Truth Magazine

By Richard Boone

I knew of him and his good work in the kingdom. I had learned from his writings — always substantive and well written. I had even used some of his published sermons, or at least points in them. But until recently, I’d never met him.

He attended a meeting in which I preached. He listened carefully, and nodded in agreement with points in the lesson. I did not actually introduce myself until after the service was over since he arrived just as it began. When he introduced himself, I immediately recognized his name and thanked him for the good I gleaned from his work. He expressed appreciation, but then slowly lowered his head and said, “But that was a long time ago.” My heart broke.

This brother had allowed sin to destroy his good influence in the kingdom, a living example of the deceitfulness. “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called ‘Today,’ lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:12-13, italics mine, rb).

Sin is a monster, and as the tool of its father, the devil, havoc and ruin are its results. It rarely appears that way, though. Instead it comes incognito and works stealthily. Great damage is often done before it is diagnosed (2 Tim. 2:17-18).

The allurement to sin is strong and terribly deceptive. Consider the appeal of social drinking — it is made to look glamorous, classy, the “in thing” to do, an action of the successful person. In the end “it bites like a serpent and stings like a viper” (cf. Prov. 23:29-35). Alcohol’s destruction is well-documented. Several similar examples could be cited.

The destruction of sin is equally deceptive. One may think that an action has little or no con- sequence. At first that may seem to be true. Different sins have different consequences — few or many, and at different times some immediate, others long-term. But be assured of this — all sins have consequences!

Brothers and sisters, we are frequently warned about the power of sin from the Scriptures. Let us do all we can to remove sin from our lives (Rom. 6:12-13). If we don’t, we may have to look back on a life of good work and influence in the kingdom that has been destroyed by sin, and regrettably have to say, “That was a long time ago.”

— 6011 Hunter Road Ooltewah, Tennessee 37363

By Steve Wallace

Paul’s preaching caused him much suffering. He estranged the Jews by refusing to give them a sign and preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. He offended the Gentiles by denouncing their idolatry and undermining some of their means for financial advancement. Eventually, his stand for truth resulted in his being put into prison. It was from his prison that he wrote to Timothy:

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day (2 Tim. 1:8-12).

To be confined in prison as a common criminal with the possibility of being executed is certainly the height of disgrace. In spite of this, Paul was not ashamed. Along with Joseph, Jeremiah, Daniel, John the Baptist, and Peter, he had joined the ranks of those imprisoned for the highest cause. Paul’s attitude in such a state is noteworthy and remarkable.

He speaks words which breathe the utmost confidence. Insecurity may be a problem for some today, but Paul had no such problem. Rather, his words here are a lesson on how to be secure no matter what happens.

“I Know Him Whom I Have Believed”

1. One needs to know God. Isaiah decried the ritualism of the people of his day (1:11-14). They were playing at religion. They did not know the God they worshiped. He wrote, “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider” (1:3). Paul was not just known for being religious, nor did he just believe in a God, rather he knew him. He knew God the way God wants people to know him (Heb. 11:6). This was a cause for his security.

2. He had believed God. Paul’s faith was not in a sys- tem, but in the author of that system. True obedient faith establishes fellowship between God and man through Christ. This relationship exists as one walks in his truth (1

John 1:1-10). And what about those who claim to believe in Jesus, but refuse to conform to his teaching? Jesus answered this when he asked, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?” (Luke 6:46). As a servant of Christ, our allegiance is to him, not to the church, to a creed, or to brotherhood opinion. Believing God gave Paul confidence.

Paul Had Committed Things Unto God

Committed is defined, “a deposit, a trust or thing con- signed to one’s faithful keeping” (Thayer 482). What had Paul committed to God?

1. His soul’s salvation. “Life and immortality” of verse 10 is opposed to death, suffering, and hell. Paul was no doubt of one mind with Peter when Peter wrote, “Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator” (1 Pet. 4:19). We must do this. The church, our parents, or other brethren cannot do it for us.

2. His works. Paul’s works had no lasting significance in the earthly sense of the term. He called people away from common earthly pursuits to other worldly pursuits (1 Cor. 15:19, 32; cf. 1 Tim. 6:17-19). To many people, it may seem that Paul had been cut off in the middle of his career and that his winding up in a Roman jail would result in the undoing of all his work. The truth is, Paul had sown the seed of God’s word and this would bring results for Paul (1 Cor. 3:5-8; cf. Isa. 55:10-11). He had every reason to be secure because he had done work for God. Am I com- mitting works to God?

