Truth Magazine

By David A. Padfield

In the first chapter of Romans the apostle Paul listed the sins of the Gentiles. In this heinous list of crimes we find the phrase “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31, KJV). This refers to those who do not possess the love and attachment which nature teaches all mothers to have for their young.

This expression denotes the want of affectionate regard toward their children. The attachment of parents to children is one of the strongest in nature, and nothing can overcome it but the most confirmed and established wickedness. And yet the apostle charges on the heathen generally the want of this affection. He doubtless refers here to the practice so common among heathens of exposing their children, or putting them to death. This crime, so abhorrent to all the feelings of humanity, was common among the heathen, and is still. The Canaanites, we’re told, (Psa. cvi. 37,38) ‘sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan.’ Manasseh, among the Jews, imitated their ex-ample, and introduced the horrid custom of sacrificing children to Moloch, and set the example by offering his own, 2 Chronicles 33:6. Among the ancient Persians it was a common custom to bury children alive. In most of the Grecian states, infanticide was not merely permitted, but actually enforced by law (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament).

The practice of murdering small children was also common among the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Chinese and Hindus. The murder of children and the infirm is not isolated to antiquity. The Nazi Holocaust began with the elimination of almost 300,000 Aryan German citizens who were considered “defective.” Before Hitler was finished, his Nazi machine had murdered six million Jews, plus another six million Gypsies, Poles and prisoners of war.

Any woman who could destroy the child within her womb would have to be judged as one “without natural affection.” During the decade of fighting in Vietnam there were 58,655 American war causalities. Our country now kills more unborn babies than that every fifteen days. During the six major wars our country has fought (Revoluntary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam) we have sustained 1,160,591 casualties. Since abortion was legalized in this country in 1973, over 23 million unborn babies have been murdered by their mothers. The re-mains of these precious lives are destroyed in hospital incinerators or thrown into dumpsters behind the abortion mills. There is no national cemetery for the unborn, no flag draped coffins, no national day of remembrance.

Abortion is sinful because it is the willful taking of human life. Under the Mosaic Law, God said, “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exod. 21:22-25). If the accidental interruption of a pregnancy was to be punished, what about the one who deliberately murders the unborn?

The Psalmist David thought of himself as being alive while in his mother’s womb. “For you have formed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth” (Psa. 139:13-16). Though his body was not totally developed, David affirmed that the Lord knew him! The only real difference between an unborn child and a new-born baby is the way they feed and obtain oxygen.

People often ask what the mother should do if she knows the child will have birth defects. I remind them that no test is 100% accurate, and no child is 100% perfect! I get upset when abortionists tell me that life is not worth living if you have a handicap. As the father of a child born with multiple birth defects, I believe I have the right to exhibit a little righteous indignation.

Our oldest son was born about three months premature and weighed a little over three pounds. He was born a “blue baby” (i.e., not breathing). The doctor who delivered him decided not to resuscitate him, but to let him die. The anesthetist in the delivery room, one of the deacons from church, insisted that the doctor revive our son. For this we will be eternally grateful. Though my son is deaf and partially blind, he is a wonderful boy who enjoys life, and he made his parents very proud when he achieved the honor roll at school.

Some parents have told me they wished their children would have never been born. I have never heard this from the parent of a handicapped child, and I know a lot of them. In fact, these parents are the most militant anti-abortionists I have ever met. They believe life is worth living, even with physical impairments.

Though the Bible does not give an example of someone who aborted his child, it does tell us about an “unwanted” pregnancy: the case of David and Bathsheba (1 Sam. 11,12). David, the king of Israel, coveted his neighbor’s wife, stole her from her husband and committed adultery with her. To avoid the embarrassment of an illegitimate child, David murdered Uriah the Hittite. David’s solution to his problem was the same as many fornicators today: kill the innocent to protect the guilty!

According to Editorial Research Reports (1987, Vol. II, p. 537), 81.3% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women. This means that four out of five times the baby is murdered to hide the sin of its parents!

The Bible says the “way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:5, KJV). Picture a young woman in her final year of college finding out that she is pregnant. Her plans for the future will be ruined if she has the child, so she decides to have it killed. Then later in life, she often cries herself to sleep while thinking of the child that might have been. It is still true that the way of the transgressor is hard.

