Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Ten Candles and Two Oil Lamps

On January 16 and 17, the Louisville area was surprised with sixteen inches of snow. In Bullitt County, where we live, we measured 18 inches. That was followed by plunging temperatures reaching minus 22 on Tuesday night. We had several days and nights where temperatures hovered around zero or below. At 12:30 a.m. on the coldest night, our power went off. It stayed off for 13 and ‘/2 hours. We have a heat pump and that meant, no power, no heat. Our fireplace did little to help under such conditions. We managed to stay warm the rest of the night but when morning came it was survival time. We were snowed in. There was no way to leave. We put on four layers of clothes, plus heavy coats, toboggans and gloves. We had two good flashlights, a battery radio and took refuge in our basement in the office where we did the book work for Searching The Scriptures. We lit 10 candles and two old-fashioned oil lamps. It is surprising how much warmth can be generated in a small area by that means. Our power came back on at 2:10 p.m. that day but it took until late that night before the house was warm. Others were not as fortunate as we. Some had to be evacuated by those with four-wheel drives. Some were without power and water for days.

I have thought much since of the lessons to be learned from such experiences. (1) We are reminded of our finite limitations. “My times are in thy hand” (Ps. 31:15). Thousands upon thousands were restrained from doing what seemed so urgent to do. (2) The storm was a common denominator. Stranded motorists were all in the same predicament. The interstates had to be closed to the poor as well as to the rich and famous. Cadillacs, 18-wheelers and compacts skidded into snow banks. (3) All were reminded of the importance of things taken for granted. What a blessing it is to have warmth, light, access to work, worship and to families.

But the greatest lesson of all for me was the strength of influence. I am amazed at how much heat radiates from one candle. We often lament the sad state of affairs in the country or the world and seem to feel powerless to do anything about it. “I am just one. What could I possibly do to make a difference?” My friend, for ten righteous people, God would have spared Sodom. “Ye are the light of the world. A city that it set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:14-16). “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15).

God reminded Job of the “treasures in the snow” (Job 38:22). One brother remarked that a good snowfall is the poor farmer’s fertilizer. Indeed! But there are other treasures to think about. I’ll always appreciate the treasured lessons of ten candles and two kerosene lamps.

Issues and Insults

Honorable, truth-loving men will always discuss issues which are of great importance to them. Out of such controversies truth emerges, error is exposed and great good results. Issues are prompted by people. They have faces and names. Sometimes an issue can be explored and the truth made to shine without identifying those who promote error. But the Lord and his apostles found it necessary at times to identify those whose error they opposed. Jesus freely referred to the Pharisees, Sadducees and others in positions of power among the Jews. The apostles identified the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus, Diotrephes, and Paul called the name of Peter and Barnabas. But there is a difference in an objective identification of error with those who hold it and in competing for the most insulting epithets to fling at each other. In some of the recent controversies hateful and spiteful things have been said. The names of good men have been dragged through the mud, evil motives have been imputed and the Devil surely rejoices. There is a certain dignity and restraint which ought to characterize the people of God and that ought to include all of us who publish material for public consumption.

Meetings Schedule for 1994

The writer of this column will be engaged in gospel meetings at the following places in 1994 and would be pleased to greet any of our readers who might be able to attend.

March 6-11, Palmetto, FL: March 21-27, Aiken, South Carolina; April 3-8, Steele, KY; April 17-22, Houston, TX (Fry Rd.); May 1-6, Brawley, CA; May 8-13, Fresno, CA (Sierra Viesta); June 12-17, Houston, MS; June 26-July 1, Cambridge, OH; July 10-15, Etna (Ozark), AR; July 24-29, Lexington, AL; August 7-12, Grenada, MS; Sept. 11-16, Wilkesville, OH; Sept. 18-23, Knollwood, Xenia, OH; Oct. 2-7, W. Main, Barnesville, OH; Oct. 16-21, Crescent Park, Odessa, TX; Oct. 30-Nov. 4, E. Alton, IL; Nov. 13-18, Southwest, Lakeland, FL.