3. His reward. Beyond salvation from sin and hell, he looked toward the positive reward of heaven and the joys thereof (2 Tim. 4:8). John wrote, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord” (Rev. 14:13). “Blessed” means happy or blissful.

Whom do I commit things to? We all have things to commit. Paul committed things to God. This is why he felt secure when things looked dim for him from a worldly standpoint.

What Persuaded Paul That God Could Keep What He Had Delivered?

We noted under our first point that Paul knew God. What did he know about God that would so persuade him?

1. God is a keeper of promises. Paul knew of the promise of God to Abraham (Gen. 15:1-6) and even wrote about it (Rom. 4:18-21). God told Noah of a flood years before it happened — and then did just as he said (Heb. 11:7). God performed the words of his promise to give his people the land of Canaan (Josh. 21:43-45). The Babylonian captivity and the return therefrom were foretold and fulfilled. On top of all this, a multitude of particulars concerning the Messiah were prophesied of and performed. Well could Paul describe God as he who “cannot lie” (Tit. 1:2).

2. God’s ability to keep. He kept the Jews during the tumultuous times of the Babylonian captivity (Jer. 31:10) and even kept their land for them. He watched over the faithful while they were in captivity (Dan. 3, 6). He kept Job, not allowing the devil to take away his life, and blessed him more greatly in his latter times than in his former ones (Job 1:12; 2:6; 42:12). God’s keeping ability is such that Paul was fully persuaded that he could keep what he had committed to him.

3. A rememberer of past deeds. “For God is not un- righteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name . . .” (Heb. 6:10). In Revelation 20:12, “books” is an accommodative way of telling mankind that God keeps an account, a record, and will not forget man’s deeds. All people may have turned away from Paul (2 Tim. 1:15; 4:16), but he knew that God would never forget him.

4. An exalter of the humble. “He that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Matt. 23:12). This truth is often taught in Scripture (Prov. 29:23; 1 Pet. 5:6-7). Paul had certainly humbled himself. Hence, he had every reason to believe that God would help him.

5. A power greater than death and hell. Paul faced death — but he did so knowing that the “gates of hades” could not prevail against the purposes of God (Matt. 16:18) and that God would destroy death in the final resurrection (1

Cor. 15:25-26).

Well might Paul be persuaded to commit things to God’s keeping.

Conclusion

“Security — even in its most relative sense, is very difficult to maintain. For the most part it is an ‘at ease’ feeling, and feelings are so unreliable. We trust in the bank, and it fails; in a friend, and he deserts; in the strength of youth, and we grow old; in our wisdom, and discover we were foolish. Before it is too late, consider Paul’s source of security” (Robert F. Turner, Plain Talk, 1, 2, 6; “2 Tim. 1:12”).

The New Testament clearly teaches that baptism is es- sential for salvation, that one must be baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Those who do not believe this to be true will sometimes make this argument: “If one must be baptized to be saved, then salvation is no longer a gift” (Eph. 2:8). What we want to show in this article is that a gift is still a gift, even when conditions are given for receiving that gift.

The city of Jericho was a gift from God to the Israelites (Josh. 6:2, 16), but there were certain instructions they had to obey to receive this gift — marching around the city a certain number of times, blowing the horns, shouting, etc. (Josh. 6:3-5). Suppose the children of Israel had failed to obey God, would God have given them the city? Obviously, the answer is no.

In 2 Kings 5, a man named Naaman is healed of his leprosy. His healing was clearly a gift from God. But as we read through the chapter, we see that Naaman had to follow certain instructions to be healed. He had to dip seven times in the Jordan River before he could receive this gift from God.

The last two illustrations have come from the Old Testament, but the New Testament establishes the same principle. Notice the promise given in Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” As you can see, a gift is promised, the gift of the Holy Spirit, but only to those who would repent and be baptized. There were things they had to do to receive this gift from God.

Notice further the following verses from the Book of Revelation: “To him who overcomes, I will give to eat from the tree of life” (2:7). “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (2:10). “To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna to eat” (2:17). “And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations” (2:26). In all of these verses the Lord speaks of giving certain things to his people, but in each instance, there were things they had to do to receive these gifts.

