August 31, 1978

Ever Been Called an Atheist?

By Stephen P. Willis

Ever been called an atheist? You may wonder why the question is asked. Most likely, the readers of this article have never been called an atheist-at least in the present usage of the word–one who does not believe in God. In the sense of believing that there is a supreme being, atheists are “without excuse” for “since the creation of the world His (God’s–sw) invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made” (Rom. 1:20). “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of his hands” (Ps. 19:1), so that it is only the fool who has “said in his heart, ‘There is no God”‘ (Ps. 14:1). Yet at one time, Jews and Christians were termed “atheists.”

When it came time for the church to face the fourth empire of the Danielic prophecy, Rome, their choice was: sacrifice or die. This test had been applied to the Jews in earlier times, as is cited by W.H.C. Frend in his book, Martyrdom & Persecution in the Early Church (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1967):

Finally, It Is clear that the sacrifice test was employed to establish the fact of Judaism. Nearly fifty years later, Pliny’s advisers in Bithynia urged the same course and for the same reason, against the Christians. Supplication with Incense to the Emperor’s statute and the recitation of prayer to the gods were “things (which so It was said) those who are really Christians cannot be made to do.” Implicit In both situations was the charge of atheism. . .(p. 103).

Frend discusses the problem of “atheism” at a later point in the history of the Roman Empire:

The requirement was for all free inhabitants of the Empire, men, women and children, to sacrifice to the gods of the Empire, pour a libation, and taste sacrificial meat. The penalty for refusal was death (Acts Pionii 7.4). Though these deities were not specified to the sacrificers we know from contemporary sources of offerings made to Jupiter, the Roman triad Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, to Dea Roma, to Apollo, Diana, Venus, Nemesis and to the genius of the Emperor himself (p. 302).

Some of these houses of worship were set up in the cities of Asia Minor where John’s Revelation was sent (see 1:4; ch. 2-3). The church at Pergamum (where the Temple of Augustus and the Altar of Victory stood, Frend, p. 148) had some who were eating things sacrificed to the idols (Rev. 2:14). Thyatira, noted for its trade guilds, which required its members to sacrifice to the gods, too had some who ate of these sacrifices (Rev. 2:20). The other churches of Asia and the rest of the Empire met similar problems as these.

These were the “atheists.” They denied the Roman gods. They were also called asebeia-a Greek word meaning “want of reverence, impiety, ungodliness.” (For N.T. usage of this word see Rom. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:16; Tit. 2:12; usage of its cognate Rom. 11:26; Jude 15, 18.) In their attempts to serve the one and only God, the religious world about them thought that because they did not partake in the same practices that the Romans did, the Christians were atheists.

They even had a method devised to keep track of the theists (Romans) and the atheists (Christians and other protesters). This practice seems to be related in Rev. 13:15-17:

And there was given to him to give breath to the Image of the beast, that the image of the beast might even speak and came as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the .laves, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, and he provides that no one would be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.

Frend tells us,

Moreover, census and tax rolls provided by local officials in each district controlled the number and identity of those who presented themselves to sacrifice. On completion they received a certificate (libellus) signed by the commission testifying that they had duly done sacrifice (p. 303).

As already noted some of the Christians thought that they could serve God without compromising themselves in spite of sacrificing to idols. Frend tells that some Christians went so far as to illegally purchase the certificates (p. 305). The scriptures tell God’s attitude toward those who made such compromises:

. . .If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his Image, and whoever receives the mark of his name (Rev. 14:9-11).

Well, how about it. Have you ever been called an atheist? I think in light of the way that the word was used at that time in history some Christians can indeed be called atheists. Only if we do not receive the religious practices of the world around us, though, can we be called atheists in the way that those Christians were.

There are a lot of doctrines and practices of the surrounding religious world to which we should be called atheists. Some are awaiting the coming of the kingdom of Jesus-so much that anyone who believes the Bible, which teaches that the kingdom is already here, is considered an atheist. The miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit is another doctrine which is held by some to which we should be considered atheists. The tenets of Calvinism are avowed by almost every sect of denominationalism. We should be atheist to such views and others.

