Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Last week’s editorial considered the price of Christianity from the standpoint of what it cost Jesus. In this week’s editorial, I want to consider what Christianity costs the individual who decides to become a Christian. Because of the charge that some of us are teaching salvation by perfect obedience, let me quickly state that I do not believe that the things which man does in response to the gospel of Christ can be considered meritorious works. The full price for man’s redemption was paid by Jesus when He shed His precious blood. Yet, the figure of the counting of the cost of Christianity is perfectly biblical when applied to what it costs man (cf. Lk. 14:26ff). Hence, I would like to consider the price of Christianity to those who are disciples of Jesus Christ.

Separation From The World

One of the first things which Christianity costs man is the price of separation from the world. God’s demand is, “Come out from their midst and be separate. . .and do not touch what is unclean” (2 Cor. 6:18). Hence, those who are Christians must be men who have decided to forego whatever pleasures immorality can bring and to give themselves to the service of God. There is no way that the disciple of Christ can live in sin. John said, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God” (1 Jn. 3:19).

Separation from the world will mean giving up the things which are wrong. The fornicator must cease to practice fornication; the adulterer must quit practicing adultery. The gambler must cease to gamble. The drunkard, social drinker, etc. must quit their drinking. The one who uses profanity must cease doing this so that his speech might be pure.

The life of a Christian should distinguish him from the non-Christian. Peter wrote, “For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you” (1 Pet. 4:3-4). Notice that Peter expected the Christian’s moral conduct to be different from that of the non-Christian.

One of the reasons that Christianity has had such little impact on the world around us in recent years is that the distinction between the world and the Christian is blurred. My friend, I can guarantee you that the difficulty in distinguishing the Christian from the non-Christian is not caused by the moral purity of the world. Rather the problem lies with Christians who have become convinced that there is no reason to break adulterous marriages, that there is nothing wrong with social drinking, that mixed swimming is all right, that gambling is not so bad after all that there is nothing wrong with dancing, and that there is nothing wrong with off-color jokes. That is not the way Christ intended it; the Christian is to practice a standard of living far superior to that of the world. Hence, Christianity will cost him separation from the world.

Persecution

Christianity will also cost the Christian persecution. Paul wrote, “And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). Generally, the persecutions which we are facing in this age are much less intense than those which first century Christians had to face. Nevertheless, we do face persecutions.

The man who lives the moral life demanded by the Bible is socially ostracized. Because we do not participate in the telling of filthy jokes and in going with our fellow man to the taverns, bars, night clubs, and office parties, we are considered “outsiders.” We are not with the “in” crowd. Hence, we are socially ostracized. We are considered “crazy” for giving sacrificially. Those who attend all of the services of the local church are considered “religious freaks.” Anyone who reads his Bible regularly is a “Bible-beater.” If we think that salvation is available only in Christ, we are considered narrow-minded, bigoted idiots. Yes, those who follow Christ will be persecuted. That is one of the things which Christianity costs the Christian.

Time

Christianity also costs a man his time. Paul wrote, “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:15,16). There are times when the service of Jesus Christ calls the Christian away from activities which he enjoys. There are times when I would prefer to be in bed asleep, at home with my family, or just having a good time that I must be about the Father’s business. Yes, Christianity costs a Christian his time.

I sometimes wonder what our conditions would be like if God treated us like we treat Him. Suppose we said, “Father, give me this day my daily bread,” and He said, “I am sorry, but I am too busy for you today.” I am afraid that we would die of starvation. Yet, I am exposed to a number of “Christians” who are “too busy” to worship God. My brethern, those who are “too busy” to worship and work for God are “too busy” to be saved. God will not save those who are so preoccupied with the things of this world they cannot serve Him. Hence, Christianity costs us our time.

