Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

In the synagogue in Thessalonica, Paul and Silas preached “there is another king, one Jesus” (Acts 17:7). It was not then difficult to prove that Jesus was king, but it was difficult to cause men to believe it. The same is true today. Many who claim to be Christians deny the kingship of Jesus! The doctrine of premillennialism denies that Christ is king-and many denominations are, in teaching, premillennial to the core.

Denominations talk about the “church age.” They believe the Old Testament kingdom prophecies were not fulfilled when Jesus came. This, they say, was because the Jews rejected Him. Because of this rejection, He could not then do what He came to do-establish His kingdom; so, as a substitute for the kingdom, He built the church. Some ,. call the church a “contingent” (accident, emergency, liability). The theory of premillennialism makes the church a mere emergency measure resulting from a promissory default and a prophetical fiasco. If Christ now has no kingdom, He is not now king! It is absurd to think of Jesus being king but having no kingdom. The church and the kingdom are one and the same people.

Ezekiel, speaking of the one nation that would be made of all nations under the rule of Jesus, said, “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: They shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them” (Ezek 37:24). Ezekiel was not speaking of David himself, bur of his seed. David was dead when the prophet said this and has remained so. “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day” (Acts 2:29). Ezekiel was restating the same promise regarding David’s posterity that God told David would happen: “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shaft sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam. 7:12, 13). David had to be dead when God would do with his posterity the things promised!

Jesus is king and has a kingdom-His kingdom (Col. 1:13). He went to heaven to receive it (Dan. 7:13, 14; Lk. 19:12-15; Heb. 12:28; Acts 1 and 2). He is king of kings and lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15), premillennialism to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, p. 149
March 2, 1978

By Mike Willis

One of the most offensive things about those who are New Testament Christians in the eyes of the non-Christian world is their belief in the “oneness of the church” or “one way of salvation.” The man who believes that there is just one church is considered an ignorant bigot in the eyes of most people today. A man must learn to be tolerant of another’s religion, we are told. However, one thing which I have observed in my discussions with the “tolerant” is this: it is extremely difficult for the tolerant to tolerate the intolerant. They are perfectly willing to tolerate any religious belief or practice so long as the one involved in that belief or practice does not say that it is the only way to heaven!

Yet, my brethren, one of the very things which offended the religious community of Jesus’ day was His statements about the exclusive nature of the gospel. He said, “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). This statement offended the Jews of Jesus’ day. When Peter said, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), the Jews were offended. When Paul labored to turn away the pagans from their idols to worship Jehovah, the Ephesians were offended (Acts 19:23f). All of the inspired writers believed that there was but one way of salvation, namely, through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The gospel of the first century was intolerant. It would not tolerate the belief that one could be saved through Judaism; it would not tolerate the belief that one could be saved through the various religions of the pagans; it would not tolerate perversions in the gospel from false teachers among the Christians. The first century gospel was intolerant of other religions. Consider with me this passage as an example of the intolerance of the gospel:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9).

Let us examine this passage very carefully as it illustrates the intolerance of the first century gospel.

Paul’s Opponents

A consideration of the heresy with which Paul was confronted will be helpful in understanding this important passage. Paul had gone into Galatia to preach the gospel; he converted many to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Upon his departure to regions which had not heard of the gospel, Judaizers entered the church and made havoc of his work. These men denied Paul’s apostolic authority. Hence, chapters one and two of Galatians are designed to refute their denial of his authority and to show that he had as much apostolic authority as any other apostle. The Judaizers apparently charged that Paul had departed from the old Jerusalem gospel and was a false teacher. The doctrinal point of departure which the Judaizers pressed was this: they taught that a man had to submit to the Mosaical law (and, specifically, to circumcision) in order to be saved.

Here are some of the things which characterized this apostasy:

(1) It was quick. Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you ….” The apostasy did not occur over a long period of years; it occurred almost overnight.

