Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

How’s That Again?

Some of us country boys really get ourselves in trouble when we try to use too many large words. Every once in a while, we exceed the limit of our vocabulary. And it just happened to me! In the December 12th issue of Truth Magazine I made reference to Brother James W. Adams’ “inimical way” of writing the truth. The word I should have used to convey the thought intended was “inimitable.” James W. Adams does have an “inimitable way” of writing the truth. The word “inimitable” means “not capable of being imitated; being beyond imitation.”

But unfortunately, I used the word “inimical, ” which has an entirely different meaning. I am hurrying to get this correction written before Brother Adams has had time to write me about the blunder! When Steve Wolfgang yesterday called the blunder to my attention, I said “I am going to have to get out my big dictionary in order to get out of that!” But the big dictionary doesn’t help me either. Anyway you look at it, “inimical” means “having the disposition or temper of an enemy; viewing with disfavor; hostile.” Now quite a few of Brother Adams’ “unfriendly friends” would say that I inadvertently used the correct adjective to describe his writing style.

Jestingly, I told Brother Wolfgang that the two words were on the same page and in the same column of my dictionary. Furthermore, the different inflections of the two words adjoin one another. But the two words are poles apart, insofar as meaning is concerned. I apologize to Brother Adams for choosing the wrong word to describe his admirable writing ability and style. Oh, there are times when I wish I could say, “But my secretary did it, ” or “The typesetter made a mistake and the proofreaders overlooked it.” But neither excuse will work in this instance. Brother Willis himself is going to have to accept full “credit” (?) for this blunder.

I guess I could say that what I meant to say was that Brother James W. Adams is “inimical to that heresy,” which is one of the illustrations that Webster’s Third Unabridged Dictionary gives of the proper usage of the word “inimical.” Toward every heresy, and particularly toward heresies that recently have arisen among us, may it be said that Brother James Adams has “the disposition or temper of an enemy.” He views “with disfavor” and is “hostile” toward every teacher of error. Indeed, false doctrine is completely “inimical” to everything for which Brother Adams has stood throughout his. life as a preacher.

Now what makes my embarrassing blunder all the more inexcusable is the fact that I must confess that I knew the meaning of both words (really, I did!!). But somehow the similarity in sound must have caused me to overlook their great difference in meaning. The moral to this little article is simply this: “Brother Willis, you had better consult your dictionary a little more often.” This is nearly as embarrassing as my misspelling of the word “Alleged” in the title of an article written for a “Special Issue” of the Gospel Guardian several years ago. Having discovered my error in spelling (I spelled it “Alledged”), I was just sure the erudite editor of the Gospel Guardian would correct my mistake. But he let it slip through also. So I must continue in my unending search to grab up all those issues of the Guardian, lest my ignorance be further exposed. I just hope that Brother Adams will not now write me “inimically” regarding my failure to use the correct word, “inimitable.” If he were to do so, that could hurt!

Apology No. 2

While I am “confessing,” I might just as well confess that Brother Bill Sexton has written to tell me that the article I published under my name in the November 28th issue of Truth Magazine was really an article that I had borrowed out of Pat Hardeman’s book of Radio Sermons. In the preface to that article, I stated that some radio sermon manuscripts that I used twenty years ago were going to be used. I recited Luther Blackmon’s definition of originality as being “the art of forgetting where you got it.” One of the reasons why I have not published any of those manuscripts before was because I did not document some quotations used in them, and knew that a few times I had used entirely another man’s sermon. Brother G. K. Wallace said he was once accused of having preached one of N. B. Hardeman’s sermons, and Wallace replied: “I did no such thing. That was my sermon; I bought it in a book, and paid $3.00 for the book.” And of some of those N. B. Hardeman Tabernacle sermons, one could add, “And Hardeman borrowed them from J. W. McGarvey’s book of sermons.”

There is likely very little that is really original about any of us. There are some men’s material which I can use nearly as prepared, and there are other men whose material just leaves me cold, and from which I can get little or nothing of use to me. However, honesty demands that we give credit where credit is due, and when we know that the material was prepared by another. All of us have preached borrowed sermon outlines. But to borrow and to attribute to oneself something written by another is theft. Had I ever thought back then of using any of that material in other ways later on, I would have documented it better, and certainly would never have published it under my own name, as though I authored it. But these manuscripts were prepared for radio usage. I really thought I had deleted the ones I did not write myself. If you find that “Homer” (that’s my first name!) nods again, please write me about it.

