Truth Magazine

By Berry Kercheville

I was 15. The classroom was filled with kids from their Freshmen to Senior year. This was a meeting of all the agriculture students to see who would be interested in joining the FFA (Future Farmers of America). I sat timidly as the teacher wrote down the names of students who volunteered. Then all eyes turned to me.

“Are you joining, Kerch?”

“I’d like to join,” I stammered, “but I can’t come to the meetings be- cause I go to church on Wednesday nights.”

From the back of the room someone hollered, “You can’t join if you don’t come to the meetings!”

Then one of the Juniors looked across the aisle and shouted, “What’s the matter with you Kercheville? You want to go to heaven or something?” The room roared with laughter.

A year later, after making straight A’s in my Ag classes, the rule for Wednesday night attendance to the FFA meetings was waived and I was allowed to join. At the end of my Junior year, having never attended a meeting, some members of the club greeted me at school on Thursday morning with the news that I had been voted president of the FFA for the following year. I said, “That’s great! My first order of business is to change the meeting to Thursday nights.”

My parents never told me that I couldn’t attend the FFA meetings. Even years before, when I had Little League games that conflicted with worship, they never made the rule that I had to miss the game. But I did. When it came time for school dances, my parents never forbade me to go. But I didn’t go. It wasn’t that I was an extra good kid. I got more “whippin’s” than any of my siblings. You see, God was first around our house. Spiritual things were a daily topic of conversation. God and his Word were spoken of when we rose up, when we lay down, when we walked by the way (rode in the car), and when we sat in the house (Deut. 6:6-7). We were never specifically “told” to read our Bible. We were encouraged to because Mom and Dad were always reading and teaching us what they read. The message we got was loud and clear: nothing came before God and doing his will.

That doesn’t seem to be the standard in many families any more. In each of the six gospel meetings I have preached this past year, I have had at least one person come up to me and say something like, “These lessons have been so good I sure hate to miss tomorrow night, but we have (fill in the blank: soccer, back to school night, Girl Scouts, etc.).” One person told me he wouldn’t be back for Sunday evening worship because of a “soccer-fest.” When I replied in amazement, “You are missing worship for soccer?” He said, “Oh, I’ll get the tape!” Unfortunately, he had missed the point. However, my biggest surprise is not that many Christians are putting the world’s things before the Lord, but that they are so open about it. They act like no one in their right mind would deny a child their special activity just to go to worship. In fact, it isn’t the child that is feeling deprived, it is the parent.

Revelation 12:11 states, “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.” We as parents need to be practicing and teaching this kind of fierce, unwavering commitment to the Lord. Even the threat of death will not quiet the word of our testimony. Children recognize priorities in their simplest form. We cannot say, “It is only Wednesday evening worship or only Sunday evening worship.” It is what we do “instead of” something else that expresses what is important. It is whether we take time every week to tell our children about Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, and all the others, that makes a difference when they must make similar decisions. It is what we get most excited about and make sacrifices to do, that tells others, especially our children, where our heart is. “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:21).

Churches Bar Straight Marriages in Ban Protest

“Nashville (AP) — Suzanne Prince married Hunter Allen at a friend’s home. That wasn’t the plan, but the couple had no choice because their church — Edgehill United Methodist doesn’t allow marriage ceremonies.

“The Edgehill congregation decided that until the United Methodist Church allows gay marriages, no marriage cer- emonies of any kind will be performed in their chapel.

“‘If the United Methodist Church wasn’t going to allow gay people to get married in the church, I agree that straight people shouldn’t either,’ said Prince, who’s been married nine months.

“. . . The National Council of Churches has no information on how many individual churches perform gay marriage ceremonies, or refuse to allow traditional marriages to protest bans on gay marriages.

“Edgehill’s policy was drafted when a pastor in Atlanta was disciplined for blessing a homosexual couple’s wedding, said Kathryn Mitchem, who chaired Edgehill’s Administra- tive Council that adopted the policy.

“‘We didn’t feel we were taking something away, more that we were making a public witness to the denomination,’ she said.

“. . . ‘By every standard we know, marriage is a union of a male and a female, made valid in the sight of God by bless- ing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,’ said the Rev. Riley Case, pastor of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Kokomo, Ind.

“Case is a member of the United Methodist Church Good

News, a group that supports traditional scriptural views. 

“‘If your primary loyalty is to the gay and lesbian agenda and not to the scripture or the care of persons who want marriage . . . I would question if they should call themselves Christians,’ he said” (The Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle [No- vember 11, 1997], B4). 

Real Adults Don’t Commit Adultery, Psychiatrist Says

“The Orlando Sentinel — If you’re a married person con- templating a dalliance, don’t tell Dr. Frank Pittman.

“The Atlanta psychiatrist and author of several books — including Private Lies: Infidelity and the Betrayal of Intimacy — has had it up to here with adultery in particular and with Americans’ notions of romantic love in general.

“Pittman enjoys dispelling what he calls the ‘myths of adultery.’

“Among them: ‘The idea that adultery is normal, expect- able behavior, that everybody does it, and that affairs can revive a dull marriage.’