(2) It was to a “different” gospel. Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another . . . . ” The Greek New Testament has a play on words here which is pretty well reproduced in the English by the words “different” and “another” (the KJV has “another” in both places). The Greek word allos refers to “another of the same character” whereas the Greek word heteros refers to “another of a different character.” Paul’s wonder is that they should have so soon accepted a gospel different in character and kind from that which they had already received, which therefore had no right to be called another gospel because it was no gospel at all. The gospel taught salvation through grace by faith; the Judaizers taught salvation through perfect obedience to the Mosaical law. The word “gospel” means “good news.” That man could be saved by perfect obedience to the Mosaical law was not “good news” because no one could obey the law perfectly. Hence, this was a different gospel; a doctrine of salvation which did not deserve to be labeled “gospel.”

(3) It perverted the true gospel. Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” These Judaizers did not deny the virgin birth, death, burial, or resurrection of Christ. They did not deny that baptism was essential for salvation. Indeed, they did not deny any of the facts or the one act which those who distinguish between gospel and doctrine label as “gospel.” Rather, they bound the Mosical law upon those Gentiles who wanted to follow Christ. To bind the Mosaical law upon Gentiles was to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(4) It disturbed churches. Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” Those who teach their opinions (such as whether or not God will save the pious unimmersed, overlook sins of ignorance, etc.) disturb churches.

To tamper with the gospel is to trouble the Church . . . .Indeed, the Church’s greatest troublemakers (now as then) are not those outside who oppose, ridicule and persecute it, but those inside who try to change the gospel . . . Conversely, the only way to be a good churchman is to be a good gospel-man. The best way to serve the Church is to believe and to preach the gospel (John R. W. Stott as quoted by James Montgomery Bolce, “Galatians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. X, p. 428).

My brethren, you think of the good men whom you know as faithful gospel preachers. Ask yourself how many of them have divided churches, caused problems among the saints, etc. Even experience itself confirms that those who are faithful to the gospel do not trouble the churches and that those who try to improve the gospel are the real troublers of the church.

(5) It brought damnation. Paul said, “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” The heresy which Paul was fighting would cause a man to lose his soul! When Peter became involved in it, “he stood condemned” (2:11). Because this

heresy was, and any heresy is, damning, Paul withstood it; he had to demolish this departure from the true gospel. He could not tolerate it; he had to eradicate it.

The Duty of Intolerance

Our society has reached the state where it is critical of intolerance. The man who will not tolerate another’s religion is considered narrow-minded and bigoted. Tolerance of all religions is considered charitable and extolled by most people. Yet, Paul was a most intolerant person as he wrote Gal. 1:6-9.

The grounds of Christian intolerance is the exclusive claims of the gospel. Jesus taught that there is but one way of salvation; He said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (Jn. 14:6). The gospel is not a way of salvation; it is the way of salvation. The gospel is not a life for men; it is the life unto men. The gospel is not a truth; it is the truth. The grounds of intolerance of the gospel is that it is the only means of salvation!

The Limits of Intolerance

Though intolerance is a virtue, there are some very real limits to intolerance. When John Calvin condoned the execution of Servetus for his heretical doctrine, he had certainly violated the limits of intolerance. Intolerance does not give the right to exterminate those who teach false doctrines.

Intolerance must be limited to the rights of the gospel, not the claims of the preacher. Intolerance commonly springs from personal jealously or party spirit. Our intolerance is not toward men who preach the same gospel in other terms than we use. It is against those who teach another gospel. And, my brethren, the gospel of gimmicks as manifested by those involved in the bus ministry, the gospel of recreation as manifested by those involved in church sponsored recreation. and the gospel which tolerates practically any religious belief as manifested by the unity-in-diversion faction are not the gospel of the first century! If these were being opposed simply because someone used other terms than did I in preaching the same gospel, they should be tolerated. That is not the case, however; those involved in these movements have perverted or distorted the old Jerusalem gospel! Consequently, these perversions cannot be tolerated.

Our intolerance must, therefore, be limited to perversions of the gospel. Matters pertaining to personalities, which scriptural methods are used, individual consciences, etc. must be tolerated. The Christian must be tolerant of anything which does not pervert the gospel of Christ or destroy the unity of the saints.

