Truth Magazine

By Philip S. North

The above word is so much bigger than the number of letters of which it contains. The word “eternity” is a noun, which comes from the word “eternal.” “Eternal” comes from the Greek word aionios, which means, “everlasting, without end, never to cease, or indeterminate as to duration.” We are then able to conclude that “eternity” simply refers to a period of time that is perpetual-that is to say, never ending at all; infinity. Gospel preachers young and old cannot preach or teach on eternity sensibly. The human mind has always measured everything in time, therefore having an end to it. However, try and measure eternity! Regardless of how far the most genius and imaginative mind can stretch itself to grasp how long eternity is, that mind will somewhere along the line fall short of its duration. I find that the closest one may arrive at the length of this thing known as eternity is in the last verse of the hymn, “Amazing Grace.” The verse reads, “When we’ve been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise than when we’ve first begun.” I shudder to think how long eternity will be for many souls. Perhaps too long is about as close as I can phrase it.

A little boy once said that he wished he had a piece of peppermint candy with only one end on it. That is a good definition of eternity. It has but one end on it-the starting place. If an ant could walk on the equator (traveling at the rate of 1/17 of a mile an hour) and wear the earth in half, how many years would it take? Suppose the entire state of Texas were made of wood. How long would it take the termite to eat the entire state. If the entire world were made of solid steel, how long would it take someone with a hacksaw to cut it in half from one end to the other without stopping? Good reader, I do not even begin to know the answer to these ridiculous examples that I’m giving-and did not originate; but however many years it would take to perform all the above put together, that is still not eternity. That is less than eternity. Again, you cannot discuss the duration of eternity sensibly. I challenge you in the spirit of Jesus to attempt it and you will then see most clearly what you are up against. All attempts, both vours and mine, will be vain and void.

Jesus said in Matthew 25:46, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” In Romans 16:26 Paul describes God as the everlasting God.” In Hebrews 9:14 we read of the eternal spirit.” In Hell, after a man has been there for one million, or one billion, or one trillion years, or as many zeroes as you wish to place after the number “1,” he still has no less time to stay. He has not even begun!!! Revelation 14:11 states, “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever and they have no rest day or night.” In Heaven, after a man has been there for urnteen years, he too has no less time to stay. When an individual constantly rejects the call of the Gospel, he does not know what he is ignorantly and foolishly asking for! However, there are two main things we can be quite certain of that these people are not pondering: (1) how terrible Hell is, and (2) how long eternity will be for them.

I would that I could find exact words to use which would fit such an awful place as Hell, with reference to its pain an eternal duration. To those precious souls who will unfortunately be cast there on judgment, I tell you in truth that eternity will give them ever so much time to regret rejecting Jesus and His Gospel; certainly a lot more time than they were given here on this earth living a prodigal life before God.

How long then is eternity? For many it will be too long! For those who, because of the grace of God, will make it to that celestial city Heaven, eternity will be just right. The actual thought of no more pain, sorrow, disease, hate, or anything else evil! How much more of a precious, priceless, unmerited, worthwhile gift could a person ask for? How is eternity going to be for you? Too long or just right? If you are not living as God would have you live, (and you know deep down if you really possess the spirit of a Christian or not) then YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE ASKING FOR! You are spiritually blind and the devil has you in his evil snare (Jn. 8:44; 2 Cor. 4:4; Mt. 13:38). Reader, what will you open up to in the next life when you close your eyes for the last time here on earth? After death, what then?

Truth Magazine XX: 47, p. 738
November 25, 1976

By Warren E. Berkle

A bewildered mother wrote to Ann Landers for advice in raising her children. The essence of her inquiry was this: How can a person tell right from wrong? The answer appeared in Ann Landers’ syndicated column as follows:

Dear Mother: A few years ago I heard a sermon by the beloved pastor of the People’s Church of Chicago, Dr. Preston Bradley. He discussed this very subject and quoted Harry Emerson Fosdick’s six-point test for deciding what is right and what is wrong. I asked Dr. Bradley if he would send me his distilled version and he did so at once. Here it is:

One: Does the course of action you plan to follow seem sensible and honorable to you? Never mind what anyone else has to say. If it does, it is probably right.

Two: Does it pass the test of sportsmanship? In other words, if everyone followed this same course of action, would the results be beneficial for all?

Three: Where will your plan of action lead? How will it affect others? What will it do to you?

Four: Will you think well of yourself when you look back at what you have done?

Five: Try to separate yourself from the problem. Pretend for a moment that it is the problem of the person you most admire. Ask yourself, “How would THAT person handle it?”

Six: Hold up the final decision to the glaring light of publicity. Would you want your family and friends to know what you have done? The decisions we make in the hope that no one will find out are usually wrong.

Dr. Fosdick’s “Six-Point Plan” as described by Dr. Preston Bradley is, in my opinion, as fine a guide for decision making as I have ever heard. I hope your children will find answers they are seeking. They’re all right there (Taken from The Southwest Times Record, Fort Smith, Arkansas, Sept. 17, 1974).

