Truth Magazine

By Ronnie Daly

Money they have offered me;
It I didn’t receive.
Big churches they have promised me,
The truth I will never leave.
I have received threats from brethren;
They have denied me a place to preach.
But I shall still cling to the gospel
And seek those whom I can teach.
A big name they have promised me;
If I preach what they want to hear.
Start preaching on love and mercy,
Stop preaching on fornication
And the drinking of beer!
I will never have a big name
Nor have many places to preach,
But with God’s help I will be faithful
While heaven I hope to reach!

Truth Magazine XXII: 28, p. 450
July 20, 1978

By Dale Smelser

Man in Adam and in Christ is an attempt by anthropologist Arthur Custance to offer an alternative to the explanation of man and his environment advocated by. the philosophers influenced by evolution. It is also a new approach to Calvinism, an anthropological apology for inherited depravity, particular election, the impossibility of apostasy, and limited atonement.

Concerning man’s nature, Custance poses the dilemma as. being between the evolutionary concepts of Huxley and Simpson who optimistically view man’s progression as ever upward (“an angel in the making”), and the other horn being that man is a helplessly fallen creature, and that by genetic inheritance. Custance says cleverly and accurately enought that, ‘The fall was down.” But he holds that each man is thus born fallen, rather than viewing man as a creature born into a fallen cosmos that propagates itself by affecting and corrupting man’s nature. The ubiquity of sin which destroys each individual is what I believe David was talking about when he said he had been brought forth and conceived in iniquity and sin.

But the author does contend effectively that such as human barbarity is not a throwback to animal heritage, contrasting animal behavior which has to do with preservation, and the purposeful supra-necessary barbarity and cruelty of men. That is good. But he explains that in Adam the very root of man was defiled, a sickness which we inherit. He says, “If virtually every impulse receives part of its drive from this fearful root, then every action is to some extent infected, and man is in this sense totally depraved” (pp. 32-33).

Concerning escape from this state, he later says, “A will that is so diseased cannot will its own perfection (you see her thesis for the essentiality of an effectual miraculous calling, D.S.), far such a high aspiration does not spring from such a low source” (p. 163). Actually, his material would have had him state that ability does not so spring, for the aspiration to perfection is there, even in evolutionary philosophy. But if such aspiration exists, his doctrine is wrong and man is not really totally depraved. While holding objections to his Calvinistic views to explain the nature of man, I found interesting his arguments indicating a non-animal parentage for man, emphasizing profound contrasts between men and animals in aggression, speech, skin, and instinct versus rationality.

In denying the materiality of man, an evolutionary inference, Custance supplies interesting information indicating that memory survives brain mutilation. This existence of mind apart from brain, and differentiating between the two,, signifies existence of the mind after death of the brain, and shows that man is not merely a system of sticks and strings. He cites experiments where even though the brain is stimulated to perform a movement, the doing of it is overruled by the will. His conclusion from experiments with Alpha brain waves is that some force exists in man besides a bio-chemical brain mechanism.

The author reveals a curious attitude toward what can be scientifically supported about the scriptural conclusions concerning man’s nature and intellect. He says children of God are not sufficiently enjoying the wonderful sense of forgiveness which comes through faith, because science has provided evidence which makes such faith rationally allowable. “But such evidence does leave men with less excuse than they formerly had for rejecting the divine offer of forgiveness” (p. 281). In this he seems to indicate that one can intellectually respond to truth and has the responsibility to do so. Yet he will say the body of Christ is made of those “specifically chosen” out of the world, each “cell” therein “a deliberately chosen one.” That is particular selection and man’s “depraved” will can have nothing to do with his being in the body, or accepting any offer of forgiveness. Such is by the determination of God. Which leads to the question: If scientific evidence of faith, only robs the believer of joy in his total dependancy upon God, and it would do no one good to be convinced by his scientific evidence of the faith of the scriptures unless he was already one of the elect, why did he bother to write these books? The only purpose their evidence serves is detrimental.

But leaving that, Custance does present material on consciousness that has to be a problem for the materialist and physicalist, contending that there is more difference between man and animal than the frontal lobe of man’s brain. Men, he says, have experienced amputation of the frontal lobe, that which most distinguishes his brain from the chimpanzee’s, and continued to think, reason, talk and have self consciousness. The unique consciousness of man must exist elsewhere than the brain then. He thus argues against the bio-chemical determination of men. But as he argues the mindedness of all of creation, with even cells exercising volition, each knowing its individual destiny, whether to become a part of an eye, leg, or chicken feather, the physicalist would probably seize the latter, citing the DNA code, and hold to his chemical determination. Also, there have been experiments where chemical material from the brains of mice educated to respond to stimuli, has been introduced into the brains of uneducated mice rind produced reaction to the stimuli without education. I do not believe this invalidates his material showing that mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter that the material brain is not the originator of consciousness), but I think he may overstate his case in some instances, disregarding chemical influence. However his presuppositions would allow chemical influence, as long as the whole is at its various stages subject to the sovereignty of mind.