Conclusion

The average fellow seems to think more of tolerance than he does of truth. Indeed, this spirit has invaded the church. Apparently, those propagating this spirit of tolerance have forgotten that heresy is damning. The Pulpit Commentary contained these important remarks on this passage:

There is a spirit abroad that leads men to think that everybody is right, that nobody Is wrong, that nothing but an evil life will bring retribution hereafter. By men of this spirit the apostle would be regarded as cruelly illiberal and narrow (p. 47).

The lessons revealed in Gal. 1:8-9 need to be preached anew to every generation that men everywhere might learn that the gospel cannot tolerate perversions of it. There is but one way of salvation-through the gospel of Jesus Christ. One who perverts that gospel destroys the one way of salvation. Consequently, the Christian cannot ignore even the smallest perversion of the gospel. He cannot tolerate heresy.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 147-149
March 2, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

An abundance of mutual love is the greatest safeguard for the marriage. This is not a small, superficial love that flies out the window as soon as poverty comes in the door, nor is it so weak that it is pushed aside even when wealth comes to husband and wife. But it is a deep, abiding love that overcomes every obstacle and that prevails over every problem. It contributes to understanding, it assures patience, and it rises above envy and jealousy.

This love of which I now write must be mutual if it is to be a major factor in- success. Too many wives have given themselves to a lifetime of devotion to a man who could hardly have cared less. And some men may have spent a lifetime serving a woman who loved everything in the world except her husband. Rejected love and / or neglected love may indeed turn cold, so a one-sided love is not an assurance of success at all, for it may soon be a marriage without any love at all.

Understand what I say: do not assume that your own love alone will suffice, for if your spouse does not reciprocate with a meaningful and responsive love for you, then your own love may actually become tired and sick and may die. Let each companion nurture, cultivate and shield his own love, and also that of the spouse. Never take love for granted, for we are told that it is only a fine line which separates love and hate, and that love lost may soon be hatred. If you do not believe this, please observe those who now demonstrate real hatred for those whom they loved so much only a short time ago.

Factors

Love is like a roaring lion that will drive away the enemies of peace and tranquility, but at the same time it is like a delicate orchid that can be crushed with one blow and that can hardly survive neglect. Love will survive quarrels and arguments, if genuine peace is made afterward. Indeed, love will endure offenses, if humble apologies are offered and if actual reconciliation is achieved. Remember, there is no ointment that will heal so well the wounds that come to every marriage as the healing balm of a sincere “I’m sorry.”

But successful marriages must overcome the devastating blight of materialism. Dollars and cents, farms and factories, houses and bank accounts, cars and furniture-these and many other material things become stumbling blocks over which many ‘Marriages trip. The obsession to get, to have, to keep, to spend, to use and to flaunt drive some husbands to disaster and some wives to ruin. When the wife will not be content with the husband’s support, when she nags him for more and more and more, when she spends more than he can pay and when she drives him out to work two jobs, etc., she may indeed be driving a wedge in the family circle. Likewise, when the husband spends for foolish and hurtful things-for drink, for gambling, for too many cars that are too fancy, and for many other unnecessary items that deprive the family of important things, he thus may be signing the death certificate for his home life.

The precious marriage joys cannot be bought with money nor can they be maintained with the things money can buy. But obsession for money and for its purchasing power may indeed buy failure. The country is full of people whose marriages were wrecked by neglect which resulted from materialistic pursuits. I think it would be safe to assume that a high percentage of marriage failures are among those who are most successful financially, but whose success resulted from undue devotion to money-making with its consequent neglect of family “togetherness.”

Careers

Occasionally we hear of a marriage that was saved because someone gave up a lucrative, attractive and / or desirable career. But more frequently we hear of marriages that were wrecked because someone would not give up such aspirations. Home is often sacrificed on the altar of fame and prominence. Souls are cast adrift, without the chart and compass that good home circumstances should provide, all because someone determined to maintain a career at all cost.

Any career that separates the husband and wife too much-or, for that matter, the parents from the children-is not a wise career to pursue. It can, at best, bring only worldly success that soon vanishes away, and at worst it can bring eternal ruin in hell because it has ruined the marriage, the home, and even the character.

