Truth Magazine

By Fred A. Shewmaker

In Acts 15:3 we read about Paul and Barnabas “being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.” This is a description of their journey “to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about” the question of Gentile circumcision (v. 2). Before making this journey “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation” (v. 2) with those who were telling Gentiles, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (v. 1).

From this it is evident that “the conversion of the Gentiles” which “caused great joy” was not conversion to Judaism. “The conversion of the Gentiles” is described by James in v. 19, “Them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” In order to turn to God it was necessary to turn from something. These Gentiles had turned from the false religion of idolatry. In this study we will examine the changes necessary in order for a person to be converted — turn from an existence without God to God.

Paul wrote Gentile Christians at Ephesus, “Remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:11-12). Necessary to an alien’s conversion are changes that must take place in the mind The first of these changes is a change of one’s acquired knowledge. Jesus said, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mike, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man” (Mt. 7:24). The Heavenly Father said of Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Mt. 17:5). Again Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me” (Jn. 13:20).

Jesus sent His apostles, saying unto them, “Go ye into the world, and preach the gospel” (Mk. 16:15). Therefore, necessary to conversion is an acquired knowledge of the gospel. If a person acquires knowledge of the gospel and rejects it, that person cannot be converted. When one acquires knowledge of the gospel, to be converted there must be also a change of what the mind accepts. One’s mind must accept the validity of the gospel. One apostle wrote, “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (Jn. 20:30-31).

When one has heard the gospel and believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the mind must continue the process of change by changing what it approves. The alien approves ungodly activities. For him to be “turned to God” the mind must change to approve the things required of servants of God “God . . . now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). “The Lord is not slack concerning his promises, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pt. 3:9).

One may change by acquiring knowledge of the gospel, accepting “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” and approving the things required of servants of God without revealing these changes of the mind to another. This also must change, if one is to be converted. One of the changes necessary to conversion eliminates the possibility of being a secret servant of God. That is the change of what one acknowledges.

The person who has not acknowledged Jesus Christ, the Son of God as Lord must openly do that. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32). Paul write, “With the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10) and “Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God and Father” (Phil. 2:11).

There is, yet, another change necessary to conversion. It is not enough to acquire knowledge of the gospel, in the mind accept “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” approve the things required of servants of God and openly acknowledge Jesus Christ, the Son of God as Lord. We might illustrate this by considering one who is an alien to the United States: He may acquire knowledge of the United States, in the mind accept that the United States is the greatest nation on earth, approve the constitution of the United States and openly acknowledge the greatness of the United States and remain an alien to the United States. What is lacking? For an alien to become a citizen he must change his allegiance.

Paul wrote unto the Colossians about “giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12-14). For the alien to be converted, “turned to God,” he must be “translated into the kingdom of” God’s Son. This necessitates redemption through the blood of Christ (“the forgiveness of sins”).

Paul wrote, “As many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins” (Acts 2:38). If an alien who has no allegiance to Christ will not change and give his allegiance to Christ by being baptized to obtain forgiveness, he will never be translated into and become a citizen of the “kingdom of God’s dear Son.”

If in your life you have not experienced conversion, my friend, make the changes necessary to turn to God: acquire knowledge of the gospel; accept “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;” approve the things required of the servant of God; acknowledge Jesus Christ the Son of God as Lord before men; give your allegiance to Christ and become a citizen subject to our Lord Jesus Christ!

These are the changes which take place when one hears the gospel, believes the gospel, repents of his sins, confesses his belief that Jesus Christ is Lord and is baptized to obtain forgiveness of sins. Be converted, my friend! Turn from the service of Satan to the service of God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 45-46
January 12, 1978

By Donald P. Ames

(Editor’s Note: The following article written by Don Ames is published in reply to Brother Roy Cogdill’s request for help in defending the Akin Foundation. Brother Ames wrote me shortly after the article appeared regarding the fact that Brother Cogdill had requested that churches help in the legal defense of the Akin Foundation. When Brother Cogdill first submitted his article, I was reluctant to publish it because I did not want to get Cogdill Foundation tied in with the Akin Foundation in any way, especially since the Akin Foundation was presently under investigation and some of the Board members of that Foundation were also Board members of Cogdill Foundation. I did not catch the statement that Brother Cogdill made requesting that churches contribute to the legal defense fund for Akin Foundation until Brother Ames called it to my attention. I say this in spite of the fact that I read the articles which are printed in Truth Magazine several times before they are published. I just missed it.