“. . . given his own statistics — that one-half of married men and one-third of married women commit adultery — is there any way to forestall all this dallying?

“‘We’d do well to choose a better class of celebrities as role models,’ Pitmann says. The folks in People magazine, as well as ‘politicians, TV evangelists and other kinds of people who need to be celebrities are just not normal,’ he says.

“In addition, ‘It would be very nice if we saw movies about marriage that were not ridiculing it, or making it seem boring and silly,’ he says. Oh, and ‘stop justifying adultery with romance.’ Stop rationalizing irresponsible, destructive behavior with the idea that ‘if you’re in love, then it’s OK.’

“. . . ‘Children need to see courageous adults holding marriages together whether they’re in love or not” (The Indianapolis Star [November 20, 1997], A1).

Woodward Trial Sparks Criticism of Absentee Child-Rearing 

“Mark Patinkin, Providence Journal Bulletin — The real issue in the Louise Woodward au pair case, says Richard Gelles, isn’t whether the verdict and sentence were justified.

“‘It’s about how American parents raise children. Most,’ he says, ‘don’t: More than ever, adults delegate their most important job.’

“‘A generation,’ he says, ‘is being parented by parents who are not there, and cared for by caretakers who are often children themselves.’

“Gelles, a University of Rhode Island professor often called as an expert in child-abuse trials, has written 21 books on children’s welfare and directs a research program on family violence.

“Part of him, says Gelles, hesitates to question two-career couples who struggle nobly to balance work and family. But as a social scientist, he can’t ignore what his research tells him. 

“‘Having one parent there, present, that’s nature’s plan. That’s what kids need.’ 

“‘I think we’re playing with fire in a society that provides as little parental supervision for children as we do.’ 

“. . . ‘The one thing we know in the child development litera- ture,’ he says, ‘is that kids do best with a primary caretaker who’s truly there for them in every way.’ 

“. . . ‘The people I admire are those who make tough sacrifices for their kids, who say, “I could be a star, but I have something more important to take care of”’”(The Indianapolis Star [November 14, 1997], E1). 

Where The Ethical Line Is Drawn 

“Cal Thomas — The birth of the McCaughey septuplets produced joy and thanksgiving for the couple and their families. It has also produced a debate among medical ethicists, some of whom argue that Bobbi McCaughey should have aborted (euphemistically a ‘fetal reduction’) in order to limit the risk to the babies and reduce the cost to the taxpayers of giving birth to so many children.

“First, a definition. ‘Ethics’ is ‘the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.’ This implies a standard by which an ethic may be measured. The McCaugheys accepted such a standard when they said that God had a plan for their children, and they never considered killing one or more of them.

“Medical ethicists abandoned such a standard when they endorsed abortion ‘choice.’ That Bobbi McCaughey made a choice favoring life over death isn’t enough for them. They have other concerns.

“Where the ethical line is drawn with indelible or disappear- ing ink, is relevant to what the medical profession will be allowed to do to the rest of us in the future. As medicine costs more, it will be necessary to consider whether life’s value can depreciate, like a car.

“. . . Some ethicists and commentators question the ‘right’ of women to have multiple births, suggesting the government may wish to regulate the practice. This sounds disturbingly like China’s policy of limiting couples to one child, with forced abortion for those who attempt to violate the law. Do we want to go there?

“. . . One category of life cannot be declassified without endangering others. If the unborn can be aborted, individually or ‘selectively,’ then why not kill the newly born and the elderly if they become ‘inconvenient’? If there is no God to govern in the affairs of men, then why shouldn’t government or medical ethicists or public opinion be our god?

“On the eve of the 25th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, we are quickly regressing to a raw, purely arbitrary utilitarian- ism increasingly hostile to the notion that life is sacred and unique among living things” (The Indianapolis Star [November 30, 1997], D2).

By Lewis Willis

No doctrine of the Bible is more ignored or misun- derstood than God’s law of pardon. Too many people are totally indifferent to the subject — they could care less. To those who are concerned, the truth must be known. That is the mission of this article.

What Does Pardon Mean?

The word translated “pardon” is from a Hebrew word, selichah, which means “a passing over, forgiveness” (Young’s 730). Job asked, “And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity?” (Job

7:21). His inquiry was to God. Why? Because it is God who does the pardoning: “. . . but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, . . .” (Neh. 9:17). Also, Micah wrote: “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy” (Mic. 7:18). The good news is that God is willing to pardon; that there is a law of pardon. When the Hebrew writer spoke of the new covenant God would make with man, one of its greatest effects would be, “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” (Heb. 8:12; 10:17).

Pardon From What?

What do we need God to pardon? Job said we need pardon from transgression or iniquity. “Iniquity” is from a Greek word, anomia, which means lawlessness, wicked- ness, or unrighteousness (Vine 260). In a word, iniquity is “sin.” Isaiah said, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:2). Consider these verses also: “Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

. .” (Ps. 6:8); “. . .destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity” (Prov. 21:15); “Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds!” (Mic. 2:1).

Who Needs Pardon? 