Brother Roy E. Stephens of Brownwood, Texas sent me the following article, written, it would appear, for just such an occasion as this.

“Plagiarism”

“Brother Willis had some interesting remarks recently on the `kidnapping,’ or literary theft of the writings of others: that is, plagiarism. When Kipling was accused of literary theft, he once wrote:

When ‘Omer smote his blooming lyre

‘ed ‘eard men sing by land and sea

And what he thought he might require

‘e went and took, the same as me.

The market girls, the fishermen

The shepherds and the sailors too

They ‘eard old songs turn up again

But kept it quiet, same as you.

They knew ‘e stole. ‘e knew they knowed.

They didn’t tell nor make a fuss.

But winked at ‘Omer down the road

And ‘e winked back, the same as us.

“In preaching and writing, I often suggest that all work and no plagiarism, makes a dull speech, and if plagiarism is a sin, then many a sermon is sinful. Have you noticed that modern music is usually played so fast it is hard to tell what classical composer it was stolen from? And certainly honesty requires that we give credit to a person from whom we received an idea or a sermon, but then if we did, the person he got it from might be in the audience. If Luther’s definition of originality is right, that it is the art of forgetting where you got it, I am most certainly original. Everything above was, one time in the past, taken from the writings of others.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, pp. 204-205
February 6, 1975

By Luther Blackmon

“And Jacob vowed a vow saying, If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God; and this stone which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: And all that thou shall give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.”

This statement is found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Genesis, and it sort of sums up the character of Jacob. He was a shrewd bargainer. He practically cheated his brother out of his birthright and worked all sorts of chicanery on his father-in-law in the partnership they shared in the cattle business. It is no wonder that he would try to bargain with God.

But you know Jacob was not the last one to try this or to manifest such an attitude. We meet them all along the way. The modern version goes something like this: “Lord, IF you will give me a husband (or a wife) who will go to worship with me, and IF you will give me a job where I don’t have to work shift work, and IF you will perform a miracle and turn my small children into angels so that they will not drive me crazy with their squirming and fretting during the services, and IF you will give me perfect health, and IF you will give the elders sense enough to keep a preacher who will not preach long sermons nor criticize my short-comings, and IF you will keep my friends and relatives away from my house on Sunday mornings, and IF you will see that the weather is pretty on Sunday, and IF you will keep me in prosperity so that I may not have to trust you for too much, and IF you will not ask rile to take an active part in any of the work of the church, and IF the members of the church will stand ready to help me in time of trouble and will not expect me to do much in return, THEN will I come to the house of worship most every Sunday morning, but I don’t know about this giving of my earnings. I have to work for that money. However; when I get my house and car and deep-freeze and automatic shotgun and television set and a few things like that cleared, then will I think about it.

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, p. 203
February 6, 1975

By Al Diestelkamp

You have seen the pictures-in the Bible storybooks and class materials used almost everywhere-there David stands, facing the warrior Goliath in a mini-skirt. When I first noticed it I could not help wondering, “Is this the garb of a ‘man after God’s own heart’?” Then, one by one I tried using the many arguments used today to defend similar apparel:

1. Everyone’s doing it. Brothers and sisters today defend their shorts and mini-skirts on this basis. But even if this had been the common dress of David’s time, I am confident that David would have resisted the temptation to “be conformed to this world.” Actually, the common attire of that day was more like a robe which covered from the shoulders to near the ankles.

2. Freedom of movement. Some defend shorts today because long pants inhibit one when very active (less chance of getting pant leg in bicycle chain). Certainly David was active on the occasion, but we must reject this because David was aware that Goliath’s actual opponent was God. With God’s help David would have defeated the enemy even if his feet got tangled in his tunic.

3. Comfort. As long as I can remember, this has been a favorite reason for wearing shorts. Of course it is hard to believe that this is the real reason when these same people are seen wearing them to a Winter football game. The climate where David lived certainly was hot at certain times of the year, but we find that people in that region at that time protected their skin from the direct sunlight by wearing clothing which reflected the sun’s rays.

4. Women not aroused easily. Many people who believe it is wrong for women to dress in shorts and mini-skirts justify men wearing shorts (and no shirts) by the old notion that women are not aroused by the exposure of a man’s body. First of all, that is a generalization which is simply not true! While it is true that the woman usually has more control over her desires, the advent and success of numerous pornographic magazines for women (complete with centerfolds featuring nude men) is evidence enough against this argument. No, I do not think David would have used this argument either.