But his thesis is that the basis of reality is spiritual, with mindedness the fundamental element. Since everything down to the smallest cell has an ordered function, which it fulfills according to a prearranged plan, his concept of mindedness results in a philosophy of determinism which the theologian would call predestination.

Custance extrapolates from the apparent consciousness of cell function to the idea that mankind, or society, is simply an organism, one single colossal body rather than a numerical total of distinct individual persons. He finds support for this from such secular sources as Spencer, Compte, Hobbes, and Montague, with Eric Sauer making the theological application that this organism simply sets forth Adam. Custance is more specific about what entity is constituted by men. Sin destroyed what man was originally and a new kind of man emerged, propagated by heredity. He believes that sin affected man in a physical way and that such effect is passed through the sperm of man (thus Jesus was born without this corrupting sin because he had no human father).

Some of the members of this defiled entity are worse than others due only to circumstance. None are righteous. Some, only for one fortuitous reason or another, are less unrighteous. This makes a man’s circumstances responsible for his actions. However, Paul contradicts this concept of total depravity by noting that the ancient Gentiles had the ability in their natures to do the things of the law, manifesting the work of the law written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15).

Nevertheless, Custance conceives of humanity as a collection of cells constituting the defiled Adam. But God has come along with a new creature, the men who as cells compose the body of Christ. One is born anew into this body, being “specifically chosen” out of Adam. The body of Christ is not an individually willed collection of cells, “but a deliberately chosen one.” It is always complete in the world; the number of individual body cells so fixed that when one dies it is replaced by another one, just as in the human body. The new cell (saved person) is chosen by God “for some inscrutable reason.”

Now, since the spiritual aspect is more important than the material, though men may be materially alike, they really compose two separate and distinct species. One species is hereditarily defiled man in and as Adam. The other is man in and as Christ. And once a person is reborn, there is no going back. He is rid of that which made him a part of Adam. He is now part of a new species; he belongs to a new body with a different head. Hence the theoretical scientific explanation of the impossibility of apostasy.

Custance is a winsome apologist. He admits the problems of his positions and tries to face them rather than ignore them. He strikes one as a kindly man and one is not naturally inclined to deal severely with his material. But, it must be said that his conclusions are destructive of human responsibility and pervert the scriptures. Man in Adam and in Christ is a clever, and for the Calvinist, an appealing presentation of Calvinism, trying to harmonize the scriptures, and science. It takes some careful sifting to produce its grains of truth.

Truth Magazine XXII: 28, pp. 456-457
July 20, 1978

By Mike Willis

When .john the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness, his message was, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 3:2). We can hardly imagine the excitement which such a message must have caused in Israel. For Yeats, the Israelites had been longing for the establishment of the Lord’s kingdom. Indeed, at that time, they were subjected to the Romans. In their concept of the establishment of the Lord’s kingdom, the Romans would be overthrown when the kingdom was established. Hence, the Israelites anxiously anticipated the coming of the kingdom of God.

The phrase “at hand” is translated from the verb eggizu which means “to approach, draw near.” John was announcing that the kingdom of God was just around the corner. We see the same phrase when we read Paul’s statement “the time of my departure is at hand” (2 Tim. 4:8). In that context, the meaning of the words “at hand” is obvious; Paul meant that his death was imminent. Similarly, when we read John’s announcement that the kingdom of heaven is “at hand,” we need to remember that nearly two thousand years ago a divine messenger announced that God was ready to establish His kingdom on earth.

Even today, men are still asking, “When will the Lord establish His kingdom upon this earth?” We need to let the Bible give us the divine answer to the question of when the Lord establishes His kingdom. Hence, let us go to the word of God for the answer to when the kingdom would be established.

Prophecies About The Establishment of the Kingdom

1. Dan. 2:44. Without going into a lot of detail, let me briefly relate that Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the coming of four kingdoms beginning with Babylon and including the Medo-Persian kingdom, the Grecian kingdom, and the Roman kingdom. During the fourth kingdom, God said, “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever” (Dan. 2:44). Hence, the kingdom of God was to come in the days of the Roman kings.

2. Dan. 7:13-14. Later, Daniel saw a vision of these kingdoms in their succession again. This time, he said, “I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.” Notice that the kingdom was given to the Son of Man when He came with the clouds into the presence of God. (This passage does not say that the kingdom will be given when the Son of Man comes from the Ancient of Days to this earth.)