Obviously, all need pardon who are guilty of iniquity or sin. What this says is that we all need pardon, because we all have sinned. Paul wrote that, “. . . we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

. . . As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

. . . They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one . . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:9, 10, 12, 23). There is not, therefore, an accountable adult who does not need pardon. The question today is the same as it has always been: What must I do to be saved?

Who Has God Authorized To Answer?

I know that men are ready to give their answers about the requirements for salvation. However, would we not be wise, since God is the one who pardons, to inquire of him who he has authorized to answer? After promising to build his church, Jesus gave binding and loosing authority to the apostles (Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18). Just before Jesus went away, he told them: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23). The Apostle Paul affirmed that God made them ambassadors (official representatives) to announce his terms of pardon: “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

What Did God Authorize Them To Say?

He told them to go teach, or preach the gospel to all nations. Those who believed were to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47). Men today do not seem to understand or respect this, but that is exactly what these passages authorized them to say.

What Did They Answer?

On the Day of Pentecost, in the city of Jerusalem, when the gospel was first preached by the apostles, thousands of Jews finally believed in Jesus. They were cut to their hearts with the knowledge that they had murdered the Son of God and they asked the apostles, “What shall we do?” They needed pardon and the apostles were the ones appointed by God to tell them how to receive it. When Peter answered the question, he told them what God had authorized them to say. He said, “. . . Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). These people heard the gospel, believed it, repented of their sins, and were baptized. They met all of God’s requirements for pardon. One has to wonder how modern preachers can tell people to do something different than the apostles required. Does modern man know better? Were the apostles wrong? Did God change his mind?

Have You Complied With God’s Law Of Pardon?

Remember now: All of us have sinned; God is willing to pardon; he told the apostles to tell us what to do to be pardoned; they told us to hear the gospel, to believe, to re- pent and to be baptized for the remission of our sins. Have you done what God requires you to do for the forgiveness of your sins? If not, do so today! We are ready to assist you in your obedience.

By Larry Ray Hafley 

My wife was shocked to find the following statement in a book written by a woman who is a member of the church — “Never in the entire Bible did any prophet, nor Jesus, nor the Apostle Paul present a five-step formula for giving the heart over to God.” 

In the 19th century, gospel preachers often taught the gospel plan of salvation to children and to unlearned and illiterate men and women. One convenient way to ground disciples in the truth was to hold up their hand and, grasp ing each finger one at a time, say, “Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, and be Baptized.” Sectarians began to ridicule it as the “five finger creed of the church of Christ,” the “five finger formula of the Campbellites,” and “five steps of the water gospel.” Christians were mocked and called “five steppers.”

Because truth was taught so simply with the “five finger exercise,” enemies of the cross made fun of the process. It was easier to do that than to show how it contradicted the word of God; so, they railed and reviled.

Omit Which Step?

If the Lord and the apostles never presented “a five-step formula,” which ones did they omit? Which should we leave out? Should we:

1. Omit Hearing? Since “faith cometh by hearing” the word of God, how can we leave it out (Rom. 10:17)? Je- sus said one must “hear (his) voice,” his word, in order to have spiritual life (John 5:25; 6:63, 68). One cannot trust in Christ until he hears “the word of truth” (Eph. 1:13). If a person never “hears” the gospel, he can never believe; therefore, we cannot omit hearing. 
2.  Omit Belief? Since “without faith it is impossible to please” God, how can we fail to include faith (Heb. 11:6)? Jesus said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). The Lord said, “He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16; John 3:18). Obviously, we must not omit faith as one of the “steps” one must take in order to be saved (Eph. 2:8, 9). 
3.  Omit Repentance? Since God “commandeth all men every where to repent,” how can we remove repentance (Acts 17:30)? Jesus said, “repent, or perish,” turn or burn (Luke 13:3). Christ connected repentance with the forgive- ness of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). Thus, we may not omit repentance as a “step” for the sinner to obey (2 Pet. 3:9). 
4.  Omit Confession? Since only those who confess that Jesus is Lord can be saved, how can we eliminate confession (Rom. 10:9, 10)? Jesus said, “Whosoever . . . shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father” (Matt. 10:32, 33). “If we deny him, he will also deny us” (2 Tim. 2:12). Hence, we cannot omit confession of Christ as a “step” “unto salvation.” 
5. Omit Baptism? Since baptism is “for the remission of sins,” how can we possibly ignore it (Acts 2:38; 22:16)? Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Baptism is one of the conditions with which one must comply in order to be saved in Christ (John 3:3-5; Rom. 6:3, 4; Gal. 3:27; 1 Pet. 3:21). So, we dare not omit baptism. 

Jesus and the apostles did indeed present the “five-steps” which some say were “never” given. Again, which “steps” shall we take away from God’s book (Rev. 22:18, 19)? In the conversion accounts in the book of Acts, which ones were omitted? Did the Ethiopian eunuch fail to repent? Did the Philippian jailer not confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord? Was anyone ever converted who did not first hear the gospel? Which of the “five-steps” were omitted? Which ones may we exclude and still be saved? Those who ridicule the “five-step formula” need to tell us!