Jesus said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Mt. 6:33). Paul said, “. . . seek those things which are above …. Set your affections on things above” (Col. 3:1, 2). For husbands and wives and for fathers and mothers, devotion to the highest ideals of the family circle is one way of seeking “the things which are above.”

Jesus said, “What is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul” (Mt. 16:26). We could safely say, “What is a man profited (or a woman either) if he gains the whole world and loses his family?” He will have lost most of life’s satisfactions, and, most of all, he will have placed his eternal soul in jeopardy. Next: “Fathers of Our Flesh.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, p. 146
March 2, 1978

By Lewis Willis

As you read this, the great event is over. I trust you enjoyed it immensely. After all, you paid for it! To the tune of $5 million to be exact. It was the occasion in recognition of International Women’s Year. Houston was the site for the momentous gathering of approximately 2,000 delegates and observers. Each convention session in Sam Houston Coliseum was a full house. Security was heavy. So great was the event that 1,500 members of the world’s press corp were on hand to cover the unfolding story. And it was quite a story to tell the world.

The principle aim was to re-assert pressure for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This was done hurriedly and overwhelmingly as the convention adopted the ERA resolution in its Saturday evening meeting. Then came the other proposed resolutions which are to be submitted to the President and Congress within 120 days. First Ladies Rosalynn Carter, Betty Ford and Lady Bird Johnson were on hand to lend their endorsement and support to the work of the convention. Their presence was highly acclaimed and reported. And, they helped to accomplish the goals of the convention. However, some things were accomplished that likely will cause them and the leaders of ERA some troublesome moments in the next few months. At least, we can be optimistic!

A resolution favoring lesbian rights was introduced and heatedly debated from the floor. The Dallas Morning News, November 21, 1977, reported that “the resolution asked government bodies to enact legislation eliminating discrimination on the basis of sexual and affectional preference, reform laws that restrict private sexual behavior between consenting adults and prohibit consideration of sexual or affectional orientation as a factor in child custody cases.” They asked that the legislation concern itself with “employment, housing, public accommodations and the military.” In, other words, if adopted by Congress, you might very well have a lesbian teaching sex education to your grade school children! Live with that, if you can.

Upon adoption of the resolution by the ,convention, “homosexuals rushed into the aisles and; in the-spectator section, homosexual couples fell weeping into each other’s arms.” Helium filled balloons rose bearing the message, “We are everywhere.” It was a pitiful sight with hundreds of fanatical, hysterical, wild-eyed, liberal women high-handedly shouting over their wonderful victory. But, not all the women (there are certain qualifications for one to be called a lady) were so happy.

The opponents of the resolution, upon hearing of its passage, “bowed their heads in prayers.” The very cause which they had championed had reached out to bite and consume them. In defiance of the Law of the Lord, they had embarked on a course to release women from the restraints placed upon them by God. Now, finding themselves in trouble with their sinful deed, they wanted God’s help. But, His face is turned from this whole rotten mess! They sought to change His ordinance that preserves the sanctity of the home, the very cornerstone of order and society. How ironic that they would turn to God when their efforts produced propositions that would turn the Lord’s order into chaos.

One pragmatic delegate from Georgia said the lesbian proposal would be “an albatross around the neck” of the Equal Rights Amendment. One can only hope that she is right. Perhaps this, along with the abortion proposal endorsed by the convention, will cause enough people to open their eyes to the aims of ERA to defeat the amendment. Only three more states have to ratify it in order for it to become law. Maybe lawmakers can locate enough spine to vote against it. Our existence as a people might well depend upon their doing so. Ann O’Donnell, chairwoman of the Missouri delegation, termed the abortion proposal “destructive, unjust,” “the antithesis of the feminist movement to oppress the helpless.” She further said, “it is wrong of women to kill unborn children to solve their problems.” This is scriptural and reasonable. However, neither scripture nor reason prevailed in Houston as the maniacal event concluded. Truly, the opponents of this garbage were correct when they labeled it a “farce.” Unfortunately, most people are indifferent to such things until it is too late.

Truth Magazine XXII: 8, pp. 141-142
February 23, 1978