Our aim in this article is to review and evaluate the kind of thinking here represented. Our first observation concerns the kind of preaching Ann Landers heard at The People’s Church in Chicago (our remarks will show ,he fitness of “People’s Church instead of “Christ’s church!).

Bradley – Typical Modern Preacher!

The “beloved pastor” of the People’s Church of Chicago is a typical modern preacher! To an audience of starved souls who need moral guidance, Bradley quotes-not Christ or Paul-but Fosdick! And it’s a sad commentary on our times that Bradley would be quite welcome in most pulpits across the land.

We are fully convinced that such preaching as this is not gospel preaching. And, since the gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16), these modern preachers are no! addressing themselves to the spiritual needs of man. They may be pleasing their audiences and “seeking the favor of men,” but they are not gospel preachers!

Let us hear from the Bible on this matter. Paul wrote: . . . If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:9-12). That settles it!

But Bradley would have to say: “For I make known to Von, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that IT IS AFTER MAN. For neither did I receive it from God’s word, but it came to me FROM HARRY EMERSON FOSDICK!”

Fosdick’s “Gospel”

The “gospel” according to Fosdick is nothing but sheer humanism! Humanism is a school of though based on the crumbling premise of man’s essential goodness and perfectability. The whole emphasis of humanism is on man’s viewpoint and human ability to arrive at sound moral decisions with no aid from above. “This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish” (Jas. 3:15).

While our limits will not permit us to enter upon an extensive examination of Fosdick’s six-point plan, a few observations are in order:

1. Arriving at a sound method of distinguishing heiween right and m,rong is infinitely beyond the capacity of sinful men! If we consult the opinions of men in an effort to measure moral worth, we will be lost in a sea of contradiction and weakness. Jeremiah reminds us that, “the way of man is not in himself; it is no, in man that walketh to direct his steps” (10:23). Man needs moral guidance, but “in himself” cannot accuralely respond to that basic need. God can, and does !hrough His Son, Jesus Christ (Matt. 17:1-5; 28:18-20; Heb. 1:14; Col. 2:8; Eph. 2:10; Phil. 1:11). Harry Emerson Fosdick, Preston Bradley and Ann Landers are noi qualified to propose any kind of moral plan, but CHRIST IS! Follow Him.

2. Human plans of “righleousness” are self-serving. A basic question we need to answer is whether the moral standards we promote are actually encouraging and sirengthening our own selfish appetites and impulses (notice the prominence of “you” in Fosdick’s plan)! The ,ru!li is, men who have sinned will be inclined to think in terms of self. For this reason, Christ calls upon sinners to deny self (Matt. 16:24-26). Could we practice self-denial while following the Fosdick plan? And, does Fosdick really know what is best for man? That brings us to our next point. . . .

3. Fosdicks plan exciudes God! Under point one he observes, “Never mind what anyone else has to say.” He might well have said, “Never mind what God has to say,” because that is exactly what he did! But God has a plan. The gospel of Christ is God’s plan for making men right through obedient faith (Rom. 1:16,17) – and right men and women (Christians) will be able to make right moral decisions. This is so because, “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them vou may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desire” (2 Pet. 1:3,4 in New International Version). God has given us “everything we need,” so who needs Fosdick’s plan?

4. He fails to exalt the example of Christ. In fact, he assigns no importance to the example of Christ by excluding such from his discussion of how to arrive at “hat is right! Point five says: “Pretend for a moment that it is the problem of the person you most admire. Ask yourself, ‘How would THAT person handle it’?” But, fortunately, we do not need to rely upon the examples of imperfect men (remember, Fosdick is a humanist!). Christ “is the only man who ever perfectly discerned every problem and every issue of life. He ‘was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin”? (Heb. 4:15). The devil and all his friends, the combined forces of the opposition, hounded him, tested him, tried him, tempted him, persecuted him and crucified him, but he was able to take everything they could hand out, answering every question and handling every matter and every circumstance with perfection. To the extent we follow the principles Christ laid down, we shall be wise discerners” (Quoted from The Christian’s Everyday Problems, by Leroy Brownlow, page 24).

Other observations could be mentioned, but these are deemed sufficient to demonstrate the godless humanism characteristic of modernists such as Harry Emerson Fosdick. How unwise to place our confidence in such men! Our faith “should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5). “Therefore, my Christian brothers, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the Messenger and High Priest whom we profess to follow” (Heb. 3:1, Williams’ Translation).

Conclusion

Beneath all the verbal nonsense and technicalities, there are only two moral alternatives to which we can pledge loyalty: ONE IS HUMAN, THE OTHER DIVINE! Either we will respect the standards set by our Creator in determining what is right and wrong, or we will formulate our own. Which will it be? Dear Ann Landers, or Dear God?