“Don’t Blame Me”

We are living in the age of “Don’t blame me, it is not my fault.” A man robs a service station. His case comes to court and the jury is treated to all sorts of whining about how he was brought up by a single parent and they were always poor. See, it is really not his fault at all. Two young men murder their own parents and the case turns on how badly they were treated. A woman mutilates her husband, but it was really his fault. A homosexual contracts AIDS but it is really the fault of the government for not allocating enough money to fight this scourge. Enough, already! Whatever else someone does to you, you are still responsible for your own conduct. Godly parents have agonized over the foolish choices of their own adult children and have engaged in much self-blame. Every parent has room for improvement, even the very best. But somewhere the buck has to stop and the truth has to be faced that people must be held account-able for their own actions. There is one judgment coming in which nobody can pass the blame. “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 3-4
March 17, 1994

By Ken McLemore

Excuse me while I address an issue that preachers aren’t supposed to address because politicians have labelled it as part of a broader political question.

The moral standards of our society are being defined in the will of the majority, and automatically makes “right” whatever is the will of the majority. That idea is being used to define life and death issues, as reflected in the present health care debate, evidenced by the following point:

“The Clintons’ true goal is the most ambitious of all, a change in the culture of dying. `That’s why Hillary’s talking up living wills and advance directives,’ says an Administration official, `She hopes to spur others to get COMFORTABLE WITH PULLING THE PLUG”‘ (“Pulling the Plug,” Time, Oct. 4, 1993, p.36; emphasis mine, KDM).

Death as a matter of social “choice” rather than moral concern has evolved from the abortion de-bate to its logical consequence in “pulling the plug” as a socio-economic “choice” rather than a moral concern. What is the difference between the “medically-assisted” death of an unborn baby and that of a terminally ill, but not brain dead,adult? Nothing: both are dead. The acceptance of both based upon the fallacy of “choice” is only the first logical consequence in the equation which has planned euthanasia as its ultimate consequence. Whatever can be “chosen” today can be planned for you tomorrow. What began in the minds of many as a social “choice” never has been anything but playing God. If that is not the case, then why all the moral outrage by supporters of “assisted suicide” over the tactics of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, as expressed by columnist Ellen Goodman:

“I regard him too as the failure story of the legal system. If a patient cannot call on a family doctor, he or she must depend on the `kindness’ of strangers. If we don’t wrestle down a reasonable law, people will go to outlaws,” (“Dr. Death should become obsolete,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Nov. 15, 1993, p. 6B)

The problem with the premise of both abortion and “assisted suicide” is the same problem with the premise of “pulling the plug,” that once society rationalizes the morality of the end it seeks to accomplish, the morality of the means to effect that end becomes irrelevant. Regardless of which practice society “chooses” to make legal, somebody innocent of any moral wrong is just as dead. The logical consequence of Ms. Goodman’s point is that she is not outraged so much by “assisted death” as she is outraged by sloppy “assisted death.” She is comfort-able with “pulling the plug.”

The argument for “a change in the culture of dying” seeks to make what one might call the “greater good” the standard for life and death, and demands that the individual be given the right to authorize his/her death for the sake of making life cheaper for the rest of us. The “greater good” is a dollars and cents approach that leaves God out of the point altogether, and that is its contradiction. Society cannot excuse itself from moral accountability to God when government encourages society to “get comfortable with pulling the plug” (Rom. 13:3-4).

“Pulling the plug” is not a moral right even if it becomes a civil right. “Pulling the plug” as a right relies upon two false assumptions: First, it assumes that there are no moral absolutes; and, secondly, it assumes that moral standards may be defined by the majority will. “Choice” as the standard of authority in a society takes the place of moral absolutes when that society accepts the notion that nothing is absolute. For instance, in education, outcome is now considered more important than understanding or achievement, therefore, the student who thinks 2+2=5 is not wrong; he/she is merely “in process” of learning. He/she has “chosen” to arrive at his/ her conclusion despite objective evidence to the contrary, and is not considered “wrong” in that conclusion, but merely on a different learning path to the same objective. (Consider that when the same student mows your yard for 2 hours at $2 per hour and asks for $5.00.) When nothing is wrong for the situation in which it exists, neither euthanasia nor murder is precluded, objective evidence aside. The moral vacuum in which the new concept of “pulling the plug” operates shows an open disdain for the right of God as creator. The design of creation argues for the existence of a creator, and it also gives the designer the argument in Psalms 24:1, when he writes, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” God declared the same point by the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 18:4, saying, “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” When man recognizes the right of the creator to his creation, he is compelled to recognize the authority of the creator’s will. Consequently, in order to become “comfort-able with pulling the plug,” society has to first be convinced to “pull the plug” on God.