5. Evil in the eye of the beholder. Some try to transfer all responsibility of sin to the one’s objecting to immodest dress with this clever phrase. But if evil is in the eye of the beholder, then the one being looked upon is placing a stumbling block in the beholder’s path if dressed (or undressed) indiscreetly. Later, when David viewed Bathsheba while bathing, he sinned (evil was in his eyes) but this did not leave Bathsheba guiltless for her indiscretion.

After considering all the flimsy excuses men and women use today to wear what they want to wear, it leads me to believe that the modem Bible illustrators, have erred by putting David in such skimpy attire . . . unless . . . could it be that David was on the basketball team?

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, p. 203
February 6, 1975

By Keith Sharp

“Sins of Christians are not charged to them as far as their having to die for them is concerned” (Joe T. Odle, Church Member’s Handbook (Baptist), page 18).

“You don’t believe that, do you?! Why, that’s Baptist doctrine, Calvinism!” No, you are right, I don’t believe that. Yes, you’re right, it is Baptist doctrine and Calvinism.

But try this statement on for size.

“Sins of ignorance and human weakness of Christians are not charged to them as far as their having to die for them is concerned.”

Who believes that? Several preachers and members of the Lord’s body around the brotherhood have been defending this doctrine. If you fail to see a difference in principle between it and the aforementioned Baptist doctrine, do not feel lonely. I do not either.

Furthermore, the same arguments which prove the Baptist position false also destroy the modified Calvinism now being pushed by some of the brethren. For example, in Acts 8:5-13 we read of the conversion of Simon the sorcerer. If Mark 16:16 means anything (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”), Simon was a saved man, for he “believed . . . and . . . was baptized” (Acts 8:13). But, after he had been saved Simon sinned, and, as the result, Peter warned him: “For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:23). .’hat takes care of Baptist doctrine. He was saved, subsequently sinned and, as the result, fell. But it also takes care of the modified Calvinism which would excuse sins “committed in ignorance and human weakness.” About anything one would care to say to excuse a sin could be said of Simon’s sin. He sinned only one time; he was a babe in Christ; he sinned through human weakness rather than high-handed rebellion (cf. Acts 8:18-24). Furthermore, Simon sinned through ignorance, for Peter told him, “thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money” (verse 20). Simon did not know God would not allow the sale of that spiritual gift. He actually believed God would allow it. He was ignorant. But he was, nevertheless, “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.”

“But,” we are informed, “Simon’s heart was ‘not right in the sight of God,’ so he couldn’t have been sinning ignorantly” (cf. verse 21). Please tell me, how could any man commit a sin of any kind, and his heart be entirely right with God “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornication3, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matthew 15:19). Sin, no matter of what species, springs from the heart of man. If this is not what Jesus is teaching in Matthew 15:19, I am at a total loss to grasp the significance of His words. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:16). The “world” is sin and its allurements. There are, according to John, only three causes of sin, and all spring from the heart of man. Simply because a man is honestly doing what he thinks is right is no guarantee his heart is right with God. Or, to put it another way, conscience alone is not a safe guide. Ignorance itself is a defect of the heart, “for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth” (John 12:35).

“You mean to say,” comes the objection, “that just one sin committed in ignorance will send a person to Hell?” How many times did Eve have to sin to lose her right to the tree of life? And Eve, unlike Adam, was actually “deceived” by the serpent’s temptation (1 Timothy 2:14). How many times did Simon sin, and that through ignorance, before Peter warned “thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity”? You see, the principle of law is: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). How many times must one sin before he is a sinner? “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), whether of one sin or twenty dozen.

Pray tell, what verse of scripture even so much as hints that God will not charge sins of human weakness and ignorance to the Christian? What makes anyone think that God, like some indulgent father, will just turn His head and look the other way when His children commit sin-sin of any kind? Such a charge is a travesty of the justice and holiness of a righteous God who cannot tolerate the presence of sin. It falls but little short of blasphemy.

Yes, we all sin (I John 1:8-10). But the answer is not in an indulgent Father. The answer is in a mercifulFather, Who will forgive us if we comply with His law of pardon for the Christian. “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). Do you know of any other answer given in the word of God?

Truth Magazine XIX: 13, pp. 202-203
February 6, 1975