Truth Magazine

By P. J. Casebolt

Now the king sat in the winter house in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning be-fore him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth (Jer. 36:22, 23).

God’s word had been revealed through Jeremiah the prophet “against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations” (Jer. 36:2). These words had been written in a book by Baruch the scribe, read “in the ears of all the people” (v. 10), before the princes (v. 15), and finally before the king. The authenticity of this revelation had been well con-firmed and acknowledged. Even after Jehoiakim cut out and burned all of the first book, all of the former words were written again, “and there were added besides unto them many like words” (v. 32). Even the penknives and fires of kings cannot make void the word of God.

Atheists, infidels, and other enemies of the truth have made concentrated efforts to keep all of God’s word out of the ears and hands of the people. Even God’s own people have attempted to discredit or destroy those portions of truth which expose and rebuke their errors. Whether we attempt to destroy the entire text of the Bible at one cutting and burning, or whether we do it piece-meal, “here a little, and there a little” (cf. Isa. 28:10), the end result is still the same.

After leaders of the Reformation had made a successful effort to get the Bible out of the prison bars of Catholicism and back into the hands and vernacular of the people, some of those very same liberators of the printed text borrowed Jehoiakim’s penknife and began cutting on the word of God. That penknife has been used by practically every religious group, and it is still being passed around to-day. When others aren’t using it, God’s own people take turns using it.

Martin Luther excised the entire epistle of James because the text of James 2 did not conform to his doctrine of justification by “faith only.” Luther’s zeal to expose the corrupt works or indulgences of Catholicism caused him to reject even the works of God as “spurious.” The “new hermeneutics” had begun.

Because the text of Mark 16:9-20 was not included in some earlier Greek manuscripts, some have tried to exploit this omission in their efforts to eliminate baptism as being essential to salvation. What James 2:24 did to Luther’s doctrine of faith only, Mark 16:16 did to the enemies of baptism. But as with the subject of faith and works, there are many other passages of Scripture be-sides Mark 16:16 which confirm the importance of baptism with respect to salvation.

In an effort to justify the practice of ordaining women preachers in the Lord’s church, one champion of that practice told me that Paul was a “prejudiced old bachelor that didn’t like women,” and therefore anything he wrote was suspect. Well, that position would eliminate 13 or 14 books of the New Testament, and would probably brand Christ as a “prejudiced old bachelor.”

I hadn’t been preaching long before I experienced my first “baptism” with the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question. Older preachers told me that the question surfaced “about every 20 years or so,” brethren would eventually return to the language of Matthew 19:9, and things would settle down for another 20 years. Since that time, I have decided that a new generation comes along about every 20 years, somebody or somebody’s children get involved in an unscriptural marriage, and new positions on the subject are invented to justify the existing practice.

In this first encounter of mine circa 1950, an influential and respected preacher in the Ohio Valley changed his position on marriage/divorce, preached a special sermon in a meeting at Parkersburg, West Virginia, and concluded that there was no cause for divorce or remarriage. His reasoning was that Matthew 19:9 belonged to the law of Moses, as did everything else in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The next day, I went to his study and reasoned with him about that portion of these epistles which we call the Great Commission. Should we leave this out of our preaching? He conceded that he and others may encounter some “in-consistencies” with this new position, but those would have to be worked out.

This preacher was much older and more experienced than was I, but I wanted to know the truth, and what I should do. Some were influenced by his teaching, some “came out of the closet” who already held that position, but in fairness to this preacher and his memory (he still lives the last I heard), he renounced his newly acquired doctrine and short foraywith Jehoiakim’s penknife, and returned to Matthew 19:9 as the pivotal passage on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