So we should not be surprised at all when the Lord teaches us that there are certain things we must do to receive the gift of salvation. The New Testament teaches that we must believe in Christ (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9-10), repent of our sins (Acts 2:38; 3:19); confess our faith in Christ (Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 8:37); and be baptized in water (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:12-13, 37-39;  10:47- 48; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Pet. 3:21). We must obey each of these commandments in order to receive the gift of salvation. Will you obey the Lord today?

If you have paid attention to the news lately you cannot help but to notice the latest and “greatest” coming from Washington —Volunteerism. The idea is being put out that Americans need to do more volunteering (giving), even though this nation leads all others in such. Now, if this is a genuine effort to encourage people to exercise their personal and individual duties in life rather than shifting their responsibilities to the Government, it can be a good thing. The Bible teaches the importance of neighbor helping neighbor, or citizen helping community (Matt. 22:37-40; Gal. 6:10; Tit. 3:1-2). But, if we have learned anything about most political leaders, when they propose anything, another government program with another impersonal bureaucracy is born — and we end up paying more taxes for it. Therefore, inasmuch as this push for volunteerism is coming from Washington, past experience teaches us to expect some type of new government program that will cost, not the government, but taxpayers. Hence, some will object to the ideas now being promoted by the political liberals.

However, when eyebrows are raised against these efforts, those who want to know if there will be a new government program costing more tax money must be prepared for ridicule. They are likely to hear statements like, “You do not believe in volunteering?”, or, “Anyone who does not get on board with this volunteerism campaign is anti-volunteerism.” Sound familiar?

Other efforts to encourage a review of existing government programs and bureaucracies in the interest of fiscal responsibility have been distorted and maligned in the past several years. We have witnessed heated controversies over school lunch subsidies, social security and Medicare benefits, and a whole range of other facets of the government’s budget. When economic conservatives began to voice their views about the need to balance the budget before the government goes broke, the liberal op- position would hurl wild accusations and distorted truths. For instance, it would be said, “The conservatives do not care about old people.”

What does all of this have to do with religion? Well, the same things happen when conservative and liberal thinkers cross paths regarding Bible issues. Consider the fight in the last century over the Missionary Society. Those against it were labeled as “anti-evangelistic.” Moreover, think about the battle in the ’50s and ’60s over institutionalism. Some brethren began to advocate the church donating money from its treasury to orphan homes. Those who objected were branded as “anti-orphan.” They were said to be “orphan haters!” Likewise, some brethren decided it would be a good idea to send money to one church which would do “evangelizing” for other churches (what has been called the “sponsoring church” plan). Those who opposed this plan were stigmatized with such labels as “anti-evangelism.” It was said that these men had no desire to spread the gospel.

Were such charges true? Are such labels accurate? Absolutely not! Those who object to such programs and schemes do so out of respect for the authority of the Bible. It teaches that the only benevolence a church is to be involved in is for the needy saints (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35; 2 Cor. 8-9). The Scriptures also teach that support for preachers is to be direct, church-to-preacher and not churches-to-church (society)-to-preacher (Phil. 4:15).

Where does all of this lead us? It leads us to the present day and beyond. The church has its problems, not due to lack of divine instruction, but due to the selfishness, greed, egos, and other failings of men. Just as the political liberals have done, so have the religious liberals done and will continue to do. Names will be called, accusations made, inaccurate labels, and perverted truth passed along about men who go by the Book. I wonder if in the future we will hear . . .

• · “Anti-marriage” of those opposing unscriptural marriages.
• · “Anti-enthusiasm” of those opposing clapping in worship or at a baptism.
• · “Anti-emotional” of those opposing humming in worship.
• · “Anti-fun” of those opposing immodesty in clothing and dance.
• · “Anti-social” of those opposing drinking.
• · “Anti-preacher” of those opposing false teachers.
• · “Anti-evangelism” of those opposing false teaching.
• · “Anti-Christ” of those opposing false teaching about Christ’s deity/humanity.
• “Anti-congregationalism” or “anti-autonomy” of those opposing churches in error.
• Anti-free thinking” of those insisting one must adhere to the new testament.
• “Anti-brotherly love” of those opposing open fellow- ship.

Think about it.