At that time, I requested that Brother Ames correspond with Brother Cogdill to try to get the matter straightened out. As the article will continue to explain, Brother Cogdill believes that his statement is defensible and Brother Ames does not. Consequently, Brother Ames requested that I publish his response to Brother Cogdill, which I gladly will do.

I have been reluctant to make any comment about this matter for several reasons. First of all, I know so little about the Akin Foundation that I felt that I would be speaking with too little information should I say anything. Secondly, l have more than a little confidence in Brother Cogdill. Inasmuch as he knows the Akin Foundation better than I and is opposed to institutionalism, I did not believe he would consciously involve the church in institutionalism. Nevertheless, he is human and errs. Consequently, the cautions which brethren have sounded regarding our respect for other brethren blinding us to statements they make is something that needs to always be reiterated. Thirdly, so far as I know, not one church has contributed one dime to Brother Cogdill to tide legal defense of the Akin Foundation. This makes the discussion which follows more a matter of principle than a matter of practical application. Consequently, I have been hesitant to make any comment about this matter.

I guess that I now need to make a statement of my doctrinal convictions about the matter. I shall speak with reference to Cogdill Foundation rather than with reference to the Akin Foundation because I know more about the Cogdill Foundation than I do the Akin Foundation. I believe that it would be sinful for churches to make donations to Cogdill Foundation, as does every member of our Board of Directors, including Brother Cogdill. I do not believe that churches could make donations toward a legal defense of anything with which Cogdill Foundation may become involved without becoming guilty of sin; the Board of Directors, including Brother Cogdill, feels exactly the same way.

If the Akin Foundation is parallel in all essential respects to the Cogdill Foundation, my conclusions are the same with reference to it. It would certainly clarify the matter if someone associated with the Akin Foundation would let us know a little more about its organization, purpose, etc. Personally, I have enough questions in my mind that I could not conscientiously recommend that any church send any money for its legal defense. On the other hand, if the Foundation should be able to be legally defended, those who care enough about it should rally to its aid individually.

Furthermore, I resent the implications made by some among us that there has been a “cover-up” of sorts with reference to this matter. If there was any effort at “cover-up,” I am not aware of it. Some have been making wild charges without investigating the matter to see what is going on before making them. Frankly, I would prefer that some make a little more effort to believe the best about their fellow man than being guilty of evil surmising. With these statements having been made, I hope that the matter is laid to rest.)

In both the April 1, 1977 issue of the Gospel Guardian and the July 28, 1977 issue of Truth Magazine, Brother Roy E. Cogdill had an article regarding the Akin Foundation and the possibility of a successful defense of the continued use of those funds by faithful brethren. I have no quarrel with his efforts along that line and, if he is successful in. that defense (which now seems at least a little more hopeful, according to a note in Vanguard, 10-13-77), I will be among those rejoicing in his efforts, even though I have never been a recipient of any funds from the Akin Foundation and do not foresee any occasion for becoming such.

Likewise, in this article, I am not interested in seeking to determine who has been at fault in the dispute over the handling of the Akin Foundation funds. Frankly, I do not have adequate information to determine accurately who did what or who is at blame. This, those involved in it and with more information than I have, will have to determine. Those guilty (on whichever side) will have to answer for their deeds — if not in this life, in the life hereafter — whether right or wrong.

But, what does bother me was the closing remarks of Brother Cogdill’s article referred to above. Here he stated, “Those of you who through the years have been supported by and have participated in its help, what will you do to help preserve it — both churches and individuals (emp. mine-DPA) are urged to respond.” Having already written several letters to Brother Cogdill about this statement, and as time is marching on, I feel it important to express my convictions about this

statement, and let Brothel Cogdill make whatever reply he may wish to my remarks.

First of all, I do not believe churches have any scriptural justification at all to become involved in the defense of the Akin Foundation! Hence, for them to do so would be, I believe, a sin. If I am in error in this conclusion, I welcome the proof from the word of God wherein I have erred.

Let us take a look at exactly what is involved. The Akin Foundation is a “private religious foundation” (so recognized by Rother Cogdill also in his letter of 9-13-77)! The money, under the control of the board of that “private religious foundation,” may well eventually be distributed to various faithful congregations as the board so determines. However, until the time of such distribution, the funds are strictly those of the Foundation; no church or churches have any right whatsoever to dictate how those funds are to be used. This being so, where is the scriptural justification for churches to contribute to the defense of a “private religious foundation”– be it the Akin Foundation, an orphan home, or the Cogdill Foundation? If there is scriptural justification for such, I have failed to find it; and, in light of 2 John 9, I contend that to do so would be a misuse of the Lord’s money by those churches so involved.