Religious denominationalism cannot stem the tide of the new “culture of dying” or any of the other assaults upon morality by the “choice” driven society because religious denominationalism is itself based upon an argument of “choice.” Religious denominationalism argues that gospel truth is denominational rather than absolute, and any voice to the contrary is deemed to be “bigoted.” But, God’s voice is as absolute as is God (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23; Luke 6:46; John 17:17; Eph. 4:4-6; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9). There are as many truths as there are gods, and there is only one God (Isa. 44:6-8). God has declared his right as creator and his will for his creation, the standard by which God will judge (2 Cor. 5:10; John 5:26-30).

“Choice” is becoming the norm, the rule, the god that its secularist priests and priestesses worship at the altars of abortion, “assisted suicide,” and “pulling the plug.” God’s judgment of them will be just; but, in the mean time, they must be opposed (2 Cor. 10:4-6). And, man cannot oppose them if man has already agreed that divine truth is a matter of “choice” (Jer. 16:10-13; 17:5-8; Isa. 55:8-11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 1
March 17, 1994

By Mike Willis

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

We frequently hear sermons that emphasize the love and mercy of God, but today rarely do we hear anything about God’s wrath. Modem denominationalism has either totally eliminated the doctrine of hell from its theology or hidden it in some remote corner. Several books, including one by Edward Fudge (The Fire That Consumes), have been published in recent years that take the position that the punishment of hell is annihilation, not endless torment. In a recent ad in the church news section of our local paper, a denomination advertised that it did not preach sermons on hell fire and brimstone. These things point us to the sad truth that some men want to hear nothing about the wrath of God. Nevertheless, Paul spoke about the wrath of God being revealed from heaven and we need to study what he says about it.

The Wrath of God

The Scriptures repeatedly speak about the wrath of God in such passages as the following:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36).

For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience (Col. 3:6).

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb (Rev. 14:10).

And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God (Rev. 14:19).

See also Revelation 15:1,7;16:1 or consult any concordance and look under entries about the wrath of God. We cannot faithfully proclaim the totality of God’s revelation without speaking about his wrath.

God’s Wrath Is Revealed

Not only does the Bible teach that wrath is a part of God’s nature, it also tells us that God’s wrath has been revealed from heaven against ungodliness and unrighteousness in men. Here are a number of ways that it has been revealed:

1. In the doctrine of Hell. The Lord Jesus spoke more about hell than any other person in the New Testament. He told us about a place of eternal torment (see Luke 16:19-31; Mark 9:43-48). Hell is a place of the righteous retribution of divine justice against wickedness (Rom. 2:8-9; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). It is a place of everlasting separation from the presence of God (see Luke 16:19-31). Surely, we can see the wrath of God revealed from heaven in the Bible doctrine of Hell.

2. In God’s moral government of the world. The Bible records the Lord’s dealing with men through the centuries. The basis of his moral government of the world is concisely stated in Proverbs 14:34  “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). The prophet Jeremiah expressed it more completely in the following passage:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them (Jer. 18:7-10).

The execution of God’s moral government of the world is witnessed in the flood (Gen. 6-8), the destruction of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19), the sending of Israel into Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 17:13-18) and Judah into Babylonian captivity, and the destruction of Jerusalem at the hand of the Romans in A.D. 70 (Matt. 21:33-43). All of these examples of God’s destruction of cities and nations display God’s wrath against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.

3. In the consequences and temporal results of sin. God’s wrath against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men is also seen in sin’s consequences. In the context of Romans 1, God’s wrath is specifically shown in his “giving them up” (Rom. 1:24,28). In these verses, the Lord’s “giving them up” was an abandonment of man to follow his sin to its ultimate conclusion  to receive the pain and suffering that sin produces. This age old principle is witnessed in the Proverbs  “the way of transgressors is hard” (13:15). God manifested his wrath toward ungodliness and unrighteousness by hedging in the way of sin with thorns and thistles.