My last encounter with Jehoiakim’s penknife came as I was trying to reason with a brother about the function of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as members of the Godhead (1 John 5:7, 8). I do not know where this brother got his information, but his understanding was that this passage of Scripture was not inspired. If this is true, what about Mat-thew 28:18-20, and the charge of Jesus to baptize “them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (v. 19)? Or, when Paul (that “prejudiced old bachelor”), tells us that “the unity of the Spirit” includes “one Spirit,” “one Lord,” and “one God and Father” (Eph. 4:1-6), is this passage also uninspired? Why must we feel called upon to use Jehoiakim’s penknife in order to advocate some position with reference to the Godhead? Since some brethren have already cut out Matthew-John to justify some position on divorce, Paul’s epistles have been assigned to the ramblings of a prejudiced old bachelor that didn’t like women, and the rest of the Bible has been cut out by some-one else, that only leaves me, 1 John, so I think that I will hold onto it for awhile.

If we attempt to understand and apply a passage of Scripture while at the same time acknowledging that it is inspired, that is one thing; to reject the inspiration of the Bible in order to defend some doctrine or practice of human origin is another thing entirely.

Jehoiakim has long since departed this world, but his penknife was not interred with his bones.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 22-23
November 6, 1997

By David Dann

In Matthew 16:18 we have recorded the proclamation of Jesus concerning the establishment of his church: “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Many have asserted the notion that we place too much emphasis on Christ’s church, and upon the scriptural work and worship of the local congregation. Those who voice such a concern often claim that the church is emphasized to such an extent that we ignore Christ, or that the church becomes our focal point, rather than the Savior. These concerns bring about a need for us to reevaluate the emphasis that we place on the church in our teaching and preaching in light of the Scriptures. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary for us to carefully examine what the Bible has to say about the church and its relationship to Christ.

Christ is the Head of the Church

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (Eph. 5:23-24). “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18). The church is here depicted as the body of the Lord, with Jesus himself functioning as the head. These passages show that there is an inseparable bond between Christ and his church as the body receives direction and guidance from its head.

The Church is the Fullness of Christ

Ephesians 1:22-23 says, concerning Christ, that the Father, “hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” Not only does this Scripture reiterate the relationship of the head to the body, it further states that the body is the fullness of Christ.

The Church Is That Which Christ Saves Ephesians 5:23 tells us that Jesus is, “the Savior of the body.” As we have already established the fact that the word “body” here refers to the church, we can see that eternal salvation is located in the church. This is clearly seen in Acts 2:47, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” Much in the same way that Noah’s ark contained all of the saved of his day, Christ’s church contains all of the saved of our present age.

The Church Is That Which Christ Loves

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). As this Scripture points out, Christ’s deep love for the church, the body of the saved, caused him to give his life for it so that we might be redeemed by his blood. Paul brought this point out very clearly in his instruction to the Ephesian elders: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Christ considered the church to be of such value that he was willing to purchase it with his blood.

The Church Is That Which Christ Cleanses

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:25-26). The New Testament makes no mention of anyone being sanctified and cleansed by Christ outside of the church. Our entrance into the body of Christ, and our cleansing and sanctification is brought about through water baptism in his name: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

The Church Manifests the Glory of Christ

“Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Eph. 3:20-21). “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27).

Conclusion

We began by asking the question, “Is the church over-emphasized?”, however, after examining what the Bible says about the church that Jesus built, it is apparent that we have not asked the correct question. We ought to ask our-selves, “Is the church emphasized enough?”

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 16-17
November 6, 1997

By Mike Willis

In Psalm 58, David brings his complaint to God against those rulers in Israel who allowed Saul’s unjust assault against him to continue. He wrote, “Do you rulers indeed speak justly? Do you judge uprightly among men? No, in your heart you devise injustice, and your hands mete out violence on the earth” (58:1-2, NIV).The context of his complaint is described by Adam Clark as follows:

Saul having attempted the life of David, the latter was obliged to flee from the court, and take refuge in the deserts of Judea. Saul, missing him, is supposed by Bishop Patrick to have called a council, when they, to ingratiate themselves with the monarch, adjudged David to be guilty of treason in aspiring to the throne of Israel. This being made known to David was the cause of this Psalm (402-403).