Our Life And Talents

Christianity also demands that I use my life and talents in the service of God. For different persons, this will mean different things because each of us has differing abilities. However, for me, the service of Christ means spending my life as a gospel preacher. I can remember when I left home to go to college that I planned to become some kind of an engineer. Then, I was going to get a good job (translated, that meant only that I was going to make big money) and live comfortably ever after. Then, I realized that God had given me certain abilities for which I was accountable (Mt. 25:14-30). Consequently, I felt a responsibility to use my energies in His service.

I remember hearing Brother James P. Needham preaching in Marion, Indiana on this very subject. He made a statement or two about this which has frequently come to my mind. He said, “Any excuse which God will accept from you who are in possession of the ability to preach for not giving your life to gospel preaching He will accept from me as an excuse to quit preaching.” Though I had no desire to quit preaching, I thought about that for many years. I still believe that it is true. Apparently, Paul felt the same way for he wrote, “for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16).

Christianity costs us the use of our life and talents in Christ’s service. You who have the ability to lead singing must use that in Christ’s service. You who have the ability to become elders and deacons must use that in Christ’s service. Whatever talents you have in your possession, you must use them for Christ. That is what Christianity costs the Christian.

Money

Christianity costs me my money as well. Every week, I donate a pretty good portion of my income to the Lord. That money could be used to buy me a boat, clothes, a second car, etc. just as easily as the world uses its money to satisfy itself. Yet, I do not begrudge the money which I give to my Lord. After all, He is the one who gave me the ability to earn a wage. Moses said, “for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth” (Deut. 8:18). What I give to Him is but a small portion

of what He has so bountifully given to me.

Really, the money which I give to Christ is the only money which amounts to anything anyway. One poet expressed it like this:

“Use your money while you’re living,

Do not hoard it to be proud.

You can never take it with you,

There are no pockets in the shroud.

“Gold can help you on no farther

Than the graveyard where you lie.

And though you are rich while you are living,

You’re a pauper when you die.

“Use it then some lives to brighten

As through this weary world they plod.

Place your bank account in heaven,

And grow richer toward God.”

The Christian recognizes that Christianity will cost him money since he is expected to give sacrificially to the Lord.

Conclusion

My brethren, Christianity does not come to us cheaply. It did not come cheaply for Christ and it will not come cheaply to us. Yet, the rewards which it holds out for us make whatever sacrifices which we must make to serve Christ infinitesimal. The opportunity to escape Hell and to live forever in Heaven comes to me at a small price. I am willing to sacrifice all of this and much more to live forever with God in the bliss of Heaven.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 675-677
November 3, 1977

By Irvin Himmel

Paul was at a place called Troas on his second journey when a vision appeared to him in the night. He saw a man from the country of Macedonia who was saying, “Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” The apostle and his companions came to Philippi, the ranking city in that section of Macedonia, after concluding that the Lord had called them to preach the gospel in that region. The Romans had planted a colony at Philippi.

Lydia and her household were the first converts at Philippi. Notice what the Bible says about this woman in Acts 16:12-15.

1. Lydia was a business woman. She was a seller of purple. This could mean that she sold a dye that was used in staining fibers, or it may mean that she sold cloth or garments that had been dyed. It is said of the rich man in Lk. 16:19 that he was clothed in purple and fine linen. Lydia did not allow her business interests to keep her from higher interests. Many people use their trade or occupation as an excuse for not serving God. In some cases, one’s business becomes so absorbing that he has no interest in spiritual concerns: Lydia was converted because the Lord was more important than her career.

2. Lydia was a foreigner. She was from the city of Thyatira in Asia Minor. We are not informed of how long she had been at Philippi when Paul and his coworkers arrived. Her being away from her native land did not cause her to forget about religion.

3. Lydia was a praying woman. Paul and the other preachers who were with him learned that it was customary for prayer to be offered by a river side on the Sabbath. They spoke to the women who resorted to that place. Lydia was among them. It is likely that these women were of the Jewish race. Perhaps there were not enough Jews around Philippi to build a synagogue, so a few faithful women were praying regularly at a designated spot by a river side each Sabbath.