Abortion is no worse than the other sins listed in Romans 1:26-32. All sin is terrible. But, thanks be to God, there is a remedy: repentance. David spoke of it so eloquently in the 51st Psalm when he prayed, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, that the bones which you have broken may rejoice. Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, 0 God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with your generous Spirit. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners shall be converted to you.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 14-15
September 1, 1994

By Mike Willis

Bible unity is the “unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3), the “unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13). It is a unity that rests on the revealed word of God. Not all unity has God’s approval (see 2 Cor. 6:14-18), only that which is grounded in the word of God.

There are several axioms that one must believe before unity on the revealed truth can occur. Let us consider the following presuppositions at this time:

I. There Is An Absolute Truth.

In order for men to be united in the truth, one must first presuppose that there is an objective truth. We live in a society that has gradually come to accept subjective truth. Each individual has his own personal truth that is true for him but may not be true for others. This leads to an “I’m O.K., You’re O.K.” approach to doctrinal and moral truth. Moral and doctrinal absolutes are replaced by subjective truth. So long as this view of truth is accepted, there can be no unity of faith. Only moral and doctrinal unity-in-diversity can exist. The following popular statements are the logical conclusions drawn from the commitment to subjective truth and unity-in-diversity: “You believe in your God, I’ll believe in mine.” “You believe Jesus was the illegitimate child of Joseph and Mary, but I believe in the virgin birth.” “You choose homosexuality; I’ll be content with heterosexuality.” “You believe in divorce for any reason; I choose to believe there is only one reason for divorce that allows a person to remarry.” Any and every view and practice must be welcomed into the local church.

Writing in defense of “tolerance” (another way of referring to doctrinal unity-in-diversity), W.E. Garrison observed, “He whose theory of the world and of life rests upon the conviction that the framework of reality is a system of universal principles and immutable truths cannot lightly tolerate any program which appears to do violence to them. These universals and absolutes are always ready for use as the infallible norms by which to judge any opinion and course of action” (Tolerance 19). He charged that intolerance was related to the Hebrew concept of truth being absolute (44). Later Garrison said,

Whether Christians can be both tolerant and cooperative depends at last upon their ideas of God. With a God who delivers doctrines, frames codes, and lays down explicit and immutable programs of action, there can be little hope of more than a tepid and prudential toleration by one group for others who hold a different view as to the exact content of these revealed doctrines, codes, and programs. With a God who is the giver of life and grace but who leaves all formulations of doctrine and laws of conduct to the wisdom and experience of men, there is opportunity for the development of toleration toward varieties of opinion and practice without the sacrifice of earnestness in contending for that which seems best to each (236).

W.E. Garrison correctly observed that tolerance of many different beliefs, as is common to unity-in-diversity, necessitates a rejection of the belief in an absolute truth.

The rejection of the Bible as a blueprint, opposition to the restoration principle, and the present day condemnation of “legalism” are affirmations of subjective truth.

We reject subjective truth and teach that there is an objective truth, an absolute standard for determining right and wrong. That standard is the Bible. If we accept that the Bible is the revelation of God, it is the truth. There are a number of evidences that the Bible claims to be the revelation of God and, therefore, the absolute truth. Consider some of them:

1. The Old Testament. We can examine only a few statements that emphasize this. (The reader should be careful not to conclude that the few examples cited are a result of a paucity of evidence.) Solomon said, “Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Prov. 23:23). Solomon said that there is an objective truth that men can learn and make their own. David asserted that he “walked in the truth” (Ps. 26:3; 86:11) and taught the truth (Ps. 40:10). He identified the truth with the revealed word of God (Ps. 119:43,151). He said, “The sum of thy word is truth” (Ps. 119:160, NASB).

2. Jesus expressed his belief in an objective truth. He stated that men must know the truth in order to be saved from sin (John 8:32). He revealed the truth (John 1:17) and was the truth (John 14:6; cf. Eph. 4:21). His word is truth (John 17:17). Furthermore, this absolute truth will be the standard by which all men are judged (John 12:47-48).

3. The Scriptures are the absolute standard of objective truth. They are the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37-38). They are an all-sufficient revelation for all men (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

II. The Truth (the Bible) Can Be Known.

Not only has God given us the truth, but also men can know it. An objective truth that cannot be known by men is worthless, as worthless as having $1 million that a person cannot spend. However, the Bible teaches that men can know the revealed truth.

1. The truth is a revelation. The fact that God has revealed his truth means that men can know it (see Rom. 16:25-26). The word apokalupsis means “to uncover, reveal.” By definition, a “revelation” is something that can be known.