The leaders of Israel should have spoken the truth to Saul. They should have told him that David had been faithful as Saul’s servant. He won a significant victory over the Philistines when he defeated Goliath. He was such a successful leader in Saul’s army that the women sang his praises. In all of his conduct, David had acted honorably as Saul’s servant. Instead, these rulers apparently encouraged Saul’s suspicious jealousy of David and charged that he was guilty of treason. When David spoke to Saul following his cutting off the hem of Saul’s garment at En-gedi, he said, “Wherefore hearest thou men’s words, saying, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt?” (1 Sam. 24:9).

The Jewish commentator, Rabbi Sampson Raphael Hirsch adds these words about the psalm:

It contains a reproach directed at those who, by virtue of their high position and station, should have deemed it their duty to intervene, both in word and in action, to put an end to the evil done in the land but who, instead, have kept complacently silent in the face of widespread lawlessness. David feels that, because of their complacency, they share in the guilt for all the evil that is done within their jurisdiction. If all the good men who condemn evil in their hearts were to rise up openly against evil both by word and by action, most of the crimes that have been perpetrated in this world would never have been committed (The Psalms 396).

Writing on Psalm 58:3, he frankly said, “David declares, `You of whom it would be expected that you act and speak out against evil, commit a crime simply by not attempting to stop the evil acts of others’ (397-398). This establishes a clear biblical principle which we need to consider both with reference to our society and to the church. When those who have the ability to do something to stop evil sit in silence, they are culpable for the crimes that are committed. The Mosaical Law stated it like this: “Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt” (Lev. 19:17). Let’s consider some applications of this principle.

In Society

The more familiar one becomes with the crimes committed by the Nazi’s against the Jewish community, the more he is moved to ask why the morally upright people in that society sat back and did little or nothing, allowing Hitler to continue his pogrom of the Jews. There must have been high ranking generals, lieutenants, governors, mayors of major cities, and others who, at one point in time, could have done something to stop the progression of destruction. There were some people in that society who did what they could under those circumstances to save those who mercilessly were being put to death, placing themselves in grave personal danger. Appropriately, they have been applauded as heroes.

As I think about the crimes being perpetrated in our society, I ask myself, “Have I done enough to stop the slaughter of the innocent, unborn babies in the abortion clinics in America?” There was a time when enough righteous people speaking up, enough powerful political figures in positions of authority, could have stopped what is now an accepted practice in our country. I think also of those liberal judges who have allowed criminals to be released in society to commit their crimes again and again because of their aversion to capital punishment. Have we done enough to protect the innocent? Are we culpable because of our uninvolvement in the political process?

Among Our Liberal Brethren

The principle that righteous people can sit back and do nothing when crimes are committed is equally true about spiritual crimes. Godly brethren become culpable when they do nothing when wickedness occurs in the church. I have witnessed the righteous sit in silence while strong-willed brethren destroyed the unity of a local church, trying to become the rulers of the congregation. The “silent majority” in such cases is culpable. They should have stopped the wickedness of the factious.

Max Lucado: Today is the first day you ever prayed a prayer like that. Could you do me a favor? Could you write me a letter? I don’t have anything I am going to ask from you. I do have a letter I am going to send you, I’d like to give you a word about the next step or two. I want to encourage you to find a church, I want to encourage you to be baptized, I want to encourage you to read your Bible. But, I don’t want you to do any of these things to be saved. I want you to do all of them because you are saved. You see, your Father has a great life planned for you, and I want to tell you about it. Give us a call, and drop me a note. And, thanks for making the greatest decision of your life. I’ll be back Monday, hope you will be too.

The tragedy is not that one preacher has apostatized from the truth, which is a tragedy itself. The real tragedy in what is happening among our liberal brethren is that the majority of them are saying nothing to oppose his error, continuing to use him in meetings, recommending his books, and otherwise supporting him. If a significant number of those who are in positions of authority would speak up and refuse to accept the one who has gone beyond the doctrine of Christ, the leavening influence of his apostasy could be stopped. However, the influence is spreading and will continue to spread. Preachers, elders, and other teachers who are keeping silent share in the culpability for the apostasy.