4. Lydia worshiped God. Most of the people in Macedonia were idolaters. People were converted in some cases from idolatrous worship. But Lydia had the advantage of believing in the true and living God before she heard the gospel. However, her being a prayerful worshiper of God did not make her a saved person without the gospel. Paul did not go along with the idea that one religion is as good as another. He knew that Lydia was lost in spite of her devotion.

5. Lydia heard the truth. Paul and his companions “spake” (v. 13); Lydia “heard” (v. 14). This is the first step in converting anyone to Jesus Christ. “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father; cometh unto m8;” said Jesus in John 6:45. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

6. Lydia had her heart opened. The Lord opened her heart. This was accomplished through tile power of the gospel which she heard. The Bible does not say that the Lord opened her heart that she might hear, but it says she heard, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). It is by means of the gospel that the Lord opens hearts. First, Lydia heard the word. Second, by the influence of that word her heart was opened by the Lord. Third, because her heart was opened she gave heed to what she was taught to do.

7. Lydia was baptized. This harmonizes with what Jesus told the apostles when they were being sent forth in Mk. 16:15, 16. “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Lydia was not saved by faith only. She demonstrated her faith in obedience. Jesus requires baptism as a demonstration of faith, and the remission of sins depends on this kind of faith (Acts 2:38, 22:16).

Both Lydia and her household were baptized. To use this case as justification for infant baptism necessitates the following assumptions: (1) that Lydia was married; (2) that she had children; and, (3) that her children were yet infants. Lydia’s household could have been her servants. If she was married and had children, they could have been mature enough to know right from wrong, and would have been proper subjects for baptism. Other passages make it clear that baptism is for repentant believers, therefore infants are excluded.

8. Lydia shared in gospel work. After being baptized, she besought Paul and his fellow workers to abide in her house. This offer of hospitality was not a mere courtesy. She “constrained” them. She was indebted to these men who had taught her the truth. She wanted to provide them with lodging as an expression of her appreciation and to show her interest in their important work. Afterward, when Paul wrote to the saints at Philippi, he said, “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine . . . For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now” (Phil. 1:3-5). From the time of Lydia’s conversion to the time of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, the saints at Philippi had shown a willingness to share with the apostle in his good work.

The account of Lydia’s conversion is one of the many impressive narratives showing how people turned to the Lord under the influence of simple gospel preaching in the days of the apostles. The same gospel is still being preached and souls are still being converted.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, p. 674
November 3, 1977

By Jady W. Copeland

In the May 8th issue of Truth Magazine (1975), I wrote an article on “Are Blood Transfusions Wrong?” The conclusion to which I came in that article included my understanding of Acts 15:19-21, namely that this is not a blanket prohibition of the apostles and elders to eat blood in all generations of time, but that it was prohibited then because of the strained relationship between Jew and Gentile. The four things mentioned in verses 20 and 29 were things common to the Gentile Christians as they often practiced them prior to their becoming Christians. However, they seemed to have offended many of the Jews and, thus, in cementing the relationship between Jew and Gentile, it seems to me that Peter and the apostles were telling the Gentile Christians to refrain from these things in view of that relationship. From 1 Cor. 8 and 10 we learn that the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to idols was not, in all cases, sinful so if Acts 15:19 is a blanket prohibition (even for us today), it seems to me that you have a contradiction. Therefore, after studying the passage further in Acts 15, I have come to the conclusion as stated above.

As many of the Filipino brethren take Truth Magazine and since I was in the Philippines last April along with Brother Harold Trimble, I ran into a number of brethren there who questioned me on my article. Eating balute (unborn chickens and ducks still in the shell, and cooked) is a common practice in the Philippines as well as the eating of blood in other forms. Thus, it is a much greater “issue” there than in the United States. The position of brethren in the Philippines has been, and is, what my position had long been with reference to eating blood-namely that it is simply wrong to eat blood in any form. And since it seems to have caused quite a discussion among Filipino brethren, I have decided to write this article concerning attitudes with reference to such things in the hopes that Brother Willis can print it.

