Truth Magazine

By Franklin Burns

If there is one thing the present, day world needs more than anything else it is a sense of sin. The world regards sin too lightly. The reason many people do not come to the Lord is that they do not feel they are sinners. Therefore they do not realize how badly they need the Lord.

Sin is the one thing that endangers our happiness for both time and eternity. Sin separates man from God and drives a wedge between men. It sets man against his best friends. Sin has marred and scared the world. Sin cuts deep and slashes into character, deadens conscience, and destroys the soul bit by bit. Paul said, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Think of the awfulness of being eternally lost! It is to be lost in Hell, lost in outer darkness, beyond the presence of God forever. Hell is a lake of, fire where teeth gnash, lost souls shriek! Let us notice briefly some of the things God’s Word says about sin.

Sin is Transgression

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This means “to miss the mark, to veer away from that which is .right. It is a general term embracing every form of wrong-doing, all divergence from that which is right” (Guy N. Woods, Peter, John, Jude, p. 260). “It properly means lawlessness in the sense that the requirements of the law are not conformed to or complied with; that is, either by not obeying it, or by positively violating it” (.Albert Barnes, James, Peter, John, and Jude, p. 314). The New Testament contains the law of Christ. We are to be governed and regulated by this law. John says, “whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9). Some brethren who have a considerable amount of education and aspire to be recognized as scholars tell us that the expression “doctrine of Christ” in (2 John 9) cannot refer to the doctrine which Christ taught. They say it means only the doctrine about Him, that He has come in the flesh. Without being a scholar, any one can see the thought in 2 John 9 is the same as in 1 John 3:4. To break the limits set by God is to sin and to have not God, no matter what particular limit is broken. 1 John 3:4 and 2 John 9 show the sin of doing in religion those things which God has not commanded us to do. Therefore if we practice or teach anything that is not revealed in the scripture it is sin.

Jesus tells us in the Sermon on the Mount about some men who had been religious, zealous, sincere workers for the Lord. In the judgment they expected to go to heaven, but He said, “and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:21-23). What was their trouble? Why were they lost? They had transgressed God’s law; they had disregarded the will of God.

Some of my brethren seem to .think that one needs to go back to the original Greek or some other book to define sin. That “sin” applied to different subjects is suppose to mean different things. Brethren, whether it be the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of God, the support of organizations foreign to the doctrine of Christ, the wearing of names unauthorized by the law of Christ, sin is sin! This is evident from the fact that one must go beyond the law of Christ to practice any of these things; therefore they are all sin. We should be careful, therefore to stay within the limits of the law of Christ. To go beyond is sin.

What is not practiced according to God’s word is sin. “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17). How does faith come? Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17), and without faith we cannot please God (Heb. 11:6). Paul declares that “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). One cannot do by faith that which God has not commanded, and concerning which God has no revealed will; he cannot know that such is pleasing to God. No one can know the will of God except as God reveals it (1 Cor. 2:10-16). We cannot walk by faith and act on opinion or human wisdom.

This is one of the reasons why we refuse and condemn the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. This is one of the reasons we cry. out against human institutions raiding the treasuries of the church of our Lord. We walk by faith, but faith comes by hearing God’s word, and what is not of faith is sin.

Wasted Opportunities

“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin” (James 4:17). If we know what is right and we do not do it, we are guilty of sin. In fact we are self-condemned. Jesus said “and that servant, which knew his Lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes” (Luke 12:47). This is why we fear for the eternal welfare of many members of the Lord’s church: One may be clean morally, but if he neglects to do good, serve mankind, help the weak and poor, spread the gospel, attend the services of the church, give as he has been prospered, and support in an aggressive way the religion of Christ, he is a sinner before God.

We should turn in the fear of God from all sin, cultivate a hatred of sin and walk humbly before God. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11).

Truth Magazine XIX: 47, p. 738
October 9, 1975

By B.J. Thomas

The belief in materialistic evolution has grown, over two decades, with amazing rapidity. It has been widely published, talked, discussed, taught, and propagated. When one’s faith begins to tumble it usually begins in a class where evolution is taught as a fact.