Among Us

What is true about the spread of false doctrine among our liberal brethren is equally true about its spread among us. In recent years, we have had several brethren publish books asserting that Matthew 19:9 (“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”) is not applicable to all men today. They argue theft position from a variety of presuppositions.

We should not be surprised that a few brethren would conform to the society around us and teach loose views on divorce and remarriage, although it is tragic to see brethren apostatize. However, the greater tragedy is witnessing how brethren react when influential men who, by their own ad-mission, have accepted and are propagating these loose views. Rather than speaking out about the false doctrine they are preaching, they sit in silence, continue to arrange up the opportunity. The number is 1-800-822-WORD. Next week, we will take a break from our series titled “The Great House of God,” giving way to an uplifting selection of holiday lessons specifically designed to help you grow stronger in your faith. As with today’s study, each of these lessons is available on extended audio cassette. The title of this week’s series, “When Your Heart Needs a Father.” Every tape contains an additional bonus message from Max on the reverse side. Cost is just $5 for each additional cassette. Max Lucado returns with a special word for those who received the gift of salvation just moments ago in prayer.

The same is true about the teaching of false doctrine. Men who know the truth sometime sit back and say nothing when men who have chosen not to abide within the doctrine of Christ are spreading their error. That is happening among our liberal brethren right now. A transcription of Max Lucado’s radio sermon in which he takes the Baptist position on baptism (baptism is not essential to salvation) is being circulated. In that sermon, Lucado said,

You can be sure that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor ruling spirits, nothing now and nothing in the future, no powers, nothing above us, nothing below us, not any-thing else in the world will ever be able to separate us from the love of god that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. You see, in God, by virtue of your adoption, you have a divine affinity, you have eternal security, and you have a golden opportunity. I cannot imagine an orphan turning down an opportunity to be adopted. With one decision, with one raising of a hand, with one agreement to leave the orphan-age, that person all of a sudden goes from being abandoned to being claimed, from having no name to a new name, no future to a new future, he leaves the orphanage, and enters the house of the Father. That’s what God offers you. No quiz, no examination. All you have to do is to say “yes” to the Father. And many of you have done that. But I have a hunch that not all of you have. I have a hunch that there are a few of you listening, eve now, and God is using this to pull on your heart. The Holy Spirit is informing you of something you have never really heard before  that is, that God is ready to be your Father. Maybe you never understood that the invitation was for everyone. Maybe you thought you were unworthy. Maybe now you do understand. God will make you worthy, and the invitation is for you. All you have to do is to call Him Father. Just call Him Father. Just turn your heart to Him right now as I am speaking. And your Father will respond. Why don’t you do that?

“Father, I give my heart to you. I give you my sins, I give you my tears, I give you my fears, I give you my whole life. I accept the gift of your Son on the cross for my sins. And I ask you, Father, to receive me as your child. Through Jesus I pray, Amen.”

Announcer: And friend, if you prayed along with Max Lucado just now, here at UPWARDS, we want to welcome you into the family of God. We hope you will contact us and share your personal testimony. If you are already a believer, we thank you for praying for these new brothers and sisters in Christ. Because Christmas is an excellent time to receive God’s gift of salvation, and whether you are a new believer or a veteran of the faith, Max Lucado has prepared an uplifting new printed resource. He has titled it “When Angels Came Down.” You will want a copy for yourself or perhaps share it with a loved one about whom you may be concerned spiritually. With your December donation of any amount to UPWARDS, you may request a personal copy. The place to write is UPWARDS, Box 5860, San Antonio, TX 78201. Or, if you like, you may phone us toll free for added convenience, and it would certainly speed praise these men for their contributions to the cause of Christ. They also publicly and privately criticize those brethren who have refuted the false doctrines being promoted by those with loose views on divorce and remarriage. Some have even entered pulpits and/or written articles to justify an on-going fellowship with those who are teaching what they are admitting are loose views on divorce and remarriage. Such men are culpable for the apostasy that their silence allows to spread.

