Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell Sr.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance of their own desires” (2 Tim. 4:3, NASV).

When one’s standard of conduct begins to bind his con-duct, something must give. He may alter his conduct to fit the standard, but too often he alters the standard to fit the conduct. Like those of the text, he seeks teachers who will make the standard fit his practice. Thus, he finds temporary relief from the pressure.

Once I watched my wife cut out a dress. Being the prudent man that I am (“prudent” does sound better than “cowardly”), I silently watched as she used the same size pattern as before  but just allowed a little around the edges. I guess this seemed to be the easier way out. I thought how typical this is of many brethren. They get their lives out of step with the pattern (the Bible), but seem to still want to use the pattern  so they just allow a little here and there.

People often get themselves involved in situations and then go looking for some teacher who will tell them that they are alright. This happens so often in the matter of divorce and remarriage. They get into it and then call every preacher in the country hoping one will justify them in it. This is true of many other problems of life.

Churches get involved in questionable, to say the least, activities  then hunt teachers who will try to make enough allowances with the biblical language so that the brethren can feel comfortable in their error. As the digression grows other allowances have to be made until someone talks about “where there is no pattern”  as if we may not always need the pattern for the church and her practices.

We must confine our practice to the doctrine of Christ  with no allowances. “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9).

(I wrote this line piece about 30 years ago. I thought we would run it again. Brethren in every generation need to be warned against stretching the pattern, BOB).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 8
November 2, 1995

By Harry R. Osborne

If we accept the fact that there is a God and that he created this world, how can we know that he is the same God we read about in the Bible? How can we know that the Bible is his product? Does the Bible show any evidence of having a source of greater power than the men who penned the words contained in it? Upon what evidence are we to believe that the Bible is actually the word of God? Is our faith in the Bible as the product of divine inspiration to be a blind leap in the dark or a rational conclusion based upon identifiable evidence?

In Isaiah 40-44, the prophet draws an extended contrast between the God of the Bible and the gods of idolatry. Isaiah often attributes the words to God. This section of Scripture shows the incomparable greatness of God and his ability to help his people. The section also declares the futility of believing in the false gods of idolatry which were not real, but merely a creation of man’s imagination.

To show that the false gods were not real, God challenges those idolatrous gods to prove their existence by demonstrating their power. Note the words of that challenge (Isa. 41:21-24):

“Present your case,” the Lord says. “Bring forward your strong arguments,” the King of Jacob says. “Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them, and know their outcome; or announce to us what is coming. Declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. Be-hold, you are of no account, and your work amounts to nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination.”

God does not exempt himself from the scrutiny of such a challenge. First, God is introduced as “God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to those who walk on it” (Isa. 42:5). Then, God claims his own ability to foretell future events unerringly as he declares:

“Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them” (Isa. 42:9). Thus, God claimed to have already manifested himself to his people by prophesying of things to come which had already occurred as he had prophesied. Yet, he says he will do the same again so that the evidence of his power will be more apparent. The purpose of his actions are de-tailed a little later in the section (Isa. 43:10-13):

You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am He. Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no savior be-sides me. It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, and there was no strange god among you; so you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And I am God. Even from eternity I am He; and there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?

Time of Writing

From that premise, God proceeds to declare what is going to come to pass just as he had challenged the idolatrous gods to do. The statements made about various nations, rulers and world events as recorded in Isaiah read like history to us since we may look back upon those statements to see that they are historical facts. But we must remember when they were written.

Isaiah prophesied from about 740 to 690 B.C. during “the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah” who were kings in Judah (Isa. 1:1). At that time, Assyria was the dominant world power in that region. In fact, the book of Isaiah tells about the siege of Jerusalem which took place about 701 B.C. as Sennacherib led the Assyrian army in an attempt to capture the city.

Examples of Prophecy by Isaiah

Yet, Isaiah does not say that Assyria was going to over-throw Jerusalem or take the people of Judah away into captivity. Isaiah does record such predictions regarding Samaria and Israel (the northern kingdom). Those predictions came true. However, Isaiah repeatedly quotes God as saying that Babylon would destroy Jerusalem and take captive the people of Judah. This occurred in about 606 B.C. How could Isaiah have foreseen such without the help of God’s power?

However, God does not rest his case as written by Isaiah solely upon this prophesy. In chapters 45-47, he prophesies the destruction of Babylon (which had not even come to power at that time) by the Medo-Persians. God even names the Medo-Persian ruler, Cyrus, who would subdue Babylon and release the Jews from captivity (Isaiah 45:1). That is some prediction since it took place over 150 years before Cyrus came to power! How could this be done by a mere man?