Conclusion

We do men a grave injustice when we so emphasize the love and mercy of God that we neglect to preach about the wrath of God. Just as certainly as the Bible reveals the gospel of Jesus Christ, it also reveals the wrath of God.continued from cover

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 2
March 17, 1994

By Milburn Cockrell, Editor The Berea Baptist Banner

I continue to be elated at the progress we are making in this debate. Mr. Donahue has not denied thus far that before Mark 16:16 people were saved by repentance and faith, as the Bible teaches and Baptists believe. He did mention “preparatory teaching,” but none of the verses he cited was any to which I had referred. In his second speech he also conceded that an erring Christian who loses his salvation regains it by repentance and faith. Thus to a very large degree he has come around to my position. But as to the initial salvation experience from Mark 16:16 to now he continues to hold to his “be dipped or damned” theory, a theory not taught in the Bible, but in The Christian System written by Alexander Campbell. I commend him for the concessions he has thus made. His honesty is commend-able.

He complains that I did not respond to his arguments, but I did. He failed to try to explain any of my verses, save Luke 7:48,50. He only went off on synecdoches. He did not respond to my proof texts because he knows the verses I cited plainly teach salvation at the point of faith. He says he agrees with me that faith saves, but then he says the believer is still a child of the Devil! Any person knows a child of the Devil is not saved! In his last speech he failed to tell us more about the grotesque creature who is still a Christian but “separated from God” and “fallen from grace.” He did not say a word about Papa Campbell’s words on Acts 22:16, nor a word about 1 Corinthians 1:14-17; 4:15. He did not examine any of the verses in my arguments 8 to 14 in his last speech. “Physician, heal thyself ” (Luke 4:23). Maybe I should call him Mr. Dodge instead of Mr. Donahue.

He is hung up on a synecdoche. He tries to make me say repentance and faith are not necessary to salvation, yet he knows that I do not believe such foolishness. His synecdoche argument is essentially this: If something is mentioned after something elsesuch as baptism after faith  then it proves that whatever is said to happen cannot occur until the last thing mentioned. This is his rule, not mine. But let me use his rule on his own arguments about baptismal regeneration. In Matthew 10:22 Christ said: “But he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” Here salvation is said to come after perseverance to the end of natural life. Endurance comes after baptism. Hence, according to Mr. Donahue’s rule, a man is saved at death, a very long time after his baptism. His logic has now proved that a man is not saved at the point of baptism. Remember that he said: “…because salvation is predicated upon a condition doesn’t mean salvation happens at the point of that condition being met.”

In truth Mr. Donahue does not believe that a man is saved at the point of baptism. He believes that he may be saved, provided he can outrun the Devil from the creek to Heaven. He believes that a man can be saved by baptismal regeneration, then go and join a Baptist church, and end up in Hell. If he joined a Catholic or Protestant church, which teaches baptismal regeneration, he can still get to Heaven second class. In his view there is hope for all Christendom, except the Baptists!

I continue to be amazed at his proof of baptismal regeneration in the O.T. He believes that the flood waters saved Noah. The Bible teaches that the ark saved Noah and the waters of the flood destroyed the ungodly. Then he goes off on the walls of Jericho that fell down after the Israelites marched around the city seven days. Mr. Donahue, they fell down by faith, not baptism. Nobody was baptized at Jericho. Most of the people in the city were not saved. They perished in the battle. My friend tries to get his doctrine from inferences about the flood, the walls of Jericho, and some statement of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1. He seems to be hard pressed for plain scriptures.

Upward of 100 verses in the New Testament condition salvation on faith in Jesus Christ. 1 John 5:1 says: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Notice that it said the believer “is” (not going to be) born of God. Mr. Donahue does not believe this verse. He thinks the believer is still a child of the Devil. According to him, a person can repent, believe, hear, confess, but these things are not sufficient. Such a person is still a child of the Devil. Mr. Donahue ignores the many verses which say that faith causes a person to be saved  the person is saved the moment he believes. He goes to about six verses (Mk. 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Pet. 3:21) and in these he thinks the word “saved” means what it says. He believes that in more than 100 verses “saved” does not mean “saved,” but in the six he cites “saved” means “saved”! Such reasoning is about as logical as putting a screen door in a submarine!

He ignores my verses, but I will consider his, such as Mark 16:16. The verse teaches that men are damned for want of faith, not baptism. Belief is the key here, not baptism. I might also say: “He that believeth and takes the Lord’s supper shall be saved.” We might add any duty required of a Christian. Unbelief is the cause of condemnation (John 3:18). When a person ceases to be an unbeliever, he is not condemned.