2. The Scriptures expressly state that men can know the truth. Paul stated that men could know his understanding of the mystery of Christ by reading what he had written (Eph. 3:1-5). Indeed, the Lord commanded that men “understand” what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17). God has not commanded of man that which is impossible for him to do. The command to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good” presupposes that men can do that (1 Thess. 5:21). Paul said that men can know the truth (1 Tim. 4:3). Those who had fallen back into sin have departed from the truth that they once knew (Heb. 10:26; 2 Pet. 2:20-22).

3. Jesus made salvation conditional upon one’s knowing the truth. Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Are we to think that Jesus made salvation conditional upon man’s doing what is impossible for him to do  to understand the truth? What kind of God would offer man salvation upon terms impossible for him to attain?

God made man as he is and the Bible as it is. The Bible was intended to reveal God’s will to man. If man is unable to understand the Bible, there is either (a) something wrong with man or (b) something wrong with the Bible. But, in either case, the problem falls back on him who made both. To state that men cannot know the truth is to cast aspersions on God!

III. Men Can Understand

That Truth (the Bible) Alike.

This third conclusion is the logical extension of the second axiom. If men understand the Bible at all, they understand it alike. Men may misunderstand the Bible and, because of the misunderstanding, understand it differently. But, when men understand the Bible, they necessarily understand it alike.

God’s revelation is not subject to 100 different equally good interpretations. To so assert is to reflect on (a) God’s ability to reveal himself or (b) His integrity. When God spoke, he spoke in such a manner as to communicate his will to man. He did not speak with the purpose of leaving ambiguity and uncertainty.

Every passage that condemns false doctrine is a bold assertion that men are expected to understand the Bible alike. Consider some of these passages:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2 John 9-11).

A number of similar passages could be cited, but the implication is that men were expected to come to a common understanding of what God said on the particular issue under discussion.

A fundamental contradiction occurs when brethren argue from the Bible to prove that men cannot understand the Bible alike. Must all men understand alike the Bible teaching that men cannot understand the Bible alike? If a person is going to affirm that men cannot understand the Bible alike, he needs to make his argument without appealing to the Bible for his authority. Every argument he makes based on the Bible contradicts his presupposition. Every argument he makes assumes that all men can understand the Bible alike. To argue and defend his case, he must reject the Bible as his final authority.

The Devil’s Assault:

“We Cannot Understand the Bible Alike”

The devil leads men into a false unity, a moral and doctrinal unity-in-diversity, by deceiving them into believing that men cannot understand the Bible alike. In reading articles advocating unity-in-diversity, there is a common belief that men cannot understand the Bible alike. The usual argument is to list areas in which men are disagreed and then conclude that we can never have unity if we are expecting all men to believe the same truths. Let’s try that out on New Testament areas of conflict. Here is a partial list of things on which New Testament saints disagreed:

Jesus was in the flesh (1-3 John)

There is no bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15)

The resurrection is already past (2 Tim. 2:18)

Man must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved (Acts 15; Gal.)

Men should not eat meat (1 Tim. 4:1-3)

Men should not marry (1 Tim. 4:1-3)

If we argued like our unity-in-diversity advocates, we would say, “We can no more think alike than we can look alike.” “All truths are equally true, but not equally important.” “We must agree to disagree on these areas.” The implication of these arguments is this: we cannot expect to understand the Bible alike. But this approach was not followed in these conflicts. Brethren did not practice moral and doctrinal unity-in-diversity but worked to attain the unity of the Spirit  a unity grounded on revealed truth.

When men start blaming doctrinal disagreements on the lack of clarity of the Scriptures, they are arguing for unity in-diversity on the presupposition that men cannot understand the Bible alike. If the fact that men are disagreed on, for example, divorce and remarriage is proof of the lack of clarity of Scripture and justifies unity-in diversity, the same kinds of disagreements on baptism, institutionalism, instrumental music in worship, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and the existence of God justify unity-in-diversity in these areas as well!

Tolerance of all doctrinal differences is too broad a fellowship for those advocating unity-in-diversity. They see that these principles consistently followed would ultimately lead to universalism, for men are just as divided over whether or not God exists, Jesus is the Son of God, the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. as they are over church support of human institutions (missionary societies, hospitals, colleges, etc.), instrumental music in worship, choirs, women preachers, etc. To limit the application of the unity-in-diversity principle, the heirs of the restoration who embrace unity-in-diversity divide the Bible into two sections: “gospel” and “doctrine.” Men are expected to understand alike the limited portion of Scripture which they subjectively and arbitrarily label “gospel”; the rest of the Bible, which is subjectively and arbitrarily labeled “doctrine,” can be understood differently. In these areas of subjectively chosen subjects alone, unity-in-diversity is possible.