3. Isa. 2:2. Isaiah foretold that the kingdom of the Lord would come in the “last days.”

The Kingdom During The Lifetime of Jesus

The next step we need to notice in the examination of the scriptures regarding the establishment of the kingdom of God is to move to the lifetime of Jesus. Let us be reminded that Jesus was born during the days of the Roman kings in the reign of Caesar Augustus (Lk. 2:1). John’s ministry began during the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Lk. 3:1). The fulness of time had come for God to send forth His Son; the fulness of time had come for the kingdom to be established (Mk. 1:15). Hence, let us consider the statements made concerning the establishment of the kingdom of heaven during the lifetime of Jesus.

1. Lk. 1:32-33. When Jesus was born, the angel foretold to Mary the reign of Jesus saying, “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever;. and His kingdom will have no end.” Hence, from the very beginning of the life of Jesus, it was understood that He was the prophesied king of the kingdom of heaven.

2. John said, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Obviously, the Lord’s kingdom had not been established at that point. Hence, we can eliminate any doctrine which teaches that the kingdom of God was established prior to the coming of John the Baptist. Furthermore, Jesus later said, `Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Mt. 11:1 l ). This passage furthermore shows that John the Baptist never enjoyed the blessed privilege of being a citizen of the kingdom. John came and died without ever seeing the kingdom of God established. The kingdom of God was not established during the lifetime of John.

3. Jesus said, “Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 4:17). At this point in Jesus’ life, the kingdom of heaven had not yet been established. This message is recorded as having been the first message delivered by Jesus following His baptism at the hands of John. Hence, the kingdom of God was not established this early in Jesus’ ministry.

4. Later, Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the limited commission to preach as follows: “And as you go, preach saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ ” (Mt. 10:7). Obviously, fhe kingdom of heaven had not come at that time; rather, they announced that its coming was to be “at hand.”

5. Later, Jesus taught, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Mt. 16:28). Hence, Jesus placed the establishment of His kingdom within the lifetime of those to whom He was preaching. Any understanding which we have of the establishment of the kingdom of God has to fit Mt. 16:28. The view which says that Christ’s kingdom has not yet been established must come to grips with the fact that Jesus said that it would be established during the lifetime of those to whom He preached. Did He lie? Was He honestly mistaken? Are there men still alive who heard Him preach? Is there another alternative which I have not considered? The only alternative with which I am familiar which fits this passage is the one which teaches that the kingdom of God was established within the lifetime of those to whom He preached. Mark’s account of this same occasion says, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power” (9:1). Notice that Mark taught that the kingdom was to come with power.

6. Later, on the night of His betrayal, Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper. During that, He stated, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Mt. 26:29). We can know when the kingdom was established by knowing when the Lord’s Supper .was observed. When we determine that the Lord’s Supper was observed, we shall know that the kingdom has been established.

The Fulfillment: The Establishment of the Kingdom

The kingdom of heaven was establishment in exact keeping with what divine prophecy foretold. Let us notice the fulfillment of these prophecies. During the days of the Roman kings, one like unto the Son of Man ascended to the Ancient of Days. The record of the ascension of Christ states, “And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). Prior to His ascension to the Ancient of Days, Jesus had instructed His disciples to tarry in Jerusalem “until you are clothed with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49). The power was to come when the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 1:8) and was to be a sign that the kingdom of God had come (Mk. 9:1). Everything was in readiness for the kingdom to come. The Son of Man had ascended to the Father; the apostles were awaiting the power which was to mark the coming of the kingdom of God.

Finally, the day arrived when the kingdom came. It was on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance (Acts 2:1-4).

The Holy Spirit came to give the apostles the power which was to mark the coming of the kingdom of God. Peter stood up and announced that the “last days” had arrived.

This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: “And it shall be in the last days . . . .” (Acts 2:16-17).

Isaiah’s prophecy that the kingdom would come in the last days could now be fulfilled since the last days had arrived.

The time of the coming of the kingdom was closely enough . connected to the prophecy of John the Baptist that it would be proper for him to have said that the “kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The events recorded in Acts 2 came within the lifetime of those who heard Jesus speak in Mk. 9:1.

All will have been fulfilled if I can but demonstrate that the disciples were drinking the fruit of the vine in commemoration of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Significantly, it is recorded that those who were baptized “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). The phrase “breaking of bread” is generally understood to be a technical phrase to refer to the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Hence, they were drinking the fruit of the vine in the kingdom of the Lord.