What is evolution? The very word “evolution” can mean many things. Mere change is not the issue. The battle of truth is fought on two fronts. The first is organic evolution, the belief that everything now in existence came from a single change, billions of years ago, and man evolved over countless millions of years from a one cell amoeba through fishes, then through amphibious animals-as snakes, lizards, and frogs-and then through different land animals-from opossums, apes, and ape-like animals to his present complete state. This is the atheist position. A fantastic fairy tale. As one man said, “It is a marvel what people will believe if it isn’t in the Bible.” The second is theistic evolution. This is a belief in the theory of evolution-that all life evolved in this manner through vast periods of time, but God started it off. The theistic evolutionist is a compromiser. He wants to believe evolution and the Bible at the same time. He tries to fit Genesis one and two to his theory. It can’t be done. It is impossible.

Why does a person believe in the theory of evolution anyway? Basically, it is because he does not want to accept the Bible account of creation. Evolution presents the alternative. Henry M. Morris has aptly described the situation in his book, The Twilight of Evolution, “The main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!” Personally, after talking with hundreds of evolutionists and after reading hundreds, probably thousands, of evolutionary books and articles, the writer is more and more convinced of two facts: (1) There is not one shred of genuine evidence, either in science or scripture, for the validity of evolution; (2) The only reason why most people seem to believe in evolution is either because they want to believe in it or else because they have been cowed into accepting it out of fear of being called ignorant.”

The theory of evolution is groundless. It is fraught with countless absurdities. The evolutionist tries to prove his theory in the following areas: Biological Classifications, Natural Selection, Vestigial Organs, and Missing Links.

Biological Classifications

The evolutionist believes all life developed from lower to higher forms. He tries to rest much of his case on comparative anatomy. By this he attempts to compare the anatomy of man with lower forms-up to the ape family. When he gets to the ape family he points out all of the resemblances, and from this comparison he concludes that there must be kinship. He argues that animals have eyes, ears, and lungs just as man, and from this he concludes that they have a common ancestry. It proves they have a common creator. God created all of them.

To point up the absurdity of his case, there are questions the evolutionist cannot answer. If there is no God, and man and beasts have a common ancestry-if they came from the same natural source-why is it wrong to kill a man, and not a cow? The only answer I have ever heard to this question is that man is more intelligent. Then how about people who are mentally retarded. Then, too, if this were so, it would be a whole lot worse to kill a cow than a dodo bird.

Another question evolution cannot answer! If life came from dead matter and there was a crossing of the kinds, where is a record of it and why does it not happen again? A vegetable has never evolved into an animal; a snake has never evolved into a bird. Their theory requires the crossing of the kinds, not once but many times. The law in the book of Genesis is that everything brings forth after its kind.

Natural Selection

Charles Darwin propagated the “survival of the fittest”-meaning the offspring of the most fit inherited only the best characteristics-enabling only the fittest to survive, and each improvement evolved into other improvements and changes. This theory was called “Natural Selection.” In nature, just the opposite of this is true. You can not argue. against a demonstration. The best does not survive without special care, painstaking effort and trial and error education. Put a few fine cattle with scrubby ones, and left to themselves, they will all become scrubby. The “weeds” take over. Every farm boy knows this.

Vestigial Organs

Evolutionists contend that certain organs in the human body are useless organs and are throwbacks from different ages when man was developing and evolving to his resent state. These include the appendix, the small muscles which attach the ear to the skull, and the tonsils. However, the more science learns about the human body, the less it labels any organ as “useless.” A good definition of science is that man learns what God already knows. The fact that these organs may be removed without apparent ill results, does not prove that they are useless. A man may live a useful life with his eyelashes cut off, but they are useful on.

Missing Links

The grossest kind of misrepresentation in this evolutionary idea is the so-called “Missing Links.” The tragic thing is that young people are made to believe that missing links have been found. All of them have turned out to be hoaxes, fakes, and frauds. For nearly forty years the “Piltdown Man” was palmed off on the public as the half-million year old missing link. In 1912, twenty fragments of bones were discovered near Sussex, England. From these fragments, the “Piltdown Man” was constructed. In 1950, scientists began to question this. Later, the whole thing was discovered as a grand hoax, and these 20 bone-fragments were the bones of a modern ape. All of the others have turned out about like this. Some others are: the “Neanderthal Man,” the “Cro-Magnon Man,” the “Java man,” the “Peking man,” and the “Heidelberg man.” It is amazing what a few bone-fragments, a wild imagination, and lots of Plaster of Paris will do. The `Missing Link” is still missing.