Not only have I changed my mind on this passage, but many brethren in the states do not agree with me. It is one of those “issues” I suppose on which there is a great deal of disagreement, but has never caused much trouble since not many people in the states desire to eat blood anyway. I certainly do not desire to eat it (had no “hankering” to eat balute even in the Philippines) and do not make an issue on the subject with those people with whom I disagree. I do not think any less of anyone who disagrees with me on the matter and (as always) realize the possibility of my being mistaken on the matter. I am willing to be taught. But since it seems to have caused some discussion among Filipino brethren, I wanted to appeal to them, and to all, to study the matter very seriously, and be fully assured in his own mind (Rom. 14:5). It is surely not an issue that should cause hard feelings. I appeal to my many Filipino brethren that I met and love to study the matter, but if it is going to cause any kind of hard feelings, then as the apostles wrote, you should refrain from such. Out of love for one another, and the desire for unity such things can be resolved in practice without any trouble at all. It is not a practice (such as the institutional question) where it would involve the whole congregation, but is an individual matter on which each must decide for himself. But I would, in view of the situation in the Philippines, urge brethren there not to eat blood as it might cause a brother to stumble. Even if one there might decide I am right about it, I think (knowing the situation there) it would be in the best interest of unity and love among brethren to refrain from such a practice. As I told some of the brethren while there, this is my own belief in the matter. Study the question for yourselves, and cause no hard feelings or trouble in the matter. There are a number of things I have had a desire to do in life, but have refrained from doing them because I thought they might harm my influence or cause a brother to sin. I do not eat blood. I do not want to eat blood, and if for no other reason than to keep from leading my brethren into sin, I would refrain from doing so. I would not want them to take me for an example and cause them to do that which they believe to be wrong (1 Cor. 8:7-13).

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 669-670
October 27, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

Hardly a week passes now but that we see in some religious paper an account of division in some church over such things as church support of vacation resorts, youth centers, colleges, church hospitals, homes for unwed mothers, church kitchens, banquet halls, brotherhood programs under one eldership, brotherhood organizations to take the place of the old missionary societies (we are reluctant to call them that now because of the stigma of the name “missionary society” which set the pace that wrecked the church a century ago), “Campaigns for Christ International,” “Gospel Press,” etc.

To those who love the Lord and His people, this always is an occasion of sorrow. Sorrow, because when a church divides there is always the breaking of ties and the alienation of friends and relatives. This often leaves scars that will never heal. Then there is the blighting effect that division has on the church in the community. Such a crisis as this nearly always causes some of the weaker members to become discouraged and drop out. The world will mock and deride us and the devil will gloat. Then last; but not last, where there is division such as this, there is always sin. Paul said to the Corinthians, “For ye are yet carnal: For whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men” (1 Cor.3:3). In some cases, both sides may be guilty, but one thing is sure, where there is division, somebody is guilty of sin. Woe unto the ones who cause division in the Lord’s church.

Division’s Sometimes Necessary

As sinful as divisions is, it is not always true that all those involved are guilty of sin. Sometimes the situation becomes such that it is sinful for some not to separate. themselves from the others. There comes a time when those who respect the truth and want to live by it have no choice but to walk out and start a church where the work can be carried on in harmony with New Testament teaching. Where would the church be today if some brethren had not walked out when the missionary societies and instrumental music were forced upon them? When prejudice has not yet crystalized the sentiment of a church against honest investigation of the issues involved, I would certainly encourage brethren to stay on and study the matter with mutual patience and forbearance as long as there is hope of saving a church from the curse of innovation. But when a Christian continues on in a congregation that is engaged in unscriptural practices, knowing that he can do nothing to change the condition, he becomes guilty with the others, because he is lending his influence and giving his money to aid those who are corrupting the Lord’s church. John said, “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed, for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 10, 11)