Concluding Thoughts

If one claims that the book was written after the time of the fulfillment, there is another problem. One who writes at one time while claiming to live at an earlier time will not correctly represent the setting and events of that earlier time. Yet, Isaiah has been vindicated over and over when tested by the known facts found through archeology. He has never been found wrong!

Thus, the skeptic who seeks to deny the divine power seen in such prophecies is left on the horns of a dilemma. If he tries to explain away the predictions as statements made after the fact, he must contend with the accuracy of the prophet in relating the conditions existing long before his time. The difficulty of this task can be seen if we think about how accurate we might be if we tried to write as if we were living 150 years ago. Sooner or later our fraud would be discovered due to mistakes we would surely make. Isaiah was entirely accurate concerning the time in which he claimed to live.

Yet, to explain such accuracy by saying that Isaiah actually lived in the time he claimed, one must admit that he made such specific predictions of a future time that it necessitated divine help. Either way the skeptic goes, he finds himself in trouble with the facts in his attempt to deny the existence of God and his inspiration of the Bible.

In other articles we will see more evidence for the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration. We will examine the evidence that God challenges us to examine  his prophecies fulfilled throughout history. The total accuracy of every prediction made by Bible writers assures us that we may rely on the other things said as being the word of God, for no man has the power to see perfectly into the future with-out divine help. A compelling, positive case is made for the existence of God and his inspiration of the Bible through the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. No world religion is founded upon such an evidence-based appeal to reason. Let us be ready to answer every doubt and denial of the skeptic by showing the reason for our hope as we boldly proclaim the facts about God’s presence and power.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 20-21
November 2, 1995

By Donald Townsley

Down through the years since I have been preaching the gospel, there have been (and still are) men who advocated that we should preach Christ and not a plan of salvation. They phrase it this way: “Preach the man and not the plan.” They seem to think that one cannot preach a plan of obedience to Christ (Rom. 1:5; Heb. 5:9) and, at the same time, preach Christ. What they need to understand is that Jesus Christ is revealed to us in the word of God, and that he is inseparably connected with every book of the New Testament. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). You can see from this passage that Christ is inseparably connected with his words. To fully preach Christ one must preach his commands, his promises, his warnings, his church, his supper, his plan of salvation and righteous living (Acts 8:4-5,12). All of this being true, we cannot ignore any part of what he has said without ignoring that much of Christ (James 2:10).

The New Testament is filled with expressions that make it clear that a “plan of salvation” is taught therein. The Romans “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine” (Rom. 6:17). In their obedience to that “form (or mold) of doctrine” they were “called of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:6) and “made free from sin” (Rom. 6:18).

Paul also told the Romans, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). They were called according to God’s purpose, scheme, or plan. They were called of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:6), called by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14), and called by his (God’s) grace (Gal. 1:15). To be called of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:6), called by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14), and called by God’s grace (Gal. 1:15) is to obey the plan of salvation, or “that form of doctrine” (Rom. 6:17).

The Hebrew writer said in chapter 9, verse 8 that while the old covenant was in effect “the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest”  in other words, the plan (or scheme) of salvation had not yet been revealed. Then the writer goes on to tell us in chapter 10, verse 20 that now under the new covenant there is “a new and living way” which is consecrated by Christ. Christ is “the way” (John 14:6), and there cannot be any separation between Christ and his “way” (or his plan of salvation). To reject his plan is to reject him (John 12:48; Mark 8:38).

The plan of salvation that Christ “consecrated” (or dedicated) for us (Heb. 10:20) is simple. One must hear the gospel (Rom. 10:17), believe the gospel (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), repent of past sins (Acts 2:38; 17:30), confess faith in Christ (Rom. 10:10; Acts 8:37), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Friend, have you obeyed the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8)? If not, won’t you do so, and “hold the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13, ASV)?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 2
November 2, 1995

By Donald P. Ames

Over the past several years, like others, I have been agonizing over the immorality that is becoming so prevalent amongst those who call themselves gospel preachers. I have seen those caught in such deny it until everyone else is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. I’ve known some where the whole community knew about it before members of the church knew. Then, when it is finally exposed, they try to minimize it or blame everyone else. Or, they agree to quietly resign (even though the community also knows about it) and move on. And, usually glad to have “the problem” resolved, some will give them a recommendation for their preaching, and rejoice that “that problem” is now resolved and “we can get back to preaching the gospel again.”