In his letter to me of September 13, 1977, Brother Cogdill offered the following as justification for “a congregation making a contribution toward a fund to compensate a lawyer for performing legal services for a righteous cause”:

(l) Drawing up a deed for a church for church property.

(2) Clearing the title to church property.

(3) Defending the tide to church property against trespassers.

(4) Prosecuting those who vasdaiaae or disturb the use d church property for proper purposes.

(5) Seeking an injunction against resurgent individuals who interrupt or seek to prevent the proper functioning of the church or in rebellion against the elders of the church in functioning in their proper authority.

(6) Defending the church against a slander or libel suit brought by a member withdrawn from.

(7) Etc., etc.

Without even questioning these points, the fact remains there is no parallel between this argument and what is involved in churches contributing to the defense of the Akin Foundation. One involves the action of one congregation in defense of its right to work and function; the other involves the right of many churches to contribute to a lawyer in defense of a fund belonging to a “private religious foundation.” The very closest one could come in making a parallel would be to assign the funds of this “private religious foundation” to all the churches of. Christ! (And, in so doing, remember the same logic can be applied to the Cogdill Foundation, an orphan home, or whatever else may be slipped in under the same cover!) Hence, one could then activate the church universal to come to the defense of “its” fund. Then, all local congregations would be obligated to contribute for the preservation of this fund belonging to the church universal, on the same basis of logic one church would be called upon to defend its own property. If not, why not? This logic is a renunciation of the very principles of church activities and oversight versus the activation of the church universal concept that we have, battled with our liberal and apostate brethren over the past 140 years.

I wish Brother Cogdill success in his defense of the continued use of the funds of the Akin Foundation by faithful brethren — but not under those terms! I hope various individuals who have been benefitted by the Akin Foundation will aid him in the expenses of such a legal defence. However, I do not believe Brother Cogdill has fully thought through the implications of his statement in his zeal to defend what he deems a worthy cause — or else he did not actually mean what he said in his article. I therefore urge him to pause, think if over, and retract his statement. I also urge congregations to pause and think for themselves before coming to the aid of a “private religious foundation” to hire a lawyer for $90 per hour to defend its fund, even if the board of that “private religious foundation” might someday designate a portion of that fund to some specific congregation!

If the church itself is placed in such a position that we must violate the word of God to maintain control of the funds of a “private religious foundation” for our existence, then my advise is let the funds go! I hope we never become so dependent upon any “private religious foundation” that the word of God is compromised in order to preserve the operation of that “private religious foundation”! Nor that we ever allow our love and respect for the dedication, of any faithful brother ever to become such we do not have the courage to call a careless statement into question.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 43-44
January 12, 1978

By Irvin Himmel

The God of heaven offers bountiful blessings to mankind. The spiritual blessings made available by means of the gospel, and the favors which God grants His children in response to their prayers, are not dispensed unconditionally. While it is true that He makes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matt. 5:45), many divine blessings are granted only to those who comply with stated requirements.

Consider the great and precious promises of the gospel. God does not force salvation where it is not wanted. Eternal life is not promised to men who refuse to believe and obey Christ. The gospel persuades but does not coerce. Principles of truth can be taught to people with willing hearts, but these principles cannot be forced on the unwilling. We cannot fire the gospel into one’s soul as a gun might be used to fire bullets into his body and compel him against his will to submit.

Some men and women have no more appreciation for the gospel than a dog would have for something sacred; the truth means about as much to them as pearls would mean to swine. God’s holy word cannot be forced on profane persons. Jesus said in Matt. 7:6, “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

In the next several verses of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus showed that God’s wonderful spiritual blessings may be enjoyed by people who desire them. There must be a willingness to turn to God and an eagerness for His good gifts. Here is how the Lord expresses it: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened” (Matt. 7:7,8). Note the threefold exhortation: Ask, seek, knock!

Ask

There are several Greek words translated into English by the verb “ask.” Vine says the word used in this passage “more frequently suggests the attitude of a suppliant, the petition of one who is lesser in position than he to whom the petition is made.” Hendriksen agrees with this; he says, “The verb is used with respect to a petition which by an inferior is addressed to a superior.”

We “ask” because there is want or need. Asking implies humility and recognition of some need. The word under consideration is sometimes translated into English as “desire.” For example, it is used in Mk. 11:24 where Jesus said, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” The asking that results in receiving is an asking that comes from deep desire.