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 733-734
November 18, 1976

By Voyd N.Ballard

In every generation there have been some of God’s people that have rejected Him and determined in their hearts to have their own way, regardless of what God says. This was true of God’s people in the days of the prophet Elijah, and it is equally true today.

These perverters of truth never want their false doctrines and practices exposed, and while pretending to “love” everything arid everybody, they cry long and loud against any and all that have the courage to expose them and their teachings. They cry, “Let us alone,” “You are causing trouble in the church,” “You are trying to censor everyone else and build up a clique of your own.” Others who claim to stand for the truth just stand on the sidelines and say, “We believe in preaching the truth and exposing error, but we don’t like the way you are doing it.” Of the two, the latter is the most deceptive; he is the one most likely to lead brethren into error, for by his constant criticizing of those who are exposing false teachers he leads many brethren to think the exposers of error are just “trouble makers” and if they would just “leave these things alone they will soon die out and not bother us anymore.” Proof of this can be seen in institutional churches all over the land today. Many of these churches could have been saved from the clutches of institutionalism if those who claimed to be sound preachers had taken a stand and preached the truth on the work of the church, and exposed the errors of institutionalism fifteen or twenty years ago. But they did not do it. They didn’t want to “rock the boat.” They said, “These issues are not bothering us here.” They criticized brethren that were preaching against these big promotional projects and said, “they are just causing a lot of trouble over nothing.” As a result of this attitude hundreds of churches went into institutionalism that probably could have been saved had these fellows taught them the truth before they became so steeped in these errors. Some eighteen or twenty years ago when I was preaching in Ventura, California, and was being partially supported by the church meeting at 1345 Mountain View Avenue in San Bernardino, California (no reflection on this congregation) Thomas Allen Robertson who was the preacher in San Bernardino (arid whom I am sure the elders there thought was sound in the faith on the issues) wrote me that I should “just preach the truth in Ventura and ignore the institutional brethren.” I think I know now what he really meant was, “Don’t expose institutionalism.” This statement is based on the fact that he is now preaching for a liberal church in Porterville, and is a panel member of a question and answer program on a television station which they advertise as “sponsored by the church in Tulare, California and under the supervision of the Tulare elders.” This program is actually a small “Herald of Truth,” and nobody knows it better than Thomas Allen Robertson. They claim they will answer live and over the air “any Bible related question,” but when I phoned in the following question: “Where is the passage of scripture that authorizes the arrangement you have in soliciting money from all the churches to be sent to the Tulare elders to spend in sponsoring and supervising your T.V. program?” They held me on the phone until after the program went off the air, and then one of their panel members came on and said he would talk to me privately. He informed me that they tried to “screen” the questions and keep such questions as mine from being broadcast! When 1 told him I would still like to have the scripture he said it was Matt. 28:18,20. I then asked him if this passage would also authorize the Missionary Society of the Christian church and he said, “You are just trying to make trouble and I don’t want to argue about it.”

Those who have steadfastly demanded a “Thus saith the Lord” for all teaching and practice have always been branded as “trouble makers” by false teachers. Old Ahab wanted to follow Baal, so he thought the best way to fool the people was to ask Elijah, “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” (1 Kings 18:17). Just make the people think that the man who has the courage to expose false doctrine is the “trouble maker.” That is the same old song we are hearing again today. Do not expose these fellows in the church today that are running around all over the country advocating “grace only” “faith only” “fellowship everything and everybody” and the Lord only knows what else. You will cause trouble, you are judging them, etc., etc.

Just remember this, brethren: The man who stands for the truth is not the “trouble maker.” Truth never causes division. Trouble and division come because men reject the truth, and insist on injecting teachings and practices which the Lord has not authorized. “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim” (1 Kings 18:18).

Any man who attempts to silence the mouth and pen of those who are “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17) by pleading for sympathy for these false teachers had just as well be teaching error along with them. Regardless of all the twisting and perverting now being done, the Holy Spirit still says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 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 John 9,10,11).

So far as I know, no one in the church ever so much as suspected that this passage had reference to the divinity of Christ only until Ketcherside and his cohorts conjured up the idea in an attempt to justify fellowshiping everyone who claims to believe Christ is the Son of God, regardless of what they teach or practice.

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 732
November 18, 1976

By William V Beasley

Me thinks I can hear one say, “Preacher, have you taken leave of your senses? Don’t you know that Jesus is the Savior?” Yes, I know Jesus is my Savior and I also know what my Savior taught about baptism and salvation. It was Jesus who said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. . .” (Mark 16:16). Jesus, the savior, saves those who obey Him: “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him” (Heb. 5:9).

But, dear friend, this is not the reason I said, “baptism saves.” I said it because. God said: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us. . .” (1 Pet. 3:21). Much of the religious world has changed “now” to “not”. If you do not believe baptism is essential to salvation, your argument is not with me, but with God-I merely quoted from His book.

If Jesus saves the obedient, those who are baptized, what is your condition if you have not been baptized? Or if you have been baptized for the wrong reason (thinking you were already saved)?

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 731
November 18, 1976