As the years pass, the number of items that are included in the area of “doctrine” is gradually expanded. This can be seen from the history of every denomination that has accepted the unity-in-diversity approach. Soon the church that practices unity-in-diversity stands for nothing. A person can hold membership in the denomination and believe anything.

The obvious weakness of this is the self-contradictory nature of the presupposition underlying the unity-in-diversity plea: All men must understand alike that men cannot understand the Bible alike. Since truth is consistent with itself, the proposition that men cannot understand the Bible alike is to be rejected as self-contradictory. In addition it is a different kind of unity from the unity of the Spirit.

Conclusion

These three axioms are essential to attaining the unity of the Spirit: (1) There is an absolute truth; (2) That truth can be known; and (3) Men can understand that truth alike. Unless men can agree that these axioms are true, we cannot attain and maintain the “unity of the Spirit.” 9-11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 2
September 15, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

Thomas G. O’Neal of Bessemer, Alabama met John A. Welch of Indianapolis, Indiana in debate August 1-2, 4-5 in the meeting house of the West End church of Christ in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The house was well filled the first two nights but attendance dropped off the last two. Average attendance was 214. People were present from several states. For three mornings there was an open forum to discuss Bible questions. Harry Lewis of Evansville, Indiana moderated for brother Welch with Ronny Milliner operating the visual equipment. The writer served as moderator for brother O’Neal with Donnie Rader handling charts.

The first two nights Tom O’Neal affirmed that “The Scriptures teach that Jesus was not a man as I am.” The last two nights John Welch affirmed that “The Scriptures teach that Jesus was a man as I am, yet without sin.” In his opening speech, Tom O’Neal stated that he believed that Jesus was a man possessed of the qualities that make one a man, but that he was not a man “as I am” in the sense that while on earth he was possessed of inherent powers of deity, that he was “God with us.” The whole debate turned on this issue.

Brother Welch argued that Jesus emptied himself of such divine powers when he came to earth and that the powers he demonstrated were imparted to him by the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism. Brother O’Neal said the issue hinged upon whether the powers of Jesus, in raising the dead, walking on the water and forgiving sins on earth, were inherent or imparted.

Brother Welch made strong appeals, at times eloquently so, for the humanity of Jesus, from Hebrews 2 and other passages. Philippians 2:5-12 was a crucial passage in the debate. While early in the debate brother Welch asked, “Why are we having this debate since I agree with you?” It became apparent as the week progressed that there was serious difference. Much was said of having powers but limiting the use of them. O’Neal argued that Jesus willed to limit his powers but that he used them at times when they did not serve selfish ends. This may go down as the “shotgun” debate. Tom said he had his grandfather’s shotgun which he kept in a closet and did not use. John seized on the phrase “I don’t use it” to press his point of limiting his powers when Jesus came to earth. Some good-natured bantering took place about this. Tom had a chart with an empty closet and another with a shotgun in the closet. John had charts with a shotgun sticking out the door and then the last night, with his high-tech visual and audio equipment he fired the shotgun four times. Tom insisted that in the illustration Jesus came to earth with the powers of deity but voluntarily limited his use of them except on such occasions as when he forgave sins. John said the last night that he did not care whether that closet for the shotgun was “in heaven, on earth, or on the moon.”

Throughout the debate John Welch quoted extensively from other brethren, both living and dead, quotes which he contended favored his position. Many of these quotes were from brethren in the audience who had opposed the views expressed by brother Welch. This was the first high-tech debate most of us had ever attended. Brother Welch had excellent equipment which was used in a professional manner. He could not only flash quotes on the screen, but matched them with pictures of those quoted and in several instances in the voice of those quoted from tapes.

The styles of the debaters were in sharp contrast. Brother O’Neal was deliberate while brother Welch was more impassioned and intense. Both men pressed their arguments. With a couple of exceptions, good order prevailed.

From this writer’s viewpoint, it appears that the issue of inherent versus delegated powers remains unresolved in so far as it involves agreement between the two positions. The difference remains. Either brother Welch is right in contending that Jesus maintained his “essence” without the powers of deity on earth, or else he gave them up and the question remains: how could he give up qualities of God and still be God with us? It is not a question of the humanity of Jesus for we all believe and preach that.