There was a time when men in positions of influence could have spoken up and stopped the leavening influence of this error among us. The leaven is spreading among us and the time when it can be stopped is quickly passing away. Those who do nothing share the blame for its spread among us.

Conclusion

David’s rebuke of the influential men in his day who could have stopped Saul’s crimes and did not contains a lesson for us, with reference to both the society in which we live and the church. Remember the words of Leviticus 19:17  “Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt” (Lev 19:17, MV). Will you be one of those who helped stop the liberal trends that are developing among us or one whose silence allows the continued progress of evil?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 22 p. 2
November 20, 1997

By Cecil F. Cox

We hear much today about those who are anti-cooperation. This is a charge that is usually leveled against those who are opposed to the “sponsoring church” type of cooperation. This is, of course, a false and prejudicial charge. To be “anti-cooperation” would be to oppose congregations cooperating. So the charge of anti-cooperation is a charge that is not true of any faithful church. We believe in the kind of cooperation that is taught in the New Testament. Brother H. Leo Boles put it so well when he said,

Every church in the universe that operates or works according to the will of God cooperates or works together with every other church in the universe that is working according to the same rule. Churches which are fulfilling their mission separate and independent of other churches never the less are cooperating with all other churches that fulfill their mission (Gospel Advocate, January 28, 1932, 114).

Yes, my brethren, we can and do cooperate with other churches without supporting unscriptural projects.

We have some brethren who themselves admit that they are non-cooperative. I have a book in my library entitled New Testament Churches of Today, Vol. 1. In this book there are some 873 congregations listed with information about each one. Among the questions asked is this one, “Do you engage in congregational cooperation in preaching the Gospel?” Among the answers which were given in reply are “yes,” “when possible,” and “no.” Please note, there are congregations, by their own admission, that do not en-gage in congregational cooperation. Therefore, we could rightly refer to them as non-cooperative. But I’m sure that they would object to this. They would possibly explain that what they mean is that they do not contribute to a “sponsoring church” arrangement of some kind to do their work of preaching the gospel. Isn’t it strange that if a congregation wants to be referred to as one who believes in and practices congregational cooperation that it must make a contribution to an arrangement which is not found in the New Testament? If you oppose it, you are an anti-cooperative. If you do not contribute, then you are non-cooperative. Let it be remembered that churches in the first century believed in and practiced congregational cooperation hundreds of years before the “sponsoring church” set-up ever came into existence. As they did, so can we. God forbid, that just because faithful churches do not surrender their funds to another congregation to preach the gospel, that we are anti-cooperative or non-cooperative in the work of preaching the gospel.

This reminds me of some things that happened during the “society controversy” back in the 1800s. Back then, those who did not “line up” with the Missionary Society were called anti-mission. They did not believe in preaching the gospel, according to those who were supporters of the Society. On November 27, 1865 Thomas Munnell wrote a letter to David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning, concerning the Gospel Advocate. He said, “I am told that anti-mission (emphasis mine, CFC) is to be one feature of the Advocate” (Earl West, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 2, 68). Along this same line W.K. Pendleton said, “Let men who have missionary work . . . take counsel together .. . and let us not be disturbed, or distracted in our work, byoutside railers, who seem to rejoice in nothing so much as their own success in preventing the preaching of the gospel” (emphasis mine, CFC) (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 33, 255). Such charges as “anti-mission” and “pre-venting the preaching the gospel” were false charges and were resented by Lipscomb and others who stood for the truth.

Today brethren are branded as anti-cooperation because they oppose a society composed of the elders of a congregation and generally called a sponsoring church. If one opposes the “sponsoring church” type of cooperation, he is against churches cooperating is the conclusion that some reach. But, such a conclusion is absurd. It is not any more logical than the conclusion that if one opposes a man made missionary society, he is anti-mission.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 21-22
November 6, 1997