Conclusion

The Bible is authored by God. The creation story is true. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . .” (2 Tim. 3:16). In selecting the writers of the Bible, God selected “holy men” (2 Pet. 1:21). They taught words “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth” (1 Cor. 1:13).

Brother R. L. Whiteside had about the best description of the fantastic fairy tale of evolutidn that I have read. He said, “I have heard many big fish yarns, but the evolutionists ask us to believe the biggest one yet. Somewhere in the remote past, they say, a fish flapped out on dry-land and his fins turned into legs. After that, the story of Jonah and the whale seems easy.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 46, pp. 733-734
October 2, 1975

By Ralph Edmunson

“Since individual Christians make up the church, what is the difference between people supporting orphan homes individually and supporting them collectively?” This is a question which has been asked frequently in the last few years. We believe that a proper understanding of this principle would go a long way toward healing the breach in the brotherhood.

There are several passages of scripture that definitely demonstrate that there is a difference between the actions of Christians as individuals and the same acts done by the church collectively.

Matt. 18:15-17: “And if thy brother sin against thee go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.” When one individual sins against another individual, two members of the church are involved, but, it is not the church acting. Later, other witnesses are called and then there are three or four members of the church in on-the action. Still, the church is not involved, even though they are all members of the church. But if the individual members cannot work the problem out, they are to “take it to the church.”

1 Tim. 5:16: “if any woman that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” From this it is evident that when an “individual Christian” woman relieves her own needy relatives, it is not the church doing it; she is acting as an “individual Christian.” Likewise, when, according to verse 8, a Christian husband and father provides for his own family, this is not the church acting. In each case they are the same individuals who make up the church, yet they are acting, not as the church, but as individuals. There is certainly a place for the church collectively to act, for verse 16 refers to the church “reliev(ing) them that are widows indeed.” This certainly restricts the benevolent work of the church to special cases; but the individual Christian is not so restricted.

1 Cor. 12:14: “For the body is not one member, but many.” Again, here is definite evidence that there is a difference between the actions of Christians considered individually and collectively.

Acts 5:3-4: “Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?” Notice that Peter makes two assertions and one implication concerning “individual” possessions: First, Before the land was sold, it still belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Ananias. Second, After the land was sold, the money they received for it was still theirs. Third, Peter implies that after Ananias and Sapphira had laid the money at the apostles’ feet, it no longer belonged to them. It now was a part of the “pile of money” that they and other “individual Christians” had been contributing for the aid of the needy Christians.

As far as can be deduced from the inspired record in Acts, there was nothing compulsory about donating all of one’s material possessions to the church. Ananias was condemned, not because he withheld some of the price, but, because he lied about it.

The “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:30-37) affords an excellent example of what we are talking about. Here was a man who needed help now; so the Samaritan gave him assistance as an individual.

Examples are abundant from the material realm which illustrate this difference between individual action and group action. For instance, let us ask the question a little differently: “Since individual citizens make up the United States, what is the difference between Americans’ supporting a private horse show individually and supporting it collectively (that is using federal tax money)? We can easily understand this principle in politics: the principle is the same in religion.

Truth Magazine XIX: 46, p. 732
October 2, 1975

By Bill Collett

As we look about us in the world today, it becomes evident that something needs to be said about the physical appearance of many professing to be the children of God. Although Paul teaches us (Rom. 12:1) that we are not to be conformed to this world, many “so-called” Christians have become so as daily their appearance reflects a rejection of what the scripture teaches concerning “modest dress.”

The strong moral fiber of the American woman is under attack today as never before. There seems to be an upsurge in downgrading. Television tells her that “she’s come a long way baby.” She now has the right to smoke in the public the same as the man. She can walk to the local bar and order a whiskey sour just as freely as the man. She is being informed today that. it is only just and right for her children to be cared for by a hireling so that she can stand toe-to-toe and compete with man in the business world. She no longer has to shrink back when men start to tell crude or filthy jokes and stories. Today, because of her freedom, she can listen, laugh and even tell a “heart stopper” herself.