But the Romans did not consider Christians atheists merely for their doctrine, but also for their practices. In fact, they really could have cared less about the doctrine, as long as the sacrifice was paid (this is evidenced by the actions of the compromising Christians). Today there are such practices that we should be looked upon as atheists in that we do not keep them. The “religious holidays” (holy-days) such as Lent, Easter and Christmas would be some examples. No doubt the Christian’s nonobservance has caused many to feel that he is an atheist-and rightfully so! But what about abuses of authority, such as misuse of the Lord’s money? Should we be like all the world about us and support missionary societies, colleges, old folks and orphans’ homes out of the church’s treasury? No! Be an “atheist”! Where would such abuses end? Church socials for saints? Providing refreshments for aliens and saints whether it be every Sunday or for “Vacation Bible School”? Games? Ball Teams? Movies? Gymnasiums? Instruments of Music? Abusing the authority given by God to do what He has told us to do (and not to do what He has not told us to do) makes us atheists all right-but not in the sight of men, as we have found with the Romans’ charge toward the Christians; we would be atheists in the sight of God!

Have you ever been called an atheist by men?

Perhaps it is time that you were!

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, pp. 568-569
September 7, 1978

Drawing a Bead (II)

By Larry Ray Hafley

Our bead is drawn on statements made by Mr. Roger Overton, a preacher for the United Pentecostal Church in Florence, Alabama. “Now you may wonder why I am a United Pentecostal. It is because in Acts 2, when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. One accord, that is United; Pentecost fully come, that is Pentecostal; and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved, so that is the church. I wonder if you find your church in the Book of Acts? We are the original Apostolic church, the original one . . . . I am in the original Apostolic Church of the New Testament, not in the tuning fork church started by Alexander Campbell. Some one said, ‘Why don’t you yell the name of Jesus instead of United Pentecostal? Because Jesus is the name of the Savior and United Pentecostal is the name of the organization.”

One can search the Scriptures from Dan to Beersheba and find no mention of the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). Mr. Overton infers the name, “United Pentecostal Church,” the same way Missionary Baptists attempt to do. The church, say they, has a mission-that is Missionary; it is to baptize-that is Baptist; so, Missionary Baptist Church. What would be wrong with that name from Mr. Overton’s line of argument? Surely, he cannot gripe or grumble if I call him a Missionary Baptist, so here goes: Mr. Overton, you are a Missionary Baptist in the same sense that you are a United Pentecostal. For some softies who have a weak stomach for name calling, be certain to note that I am typing this with a sweet smile on my face and a grin on my heart.

Mr. Overton avers that, “they were all with one accord,” means part of the name is “United.” It also says, “and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” Why, then, isn’t “Filled” part of the name, or even, “Holy Ghost?”

Can You Find Your Church?

Roger wonders if we can find “our” church in the book of Acts. He has not found his yet. The UPC is not only not in the book of Acts, it is not in the Bible-period. “The church,” “the church of God” is there, but there is nothing that is ever referred to as the UPC. Roger cannot find the UPC in any literature written prior to 1900. Let him try. He would give up his last dying gasp of “Hallelujah!” for a reference to the UPC, but he cannot find it in anything written before 1900.

If finding one’s church in the Bible means deducing the name the way Roger did, then Missionary Baptists could shout, “I found mine, too!” Methodists could say the church had a plan or method of working, thus, “We found ours!” The Mormons could say it was the last or latter days, and they were saints of Jesus Christ; so, it was “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints!” Roger, how would you tell a Methodist or a Mormon that his church was not mentioned in the Bible since they might derive their name the same way you do yours? I could “authorize” the Presbyterian Church’s name on the same basis. Call my bluff, Mr. Overton, and see if I can.

I suppose “tuning fork church” would be as scriptural as the UPC name. After all, some saints use tuning forks, and it is the church; so, Tuning Fork Church! Both the tuning fork church (TFC) and the UPC go unmentioned in the Bible, and I am a member of neither one.

Roger, since you say Jesus is the name of the Savior (Christ), and UPC is the name of the organization, would it be wrong to refer to the UPC as the church of Christ? The New Testament refers to Jesus as the head of the body, the church (Eph. 1:22, 23). Is the UPC the body or church of Christ? If so, why did the writers of the New Testament not call it by its name? You say its name is UPC. However, the authors of the Bible never called it that. They called the Savior by His name, Jesus, but they never called the church by the name which you give to it-why not? Roger, I might even go off the deep end and join a tuning fork church just to get to hear your answers to these questions.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, p. 562
September 7, 1978