Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

In the individual Christian, as in the church, departure from the faith is gradual. It is a psychological impossibility for a faithful Christian to suddenly make up his mind he will no longer serve the Lord. I realize that there are many counterfeit Christians who “joined the church” for some selfish reason; these will sell out as soon as the devil raises the bid. Then there are others who are very young in the faith, and who, through some great temptation or passion, are overcome. These are often ashamed to come back and face the humiliation. But people who know the truth and who have tried the Christian life successfully for some time, simply do not fall away suddenly. Their apostasy is always gradual; sometimes so gradual that they themselves are not aware of their change. We have doubtless read of the frog which was boiled in water without feeling the pain, because the heat was increased so gradually that he was not aware of the change in temperature. But he died!!! There is no doubt that the saints in Laodicia started off in the same manner as did those of Philadelphia and Smyrna, but when the Lord dictated the letter to that church in Revelation 3, these Laodiceans were saying of themselves, “we are rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing.” But the Lord said they were “wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.” There was quite a contrast.

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, p. 98
February 17, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

“Send all questions to the writer of this column.”

Question: Departure from Illinois: “How can it be proved that Jesus was raised from the dead on Sunday, the first day of the week?”

Reply: No teaching of Scripture is more fully and clearly taught than the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead on the first day of the week. However, Sabbatarians of every stripe and texture have stripped and tortured the word of God in order to prove that Jesus was raised on Saturday, the Sabbath. Their efforts have deceived many and confused others.

The Third Day

“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be raised again the third day” (Matt. 16:21). Jesus said, note it carefully, that He would “be raised again the third day.” That is significant in view of Luke’s account. (1) Luke says the disciples “rested the Sabbath day,” Saturday (Lk. 23:56). (2) “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher” (Lk. 24:1). (3) They rested on the Sabbath, Saturday. They came to the grave on Sunday, the first day of the week. There the disciples are reminded of Jesus’ words that He would rise again “the third day” (Lk. 24:7). (4) “That same day,” the first day of the week, two disciples went “to a village called Emmaus” (Lk. 24:13). (5) They met the Lord Jesus, but they did not recognize Him. They spoke of Jesus’ death and said, “Today is the third day since these things (Jesus’ condemnation and crucifixion) were done” (Lk. 24:21). So, on “the third day,” which was “the first day of the week,” these two disciples talked with the Lord. But on what day did Jesus say He was to be raised? He said He would “be raised again the third day” (Matt. 16:21). (6) Finally, Jesus said, “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day” (Lk. 24:46). “The third day” was the first day of the week (Lk. 24:1, 7, 13, 21). Thus, after the disciples rested on the Sabbath, Jesus was raised from the dead on the first day of the week. This was “the third day” since “these things were done.”

Mark’s Account

Mark says, “And when the Sabbath was past,” certain women came to anoint Jesus’ body (Mk. 16:1). When they arrived at the tomb, they found the corpse missing.

An angel told them, “He is risen.” Then the text says, “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (Mk. 16:9). A literal Greek rendering has, “Now having risen early on the first day of the week.” Mary came to the tomb on “the first day of the week,” the day Jesus was raised, and she saw him first (Jn. 20:1, 11-18).

CONCLUSION: If these texts do not establish the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead on the first day of the week, (1) it cannot be proven; (2) the Scriptures are confused and unreliable; (3) and language means nothing.

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, p. 98
February 17, 1977

By Myke Morris

When every other argument has failed those who defend unscriptural practices and the truth has them pinned to the wall so that in their hearts they know their error, there is one last resort which they state with confidence and so salve their consciences. “Common sense tells me . . .”; and so ends the discussion. This fiiaal “argument” has solved their problems because it is indeed without a logical answer!

I say it is an “argurnent” because this is how it is used. In reality, it is no argument at all but a premise. Webster defines a premise as “a proposition antez;edently supposed or proved as a basis (emphasis mine, RMM) of argument or inference . . .” A premise, therefore, is something that need not be proven because it cannot be proven! It is the basis of proof for an argument.

An argument is the logical process of proving a point. Given a premise we make an argument to establish that our conclusion is the truth. There is nothing wrong with argumentation or logic if it is done correctly. It is nothing more than the reasoning process every thinking creature employs. Paul used it on Mars Hill (Acts 2:2223) and before Felix (Acts 24), and it is used in every instance the gospel is righteously proclaimed.

In reasoning from the Scripture, we must adopt a premise. Our faith in the Living God provides all that is needed in this regard. If we believe that God is, we do so because of the special revelation of His Word. That the Bible is the truth is not therefore a premise but a logical conclusion based on the premise of God’s existence. From this one premise we reason “all things that pertain to life and Godliness.” In any Scriptural argument we make on any subject, the “premises” that we begin with are in fact logical conclusions arising from this one. Isn’t this the reason Paul defined faith as he did in Hebrews 11:1?

What are some of the “‘premises” that are in fact proven horn the starting point of our faith? “The Bible is sufficient in all things” (cf, 2 Peter 1:3); “Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” (cf u 1 Peter 4:11); “There is only one way to be saved” (cf. John 14:6). ‘These statements, and others, that sectarians would refer to as “the basic premises of Campbellism” are really nothing more than conclusions that are demanded by the logical process. True, we accept them because they are found in the Bible, but remember, we look to the Bible for what to believe because of our faith (our only real premise).

Now where does “common sense” fall in the list of premises? Is it proven by that one basic premise that we all accept? Beloved, it is proven false! “Common sense” originates with man. Its flaws are proven in that the “common sense” of the Watchtower Society says that God could never condemn men to eternal punishment! That of the Roman Church says that the church of God must have a universal head on Earth; that of the Baptists says that immersion in water is because of the prior remission of sins. And on ad infinitum! “Common sense” cannot be one of the good and perfect gifts mentioned in James 1:17! Isn’t it what the prophet condemns in Jeremiah 10:23?