1 Peter 3:21. He ignores the word “figure.” Baptism is a figure or picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the means of our salvation. Mr. Donahue does not know the difference between a picture and the real thing.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13. There is nothing in the words of Paul here about salvation. Paul did not baptize in his own name; he baptized in the name of Christ. Note that verse 14 says: “I thank God that! baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.” Mr. Donahue would never had said such, for he would be thanking God that he saved so few.

Acts 2:38. “For the remission of sins” means “with reference to the remission of sins already obtained” one is baptized. The Greek eis does not mean “in order to.” In Matthew 12:41: “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas,” not in order to obtain his preaching.

Look carefully at Mr. Donahue’s statement: “Anybody not baptized `for the remission of sins’ will be lost.” This is the same thing that the pope of Rome believes. Pope Paul said on February 6, 1974, to a general audience: “The real birthday of a Christian is the day of his baptism” (1975 Catholic Almanac 62).

For the first 4,000 years of human history baptismal regeneration was not known among the fellowship of God’s children. The error originated among the Devil worshippers of Chaldea many centuries before Christ. Alexander Hislop relates of the priests of Babylon: “They led their votaries to believe that, if they only passed through the baptismal waters, and the penances therewith connected, that of itself would make them. . . twice born or regenerate. . . and give them the new birth” (The Two Babylons 137). This idea passed through false Judaism into the church at Pergamos and finally into the Mother of Harlots, the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Donahue and his people got this dogma from one of the daughters of the Whore. It came from the Presbyterians by means of Alexander Campbell into the Restoration Movement.

I charge this hoary, old, bewhiskered patriarch (baptismal regeneration) with being not a patriarch of Scripture at all, but just an ignoble old Chaldean vagabond. I charge baptismal regeneration with being the most destructive heresy that ever raised its Hydra-head out of the pit of Hell. It was not planned in the councils of God from eternity. It was instigated in the councils of Hell, the Devil being the father thereof, and the Whore by Babylon the Great being the mother thereof. This accursed lie has dragged millions down to Hell by deceiving them as to the new birth.

Thank you, Mr. Donahue, for answering my third question in my last speech so as to show that Baptists are different from Catholics and Protestants. As I have just pointed out, Mr. Donahue and his people are like Catholics, Protestants, and pagans, for they all believe in human works for salvation. We believe in salvation by free grace  even repentance and faith are gifts of God’s grace. Grace, the free grace of God, does all the work of salvation. It works in the sinner all his good will and all his good works, so that the sinner shall go at last into the divine presence as a poor, helpless beggar, saved by grace from first to last, and be prepared to give God all the glory of his salvation.

Evils of Baptismal Regeneration

1. It makes the preacher who baptizes a person his savior. If Mr. Donahue’s position is correct, Jesus Christ never saved one soul. John 4:2 says: “Jesus baptized not, but his disciples.”

2. The “be dipped or damned” idea is out of character with the spiritual religion which Christ came to teach. If salvation was in ceremony, then the ordinances of Judaism were just as good. 1 Peter 3:21 declares that baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh.

3. Some persons received the Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48). The receiving of the Spirit presupposes regeneration and furnishes evidence of it. Hence they were said to justify baptism.

4. Baptism is described by Peter as “the answer of a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21), but a good conscience is the fruit of regeneration (Heb. 9:14) and is joined to faith (1 Tim. 1:5,19; 3:9).

5. In the First Epistle of John he uses the word “begat” one time and “begotten” three times, yet he never mentions baptism in the whole book! This is strange if a person is regenerated by baptism as Mr. Donahue says. Unlike him, John saw no connection between baptism and regeneration.

6. Is a man led to baptism by the Spirit of God, or the spirit of the Devil? If he is led by the devil, we must praise the Devil for his work of evangelism. If he is led by the Spirit of God, then he is saved before baptism, for “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).

Answers to Mr. Donahue’s Questions

1. Repentance and faith occur very much at the same time, and so salvation may be predicated upon either. There is a time lapse between faith and baptism.

2. The answer to his second question is “No!”

3. No. The grammar is plain, for it shows the baptized ones in verse 27 were the ones already saved by faith. The antecedent of the personal pronoun “you” in verse 27 is “the children of God” in verse 26.

Mr. Donahue, give up the dogma of baptismal regeneration which is from Babylon and Rome. Trust in a whole Christ for the whole of your salvation.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 24-25
March 3, 1994