Some Excuses

Nearly every time a church divides there are some who, knowing the truth, still refuse to go with the few who go out and establish a faithful New Testament church. There are many reasons for this. Of course, there are always some who just do not care. They know what the Bible teaches but have no conviction. There is not much loss to the effort here, because these would not be worth much if they went along. They will not be worth much where they stay. They are going with the biggest crowd. They can get lost in the crowd and what they do not do will not be noticed. When you are in a small group your laziness and good-for-nothingness shows more. It is embarrassing.

Then there are some who say, “My children have their friends here and I just hate to take them away.” Are these more interested in their children’s social status or their souls? Do they think their children can grow up in a church that disregards New Testament authority and come out sound in the faith? When swans are hatched from buzzard eggs you may look for this.

Others say, “Their elders are opposed to this move, and I don’t want to be guilty of rebellion against the elders.” I wonder if they are that conscientious about attending all the classes and meetings arranged by the elders? Anyway, where did we get the idea that the elders have the right to forbid a group of Christians to leave the church where they serve and start another congregation. Suppose some members of a church live in a town twenty miles away and one day they decide to start a church in the town where they live. If the elders refused permission they would have to continue driving twenty miles to worship. And, if some outsider came in and started a church in that town, these members who were driving twenty miles could not place membership in their own home town. Do you believe that? If the elders can forbid forty members to go out and start another work, they can forbid one to change his membership to another church. I recognize that brethren should consider the elders and counsel with them concerning the starting of another church, and in normal condition abide by their decisions in the matter. But when elders are spending the money of the church in supporting things for which they can offer no scriptural proof, and in many instances will not even try, I would not feel bound by their decision. I have a higher obligation than that which I sustain to the elders. The Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands. But we all understand that this is a relative submission. Her first duty is to God, and her husband comes second. The same is true with regard to the children and the parent relationship; the citizen and the government. And it is also true that the Christian is taught to be in submission to the elders, but when the elders command one to do something that God has not authorized, he “must obey God rather than man.” I would ask these brethren who have such reverence for the eiders, “What would you have done if you had lived a century ago and h.-.d been members of a church in which the elders decided Lo support the Missionary Society?” Would you have obeyed the elders? If you say that was different, you assume the very thing to be proven, that the Missionary Society was unscriptural, but that the things that are now dividing the church are scriptural. If you believe they are scriptural, then you should take a stand and fight for them, after you have found the scripture that authorizes them. If you think they are unscriptural, then you should help oppose them.

Elders not Official Interpreters

Elders have the awesome responsibility of feeding, overseeing, ruling and being examples to the flock. Certainly faithful elders deserve our respect and cooperation. They are set to “watch for our souls as they who must give account. . .” (Heb. 13:17). But they are not set over the church as official interpreters of the Word. And they have no arbitrary authority. Christ has all authority (Mt. 28:18), and that does not leave any for the elders. Elders have the charge to rule the church under Christ and in harmony with His Word, just as the wife is told to submit to her husband “as it is fit in the Lord” (Col. 3:18). And when elders demand that the flock submit to their decision and refuse to even allow the matter to be discussed in the light of scripture, they are “lord(ing) it over God’s heritage,” and the Christians have no more obligation to obey them in that matter than the wife would be obligated to obey her husband’s command that she prostitute her body to support him.

If this sentiment gains general acceptance, that the decision of the elders regarding the work of the church must be accepted without question or even study, then it is only a matter of time until the church has a human creed. Our freedom to study the Bible and decide for ourselves has been our great strength. It has kept us from the shackles of a human creed. And when we relinquish this freedom, even to the elders, we might as well have a priest or a bishop to tell us what we may believe and do, as do the Catholics.

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 668-669
October 27, 1977