Post-Pentecost References to the Kingdom

To further demonstrate that the kingdom of God was established on the day of Pentecost, let us consider some of the references made after the day of Pentecost to show that the Lord’s kingdom was already in existence.

1. Acts 11:15. In this passage, Peter refers to the events of the day of Pentecost as “the beginning.” He said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). The day of Pentecost marked the beginning of the kingdom of the Lord.

2. Acts 8:12. When Philip preached in Samaria, he preached the kingdom of God. “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” Think about this for a minute. Philip preached the “good news” of the kingdom of God. If I promised you that I would give you $10,000 on August 15th and then came to tell you on August 14th that I had postponed giving you that $10,000 for two thousand years, would that be good news? Yet, my friends, this is exactly what premillennialism says happened with reference to the establishment of the kingdom of God. The kingdom was nigh unto .being established but the Jews rejected Jesus and crucified Him. Consequently, God postponed the establishment of the kingdom for over two thousand years. How could Philip preach that as “good news”? The good news was that the kingdom had been established!

3. The Christians in Colassae were members of the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13-14); the Ephesians were “fellow-citizens” (Eph. 2:19). The Thessalonians were to walk worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom (1 Thess. 2:12). The Christians in the seven churches of Asia were in the kingdom of God (Rev. 1:9).

Conclusion

The kingdom of God has been established. Contrary to both Jewish and modern dispensationalists’ expectations, the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom also known as the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. It has been in existence for nearly two thousand years. My friend, you too can be a part of this divinely established kingdom if you so desire. You need to be born of the water and the Spirit (Jn. 3:5) in order to enter that kingdom. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. are willing to repent of your sins, confess faith in Christ, and be buried in the waters of baptism for the remission of your sins, you can become a citizen of the Lord’s kingdom.

Truth Magazine XXII: 28, pp. 451-454
July 20, 1978

By Lloyd H. Beard

Many have heard the story about the two elderly ladies listening to a sermon on worldliness. They were nodding in approval and saying “Amen,” until the preacher mentioned smoking, drinking and chewing tobacco. “Now you’ve stopped preaching and started meddling,” was their response. As various liquids have different temperatures at which they boil, many individuals and congregations have “Different Meddling Points.”

In certain congregations, some topics are taboo, the evangelist having been warned to steer clear of these. Some evangelists have “read the writing on the wall,” and avoided such areas in deference to their position and salary. We would like to think this does not occur, but in too many places it is the real situation. One Sunday, after a very needed sermon, I was called into a back room “elders’ meeting” and told that my sermon was “untimely.” Brethren, how many years have to pass before the truth becomes timely? What ever happened to the noble attitude of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) or the fine preaching of Paul that “did not shrink from declaring the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27)?

There is abundant evidence that some congregations are doing little if nothing about worldliness, immorality, and faithlessness among their members. The statement was once made, “We don’t believe in discipline.” This is a sad commentary on some elders. Other congregations have gone for years with no disciplinary action of any kind. Brethren, human nature will not allow such a perfect record. Some congregations are making, to their credit, the attempt to reach “the lost among their members.” Are we allowing a good portion of our congregations to be ill-informed, weak, and rendering haphazard service to God? If so, we may be setting the stage for a future apostasy.

One subject often termed as of “little importance,” is that of attendance. Surprisingly some have actually defended those who are not faithful in this. In 1 John 1:5-7, we are told that fellowship with God and with other Christians depends upon “walking in the light.” Is nonattendance “walking in the light”? Paul stated, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (1 Cor. 5:6). We might debate about how much is “little.” Any house-wife can tell you that any amount will start spreading.

Some may well worry about a reduced membership lessening the amount of work a congregation can take on. However, does it make sense to sacrifice the souls at home for those not yet converted? Smaller congregations have the same problem with a slightly different twist. Brethren we have directed the charge at institutional churches, and rightly so, that they are too concerned with numbers. Perhaps a bit of that has “leavened” into our thinking also, Many churches give the appearance that the only error they oppose is the institutional question. Perhaps we are all guilty, to some degree, of emphasizing one important matter to the exclusion of others equally as important in a different area. A very excellent point, that is well taken, concerns emphasizing one area as if to trade that for justification. Justification comes from obedience in every area of service to God. James 2:10 records, “For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” He sins against the Law-giver, whether in violation of one or of many.

Brethren, how long shall we continue sweeping dust under the rug before we begin to stumble over the resulting lump. Some of the strife in congregations is a direct result of not facing up to and solving our problems. Heb. 12:11-13 states, “All discipline seems for the moment to be sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, and make straight paths for your feet, that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint; but rather be healed.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 28, pp. 454-455
July 20, 1978