Seek

This means to search or look for something. We seek for that which we desire to find. Certain women came to the tomb of Jesus early in the morning on the first day of the week, expecting to complete the process of anointing His body. They entered the tomb but the body was gone. They were much perplexed. Two men appeared in shining garments and said, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (Lk. 24:5). It was pointless to search for the living and risen Christ among the dead. This is an example of how the word “seek” is used. For other examples, see Matt. 6:33; Col. 3:1; Rom. 2:7.

Knock

This verb, when used literally, means to rap on a door. One knocks on a door when he is seeking admittance or permission to enter. Figuratively, we must “knock” to be admitted into God’s favors. It is not necessary that we knock the door down, but the thought is that of expressing the desire for entrance. God opens the door of divine favor when men have enough interest to approach God according to the terms of His will.

When the gospel was preached in Jerusalem in Acts 2, the hearers were pricked in their heart and raised the question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” They were asking what to do because their interest had been aroused and they were now seeking to know how their sins could be remitted. To use a figure of speech, they were knocking on the door. Peter, who had been given the keys of the kingdom, unlocked the door by telling them to repent and be baptized. Their asking resulted in their receiving; their seeking resulted in their finding; their knocking resulted in the door’s being opened. See Acts 2:41.

When the eunuch from Ethiopia was approached by Philip the evangelist in Acts 8, he was asked if he understood what he was reading. The eunuch admitted that he needed help, and he “desired” Philip to come up and sit with him in the chariot. Here was a man anxious to learn the truth. He was asking, searching, and knocking at the door. Philip preached unto him Jesus. The eunuch believed and was baptized.

The jailor at Philippi asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:31). He was seeking the way into God’s favor. To use a figure of speech, he was knocking at the door of the kingdom. He was told to believe on the Lord, the word was spoken to him, and he and his household were baptized.

If one asks and does not receive, it is because he is not asking in accordance with God’s will. If one seeks and does not find, he may be seeking the wrong thing, or searching in the wrong place. If one knocks but the door is not opened, it may be that he is knocking on the wrong door, or he may be seeking admittance on his own terms instead of God’s terms.

It is understood that one must ask, seek, and knock in the right way, in the right attitude, and in accordance with God’s will. This is true of the sinner who seeks to enter God’s kingdom, and it is true of the Christian who seeks God’s blessings through the avenue of prayer.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 42-43
January 12, 1978

By Connie W. Adams

(Editor’s Note: Upon receiving Brother Hardin’s reply to my charges against him, I sent a copy of it to Brother Connie Adams with the request that he write a reply to the charges made against him by Brother Hardin. It appeared to me that Brother Hardin was using the opportunity to respond to me which I granted him as an opportunity of publicly presenting his side of the conflict with the editor of Searching The Scriptures. Frankly, I neither appreciated it nor had any intention of publishing it without answering it. Since the matter did not personally involve me and I did not want to give any more “warped” understandings of the situation, I requested that Brother Adams respond to Brother Hardin’s charges. Here is his brief statement.)

In his response to Mike Willis, Arnold Hardin has left the impression that he was treated unfairly in our exchange in Searching The Scriptures. We carried two articles from J. T. Smith and two from Arnold Hardin on the subjects over which they differed. In further correspondence Brother Hardin insisted that he had been misrepresented. Because of that, I wrote an article in which I raised a series of questions, the answers to which would have resolved the question of misrepresentation. Brother Hardin responded in a six page manuscript. We marked some statements which involved the impugning of motives, sent the manuscript back to him and asked him to either delete these three of four sentences or else re-state them in such a way as not to get, personal or impugn motives. He responded with a very bitter letter, refused to change anything about it, charged again that I never meant to treat him fairly and said he would circulate his response on his own.

We asked Brother Hardin to comply with the same rules which we insist that all writers for Searching The Scriptures observe. We have returned manuscripts to writers who submit materials under assigned headings with the request that such references be omitted. Deleting the sentences in question had no material bearing on the subject at hand. The offer I made to him then still stands: if he will either delete or re-word the objectionable sentences, we will gladly carry his article and respond to it. This offer was published in Searching The Scriptures as a matter of record. We would like very much for our readers to see what he said in reply to the questions we raised since we are convinced his replies serve to verify what we have said about his convictions. There the matter stands, and will continue to stand, until Brother Hardin decides to comply with the same terms which all other writers in Searching The Scriptures are asked` to observe. We believe this is fair and serves the best interest of all concerned, and especially our readers.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, p. 40
January 12, 1978