Meanwhile, at the church where the problem arose, many new and weak Christians are left with their faith badly shaken. Many of the local young people quit the church completely, turned off by the hypocrisy of one standing up there telling them these things are wrong, yet engaged in the same disgraceful sins while doing so. The community is full of gossip about “what has happened at that church,” with some vowing they will never have anything to do with such a church “if that’s what Christianity is all about.” And the church spends the next ten years trying to overcome the problems one immoral preacher has wrought upon them. Usually a whole generation is lost and/or wasted by one such exposed action.

As for the preacher, he quietly moves on, and may repeat the same sin at two or three more places until his reputation finally catches up with him (1 Tim. 5:24-25), at which time he may leave the church completely and go off into sin. Of course he has destroyed several churches, turned many young people and prospects away from the gospel, destroyed several marriages (plus his own, and the souls of his own children  Matthew 18:7). It is usually “everyone else’s fault,” and he resents those who finally exposed him, rather than bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance (Acts 26:20).

Someone says, “But that could happen to anyone!” True, but let’s be honest. Those in positions of leadership should be aware of such dangers and their con-sequences (James 3:1). Most preachers know when they are in a bad situation. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be preachers trying to warn others of such dangers ! Did not Paul say, “You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach your-self?… You who say, `Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery.. .You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?” (Rom. 2:21-24) They also know what they should do in such a situation (1 Cor. 6:18; Gen. 39:6-12). If not, they need to quit preaching until they learn more! How can they teach others those dangers and how to avoid them if they have no idea what to do themselves? Let’s get serious! And, when found guilty, they need to confess their sin, turn from it, quit blaming others, and resign from preaching until brethren feel confident a change has occurred and they can again recommend him (and his life) to others.

Brother David Padfield of Zion, Illinois, recently penned the following in his bulletin (August 1995). I commend it and him for the courage to speak out:

It is a sad fact that many gospel preachers have been guilty of adultery. I cannot understand why some brethren want them to keep preaching. Should preachers who have been guilty of adultery go back to “making tents” for a living? They cannot be trusted by their spouse. Do you trust them? They have proven themselves to be liars and covenant breakers, and now they want elders and other brethren to have confidence in them? It is amazing that some who are the most discerning in detecting “heresy” among us are men who have had trouble finding their own bedroom. Maybe they think that by focusing on some current doctrinal issue brethren might forget how they broke their wedding vows, ruined their reputation, lied to both God and their spouse and caused another man’s wife to commit this “heinous crime” with them.

When a preacher commits adultery it effects every member of the congregation where he labors. A preacher where I grew up committed adultery. He left the Lord and his spouse and the brethren withdrew fellowship from him. After he left, the brethren looked differently at all preachers. It took more than a decade before those brethren were able to look at any preacher without suspicion.

Sometimes men caught in adultery claim they are just like King David of Israel and therefore we should just over-look their transgressions. I have read of King David. David was a friend of God. These men are not King David! When Nathan confronted David with his sin, David humbly and meekly repented. David did not deny his adultery nor seek to censure Nathan. I have never known an adulterer like David. Everyone I have ever heard of who was accused of adultery first tried to deny the crime. Then, after proof was brought forth, they tried to minimize the seriousness of their crime or blame someone else. Many speak ill of the ones who try to bring them to repentance.

Solomon wrote, “Whoever commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding; he who does so destroys his own soul. Wounds and dishonor he will get, and his reproach will not be wiped away” (Prov. 6:32-33). We are not going to solve this problem by sweeping it under the rug and quietly passing the offender on to other congregations for him to destroy again and again. The time has come to clean house! If they have no more moral self-control than that, they don’t need to be in the pulpit! As for those who “might get discouraged and quit the church” (and many eventually do this anyway when their sin is exposed), if they have no more convictions than that, how many more must they take with them first? How did Paul deal with the hypocrisy of Peter in Galatians 2? If forced to “count the cost,” maybe they would think more seriously about such before beginning such activities. If not, better they be exposed now than later (1 John 2:19)! Too many times we are not dealing with a “one time mistake,” but when revealed, a pat-tern or habit that has occurred more than once, and in some cases has gone on for several years.

I have no false illusions such an article as this will please all who read it. Nor is the process going to be painless. Some may be affected I do not even know. But, brethren, “Do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bond servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). We need to be concerned about the Lord, and the souls of the victims; rather than just seeking to appease the offender who, by his actions, “despises the commandment of the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:9-10).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 18-19
October 19, 1995