There is one other reason that “common sense” is cited by the defenders of sin. It enables them to fling one last barb at the faithful child of God. I implies, “If you don’t agree with me, you don’t even have common sense.” Such prejudicial innuendos have no place in sound reasoning from the Scriptures!

Are any brethren guilty of this resort when they are stuck for an answer? Are there any among us whose religion is based in the crude, human trap of “common sense” rather than in the sound reasoning of the Word of God? Let us always strive, as did the apostles, to use the good gift of reason rather than the reproachful barb of “common sense”.

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 93-94
February 10, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

There is a phrase used among brethren that demonstrates contempt for some of their brethren. The word is almost a universal byword o# derision among saints. The most damning accusation that could conceivably be brought against any man’s motives is to say, “He is trying to be a Big-Name-Preacher.” Now, it is obvious that there are such men-preachers out to peddle themselves rather than giving away the Gospel. These men desire the acclaim of men and the prominence that it brings. They are those who look upon their brethren as a source of livelihood and other preachers as either competitors ox allies. These caricatures axe pitiful creatures, more to be pitied than hated but certainly to be avoided (2 Tim. 3).

Put this crushing accusation often keeps men o# high ability from striving for goals of higher service and excellence for the Lord. There seems to be a great deal o# what this writer calls “inverse snobbery” among God’s people. Many who have obeyed the Gospel are simple and modest personalities. But, this modesty should not extend to smother any ability ox zeal that is greater ox stronger than our own.. Rather, we should rejoice that every part of the body lass differing abilities–the total effect being a body which is strong and effective over all (1 Cox. 12).

“Seek that ye might excel to the edifying of the body of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:12). We can be justifiably proud of any effort we put forth to excel for the Lord by serving the church. Whether it be intellectually, spiritually, or in good works, our service to God is not in vain and it should give us as much pleasure to serve the Lord as it does for Him to receive it (Eccl. 2:26; Matt, 25:21; Luke 6:22, 23). Our rejoicing in service to God is not for the “name” we may garner among men, but for the joy we have in that our names axe written in heaven (Luke 1p:20). The brother who puts out the least amount of work he can get by with is cheating both himself and the Lord who gave him the talents to produce more. The brother who “cuts back” because of “Big-Preacher” criticism or because the grade inclines upward, mill never reach the top of anything.

This is not an idle admonition. Many are content to remain in stasis, making no effort to climb to greater service. There appears to be no sense of urgency or zeal that would prod the “soldier o# Christ” to arise and go out to join forces with God’s warriors to defeat the army o# Satan. Preachers who are giving two lessons a week, study infrequently, write little or not at all, and for all intents and purposes ignore the plight of the lost and erring are misusing their support and are prostituting their function. Many preachers seem to think that the church exists to provide them with a living, and if their fruit is unconverted souls it is because “The church does not provide me with any contacts-” “The work o# evangelism can be done, and is often accomplished independently of the local church. The Bible evangelist does not depend on the church to provide him with work to do. Any student of the life of Paul will testify to this. Our work is as a “servant of Christ” to “make all men complete in Christ.”

Sour Grapes

Did you ever wonder where the expression “Sour Grapes” comes from? It is derived from the fable of the hungry fox by Aesop, an ancient Greek philosopher. The tale is related that there was a hungry fox who happened to pace through a grape vineyard. He saw a particularly succulent cluster o# dew-washed grapes, and the saliva began to flay. He stretched and strained to reach the grapes, but they remained just out of his reach, tantalizing him with the promise of their sweetness. Finally, setting back in frustration and hunger, the fox declared heatedly, “Well, the grapes are probably sour anyway—who wants sour grapes?” Feeling somewhat less frustrated, but hardly lees hungry, the fox stalked off without ever tasting the grapes. Aesop’s moral wasp “There is always some comfort in pretending we rig not want the things we cannot get.”

The moral strikes close to the motivation behind most cxitici.sata of those men who “excel to the edifying of the body of the lord” (1 Cor. 14.12), It is much easier to live with our own lackadaisical character if we can write off those who work harder than we do as “glory-hounds.” Any maxi who has ever worked on an assembly line ox with a group in a common job knows the stigma the slow-moving and lazy attempt to put on the efforts o# the diligent. “In all labor there is profit, but the talk of the fops leads only to poverty” (Prov. 14:23). These critics seldom produce anything but criticism. They are always going to do something, at least they talk about it a lot, but when it comes to any worthwhile work they are obvious frauds. The slothful desire the respect and honor given to those who labor hard and well, “but his hands refuse to labor. He covets greedily all day long” (Prov. 21:25). Solomon said that he could always tell the farm of a sluggard, “Lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down.” The wise king of Israel learned something from this scene. The result of “a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep” in the end brought only disorder, chaos, and final destruction (Prov. 24:30-34).

Look to the critic who is always down upon men of ability; look at his life and its fruits. Test his knowledge of the word, and the effect that it has upon his life, and then weigh his words against the labor of the one he is so contemptuous of. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to have a knowledge of God and not be diligent in our service to him (Heb. 11:6; Phil. 3:13, 14; 1 Tim. 3:10; Gal. 6:9). God tells us that a man is a liar if he claims a right relationship with God and yet is slothful in his service and is contemptuous of his brother (1 Jn. 2;4,9). But the man who excels for the Lord will be known and honored by those who appreciate service to our King. “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before the king; but he shall not stand before mean and obscure men” (Prov. 22:29).

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 92-93
February 10, 1977