There has been considerable shifting of ground on the part of brother Welch since this controversy began. In a sermon at Shively in Louisville five years ago and then later at Beaver Dam, Kentucky, he ridiculed saying that Jesus was “100% God and 100% man.” In Beaver Dam he said such a view was “baloney.” But at Bowling Green he showed a chart affirming that Jesus was “100% God and 100% man.” He has written earlier that such a concept made Jesus a “hybrid” being. There was some shifting back and forth on “having” powers and “using” powers. The question of “using” powers is not a moot point unless he “had” such powers in the first place.

Some offers for additional debates on this subject have been made at Russellville, Arkansas and Evansville, Indiana. It is this writer’s view that any such debate, to serve any useful purpose should have a clearly worded proposition which spells out the difference between intrinsic divine power and delegated, or imparted power. Side issues will not resolve this fundamental difference.

Audio tapes of the debate can be ordered from: Tom O’Neal, P.O. Box 723, Bessemer, AL 35021. Video tapes may be ordered from Rick Hubartt, 3012 Foxfire Circle, Indianapolis, IN 46214.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 2-3
September 15, 1994

By Paul K. Williams

It happened in about 1950 when I was on a two-week Texas National Guard training camp at Fort Hood. A Baptist boy accepted my invitation to go to mid-week service at Killeen, and to my surprise the service was a rip-roaring sermon against denominationalism. I thought, “My friend will never come back!” But as we were leaving the building he said, “Paul, I want to talk to you about these things.” And at midnight on Friday, after he and I had studied for hours, he was baptized into Christ.

I never forgot that lesson. The unvarnished truth has power with one who loves the truth. Calling names and telling it like it is will not drive that one away.

I have been reading with concern the pleas of some for us to preach the cross instead of preaching “a lot of anger and name-calling” (Bob Setliff, June 20, 1993 bulletin, Gruver, Texas). And I personally resent the implication that the kind of preaching I grew up on, and the kind of preaching I have done all my life, is not preaching the cross. The preachers I heard in my youth repeatedly quoted Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 2:2, “For I deter-mined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” I heard prayer after prayer from men who pleaded that the preacher would “hide behind the cross.” How people can say that such preaching is not cross-centered is beyond me.

This morning I decided to take note of how cross centered our worship was. Before classes we sang for our usual half hour. Thokozani led “Rock of Ages” in Zulu. The English translation of the second verse goes: “Though my tears flow, Though I try everything, Nothing can take sins away Except the cross. Nothing can I do Except to cling to the cross.” And we sang, “To God Be the Glory” in which the second verse says, “0 Perfect redemption, the purchase of blood.” Thokozani took time to emphasize certain things from the songs, bringing our hearts to praise and devotion. During our regular worship we sang “The Old Rugged Cross.” When Eric rose to wait on the Lord’s Table he led, “I Saw the Cross of Jesus” and used that as the basis for his talk before the Lord’s Supper.

Every Sunday in every church of the Lord Christians eat the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of the Christ who died on the cross. This proclaims that the center of our lives is the sacrifice of Jesus, our Lord. Every Sunday in the Lord’s Supper we are preaching the cross.

In my sermon on certain truths which show that there is a God, and that he is the God of the Bible, I did not specifically refer to the cross of Christ. But I was preaching the cross in the same way that Paul was preaching at Athens (Acts 17).

Those who say that Baptists are preaching the cross are sadly deceived. Paul said that a distorted gospel is no gospel at all (Gal. 1:6-7). Though the Baptists preach about the cross, they distort the gospel of the cross by refusing to baptize people into Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3-4). Sentimental talk about the cross of Christ which does not lead people to obey that Christ is not preaching the cross!

My brethren, plain preaching of the gospel truths which condemn denominational error is preaching the cross. Tearing down the false doctrines which keep people away from forgiveness through Jesus Christ is preaching the cross. Naming the names of false religions and pleading with people to follow Christ instead of men is preaching the cross. When we “shrink not from declaring to you anything that was profitable” (Acts 20:20) and we declare “the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27) we are preaching the cross because only in that way can people be brought to the obedience that the crucified Jesus requires.

Those who condemn that kind of teaching do not love the cross of Christ! They love a distorted theory about the cross and are putting themselves in danger of being rejected by God (Gal. 1:6-9)!

Brethren, let us stand against error and for obedience to Christ. Only in this way can we truly preach the cross.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 1
September 15, 1994