The movie industry tells her that the more free she is with her body, the more modern, mature and sophisticated she is. Even many church or religious bodies are encouraging her to rebel against the repression of society who suggests that her place is in the home keeping house, bearing children, and loving her husband. Truly, the woman that is caught up in the modern influence has “come a long way baby.” The question is, “Which way?”

No where or in no way is the strong moral fiber of American womanhood put more to the test than through the modern fashions of the day. The fashion designer tells her the more she is willing to reveal, the more attractive she is to the eye of the public. But what about the eyes of God? How does the Christian woman dress in order to please God?

Let us lay a foundation of godly principles upon which our subject can rest.

First, from the introduction of sin into the world, nudity has been a symbol of shame. Nudity was not a symbol of shame in the beginning. For notice with reference to Adam and Eve in the garden the scripture says, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not shamed” (Gen. 2:25). However, when sin was introduced into the world, nudity became a symbol of shame (Gen. 3:10; 21). Nudity is also used symbolically to represent the shame of one who is separated from God (Isa. 47:3; Rev. 3:18).

Second, being properly clothed has always represented uprightness and purity (Rev. 3:4-5; 7:13-15). In the scriptures, one who is properly clothed is one who is in his “right” mind and uses good common sense. A good case in point is the demon-possessed man in Luke 8:26-35, who did not wear clothing. After Jesus cast the demon out, notice what verse 35 says about him. “And the people went out to see what had happened; and they came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting down at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind; and they were frightened.”

Third, clothing down through the ages often reflects the character of the wearer (Ex. 28:40-43; Pr. 7:10). “A psychiatrist is thought to be concerned only with the ‘inside’ of people but the ‘outside’ tells us a lot too-unconscious factors guide your choice of clothing as surely as though you were following a blueprint and you wear what satisfies your true feelings about your self-whether you consciously know it or not. Just as a painting reveals the artist’s state of mind, your appearance can reveal yours and send out a message to everyone who sees you. Your state of mind may change from day to day, or year to year, and your clothes will reflect it. This phenomenon has proved most helpful to me as a psychoanalyst in understanding the person I’m trying to help” (“Why you dress the way you do,” an article in This Week Magazine, May 27, 1962 by Dr. Alexandra Symonds).

It has also been proven that proper attire also improves character and behavior. “Children are keenly aware of their appearance. It is surprising how often their behavior matches their dress-a boy in a new suit behaves like a new boy-parents should consider the results they wish to achieve when they purchase their children’s school clothes-children tend to act out the parts for which they are dressed. Boys who let their hair grow long or wear dirty jeans, are, too often, disciplinary problems. Neat haircuts and reasonably clean clothes result in fewer disciplinary problems and more learning-dressed as good school citizens, they proceed to play the part (Article in The Houston Post, August 09, 1965, by Leslie J. Nason, Ed. Un. of California).

The God of heaven does not leave the Christian woman floundering in a world of doubt as to the type of clothing that she is to wear. The scripture gives her certain guidelines that enable her to know the attire that pleases God (1 Tim. 2:9, 10). Brother E. M. Zerr in his commentary has this to say on these verses: “Apparel is from ‘Katastole’ which Thayer defines, ‘a garment let down, dress, attire.’ It is evident that modest or proper apparel means a woman’s clothing should not be such as would expose her body in a way to suggest evil thoughts.”

Notice the difference in instruction of the scriptures. To men, Jesus said, “But I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Mt. 5:27). To women, Paul wrote, “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing . . .” (1 Ti. 2:9). Why the difference in instruction? When we understand that man is stimulated sexually by sight, and woman by touch, we understand the difference in instruction.

Parents should explain the difference in sexual stimulation between men and women to their children as they reach the age of understanding so they will not ignorantly lure. The Christian’s attitude toward dress should not be, “To what extent can I go?”, but “How can I best dress so as to be recognized as a servant of God?”

Truth Magazine XIX: 46, p. 731
October 2, 1975